Saturday, October 05, 2013
Peggy Cuddy's Amazing New Age Movement Chart
Last week I interviewed Dennis Cuddy the second hour of my internet radio program. Dennis mentioned his mother Peggy who has been researching the New Age Movement for many years herself had developed a remarkable chart on the New Age Movement. Peggy Cuddy's independent research was one of the very first to be sent to my attention after my local work became nationally publicized in 1982. I had the pleasure of talking with Peggy Cuddy, Dennis' mother a few times. Dennis I have spoken with often and highly respect his work. Dennis sent me a copy of his mother's chart and I'm reproducing it here for you. Valuable work it is indeed! Enjoy! Click on the chart to enlarge them to full page. Feel free to reproduce them and pass them on to those in need of accurate information on the New Age Movement in its many stems and branches.
|To receive a full 11 x 17 pdf version of this, email me with subject line "Cuddy Chart" and I will email it back to your email address as an attachment.|
IMF chief says US politicians must overcome shutdown and raise US debt ceiling before 17 October deadline
Pledge signers promise civil disobedience before violating consciences
There are dozens of faith-led companies and organizations that have taken to the U.S. court system – so far mostly successfully – to fight back a requirement in Obamacare that they purchase health insurance policies that fund abortion or contraception including abortifacients – as that violates their faith.
Several appeals courts have agreed that the requirement cannot be enforced by the government until a final resolution on the dispute in a courtroom, maybe even the U.S. Supreme Court.
But there’s a new group of pro-life leaders who have cut to the end of the race and have signed a pledge explaining very simply that the government cannot force them to violate their consciences or forfeit their religious freedoms.
And they won’t be buying insurance that includes abortion, and won’t be paying any fines for refusing to participate in “the killing of innocent children.”
http://www.aul.org/ Americans United for Life
Worthy News: Barack Obama "hugely impressed" by Pope Francis.
I was wondering if one of your supporters would consider putting some of your shows on You Tube?
For all it's many faults, it's still the place most people go for information.
I did sign up for a month on the Micro Effect - rather a luxury as I am currently incomeless! To my annoyance and embarrassment, I couldn't manage to access the online link. I have ME/CFS and have cognitive problems with such things.
And I would particularly love to have heard your interview with Dennis Cuddy! So - are a few episodes on You Tube a possibility?
I will have another stab at getting onto the Micro Effect when I can get hold of techy friend ...
John Kass, a Chicago Tribune reporter writes about a Chicago burger joint that mocks Christianity with a new menu burger.
When Chick-fil-a took a conservative stand, all of the liberal set got their panties in a knot and all of the conservatives showed up to support the company.
I do wish all of the heavy metal crowd showed up to support Kumas. It would be fun to see a circus clowns show in October.
I'll pass this on to Dennis. I know he will be pleased!
Whether its description be that of a rainbow, a web/network or a tree with the many branches, it is difficult to contend with?
If the web not is destroyed it is easily abandoned and heals itself.
Wind storms can easily rip of leaves, twigs and branches, but the tree remains.
Rainbows exist from partial to full to double, depending on the weather.
This tree diagram is a good pictorial of what is occurring.
Luke 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
This is an interesting verse and could be applicable to this tree?
I noted one can cut down a tree, but new branches quickly send out new shoots.
This verse implies that all of the trunk must be removed and disconnected from the root systems.
So how do we do this as to permanently rid yourself of the tree, the roots need to be cut?
Are we cutting a root (and there is more than one) or trimming a branch a branch; as we could be enabling the tree as one would in trimming an orchard?
How can we adequately define the roots and start cutting at them?
The web descriptor seems to be the most troublesome descriptor for me, like the net, but even that has its main connections and support?
I noted one can cut down a tree, but new branches quickly send out new shoots.
This verse implies that all of the trunk must be removed and disconnected from the root systems.
So how do we do this as to permanently rid yourself of the tree, the roots need to be cut?
Are we cutting a root (and there is more than one) or trimming a branch a branch; as we could be enabling the tree as one would in trimming an orchard?"
VERY good points. however, we can't entirely eliminate this, since God will allow the devil some play and one grandstand maneuver followed by one more, until the end of time.
BUT WE CAN CUT IT OUT OF OUR IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT, sort of.
1. we can eliminate it from our personal mentality.
2. we can eliminate it somewhat from any location we can control the media and politics of which.
Now, my own thought is that ideas which give rise to words which give rise to actions, are critical roots. Also of course the humans who are keeping and purveying them.
One approach I like is to identify the conveyorbelt ideas, that either lead to more trouble or if someone is not willing to go beyond a certain point, at least cripple them somewhat.
And attack the ideas, discredit them. Win people from them.
1. clean up the syncretism in the church. "church" is ekklesia the official assembly of the city or rather in our case, of the Kingdom of God our King and God and Overlord Jesus Christ. So this relates to the personal mental clean up and if possible either throwing the wrong ideas and their stubborn adherents out of any church organization we have strong influence in, or schism off and start our own groups.
2. Face it, the USA and Christian Europe and all the other "Christian" civilization places consist for the most part of nominal Christians and flat out unbelievers.
Because of the failure to recognize Jesus as Messiah, the Jews have a more limited capacity to fight this, but that capacity is there, it lies in reexamining the (often not taught in synagogue) things in Torah and Prophets and Writings that UNDERMINE OR OPPOSE specific New Age concepts.
Does a Jew believe in the divine spark notion? then get him or her to interpret it in terms of the likeness and image of God, warped in the Fall (which is not taught much in Judaism now, but IS in the Torah), and away from the idea of consubstantiality with God.
Does a Jew think that compassion should include mindless acceptance of everything? Try to rope that into a more Torah compatible context.
(e.g., sure, some laws of extermination or exclusion don't apply outside of Israel as per Deut., BUT they are reason to stop supporting gay rights and abortion rights, and so forth.)
The bulk of the population and politicos etc. either are part of the problem, or don't give a hoot.
The problem for us of repression and extermination in the future, and totalitarianism in general, is something those attracted to the NAM by the love and compassion and heal the earth and stop war and oppression etc. message, are also repelled by.
Deniers of this potential or outright plan of NAM consist then of two categories. Those who secretly support it and are covering it up, and those who don't want to believe that something that can make them feel good, and seems to talk about freedom and peace, could have in mind.
The second category, can be roped into a limited amount of anti NAM operations directed by us, insofar as it can be shown them that some specific trends or plans are NWO totalitarianism related, corrupt financial elites related, bad for the environment, cheat and improverish people, cause death and illness, etc. etc.
An example is the issue of health, the same people who want easy access to abortion and want gay marriage, often balk at other features of the NAM, and ON THOSE FEATURES CAN BE PUT TO WORK AGAINST IT.
The inherent contradictions between the high tech and the back to the land elements can be exploited also. The back to the land scene may be composed of people we don't need in our lives, but they are at loggerheads with the high tech, surveillance, transhumanist, mess up rural living, etc. etc. branches of the NAM. PUT THEM TO WORK AGAINST THESE.
Those who want total individual liberty range from deluded Rand corrupted Christians and semi Christians to flat out satanists. These can and do work against the high tech surveillance state runs every detail of your life part of NAM.
Except for those of them who personally stand to gain by such measures.
Think globally and act locally against the globalists.
EVEN IF globalism is not going to bring the antichrist IT IS STILL A BAD IDEA.
If you can't understand analysis and suggestions based on identifying and targetting weakness of the enemy, if you can't understand the concept of selective use of semi neutrals as friendlies or useful idiots for us though not totally on our side,
THEN THANK GOD ABOVE THAT YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE MILITARY OR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM. Or maybe you are of that background, support the NAM and NWO, and want to undermine anyone applying appropriate psychological and political weapons against them.
If you think Nazism and antisemitism is all there is to the NAM/NWO think again. THESE THINGS HAVE THEIR ORIGIN IN OCCULTISM AND ETHNIC MYSTICISM, and why don't you go look at those charts Constance posted?
Or are you really a part of it all yourself? Only opposed to the small part that might affect you personally? If so, welcome to the war, you are still of use. But take a back seat and shut up when people who are used to analyzing schemers is trying to make a contribution to the effort.
That chart shows exactly what you constantly deny, that the NAM/NWO is highly complex, and ranges from cults to politics to social movements and so forth. Something you have always tried to CRIPPLE this blog by denying. (maybe once you admitted there is truth to the analysis of NAM as a mix of politics and "spirituality" but one major attack you went on was when I was detailing how this was the case.)
you don't have the guts to challenge Constance directly on any of this. but your game is increasingly obvious.
According to this MoFA bulletin, GRU intelligence assests were notified by their Pentagon counterparts this past week that President Barack Obama is preparing to invoke the powers given to him under 50 USC Chapter 13 to hold that various American States are now in a “state of insurrection” thus allowing him to invoke the National Emergencies Act under 50 USC § 1621 and invoke the highly controversial “continuity of government” plan for the United States allowing him, in essence, to rule with supreme powers.
Specifically, this bulletin says, Obama will invoke 50 USC § 212 that states: “ the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”
The specific laws being opposed by these “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” that Obama will outline in his reasoning’s for declaring a state of emergency, this bulletin continues, are the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), otherwise known as Obamacare.
The NDAA is opposed by many US States, this bulletin says, with California joining Alaska and Virginia this past week in passing a law making it illegal to be enforced in their territory, and with many other States, also, preparing to do the same.
The specific portions of the NDAA law being opposed by these US States allows for the indefinite detention without charges or trial of all American citizens and allows for their assassination should Obama order it.
The PPACA (Obamacare) law is, likewise, opposed by over half of the US States and has led to an American “shutdown” this past week that has closed 15% of their government, but has left fully 85% of it still open.
To the specific “combinations too powerful” Obama will cite in his declaration of National Emergency as being needed to be defeated by extraordinary measures, the MoFA says, is a faction of the US House of Representatives popularly known as the Republican Tea Party whom the President and his allies have likened to “hostage takers” and “political terrorists.”
As the current US government shutdown crisis and debt ceiling fight have now merged, the MoFA warns in this bulletin, Obama further warned yesterday that an impasse on the debt ceiling beyond 17 October, when the US government will be essentially out of cash to pay its bills, could start a downward economic plunge worse than the recession of five years ago – with credit markets seizing up, the dollar’s value plummeting and US interest rates soaring and even coming close to the brink of such an unprecedented default that could roil both domestic and foreign financial markets.
Preparing to oppose Obama, should he, in fact, declare a National State of Emergency, the GRU grimly warns, is the US military who themselves are preparing to invoke 50 USC § 842 which allows them to protect America from “The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof…”
Not known to many Americans is that the Progressive movement Obama belongs to, and whose media acolyte “presstitutes” swept into office, have long been associated with the Communist Party.
And, as the World Net Daily News Service reported this past August, John C. Drew, Ph.D., the award-winning political scientist, met Obama in 1980 and wrote in 2011: “[Obama] believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back in terms of the coming revolution. … Obama was blindly sticking to the simple Marxist theory … ‘there’s going to be a revolution.’ Obama said, ‘we need to be organized and grow the movement.’ In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution.”
With Obama’s “revolution” now at hand, the GRU warns in this bulletin, it is critical to note that that United States, unlike other nations, have all of their elected officials and military personal swear allegiance to the US Constitution, and not to their government or its leaders.
As many in America now know that these present times are not the normal activities of a government seeking peace and prosperity, and as dozens of undisclosed Obama Presidential directives that define US national security policy and task government agencies are still unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to the US Congress, this bulletin warns in its summation that with each passing day American can be more likened to a communist dictatorship than a functioning democracy.
So bad, in fact, has the United States become that one of its legendary reporters, Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh wrote this past week that the Obama administration lies systematically yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.
Even worse, and in a further Sovietization of American Life by the Obama regime, the US this past week refused to grant entry visas to internationally renowned authors Ilija Trojanov and Ernst Titovets who were invited to speak at conferences, and which Justin Raimondo of the highly respected Antiwar.com blog calls “part of a disturbing pattern of repression that all points to one ineluctable conclusion: the United States is the Soviet Union of the new millennium – an ideological state with global ambitions that holds itself up as the epitome of “freedom” and yet is the single most powerful enemy of liberty worldwide.”
October 4, 2013 http://www.thetotalcollapse.com/pentagon-warns-to-expect-radical-change-in-us-government-soon/
You can also click on the chart itself to enlarge it. Then, copy and paste it to an e-mail and send it to yourself.
Thank heavens you haven't tried to interpret the link I posted from Total Collapse.
I posted the link in many places without taking the time to look at many of the other Total Collapse postings, hoping others would do some of that work.
Based on occasional postings, I think there are many who read this site who are as familiar with New Age as I am, and I have posted many things hoping they would contribute to the knowledge base. That's why I leave many suggestions open-ended. If I post too much, many might think they can leave everything up to someone else to do the research.
On the other hand, posting too much makes the person look like a know-it-all.
As I've said in the past, if I can do heavier research without credentials, anyone can.
Entirely possible that Obama was indeed planning to assume his emergency powers and that the Armed Forces let it be known that in that case they would assume theirs, and that the resulting threat will cause Obama to back off. In that case nothing untoward will happen, and the truth that something untoward very nearly happened would come out a while later.
Interesting times... not only the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, but also the military?
Thanks for the interest! I am in fear for our country. I'm not as enthusiastic about this shutdown as is the Tea Party faction. To me it looks like a form of Hegelian dialectic leading to a synthesis of global governance as our country potentially comes down. The Armageddon Script in partial action?
I appreciate your posts and your enthusiasm, but absent something absolutely urgent and/or compelling, please try to synthesize it to one post per day.
Interesting thoughts regarding a possible outcome, if the story reported is indeed entirely factual.
Interesting times indeed!
A word of caution regarding the source of the story, Sorcha Faal. Sorcha Faal is a well-known disinformation agent working for Russian intelligence.
I'm assuming it's Sorcha Faal, anyway. Here's the link to the story which leads me to believe that:
Of course, Sorcha may have grabbed the story from elsewhere, claiming it as "her" own.
If things do go in this direction, it fits perfectly with Russian strategy to provoke internal chaos, making us a lot more vulnerable to an attack.
Here's to President Obama.... our "provocateur-in-chief", placed there to start the marxist/communist revolution that he's been preparing for his entire adult life.
Thanks for posting those charts and making them available! Visual tools like this are excellent for getting an overall picture of things.
I've been wanting to do something like that for a while now, just never had the chance to.
[i]"Every American with an ounce of uncorrupted grey matter left is furious and frightened about what the revolutionaries running America have done and plan to do.
Obama and his crew (here in Russia and China) would love to see Americans "go off the reservation". I think Sasha is trying to accomplish just that.[/i]
So many provocateurs are busy out there, pushing us into a real shooting spree. I've sensed the same attitude in America as my friend relates above.
Nathan Leal, of Watchman's Cry, has had a vision recently where he feels God telling him that a popular uprising will happen soon, but that we, as Christians, are not to participate. It is part of God's judgment upon this nation that an uprising and armed rebellion occurs, which will trigger who-knows-what. Yes, I know the popular narrative: martial law is declared, the New World Order takes over, and we all have to report to the post office to get our marks. I don't know what will happen, but I don't think it will be that. Not that way, anyway. I think other bad things happen first, like perhaps we become an occupied nation? Same thing happened to Israel...and we are not immune.
The next few weeks are going to be "dangerous". Keep your spiritual antennas fully extended.
Please don't feel stupid. Disinfo agents have studied the American psyche for decades, and know how to play us.
It is one of the reasons we find ourselves against the wall. We are good at shopping and watching TV, but not at thinking analytically about things that are not fun to think about.
