This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
 Pope Pius XII: A Saintly but much Maligned Pope
Since 1963, when Rolf Hochhuth's play THE DEPUTY accused Pius XII of, in effect, complicity in the Nazi genocide, it has been a commonplace of editorial writers that the Vatican was a silent, and therefore a guilty, bystander to the murder of six million Jews. Here are some interesting facts documented by numerous historians that critics of this Pope should know: 1) Before he became Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Pacelli drafted the papal encyclical, MIT BRENNEDNDER SORGE, in which Pius XI denounced Nazi paganism and racism; the document was smuggled into Germany in March, 1937 and read from all Catholic pulpits, which infuriated the Nazis. 2) It is well documented by Jewish scholars like Joseph Lichten of B'nai B’rith that Pius used the assets of the Vatican to ransom Jews from the Nazis and that the Vatican under Pius ran an extensive network of hide-outs. Even the Pope's summer residence, Castel Gondolfo, was used to hide fugitive Jews. The Pope, moreover, took personal responsibility for the children of deported Jews; 3) Largely as a result of the Church's efforts, the Jews in Italy had a far higher survival rate under Nazi occupation than was the case in other countries [67% were killed in other other countries only 15% in Italy]; estimates of the number of Jews saved by the Vatican's efforts range up to several hundred thousand; this was one reason why the chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, converted to Catholicism at the end of the war and took the baptismal name of "Eugencio," the Pope's first name. 4) In appreciation of what Pius did for the Jews, the World Jewish Congress made a large cash gift to the Vatican in 1945; in the same year, Rabbi Herzog of Jerusalem sent a "special blessing" to the Pope "for his lifesaving efforts on behalf of the Jews during the Nazi occupation of Italy"; and when Pius died in 1958, Israel's Foreign Minister Golda Meir gave a him moving eulogy at the United Nations for the same reason. 5) What was to be gained by Pius's speaking out publically and condemning the Nazis actions? Both the International Red Cross and the World Council of Churches came to the same conclusion as the Vatican: relief efforts for the Jews would be more effective if the agencies remained relatively quiet; yet, you never hear anybody attacking the Red Cross for its "silence" about the Holocaust [or any other church]. It is well to note that the holocaust included persecutions of Catholics (i.e., an estimated 3 million were executed) as well. Despite his intervention, 3000 Catholic priests were murdered by the Nazis in Germany, Austria, Poland, France, and other countries; Catholic schools were shut down, Catholic publications were forced out of print or strictly censored, and Catholic churches closed. Polish cardinal, Prince Sapieha, begged the Pope not to make public protests, which would only increase the persecution of his people. 6) In 1942, the Catholic hierarchy of Amsterdam spoke out vigorously against the Nazi treatment of the Jews; the Nazi response was a redoubling of round-ups and deportations; by the end of the war, 90 percent of the Jews in Amsterdam were liquidated. Jewish relief officials were in complete agreement that a public attack by the Vatican against the Nazis would have had little effect on Hitler and would jeopardize the lives of Jews who were being hidden in convents, monasteries, churches, etc. 7) Pope Pius's 1942 Christmas message lamented that hundreds of thousands were being persecuted "solely because of their race or ancestory." The German ambassador to the Vatican complained that Pius was "clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews." A NEW YORK TIMES editorial on Christmas day, 1942 praised Pius as "a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent." 8) A recent report shows that Pave the Way Foundation representative for Germany, historian and investigative researcher Michael Hesemann, discovered a number of very important original documents in his research of the open archives of Santa Maria dell Anima Church, which is the National Church of Germany in Rome. These documents indicate that although the Germans shipped 1007 Roman Jews to their death at Auschwitz, that the Pope was working behind the scenes to protect Jews and actually saved 11,400 Jews. How? The documents note: "The Pope then sent his nephew, Prince Carlo Pacelli, to meet with Austrian Bishop Alois Hudal. Bishop Hudal, head of the National Church of Germany in Rome, was by some accounts, sympathetic to the Nazi's and had good relations with them. Prince Carlo Pacelli told Hudal that he was sent by the Pope, and that Hudal must write a letter to the German Governor of Rome, General Rainier Stahel, to demand that the arrests stop." Bishop Hudal's letter to General Stahel stated: "Just now, a high Vatican source [...] reported to me that this morning, the arrest of the Jews of Italian nationality has started. In the interest of a peaceful dialogue between the Vatican and the German military command, I ask you with urgency to give the order to immediately stop these arrests in Rome and the surrounding area. The German reputation in foreign countries requires such a measure and also the danger that the Pope would openly protest against it." The letter was then hand-delivered to General Stahel by a close confidant to Pope Pius XII, German Father Pancratius Pfeiffer, superior general of the Society of the Divine Savior, who personally