Well, here is some more of the truth which he will doubtless find equally unpalatable to his campaign of slander, hatred and religious vilification against the Catholic Church.
Here is the proof that it was in Protestant areas that the Nazis got their highest votes and in the Catholic areas the lowest (save the exception of Berlin, where the common sense and down-to-earth humour of the native Berliners ensured they could never vote for the jack-booted Nazi popinjays).
[Source: Blog of Fr Ray Blake at: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/]
The dark area on the first map shows the 1933 Nazi vote in Germany.
The second map shows the distribution of Catholics in the 1932 census.
It is immediately obvious that majority Catholic areas didn't vote for Hitler whereas majority Protestant areas did.
Yet Protestant liars persist with the outright fib that Bavaria voted for Hitler. The truth is the exact opposite: Catholic Bavaria rejected Hitler, as did the Catholic Rhineland, and the Catholic parts of Westphalia and Silesia.
Remarkably, it is a nearly exact fit.
The Protestant areas, by contrast, are exactly the areas where the Nazis gained their votes. The only dot of white in the Nazi-voting Protestant areas is Berlin, for the reasons already mentioned.
It could hardly be clearer.
Face it, "Reverend", your German co-religionists supported Hitler and the Nazis, and, alas, some did so ardently.
One such example was the Protestant Reich Bishop Ludwig Muller who is seen here giving the Nazi salute, surrounded by Nazi thugs.
Protestant Reich Bishop Ludwig Muller giving the Nazi salute surrounded by Nazi thugsStop lying and start telling the truth, "Reverend" Ray and others who remain in denial, and recognise that your Catholic brothers, like Pius XII, were leading anti-Nazis and that the majority of German Protestants, with some very noble exceptions, sold out to the Nazi Antichrist.
And Catholics make better beer, too!
...
.jpg)
_-002.jpg/220px-Circle_of_Anton_Raphael_Mengs,_Henry_Benedict_Maria_Clement_Stuart,_Cardinal_York_(ca_1750)_-002.jpg)
23 comments:
This must be the same jerk that just hit my blog:
http://v-forvictory.blogspot.com/2010/01/crucifix-versus-swastika.html
I never know what I will find when I check in. I took your post to another level and found a YouTube showing that Catholics will rise up. Parishioners of de Thiberville, Viva!
I posted the video(s)on my blog and found that it was e-mailed first to London then to Brazil. Hmmm. Now who resides in London?
And, who resides in Brazil?
The importance of ONE....
Courage and continued belief in the concept of One.
Your fact-based chastisements are manna for the soul. It's about time the old serpent got his knuckles rapped.
Blessings and thanks!
Good for you and Anita. That poor man is probably an ex-Catholic who has to demonize the Church to assuage his guilt over having left our Holy Mother Church.
His knowledge of pre-war and during WWII history in France at least is abysmal, as his understanding of the grounds for excommunication according to canon law.
Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman said is best,"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
He is indeed a lapsed Catholic, as you say! And I am sure you are right that he feels guilty about it and has to attack the Church to make him feel better about himself.
A sad fellow.
Check out the documentary entitled "Bonhoeffer" if you haven't yet seen it.
Yep - but Bonhoeffer is not a geographical voting district.
And I know all about him since I was brought up a Protestant.
But - sadly - he and his kind represented a mere handful.
Most Protestants went with the Nazis and not with the tiny anti-Nazi Confessing Church.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, was always opposed - and known to be opposed - to the Nazis.
Hi, can the author of this fabulous catholic blog please contact me on:
PopePiusXII1939_1958@hotmail.com
I need to speak to you regarding some information on your blog which I need to use, however it is needed urgently, thanks.
Sorry to post this non-sequitur on your blog, I hope your readers will not find this objectionable. My name is Andrew McNabb. I am an American writer and the great grand nephew of the great Dominican priest, Fr. Vincent McNabb (d. 1942: prolific writer, lead speaker for the Catholic Evidence Guild at Hyde Park, Distributist and close friend of Chesterton and Belloc.) I am the author of a short story collection, The Body of This, that many are considering "Catholic" literature. Joseph Pearce, in his cover blurb, describes the book as “as radically transforming as viniculture, transforming the water of everyday experience into the wine of life.” In Standpoint Magazine (July/August,) Piers Paul Read referred to the book as “exquisite.”
