Posted on 04/23/2013 9:37:23 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
In a segment titled “God and Hitler,” Gordon Robertson (son of Rev. Pat Robertson), hosted a discussion on the Catholic Church’s response to Hitler. Several errors of fact were made.
1) It is wrong to paint Hitler as a Catholic. Though he was baptized, he excommunicated himself, latae sententiae, when he sought, in his words, to “crush [the Catholic Church] like a toad.” He made good on his pledge by persecuting 8,000 priests, over 500 of whom were killed in concentration camps. He also sought to assassinate the pope.
2) The 1933 Nazi-Vatican Concordat was not a show of solidarity. As Rabbi David Dalin has shown, it was a protective measure designed to protect German Catholics from persecution. In fact, at least 34 letters of protest were sent from the Vatican to the Nazis between 1933 and 1937, culminating in a 1937 encyclical that condemned Nazi violations of the Concordat and its racial ideology. It was smuggled out of Italy and distributed on Palm Sunday to Catholics in Germany. Nothing like this happened in Protestant churches in Germany.
3) It is not true that Hitler met resistance from Protestants alone. There are 800,000 trees planted in Israel that represent the 800,000 Jews saved by the Catholic Church. None have been planted as a tribute to Protestants. During the war, the New York Times twice said the Church was “a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent”; Albert Einstein also singled out the Church during the war. After the war, Golda Meir praised the work of the Church, as did the ADL, the World Jewish Congress, and scores of other Jewish organizations.
4) It is factually wrong to say the Vatican archives have “never been seen.” Many scholars have had access. As for Pope Pius XII being “Hitler’s Pope,” it should be noted that John Cornwell, the ex-seminarian who originated this term, retracted it years ago. So why does “The 700 Club” continue to cite it?
I’m with you, CB. They look to the Kingdom Gospel for their salvation, they follow Christ as He was in the flesh (literally, in the eucharist). Where now, we are told that HENCEFORTH know we no man after the flesh. 2 Cor. 5:16 makes that perfectly clear. They have another spirit, that teaches them to pray to saints, among other things. The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount AND the “great commission” was given to WHO? ISRAEL. For the KINGDOM that Christ as Israel’s Messiah, is going to establish. But it gets worse as they strive vainly to establish it FOR HIM, following another gospel, meant for another group, a kingdom of believers. We are, in this dispensation of grace, a BODY of believers. I just shake my head sometimes...
Is John 6:28-29 in the Vulgate?
"Jesus Himself said that salvation is by faith, that all that is required of men is to believe."BJesus' (huh?)
It [to believe, believeth] means a total commitment of ones life to a complete trust in Jesus.
(Born again Christians take it a step further and see it as completely dying to self being "crucified with Christ" and following Him...as he requires)
Yes, born again Christians with a personal relationship with Jesus understand that:
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.-- Mark 8:34I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me---One of my favorite verses.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.-Galatians 2:20
-— The Bible does not allow for annulling a marriage.——
The Bible doesn’t mention a lot of things. That fact alone means nothing.
But null or void marriages are as unavoidable as sin.
“Oh, that’s a cop out!”
No. Here’s why.
If two drunk people who just met go through with a wedding ceremony, are they validly married?
If two cousins go through with a wedding ceremony, are they married?
If two children go through with a wedding ceremony, are they married?
In every case, most rational people would answer, “No.”
Why? Because marriage isn’t simply a word, but a word which corresponds to a reality. Marriage is a lifetime relationship between a man and woman for the good of each other, and the begetting and raising of children.
If either party doesn’t intend a lifetime commitment at the time of the wedding, rejects children, is coerced, is impotent, or otherwise incompetent to be married, then the marriage is null.
Yup, it is said that the reason Bill Clinton carried a bible was that he too was looking for loop holes. I prefer to look to the message of the Gospel:
"Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
"Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” - Mark 10:2-12
"There is no Biblical basis for annulling a marriage for many of the grounds that the Catholic church allows."
What would those grounds be?
Peace be with you.
Actually, V2 affirms that properly baptized Prots have the Holy Spirit (though baptism is not how they actually rcvd. the Spirit), and some are even saints according to JP2, but that they belong to "ecclesial communities," which are not worthy to be properly called "churches" - incldg. conservative evangelicals who are far more committed and conservative than their Catholic counterparts overall. If anything i see the institutionalized churches as being unworthy of the proper name church.
Actions accompany belief. Belief does not mean simply acknowledging or agreeing with an idea. Actual belief is manifest in actions.
Peace be with you
The implicit message that is sent by such is that as long as you die as a Catholic they she will get you into glory. It is liberal RCs who convert into evangelical type faith and actually bring forth fruits which testify to repentant faith and regeneration that seem to be of the most concern.
And while one would think that Rome would be pleased by the greater commitment and conservative views of evangelical types versus liberal Prots, yet it is the former that Rome warns its members about the most, not the liberal Anglicans, etc. as they are not seen as a threat to her supremacy, which seems to be the priority.
One of mine as well. It sums up being born again so succinctly.