I do think it is still a possible route the future may take, in spite of the source. Or something similar to it.
The internal hostility, between him and the Pentagon, IS A REALITY, buried in more legitimate news sources.
The sudden purge a while back of some high ranking military officers on one excuse or another that incl. Petraeus has been evaluated as to stop a planned coup of the Seven Days in May type scenario.
Craig, panentheism as described in your article bears no similarity to God is infinite in size so to speak, and therefore everywhere, and the universe being smaller (finite) than God it is therefore contained in God, type of thinking I am acquainted with, and that has at least TWO Biblical cites to back it up.
I do not like the term as it is open to far more definitions than a descriptive term should be, for one thing, and because most of its definitions are heretical, for another.
This will be my one and only comment to you on this.
(1) I do not think the Trinity is panentheistic, though I’m aware the EO does. I’ve already stated this in an earlier thread. We can agree to disagree.
(2) Stated at the very beginning, the article compares and contrasts the Christian Trinity (as per Protestant and RCC understanding) to panentheism (which is a distortion of the Trinity), hence implying the first sentence in (1).
(3) The word “eternal”, which is used in the article, means infinite. Moreover, the way I’ve described the transcendent aspect of the Christian Trinity connotes that God is greater than the universe, while the universe is finite.
Don't sell yourselves short on the west side of the Atlantic! How many science Nobel Prizes are going to go to US or US-trained scientists this week? How many in the last 10 years? Plenty!
Physicist (who's a Brit)
The part of this article to the effect that the US military have, under the Constitution, freedom to act independently of the executive against the Communist Party of the United States or anything ideologically equivalent (aka Barack Obama) is a gross distortion of what the legislation actually says. When you compare the wording in the article with what the legislation actually says (by clicking on the link), it is hard to believe this is an accident.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-orders-priests-arrested-say-mass-military-bases/#muCSLIDXiLcL5vfP.99
This is what the self-proclaimed New Age messiah has done to make people unhappy during the shutdown.
'Clock is ticking', says Chinese minister, as US fails to break deadlock over government shutdown and fast-approaching ‘debt ceiling’ deadline
Scientology is not listed. It is a cult in the full meaning of the word. It networks with no one and is a self-contained controlling operation. Things are more specific on the backside.
I had written a much longer post with many descriptive words from the chart written out, but when I went to post it I got a message saying service not available and the post disappeared. First time ever that happened.
Suggestion, copy to wordpad or some other system if your post is long and complicated.
Never give up hope. And always realize, that the only true hope is in Christ Jesus - not hope for anything temporal, but for things eternal.
Disinformation Soviet style including information about the KGB, Putin, the attack on Zionism, Stalin, Pope Pius XII, and death by killing, Russian style
THE SECRET HISTORY BEHIND THE ONGOING CAMPAIGN
The Role of Dezinformatsiya in the Framing of Pius XII
Pius XII was assuredly not 'Hitler's Pope', but Christians are warned in the New Testament not only of the evils of actions that do harm, but of the evils of inaction when they are in a position to do good. Pius' reputation might well have been publicly blackened by a play sponsored by the KGB that accused him of silence. But that does not mean the accusation itself is false, for the article states that false accusations once backfired on the KGB. All we can say is that the sponsoring of the play was malicious.
Yes, Pius disliked the Nazis (they persecuted many Catholics) and helped the Jews of Rome during the war, but No, he kept silent about the fate of the rest of Europe's Jews once it was under way. Catholics ask rhetorically what good speaking out and getting the Vatican and Catholicism persecuted further would do. The answer is that nobody knows, including the Catholics who asked. They dwell on the evil that could have ensued but never consider the good. Hitler might have realised that going after a Pope would have changed the attitudes of friendly neutrals such as anti-British Ireland, fascist Spain and Latin America, all with crucial coastlines. Italy might have switched sides sooner. Many of Hitler's most trusted aides and soldiers were Catholics from Bavaria and Hitler would have been very wary indeed of a a papal appeal to their consciences. If the war had ended earlier then the Holocaust might have been mitigated and the Iron Curtain would have fallen further east. We cannot know, but Christians are to follow the way of Christ and leave the consequences to God.
Pius was also silent over the horrors that went on in Croatia under Archbishop Stepinac, whom the article says was also blackened by communist propaganda. The silence of Pius and Stepinac about the actions of Catholics in the wartime fascist Ustaša government remains shocking. In wartime Croatia Catholic clergy played a notorious role in the genocides and forced conversions directed against Jews and Orthodox Christians. Miroslav Filipović ran the Jasenovac concentration camp where tens of thousands died. Bishop Ivan Šarić’s diocesan newspaper stated that: “The movement of liberation of the world from the Jews is a movement for the renewal of human dignity.” Šarić also appropriated Jewish property for his own use. Priests such as Ivan Guberina served in the personal bodyguard of the Ustaša’s leader, Ante Pavelić. Bozidas Bralo was chief of the security police in Sarajevo. Mate Mugos wrote that clergy should put down the prayer book and take up the revolver. Much Ustaša party work in Bosnia and Herzegovina was put into the hands of Catholic priests. Dyonisy Juricev wrote (in the Novi List) that to kill seven-year-olds was not a sin. All of these men named were ordained Catholic priests. (See: The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965, by Michael Phayer.) Are we supposed to believe that Stepinac knew nothing of these things? In 1952, by which time Pius himself must have known, he made Stepinac a Cardinal.
These things will be judged by Another, but let the facts be known.
American Bible scholar Joseph Atwil, claims ancient 'confessions' prove story of Jesus Christ was entirely fabricated by Roman aristocrats
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451087/American-Bible-scholar-claims-ancient-confessions-prove-story-Jesus-Christ-entirely-fabricated-Roman-aristocrats.html#ixzz2hFVdNajL
~ K ~
With all due respect, Pope Pius XII, unlike most of his modern critics, was actually present as Nuncio in Germany during the Nazi era and was therefore more qualified than his armchair critics to decide what was best to be done.
Let's do talk about some facts.
A papal appeal was made to the consciences of Bavarian Catholics and all Germans when copies of the Papal encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge were not only read from all German Catholic pulpits on March 14,1937, but countless copies of the enclical were also dropped into Germany among German troops by British Royal Air Force flyers.
Even though it was officially promulgated under the name of Pope Pius XI, this encyclical was actually drafted by none other than Eugenio Pacelli who later became Pope Pius XII.
The Encyclical That Infuriated Hitler
Jesuit Says Pius XI's Document Was Prophetic
By the way, Michael Pahyer's historically flawed book was reviewed by the Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights and was described as being similar in many ways to John Cornwell's screed entitled Hitler's Pope. Here is an exerpt from that review:
Michael Phayer, professor of history at Marquette University, has authored a new book on the Catholic response to the Holocaust. Phayer seems particularly affected by that “anti-anti-communism” school of thought on Pope Pius XII. He assumes “papal silence,” and attributes it primarily to a fear of communism. In The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965 Phayer states that his purpose is to go beyond the issue of the silence of Pope Pius XII to explore how the Church in various countries, and through various individual Catholics, responded to the Holocaust, and how that response eventually led to the Church’s official rejection of anti-Semitism during the Second Vatican Council. Yet throughout the book, he paints Pope Pius XII as a meek pontiff unwilling to engage the Nazis. He states that Pius was motivated by the hope that he could secure a negotiated peace that would leave a powerful Germany as a European defense against an aggressive communist Soviet Union.
Yet, Phayer does not examine the allegation of silence on the part of Pope Pius XII, but merely accepts it as a given, bowing to contemporary conventional wisdom rather than the historical record of what was accomplished for Jews by Pius and the Church during the horror of the Shoah. In doing so, Phayer does not present a prosecutor’s case for Pius’ alleged silence, nor for his motives in being silent. Instead, he assumes that silence and postulates motives to fit that alleged reality, without proving that such motives existed.
Though Phayer’s book shows serious professional historical study and background on the events of World War II, it has similarities to Cornwell’s screed. Phayer’s prejudices against Pius determine the scholarship he brings to bear on the issue. Phayer’s book requires a more serious response than one would give to Cornwell’s ravings. Yet, it is a deeply flawed work that will play its own role in the ongoing slander of Pope Pius XII....read more....
Perhaps a better place to go for FACTS about Pope Pius XII would be the Pave the Way Foundation.
I know what Pacelli (the future Pius XII) wrote and did before war broke out. My post at 9.53am addressed specifically the issue of his silence during the war years and the Nazi atrocities. Perhaps you would direct me to the record of public statements made by Pius XII against the Nazis or their actions during hostilities?
John Cornwell who wrote Hitler's Pope is a journalist with academic pretensions and a track record of inaccuracies, which is why I didn't cite him. Phayer is a serious historian. Rather than criticise him for his comments on another subject in a different book, can you falsify any of his information stated in my post at 9.53am about the complicity and even active participation of Catholic clergy in wartime atrocities in Croatia?
"Perhaps you would direct me to the record of public statements made by Pius XII against the Nazis or their actions during hostilities?"
No verdict has been declared by Vad Vashem on this issue.
It's still under investigation by them.
I will declare my verdict when they do. If you feel the need to do so otherwise, perhaps you should tell us what your qualifications are as they pertain to this issue.
Since Apple eliminated our box I don't have a place where I can post a link absent my own website. Failing that, the email thankfully works. Those receiving them that have access to their own websites are encouraged to post a link if they have that capacity.
The opening words of that documentary says that it is about the Vatican's "SECRET work to mitigate suffering and to save human lives" during the war. Again you have changed the subject. I pointed out originally that Pius remained silent in public about the evils of the Nazis during wartime. You replied that he stood up publicly against the Nazis BEFORE the war. I asked for any public statement of his during wartime against the Nazis - not just messages lamenting the evils of war in terms general enough to be deniably targeted at the Nazis if a Nazi diplomat marched into the Vatican. In reply you have pointed me to a 64-minute YouTube documentary about the Vatican's SECRET work during the war. If you could give me any public statement (including a minute/second reference in that documentary), I presume that you would.
A man who occupies a great position may, in a time of trial, be expected to rise to it with greatness. But the man who claimed to be Europe’s principal moral authority kept quiet during its greatest evil. During the war Pius did lesser goods (which his supporters like to divert into) but, when he alone could have made a condemnation that would have rung round the world, he remained Pius the Silent. Can you imagine what effect a martyred Pope would have had on neutrals with vital wartime resources like Ireland, Spain, and Latin American countries? Or in Italy itself? Too bad he was unwilling to follow the path of his Savior. I do not need 'qualifications' to make that statement any more than a jury needs to be comprised of lawyers. I will retract my assertion if you can provide any statement of the sort I am asking for.
You have not challenged my details from Phayer about the active role of Catholic priests in atrocities in wartime Bosnia. A few years later Pius gave a red hat to the man who was the Vatican's top man there at that time.
One of the 'ratlines' along which war criminals were permitted to escape to South America was administered by ordained Catholics and ran through Rome:
In a non-scholarly way I've read much about the Nazi movement because of the parallel with what is happening now, and that is the New Age movement.
What I tried to find out is what each group, Jews, Catholics, Protestants did as the Nazis were coming to power in the 20s and early 30s. What I've found is not much except for the group who early on saw the paganism in the Nazi movement. If you have information to contribute along that line, please let me know. What I've learned is that none of the groups mentioned above is doing anything of substance to expose New Age. None of the groups are taking a powerful stand against what is being done to the Christians in the Mideast right now. Nothing in the past and nothing now. In fact, the attack on the previous Pope and the Catholics just parallels the attack on the Catholic church which New Age has done for the past 100 plus years. Have either of you done anything to fight the onrush of New Age anywhere? It appears both of you just want to chew the fat about the past.
I disagree that if Pope Pius XII had taken a stronger stand Hitler would have backed off. Jews, Catholics and Protestants worked with the Nazis, all with their own reasons. From what I've read, the average person then was no different than the average person now. Religion in the '20s and '30s was viewed by the average person about the same as it is now, a community tie rather than a moral tie, a tie that is much weaker than a religious tie. That allowed the Nazis to come to power just as it has allowed the New Age to come to power now.
Before you attack or defend any individual based on what you believe they did or didn't do, ask yourself what you are doing now or what your religious community is doing to expose the parallel to the Nazis, the New Age movement. Try to see the connection between the Nazi movement and the Muslim movement. Ask yourselves what you are doing now to expose and fight what is going on NOW. Skip the flip comments about how paganism and the occult have a long history. Skip the flip comments about how New Age and Revelation are parallel so Christianity is the true and only valid religion. Stop just thinking and start doing.
But I fully agree with the rest.
"What I've found is not much except for the group who early on saw the paganism in the Nazi movement"
Which group was that? I would like to have some information and URLs to
their writings if any, this could be helpful in educating those
who think the nicey nice type New Age peacenik scene and fluff bunny
type wiccan neopagan stuff is harmless.
Aside from the fact that they are unknowingly empowering the evil
spirits back of the darkside as they call the more obviously negative stuff,
they are exactly the sort of seemingly harmless back to nature kind of
movement that the proto nazi scene and the actual Nazis came out of.
"Putin has been in the news in a favorable way compared to the character of the individual who is president in the US now. It was a warning to keep one's guard up."
I think little of either. But I know which of their countries is better to live in, and it's not Russia.
"Have either of you done anything to fight the onrush of New Age anywhere? It appears both of you just want to chew the fat about the past."
Does it? We are both Anon so you know nothing of our other activities.
"I disagree that if Pope Pius XII had taken a stronger stand Hitler would have backed off."
Who said that? Not Pius's defender, and I (the party hostile to his reputation) said that he might have been martyred.
"Try to see the connection between the Nazi movement and the Muslim movement."
Here I agree with you. Koranic Islam and Nazism both advocate genocide against the Jews. In the 1930s it appears that the Nazi leaders turned, from planning a mass expulsion of Jews from the Reich to mass extermination, after meetings with Haj Amin the Mufti of Jerusalem. Haj Amin hated the Jews who had been arriving in the Holy Land under the British Mandate. And Hitler actually lamented Charles Martel's defeat of the Islamic armies at the Battle of Poitiers/Tours in 732AD, saying that Islam would have suited the Teutonic martial spirit much better than Christianity. New Age and Islam are totally incompatible belief systems but both understand the notion of tactical alliances.
Who said that? Not Pius's defender, and I (the party hostile to his reputation) said that he might have been martyred."
uh, a martyred pope would have mobilized all Catholicism against Nazism.
Re:I know what Pacelli (the future Pius XII) wrote and did before war broke out. My post at 9.53am addressed specifically the issue of his silence during the war years and the Nazi atrocities. Perhaps you would direct me to the record of public statements made by Pius XII against the Nazis or their actions during hostilities?
Excuse me....but you are you seriously implying that if Pope Pius XII WROTE PUBLICLY against the Nazis more than he SPOKE PUBLICLY against the Nazis that somehow he didn't act appropriately?????
While the burden of proof is on the accusers - and so far, the "proof" has been weighed and found wanting - I will repeat what Bill Donohue said of Phayer's and Cornwell's respective biased "histories" - namely that Pope Pius XII's so-called "silence" during the war years is something which they both assumed without citing any substantiating evidence.
Yet, Phayer does not examine the allegation of silence on the part of Pope Pius XII, but merely accepts it as a given, bowing to contemporary conventional wisdom rather than the historical record of what was accomplished for Jews by Pius and the Church during the horror of the Shoah. In doing so, Phayer does not present a prosecutor’s case for Pius’ alleged silence, nor for his motives in being silent. Instead, he assumes that silence and postulates motives to fit that alleged reality, without proving that such motives existed.
Regarding the ratlines - Wikipedia article notwithstanding - apparently you did not take the trouble to read the entire article I posted by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League which is the Catholic equivalent of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.