The book is important because, as can be seen in the variety of outlets where it has been reviewed, it has found a home with both a Catholic and a secular audience. There is not much writing these days that can make that claim. Sadly, Catholic or Christian writing has largely been reduced to the syrupy, the sentimental. More about me and the book (with links to reviews—including the review in the current issue of New Blackfriars Review) can be found at http://www.andrew-mcnabb.com/ and, importantly, can be purchased here.
My publisher is small and the promotional budget is modest. Whatever resources the publisher was willing to put toward the book have been expended in the States. I know that the book can find an audience in the U.K. Please help me to spread the word. Thank you! And if you do manage to find the time to post—please include the Amazon U.K. link! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Body-This-Stories-Andrew-McNabb/dp/1934866059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246142696&sr=1-1
Many blessings!
For more info about me and The Body of This, please visit http://www.andrew-mcnabb.com/
Tribunus, this is not a comment on your blog. Although in a dessicated world, I appreciate the richness and blood here and more ...
But I don´t want to flatter you.
This is a request for a link at your site, which I appreciate may not be appropriate, since your links are few and I can imagine more carefully chosen than some sites.
And my site does not even have very obvious connexions with yours ...
Actually I think there ARE significant connexions and they will be growing in time.
Anyway my site is called
Cor Jesu Sacratissimum
and the link address for my blog there is:
http://corjesusacratissimum.org/category/roger/
If you would appreciate a link at my site, please contact me at rogeratcorjesusacratissimumdotorg
With my respect and gratitude for your work in beautifully evoking a forgotten world of Saving Mystery and Power in our dry, withered, rationalistic and materialistic epoch ...
Roger
Andy, I'm a fan of Fr McNabb.
Roger, you are linked. Return the favour by all means.
Trib
Done, Tribunus!
And may I say that I am not only very grateful but surprised and honoured to be on your beautiful, erudite and stirring pages ...
I didn´t want to sound too flattering before, but will say now that there is much that is very stirring and important here and I will be back tomorrow ...
No probs! Thanks Roger.
Many, many thanks, Tribunus. And thank you to all of you who have visited!
Andrew McNabb
I'm saddened that your walk with Christ has brought you to seek further factions in His Church.
Ephesians 4 : 3-6
I believe what you have brought up truly is a testimony to the fact that these protestants had lost their focus. It was no longer on Christ and his teachings which oppose many of Hitler's views. Consequently, I challenge you to further the mission of Christ, the Ruler of Nations and the Head of the Church instead of plotting Christians against themselves based on the past.
A concerned Christian
Thanks Concerned Christian, but furthering the mission of Christ, the Ruler of Nations and the Head of the Church does not consist in concealing the truth, nor does it consist in pretending, as you do, that true unity can be achieved by ignoring the truth.
To pretend that the differences between the denominations are unimportant is iytself a grave falsehood and is a betrayal of Christ.
You cannot further the mission of Christ by betraying him.
Equally, it is a grave falsehood to ignore the errors into which some denominations have been led.
Those who refuse to learn from the past are condemned to repeat past errors.
One does not serve Christ by repeating the same errors.
Face it. It was not the Catholic Church that teamed up with the Nazis but the German Protesant Church.
Unpalatable or not, this is the truth.
I am not denying that the Protestants of Germany did largely support Hitler. Moreover, let’s not be snarky, let’s partake in the fruit of the Spirit. I am questioning the true purpose of this article. I do not wish to get into a Historical debate as neither of us has all the answers. To attempt to put down every Protestant based on certain Protestants of one nation is absurd. See Dietrich Bonhauffer. To put down another denomination, to glorify your own, that's a whole other matter. We’ve spoken a lot about “Truth” in our recent comments and although I respect your opinion on the subject, Truth lies only in the Bible in the domain of spiritual matter (for our purposes let’s not argue as to weather the writings of recent Saints are God-breathed and stick to the Bible). Thus, I’ll let God’s work speak to you. In Paul’s writings to the Church of Corinth (1 Corinthians 13), he says “[love] keeps no record of wrongs.”, and in our faith we are called to love our neighbor. Moreover, when a brother is “caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently” (Galatians 6:1). Love covers over a multitude of sins. Our Lord has forgiven us of so much, why must you dwell on the past and not forgive them? In fact, God does “forgive and forget”→ Hebrews 8:12.
