> “I wish you the best and hope one day you will open your eyes to see. Perhaps you wish the same for me.”

Yes, I wish and pray that the Lord’s will be done to both of us, so that neither of us would call Christ “Lord, Lord,” and not do His will. Do pray for the same, and I hope, by the grace of God, that we can meet together in Heaven.

It may be – and you may agree – that this dialogue has reached its end for now, and the time has come to depend on God for the above prayer to take fruit, as we humbly and actively submit to it with our hearts fully opened to Him. Lord, give us this Grace!

> “I wonder what books you have read on church history that were not written by catholics. The Bible speaks of Isreal and shows its good and bad. You wish to act like there was no evil done by the Catholics. Cortez, Pizzaro and Columbus all wicked workers of genocide.”

I have studied Germany, England and Ireland in (a secular) high school, which included some bloody history on both sides of the divide (as you can imagine). This is to be expected, however, since wheat and tare grow together until the harvest, when the sheep are divided from the goats. One atrocity does not, however, justify another – that is, the dividing asunder of the Body of Christ – especially since such a scandalous acts act as counter-witness to the world in need of the Saviour.

If you examine the posts above, I think it would be evident that I have cited more sources unaffiliated with one’s own background, than any others. (BTW, The Early Christian Writings of the Apostolic Fathers – which is one such a source – has my recommendations, for Catholics and Evangelicals alike).

In any case, I think I have presented enough evidence here for any objective reader to examine the case for themselves (that is, evidence from secular and Jewish sources – as well as any of the Catholic links I included [many of them with citations to secular sources]), since it is evident to me that there are reasons to question the wisdom of popular cultural beliefs about the Church (the last accepted target of prejudice).

I find your links are either obscure or from catholic sources.

I wish you the best and hope one day you will open your eyes to see. Perhaps you wish the same for me.

I wonder what books you have read on church history that were not written by catholics.

The Bible speaks of Isreal and shows its good and bad. You wish to act like there was no evil done by the Catholics. Cortez, Pizzaro and Columbus all wicked workers of genocide.

Love,

John

I would not be surprised if any Christians cooperated with Hitler. I think you may underestimate how effective their propaganda was. Do you realise that the Nazi’s were democratically elected? I mentioned earlier that it was in fact the Protestant regions that voted for Hitler into power (more info).

may I suggest the possibility that the truth has been obscured in the anti-Catholic culture we live in? The then and current cultural superpowers of England and America are both strongly Protestant, anti-Catholic, and heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Don’t take my word for it though – go back to the (unbiased) sources and research it for yourself. Do you have access to the American Jewish Year Book in a library nearby? Why not read that book by the Jewish Rabbi? Here’s a limited preview of it on Google Books. Or would you rather hold on to, and believe, the myth propagated by a former Hitler Youth? If the latter, such a bias would be quite telling! Again, I hope it would be otherwise.

So, I welcome your invitation to be objective and unbiased, and I extend the same invitation to you. This would be a better path than to be dismissive of the other party based on one’s presuppositions, as I’m sure you’ll agree. I think you’ll see that I have quoted numerous unbiased sources so far, and I pray and ask that these can taken advantage of.

Hi hope you are well.

Let me make this statement for your comment.

We started to discuss the catholic church’s history and you disagreed about the severity of such things as the crusades, inquisition and the persecution of people translating the Bible in the vernacular. I then posted some pictures from two web sites about the Nazi cooperation with the catholic church. You then replied once again down playing the severity of the connection.

The evidence of these photographs proves if nothing else that the catholic church and the nazis had more than a trivial connection. The photograph of the bishops right next to the nazis all giving the salute to Hitler is one example. So we know that in some degree the catholics and nazis cooperated. (I suppose you may disagree.)

Any way if the Pope is infallable why didn’t he strongly oppose the nazis. Somebody like Dietrich Boenhoeffer was very anti nazi and it cost him his life.

Finally I have found that people lie about themselves to look good. I mean nations, political parties, churches and so forth. For example if you read the history of America as taught in the schools you get a very distorted picture of what really happened.

Now then you have researched the catholic history and have found that the abominations that it has committed to be small. I would suggest to you that you research other sources.
An example of distortion is Josephus. After begining to read his discourse about the history of the Jews I put it away as his bias was clearly evident.

Finally I dismiss the catholic church as a false religion and very evil. The church does little to teach the Bible the Word of God. When you do look at the Bible you distort the truth. The catholic church has been involved in terrible and inhumane acts and have given their blessings to them. Just as I dismiss the puritan health and wealth gospel because they slaughtered the idinginous peoples in America I dismiss the catholic church.

