Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 99

Thread: Concerned Follower Of Jesus!

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theresej View Post
    If they differ from one another, how do you know what you call the bible is indeed the word of God and innerant?

    We are discussing this in two threads. Which thread would you like to continue this discussion in?
    It is not a question of 'if', they all differ.
    So, when one says 'THE Greek text says...in reality there is no such thing as'THE' Greek text. He might be saying it because 'every 'scholar' says it, or he might be lying, who knows?

    Now the question is ' how do I know if 'the bible' is the word of God'

    Answer:Based on manuscrpt evidence, I believe that the Textus Receptus, from which 'MAINLY' the AV1611 comes, is 'the Bible'

    This of course throws out two manuscripts( and possibly three) that are used as a basis for the modern versions.

    Those two mss would be Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Both Egyptian , Alexandrian Roman Catholic texts that contain the Apocrypha as part of the inspired canon.

    The Roman Catholic council of trent, said that if one did not accept the apocrypha as part of the OT canon, they were 'anathma' ( which means about as much as a pile of feathers)

    Now, how do I know the KJV is the Bible?
    Easy.
    Your catholic forfathers killed people for posessing a copy of the Bible that preceded the KJV that used the same manuscripts to produce such Bibles.

    They dug up William Tyndale and burned his bones because he dared to produce a Bible in English.

    I shall not go on with the crimes done in the name of the Pope, lest I offend... but it is a fact that Hitler, and the rest of the high command of the SS were not fundamental baptists.
    Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    Isa 66:2For all those [things] hath mine hand made, and all those [things] have been, saith the LORD: but to this [man] will I look, [even] to [him that is] poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodySwordIsa63 View Post
    It is not a question of 'if', they all differ.
    Let's clear up some misconceptions I see in your post.


    So, when one says 'THE Greek text says...in reality there is no such thing as'THE' Greek text. He might be saying it because 'every 'scholar' says it, or he might be lying, who knows?

    Now the question is ' how do I know if 'the bible' is the word of God'

    Answer:Based on manuscrpt evidence, I believe that the Textus Receptus, from which 'MAINLY' the AV1611 comes, is 'the Bible'
    Based on what?


    This of course throws out two manuscripts( and possibly three) that are used as a basis for the modern versions.

    Those two mss would be Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Both Egyptian , Alexandrian Roman Catholic texts that contain the Apocrypha as part of the inspired canon.
    And now we get to the meat of the misconceptions.


    The Roman Catholic council of trent, said that if one did not accept the apocrypha as part of the OT canon, they were 'anathma' ( which means about as much as a pile of feathers)
    This is not presented correctly.

    The council of Trent did not declare anything new, which is what is implied.

    The canon of scripture was decided long ago in the early centuries of the Church, affirmed by several councils. Included in those very early canons are what you refer to as the apocrypha.

    Those books were part of the sacred canon of scripture for all christians until the time of Luther.

    Luther was in a debate with Eck. Eck continued to argue from scripture for the doctrine of prayers for the dead, using Maccabbes. Luther, out of desperation, declared those books not to be scripture in order to try to rob Eck of his scriptural support.

    So, to justify his action, he turned to the Old Testament "canon" decided upon by a very anti christian council of rabis who escaped the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, who were appalled by the strong use christians made of their sacred texts in the Septuagint, which included these "apochryphal" books, and which the zealots bringing down the wrath of the Roman Empire upon the Jews also used for their scriptural support. These rabis needed to get rid of the Septuagint because of their perceived danger to the continuing existance of the Jewish people threatened by both Christianity conversion and the Roman Empire.

    So they CLOSED the canon of old testament scripture for the first time ever .. and that somehwere around 100AD - maybe later. .well after the establishment of the Church.

    They then created a new Greek translation to replace the Septuagint.

    So Luther turns to this anti-christian decision to limit the old testament scriptures to defend against the Christian use of these same books he wanted out of the bible, the christian use which had been going on for 1500 years. And no real valid reason to do so.

    He also removed James, Hebrews and Revelation. But he was strongly pressured to put them back as he had gone too far.

    The Council of Trent merely AFFIRMED what Christianity had always accepted and acknowledged as scripture against the attack on it by the Reformers, with Luther leading the way.

    And indeed today, the vast majority of Christianity still affirms and uses these same books as scripture still in keeping with Jesus, the Apostles and the early christains and their councils.

    Now, how do I know the KJV is the Bible?
    Easy.
    Your catholic forfathers killed people for posessing a copy of the Bible that preceded the KJV that used the same manuscripts to produce such Bibles.
    More misconceptions and misinformation.

    They dug up William Tyndale and burned his bones because he dared to produce a Bible in English.
    Again, false. There many translations of the scriptures in the english language precurors that predate Tyndale. The Catholic Church encouraged the translation of scriptures into the venacular as well as making them available to all to read.

    I shall not go on with the crimes done in the name of the Pope, lest I offend... but it is a fact that Hitler, and the rest of the high command of the SS were not fundamental baptists.
    I am sure they would simply be more of the same misconceptiosn and perpetuation of lies that have been around for hundreds of years ever since the reformation's war of words against the Catholic Church.

    I doubt you can show me anything I haven't seen before and researched to get to the bottom of it.