Phayer may be a somewhat more serious historian than
Cornwell, but his work is still a flawed anti-papal screed in which his own documentation is found wanting when it comes to the so-called "silence of Pope Pius XI" fiction and other related matters described by Mr. Donohue.
Re:Rather than criticise him for his comments on another subject in a different book, can you falsify any of his information stated in my post at 9.53am about the complicity and even active participation of Catholic clergy in wartime atrocities in Croatia?
Donohue mentions this in his article that I posted:
Phayer makes a number of broad statements that are at best open to contrary interpretation, and at worst seem to misstate the facts. He claims that a private audience between Croatian Fascist leader Ante Pavelic and Pius XII, and the appointment of a nuncio, was a victory for Fascist Croatia.29 However, Pius XII refused to greet Pavelic as a head of state and formal recognition was never extended. Pavelic left Rome in an insulted rage, rather than “satisfied” as Phayer contends.30 The Vatican refused to recognize an independent state of Croatia and did not receive a Croatian representative. The pope’s representative in Croatia, Archbishop Marcone, would work tirelessly in defense of the Croatian Jews.
Mr. Donohue cites Ronald J. Rychlak’s defense of Pius XII entitled, Hitler, the War and the Pope.
The following is a link to an exerpt from Rychlak's book about the Croatian situation.
CARDINAL STEPINAC, POPE PIUS XII, AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR
By the way, the founder of Pave the Way, Gary Krupp - for which I also provided a link - happens to be Jewish and documents pertaining to Pope Pius XII's activities on behalf of the Jewish people during the war years are continuing to be discovered by his organization.
You have to register to get into the documents, but the registration is free.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf "The Pope again condemned the new paganism to 5000 German pilgrims in Rome in May (1934) and in other addresses later that year.
Why the warning about Putin. I spend too much time on the computer and there were many positive posts about Putin's character, the latest being when Putin took over the agreement with Syria.
When a world leader says something in a speech, or a European NGO releases a policy statement, or some non-profit publishes something on their website - any one of which happens to be anti-Christian in its content, does that by default make it "New Age", even if it appears to align itself with New Age goals?
The threats to Christianity in this world are many, and all stem from our enemy, the Devil, or Satan. But he has many tools at his disposal, and not everything that threatens us is New Age.
To conflate everything anti-Christian into a New Age agenda is to oversimplify, and that does not help the cause of doing serious research into the New Age movement and it's connection to current and possible future plans and goals.
Action is needed, yes, but so is serious research. For proper actions to be taken, the history of the New Age movement as well as its various components need to be discussed.
Unlearned Lessons of the Holocaust
"But it is a much more serious question for the Christian Church. How could Hitler do what he did in a nation that was 97% Christian?"
The answer was that Christianity was in the profess of being paganized under Hitler.
"The Nazis fought the Christian Church with a variety of weapons. The most important was not overt persecution, but seduction. With his spell-binding oratory Hitler sought to win the hearts of professing Christians to his own world view. He was astonishingly successful."
"The modern term for it is secularization, the process that turns men's eyes away from God and any world to come and focuses their faith on the present world and man himself as the prime mover of events. It teaches that if there is to be a society of peace and justice, it is man himself who must bring it about, not God, and that it must happen in ordinary history, not in some future life."
"The Church's adaptation to a potentially hostile society and government in neo-pagan America, is the most urgent issue facing the Christian community in our country today. Tragically, because the lessons of Nazi Germany have not been learned, it is an item that is not even found on the church's agenda!"
Read the entire thing. It is well worth it.
Serious research has been done on the New Age movement for over 30 years now by Constance and others.
New Age ideas have infiltrated the thinking of many groups. In the mid'80s The Whole Again Resource Guide, a resource book on the New Age movement had over 3,200 listings.
As I've been researching and writing almost that long, perhaps if you have questions, some of us can point you in the right direction for answers.
I make specific allegations and you reply about related matters but do not address what I actually claimed. Or you discuss in general terms the work of one of my sources, Michael Phayer, although I was quoting him only about the names and actions of specific named Catholic priests in Bosnia. The burden of proof is on you to disprove those specific allegations. It is good that Pius snubbed Ante Pavelić, but why did he not rein in the Catholic priests collaborating with Pavelić to the point of terrorism in Croatia? Pius was the Pope, after all.
"are you seriously implying that if Pope Pius XII WROTE PUBLICLY against the Nazis more than he SPOKE PUBLICLY against the Nazis that somehow he didn't act appropriately?"
This is not to do with the difference between the spoken and the written word. You brought that in. It is to do with what Pius XII said/spoke in public rather than in private, once hostilities had begun and the Vatican might have been threatened.
"I will repeat what Bill Donohue said of Phayer's and Cornwell's respective biased "histories" - namely that Pope Pius XII's so-called "silence" during the war years is something which they both assumed without citing any substantiating evidence."
What would constitute evidence of silence? How about the failure of hundreds of Catholic scholars postwar, motivated to defend Pius, to find any such statement? I repeat my challenge to you to provide any public statement by Pius, written or spoken during fighting in the Italian theatre, that condemned the Germans/Nazis/Hitler/Berlin - something more specific than anti-war platitudes, something that Pius could not deny was aimed at the Nazis if a German diplomat were to utter threats to him.
"Regarding the ratlines - Wikipedia article notwithstanding - apparently you did not take the trouble to read the entire article I posted by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League"
There was far more ordained Catholic involvement in the ratlines - in Rome and elsewhere - than Bishop Hudal, who is all that Donohue mentions. The Wikipedia article makes that very clear. I am not suggesting that Pius ordered the ratlines, but the tone of an administration is set from the top and Catholic historians cannot wash Pius's hands of some of the responsibility.
Communication between people was not as easy as it is now. There was the telegraph before the telephone. There was radio. There were newsreels at movie theaters. As late as 1945 when I was a child, we had to use the corner grocery store for telephone calls. We had radio. I remember my parents chasing kids out of the room when Walter Winchell came out with war news on the radio. There were newspapers but all I remember about them was a crush on the newspaper boy who I got up early to see him delivering the newspaper and coaster wagon loads of newspaper to the school for newspaper drives. Even so, to know what was going on, it was through person to person more than anything else. I remember Bruno coming to visit on leave. He was a handsome young relative who came to visit in his uniform and who died in the war. I remember other family relatives who came in their navy uniforms. I remember dancing and singing in USO shows. I remember being frightened by masses of airplanes who passed over going to a nearby airport. I remember many other things. What I wonder is how the average person who has no clue now what is going on could have known enough then what was going on behind the scenes to make wise comments. We all make decisions based on what we know. And that goes for every person in every group. Everyone from Pope, King President, etc. will only make decisions on what they know, not what they might learn in the future.
Re:What would constitute evidence of silence?
Exactly! But since it is Pius XII's critics like Phayer who assume the "silence" on the part of Pius XII and "postulate motives to fit that alleged reality, without proving that such motives existed," the burden of proof is on those who are making the allegations, not those of us who defend Pope Pius XII.
Furthermore, those of us who defend Pope Pius XII feel that if he was "silent," it was for a good reason and don't feel ourselves obliged to apologize for any prudential judgements he may have made in his dealings with the Nazis during the war.
But more to your point, I am reminded of what C.S. Lewis once described as "invisible cat logic."
"A belief in invisible cats cannot be logically disproved," he said, although it does "tell us a good deal about those who hold it".
Re:This is not to do with the difference between the spoken and the written word. You brought that in. It is to do with what Pius XII said/spoke in public rather than in private, once hostilities had begun and the Vatican might have been threatened.
The ones who seem to be most obsessed with the issue of what Pope Pius XII said/spoke in public as opposed to what he wrote publicly or did are his detractors who glom onto the "silence" issue for want of a better opportunity to calumniate him.
I also responded to your specific allegations about Croatia by linking you to an exerpt from the writings of Ronald Rychlak who has written what is regarded by many as the definitive defense of Pius XII.
Regarding the Croatia issue, you said:
You have not challenged my details from Phayer about the active role of Catholic priests in atrocities in wartime Bosnia. A few years later Pius gave a red hat to the man who was the Vatican's top man there at that time.
The following is Ronald Rychlak's response to similar allegations made by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen - another of Pope Pius XII's detractors:
Goldhagen’s treatment of Croatia is similarly egregious. The slaughters committed against Serbs and Jews are well documented, and the collaboration of some members of the Catholic clergy is rightly condemned. But postwar Communist propaganda, now acknowledged by all reputable scholars to have been fabricated, is the original source of the allegations against Pope Pius XII and most of the higher-ranking Catholic clergy in Croatia. The Holy See actually filed several protests and papal interventions.
In October 1942, a message went out from the Vatican to its representatives in Zagreb regarding the “painful situation that spills out against the Jews in Croatia” and instructing them to petition the government for “a more benevolent treatment of those unfortunates.” The Cardinal Secretary of State’s notes reflect that Vatican petitions were successful in getting a suspension of “dispatches of Jews from Croatia” by January 1943, but Germany was applying pressure for “an attitude more firm against the Jews.” Another instruction from the Holy See to its representatives in Zagreb directing them to work on behalf of the Jews went out on March 6, 1943.
Croatian Archbishop Alojzij Stepinac, after having received direction from Rome, condemned the brutal actions of the government. A speech he gave on October 24, 1942 is typical of many that he made refuting Nazi theory:
All men and all races are children of God; all without distinction. Those who are Gypsies, black, European, or Aryan all have the same rights. . . . For this reason, the Catholic Church had always condemned, and continues to condemn, all injustice and all violence committed in the name of theories of class, race, or nationality. It is not permissible to persecute Gypsies or Jews because they are thought to be an inferior race.
The Associated Press reported that “by 1942 Stepinac had become a harsh critic” of the Nazi puppet regime, condemning its “genocidal policies, which killed tens of thousands of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and Croats.” He thereby earned the enmity of the Croatian dictator, Ante Pavelic. (When Pavelic traveled to Rome, he was greatly angered because he was denied the diplomatic audience he had wanted.)
On October 13, 1946, when the postwar Communist authorities tried to concoct a case against Archbishop Stepinac, American Jewish leader Louis Braier stated:
This great man of the Church has been accused of being a Nazi collaborator. We, the Jews, deny it. He is one of the few men who rose in Europe against the Nazi tyranny precisely at the moment when it was most dangerous. He spoke openly and fearlessly against the racial laws. After His Holiness, Pius XII, he was the greatest defender of the persecuted Jews in Europe.
Despite the defense, as well as protests from Pope Pius XII, Stepinac was convicted and sentenced to sixteen years of hard labor. Due to protests and indignation throughout the democratic world, and Jewish testimony as to the good work he had done, he was moved to house arrest in 1951. Almost immediately, Pope Pius XII raised him to the cardinalate.
One of the first acts of parliament in the newly independent state of Croatia in 1992 was to issue a declaration condemning “the political trial and sentence passed on Cardinal Alojzij Stepinac in 1946.” Stepinac was condemned, declared the parliament, “because he had acted against the violence and crimes of the Communist authorities, just as he had acted during the whirlwind of atrocities committed in World War II, to protect the persecuted, regardless of . . . national origin or religious denomination.”
Ignoring all the facts, Goldhagen ends his grossly inaccurate portrait of Croatia by making another outrageous error: “Forty thousand . . . perished under the unusually cruel reign of ‘Brother Satan,’ the Franciscan friar Miroslav Filopovic-Majstorovic. Pius XII neither reproached nor punished him . . . during or after the war.”
Actually, the so-called “Brother Satan” was tried, defrocked, and expelled from the Franciscan order before the war ended. In fact, his expulsion occurred in April 1943, before he ran the extermination camp (April-October 1943). For Pius XII to have punished him “after the war” would have been difficult indeed. Goldhagen must be unaware that this renegade priest was executed by the Communists in 1945. Many other Croatian priest-collaborators were also punished by the Church (though Goldhagen overstates the number of such priests). All of this is well documented in the archives of the Franciscans, the Croatian archives, and depositions regarding Stepinac’s beatification.
Once again, Goldhagen has attempted to indict Pius by telling the reader the very reverse of the truth. This is explicable only as a premeditated defamation of the wartime Pope and of Catholic people in general.
By the way, just to set things straight, some of your comments are addressed to another "anonymnous."
How do you know Phayer assumed it? So as not to wreck his professional reputation (strong motivation for a scholar) he would obviously have searched for public statements made by Pius XII during the war that unequivocally condemned the Nazis and not just the "horrors of war". That would include both written and spoken statements, of course. A public statement means something released to the public so that they - millions of people - become aware of it. Common means of release include the media, such as newspapers (written) or radio (spoken).
Neither Catholic scholars who wish to defend Pius, not scholars hostile to his reputation who wish to avoid making false allegations and looking foolish, have found anything. Disproving the existence of invisible cats is a false analogy. After 50 years of non-appearance of any wartime public condemnation the only rational conclusion is that Pius released nothing to the public domain during hostilities that was unambiguously adverse to the Nazis.
So Pius was silent at the time he could have made a difference. Why? You quote that Pius' critics "postulate motives to fit that alleged reality, without proving that such motives existed". I have not claimed to know his motives, but several fit the facts, including desire to prevent Catholics living under Nazi occupation or in Germany getting persecuted; fear that the Nazis would sack Vatican City and loot it of treasure and records, as Napoleon did; fear for his own skin if that happened.
Much as I would like to know whether Pius was willing to die for Christ as Christ had died for him, we cannot know. But uncertainty about motive cuts both ways. Just as Pius' critics cannot prove the second and third of these, his defenders cannot disprove them. We can agree that the first motive would have been taken into account by Pius. But a man occupying a great position sometimes faces a time of trial, and the silence of the man claiming to be Europe's greatest moral authority during Europe's greatest evil is unconscionable. I have already pointed out the possible effects of a public condemnation followed by persecution of the Vatican: a shift in the sentiments of German Catholic soldiers and most Italians; a shift in the attitudes of Catholic neutrals like Ireland, Spain and the Latin American countries, all of whom had strategically crucial coastlines that could have been made available to the Allies. Had the war ended earlier then the Iron Curtain would have descended further east and the Holocaust would have claimed fewer victims. And the reputation of Pius would shine today among Catholics and non-Catholics alike. How many converts would a persecuted Pope have subsequently attracted? A church father said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.
You quote Rychlak about a book by Daniel Goldhagen, who shot to fame with "Hitler's Willing Executioners" about the German people: "Goldhagen’s treatment of Croatia is similarly egregious. The slaughters committed against Serbs and Jews are well documented, and the collaboration of some members of the Catholic clergy is rightly condemned."
So nobody appears to be denying that collaboration, or the names I quoted from Phayer. It is a basic principle of corporate responsibility that the man at the top shares responsibility. Pius could avoid that responsibility only by insisting on the defrocking of those men and verifying that it occurred. I hope he did.
Allies Urged Pope Pius XII
British, US Document Unearthed
ROME, MAY 17, 2011 - The United States and Great Britain discouraged Pope Pius XII from speaking out against Nazi brutality, warning the Pope that a public protest could have grave consequences.
The Allies' recommendation is reported in a document unearthed recently by the New York-based Pave the Way Foundation, founded by an American Jew, Gary Krupp.
Krupp asserted that these revelations help to give context for the way in which Pius XII handled the Nazi horror.
The document is correspondence between the British representative to the Holy See, Sir D'Arcy Osborne, and Myron Taylor, his U.S. counterpart.
A Nov. 7, 1944, note signed by Taylor's assistant, Franklin C. Gowen, reports to Taylor that Osborne "called and said that he feared the Holy Father may make Radio appeal on behalf of Jews in Hungary and that in his appeal he may also criticise what the Russians are doing in occupied territory."