But let me say this. I have met catholics who are fine people and very loving.

Love,

John

no offence, and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but do you ever become weary and perhaps suspicious about the battles of private interpretations between a thousand parties claiming to be “Bible believing”? I believe the Bible too, but I’m not sure if I would if I was an outsider (and non-believer) observing the scandalous disunity and constant theological oppositions coming from a supposedly infallible source of Revelation.

If I may, I would like to encourage everyone to meditate on Christ’s high-priestly prayers at John 17:20-23, and view things in this light.

Now, in relation to the topic itself, I think you’ll find Augustine and Chrysostom agreeing with us in terms of male-only leadership. However, I (again) do not believe as IC seems to suggest that they must necessarily be married. I think Augustine and Chrysostom (and the Early Church Fathers) are right in interpreting that the conditions on good management are laid out as a prerequisite for married men, but that it in no way requires marriage as a necessity.

Either that, or the Spirit of Truth did not lead the Church to all truth, as promised (John 16:3), and the true Church fell away without a trace, unlike the house built by the Wise Man on the rock (Matt 7:24-27), or a city set on the hill or light of the world lit by the same (Matt 5:14-15)

Hi hope you are well.

Please click in on this
http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/can-women-serve-as-pastors/#comment-34591\

We are discussing some similar things and I would like your input. You will understand when you read the posts.

Love,

John

I’m not sure if this is worth commenting on. One can see from the last few images as to just how desperate they can be in trying to construe all sorts of things – that New York police officer is in a regular full-armour uniform which does not look anything like a Nazi uniform as the page claims. The picture of Ratzinger is obviously (well, obvious to Catholics and Orthodox Christians) is taken during mass at the time of epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit before consecration of the Eucharist), which would have been more obvious had they not cut off the left hand side of his body from the picture, which (one can still tell) is also raised.

Also, Hitler said all sorts of things to manipulate the situation (it’s called propaganda – the Nazi’s were very good at it, as a history student learns when studying Nazi Germany). He said publicly that he was Catholic/Christian to Catholic/Christian audiences. In private, though, it’s a different story.

Again, back to the central issue, which in some ways is the same as the above: propaganda, or truth? If the latter, one must be ready to be challenged in one’s presuppositions built up by cultural biases. Would you believe the testimonies from the Jews of the time, or the popular myth cultivated by a former Hitler Youth, responsible for the smearing campaign (same link as the source of Jewish quotes) of the good Pope?

I’m going to have to ask at this point, as gently as I could, if the dialogue seems worth continuing, since I’m sensing something of a defensiveness that seeks out to support a subjective bias at the cost of objective examination. I’m not looking for overt admissions on things that would be more profitably made privately between oneself and God, but we must be utterly honest and aware of our own bias and assumptions.

> “If you have proved anything it is that the so called Church fathers cannot understand Greek.”

Chrysostom was a Greek Father; in fact, the most prominent doctor of theology in the Greek Church. Further, he had understanding of the Jewish custom underlying this passage, which would have been relevant since the author, St. Paul himself, and those to whom Timothy witnessed were Jewish (Acts 16:3).

> “In fact you ignore the fact a bishop must have faithful children.”

No. St. Paul nowhere says that he must have children. He says that their children must be faithful (or at least that they must be respectful), which is a different thing. Why do you think the two preeminent Fathers, Latin and Greek, give interpretations of it being conditional on those who already have children? That would be because it gives no indications on the necessity of having them, since it only speaks of good management. St. Paul seems to be speaking with the assumption that most bishops would have children, since the converts in the Early Church were often already married (one only has to read about the many instances in which a man and ‘his household’ were baptised), and there was not the need or the insentive to have mandatory celibacy due to the small size of the Church.

To me, Chrysostom and Augustine’s interpretations make much more sense. The interpretation you present seems to read more into it than what the text says. The readers can make up their own mind as to which is the fairer and more objective one.

> “Did not the Catholic Church torture people through the inquisition, engage in wars of men in the crusades and try to kill people who translated the Bible into the vernacular.”

I ask you again – have you read the articles I linked to above? Please read the article first, since much of it is a case of false assumptions. The inquisition, for example, was a process established by the Church in order to intervene in a process that would otherwise be uncontrolled (and look what happened in the Spanish Inquisition, run by the state). Remember that heresy was a crime against the state under the Justinian law (again, it’s in the article above, but not usually something that a non-historian would know).

With regards the Scriptures in the vernacular, you do know that the Vulgate is a vernacular translation of its time? In any case, there were plenty of vernacular translations before the reformation. You can read about them in ‘The Cambridge History of the Bible’, and in ‘Where We Got the Bible’ (here’s a post with excerpts from the latter).