    And you try even to, not so subtely, introduce the myth of "Hitler's Pope"

    May I suggest you familiarize yourself with the reality rather than the mytn?

    For instance:

    The words of a prominent Nazi himself on the matter:
    An analysis of Pius's 1942 Christmas message by Reinhard Heydrich's Reich Central Security Office concluded:
    In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. His radio allocution was a masterpiece of clerical falsification of the National Socialist Weltanschauung...the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for...God, he says, regards all peoples and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews...That this speech is directed exclusively against the New Order in Europe as seen in National Socialism is clear in the papal statement that mankind owes a debt to 'all who during the war have lost their Fatherland and who, although personally blameless have, simply on account of their nationality and origin, been killed or reduced to utter destitution.' Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice towards the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.
    And from the Jewish Virtual Library:
    What is the case against Pius XII? In brief, that as head of one of the most powerful moral forces on earth he committed an unspeakable sin of omission by not issuing a formal statement condemning the Nazis' genocidal slaughter of the Jews, and that his silence was motivated by reasons considered in modern times as base: political exigency, economic interests, and personal ambition.


    What is the case for him? That in relation to the insane behavior of the Nazis, from overlords to self-styled cogs like Eichmann, he did everything humanly possible to save lives and alleviate suffering among the Jews; that a formal statement would have provoked the Nazis to brutal retaliation, and would substantially have thwarted further Catholic action on behalf of Jews. To the Sacred College of Cardinals Pius XII wrote on June 2, 1943: "Every word that We addressed to the responsible authorities and every one of Our public declarations had to be seriously weighed and considered in the interest of the persecuted themselves in order not to make their situation unwittingly even more difficult and unbearable."1 . . . .


    There is considerable documentation in support of Pope Pius' fear that a formal statement would worsen, not improve, conditions for the persecuted. Ernst von Weizsacker, the German ambassador to the Vatican during World War II, wrote in his memoirs:
    Not even institutions of worldwide importance, such as the International Red Cross or the Roman Catholic Church saw fit to appeal to Hitler in a general way on behalf of the Jews or to call openly on the sympathies of the world. It was precisely because they wanted to help the Jews that these organizations refrained from making any general and public appeals; for they were afraid that they would injure rather than help the Jews thereby.2
    The possibility of a public statement from the Vatican moved German Foreign Secretary Joachim von Ribbentrop to wire von Weizsacker on January 24, 1943:
    Should the Vatican either politically or propagandistically oppose Germany, it should be made unmistakably clear that worsening of relations between Germany and the Vatican would not at all have an adverse effect on Germany alone. On the contrary, the German government would have sufficient effective propaganda material as well as retaliatory measures at its disposal to counteract each attempted move by the Vatican.3 . . . .
    Pius learned precisely how firm this German threat was from the protest of the Dutch bishops against seizures of the Jews, for immediately following that protest and, as later confirmed by an SS officer, in direct answer to it, the Nazis stepped up their anti-Jewish activities in the Netherlands;
    Pius and his bishops and nuncios in Nazi-occupied or -dominated countries knew that, like a sane man faced with a gun-carrier threatening to shoot, Hitler and his cohorts could not be considered civilized human beings.


    The Pope's decision to refrain from a formal condemnation of the Nazi's treatment of Jews was approved by many Jews. One Berlin couple, Mr. and Mrs. Wolfsson, came to Rome after having been in prison and concentration camps. They took shelter in a convent of German nuns while Pius himself, whom they had seen during an audience, arranged for them to escape to Spain. Recalling those terrible days, the Wolfssons recently declared:
    None of us wanted the Pope to take an open stand. We were all fugitives, and fugitives do not wish to be pointed at. The Gestapo would have become more excited and would have intensified its inquisitions. If the Pope had protested, Rome would have become the center of attention. It was better that the Pope said nothing. We all shared this opinion at the time, and this is still our conviction today.6
    In a letter in the London Times of May 15, 1963, Sir Alec Randall, a former British representative at the Vatican, comments:
    Others besides Pius XII had to face a similar agonizing dilemma. The Polish cardinal, Prince Sapieha, begged Pius XII not to make public protests, as they only increased the persecution of his people. The International Red Cross refrained from protest because they feared that their work in German-controlled countries would be stopped. The British and American Governments were accused of callous indifference to the fate of the Jews because they failed to take them out of Nazi clutches before it was too late. To have done what was asked of them would have prolonged the war.
    This is jut a smattering of what is in the article at


    The Jewish Virtual Librry
    A Question of Judgment: Pius XII & the Jews



    By Dr. Joseph L. Lichten





    Additionally, the Jews call Pope Pius XII their best friend.

    This book is a clear look into this period of history, written by a RABBI!
    THE MYTH OF HITLER'S POPE:
    Rabbi David Dalin has given us a book that makes at least three important contributions. First, it provides information that refutes the popular notion of the past several years that Pope Pius XII was an anti-Semite and complicit with the Nazi Regime. He demonstrates it to be not only false, but a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. A simple example is the famous photograph on the jacket of both the English and American editions of the Pope leaving what looks like a Nazi meeting. In fact, it was a diplomatic meeting with Hindenburg in 1927! Both before the Nazis were in power and before Pacelli had been elected Pope.