"Sir D'Arcy said something should be done to prevail upon the Pope not to do this," the note added, "as it would have very serious political repercussions."
Krupp showed ZENIT another note between the envoys' offices that references a letter about help for Jewish refugees. The note "clearly states that the letter must be destroyed in order to prevent it from falling into enemy hands," Krupp said.
Osborne wrote the May 20, 1944, note to Harold Tittman, another of Taylor's assistants.
The British representative tells the U.S. envoy's assistant that he will destroy the letter, saying that if it were to fall into enemy hands it would incriminate a priest called Father Benedetto.
Krupp observed that the destruction of documents was necessarily common during the war. "There are some critics who do not seem to understand that this is why so many written orders also had to be destroyed," Krupp noted.
Anonymous 10:32A.M. and 12:11P.M.
This is not purely a "Catholic vs. Protestant" debate per se.
The debate over Pope Pius XII's alleged "silence" during the war against Hitler has a great deal to do with the New Age Movement since the socialists and communists who originated the so-called "Hitler's Pope Myth" are not only the political wing of the New Age Movement but are also continuing in their efforts to hijack the Holocaust and deploy it in the service of their own agenda by driving a wedge between the Jewish people/Israel and the Pope.
Whatever the government of the state of Israel has become since her rebirth after the end of World War II, according to Rabbi Marvin Antelman and others, it was originally thought by the Soviets that the newly created state of Israel would embrace socialism. However, when Israel cast her lot with the Western democracies, Stalin's nose was severely put out of joint and it was not long before Stalin, who was worse than Hitler, devised his nefarious plot to discredit Pope Pius XII by portraying him as an anti-Semitic Nazi sympathizer after it became clear that Pope Pius XII put Stalin and Soviet Communsm in the same class as Hitler and National Socialism - especially vis a vis his encyclical to the Church in Ukraine.
Those who continue to calumniate Pope Pius XII are simply continuing to do the dirty work begun by Stalin and his apparatchik secundos and continued by their spawn in the socialist political wing of the new Age Movement.
There are plenty of books, shows, movies and news stories alleging that Pius was “Hitler’s Pope,” but there is not a single piece of hard, primary evidence proving that this new image of Pius was not born in Moscow. There is, however, plenty of hard evidence proving that the portrayal of Pius XII as Hitler’s Pope was born in Moscow. In order to find and recognize this evidence, however, one should be familiar with the Kremlin’s very secret “science” of changing the past in order to suit current priorities.
In KGB jargon, changing the past was called “framing,” and it was a highly classified disinformation specialty. Because of those KGB framings, there are today few things more difficult for Russian and Western historians — including professor Michman — than to predict Russia’s past.....Read more:
Thank you for that information. I am going to do my best to verify it. If it is true then I shall revise my opinions. To what extent I cannot say, but in the meanwhile I withdraw from the debate and I shall not repeat those opinions until I have learned more. What you say is evidently not well known, and if true it deserves to be much better known. Where did you get it from? Do we know that the Allies' views were communicated to Pius?
The anti-Pius party
It is reported by Anon@2.59pm that Pius wished to speak out publicly against the Holocaust in November 1944 but was prevented by the Allies. Evidence is a letter of that date between US and UK diplomats to the Vatican saying that Pius should not do so.
Context is all-important in evaluating this claim, as follows.
First, Rome was liberated by the Allies in June 1944. So any intent by Pius to speak out was cost-free to his person and to the Vatican itself. There was no risk of any statement eliciting persecution from the Nazis.
and search the page for "Osborne". You will find two stories. The first story, by John L Allen Jr of the National Catholic Reporter on Feb 02, 2010, speaks of a conversation between Pius and a British envoy in which the Pope discusses balancing criticism of the Nazi crackdown on Jews in Hungary with also speaking out against Soviet war crimes in Poland and the Baltic states. That is the context for the second story, the letter between US and UK diplomats to the Vatican urging that Pius not make such a broadcast. In this context it is clear that Pius was not willing to speak out publicly and unconditionally against the Nazi genocide perpetrated on the Jews, even after there was no risk to the Vatican, and that if he insisted on 'balance' by also mentioning Soviet war crimes then the Allies would prefer him to remain silent than include criticism of their ally against Germany, the Soviet Union. Let us remember that there was a war to be won and that more than 2/3 of the Wehrmacht went down on the Eastern Front. This letter does NOT show Pius longing to criticise Nazi atrocities but being restrained by the perfidious Allies.
Third, go back to the John Allen Jr story at the weblink above and read the interview with Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, a veteran Vatican diplomat who early in his career served under Pius XII. It shows that Pius was aware that Catholic speaking out against Nazi persecution of Jews had been counter-productive in Holland. But that was the Dutch bishops speaking, not the Pope who could reach into the hearts of most of Mussolini's and many of Hitler's troops, and whose persecution would have instantly changed the attitudes of Catholic neutrals such as Ireland, Spain and Latin American nations, all having strategically vital coastlines. Furthermore Silvestrini states clearly that Pius was deeply concerned about the fate of the Vatican - a constraint which prevented him - by claim Europe's greatest moral authority - from speaking out about its greatest evil.
I would have been glad if that letter had been a game-changer and Pius came out smelling of roses. As it is, I stand by the view that history found him wanting, for reasons which I have set out above.
In criticising Pius I am most certainly not a dupe of Moscow. You are setting up a false dichotomy: either pro-Stalin and anti-Pius, or pro-Pius and anti-Stalin. But it is possible to have an adverse opinion of both - Stalin for obvious reasons (indeed he was as monstrous as Hitler) and Pius for the reasons I have set out earlier in this thread.
You talk of "debate over Pope Pius XII's alleged "silence" during the war". Yes, I allege it. Specifically, that when the Vatican was at risk from the Germans he - supposedly the conscience of Europe - made no personal public unambiguous denunciation of their activities, only "horrors of war" stuff. Why do I 'allege' this? Because in 50 years of intense debate, involving on one side Catholics who would love to find such a statement, and on the other side people who do not wish to look foolish by making readily refutable claims, no such denunciation has been found by either side. The rational conclusion is that Pius made no such denunciation, is it not?
You use the tired phrase "Hitler's Pope". The debate has moved on. For the third time, none of my information or views are based on John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope, which is an unreliable source. Is that clear yet?
I thought I posted the link, but I cannot find it here. Sorry. Here it is again. Scroll down to the picture of Pope Benedict XVI at Pope Pius XII's tomb to read the entire article.
Regarding your question:Do we know that the Allies' views were communicated to Pius?
All we have to go by are the available documents such as the one just mentioned which indicates that the Allies' views were communicated to Pius. We must also bear in mind that documents about Pius XII's war activities may very well have been destroyed by Stalin's minions as part of a historical revisionist strategy designed to make history appear to fit the "Hitler's Pope" narrative.
The document discovered by Gary Krupp is available on the Pave the Way foundation website. You have to register to log in, but registration is free.
I certainly cannot fault you for your wanting to verify the facts.
Even if you do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope I think that your sense of justice would preclude your wanting to see him or any other person unjustly calumniated.
At one time Pave the Way founder, Gary Krupp, who is Jewish, hated Pope Pius XII on account of the "Hitler's Pope" myth......that is, until he started his Pave the Way Foundation and began discovering documents that exposed the "Hitler's Pope" myth for the lie that it is.
As one person put it, if Pope Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope," then Pius XII sure fooled Hitler!
Anonymous 3:54 P.M.
How a Strategy of "Silence" Saved Thousands of Jews
Documents and Testimonies Point to Pius XII's Efforts
May 25, 2010
NEW YORK, May 25, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The Pave the Way Foundation has initiated a document retrieval project to reveal as much information and as many testimonies as possible regarding the papacy of Pope Pius XII, the World War II Pontiff, in order to break the academic "log jam" caused by the lack of publicly available information.
New findings have revealed documents and testimony, which clearly show that on Oct. 16, 1943, it was the intentional lack of a public denunciation by Pope Pius XII against the arrest of the Roman Jews, which saved their lives and enabled their rescue...read more...
Lots to talk about. Join me and be part of the on air and chatroom conversation in the morning!
I quite agree with you that there are bigger battles than the Protestant/Catholic debate.
Moreover, the New Age strategy was to pit target groups which include Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Moslems (all monotheists) off against each other so we can have our conflagration and they can EMERGE as the Phoenix from our hoped for ashes. I don't believe in playing into that strategy.
Absolutely OUTSTANDING information. I would love to get my hands on a copy of the document referenced, should it still exist and was not destroyed as was suggested it should be.
I am the party critical of Pius here. I do applaud his efforts to save the Jews of Rome, and likewise many Catholic bishops throughout occupied Europe in their dioceses. My criticism is that Pius acted like one of those bishops yet he was not merely a bishop but Pope, who by virtue of his position is a potential player on a much bigger stage. It is on that larger stage that I consider history found him wanting.
The story you link to shows that the Nazis WERE frightened of the consequences of persecuting Pius/the Vatican. (Hitler wasn't but he had lost all sense of reality once he invaded the Soviet Union, as senior Nazis were aware.) But Pius never used the leverage that this and his position gave him, in a game of poker against them which could have shortened the war. In diplomacy as in poker, you have to be prepared to take risks.
Incidentally there is something in that story which I don't understand:
"Handwritten minutes exist, which state that on Sept. 6, 1943, Pius XII secretly called the cardinals together to tell them the Vatican would be invaded and he would be taken to the north and probably killed. The cardinals were to be prepared to leave for a neutral country immediately, upon the invasion of Vatican territory. He also signed a letter of resignation, and placed it in his desk. He instructed the cardinals to form a government in exile and to elect a new Pope once they were safe."
Even if they were tipped off about the timing of an invasion of Vatican City, I do not believe that several dozen men could escape it and then elude a manhunt in Nazi-occupied Italy to regather elsewhere (Spain?) Pius must have known that. This throws the account into some question.
Also, they wouldn't have to go overland, they could be on some fishing boat or something.
And yes, those in power DID know who to look for when the Nazis were running. Full dossiers on most of them. That doesn't mean such an effort to escape would have succeeded, but that it would be considered possible in the event of some attack.
However, why expect such a necessity if he wasn't about to stick his neck out, and then got persuaded otherwise?
Bhubaneswar, India (CNN) -- People in eastern India were waiting for morning light to reveal the extent of devastation from Tropical Cyclone Phailin, which made landfall Saturday night with winds of 140 mph -- the strongest storm to hit India in 14 years.
The center of the storm crossed the coast around 9 p.m. (11:30 a.m. ET) in eastern Odisha state, along the Bay of Bengal, based on images from satellite and radar.
Hurricanes are known as cyclones in the Indian Ocean, and the wind speed made it equivalent to a Category 4 hurricane.
India evacuated more than a half-million people in advance of the storm, in the hopes of avoiding a repetition of what happened 1999, when a cyclone claimed 10,000 lives.
I'm Anon Christine, you are guessing. In any case, it's not how much you've read but what you make of it.
I hope that the papal encyclical to the Church in Ukraine is the document you were referring to. If not, please clarify. In the meantime the exerpt from the following article was published in the National Catholic Register which is a news service of EWTN.
Claims that Pius XII Was Framed Gaining Support (9314)
Former Romanian spy chief discusses how the myth of 'Hitler's Pope' started with Stalin.
by EDWARD PENTIN 08/13/2012
....I hope professor Michman will read our upcoming book. It contains solid, primary evidence documenting how the immense KGB disinformation machinery was able to flip the image of Pius XII from lily white to coal black — just as it flipped the image of Ceausescu in reverse.
The changing of Pius XII’s past was a long, drawn-out framing operation that began in 1945 and had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Stalin — who came from Georgia, where the Jews had been serfs until 1871, and who had framed millions of Russians as Zionist spies — cared nothing about the Holocaust. All he cared about was his own image. And, in 1945, Stalin was on the top of the world.
On May 8, 1945, Nazi Germany capitulated to the Allies, who now included the Soviet Union. Once denied diplomatic relations with most of the free world, Stalin could now join the exclusive victors’ club. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he was ready to take on the world.
There was one more enemy Stalin wanted to defeat: the Ukrainian Catholic Church — the last Vatican enclave in the Soviet Union. Those Churches were beholden to another father, Pope Pius XII, and Stalin refused to even consider allowing any rival to interfere with his absolute reign. Therefore, he resorted to his tried and tested weapon of framing. The very prominent [Ukrainian Greek] Catholic archbishop of Lvov, Joseph Slipyj, and most of Ukraine’s bishops, including Gregory Chomysyn, John Laysevskyi, Nicolas Carneckyi and Josaphat Kocylovskyi, were framed by Stalin’s political police as “Nazi collaborators.” All were sent to jail or slave-labor camps. Some 500 Ukrainian Catholic priests were sent, without trial, to gulags — officially phrased as “destination unknown for political reasons.”
Pius XII answered by issuing an encyclical (Orientales Omnes Ecclesias) to the faithful in Ukraine, assuring them that “God will do justice” and that “in his loving kindness he will himself calm this terrible storm and finally bring it to an end.”
Stalin took Pius XII’s encyclical as a declaration of war, and he answered as was his wont: framing Pius XII as a Nazi collaborator.
On June 3, 1945, Radio Moscow proclaimed that the leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, had been “Hitler’s Pope,” mendaciously insinuating that he had been an ally of the Nazis during World War II.
Radio Moscow’s insinuation fell flat as a pancake. Just the day before, on June 2, 1945, in an address to the sacred College of Cardinals that was broadcast on Vatican Radio, Pius XII condemned the “satanic specter of Nazism.”....read more.....
The encyclical sent to the Church in Ukraine by Pope Pius XII which so enraged Stalin was entitled Orientales Omnes Ecclesias Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, on 23rd December 1945, and you can read it here. Beginning with #55. Pope Pius XII begins to describe the plight of the Catholic Church in Ukraine under Stalin.
ORIENTALES OMNES ECCLESIAS
The following article describes how the KGB had a hand in the writing, rewriting and distribution of Rolf Hochhuth's play THE DEPUTY: A CHRISTIAN TRAGEDY - the play that came to embody the "Hitler's Pope" myth.
Pope Pius and the Myth of ‘Hitler’s Pope’
Part 2: Ex-KGB Officer Details Stalin’s Elaborate Plot
Annymous 7:46 To point to one individual as representing the fight against Nazism by the Catholic church is a very weak argument. So many Catholic clerics died standing up to the Nazis says much about the value of that religion. They died taking an active stand when others were quiet. They didn't have to except for their standards which were taught to them through their religious beliefs. Everyone should have done the same but didn't.
I am not a Catholic. I am an individuals who has taken the time to understand what went on.
Anonymous 7:46. It is obvious you know little about Catholicism. The College of Cardinals is composed of highly placed individuals from all over the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Cardinals
They did not rise in the ranks because of age or simply because of their connection to Catholic beliefs. You can bet they are politically very aware of what is going on in their particular countries. The Catholic church is a political organization as well as a religious one. It could not help but be that because the Vatican is in the position of gathering information from all across the world. Because of this each cardinal has his own set of contacts and could have found methods of escape.
The Nazis had planned for the future and escapes before the war ended. They found people who were willing to take chances for their beliefs and money. Those who wanted to escape from the Vatican probably had access to those who were willing to take chances but for other beliefs.
The Catholic church as a unit has no army. When confronted with brute force, it must use other tactics.