knew General Stahel. The following morning, General Stahel responded by telephone: "I forwarded the affair immediately to the local Gestapo and to Himmler personally, Himmler ordered that, concerning the special status of Rome, these arrests are to be stopped immediately." These events are further confirmed by the testimony obtained during the investigation of relator (high Judge) to the cause of Pius XII, Jesuit Priest Father Peter Gumpel. Fr Gumpel stated that he personally spoke to General Dietrich Beelitz, who was then liaison officer between Kesselring's office and Hitler's command. General Beelitz listened in to the Stahel-Himmler telephone conversation and confirmed that General Stahel used a threat of military failure to Himmler if the arrests were to continue. To see actual documents which show what the Pope actually did click here and register for free access to the web archive. 9) New York Rabbi David Dalin, a historian of the Holocaust, says "The Jewish people had no greater firend in the 20th century" and claims Pius XII saved more Jews than the celebrated Schindler. He argues that Pius XII was not "Hitler's Pope" as a new book of that title by John Cornwell claims, but "the greatest defender that we Jews ever had, and precisely at the time we needed it. For more information go to: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/PIUS12.HTM http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZPIUS12.HTM  Church History: Apostolic Succession
In writing the first Church history to come down to us Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (260-341) noted: I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path. I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments . . . (Church History, Book I) Eusebius thus records a concern that modern historians would share, namely that history is an imperfect science. History is based upon a fragmented record of the past and cannot be recreated perfectly. His prayer, on the other hand, is reflective of his world view as a Christian. In fact, all Christian historians, hopefully, share a common world view grounded in faith. Historians are well aware that it is not possible to eliminate all bias from one’s history since history is, in fact, an interpretation of the events and culture of a particular era seen through the lense of the historian. Though the historian seeks primary sources and strives for a level of impartiality, considering alternative theses and perspectives, he or she can never completely divorce themselves from their world view. Distinguished Church historian Warren H. Carroll, author of a five volume work, A History of Christendom, observes, “For the believing Christian, the dividing line between history and apologetics is always rather shadowy and artificial, since all truth is fundamentally one, and Christianity is pre‑eminently a historical religion" (Vol. I, 287). So we should not be surprised to observe that Eusebius begins by establishing the divinity of Christ and the divine institution of his Church. Nor is it surprising to see him discuss the concept of apostolic succession as a primary focus, to demonstrate the historical basis of what some mistakenly consider only a theological concept. He sought to “preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.” But first he testifies concerning St. Peter and St. Paul that: both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: ‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy…’ (Book 2) Eusebius goes on to mention both Linus and Clement as successors to the Chair of Peter and mentions the challenge facing him when he notes: But the number and the names of those among them that became true and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those mentioned in the writings of Paul. He notes that Paul’s disciples are mentioned both in his epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles, pointing out, “Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete.” Eusebius cites the writings of Tertullian and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who argue that it is precisely apostolic succession which proves the Church Christ established against other heretical claimants. Thus, Bishop Irenaeus in an effort to oppose the Gnostic heretics wrote: It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]) Evidence of apostolic succession then, can be found in Scripture and the writings of the Early Church Fathers such as Irenaeus. The Second Vatican Council states: In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them 'their own position of teaching authority'. (Dei Verbum 7) Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." (Dei Verbum 8) Thus, we observe in the earliest Church history of Eusebius and in the Early Church Fathers provide evidence of the concept of apostolic succession being used to distinguish the Church Christ established from others who would make similar claims. Apostolic succession is essential to the Church Christ established, which is truly catholic.  