Capistranus

@JoshuaTCharles I would save the crocodile

The answer here is very clear: 1. Wife (covenantal obligation) 2. Mother(“honor your mother”) 3. Friend (duty of friendship) 4. Girlfriend (last human, because clearly extramarital) 5. $450 million (because not human life)

@Davisanism Hey are you planning to post new videos on your youtube channel? Big fan of your work, God bless!

@KarlRadl Hitler commits blasphemy by placing the party above God.

For heaven's sake read an actual academic book rather than spouting what you heard on TV you syphilitic fruit-picking sodomite.

@KarlRadl The Greatest Enemy of the Church?

No, I meant by that that you are extremely stupid and unread. In what universe has the euthanasia only been condemned since Pius XII? From the book “Kirchenkampf oder Katholikenverfolgung?”: Aktion T4 In the period that followed, the resistance of Catholics against the forced sterilization of sick or “inferior” persons did not cease. The regime noted this with increasing bitterness. On 4 November 1936 Hitler complained to Cardinal Faulhaber that National Socialist race legislation was being fought from the (Catholic) pulpits. The curial authority responsible for the supervision of doctrine did not move a finger’s breadth away from upholding divine law. The Holy Office rejected direct sterilization once again on 24 February 1940 and, on 19 February 1941, placed the book of the Protestant theologian Wolfgang Stroothenke, Erbpflege und Christentum. Fragen der Sterilisation, Aufnordung, Euthanasie, Ehe, Leipzig 1940—which, among other things, advocated the killing of deformed children with the consent of the parents—on the Index of Forbidden Books. When the war broke out, Hitler considered the time ripe to implement the plans that had existed for some time. In July 1939 he ventilated the question of killing adult mentally ill persons; in August the preparations for this began. On 1 September 1939 he gave the order to kill malformed children and adult mentally ill persons (and the mentally weak!). The written formulation of the (orally issued) order for the killing of adult mentally ill persons was made at the end of October 1939 on a sheet bearing the title of the party chairman, was signed by Hitler, and backdated to 1 September 1939. Hitler rejected the issuance of a formal law because it would have made the plan known to the public; this he shrank back from. Hitler’s henchmen in the euthanasia action set to work. The killings were carried out in several institutions, of which Grafeneck and Hadamar are the best known. Surprisingly, the Protestant institutions in Bethel were spared from murder operations. Tens of thousands of mentally ill and mentally weak persons fell victim to the euthanasia program. For reasons that were to be treated in the same way, Hitler ordered on 24 August 1941 that the euthanasia action, insofar as it concerned adults, be stopped. However, the killing of malformed and idiotic children continued until the end of the war. p. 521–522 Church protest against T4 For the last time the German bishops raised their voice against euthanasia in their pastoral letter of 19 August 1943. The attitude of the Catholic bishops, who publicly opposed the inhumanity and criminal actions of the regime, deserves high admiration. Kurt Nowak has rightly pointed out that they did not fear the grave accusations of treason, malicious intent, and undermining military morale in their protest. In this, it was not about the interests of the Catholic Church but about the defense of human rights. The German bishops received support from the Apostolic See and had in it a firm backing. The Holy Office declared on 27 November 1940, in a declaration confirmed by the Pope on 1 December 1940, that the killing of defective persons contradicted natural and divine law. Thus the judgment stands rightly: the Catholic Church stood united against euthanasia. Kurt Nowak noted “the uncompromising nature” with which the murder of the sick was condemned on the Catholic side. The bishops did everything conceivable to preserve in the faithful a sound moral judgment. This was done through sermons and pastoral letters. Bishop Preysing’s pastoral letter on the law from Advent 1942, for example, was an unambiguous rejection of the perverted National Socialist concept of law and a clear confession of just law. The bishop demanded the recognition of the sovereign rights of God and respect for human rights. The faithful stood by their bishops. This became evident when the government used the effective propaganda tool of film to make euthanasia popular. The film “Ich klage an” triggered a lively discussion about “killing on request” and the “elimination of life unworthy of life.” p. 523

@Capistranus_ @AmericanReform_ Read my first message.

Hitler saved the Church in Germany from the Bolsheviks.