As far as speaking out, every group, including Jews, did not do a stellar job. Every group had many individuals who had excuses for not speaking out or believing what they were told. The same people who are warning about the New Age movement are the same types who were warning about what was coming with the Nazis. Does that sound far fetched? Well anyone who has studied the New Age movement knows that the beliefs of the Nazis are the same beliefs as those of New Age followers. Oh, the violent behavior isn't there. But if all one is concerned about is the physical violence of the Nazis and not what caused it, they have no excuse when control becomes total and freedom is lost.
Let me suggest you get Children of the New Age by Steven Sutcliffe. It comes from someone who describes the movement with names of individuals and organizations. On the back it is described as "a much needed and necessary history of New Age phenomena, impressive, sensible and insightful. This book will stand out." Professor Daniel Wojcik, University of Oregon. Routledge 2003. There are sixteen pages of notes and the bibliography is 16 pages.
Sutcliffe is a Research Fellow in Religioius Studies at the University of Stirling.
Oh this book won't tell you the entire picture. You will learn that the movement does exist, has a history, and is quite extensive.
Before anyone takes a stand against the movement, they have to realize it actually exists.
I am sure others can state this better than I can, but many get their monotheistic religious views strengthened because they start to see a pattern in the movement that their religious beliefs tell them is dangerous. Their religious beliefs have a much longer history and have stood the test of time.
Emory Buddist science
Cognitively based compassion training
I won't give more because I'm sure Constance will be writing about this, and it's her research.
Brand new to me. I never would have come across it on my own.
Common Core, which parents all over the country are fighting is a federal education program which is taking all power away from parents and local schools. While it presents itself as an advanced and harder way of education to make students more competitive globally, in reality it is a program that is training students to be good passive global citizens. The funding is coming from the Gates Foundation. That Foundation was listed in the list of groups connected with Lucis Trust's New Group of World Servers. Robert Muller of Lucis Trust and the UN had been promoting a World Core Curriculum which seems to have parallels with Common Core.
Back in the '80s students couldn't get through any public school without being introduced to the Lottery by Shirley Jackson. In the story, students heard that somewhere because of religion that a group followed, every year someone had to be stoned to death so the crops would grow. That led to a discussion of whether religion could be dangerous.
Another thing they were introduced to was the Lifeboat scenario. The challenge was to see which six of ten people would have access to a lifeboat that could only hold six people. The people were all described by age, profession, gender, and I forget what else. The children had to pick the six. My son got the teacher mad because he insisted that it was necessary to figure out how all could be saved and he wanted to know who was stupid enough to send out a boat with not enough lifeboats. Got the teacher mad.
Now, making the news is a game that the concerned parents called a Death Panel game. The students are told there is only enough medical equipment to save I think it was six of ten people. Ages, gender, profession, medical condition (disability) number of children, etc. are given. The students have to decide which should be saved.
The school is saying that they are only trying to teach the students about their biases. I'm sure you can check out by putting "Illinois School gives students a Death Panel Assignment" in a websearch. Many places are carrying the story.
I also posted at 3:01 P.M.
This in reference to my 2:59 P.M. post
The documents discovered by Gary Krupp were in reference to the letter being discussed which was very likely destroyed for obvious reasons.
The document referencing the letter is reportedly available at the Pave the Way Foundation.
Re: I am the party critical of Pius here. I do applaud his efforts to save the Jews of Rome, and likewise many Catholic bishops throughout occupied Europe in their dioceses. My criticism is that Pius acted like one of those bishops yet he was not merely a bishop but Pope, who by virtue of his position is a potential player on a much bigger stage. It is on that larger stage that I consider history found him wanting.
It was Stalin's - and later Kruschev's - historical revisionism and disinformation that "found him wanting." Up until his death, Pope Pius XII had a very good reputation and there were very very few who found him "wanting."
As a much bigger player on a much bigger stage, he not only did everything he could to save the Jews of Rome, but also ordered the bishops under his authority in other Nazi occupied countries to do all they could to save the Jews as well.
The so-called "silence" of Pope Pius XII is the canard which not only serves as the central theme of Rolf Hochhuth's play The Deputy, but also serves as the central theme for others who have - to their own everlasting shame - written books promoting the myth of "Hitler's Pope."
Moreover, the speeches Pope Pius XII did deliver over Vatican Radio on Christmas 1941 and on Christmas 1942 very soon after the beginning of the "Final Solution" denouncing the extermination of people on the basis of race this it won greater praise from the New York Times in 1941 and 1942 than it did from his critics in the 1960's and beyond.
NYTimes editorials on Pius XII from 1941 and 1942
800,000 Saved by Pius XII’s ‘Silence’
But Pius XII's Christmas addresses notwithstanding, there is documentary evidence indicating that another reason for the Pope's so-called "silence" is due to the fact that the United States and Great Britain discouraged Pope Pius XII from speaking out against Nazi brutality, warning the Pope that a public protest could have grave consequences.
Re:In diplomacy as in poker, you have to be prepared to take risks.
But diplomacy is not poker - especially when the stakes are not poker chips, but innocent human lives.
The material was EXPLICIT and DETAILED. There are no options of what to make of it, only how to apply it in your own situation if you need such skills in some circumstance. It included personal accounts of experience. Also more recent application instructions in terms of how to survive riots and whatnot. Principles remain the same.
Oh, the violent behavior isn't there.
But if all one is concerned about is the physical violence of the Nazis and not what caused it, they have no excuse when control becomes total and freedom is lost."
Regarding The Lottery, I never read the book but I saw the movie. Now, the irony of using this is, that the movie describes (and I assume the book does also) a village that is only NOMINALLY Christian. But it has in practice gone for a throwback to human sacrifice practicing paganism, where once a year I think it was, someone was chosen to die, so that crops would do well.
Frankly, this is an indictment of nominal Christianity of the sort that is socially proper, goes to church, has a preacher with a Bible, etc. etc. but in REALITY these are externals, and play no part in the soul of the community, or the individual of this sort, and DEFINITELY DOES NOT PLAY A ROLE IN DEALING WITH PRACTICAL PROBLEMS.
By practical problems I mean, is there a crop failure looming? Pray to God. If that doesn't work in the form of unexplicable improvement, or in the form of weather change or information on dealing with the crops coming to them, DO NOT DO PAGAN SACRIFICES. Examine the sins of the community (that is, private individual activities and thoughts must be dragged out into the open, forget privacy.) Cleanse the community, maybe God will turn His wrath from them.
Or, it may be that it is not God's will for them to stuff themselves so much, or it is not God's will they use that crop, do something else.
Adapt and especially try to determine God's will and adapt to that. Or if it be something that might mean you need to fight a situation looming, do so, but not as opposing God but opposing the trial He has allowed.
But The Lottery shows what happens (if not in that form then another) when people do NOT take this approach to life.
The New Age use I am sure is to argue that religion in general and Christianity in particular makes all this trouble, the sacrifice yearly is a symbol of the sacrifice of workers and soldiers and populace to wars brought on by religion, blah blah.
Yet the story really shows what can happen when God is NOT central in the individual, and therefore in the community, life.
Within a week, Jose and Lloydine arrived in Costa Rica on the seventh anniversary
of the Harmonic Convergence, August 16, 1994, with only sixty dollars in their pockets.
Fortunately, Jose managed to contact the only person he knew in the country, Robert
Muller (whom he had first met in 1988), a long-time Chancellor of the United Nations
University for Peace and former assistant Secretary General of the United Nations. Muller's
underlying philosophy about the United Nations was based on the teachings of Tibetan
teacher, Djwal Khul as put forth by Alice Bailey. Khul was described as an ascended master
who imparted knowledge to Bailey through telepathic transn:iissions.
Interestingly, a significant biblical prophecy about the antichrist/end time dictator and his cohorts as written by the Prophet Daniel was "He shall think to change TIMES and LAWS."
The verdict of history takes time. Given that Pius XII was anti-communist - good for him too - Stalin was obviously going to unleash his propaganda department against him. The question, 60 years on, is: was there any truth in the smears?
Today there appears to be another smear campaign: to tar anybody critical of Pius, regardless of scholarship, as a 'useful idiot' of the Kremlin.
Since the book "The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965", the historian Michael Phayer has written another, "Pius XII, the Holocaust and the Cold War". In its Introduction he states that he has revised some of his views since the earlier book. He did so because more information became available: the entire US State Department archive on US-Vatican relations of the time, and selected (NB) documents from the era released by the Vatican. Some of the latter have entered the discussion on this thread in criticism of Phayer, by people who apparently do not keep track of publication dates of books and records.
"The so-called "silence" of Pope Pius XII is the canard"
Qualifiers like "so-called" and inverted comas around "silence" cannot alter the key fact: Nobody in 60 years of controversy has found or recalled any public statement (verbal or written) by Pius, condemning the Nazis and their genocidal actions in terms that could not be denied to a Nazi diplomat uttering threats to the Vatican, during the time that Rome was in fascist hands. What else to conclude than that Pius made no such statement?
Neither side can know his motivations, but that cuts both ways. Suggestions that the Allies didn't want him to speak out against the Nazis relate to a speech he wished to make AFTER Rome was in Allied hands and the danger to the Vatican was past, in which he naively also wanted to criticise the actions of one of the Allies (Russia) while fighting was still going on.
Does that silence matter? Pius was the one man who could reach into the hearts of many Italian and German troops. Any persecution of him would have altered the attitudes of Catholic neutrals like Ireland, Spain and Latin America, all having strategically vital coastlines. Let each of us decide whether this silence outweighs the good that Vatican City did for the Jews of Rome. I believe it does, because inaction in the face of the enemy is culpable when you could make a difference. Ask any Army Officer. The same principle applies in spiritual warfare as in physical, as the Bible makes clear; and Pius could have made a difference.
"But diplomacy is not poker - especially when the stakes are not poker chips, but innocent human lives."
The entire Cold War and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which kept the West free until the Soviets blinked was based on the poker model.
That kind of statement that is a non statement is called romanita, the sneaky way of speaking that says something and nothing at the same time, gives plausible deniability and usually helps evil more than it helps good.
People who develop this game without exposure to roman diplomacy are many, and you have to nail them on exactitude and meaning and so forth and leave them no wiggle room.
Apparently Pius XII disapproved of the Nazis to judge by his actions, but his words were sneaky as typical of Rome in many matters. This is not a good way to operate, not at all like Jesus operated while on earth.
But this also means that those who understood this would get the message they were to only give the Nazis moderate cooperation and were free to blame them for anything and everything.
Obamacare: More Than a Glitch
Re: In criticising Pius I am most certainly not a dupe of Moscow. You are setting up a false dichotomy: either pro-Stalin and anti-Pius, or pro-Pius and anti-Stalin. But it is possible to have an adverse opinion of both - Stalin for obvious reasons (indeed he was as monstrous as Hitler) and Pius for the reasons I have set out earlier in this thread.......
You use the tired phrase "Hitler's Pope". The debate has moved on. For the third time, none of my information or views are based on John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope, which is an unreliable source. Is that clear yet?
Nice try. How very Saul Alinsky-ish of you accusing others of the same thing that you are doing yourself. YOU are the one setting up a false dichotomy by trying to separate the so-called "silence" of Pope Pius XII from the "Hitler's Pope" myth.
The "framing" strategy ( a.k.a. historical revisionism ) needed by the KGB to blacken the name of Pope Pius XII involved altering the meaning of the word "silence" when using it to describe Pope Pius XII so that it came to mean much more than simply not speaking. When used with reference to Pope Pius XII, it was weasel-worded to mean "cynical, uncaring witness to the atrocities of the Holocaust" - even "anti-Semitic" as Stalin tried to portray him.
Even if your information is not based on Cornwell's book, others who echo Cornwell with their "silence of Pius XII" twaddle are no prize either. Like Cornewll, the three authors who followed him, Gary Wills, Susan Zuccotti and James Carroll are lapsed Catholics or dissenting ones whose objectivity is questionable.
As for Pius XII's Jewish critic Daniel Goldhagen, knowledgeable Jews of a generation ago, especially survivors of the Holocaust, would have metaphorically tarred and feathered Goldhagen. As it is, Rabbi David G. Dalin does a good job of metaphorically tarring and feathering Goldhagen in his book, THE MYTH OF HITLER'S POPE.
My information is primarily based NOT on defenders of Pope Pius XII who happen to be Catholic, but on defenders of Pope Pius XII who happen to be JEWISH!!! .... and some of whom were actually Holocaust survivors......one of them the Chief Rabbi of Rome. What would you say to those survivors? Something like, "Who are you going to believe.....me or those lying eyes of yours?????"
These Jewish defenders of Pope Pius XII look upon the calumniators of Pope Pius XII with contempt - whether they happen to be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, socialists, atheists...... They see the continuing of the calumny after more than 40 years for what it is....."an assault on the institution of the Catholic Church and traditional religion." ( THE MYTH OF HITLER'S POPE by Orthodox Rabbi David G. Dalin c. 2005, page 3)
Rabbi Seeks To Dispel Myths About Pius XII
June 19, 2010 by John Rook
........While Pius XII is routinely criticized for not admonishing Hitler or the Nazis during the conflict, Silver and his team found that the Pope had spoken out against elements in the Third Reich on 40 different occasions.
But, Silver also concluded that there was good reason for Pope Pius XII to tone down his direct criticism of Hitler and the Nazis.
“The Nazis had a gun pointed at the Pope’s apartment and search lights were kept on all night, shining in the window,” said Silver. “So, you wanted the Pope to denounce them, considering that?
While Nazi troops did respect Vatican territory, Silver argues that such respect only went so far, and that a false step or two by the Pope might have prompted swift action.
In fact, the research conducted by the team Silver was on uncovered documents showing that Pius XII had already planned for his eventual detention by the Nazis, and had set up a plan of abdication, so that someone would take his place immediately following his apprehension.
The Righteous Gentile Who Became Hitler's Pope
After the war Von Ribbonthorpe testified at Nuremberg that he had desk full of the Pontiff's complaints on behalf of Jews. During the war Adolph Eichman wrote in his diary that efforts to exterminate Jews were being thwarted by the Pope, and he wished he could prove Vatican involvement.
The proof wanted was hard evidence that the Pope was inciting subordinates in Occupied Europe to thwart the round up and deportation of undesirables; was behind the procurement of valid and forged passports, of medical clearances and post-dated Baptismal certificates; and used the Vatican treasury to finance much of the enormous cost of these endeavors, including bribes to officials and payoffs to extortionists. Documentation of the fraud would release the Axis from lip service to the Vatican's status as a neutral state. Mussolini's foreign minister complained that Pius was "ready to let himself be deported to a concentration camp, rather than do anything against his conscience." Hitler wanted to enter the Vatican to "pack up that whole whoring rabble." Several plans were considered for kidnapping the Pope; others, for assassinating him. Looting art treasures would be an added bonus to the Reich.
The lack of proof that aggravated the Axis is the so-called silence that all anti-Catholic writers today use as their core argument that Pius XII was morally corrupt. In the November 25, 2008 internet edition of the The Jewish Ledger, Cindy Mindell describes efforts of Jewish leaders to re-think their biases. One convert is Rabbi Eric Silver of Temple Beth David in Cheshire, Connecticut.
Silver understands the horns of a dilemma, the very sharp, deadly horns ready to gore the Pope's domain of 110 acres, the smallest state in the world, that could field an army of twenty-two spear chucking Swiss guards. Just one goosestep outside the walls were Mussolini's Fascist soldiers then S.S. troops called in to prop up the dictator. Silver asks rhetorically, "People say, 'Why didn't the pope speak out? Dutch clergy ran up a trial balloon by speaking out, and immediately, 40,000 Dutch Jews were rounded up, including Edith Stein."