Church History: An Introduction What happened after Jesus commanded the Apostles “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”(Mt. 28: 19-20)? How did the Church survive the periodic persecution of the Romans for 300 years as a mostly underground, house church, yet emerging as the Church of the Roman Empire under Constantine? How did she overcome the heresies which threatened to hopelessly divide her? How did she begin to convert the barbarian tribes that overran the Roman Empire and build Christendom anew? How did Christendom emerge into a powerful rivalry between church and state? Is the story of the Church’s development of doctrine, its struggle to develop as an institution, its Saints, a story worth exploring today? The Christian faith is rooted in history. Central to our faith is the fact that Jesus Christ became man and lived and taught and left us a rich legacy, which his apostles and disciples have since spread to every continent. The Christian announcement of Jesus Christ as Savior and Son of God is the product of faith, but is, nonetheless, based upon history and revelation. How the Church produced the Bible is itself a fascinating story of history, of which many Christians are ignorant. They are unaware that the New Testament canon was not finalized until the end of the fourth century by Church councils. This fact alone has great significance for those trying to understand the Church’s development. Church history also makes clear that the Bible is salvation history, not a mere collection of stories. The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the Western world. It has made its mark on history, yet many Christians today see no reason to study it. Myths about the Church abound. Historical study of the Church was and is an important part of how the Church understands herself. Certainly, historical factors played a role in the great debate of the second and third centuries in defining Christ in the face of challenges by the heretical Arians and others who denied his divinity. The great churchmen and councils that decided these issues, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which gave us the Nicene Creed, are the very fabric of Church history. The terms “Trinity” and “apostolic succession,” neither of which are found in Scripture, require the study of history for a full understanding. It is only through the study of history that we learn their Christian perspective and meaning. To study Church history is to see the work of God amidst the strife and turmoil of man’s story. What did Christ mean when he said “the gates of hell” would not prevail against the Church? What significance did the keys he gave to St. Peter have for the Church or the power of binding and loosing? Were the bishops created by St. Paul, like Timothy and Titus, successors of the apostles (see epistles to Timothy and Titus)? How about Mathias (see Acts 1)? Is this apostolic succhession? History puts these questions into perspective and helps us to understand our faith better as we see the Church marching through the ages. Her development from a seedling into a great institution is not without blood and tears, but Christians need not change the subject when the Crusades or the Inquisition become the topic of discussion. We don’t defend the extremes of either, but rather note that they were a reflection of their time and culture and there were some meritorious reasons for doing these things. The way that the Holy Spirit reveals truth is gradually over the course of centuries. The Church is growing into the fullness of Christ, and even today we fall short It has been said that the Church is “the greatest humanizing agent the world has ever seen” and this is demonstrated in history. It was the Church which created the monasteries, which kept alive culture during the so-called “Dark Ages.” Even some secular histories now acknowledge as much. Still the prevalent view is that the rise of science, reason and a more humane approach to human affairs arose in the Enlightenment period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But according to historian, Thomas Woods in his work, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, this occurred much earlier in the Middle Ages and it was the Church and its institutions, especially monasteries, hospitals, cathedral schools, universities, etc. that laid the foundation for the development of the scientific revolution, of modern international law and human rights, and of modern economic theory. This is not mere triumphalism or misplaced devotion since to give credit where credit is due is only just. Nor is this an attempt to ignore the corruption or abuses that infected the Church and made possible the Protestant Reformation and led to Council of Trent and beginning of a Catholic revival. On the contrary, these too are a part of the fabric of our Church history. Let’s explore them together! This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
 Constantine defeated his rival and gained full control of the Roman Empire in 313 A.D. at the Milvan Bridge. He attributed his defeat to Jesus Christ about whom he had dreamed and whose symbol in Greek (the Chi-ro) became the symbol on his labarum. His conversion was a turning point for both the Roman Empire which he commanded and the Catholic Church, which was recognized as a legal religion in the famous Edict of Milan (313 A.D.). Constantine’s letters from 313 on leave no doubt that he considered himself a Christian who believed his imperial duty was to maintain the unity of the Church. Some mistakenly think that this was also the apostasy of the Church. This has led some critics of the Catholic Church to allege that Catholicism emerged with the Emperor Constantine, because some people equate Catholicism (which they distinguish from “Christianity”) with the Church in the Middle Ages, where you have unity of Church and state. So they say claim that before Constantine there was zealous biblical Christianity (the persecuted Church), but after Constantine it became the state religion, cultural Christianity (not because of true belief in Christ).