    This book provides evidence upon evidence of how Pope Pius XII walked a swaying tightrope to save thousands of Jews while avoiding provoking the Nazis into attacks upon Catholics. He wrote encyclicals, gave Jews asylum even to the point of decloistering a nunnery so it could shelter Jewish boys. The author also points out the use by these authors of bad translations of texts and then carefully trimming these to twist the meaning to their purposes. Rabbi Dalin also demonstrates the good relations that Pope Pius and the Church had with Jewish leaders and how those leaders even asked the Pope to not be more provocative in his public statements and actions.

    Second, the author demonstrates how these authors have as part of their agenda an attack on the Catholic Church and are using political means to try and foist their liberal agenda on the Church in all sorts of ways: changes in doctrine, changes in Church governance, changes in policy and all to the purpose of bending others to their views. We see their double standards in purporting anti-Semitism onto Pope Pius XII while ignoring the very real and very great anti-Semitism in the Muslim world from WWII to the present. Some of these authors have even supported the political motives of Yassir Arafat and denied his self-proclaimed anti-Semitism and acts of violence against Jews.

    The third benefit flows from the first two. We get a better sense of where some of the battle lines are drawn in our present culture wars, the tactics being used, and in the service of what strategy. It is fascinating to see the inversion of values in our modern culture where what was called good is now called false and deviant and what never was good or an ideal is now held up as a virtue worth fighting for. Rabbi Dalin does us all a service by telling the truth in this concise and informative book.


    The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...53665?v=glance
    Hatred for the Catholic Church is not a very sure foundation from which to argue.


    Peace

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Theresej;



    [I
    This is not presented correctly.
    [/I]

    The council of Trent did not declare anything new, which is what is implied.

    The canon of scripture was decided long ago in the early centuries of the Church, affirmed by several councils. Included in those very early canons are what you refer to as the apocrypha.

    Those books were part of the sacred canon of scripture for all christians until the time of Luther.

    Luther was in a debate with Eck. Eck continued to argue from scripture for the doctrine of prayers for the dead, using Maccabbes. Luther, out of desperation, declared those books not to be scripture in order to try to rob Eck of his scriptural support.

    So, to justify his action, he turned to the Old Testament "canon" decided upon by a very anti christian council of rabis who escaped the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, who were appalled by the strong use christians made of their sacred texts in the Septuagint, which included these "apochryphal" books, and which the zealots bringing down the wrath of the Roman Empire upon the Jews also used for their scriptural support. These rabis needed to get rid of the Septuagint because of their perceived danger to the continuing existence of the Jewish people threatened by both Christianity conversion and the Roman Empire.

    So they CLOSED the canon of old testament scripture for the first time ever .. and that somehwere around 100AD - maybe later. .well after the establishment of the Church.

    They then created a new Greek translation to replace the Septuagint.

    So Luther turns to this anti-christian decision to limit the old testament scriptures to defend against the Christian use of these same books he wanted out of the bible, the christian use which had been going on for 1500 years. And no real valid reason to do so.

    He also removed James, Hebrews and Revelation. But he was strongly pressured to put them back as he had gone too far.

    The Council of Trent merely AFFIRMED what Christianity had always accepted and acknowledged as scripture against the attack on it by the Reformers, with Luther leading the way.

    And indeed today, the vast majority of Christianity still affirms and uses these same books as scripture still in keeping with Jesus, the Apostles and the early christains and their councils
    .
    There you go, exactly as I thought.


    Luther never published a Bible without James and revelation. Luther had trouble dealing with James and Revelation( exactly as every pope does today ) because he was trained by the roman catholic church. No one is making a claim that Luther was a 'saint"... that's where your church does ITS business.


    You have taken a bold and brilliant stand AGANIST the word of God, exactly as does every pope, bishop and cardinal.
    The 'apocrypha' is not part of the OT canon.
    The earliest 'church babies' (Luther's name for them) did not include it in their canon of scripture.
    Nor did Christ, in fact He rejected the apocrypha.

    Of course, since you have taken a 'bold and militant stand' for the popes and for other assorted Catholic Killers, you can not see this.

    You have taken a 'bold and militant stand' AGANIST Israel ( as have many here at the Tree, including some of the Mods)

    None of the 'early Christians' used the Apocrypha.
    Paul would rather quote pagan Poetry then quote the apocrypha.

    Oh... by 'early christians' you must be referring to Augustine and Origen and other early bible correcting folks.... yes of course..

    Let us keep in mind that the 'oracles of God' were NOT given to Pope Pius or Bloody Mary.
    They were given to the Jews( not a arch bishop in a robe who has his ring kissed)

    Let us also keep in mind that 'no way no how' does the apocrypha 'fit' in the OT canon.
    It is NOT one of the five books of Moses (The Law)
    It is NOT part of 'The Psalms
    It is NOT part of the prophets

    As anyone knows, Jesus Himself set the three divisions of the OT canon
    The Law
    The PROPHETS
    The Psalms


    Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me

    Let us note here that there are not FOUR divisions
    There is no apocrypha possible, no matter what 'trent' or Ratzinger has to say concerning the issue.