"With no records, it's easy to point to what he didn't do," Rabbi Silver is quoted. "But my question is this: Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out why there is no paper trail? Rome was occupied by the Nazis, there were German spies in the Vatican, so what would have happened if they had found physical evidence of the pope's actions? There is not a paper trail linking the Final Solution to Hitler. If you don't want to give credit to the pope because there was no paper trail, you can't blame Hitler for the Final Solution, because there was no paper trail there either."
In the July/August 2006 issue of The American Spectator, Sir Martin Gilbert, another Jewish historian, Winston Churchill's official biographer and author of ten books on the Holocaust, kicks off a favorable review of Rabbi Dalin's book ( THE MYTH OF HITLER'S POPE ) with these words:
"...I frequently receive requests from Jewish educators, seeking support for grant applications for their Holocaust programs. Almost all these applications include a sentence about how the new program will inform students that the Pope, and the Vatican, 'did nothing' during the Holocaust to help Jews."
Sir Gilbert goes on to say that this is a false portrayal. It is soundly debunked in Rabbi Dalin's book (THE MYTH OF HITLER'S POPE) which also gives the genesis of the distortion, an eight-hour German stage play called The Deputy.
PIUS XII SAVED MORE JEWS THAN SCHINDLER, RABBI SAYS
As long as you continue to use the tired Stalin/KGB revisionist phrase " silence of Pius XII," I will continue to use the phrase "Hitler's Pope myth." Because as Rabbi David Dalin and other Jewish defenders of Pope Pius XII make very clear, the "silence" of Pope Pius XII IS the Myth of Hitler's Pope! Is THAT clear yet?
Spoof on Obamacare rollout/coverage:
Obamacare: More Than a Glitch
I've been going over and over the chart.
Now when people ask; what is the New Age,
at least you won't have to explain that, for
starters, it's COMPLEX.
Just show them this tree chart.
Someone asked where Scientology is on the chart..
Just an oversight ?
Thank you once again Constance.
"But the "New Age" field as a whole is actually deficient in the typical features of NRM (New Religious Movements) and NSM (new social movements). It lacks a distinctive corporate body, a legislative mechanism, historical consciousness, organizational infrastructure, boundaries, and other indices of membership and belonging, and, crucially, unambiguous self-identity and concrete goals. The absence of these features sharply distinguishes "New Age" from the mass of post-1960s movements and associated fields of study to which the "New Age Movement" taxon confines it through a basic category mistake. This point becomes clearer if we contrast "New Age" with prominent NRMs such as the Church of Scientology, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness or the Unification Church. It is obvious that "New Age' lacks a founder like L. Ron Hubbard or Sun Myung Moon, has no corporate body to seek tax exemption or "religious" status (or which could qualify as a "church" or "society") has no equivalent conversion identity to the "Moonie", no dress code like the Krishna devotee's and no unique argot like Scientology's terminology of "clears" "thetans' and "orgs"..Certainly a few organisations tagged "New Age" might individually meet these criteria, such as Findhorn or the Lucis Trust, but that is an argument for qualification as a NRM or NSM, not for extrapolating from these very distinctive cases to a generic "movement".
If they presented a clear boundary quality like the typical cult, they would define themselves as something other than the target, alien to the target, and get the target's guard up.
When information easily gets mixed in with talk of Satan, the anti-Christ, end times, the need to be a Christian, that can work for people who are committed Christians, but it doesn't work for people who are more secular. Those people also need to be warned. When I reach out with information on New Age, I reach out to the widest audience that might be willing to listen.
What book would you suggest from your extensive library that gives a detailed picture of the New Age movement from an academic perspective, not overtly New Age and not from an overt critic?
It is perfectly possible to accuse Pius of silence without any "Hitler's Pope" baggage - if, for example, his motive was desire to protect the Vatican archives and treasures. I am not going to speculate on his motives, but this scenario shows that "silence of Pius" and "Hitler's Pope" are not equivalent so far as the anti-Pius camp goes.
"As long as you continue to use the tired Stalin/KGB revisionist phrase " silence of Pius XII," I will continue to use the phrase "Hitler's Pope myth." "
And I shall ask you for any public statement (verbal or written) by Pius, condemning the Nazis and their genocidal actions in terms that could not be denied to a Nazi diplomat uttering threats to the Vatican, during the time that Rome was in fascist hands. That is what I mean by 'silence', to be clear. I have asked several times here so far and no defender of Pius has come up with one, here or in the last 60 years. You would change my mind instantly, I assure you.
Yes, Pius saved more Jews than Schindler. I am glad, and gratitude is entirely appropriate from those Jews and from those who knew them. It's what Pius didn't do that is the deeper issue. He was the one man who could reach into the hearts of many Italian and German troops. Any persecution of him would have altered the attitudes of Catholic neutrals like Ireland, Spain and Latin America, all having strategically vital coastlines. Inaction in the face of the enemy is culpable in the military when you could make a difference. The same principle applies in spiritual battle, as the Bible makes clear.
"“The Nazis had a gun pointed at the Pope’s apartment and search lights were kept on all night, shining in the window,” said Silver. “So, you wanted the Pope to denounce them, considering that?"
Plenty of soldiers showed bravery of that magnitude on the battlefields of World War 2. Each of them made a difference on a small scale. Pius could have made a difference on a huge scale. The effect of a persecuted Pope on the strategic balance would, as I said, have been considerable, and as for a martyred one... History sometimes demands great things of a man in a great position, and I deeply regret that he did not rise to it. Had he done so, his name would be feted by all today. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.
I don't know if I would put Scientology up as part of New Age. There is fluid movement from one group to another in New Age. Scientology takes total control and allows no other connections.
While "When pulp novels did not prove lucrative enough, he moved into the burgeoning field of science fiction. He found his niche in Los Angeles among occultists and fellow fabulists,"...."Between the mid-1950s and mid-’60s, the Church of Scientology looked like many other conservative churches, stressing top-down leadership, strict obedience and traditional sexual morality. But no sooner had Time wondered “Is God Dead?” than Hubbard revamped for the Aquarian Age. Scientology went countercultural, promising a drug-free cosmic high. New members bought the vision and paid upfront for every step on the path."
"Scientology was recognized as an effective New Age operation in items in my library, e.g. THE AQUARIAN PATH, dating from the 1950's."
However I did find the Wikipedia article about Scientology very thorough and interesting.
Re:It is perfectly possible to accuse Pius of silence without any "Hitler's Pope" baggage - if, for example, his motive was desire to protect the Vatican archives and treasures. I am not going to speculate on his motives, but this scenario shows that "silence of Pius" and "Hitler's Pope" are not equivalent so far as the anti-Pius camp goes.
Sure it is possible if one wants to pretend that the Hitler's Pope myth does not exist because it has gotten such bad press. The "silence" issue did not arise independently of the disinformation that morphed into the Hitler's Pope myth so like it or not, the fact is that it is a seamless garment - or filthy rag - however you want to look at it.
Re:And I shall ask you for any public statement (verbal or written) by Pius, condemning the Nazis and their genocidal actions in terms that could not be denied to a Nazi diplomat uttering threats to the Vatican, during the time that Rome was in fascist hands. That is what I mean by 'silence', to be clear. I have asked several times here so far and no defender of Pius has come up with one, here or in the last 60 years. You would change my mind instantly, I assure you.
You can ask away. The "Hitler's Pope" myth is not about the presence or absence of documentary proof that the Pope spoke out publicly against the Nazis. Those who began the disinformation campaign and created the myth were quite certain there wasn't any. The myth had to do with what the absence of documentary evidence of any public statements was made to imply.....namely, the uncaring, cowardly "silence" of Pope Pius XII in the presence of Nazi atrocities.....the credibility of the myth depended on there being no paper trail. According to Stalin, it also depended on Pope Pius XII being dead so he could not defend himself. The ultimate "silence."
Fortunately, even if there is no documentary evidence to show that Pope Pius XII "talked the talk," there is nevertheless a mountain of evidence discovered by Jewish researchers to show that he "walked the walk."
However, I did mention Pope Pius XII's Christmas addresses on Vatican Radio in 1941 and 1942 which were highly praised by the New York Times and left no doubt in Hitler's mind that Pope Pius XII was referring to his Nazi regime and his genocidal activities.
In his 1942 Christmas message, Pius XII denounced the growing Holocaust. He cried out for the “hundreds of thousands who without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction."
The New York Times editorial (Dec. 25, 1942) was specific: “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.” The Pope's Christmas message was also interpreted in the Gestapo report: “In a manner never known before... the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order [Nazism]. It is true, 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. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews.”
Re:.. History sometimes demands great things of a man in a great position, and I deeply regret that he did not rise to it. Had he done so, his name would be feted by all today.
Go tell that to the survivors who owe their lives to Pope Pius XII.
Go tell that to the allied POW soldiers also hidden in Rome at great risk until they could get back to their units with the help of Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty the "Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican" who was acting on the orders of Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII didn't need to play by your rules to be feted. His name was feted by all at the time of his death....including the World Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee and Golda Maier who became the fourth Prime Minister of Israel.
In 1958, at the death of Pope Pius XII, Golda Meir, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, delivered a eulogy on behalf of the nation of Israel to the United Nations, stating: “We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. During a generation of wars and dissensions, he affirmed the high ideals of peace and compassion. During the 10 years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims. The life of our time has been enriched by a voice which expressed the great moral truths above the tumults of daily conflicts. We grieve over the loss of a great defender of peace.”
“Pius XII and the Jews,” By historian and Rabbi David G. Dalin
... Given the recent attacks, the time has come for a new defense of Pius—because, despite allegations to the contrary, the best historical evidence now confirms both that Pius XII was not silent and that almost no one at the time thought him so.
In January 1940, for instance, the pope issued instructions for Vatican Radio to reveal "the dreadful cruelties of uncivilized tyranny" the Nazis were inflicting on Jewish and Catholic Poles. Reporting the broadcast the following week, the Jewish Advocate of Boston praised it for what it was: an "outspoken denunciation of German atrocities in Nazi Poland, declaring they affronted the moral conscience of mankind." The New York Times editorialized: "Now the Vatican has spoken, with authority that cannot be questioned, and has confirmed the worst intimations of terror which have come out of the Polish darkness." In England, the Manchester Guardian hailed Vatican Radio as "tortured Poland's most powerful advocate." ...
In March 1935, he wrote an open letter to the bishop of Cologne calling the Nazis "false prophets with the pride of Lucifer." ...
The Nazis were "diabolical," he told friends privately. Hitler "is completely obsessed," he said to his long-time secretary, Sister Pascalina. "All that is not of use to him, he destroys; . . . this man is capable of trampling on corpses." Meeting in 1935 with the heroic anti-Nazi Dietrich von Hildebrand, he declared, "There can be no possible reconciliation" between Christianity and Nazi racism; they were like "fire and water." ...
Indeed, throughout the 1930s, Pacelli was widely lampooned in the Nazi press as Pius XI's "Jew-loving" cardinal, because of the more than fifty-five protests he sent the Germans as the Vatican secretary of state. ...
When French bishops issued pastoral letters in 1942 attacking deportations, Pius sent his nuncio to protest to the Vichy government against "the inhuman arrests and deportations of Jews from the French-occupied zone to Silesia and parts of Russia." Vatican Radio commented on the bishops' letters six days in a row—at a time when listening to Vatican Radio was a crime in Germany and Poland for which some were put to death. ("Pope Is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France," the New York Times headline read on August 6, 1942. "Vichy Seizes Jews; Pope Pius Ignored," the Times reported three weeks later.) In retaliation, in the fall of 1942, Goebbels's office distributed ten million copies of a pamphlet naming Pius XII as the "pro-Jewish pope" and explicitly citing his interventions in France. ...
A deeper examination reveals the consistent pattern. Writers like Cornwell and Zuccotti see the pope's 1941 Christmas address, for example, as notable primarily for its failure to use the language we would use today. But contemporary observers thought it quite explicit. In its editorial the following day, the New York Times declared, "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas. . . . In calling for a ‘real new order' based on ‘liberty, justice, and love,' . . . the pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism."
So, too, the pope's Christmas message the following year—in which he expressed his concern "for those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction"—was widely understood to be a public condemnation of the Nazi extermination of the Jews. Indeed, the Germans themselves saw it as such: "His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for. . . . He is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews. . . . He is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals," an internal Nazi analysis reads. ...
Yad Vashem's new exhibit also quotes the Pope's 1942 Christmas Eve radio address, in which he spoke out for “the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or ethnic origin, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline.”
THE AQUARIAN PATH Editor F. Clive-Ross, Vol. V, January 1952 - December 1952 was published by THE AQUARIAN PRESS 30, Denison House, 296, VAUXHALL RIDGE, LONDON, S. W. 1. The bound volume I have is a compilation of all published issues of 1952. DIANETICS by L. Ronald Hubbard is reviewed in the June-July issue of THE AUARIAN PATH.
Perhpas the most signficant fact about the cure for these ills, as presented in Dianetics, is that it can be umndertaken by the individual himself with the aid of a friend and without the aid of authority in the form of a specialist. THIS IN ITSELF IS AN ENORMOUS ADVANCE OF ANY PREVIOUS THEORY, FOR THE MESSAGE OF THE NEW AGE IS SURELY THAT MAN MUST, ONCE AND FOR ALL, RENOUNCE HIS DEPENDENCE UPON OUTSIDE AUTHORITY AND SEEK FOR THE TRUTH IN THE DEPTHS OF HIS OWN BEING . . .
Also, don't forget that Werner Erhard and his unquestionably New Age Est was based in no small part on what the Scientologists rightfully claimed was "squirreled Scientology."
http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-founder/who-was-lronhubbard.html gives some interesting background on Hubbard indicating where he claim to get his vision of things.
"Through the course of it, he became one of the few Western adventurers to enter forbidden Tibetan lamaseries in the Western Hills of China and study with the last in the line of royal magicians from the court of Kublai Khan. Yet for all the wonders he witnessed, he could not help but conclude the legendary wisdom of the East did nothing to ease suffering and poverty in these overpopulated and underdeveloped lands.Through the course of it, he became one of the few Western adventurers to enter forbidden Tibetan lamaseries in the Western Hills of China and study with the last in the line of royal magicians from the court of Kublai Khan. Yet for all the wonders he witnessed, he could not help but conclude the legendary wisdom of the East did nothing to ease suffering and poverty in these overpopulated and underdeveloped lands."
I can see where F. Clive-Ross would want to claim a connection to Hubbard who appeared to have quite a reputation at that time, that is if one can believe him and his organization.
I wanted to find out who Clyde-Ross was. It led me to http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/home.aspx which is not an easily understood site of study books and study materials. I'll let somebody else describe it. There are several authors which I recognize as having a foot in the New Age movement.
The New Age movement as I know it is much more accessible and manipulative in its public face. The Whole Again Resource Guide with its 3200 links describes the scope much better.
While it pretends to be open, the truth is the New Age movement tends to be secretive. For instance there is no organizational history of Lucis Trust, its branches and its organizational connections to other groups. It requires much detective work and a phenomenal memory to piece even small parts of it together. The political connections to the one world religion side must be pieced together, and so very few people want to take the time to do it. Everyone wants a 30 minute presentation tops.
I have the Hanegraaff book and Webb's books, but both take background to get into them in my opinion.
With a subject as complex as NA, there are bound to be differences of opinion.
Scientology, a “New Age” Religion?
The “Church of Scientology” has gradually surfaced as the most hotly debated movement during the second half of the twentieth century, and it continued to stimulate ongoing discussions up to the present. If Scientology is viewed as a religion at all, it is mainly perceived as a candidate that might fit into the “alternative” realm of modern religiosity denoted by labels like New Age or Esotericism. This chapter examines Scientology in terms of its parallels with the so-called New Age movement. These parallels are not accidental, but arise out of the influence of common predecessor movements. Theosophy, for example, is the source of certain interpretations of Asian religions like Buddhism that influenced both Hubbard and the New Age.