Now, let’s attend to your accusations:
"Nor does it consist in pretending, as you do, that true unity can be achieved by ignoring the truth.”
First of all if we are called to “Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Colossians 3:13), and by Hebrews 8:12, forgiveness involves forgetting. Ephesians 2: 14 and on shows that Jesus is our peace. We have been united through his blood. Ephesians 4:3-6 only furthers this point. I am not a man of ignorance; I am a man of God. Denominations do not appear in the Bible, thus how can I betray Christ? However, I believe it is not right to associate one’s self to a body of believers who have diverted from the Truth. As for your other assumptions such as that I lack insight in history, I will not choose to honour these insults with a response.
At the point, you must be wondering what tie I have to German Protestants to be so defensive. Well, I’m a Canadian of Scottish descent, so, look no further. To repeat myself, I am writing this message in the hope that you may stop exerting yourself to create factions and division in the Church. Restore them gently, Tribunus. It’s 2011.
Dear Anonymous,
If you were really concerned to stop “snarkiness” between Christians you would be directing your comments to the Reverend Ray Dubuque who thinks nothing of libelling, slandering and defaming the best of people. In doing so he reveals that he knows nothing about his subject and that he is simply slandering people whom he does not like because they prick his unjust conscience.
But you do not criticise him! And could that because he just happens to be a....Protestant?
OK, let’s look at your “arguments” and see where they go.
Of course there were good and heroic German Protestants – I know some of their equally noble descendants and admire them greatly – but the fact is, as you admit, that German Protestants largely supported Hitler.
But you do not ask why they did so? You just want to forget that rather inconvenient part of Protestant history in the country where Protestantism first began.
That is not honest enquiry, Anonymous. It is sticking your head in the sand. And, by no stretch of the imagination, does “partaking in the fruit of the Spirit” mean you should stick your head in the sand and pretend that the past never happened.
One can – and must – forgive past sins but a Christian must also learn from them.
If, as you claim, truth lies only in the Bible, please tell me which part of the Bible actually states this?
You may search the Bible from end to end, but you will not find anywhere in it where it supports your claim that “truth lies only in the Bible in the domain of spiritual matter”.
Indeed, it says the opposite:
“Understanding this first that no teaching of scripture is made by any private interpretation.” [2 Pet 1:20]
And this:
“And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaiah the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? And the Eunuch said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?” [Acts 8:27-31]
The Bible tells us that Scripture is not enough. It needs an interpreter.
Who is that interpreter? The Bible tells us:
“...the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” [1 Tim 3:15]
So the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.
“...And if he will not hear them: tell the Church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” [Matt 18:17]
He who will not hear the Church must be treated as a heathen. That’s crystal clear.
But you will say, oh no, that’s not what these verses mean. But ask yourself this: who are YOU to say so? By what authority do YOU teach and interpret?
The fact is that you have none but your own unaided opinion which is no better than that of any other man's private interpretation. And the Bible itself warns against private interpretation of Scripture – yet that is exactly what you are doing.
If you are still in doubt then ask yourself this question: what did the early Christians do for the first 3 centuries when THERE WAS NO BIBLE?
Well?
What?
And who gave us the recognised, authorised Bible of the New Testament?
Who?
I will tell you.
It was the Catholic Church.
The Council of Carthage in 397 AD approved the first New Testament Bible. Before that no-one could be sure what was, and what was not, in the Bible.
You are right, however, that denominations do not exist in the Bible. There is only truth and falsehood.
And the truth is taught by the Church interpreting the Bible.
It is not found by arrogantly pretending that one knows the Bible better than the Church that gave us the Bible and which Christ Himself founded.
The truth is the truth – whether it’s 2011 or 110.
Well, you managed to steer clear of the verses I brought up and the arguments that accompanied them. I did not often bring an interpretation; unless associating bible verses is an interpretation of scripture. I have not read the claims that the infamous Reverend Ray has made and I'm sure, from what you say, he is probably not in the right. Thus, my intentions must be unclear.
This is not a protestant defending another protestant who is in a bit of a scrum (shall we put it) with a Catholic. Without the Catholic church, where would Christianity be today?
I congratulate you in your step of faith towards trusting Christ, brother. I encourage you in two matters-if you care to read nothing else:
1) See beyond the Church as an institution, but rather "Ekklesia", "called out"- a body of believers.
2)See beyond religion, and see Christ. If that seems paradoxal, search for the differences online.