I did not mean this conversation at all, but rather the one in which you had claimed: “Hitler saved us from communism”; in that one you did not answer me anymore. I do not know why you did not address my source, in which I showed that Pius XII maintained contact with the German resistance, who were planning the assassination of Hitler. I do not need to fulfill your own definition or criterion of a tyrant-killing; it is entirely sufficient that Hitler strove for the deliberate killing of unborn children and also attempted to murder Pius XII. What do you call a ruler who tries of his own will to murder the Holy Father? "On the very same day, Hitler gave his troops the order to occupy Italy and to march into Rome. Pius XII and the Vatican were thereby in the utmost danger. Already upon receiving the news of the coup against the “Duce,” Hitler had ordered “to free Mussolini, to liquidate the Pope and the King.” That, at any rate, is what Colonel Erwin von Lahousen, an officer of the Abwehr, testified at the Nuremberg Trials. He too was part of the circle of conspirators around Admiral Canaris, who was still waiting for the right moment for a coup d’état. General Oster had informed him of the order in the presence of Canaris. “Was it the intention to abduct the Pope, or what action was to be taken against him?”, the investigating judge in Nuremberg asked in disbelief. — “No, they wanted to kill him,” Colonel Lahousen was certain." - Der Papst und der Holocaust, p. 318.

First, as I have made clear in my writing, I am not looking to resurrect German National Socialism, as such, or any party dedicated to it. As you likely know, there is no intrinsic connection between National Socialism and opposing liberalism, restoring State authority, loving your race and curbing immigration. Generally, I am sympathetic to NS as an imperfect, though historically valuable political - social system but this is not without certain reservations. One must also distinguish between radical ideologues within the movement and the movement, taken as a whole and directed by Hitler, along with the distinct (albeit related) NSDAP platform. As for the reason I did not respond to your reply with the quotes from Cd. Faulhaber, it is because they were not relevant to the illegitimacy and criminality of Stauffenberg’s actions. Incidentally, Cd. Faulhaber, like most of the German hierarchy, had a very complicated relationship with National Socialism, while always working for a modus vivendi with the regime. What he said in 1930, i.e. categorical opposition and rejection of National Socialism, was at odds with what Cd. Pacelli and other prelates said, later and in their respective capacities. That Abp. Gröber joined the SS or that Cd. Innitzer at one point enthusiastically supported Hitler is not sufficient evidence of the Catholic Church embracing National Socialism, either. In short, the trading of quotes back and forth is not serious analysis and overlooks the most important magisterial pronouncement, namely Mit brennender Sorge and its commentary by Cd. Pacelli. —Finally, I ask you and others, to prove your case rather than merely asserting it. In the practical order popes can be wrong, Pope Pius XII had a stormy pontificate and is no exception, in which they can have imprudent practical action and yes, even engage in sin. Please demonstrate that 1) Hitler was a tyrant by oppression 2) that it was an unbearable tyranny and 3) that, in Stauffenberg’s case, he satisfied the necessary conditions to make rebellion legitimate. I am aware of tyrannicide being considered in a strict and broad sense and only want to see the argument justifying the actions of Stauffenbern, otherwise he was a traitor and guilty of a very serious crime. In other words, a villain not a hero.

“Everyone is nervous today because the heinous crime, the assassination attempt on the Führer, has become known. It is said to have been carried out by officers.” - Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber

I am not particularly interested in having an extensive discussion with you,since last time you ignored me after I replied to you with sources and a quotation. I will nevertheless try one last time. Right in advance, I have nothing against you; on the contrary, I consider your work extremely good and share the same opinions. I only have a major problem with this ideology-laden historical revisionism in which I myself once became entangled. I believe in the Jewish conspiracy as well as in the hypersensitization of the H. narrative, yet I also believe in the controlled opposition that has spread across social networks in recent years, which includes the exaggerated Hitler sympathy and the quoting of history in a deformed and limited form. First of all: The quotation you brought forward from the council does not condemn the idea of tyrannicide, but tyrannicide under certain conditions which are explained in the quotation. According to the council document, it is not permitted to carry out tyrannicide under the following circumstances: - by one’s own authority and judgment - breaking a valid oath - lying - without the judgment of a judge Under these circumstances, then, it is not permitted to commit tyrannicide; however, this does not mean that tyrannicide may not exist in general. In my position I refer to the authors Georg May or Dr. Michael Hessemann, a Catholic historian who was one of the few allowed to draw from the Vatican archives in order to write his book from the primary sources obtained there. Under Pius XII., however, we find that he maintained contact with the resistance, who were planning the assassination of Hitler: What if Hitler were to continue winning? Would he then carry out the threat he had made at the Nazi Ordensburg Sonthofen, to »trample the Catholic Church like a toad«? Kaas assured that he would speak to the Pope, who at that time was still staying in his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo and working on his first encyclical. Would Pius XII. be willing to make himself available as an intermediary between the German resistance and the British—and thus become part of a conspiracy against Hitler? A few days later Müller returned to Munich, in order to appear again before Oster in Berlin on 5 October. Another ten days later he again met Kaas in Rome: He brought him the joyful news that he had succeeded in speaking to Pius XII. in private and in telling him about the plans of the resistance. Then Kaas paused for dramatic effect and swallowed once, knowing how unbelievable what he was about to announce now was: »The Holy Father did not hesitate for a minute and immediately declared himself ready to seize any opportunity to prevent the impending catastrophe.« – Der Papst und der Holocaust, p. 12 I can provide further sources and quotations showing Pius’s great abhorrence of Hitler and that he was intent on getting Hitler out of Germany—“any government without Hitler” (Pius XII.)—but I do not even believe that you will read or reply to this, which is why I do not feel much desire to write more. Attached are the quotations from Faulhaber in case you have not seen them yet.