The problem with the vernacular occurs with certain groups promoting heretical and misleading ideas using their vernacular translations, such as the Albigensians (a.k.a. Catharists) who promoted the doctrine that matter is evil (and therefore marriage evil, while concubinage was permitted, and suicide was a good). There are good reasons for stopping such heresies from spreading; namely the preservation of common good.

> “The Church of Christ is something that must be above all other standards.”

Yes, but the Church of the scriptures contains tares among the wheat until the end of the world (Matthew 13:24ff), just as Judas was among the 12 until Calvary. Does

> “But no as these photographs and other evidences prove the Catholic Church worked with Hitler and the evil fascist Nazis.”

Right… like this one here that was deliberately used to mislead people? I think it’s similar to the Papal Nuncio one in your link:

http://home.olemiss.edu/~rrychlak/web20061010/morphing.htm

One can easily construe all sorts of things from supposed visual ‘proofs’. There are a lot of myths regarding the Church and Pius XII and their association with Nazi Germany; a lot of it is a slander campaign which distorts the truth. I guess those sources neglected to mention that the Allies air-dropped 88,000 copies of the anti-Nazi Papal encyclicals over Germany, or that the Nazi votes came predominantly in Protestant areas because the Pope had been actively condemning the party even before they were elected?

Again, I have to be to the point and gently be insistent that you question your presuppositions: are you really interested in the truth, or simply reading one-sided commentaries about it from biased sources? If the former, I can recommend a book written by a Jewish rabbi:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260344/lewrockwell

If the latter, no amount of discussion would bring about anything fruitful, since the mind has been made up beforehand, based on (from what I could see) erroneous data. I pray, then, that it would be the former in your case.

A couple of quotes, which can be verified in the ‘American Jewish Yearbook, 1944-1945′:

“We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims” (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and future prime minister of Israel).

“Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.” (Albert Einstein)

One more for good measure.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/NaziRCC.htm

Love,

John

Allow me to comment on why I decided to bring up the filth of the Catholic history. The Church of Christ is something that must be above all other standards. The scriptures say that even the righteous are scarcely saved.

When a church is involved with groups such as the Nazis this is a grave evil. Furthermore in the case of the Catholic church the evil is a double comdemnation. Why? Because according to the Catholics the Pope is somehow inspired by God to speak on God’s behalf! If God is talking to the Pope or the Pope is talking to God you would think that the Pope would have enough wisdom not only to not associate with the Nazis but to fight them with every breath in his body. But no as these photographs and other evidences prove the Catholic Church worked with Hitler and the evil fascist Nazis.

This was not true of Dietrich Boenhoffer. Boenhoffer opposed Nazism and refused to capitulate. As a result he was thrown into jail and eventually executed. But I know without doubt the things Boenhoffer did were right in the sight of God. Just as I know that what the Catholics did was wrong. Christ teaches us that we will suffer persecution and that we are to bare our crosses daily. Boenhoffer did the right thing and stayed true to the cause of Christ. The Catholic church did not. They took the easy way out.

I know some Catholics were murdered in the concentration camps. Yet as the photos clearly show there was a deep connection between the Nazis and Catholicism. TBM claims that all the horror stories of the past blaming Catholics are lies. I disagree. I am just sorry there were no photographers back then to give the evidence like I have displayed before.

Love,

John

Check these photos out.

Love,

John

Hi hope you are well.

If you have proved anything it is that the so called Church fathers cannot understand Greek. If we followed your logic we could knock any qualification of the list. Christ turned water into wine so is it okay to ignore the prohibition for an elder “not to be given to wine.” In fact you ignore the fact a bishop must have faithful children.

Did not the Catholic Church torture people through the inquisition, engage in wars of men in the crusades and try to kill people who translated the Bible into the vernacular. To those who think it’s a thing of the past I saw some pictures of some Catholic bishops and Nazis all giving the same salute.

Love,

John

my apologies for the delayed reply. I do not always check this page everyday, and so have just read your posts today.

Thank you for your considered response. Even if we do not come to the point of agreement, I believe a dialogue that is respectful and charitable would be fulfilling the will of Christ on that point.

> “We were studying prayer in Bible study tonight. Mathew 6:7 “But when you pray use not vain repetitions…” Please explain the rosary in the light of that scripture.”

Certainly. The Rosary came out of the tradition of praying the Psalms, for simpler folk who did not have access to it (remember that books before mass production were very expensive to obtain and, in any case, many working people were illiterate).