Also, although you already have, I'd encourage you to please take the time to re-read my last comment and look up the verses I mentioned. Meditate on them (if my interpretation is not "suitable", just read them over). I don't care to debate any longer, as both of us seem firm in our beliefs. As long as we both focus on growing closer to Jesus and fulfilling the Great Commission (this statement is simplified), why turn to meaningless talk?
I appreciate seeing someone stick up for their faith, and provide answers to why they believe.
I'll pray for you. Although, it won't be by name, you'll be on my mind. God Bless.
Ben.
Well, thanks, Ben, for your prayers.
I appreciate your good sentiments and good will.
I appreciate you've made up your mind and my words won't make much change there.
I will, however, comment, for the sake of other readers, if you don't mind.
We Catholics, unlike, for instance, Calvinists, do not believe that only communicant members of our religion go to heaven (although we do believe that all those in heaven will recognise Catholicism as the truth).
What we teach is needed for salvation is at least implicit (some say explicit) belief in a tri-une God who rewards good and punishes evil, plus sorrow for sin.
That is the view of great saints and doctors of the Church like St Alphonsus Liguouri and St Robert Bellarmine. St Thomas Aquinas appears to say that explicit faith in a tri-une God is needed so there is some uncertainty there.
This is all based upon such Scriptural passages as:
"But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him." [Heb 11:6]
"And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." [John 10:16]
The quotations that you give from Scripture refer to our personal relations with others, not to defence of the faith. In defence of the faith of Christianity we are bound to give a good account of ourselves and not merely to pretend that there is no truth and no differences. To pretend otherwise is simply to lie to others and lying is a sin.
Hence Scripture says:
“being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.” [1 Pet 3:15]
“Going therefore, teach ye all nations....” [Matt 28:19]
You quote Heb 8:12. Let’s look at the whole:
“And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them: Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.” [Heb 8:11-12]
It says that God will remember no more their iniquities. It does not say man must forget all religious differences of doctrine and practice, which is how you falsely interpret the passage.
You quote Eph 2:14 as if it supported your view. It doesn’t. Indeed, St Paul is teaching throughout his epistle to the Ephesians, drawing lessons from the past and from Scripture and experience.
By your reckoning, he should simply have said to them that their sins were forgiven and that no teaching, witness or past history need be considered at all.
Yours is simply a “know nothing” Christianity where no doctrinal differences matter.
That ways lies precisely the route chosen by the heterodox sects like the German Christians of Nazi Germany who thought they knew better than historic Christianity.
A man of God should not be a man of ignorance but one avoids ignorance by learning. Therefore don’t be ignorant - learn!
Well as long as we're talking to the readers...
1)Your counter arguments are inexistent and often sound like "Your argument concerning [blank] is wrong. *Insert verse which in fact is irrelevant to the core of the matter brought about*"
This is also exhibited in the argument concerning Hebrews 8:12. Supporting Hitler, in my opinion, would be a sin (keeping in mind his plot) and not religious or doctrinal practice. Not all protestants across the globe were in support of him.
2) I never said faith in a **Triune God wasn't necessary. All I was saying was that we should fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.
3) Your constant condemnation is unnecessary. From three comments, you shouldn't know everything I believe in. Who are you to judge me? It may make a terrific ending to a closing statement, but honestly, what are you accomplishing?
4)If you took to heart the values illustrated in the Bible and the commands of our Lord, you wouldn't need historical information. If we needed to learn from history to be prepared for the future than the Protestants of WWII would be blameless (as they had nothing to base themselves off of). History certainly is interesting and the patterns and connections one can make is fascinating. Stay true to your faith and to your Master and you'll never vote for Hitler, easy as that. In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall make your paths straight. I don't need to condemn to learn.
OK, thanks, Anonymous.
I respond thus:
(1) “Verse insertion” is a Protestant Evangelical game, not a Catholic one. But either way, your complaint is no logical argument, nor indeed any kind of argument at all.
The Deutsche Christen were German Christians who supported Hitler and did so for doctrinal reasons. They gave a very spurious legitimacy to the evil Hitler regime and so traduced Christ. It is simply turning a blind eye to truth to ignore this, however unpalatable.
The point of the article is proved: many Protestant movements supported Hitler. The Catholic Church did not. Fact.