Keywords: Church of Scientology, New Age, Esotericism, Theosophy, Buddhism, Hubbard
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
a lot of this book to read for free.
Perhaps there is something in the chapter the man wrote, but right at the beginning I wonder how knowledgeable the author is about the New Age movement when he refers to it as the "so-called New Age movement/"
I've heavily researched the New Age movement for many decades. I became familiar with Scientology when a friend took he up to a follower's house in 1958. I thought it was a bunch of crap at that time. Besides reading several books on Scientology, I encountered Scientologists when I was learning about cults through CAN. They are a nasty, lying, manipulative set of individuals who did dirt to CAN when CAN was exposing the work of the cults. I never met Buddhists, but they certainly don't have that reputation. The public faces of most in the NA movement are generally sickly sweet. You could get diabetes just going into their bookstores or sitting in at their meetings.
“Op-ed by writer Liu Chang on Oct. 13 decried in an article on China's official press agency, Xinhua, that "US fiscal failure which warrants a de-Americanized world" and flatly states that the world should consider a new reserve currency "that is to be created to replace the dominant U.S. dollar, so that the international community could permanently stay away from the spillover of the intensifying domestic political turmoil in the United States."
Fiscal impasse in the U.S. is a good time for “befuddled world” to start considering building a “de-Americanized world”
- Xinhua via Zerohedge
...Starting in September of last year, and accelerating their political, financial, and diplomatic power for change into 2013, China is boldly stating to the world that they are nearly ready to lead the global economy into a new era in the 21st century. And with many nations outside the West, including some in the European Union, creating many new partnerships and economic trade agreements with China using their currencies instead of the dollar, the ongoing crises involving a government shutdown and the raising of our debt ceiling, is having global ramifications the government may not recover from.
Thank you for sharing that on China. That was an eye opener for me and I am not that surprised either. We have been watching China's rise to a global economic leader for the past couple of decades. I also understand that a lot of our debt is to Chinese banks.
Re: and you are quoting his anti-Nazi comments made outside the time that the Vatican was under threat from the Nazis.
And that is precisely where we disagree.
If Pope Pius XII was very guarded when it came to making ringing denunciations of the Nazis during the time in which the Nazis were occupying Rome, I believe that he was more than justified in his decision to refrain from shooting his mouth off in public and "playing the hero" at the expense of those whose lives depended on his prudence.
You obviously do not think he was right and you are entitled to your opinion.
But there is little to indicate that Pius could have favorably influenced Hitler's behavior by speaking out AT THAT TIME.
However, there is plenty of evidence that public denunciations of Hitler AT THAT TIME would likely have resulted in vicious Nazi retaliation.
One case in point is Holland.
"In one tragic instance, the Archbishop of Utrecht was warned by the Nazis not to protest the deportation of Dutch Jews. He spoke out anyway and in retaliation the Catholic Jews of Holland were sent to their death. One of them was the Carmelite philosopher, Edith Stein."
While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras.
Nevertheless, it is here that the anti-Catholics - and I do not mean you - try to make their hay.
RE:You are ignoring my criticism that it's what he DIDN'T do when he could which dwarfed what he did do (something which both the military and the New Testament say counts),
Then you should APPROVE of the prudential judgement which precluded Pope Pius XII from speaking out publicly against the Nazis and incurring their wrath during the specific period of the Nazi occupation of Rome - ESPECIALLY in terms of what the military would think counts - since allied escaped POW soldiers were among the people he rescued along with most of the Jews of Rome - including Rome's Chief Rabbi. The military thought that Pius' efforts on behalf of the escaped POW allied soldiers counted a great deal.
As for the New Testament, it tells us to be "wise as serpents" in addition to being "guileless as doves."
"Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves; be therefore as wise as the serpents, and guileless as doves."
The last time I looked, the New Testament mandated charity, not stupidity.
Here's an excellent thread on the topic that covers just about anything important in that topic for the past 6 years.... start at the last post and work your way back for the most current stuff (including the same announcement that Craig posted):
I haven't listened to the interview in post #583, but it looks interesting. (They talk about economic warfare.)
The big picture as I see it: Economic warfare is being (and has been for quite some time now) waged by the powers in the East. When we reach a tipping point, I'd bet you a dollar (whatever it's worth by then) that they will do what they can to push us over the edge.
I think we are very close to that tipping point now. There aren't any more tricks in the bag to keep us afloat. All that's left, I think, is hyperinflation, or default, neither of which is a good option. There might be a slim opportunity for severe cutbacks in spending (severe austerity measures), but can anyone see that ending in anything but rioting and chaos?
They (Congress) can keep raising the debt ceiling, but that can't go on forever.
Here's what I'm having a hard time understanding. Given that China is, to my understanding, the USA's #1 holder of T-Bills, wouldn't a push for the removal of the dollar as reserve currency seriously devalue the dollar, and hence devalue their collective investment? Given that, why would the Chinese government suggest such a thing? I'm no economist, but something seems amiss.
A similar move by Qaddafi got his govt. overthrown and him killed, Iran is a harder nut to crack. All the blather about defending democracy or whatever is really about making sure it is the dollar that is traded in. As Smedley Butler pointed out, war is a racket. When the same racketteers decided to overthrow FDR he blew the whistle on them, but they had too much pull to end up prosecuted.
American dollar default means China gets to demand gold and to take over huge chunks of real estate inside the US. They won't lose a thing.
Thank you for addressing Had Pius spoken out then yes, there would have been reprisals in Rome itself. But as you are now prepared to talk hypotheticals, the point is what might have then happened on a wider scale. Ireland, Spain and Latin America would have instantly become anti-Nazi if the Vatican and Papacy came to harm, and while it is unlikely they would have declared war they would probably have opened their ports to the Allies and changed the conduct of the war in many theatres. Also Pius was the only man in the world capable of reaching into the hearts of Mussolini's and Hitler's troops, a large number of them Catholic. It is not implausible to suggest that all this would have shortened the war - meaning a shorter Holocaust and a more easterly iron curtain.
Jesus was deeply unimpressed when Peter, having realised that Jesus was the Messiah, promptly insisted that Jesus should not expose himself to harm. And - here's what makes it relevant - Jesus knew that by doing so his disciples would get persecuted too.
Pius chose not to follow in Jesus' footsteps. Had he trod the martyr's path he would today be the greatest figurehead in all Catholic history and a beacon to the whole world of the way of Christ.
I focused my question on T-Bills - not real estate - for a reason. Given that the US has long abandoned the gold standard, there is no gold to back up the dollar. Local banks do not, and the reserve banks also do not, have the cash on hand to give to depositors should each one attempt withdrawal, much less the gold to back up those deposits. So, how could the Chinese T-Bill holders demand gold in place of their T-Bills? The question's rhetorical, so please don't try to answer it.
China is the main holder of US debt simply because it is so big. For a while it was deliberately buying US debt but in the last few years it has been reducing its exposure, albeit slowly so as not to cause a panic.
Taking the dollar off gold under Nixon was indeed a bad idea. You can overcome the resulting problems by holding gold rather than dollars.
Nobody asked the US to make their currency the world's reserve currency. It happened spontaneously because of the economic strength and reliability of the USA. If those things are diminishing, it is not surprising that the dollar might lose its role. I doubt that Chinese currency would be acceptable for a while, so perhaps gold will come back to centre stage. It too was the world's reserve currency for a long time, and also became it spontaneously in ancient markets; it was once just another good to be traded, but unlike all others it had all of the necessary properties to act as currency (and it still does!) Gold is not currency because of ancient Fiat; we al know that it is not fiat currency today, but it never was.
I have read articles that claim that although Americans can't claim gold for their dollars, a foreign govt. can.
No the US dollar did NOT spontaneously become the world reserve currency, THAT WAS DONE BY THE BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT,
which also dictated that gold was to be $35 an ounce, period, no matter what, no laissez faire free market nonsense allowed.
This is what created the US international dollar and stability situation.
Read your history. (I assume this isn't being mentioned anymore in high school, so you may have to dig to find decent information. A lot of it is online, and if you prefer you can limit yourself to .edu sites, which means it is run by an educational institution.)
But it doesn't matter. you ignored the OTHER collateral, businesses and real estate. Now a wilder version of this was circulated by Hal Turner and someone else, that made it out that private property could be seized, and snopes refuted this, pointing out that eminent domain is not relevant to this.
There is a LOT of federally owned land that could be legally mortgaged. And may have been. These are valuable because of oil, gas and mineral content, not to mention dump unwanted extra population.
A recent action of sovereign disposal of sovereignly owned federal land, is the transfer to Russia of a few islands in the Behring Sea vicinity, that chain reaching out from Alaska uninhabited I think and even if technically within Alaskan borders (or not) definitely federally owned land.
As I see it, whatever China holds in dollar-denominated investments in this country, it does not matter if they go to war with us. Call it a cost of victory.
What matters in wartime is who has the most guns, bullets, and manpower. They have the upper hand already in that regard, because they fooled the Western capitalists to "invest in China", and when we did so they used the money to build their navy and army. It has been a long process, but now we are about to "reap the wild wind".
China and Russia have been buying gold up for years now, quietly, and in large quantities. The western nations sold it to them as a way to keep their debt-ridden economies afloat. Another mistake on our part.
I guess the shortest answer to your question is guns and butter trump money. They really don't care about owning paper assets that can (and will) become worthless. Because after the collapse, whose gonna be in a better position to become the world's superpower?
The definitive book on the Bretton Woods conference and what happened before and after it is Benn Steil's "The Battle of Bretton Woods". I've read it. Have you ever heard of it?
All that is meant by a world reserve currency is that other countries denominate their bipartite trade agreements in it. You don't need a conference for that as it happens spontaneously. The dollar was tied to gold for a long time prior to Bretton Woods, and the exchange rate was set at $35 an ounce ten years before Bretton Woods.
"But it doesn't matter. you ignored the OTHER collateral, businesses and real estate."
That is indeed key collateral. But if this comment is addressed to me (Anon@7.52am), I didn't mention it because it wasn't the subject I was discussing. You are also correct that Bretton Woods created stability in the postwar economic order. It was heinous of Nixon to take the dollar off gold.
"Laissez faire free market nonsense" is what made the USA rich. Markets in goods were free in ancient Israel under Mosaic Law; only labour, money and property markets were regulated. An equally important factor in the rise of the USA was a population moral enough to ensure that contracts were honoured, and which was sufficiently innovative and industrious. You prefer Eastern Orthodox churches, maybe you prefer Eastern orthodox communism too. Funny how everybody in the USSR wanted to emigrate to the USA in those days but not vice-versa.
Here's an article that gives some good insights into what may play out between China and the US because of the economic crisis that they face:
Killings of Christians are taking place on a large scale right now. Killings of Americans took place on a large planned scale. Bombings across the world are taking place by the group that is a duplicate of the Nazis. Who do you think should be the spokesman who can stop all of it by speaking out?
Why aren't you leading a movement to stop the killings? I'm sure many people could give you good advice from behind their keyboards.
Oh what a wonderful hero you could be. If you could do it you really would earn a major place in history. You really would be walking the words of your advice.
If you can't do it, who could you start to advise to do it. You've studied the possibility by looking back over your shoulder and feel so strongly about what should have been done.
No excuses now.
Frankly I think you just like attacking the Catholic religion by attacking a Pope who was to exemplify what Catholics believe. Why not go all the way. Join a New Age group so you can do it as they have been doing for the last 100 years. Birds of a feather and all that.
But laissez faire demands ALL of these be unregulated.
"You prefer Eastern Orthodox churches, maybe you prefer Eastern orthodox communism too."
Russian Orthodox died by the thousands and were among those who fled the USSR. I never thought I'd hear such a statement as yours except from a couple of moderately deranged, one only recently sober, people one of whom announced that if it is Russian it is Communist and the other took it up first as a joke then I guess seriously.
Eastern Orthodoxy is not recent Russian in origin. The Russian faction was the result of missionaries before the Roman Catholic final schism from us in AD 1054. Orthodoxy is to be found in Greek, various Slavic, and Arab countries and Africa, and until the Conquest by William the Conqueror, the British Isles were Orthodox.
Are you Christian? The Creed you recite was first hammered out by us at the Nicene Council and modified by the RC in adding the filioque (that The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father AND THE SON instead of from The Father period full stop).
Do you remember Christians who died under Roman and other pagan persecutions? Those were mostly us.
Do you baptize using the trinitarian formula and in water full immersion? That is your inheritance from us.
now to economics.
to the stability.
For a look at the relationship between extreme laissez faireism and social darwinism, see
as always the thing to do is ignore the agenda of the website at large, and deal with the specific proven history. google points presented.
you may argue this is not about free markets but about corruption, but the fact is that the correction was made by govt. not the market, and that freedom was the demand of those who opposed such intervention.
In depth study of libertarian flaws. (REALPOLITIK, right now the libertarian crew are a good counterbalance to the totalitarian crew, because of rival ambitions. But make no mistake, the totalitarian crew came into existence as a result of the libertarian kind of practice before it was called that, whenever it could get away with it, and the public be damned so to speak.)
Adam Smith wrote somewhere in that famous magnum opus of his, that business associations SHOULD BE OUTLAWED, because these people never get together except to fix prices and otherwise conspire against consumers.
Indeed, Smith's whole pitch was not so much about internal economy and international economy, he was a peacenik, explicitly arguing that the way to avoid war between England and countries in Europe (which was costly to the average person taxed to support this) was to MAKE THEM ALL BOUND TOGETHER BY SUCH COMMON INTERESTS THAT THEY COULD NOT PLUNDER EACH OTHER. That they would not risk disruption of trade by having war.
In other words, he was arguing free trade (like that disaster NAFTA) and a kind of proto globalism.
The hidden hand that guides all is less God than statistics, laws of averages, and of course God can intervene, but the point is, Smith's screed is to sell a method of peace that might have been applicable in his time and circumstance, but isn't now, and in fact is only partly applicable in any place.
To take his line as on a par with Sacred Scripture, which is the gut level action going on here, even if denied mentally and verbally, is unfaithful to Jesus Christ and unbiblical in general.
The real problem as far as welfare eating up money, is not the poor, but the big corporations getting all kinds of subsidies, perquisites, loopholes etc.
For a couple of links that show how Ayn Rand is incompatible with Jesus Christ (and she was a psychopath to boot) go check the links on my blog
I am a little cog and I do what I can. Someone who is a big cog should also do what he can, which in the case of the Pope is a lot. Pius XII didn't. He did about what a bishop could do. But he was POPE. I am not going to repeat what a difference he might have made because anybody can read it multiple times above. Had he walked the path of Christ to his own cross then he would have my profound respect today. You win either way if you are willing to risk martyrdom: either the other guy blinks and you have done some immediate earthly good, or you get martyred and be with Christ, while your example shines on earth to gain the church respect and attract converts.
You mention Islam as committing similar atrocities to the Nazis, which unhappily is true. Here is a photograph of the man regarded as the greatest Pope of our era kissing the koran, which advocates such behavior, less than a decade and a half ago:
It is not necessary to be New Age to be shocked at that.
This is all beyond me. But, I do know that at some point there will emerge a solution as per Revelation 13:16-17.
Anonymous 4:28 A.M.
Thank you for addressing Had Pius spoken out then yes, there would have been reprisals in Rome itself. But as you are now prepared to talk hypotheticals, the point is what might have then happened on a wider scale. Ireland, Spain and Latin America would have instantly become anti-Nazi if the Vatican and Papacy came to harm, and while it is unlikely they would have declared war they would probably have opened their ports to the Allies and changed the conduct of the war in many theatres.