This equating of Constantine with Catholicism is an error because the basic structure of the Church and the initial creeds were already being formulated before Constantine and the faith that was embraced was decided upon without the emperors, even though they did their darnedest to try to manipulate and maneuver the debate. Ultimately it was God who triumphed because it was the bishops and not the emperors who determined the shape of the Church. With Constantine there was a second icon that represents Christ, even with his shortcomings, the Roman Emperor really did represent Christ’s reign on earth. The view in the Eastern Empire was to accept the Emperor as a religious leader and this is often called caesaropapism (one person with both spiritual and civil authority). In the West however, especially with the figure of the pope, whose spiritual authority was exercised in a more immediate way, there was less of a tendency to look for the Emperor for guidance, but rather to papal authority. This is not to say that the pope’s authority was rejected in the East because the pope’s authority existed there (when disputes arose) and his opinion was sought by Eastern bishops. The Emperor was more of a focal point for the whole life of the empire, including Church life, in the later Middle Ages. It will take the Church a while to adjust to the challenge of the Emperor’s interference. By the end of the century, the Emperor Theodosius (379-395) basically "outlawed" paganism, forbade sacrifice and outlawed different heresies. The challenge of caesaropapism would be one the Church would struggle with throughout the Middle Ages, but she remained the instrument Christ founded for the salvation of mankind. Jesus’s promise of the Holy Spirit given in the Gospel of John (chapters 14-16) and in his foundation of the Church, when he told Peter and the Apostles, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades [i.e., powers of death or hell] shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16: 18). The Holy Spirit was present in every chapter of the Book of Acts from Pentecost to the end of the narrative on St. Paul’s work of founding churches, appointing bishops and presbyters as the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul himself referred to the Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3: 15) because of the work of the Holy Spirit within her. The Holy Spirit is the sanctifier, who was sent by the Father and Son to complete the work of the Son. He makes "holy." As Pope John Paul II has written, "Having accomplished the work that the Father had entrusted to the Son on earth (John 17:4), on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was sent to sanctify the Church for ever, so that believers might have access to the Father through Christ in one Spirit" (Eph 2: 18). Are we to now assume that the Word was wrong, that the Holy Spirit would be departing from the Church for more than a millennium, despite the promise of Jesus? At a time when the canon of the Bible had not yet defined, are we ready to bid farewell to the Spirit for an extended period of time? As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) observes: The mission of the Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. This joint mission henceforth brings Christ’s faithful to share in his communion with the Father in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit prepares men and goes out to them with his grace, in order to draw them to Christ. . . .Thus the Church’s mission is not an addition to that of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but is its sacrament (CCC 737-738). We should also remember that Christ himself is the bridegroom of the Church (Ephesians 5: 24; 2 Corinthians 11: 2). The Church is pictured in Revelation 21: 9 as the bride of the Lamb, the new Jerusalem or as St. Paul referred to it, the “new Israel.” She will as Christ said have both wheat and chaff within her until judgment day, but she will never cease to have the Holy Spirit at work within her. Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter, Mission of the Redeemer wrote: . . . .the universal activity of the Spirit is not to be separated from his particular activity within the body of Christ, which is the Church. Indeed, it is always the Spirit who is at work, both when he gives life to the Church and impels her to proclaim Christ, and when he implants and develops his gifts in all individuals and peoples, guiding the Church to discover these gifts, to foster them and to receive them through dialogue. Every form of the Spirit's presence is to be welcomed with respect and gratitude, but the discernment of this presence is the responsibility of the Church, to which Christ gave his Spirit in order to guide her into all the truth (cf. Jn 16:13). From the beginning of creation until now the Spirit is working and especially today within the Church Christ founded as the instrument for our salvation. Constantine was certainly not the role model for civil leaders in every respect, nor was he the beginning of an apostasy some hypothesize for the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church. Reading the works of the Early Church Fathers is an antidote against the view that the Church was in apostasy. As John Henry Newman put it, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).
Start blogging by creating a new post. You can edit or delete me by clicking under the comments. You can also customize your sidebar by dragging in elements from the top bar.
|
RSS Feed