(2)I never said you did. You are missing the point, again. Saying “fix your eyes on Jesus” does not answer the question as to what happens to those who do not believe in Him. Do you consign them all to Hell as Calvinists do? Or do you simply refuse to think about the matter?
(3)It is you who are judging.
(4)This is “know nothingism” again. And you are as condemnatory as those whom you condemn. To say that we should not learn from history is simply to prefer darkness to light, ignorance to wisdom and learning. Are you really arguing for that?
The fact is that the German Christian movement claimed it was staying true to the Faith and to the Master and yet they all voted for, and supported, Hitler.
Clearly they got something very wrong and modern Protestants (and Catholics for that matter) need to understand what went wrong so as to avoid the same mistake in the future.
Who can reasonably object to that?
To return to your first email and Scripture quotes, you write that I have “managed to steer clear of the verses I brought up and the arguments that accompanied them”.
On the contrary, I answered them fully.
Here are your quotes:
(1)“Truth lies only in the Bible in the domain of spiritual matter”.
The Bible says you are simply wrong.
You may search the Bible from end to end, but you will not find anywhere in it where it supports your claim that “truth lies only in the Bible in the domain of spiritual matter”.
Indeed, it says the opposite and I showed you where: 2 Pet 1:20 and Acts 8:27-31, for a start.
The Bible tells us an interpreter is needed and that is:
“...the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” [1 Tim 3:15]
and
“...And if he will not hear them: tell the Church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” [Matt 18:17]
I also reminded you that the early Christians had no Bible – for 300 years.
Are you saying that they had no truth?
The Bible itself is a Catholic document. The Council of Carthage in 397 AD approved the first New Testament Bible. Before that no-one could be sure what was, and what was not, in the Bible.
So you see, I have fully addressed the verses you brought up and the arguments that accompanied them.
(2)“[love] keeps no record of wrongs.” [1 Cor 13]
That is not what 1 Cor 13:5 actually says.
Here is the original Greek:
οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ, οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς, οὐ παροξύνεται, οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν,
and
οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν
means
“thinketh no evil”
It does not mean
“keeps no record of wrongs”
The translation you have extracted from the NIV is an inaccurate and tendentious translation of the Bible.
You seem uninterested in proper Scriptural accuracy and scholarship but, you see, you cannot have truth without them.
Finally, then:
(3)when a brother is] “caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently” (Galatians 6:1).
Once again, you use a mistranslation. Here is the Greek:
ἀδελφοί, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ ἄνθρωπος ἔν τινι παραπτώματι, ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι πραΰτητος, σκοπῶν σεαυτόν, μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς.
Meaning:
“Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted”.
Note “in a spirit of meekness” not merely “gently”. And one should do so remembering that one might be tempted oneself.
Again, you miss the point by using an inaccurate translation.
(4)“Love covers over a multitude of sins.” [Heb 8:12]
Once again, a mistranslation. Here is the Greek original:
ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν, καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι.
Meaning
“Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.”
Even you admit that this means God will forgive our sins but only if we turn to Him. Giving us free will, He allows us to turn away from Him.
There is no suggestion here that men should not learn from the past or from history, as you seem to suggest.
(5)“Forgive as the Lord forgave you” [Col 3:13]
This is a more accurate translation of Col 3:13 which reads in full:
“Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another: even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also.”
But, once again this nowhere says that men should not learn from the past and from history.
On the contrary, learning from the past and from history is a very good way of learning to forgive others and to practice charity.
Neither does this suggest, as you claim it does, that “forgiveness means forgetting”, save to forget the pain, suffering or evil.
Indeed, if wrongs were simply forgotten then there would be no value in the forgiveness since no-one would remember what it was that had been forgiven.
Eph 4:3-6 does not contradict this.
It reads:
“...careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all”.
Thus your very quote makes it clear how misleading mere private interpretation of Scripture can be.
We need a guide and that guide is the Church of God and the Church of God is the Catholic Church.
You say that Denominations do not appear in the Bible but, in the sense you mean, they do.
The Pharisees and the Sadducees were two such and there are more portrayed in Scripture.
You are right, however, that one should not “associate one’s self to a body of believers who have diverted from the Truth” but it is you, not me, who has done so.
In so doing, you omit following your own advice.
I would urge you to re-think your position and so you might come to see that the Scripture requires an interpreter and that interpreter is the Catholic Church.
Let us pray for one another.
Post a Comment