    If you want to add another division, you will have to make Jesus Christ a liar.

    Also let us note that the Jew (Jesus Christ) states the ORDER of the OT canon that He used.
    That canon ran from Genesis to Second Chronicles, according to Jesus Christ.

    Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar

    If you pick up a Hebrew OT today, you will find that this matches exactly the order of books that Jesus Christ gives here.

    The FIRST 'righteous blood' shed is in Genesis
    The LAST 'righteous blood' shed is in 2 Chronicles...in the Bible that Jesus Christ USED

    The OT that Jesus used ran EXACTLY as a Jewish OT does today...Genesis to Second Chronicles.

    If you would try to insert the apocrypha into the Hebrew canon, the oracles of God given to the Jews, you would make Jesus Christ a liar and CURSE Him exactly as the Roman Catholic Church has done by 'cursing' any who believe that the apocrypha does not belong in the canon.

    So what you have here is a group of people, who have elevated THEMSELVES above Scripture, to the point where they actually ELEVATE themselves ABOVE what Jesus Christ said concerning the Scriptures

    And of course what Roman Catholic history would be complete without the mention of Wycliff and how his corpse was dug out of the ground, tried and burned for daring to print the Bible in English.

    ' The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. The exhumation was carried out in 1428 when, at the command of Pope Martin V, his remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth. This is the most final of all posthumous attacks on John Wycliffe, but previous attempts had been made before the Council of Constance. The Anti-Wycliffite Statute of 1401 extended persecution to Wycliffe's remaining followers. The "Constitutions of Oxford" of 1408 aimed to reclaim authority in all ecclesiastical matters, specifically naming John Wycliffe in a ban on certain writings, and noting that translation of Scripture into English is a crime punishable by charges of heres'

    The 'holy roman church' at its finest.

    You have also decided that because a Jew says that 'pius was a fine fellow, and a hero' that means he REALLY was.
    The fact of the matter is that when a Jew thinks' Christian' he sees Hitler and other catholics.

    Judas was a Jew and turned on Christ, so the fact that you can find some Jews who think highly of Pius means about as much as ... well nothing.

    Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

    By Shira Schoenberg

    The Early Years
    Cries for Help
    Papal Reasons and Responses
    The Pope Protests
    The Politics Behind the Policy
    Recent Developments
    Conclusion

    Pope Pius XII's (1876-195 actions during the Holocaust remain controversial. For much of the war, he maintained a public front of indifference and remained silent while German atrocities were committed. He refused pleas for help on the grounds of neutrality, while making statements condemning injustices in general. Privately, he sheltered a small number of Jews and spoke to a few select officials, encouraging them to help the Jews.
    The Early Years

    The Pope was born in 1876 in Rome as Eugenio Pacelli. He studied philosophy at the Gregorian University, learned theology at Sant Apollinare and was ordained in 1899. He entered the Secretariat of State for the Vatican in 1901, became a cardinal in 1929 and was appointed Secretary of State in 1930.
    Pacelli lived in Germany from 1917, when he was appointed Papal Nuncio in Bavaria, until 1929. He knew what the Nazi party stood for, and was elected Pope in 1939 having said very little about Adolf Hitler’s ideology beyond a 1935 speech describing the Nazis as “miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel.” Pacelli told 250,000 pilgrims at Lourdes on April 28, “It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult.” He believed National Socialism was “profoundly anti-Christian and a danger to Catholocism.”(1)
    Even as Cardinal, Pacelli's actions regarding Hitler were controversial. Hitler took power on January 30, 1933. On July 20 that same year, Pacelli and German diplomat Franz Von Papen signed a concordat that granted freedom of practice to the Roman Catholic Church. In return, the Church agreed to separate religion from politics. This diminished the influence of the Catholic Center Party and the Catholic Labor unions. The concordat was generally viewed as a diplomatic victory for Hitler.(1a)
    Pacelli was elected Pope on March 2, 1939, and took the name Pius XII. As Pope, he had three official positions. He was head of his church and was in direct communication with bishops everywhere. He was chief of state of the Vatican, with his own diplomatic corps. He was also the Bishop of Rome. In theory, at least, his views could influence 400 million Catholics, including those in all the occupied eastern territories - the Poles, Baltics, Croatians, Slovaks and others.(2)
    As soon as he was appointed Pope, Pacelli did speak out against the 1938 Italian racial laws that dealt with mixed marriages and children of mixed marriages.(3) However, he issued no such condemnation of Kristallnacht (the night of broken glass) which occurred in November 1938, and which recent evidence shows he was informed of by Berlin's papal nuncio. As the security of the Jewish population became more precarious, Pius XII did intervene the month he was elected Pope, March 1939, and obtained 3,000 visas to enter Brazil for European Jews who had been baptized and converted to Catholicism. Two-thirds of these were later revoked, however, because of "improper conduct," probably meaning that the Jews started practicing Judaism once in Brazil. At that time, the Pope did nothing to save practicing Jews.(4)
    Cries for Help