Speaking of someone prepared to talk hypotheticals...........
You say that the Orthodox church suffered at the hands of the communists. Some of its braver members did, but how about the more than 80% of Orthodox parish priests who cooperated with the communists according to the KGB's own files (Mitrokhin Archive, ch.28)? And the higher up the hierarchy, the worse it got according to those files.
In economics you define laissez faire simply to suit your arguments. You aren't laissez faire so far as exchange rates go, are you? There, you argue (rightly!) that national currencies should be tied to gold.
If you do not believe in free markets as the default, with special exceptions (as in Mosaic Law), then somebody must control those markets. That is a lot of political power concentrated in one place - a bad thing.
1. did they compromise faith in Christ, did they publically or privately deny Him?
2. exactly what actions were cooperated in?
someone pointed out that KGB infiltration of the Church meant there was also Orthodox infiltration of the KGB, and we can probably thank a mix of this and his mother who secretly baptized him as a child, for Putin, who is running the sanest operation you could expect in that context.
Stalin recognized the importance of Orthodoxy in the people's lives, and caved to it figuring this would help the war effort and so forth, when he reestabished the Russian Patriarchate, which Tsar Peter the Great I think it was abolished, making the Church a department of the state.
This in neither case affected doctrine or moral teaching.
And that is what counts. If you want to read Orthodox Traditionalist denunciations of this and of any trace however slight of ecumenism, they are out there on the web.
No, I do not define laissez faire to suit my arguments. The absolutely no govt. intervention, and NO exception to free market is the position usually meant by this when hard core liberatarians are talking.
Laissez faire with exceptions is not an uncontrolled market but a controlled market however minimally. ANY MORAL LIMITS ON WHAT SHOULD BE SOLD, WHICH ARE ENFORCED BY LAW, are denounced on these "freedom principles" by the most depraved people imaginable.
You may have limited your reading to Christian sources who hold to the free market, but do not do so absolutely. They allow for regulations of safety or morality relevant stuff. I however did not limit my reading. In fact, the original material I read had no bearing or clear relationship to Christianity at all. And many who claim to be Christian keep their faith in one pocket and their politics, economics and social life in another.
Gosh, how did I know you would come up with an excuse for doing nothing. If you were doing anything, you would be yelling through a bullhorn what can be done. You just went back to your tirade against the Catholic Church.
You write, "Had he walked the path of Christ to his own cross then he would have my profound respect today."
My answer to you is baloney. You minimize what was done by the head of the church. You mealy mouth a response. You remind me so much of that Big Cog Carney guy and his manipulating answers.
It seems you will never be able to think like a Big Cog. And you don't want to do anything that might make you a Big Cog. It's so much easier to sit at your typewriter and kick Big Cog ankles.
Oh sure, you should feel free to give your opinion on anything from grilled cheese sandwiches to the Pope. My response is why should anyone listen to you or take your views seriously.
I feel free to analyze you just as freely as you feel you should criticize the Pope. Analyzing you is a much smaller job.
The world does not start and stop at the Vatican. Answer my question, if you can, who do you think is a major figurehead that should be speaking out against Muslim atrocities, someone who would make them stop doing their dirty work, someone that countries would listen to, someone who is a Big Cog. That would be the only way your premise could be tested.
Have a word with the Roman Catholics about that. Still other Christians wonder why an unbroken family tree of bishops should matter given that there is an unbroken family tree of faith, ie believers handing the faith down the generations. It is of course the bishops who tell their flock that their succession matters, and it didn't come from the New Testament either.
Re the Russian Orthodox Church and the KGB, who are you kidding? Postwar, Patriarch Alexei I and Metropolitan Nicolai of Krutitsky and Kolomna, second in the Orthodox hierarchy, joined the World Peace Council, the Soviet front organisation founded in 1949. Alexei declared in 1955: "The Russian Orthodox Church supports the totally peaceful foreign policy of our government... because [it] corresponds to the Christian ideals which the Church preaches." How many people were in the gulag in 1955? Metropolitan Nikodym of Leningrad was known as Agent ADAMANT. The KGB recognised a category of churchman who "understood that the state is not interested in proclaiming religion and the church in society and, realising this, do not display any particular activeness in extending the influence of Orthodoxy among the population". In this category the KGB places Patriarch Pimen and Patriarch Alexei II. Pimen was fulsome in praise of Yuri Andropov, KGB Head who led the persecution of those churchmen who refused to compromise and hardly ever got parishes and certainly not promotion. Andropov later became supreme Soviet leader. This church was, unhappily, compromised to the core.
As for laissez-faire and free market, please check a dictionary. No I do not want pornography on sale, but the price of goods that are on sale is none of the government's business.
This is Little Cog. You accuse me of doing nothing. What I actually said was "I am a little cog and I do what I can." I do not intend to go into detail with somebody who distorts my words, but I do not do nothing.
"You quote me and write: " "Had he walked the path of Christ to his own cross then he would have my profound respect today." My answer to you is baloney. You minimize what was done by the head of the church."
I give Pius credit for his efforts on behalf of the Jews of Rome. I regret that he didn't do more, for he was the one man in Europe who might have influenced the worldwide course of the war with words - a fact that you assiduously avoid engaging with. It follows from your line of reasoning that Pius should NOT have followed the path of Jesus; does that worry you?
"Oh sure, you should feel free to give your opinion on anything from grilled cheese sandwiches to the Pope... I feel free to analyze you just as freely as you feel you should criticize the Pope."
Feel free! Who your words reflect badly on is open to question.
"who do you think is a major figurehead that should be speaking out against Muslim atrocities, someone who would make them stop doing their dirty work, someone that countries would listen to, someone who is a Big Cog. That would be the only way your premise could be tested."
I am willing to engage with you about this, but do not understand what premise you think I hold. Please clarify.
"The united church was the Orthodox Church... We Eastern Orthodox are the uninterrupted continuation from those days."
Have a word with the Roman Catholics about that. Still other Christians wonder why an unbroken family tree of bishops should matter given that there is an unbroken family tree of faith, ie believers handing the faith down the generations. It is of course the bishops who tell their flock that their succession matters, and it didn't come from the New Testament either."
The Roman Catholics were originally the Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome. They developed different practices, emphases and some wrong ideas and went into schism from us in AD 1054 the filioque addition to the Creed being a major issue, as was their claim that primacy of honor meant supremacy of rule.
The Church's identity yes involves an unbroken transmission of faith, but it was the EO that defended it and formulated the rejection of all the heresies. The unbroken succession of bishops (episkopos in Greek NT) is an identifier, but not guarantee of original quality since Rome and more serious heretics also have such an unbroken succession
BUT ALL THE SUCCESSIONS DEAD END IN RIGHT BELIEVING BISHOPS WHO HAVE SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES.
And yes, if you read the NT carefully you do have evidence of Apostolic appointment of bishops and elders (presbytos Greek developed into the word priest, though hiero was the usual Greek word for priest), and if when you finish the NT you start reading the pre Nicene Fathers, you start seeing a continuity.
And read Revelation where it shows the liturgical worship in heaven, which the Orthodox attempts to duplicate as does the RC, drawing on its Orthodox roots.
Yes it was something of a scandal how the Living Church as it was called supported the Soviet govt., but it did not deny Christ or compromise points of doctrine, and it kept churches open that would otherwise have been closed. The Moscow Patriarchate did what it could to provide services to the faithful and keep the faith alive, using compromise not inconsistent with St. Paul's advice in The Epistle to the Romans about cooperation with a pagan govt. Perhaps at times they went too far.
The Catacomb Church which in their conscience saw any degree of cooperation as against the faith because the Bolsheviks were atheist, did what they did for the Faith.
But their churches were hidden gatherings in danger because not licensed by the state, and while this strengthened those who were devoted, the state version of Orthodoxy did two things. It provided something for the perhaps less devoted but devoted enough to risk their careers and social acceptability, and if willing to risk their lives had no way of contacting the church in hiding.
And it provided information which seeped into some minds, left some spiritual impression on visitors even if these were only there to look at a dinosaur so to speak.
In a way this is a similar debate to what is going on re Pope Pius XII.
I'm sorry, but that's a blatant rewrite of history. It was THE CHURCH that defended it and formulated the rejection of all the heresies. There was only one church back then, and all believers, Orthodox, Roman Catholic and protestant, stand in a direct line of transmission of the faith from mouth to mouth down the generations from that era.
"The Moscow Patriarchate did what it could to provide services to the faithful and keep the faith alive, using compromise not inconsistent with St. Paul's advice in The Epistle to the Romans about cooperation with a pagan govt."
Trouble is, Orthodoxy is set up as a religion of state, whereas the apostolic church was founded and designed as a dissenting religion, which is why it was persecuted for 300 years. I therefore cannot agree that Eastern Orthodoxy is the apostolic religion. When the communist Russian state turned against the Orthodox church, the church should have looked to its scriptures and fathers, but instead it looked to its later traditions and collaborated with one of the great evils of the age. Honour to the minority of its ordinands who didn't, but unhappily they were the exceptions.
The Nicene Council was called to settle the Orthodox vs. Arian dispute, at the order of Constantine the Great and I don't want to discuss the disputes about him. Constantine however was very impressed by the bishops not vice versa. The Arian heresy had its adherents even after that, and at times an emperor favored them, so the Arian semi Christians were the first labelled Christians who used state force to persecute an opposition. Later Christians might have done well to consider that fact and steered clear (mostly) of using state force but didn't.
The Apostolic religion is identifiable by purity of faith, not by political dissent.
When St. Paul said to cooperate with authorities insofar as they did not demand worship of the emperor or of other false gods, he was speaking about the pagan Roman authorities was he not?
Orthodoxy is not a religion of state, and while Rome claimed authority OVER the state and religion, Orthodoxy always worked on a different premise, a "symphony" of cooperation between Church and state.
Orthodoxy now has an ethnic brand on it in many places, and some old timers see it as an ethnic club. But it isn't, and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, who was a wonderworker in life and in death the oil from his relic lamp has a reputation for healing (and a person I suggested get a bottle of it from the cathedral in SF by mail said he had a spiritual experience because of this), was adamant that Orthodoxy is for everyone not just Russians and was one of those who supported the "Western Rite" the effort to restore the Orthodox background of Anglicanism in some Orthodox churches with more anglo-american population.
Christianity was persecuted not for political dissention, but for refusal to worship false gods, and occasionally because of false accusations about immorality and cannibalism (which might have had their origin in the behavior and false accusations of some gnostics who didn't like the competition).
In Communist Russia, you walked on eggs anyway. If in the process you got some people the sacraments, and some atheists got interested in Christianity, what is wrong with that?
yes the early church was one church, but the Orthodox preserved the faith in its purity, without unbiblical filioque or demanding celibacy of the priesthood (if married already when ordained) though it caved to north african excess purity notions and allowed the bishops there to be celibate. In some ways the development of rules and concepts about the priesthood may have copied the Levitical priesthood too much, but it did not go into de facto worship of human reason like RC did, depends on The Holy Spirit to accomplish all sacraments major and minor (the latter RC calls sacramentals), and in general has preserved the original church structure of deacons, priests/elders and bishops, without the proliferation of extra titles as in RC. (The imperial looking episcopal uniform is what the Byzantine emperor used to wear, and the Turks imposed on the episcopate, and Orthodoxy being in fluid contact and communion everywhere, regardless of jurisdiction, eventually copied it everywhere.)
All jurisdictions other than schismatic ones are in communion with each other, despite differences of practice that would cause a denominational split in protestantism.
Re:Jesus was deeply unimpressed when Peter, having realised that Jesus was the Messiah, promptly insisted that Jesus should not expose himself to harm. And - here's what makes it relevant - Jesus knew that by doing so his disciples would get persecuted too.
Pius chose not to follow in Jesus' footsteps. Had he trod the martyr's path he would today be the greatest figurehead in all Catholic history and a beacon to the whole world of the way of Christ.
Pope Pius XII himself, was one of the greatest shepherds the Catholic Church has known in recent decades . He sacrificed himself so that the flock of Christ would be preserved throughout the world by fighting a war on two fronts against Communism and Fascism. Such a man deserves our deepest admiration and thanks.
Thanks largely to his Jewish defenders who have been working tirelessly to restore his good name by exposing the calumnious "Black Legend" being perpetrated by his critics, he has already been declared venerable and will likely be canonized a saint
FYI, there is the Christian tradition of "Quo Vadis?"
Quo vadis? is a Latin phrase meaning "Where are you going?" or "Whither goest thou?"
The modern usage of the phrase refers to a Christian tradition regarding Saint Peter. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter (Vercelli Acts XXXV), Peter is fleeing from likely crucifixion in Rome at the hands of the government, and along the road outside the city he meets a risen Jesus. Peter asks Jesus "Quo vadis?" (pronounced [kʷoː wadiːs]), to which he replies, "Romam vado iterum crucifigi" ("I am going to Rome to be crucified again"). Peter thereby gains the courage to continue his ministry and returns to the city, to eventually be martyred by being crucified upside-down.
The phrase also occurs a few times in the Vulgate translation of the Bible, notably in John 13:36 when Peter asks Jesus the same question, to which he responds, "Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me."
The Church of Domine Quo Vadis in Rome is built where, according to legend, the meeting between Peter and Jesus took place.
Which is precisely why Orthodoxy IS a religion of state. When you say it isn't, what do you mean?
Pope Pius XII did lay down his life for the Jews of Rome and for the escaped Allied POW soldiers just by remaining in Rome. His decision to remain in Rome when he could have fled to safety speaks volumes all by itself.
In the 1955 book CROWN OF GLORY - which was co-authored by a Catholic and a Protestant, Seamus Walshe and Alden Hatch and received the imprimatur of the Catholic Church - The chapter entitled The Sanctuary Stands describes the exasperation of the Nazis over Msgr. Hugh O'Flaherty's infringement of Papal neutrality - which, by the way was totally in accordance with the wishes of Pope Pius XII according to the book.
One can hardly blame Nazis and neo-Fascists for being exasperated by the situation. To end it, they put all sorts of pressure on the Holy Father to leave Rome, and go to Liechtenstein for his own safety. "You have the power to imprison us," Pius told Ambassador von Weizsacher, "but you cannot persuade us to forsake our charge. We do not leave Rome!"
To emphasize their point, a little bombing raid was then organized; whether by the Nazis or the neo-Fascists was never proved, though there is strong evidence that the plane was piloted by a leading Fascist official's personal secretary. Be that as it may, the facts are that a single plane came low over the Vatican on the night of November 5, 1943, and dropped four small bombs. One demolished the mosaic studio near the Vatican railway station. Debris and blast shattered the windows of trhe high cupola of St. Peter's. The other bombs fell in open spaces smashing windows of the surrounding buildings and one nearly succeeded in wrecking the Vatican radio station.
The following day a great crowd of Romans gathered in St. Peter's Square under trhe Pope's window, and stood there cheering him for more than two hours.
Twice more the oppressor tried to frighten off the resolute Pontriff by similar attacks. The last one came on the eve of the fifth anniversary of Pius' election to the Papacy, MArch 1, 1944. Just as Pius was sitting down to his dinner he heard the roar of a low-flying plane followed by six explosions thatr shook the ancient walls. One of the bombs was so close that fragments fell in the Court of St. Damaso within a few feet of the outer wall of the Holy Father's apartment.....pp.172-173
This debate is not about acknowledging the authority of the Pope or some other polemical issue. It is about
the hijacking of the Holocaust and the calumniation of a Pope for the purpose of driving a wedge between the Jewish people/Israel and the Catholic Papacy with a view to furthering an irreligious agenda which is 100% in sync with New Age.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]