Prayerful repetition itself is not condemned, since Christ himself practiced it (Matt. 26:44), the Psalms use it (Ps. 118), and the heavenly creatures do it, presumably for all of eternity (Rev 4:8). Rather, the admonition applies to those who pray in the manner of pagans who use repetition as a sort of magic formula, rather than as personal petition. So, it is a matter of the heart, rather than legalism (for or against repetition). Is not the parable of the persistent widow an exhortation precisely in this – “always to pray and not lose heart”? (Luke 18:1)

> “When I read the scriptures what is in my mind’s eye is nothing at all like the Catholic Church. In fact out of all the organizations claiming to be Christian yours is probably the one that I think is the farthest away from the gospel message with the exception of cults. Just telling you honestly where I stand.”

Your honesty is appreciated. I think it’s a matter of reading it in accord with the Jewish tradition, and with the early Christians, rather than through the 21st century environment of our own culture. Then, it’s a matter of seeing the scriptures through the heart in that light (the mind’s eye has difficulty seeing what it isn’t used to, I find).

Note, too, that the Church can and has evolved organically. If it is indeed the Church of the Apostles, it is the case in its essence (what it is), but not necessarily appearance. As a mustard seed may be unrecognisable through mere appearance in the mustard tree, so it would be with the Church. I think you would find, though, that it is more like a person – as one might expect from the body of Christ – whose childhood characteristics can be recognised in his adult form.

I recommend reading the Apostolic Fathers in the book ‘Early Christian Writings‘, translated by Maxwell Staniforth. It shows how the Early Church was like through the writings of the Fathers who wrote these in the Apostolic times (when at least the Apostle John was still alive).

> “Now let’s get to the part about why I think you are twisting scriptures to fit ideas you approve of. The two references to the qualifications of bishop state plainly that they must be married. If you disagree then you are not being honest. Now you bring in two scriptures that say being not married is better. I do not disagree with them. It is better not to be married as a Christian. But one needs to be married as an elder. Why? 2Timothy 3:5 “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?””

I don’t agree that I would be being dishonest in disagreeing with the interpretation you gave. The Church Fathers have given the same interpretation as mine, and I do not think they were dishonest either. They were more informed in their interpretation than either you or I though:

Chrysostom

Homily X. 1 Timothy 3,1–4—“If a man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a good work.

1001. “A Bishop then,” he says, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one. For even the Jews were allowed to contract second marriages, and even to have two wives at one time. For “marriage is honorable,” (He 13,4) Some however say, that this is said that he should be the husband of one wife. [Note that he gives two interpretations here - my position as well as yours]

Augustine

Homilies on the First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy

99. …And if he speaks of a Bishop “being the husband of one wife,” and “having his children in subjection” (1Tm 3,2 3,4), this is not said, as if it were necessary he should have a wife and children; but that if any should happen from a secular life to be advanced to that office, they might be such as knew how to preside over their household and children, and all others committed to them. For if a man were both secular and deficient in these points, how should he be intrusted with the care of the Church?

> “Do you agree that the New Testament is true? I am talking in the sense that when a book of Paul begins with his name then it was written by him. If so then you must agree what is written is the law or basis of the church.”

We know, don’t we, that often such writings were attributed to famous authorities (like the Gospel of Peter or Gospel of Thomas)? We know from the decisions from the Early Church as to which were the authentic and inspired writings. That decision has been ‘handed on’ (root etymology for ‘tradition’) to us, and so is the basis for the Scriptural Canon. This is one reason why authentic Tradition and Scripture cannot be thought to be in opposition to one another.

> “Regarding the catholic church history it is one full of darkness. It is important to explore this dimension.”

Is it really? What is the basis for this claim – where did you get the information from, and how trustworthy are they in terms of their objectivity? I used to subscribe to this sort of vague generalisation, but nowadays I realise that the popular notion of this is simply residual propaganda (half truths and falsehoods) from the double filter of Protestantism and the Enlightenment.

Have you had a look at the articles I linked to above on the Crusades and the Inquisition? Those would be a couple of examples.

With regards anything Catholic (the only Politically Correct target for persecution today), there is a cultural tendency to isolate and focus on the Judas, while ignoring the other 11 good Apostles. I recommend listening to The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization

I agree about its importance, though. A moral objection is perhaps of greatest importance, since the heart guards the key to commitments involving one’s being. I ask for the openness of mind, however, since the heart tends to act on unverified emotions which may turn out to be based on mistaken assumptions and beliefs. Do this truly, and you would be fulfilling charity as well as the requests I have made above. Thanks, and God bless you.