Author Topic: German Catholic nαzιs (Read 3162 times)

s2srea · « **on:** July 18, 2011, 07:53:38 PM »

Check out this website:
http://nobeliefs.com/nαzιs.htm

I know that what nαzι German's represented was not what the Catholics or the Catholic Church represented. But does anyone have any comments on this website?

LordPhan · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2011, 08:44:58 PM »

I have no intention of clicking that link, give a summary. Or better yet ask a direct question.

One cannot be a nαzι and a Catholic, nαzι's are socialists, socialists are athiests, furthermore nαzι's believe in the occult and base many of their beliefs on the belief of evolution. These are contrary to dogmatic truths.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2011, 12:36:36 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

One cannot be a nαzι and a Catholic, nαzι's are socialists, socialists are athiests, furthermore nαzι's believe in the occult and base many of their beliefs on the belief of evolution. These are contrary to dogmatic truths.

Obviously this is not that easy. nαzι Germany had a concordat with the Holy See and was therefore (formally) more closely united to the Church than most other nations.
Mit brennender Sorge does also not contain a formal condemnation of National Socialism, it does not even contain the word, while Divini Redemptoris speaks in an entirely different language of Communism.

Also, there were many different factions inside National Socialism, too. You have characters like the monarchical, conservative and Catholic von Papen, but also people like the very anti-Catholic and strongly leftist Rosenberg.

As religious worship was not forbidden, a big part of the German population was Catholic, there was some kind of working together with the State (which continues till today)...well, thats how you get those photos.
And in any case, nobody is forbidden to pray, may he be a Communist, Capitalist, or nαzι.

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2011, 12:57:27 AM »

When the concordat was concluded( it was quickly violated by the judaix Hitler) no one knew what the future would bring. Are you sure you are not confusing von Papen w/ Dolfuss?

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2011, 01:07:34 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

When the concordat was concluded( it was quickly violated by the judaix Hitler) no one knew what the future would bring. Are you sure you are not confusing von Papen w/ Dolfuss?

Of course. But you have tons of books treating National Socialist ideology, so they should have known what they are dealing with.

No, I am not confusing Papen with Dolfuss, the latter was certainly not a nαzι, but a Austrofascist.

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2011, 02:15:45 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: roscoe
When the concordat was concluded( it was quickly violated by the judaix Hitler) no one knew what the future would bring. Are you sure you are not confusing von Papen w/ Dolfuss?

Of course. But you have tons of books treating National Socialist ideology, so they should have known what they are dealing with.

No, I am not confusing Papen with Dolfuss, the latter was certainly not a nαzι, but a Austrofascist.

I am not accusing you but Communists call anyone they don't like a 'Facist'. My understanding is that Dolfuus knew Hitler was bad news. German and Italian Fascism were often at odds. Mussolini supported Dolfuss against Hitler. Then the latter murders Dolfuus because -- among other reasons he had the goods on Hitler being a judaix.

Dolfuss is much closer to to Franz Ferdinand and also Czar's Alex I and Paul --who were both αssαssιnαtҽd for attempting to enforce the Council of Florence.

If ever anyone was saved by BOD it was the latter two.

Have u read EH Carr's Twilight Of The Comintern?

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2011, 02:52:35 AM »

Well, even though I don´t like the Fascists very much, i don´t have the leftist stereotype association with Fascism. I rather criticize them for their lack of antijudaism.
No question that Dolfuss was against Hitler, but closely allied with Mussolini. While the Austrian Republic does not qualify for a Fascist state in the true sense of the term, its still the closest. To distinguish this unique form, its frequently called "Austrofascism" or by the self-definition of the Dolfuss-Regime, the Ständestaat, the "(E)state-State".

True, they worked closely together with the Church and also had their own concordat. But the economy was in ruin and the population extremely unhappy - which gave rise to the National Socialists.

No, I didn´t read that book you mentioned.

s2srea · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2011, 09:39:07 AM »

Pyrrhos, LP-Thanks for the input

ajpirc · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2011, 02:09:56 PM »

I always thought the nαzι's persecuted Catholics, especially priests, for speaking out against the Reich. Many of the bishops who were seen supporting Hitler were either doing it for their lives or they actually supported Hitler. If they were doing it for their lives, then they probably didn't love God or the Church if they couldn't die for them.

Just my thoughts.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2011, 02:33:33 PM »

Quote from: ajpirc

I always thought the nαzι's persecuted Catholics, especially priests, for speaking out against the Reich. Many of the bishops who were seen supporting Hitler were either doing it for their lives or they actually supported Hitler. If they were doing it for their lives, then they probably didn't love God or the Church if they couldn't die for them.

There was hardly any real support from the Catholic hierarchy. Still this is kind of a self made circle: The Churchmen spoke against the Reich, so they were persecuted. Because they were persecuted, they were against the Reich.
Certainly nobody was persecuted for being Catholic or practicing the faith, but for political activism.
Catholics during this time had a very biased view on politics, seeing their salvation only in the Center Party, which was like all Christian Democratic parties also not as Catholic as one would like to think.

Some others like Bp. Alois Hudal rather tried to work positively by doing some constructive criticism as in book The Principles of National Socialism

In any case, everything is not as black and white as the modern history books tell. Actually, just because the history books tell the story as they do, I would get somewhat cautious.

Baskerville · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2011, 05:37:58 PM »

The official position of the nαzιs was either Paganism or a thing called "positvist Christianity" which was a weird theology that taught that Christ was an Aryan and not Jєωιѕн.

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2011, 06:14:44 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

When the concordat was concluded( it was quickly violated by the judaix Hitler) no one knew what the future would bring. Are you sure you are not confusing von Papen w/ Dolfuss?

Okay, Hitler was part of the Jєωιѕн Conspiracy? Do you have any idea how idiotic that looks to...well...anyone? This is why people think trads are knuckle-dragging, malevolent idiots.

roscoe · « **Reply #12 on:** July 19, 2011, 07:17:05 PM »

So Hitler had blue eyes and blonde hair then? Dolfuss had the goods on Hitler being a judaix-- this is why the former resisted the nαzι occupation of Austria and also why he was murdered.

roscoe · « **Reply #13 on:** July 19, 2011, 07:20:35 PM »

See Hans Kohler(sp?)-- Inside Gestapo and Henneke Kardel(J)--Adolf Hitler: Founder Of Israel.

roscoe · « **Reply #14 on:** July 19, 2011, 07:24:16 PM »

Why does someone who has a different interpretation of history than Sig have to be described as 'malevolent'?