    Throughout the Holocaust, Pius XII was consistently besieged with pleas for help on behalf of the Jews.
    In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5)
    Within the Pope's own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d'affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.(6)
    In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain "neutral," and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.(7)
    In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to "bear adversity with serene patience."(
    On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, "The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms."(9) Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope's behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.(10)
    Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.(11)
    Papal Reasons and Responses

    The Pope finally gave a reason for his consistent refusals to make a public statement in December 1942. The Allied governments issued a declaration, "German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race," which stated that there would be retribution for the perpetrators of Jewish murders. When Tittman asked Secretary of State Maglione if the Pope could issue a similar proclamation, Maglione said the papacy was "unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities."(12) One reason for this position was that the staunchly anti-communist Pope felt he could not denounce the Nazis without including the Communists; therefore, Pius XII would only condemn general atrocities.(13)
    The Pope did speak generally against the extermination campaign. On January 18, 1940, after the death toll of Polish civilians was estimated at 15,000, the Pope said in a broadcast, "The horror and inexcusable excesses committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses."(14) During his Christmas Eve radio broadcast in 1942, he referred to the "hundreds of thousands who through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction."(15) The Pope never mentioned the Jews by name.
    In a September 1940 broadcast, the Vatican called its policy "neutrality," but stated in the same broadcast that where morality was involved, no neutrality was possible.(1 This could only imply that mass murder was not a moral issue.
    The Pope's indifference to the mistreatment of Jews was often clear. In 1941, for example, after being asked by French Marshal Henri Philippe Petain if the Vatican would object to anti-Jewish laws, Pius XII answered that the church condemned racism, but did not repudiate every rule against the Jews.(16) When Petain's French puppet government introduced "Jewish statutes," the Vichy ambassador to the Holy See informed Petain that the Vatican did not consider the legislation in conflict with Catholic teachings, as long as they were carried out with "charity" and "justice."(17)
    Robert Wistrich notes that “by the end of 1942, the Vatican was among the best-informed institutions in Europe concerning the Holocaust. Except for the Germans or perhaps British intelligence, few people were more aware of the local details as well as the larger picture.”(17a)
    On September 8, 1943, the Nazis invaded Italy and, suddenly, the Vatican was the local authority. The Nazis gave the Jews 36 hours to come up with 50 kilograms of gold or else the Nazis would take 300 hostages. The Vatican was willing to loan 15 kilos, an offer that eventually proved unnecessary when the Jews obtained an extension for the delivery.(19)
    Pius XII knew that Jewish deportations from Italy were impending. The Vatican even found out from SS First Lieutenant Kurt Gerstein the fate of those who were to be deported.(20) Publicly, the Pope stayed silent. Privately, Pius did instruct Catholic institutions to take in Jews. The Vatican itself hid 477 Jews and another 4,238 Jews were protected in Roman monasteries and convents.(21)
    On October 16, the Nazis arrested 1,007 Roman Jews, the majority of whom were women and children. They were taken to Auschwitz, where 811 were gassed immediately. Of those sent to the concentration camp, 16 survived.(22)
    The Pope Protests

    The Pope did act behind the scenes on occasion. During the German occupation of Hungary in March 1944, he, along with the papal nuncio in Budapest, Angelo Rotta, advised the Hungarian government to be moderate in its plans concerning the treatment of the Jews. Pius XII protested against the deportation of Jews and, when his protests were not heeded, he cabled again and again.(23) The Pope's demands, combined with similar protests from the King of Sweden, the International Red Cross, Britain and the United States contributed to the decision by the Hungarian regent, Admiral Miklos Horthy, to cease deportations on July 8, 1944.(24)
    In the later stages of the war, Pius XII appealed to several Latin American governments to accept “emergency passports” that several thousand Jews had succeeded in obtaining. Due to the efforts of the Pope and the U.S. State Department, 13 Latin American countries decided to honor these documents, despite threats from the Germans to deport the passport holders.(25)
    The Church also answered a request to save 6,000 Jewish children in Bulgaria by helping to transfer them to Palestine. At the same time, however, Cardinal Maglione wrote to the apostolic delegate in Washington, A.G. Cicognani, saying this did not mean the Pope supported Zionism.(26) The church did often help baptized Jews, but was less enthusiastic about assisting Jews who did not abandon their faith.
    The Politics Behind the Policy

    Historians point out that any support the Pope did give the Jews came after 1942, once U.S. officials told him that the allies wanted total victory, and it became likely that they would get it. Furthering the notion that any intervention by Pius XII was based on practical advantage rather than moral inclination is the fact that in late 1942, Pius XII began to advise the German and Hungarian bishops that it would be to their ultimate political advantage to go on record as speaking out against the massacre of the Jews. (27)
    One of the only cases in which the Pope gave early support to the allies was in May 1940. He received information about a German plan, Operation Yellow, to lay mines to deter British naval support of Holland. Pius XII gave his permission to send coded radio messages warning papal nuncios in Brussels and The Hague of the plot. The German radio monitoring services decoded the broadcast and went ahead with the plan.(2 This papal intervention is surprising due to the pope's persistent claim of neutrality, and his silence regarding almost all German atrocities.
    In Hitler's Pope, John Cromwell argues that the pope’s behavior can be partly explained because Pacelli was an anti-Semite, however, Robert Wistrich argues he was anti-Jewish only in the traditional sense of believing that Jews killed Jesus. Meanwhile, defenders of the pope have pointed to statements by Israel's consul in Italy in the 1960s, Pinhas Lapide, and by Golda Meir praising the pope as evidence of his efforts to save Jews during the war, but Wistrich says their remarks were not backed by verifiable evidence of papal action. What is clear is that the pope could have done more. In fact, Catholic Poles were the most outspoken critics of his silence. Pius did not speak out effectively after Germany overran Poland and the restrained remarks that did come from the Vatican about the oppression of the Catholic Poles ceased after Germany protested. (28a)
    Wistrich also notes that while there is some controversy about the pope’s assistance to the Jews, the Church's role in helping Nazi murderers escape, and seeking clemency for convicted Nazi criminals, is well-documented. It is less clear, however, how much the pope knew about this.
    Recent Developments