Given that the Third Reich was a legitimate government and received universal and peaceful acceptance from the German people, along with recognition from the Holy See, the burden of proof is on you. You must not only prove that 1) Hitler was a tyrant by oppression and 2) that the tyranny was unbearable, but that 3) what Stauffenberg attempted would qualify as legitimate insurrection, satisfying the usual conditions. It will also be helpful to cite which author you are relying on to make your arguments.

@NS_Heat_Exposed @hudalianlarp youtube.com/watch?v=BB2xUG…

Hitler defended the Holy Eucharist against attacks from Julius "the subhuman" Streicher: "On behalf of the Chancellor, I request the confiscation of the special issue of the newspaper 'Stürmer', Nuremberg, May 1934, titled 'Ritual Murder' because of attacks on the Eucharist."

@AmericanReform_ That’s wrong, like everything else you’re saying about Hitler

Moral analysis of Stauffenberg’s crime:

@AmericanReform_ Also Cardinal Faulhaber ...

@AmericanReform_ @eocbookstore @AmericanReform_

Question: What do you call the relationship between two people in which both try to “eliminate” each other? Hitler entertained ideas of kidnapping Pius XII. Pius XII. maintained contact with the resistance, who arranged contract killings against Hitler. Do you want the sources for that? When Saint Nicholas of Myra struck the heretic Arius in the face, did he feel “love” for him? Your appeal to emotion does nothing to change the fact that Pius XII./Pacelli harbored a strong aversion toward Hitler and the regime, which would therefore stand in complete contradiction to what has been posted here, with which you are trying to suggest to the reader “Hitler saved.” It would really be advisable to begin reading not only historically revisionist “sources,” which, just like the opposite side, try to press an ideology into history.

@liam_nmk @AmericanReform_ What the hell are you talking about?

@Capistranus_ @AmericanReform_ 2/ There were no formal condamnation of euthanasia before Pius XI I , so the NS couldn't know wheter that was bad or not.

it is btw permitted to hate someone under certain circumstances. Francisco Toledo (Cardinal) "On the ways in which we may wish temporal harm upon our neighbor, and on Schism. Chapter XI. First case: When it is permitted to “hate” someone in a certain sense. Also: What schism is. Schism is twofold: internal and external. Although everyone is indeed obliged to love their neighbor and not to wish evil upon anyone, as has been said, there are nevertheless certain cases in which it is permitted to will harm or to “hate” someone in a certain sense. The first such case is on account of their sins. For it is permitted to hate some persons because of their iniquities. The second case is this: it is also permitted to will and to desire some temporal evil for a person solely for the sake of their spiritual correction — for example, if someone is proud and incorrigible. Then it would be allowed to wish them sickness, loss of money, or some other temporal evil by which their correction might reasonably be expected. The third case concerns the spiritual good of the community and of others. For it is permitted to wish the temporal death from the Lord upon heretics who are corrupting others and are incorrigible, so that they may be removed from among the people and not lead others to ruin with them. The fourth case pertains to justice: for it is permitted to desire that wicked men of the same city be executed by the judge, out of zeal for justice, and that they be apprehended and punished by the judge so that justice may be fulfilled. In all these cases, however, care must always be taken that this desire for evil is not directed toward the person as such: for then it would be contrary to charity. It is good only if it is done exclusively for the purposes mentioned above. Against this charity there is one particular sin — namely, scandal — which we shall speak of further below; but for now, we must speak of schism." - Instructio sacerdotum / Summa casuum conscientiae, p.322

Your arguments could be better weighed on their merits if you did not impugn the Holy Father as harboring hatred towards any man. Cd. Pacelli and later as Pope Pius XII had a complicated relationship with National Socialism. In general, he was unsympathetic towards it while always working for a modus vivendi with the regime and social system.

@eocbookstore @AmericanReform_ To realize that Hitler was pro-choice and that Pacelli hated him to death? @eocbookstore

@AmericanReform_ This is something that people need to realize.

@AugustineOTV Is it really that good?

Me after reading almost every book Pope Benedict has written.

@HistoricalWWII Because the J. are pushing this narrtive

Hitler Loved Christ

@WalmartThomist Love you bro, and you Chesthair too! 🙏

I QUIT Popesplaining