That's it in a nutshell.
God condemns sex outside of marriage. In the OT, the penalty was death, with ONE exception, that is if two single people had sex. Then the penalty was that they get married.
Deuteronomy 22.
And there is also this..... Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
Sex is what makes the two, one flesh.
Annulment is no different than adultery. It is simply repacked and sold to unsuspecting Catholics who think they're avoiding sin by not getting a "divorce".
Problem is, it is. They're still going to be accountable to God for the sin of divorce and adultery.
You tell us.
I’m sure that whatever I come up with will be hand waved away as incorrect.
Thank you for stating this. I think far too many people make the mistake of thinking salvation/justification by faith without works translates to some kind of "easy believism", but nothing could be further from the truth to those who are genuinely born again in Christ. Do some people mistakenly think a walk down an aisle responding to a gospel invitation is all that being a Christian is? Sure, just like many people think being born into a church, being baptized as a baby and showing up for Mass a few times a year is all it means to be a Christian, too. But, if we really grasp what it is we are doing by receiving Jesus Christ, believing in him to be our Savior and Lord, we understand that it is all of us or nothing. If we believe Jesus is who he said he is - Almighty God in the flesh - and that faith in Him means he saves us from damnation and gives to us eternal life, then how could it possibly BE we would want to hold back anything? Not only that, but we are reborn with a new spirit nature and God works in us and through us to conform us to Christ. It is no longer us doing these things, but Christ in us completing our sanctification. We may slip, we may take our eyes off Christ, but the Holy Spirit will not leave us or forsake us, we WILL not be able to resist God's grace or fall from his hands. He promises he will never lose us or cast us out. That is the assurance he gives all those who come to him through faith.
Yes, it’s all about getting out of the way so He can live through us.
Yes, Amen sister.
The seeming irony is that the free gift of salvation, if received correctly, costs us everything.
Well worth the “price.”
Praise God! Amen!
FS My understanding is that Hitler received more resistance from Catholics than the fragmented Protestants. Hitler also saw the Catholics as more serious opponents than he did the fragmented Protestants. -- yes. In the south the Christian Democrat party opposed him.
But the problem for the Protestant churches in Germany stem historically from the 19th century in Prussia where the Prussian King who was a Calvinist ruling over largely Lutheran subjects forcibly united the two ("the Prussian union") -- now between C and L there are very serious differences, especially in the matter of the Holy Eucharist -- Lutherans believe that the Holy Eucharist has the True Presence of Christ, while Calvinists (depending on which Calvinists of course) don't quite agree with that
the net result was chaos and worse, government control that made the German unified Protestant churches into branches of the government
The net result was that religion was dictated by the government so the next step to "Aryan Christianity" was easy
To you, mass -- Martin Luther was a complex figure. you cannot call him a racist anti-Semite by any means -- what he was, was a guy who strongly believed in his powers of persuasion. he believed he could convert the Jews to his way of thinking (like he believed that he could convert Catholics) and he was angry when he failed.
THAT led to his strong, vile diatribes.
BUT, he had no issue with a Jew who converted -- to him a Jewish convert was a Christians.
I know it is belabouring a point, but it is a defining point -- the Nazis hated Jews for being born. Luther despised those who didn't come to his way of thinking -- but if they did, they were A-OK in his eyes. If you were a Jew and converted, in Luther's eyes, OK, in Hitler's, no dice....that's a big difference
The problem is that “protestantism” is such an umbrella term. It includes not only Lutherans who are close to orthodoxy in their beliefs even in the Holy Eucharist, priesthood, even confession, and between non-Trinitarian groups — Jeff, I believe that your church is non-Trinitarian, right? well, that is too vast a difference to be clubbed under one umbrella term.
Actually, we are trinitarian.
The Italian fascists had a fascist policy, not a racist one.
At the end of the day, he was reluctant if not refusing to implement laws against Jews until serious Nazi prodding
Italians during WWII were portrayed as cowards (side note: i have no Italian blood, :) but this is not true -- their govt was fighting on the side of people they didn't like and agianst people they DID like
Italian society in 1939 was like this: the upper class was pro-British (reflecting the pro-Italian sentiment of England in the 19th century), while the lower classes was pro-american (thanks to migration in the 19th and early 20th century).
They hated the French (for Nice and Corsica) and disliked the Germanics (thanks to Austria) for being boors.
The Jews in Italy were strongly integrated -- why Italy's first and third PM were both Jews.
I normally don’t wade into these wars....other than to be reaffirmed how southern Baptist I really am and so utterly removed from much Catholic dogma
But....lest I wander....I liked that post
Its amusing how an attempted refutation of some Catholic affiliation with the Axis mindset.....The Ustashi link is undebatable
Becomes an excuse to claim Protestants were the real bogeymen
Like Protestants are like colored people.... all alike
Southern Baptists and southern COC and charismatics
Are like DOC....most...Lutherans or UCC....or United Methodist
Protestants in Dixie are Gods people as much...probably more adherence wise
Than most
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.