    The International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission (ICJHC), a group comprised of three Jewish and three Catholic scholars, was appointed in 1999 by the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. In October of 2000, the group of scholars finished their review of the Vatican's archives, and submitted their preliminary findings to the Comission's then-President, Cardinal Edward I Cassidy. Their report, entitled "The Vatican and the Holocaust," laid to rest several of the conventional defenses of Pope Pius XII.
    The often-espoused view that the Pontiff was unaware of the seriousness of the situation of European Jewry during the war was definitively found to be inaccurate. Numerous documents demonstrated that the Pope was well-informed about the full extent of the Nazi's anti-Semitic practices. A letter from Konrad von Preysing, Bishop of Berlin, that proved that the Pope was aware of the situation as early as January of 1941, particularly caught the attention of the commission. In that letter, Preysing confirms that "Your Holiness is certainly informed about the situation of the Jews in Germany and the neighboring countries. I wish to mention that I have been asked both from the Catholic and Protestant side if the Holy See could not do something on this subject...in favor of these unfortunates." The letter, which was a direct appeal to the Pope himself, without intermediaries, provoked no response. In 1942, an even more compelling eyewitness account of the mass-murder of Jews in Lwow was sent to the Pope by an archbishop; this, too, garnered no response.
    The commission also revealed several documents that cast a negative light on the claim that the Vatican did all it could to facilitate emigration of the Jews out of Europe. Internal notes meant only for Vatican representatives revealed the opposition of Vatican officials to Jewish emigration from Europe to Palestine. "The Holy See has never approved of the project of making Palestine a Jewish home...[because] Palestine is by now holier for Catholics than for Jews." Some Catholic higher-ups violated this position of the Vatican by helping Jews to immigrate when they were able to; most did not.
    Similarly, the attempts of Jews to escape from Europe to South America were sometimes thwarted by the Vatican. Vatican representatives in Bolivia and Chile wrote to the pontiff regarding the "invasive" and "cynically exploitative" character of the Jewish immigrants, who were already engaged in "dishonest dealings, violence, immorality, and even disrespect for religion." The commission concluded that these accounts probably biased Pius against aiding more Jews in immigrating away from Nazi Europe.
    The claim that the Vatican needed to remain neutral in the war has also been refuted in recent months. In January of 2001, a document recently declassified by the U.S. National Archives was discovered by the World Jewish Congress. The document was a report in which Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, Pope Pius XII's secretary of state, detailed and denounced several abuses committed by the Soviet Army against German inhabitants of the Soviet Union. The report was widely viewed as demonstrating that the Vatican had no compunctions about speaking out against atrocities, even when doing so would violate neutrality.
    The preliminary report released by the IJCHC also asked the Vatican for access to non-published archival documents to more fully investigate the Pope's role in the Holocaust. This request was refused by the Vatican, which allowed them access only to documents from before 1923. As a result, the Commission suspended its study in July 2001, without issuing a final report. Dr. Michael Marrus, one of the three Jewish panelists and a professor of history at the University of Toronto, expained that the commission "ran up against a brick wall.... It would have been really halpful to have had support from the Holy See on this issue."(29)
    In 2004, news was disclosed of a diary kept by James McDonald, the League of Nations high commissioner for refugees coming from Germany. In 1933, McDonald raised the treatment of the Jews with then Cardinal Pacelli, who was the Vatican secretary of state. McDonald was specifically interested in helping a group of Jewish refugees in the Saar region, a territory claimed by France and Germany that was turned over to the Germans in 1935. The Pope's defenders cite his intercession on these Jews' behalf as evidence of his sympathy for Jews persecuted by the Nazis. According to McDonald, however, when he disccused the matter with Pacelli, “The response was noncommittal, but left me with the definite impression that no vigorous cooperation could be expected.”(30) Pacelli did intercede in January 1935 to help the Jews, but only after McDonald agreed that American Jews would use their influence in Washington to protect church properties that were being threatened by the Mexican government.(31)
    In 2005, the Italian daily, Corriere della Sera, discovered a letter dated November 20, 1946, showing that Pope Pius XII ordered Jewish babies baptized by Catholics during the Holocaust not to be returned to their parents. Some scholars said the disclosure was not new and that the Pope's behavior was not remarkable. The more important story, according to Rabbi David Rosen, international director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, was that one of the recipients of the letter, Angelo Roncalli, the papal representative in Paris, ignored the papal directive.(32)
    In 2006, an Israeli scholar, Dina Porat, discovered correspondence between Haim Barlas, an emissary of the Jewish Agency sent to Europe to save Jews in the 1940s, and Giuseppe Roncalli, who later became Pope John XXIII. Roncalli expressed criticism of the Vatican’s silence during the war. In June 1944, Barlas sent Roncalli a copy of a report compiled by two Jews who escaped from Auschwitz documenting the mass murder at the camp. Roncalli forwarded the report to the Vatican, which had claimed it did not know about the report until October. Earlier, Roncalli had written to the president of Slovakia at the behest of Barlas asking him to stop the Nazi deportations of Jews.(33)
    Conclusion

    The Pope's reaction to the Holocaust was complex and inconsistent. At times, he tried to help the Jews and was successful. But these successes only highlight the amount of influence he might have had, if he not chosen to remain silent on so many other occasions. No one knows for sure the motives behind Pius XII's actions, or lack thereof, since the Vatican archives have only been fully opened to select researchers. Historians offer many reasons why Pope Pius XII was not a stronger public advocate for the Jews: A fear of Nazi reprisals, a feeling that public speech would have no effect and might harm the Jews, the idea that private intervention could accomplish more, the anxiety that acting against the German government could provoke a schism among German Catholics, the church's traditional role of being politically neutral and the fear of the growth of communism were the Nazis to be defeated.(34) Whatever his motivation, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Pope, like so many others in positions of power and influence, could have done more to save the Jews.
    See also Defenses of Pius XII
    Bibliography

    Berenbaum, Michael. The World Must Know: The History of the Holocaust as Told in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. MA: Little, Brown and Co., 1993.
    Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War. NY: Henry Holt And Co., 1987.
    Gilbert, Martin. The Second World War: A Complete History. NY: Henry Holt And Co., 1992.
    Gutman, Israel. ed. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Vol. 3. NY: Macmillan, 1995.
    Hilberg, Raul. The Destruction of the European Jews. NY: Holmes & Meier, 1985.
    Hilberg, Raul. Perpetrators Victims Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe 1933-1945. NY: Harper Perennial Library, 1993.
    Holocaust. Israel Pocket Library. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1974.
    International Jewish Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission. The Vatican and the Holocaust: A Preliminary Report. Submitted to The Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with Jews. October, 2000.
    Perl, William R. The Holocaust Conspiracy: An International Policy of Genocide. NY: Shapolsky Publishers, 1989.
    Reuters. "WJC Says it Has New Evidence Against Pius XII." By Joan Gralla. 1/11/01.
    Notes

    1. “Reassessing Pope Pius XII's Attitudes toward the Holocaust,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (October 2009).
    1a. Berenbaum, Michael, The World Must Know, p. 40.
    2. Perl, William, The Holocaust Conspiracy, p. 197.
    3. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1136.
    4. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1136.
    5. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1136.
    6. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1137.
    7. Perl, William, The Holocaust Conspiracy, p. 206.
    8. Hilberg, Raul, Perpetrators Victims Bystanders, p. 267.
    9. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1137.
    10. Israel Pocket Library, Holocaust, p. 133; Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1137.
    11. Israel Pocket Library, Holocaust, p. 134.
    12. Hilberg, Raul, The Destruction of the European Jews, p. 315.
    13. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1137; Hilberg, Raul, Perpetrators Victims Bystanders, p. 264.
    14. Gilbert, Martin, The Second World War, p. 40.
    15. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1137.
    16. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1137.
    17. Perl, William, The Holocaust Conspiracy, p. 200.
    17a. “Reassessing Pope Pius XII's Attitudes toward the Holocaust,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (October 2009).
    18. Perl, William, The Holocaust Conspiracy, p. 200.
    19. Israel Pocket Library, Holocaust, p. 133.
    20. Perl, William, The Holocaust Conspiracy, p. 202.
    21. Gilbert, Martin, The Holocaust, p. 623.
    22. Perl, William, The Holocaust Conspiracy, p. 201.
    23. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1138.
    24. Gilbert, Martin, The Holocaust, p. 701.
    25. Perl, William, The Holocaust Conspiracy, p. 176.
    26. Gutman, Israel. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1138.
    27. Israel Pocket Library, Holocaust, p. 136.
    28. Gilbert, Martin. The Second World War, p. 59.
    28a. “Reassessing Pope Pius XII's Attitudes toward the Holocaust,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (October 2009).
    29. The Jerusalem Post. "Vatican Blocks Panel's Access to Holocaust Archives." By Melissa Radler. 7/24/01
    30. Peter Carlson, “A Diplomat's Diary,” Washington Post, (April 22, 2004).
    31. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (April 23, 2004).
    32. Jerusalem Report, (February 7, 2005).
    33. Jerusalem Post, (December 4, 2006).
    34. Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1139.
    Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    Isa 66:2For all those [things] hath mine hand made, and all those [things] have been, saith the LORD: but to this [man] will I look, [even] to [him that is] poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    After looking at these responses, I wonder if anyone read the original link?

    Paul taught against the law (commandments) and he taught against the ordinances (law of moses). Paul said the law was a curse, and to believe his gospel and everyone else to be accursed in their gospel, and to imitate him and be like he was.

    Why did Paul circumsize Timothy while saying circumision profits you nothing? Why did Paul say you can eat food sacrificed to idols when Jesus said that was the way of balaam and the Jerusalem council declared idol food bad for the gentiles? Why did Jesus blind Paul, when he normally gave sight? Remember the scales that fell from Paul's eyes, aka satan? How about that light from heaven, didn't Jesus say he saw satan as lightning from heaven?

    WHO BACKS UP PAUL'S CONVERSION? The answer is nobody testified for him. In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word was to be established. Who is the other witness for Paul? Why not believe Mohummad and Joseph Smith, they had revelations too?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tribulation2008 View Post
    After looking at these responses, I wonder if anyone read the original link?

    Paul taught against the law (commandments) and he taught against the ordinances (law of moses). Paul said the law was a curse, and to believe his gospel and everyone else to be accursed in their gospel, and to imitate him and be like he was.

    Why did Paul circumsize Timothy while saying circumision profits you nothing? Why did Paul say you can eat food sacrificed to idols when Jesus said that was the way of balaam and the Jerusalem council declared idol food bad for the gentiles? Why did Jesus blind Paul, when he normally gave sight? Remember the scales that fell from Paul's eyes, aka satan? How about that light from heaven, didn't Jesus say he saw satan as lightning from heaven?

    WHO BACKS UP PAUL'S CONVERSION? The answer is nobody testified for him. In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word was to be established. Who is the other witness for Paul? Why not believe Mohummad and Joseph Smith, they had revelations too?

    I read your link and others like it.

    I too have had some concerns and am still working through it.

    Paul is different than the other two mentioned in that he never said Jesus was not the Christ, the saviour. Paul continually pointed back to Jesus and did not form his own scriptures and his own followers. His churches were part of the Christian church as a whole and I believe he was a beloved leader of them.

    I don't fault you for questioning, though, because God is strong enough to withstand any of our questions. I believe He would rather us do that, than to blindly follow with no real passion. I continue with you to watch and question, and I don't fully embrace Paul for now either, although I want to.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    239

    Default

    JGIG I did not contradict myself.

    The Law and the Sacrificial system are two different things.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathe View Post
    JGIG I did not contradict myself.

    The Law and the Sacrificial system are two different things.
    You most certainly did. The sacrificial system is an integral part of the Law.

    -JGIG


    "If you've lost sight of the Cross in your journey, it's time to alter course."

    www.joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LabbyLove View Post
    I read your link and others like it.

    I too have had some concerns and am still working through it.

    Paul is different than the other two mentioned in that he never said Jesus was not the Christ, the saviour. Paul continually pointed back to Jesus and did not form his own scriptures and his own followers. His churches were part of the Christian church as a whole and I believe he was a beloved leader of them.

    I don't fault you for questioning, though, because God is strong enough to withstand any of our questions. I believe He would rather us do that, than to blindly follow with no real passion. I continue with you to watch and question, and I don't fully embrace Paul for now either, although I want to.

    Wow! That is a humble, honest and pure open mind. May you be blessed with that attitude!

    I didn't want to accept that Paul could be planting the tares, but I keep wondering, why did Jesus send another man by 'revelation' after he spent time with the 12 apostles?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tribulation2008 View Post
    Wow! That is a humble, honest and pure open mind. May you be blessed with that attitude!

    I didn't want to accept that Paul could be planting the tares, but I keep wondering, why did Jesus send another man by 'revelation' after he spent time with the 12 apostles?

    I don't know.

    My biggest questions are:

    Did he really go against the OT or what Jesus said? I'm not so sure when you break it down, but I'm still learning. Those websites are convincing, but sometimes the answer is not quite that concise or as simple as it looks like at first or second glance.

    Did the other apostles reject him? It does not look like that was the case.

    Did he love Jesus? He speaks as though he really did.

    Does he have the markings of a false teacher?


    We have been fed such a bunch of lies by many in authority that we have to read and learn for ourselves with the help of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise what Tyndale and others went through is for naught. I follow Jesus and only those that line up with what He taught will I embrace. If it's Paul, great, if not, then fine. What Paul says does not my salvation hinge on.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tribulation2008 View Post
    Wow! That is a humble, honest and pure open mind. May you be blessed with that attitude!

    I didn't want to accept that Paul could be planting the tares, but I keep wondering, why did Jesus send another man by 'revelation' after he spent time with the 12 apostles?
    When it came to teaching the Body of Christ about the believer's relationship to the Law in Christ, it almost had to be a Pharisee, didn't it? Who else but someone of Paul's caliber could undergo such a transformation as he did at his conversion and then speak authoritatively on the position of those in Christ in relation to the Law?

    NONE of the other Apostles had the knowledge of the Law like Paul did. It HAD to be someone like Paul that God would use to clarify what the Gospel meant and how that affected the standing of the Law. Paul could speak with authority on both the Law and the Grace of God through Jesus Christ and what that really means.

    -JGIG


    "If you've lost sight of the Cross in your journey, it's time to alter course."

    www.joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •