Aleteia: Last Priest from Dachau Concentration Camp Dies at 102

Father Hermann Scheipers survived Nazis and communists in long career

Aleteia by John Burger
June 14, 2016

ERIC SCHWAB/Getty Images

The last Catholic priest to have been imprisoned in the Dachau concentration camp has died at age 102.

Father Hermann Scheipers was a young priest in 1940 when he was arrested by the Nazis and taken to the camp, near Munich. Dachau had a large population of priests: some 95% of the 2,720 clergymen imprisoned there were Catholic.

Father Scheipers died June 2 in Ochtrup in Münsterland, the same town where he was born on July 24, 1913.

His work among young people, soon after his ordination, drew the attention of the Nazis. An obituary at KNA, a German Catholic news agency, translated by Mark de Vries, noted:

Because he was sympathetic with Polish forced laborers, celebrated Mass with them and heard their confessions, he was arrested [in] October of 1940 and brought to Dachau five months later. His file, which he came across by chance, states the true reason for his arrest: “Scheipers is a fanatical proponent of the Catholic Church and thus likely to cause unrest among the population.”

He wore the number 24255 on his prison uniform.

Father Scheipers recalled the way the camp commander welcomed him and his fellow inmates: “You are without honor, without help and without rights. Here, you can either work or perish.”

The sign over the entrance to the prisoner camp famously read, “Arbeit macht frei,” or “Work will make you free.”

When All You Thought Non-Catholics Church Services are the Real Ancient "Christians" Worship, Think Again!

Those noisy drums and Rock bands! Those goose-bumps emotional worship services! Those great preaching without any liturgy! Are they rooted to the First Century Christian way of Church Service? For comparison, please come back and read THIS LINK after reading the whole article below. -CD2000

Chapel of Saint Ananias, Damascus, Syria, an early example of a Christian house of worship; built in the 1st century AD

Source: Gospel Coalition

What Was a Church Service Like in the Second Century

I’m really enjoying N.R. Needham’s 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power, Vol. 1: Age of the Early Church Fathers, part of a very accessible but well-informed multi-volume survey of church history. On pp. 66-75 he outlines a fairly typical church service in the second century (A.D. 101-200), based on descriptions and instructions found in the early Church fathers. I thought it might be helpful to outline it below.

The service of worship on Sunday lasted about 3 hours in total, with the typical posture being standing throughout. There were no musical instruments, and the Lord’s Supper was observed every week.

The first part, “The Service of the Word,” was open to three groups: (1) baptized believers; (2) those receiving instruction in the Christian faith; and (3) (probably) those who were merely curious about Christianity.

The second part of the service, “Prayers and the Eucharist,” was only open to believers who had been baptized. The rest had to leave. Needham writes that the early church understood congregational prayer as “participating by the Holy Spirit in the glorified Christ’s own heavenly ministry of prayer”—something unbelievers could not share in since they did not have the Spirit.

Part 1: Service of the Word

1. Opening greeting by bishop and response by the congregation. Often, the bishop would say “The Lord be with you” and the congregation would respond, “And with your spirit.”

2. Old Testament Scripture reading. Usually read or chanted by a deacon.

3. Psalm or hymn (I). Chanted or sung.

4. New Testament Scripture reading (I). This first NT reading was from any NT book outside the gospels.

5. Psalm or hymn (II).

6. New Testament Scripture reading (II). From one of the four gospels.

7. Sermon. Delivered by the bishop, while seated.

8. Dismissal of all but baptized believers.

Part 2: The Eucharist

1. Congregational prayers. The prayer leader—the bishop in the West; senior deacon in the East—would announce the first topic. The congregation prayed silently for a while. Then the leader summed up the petitions with his own spoken prayer. Then he would do the same pattern again with a new topic. This was a lengthy part of the service. Early Christian art suggests that a typical posture from praying was standing, looking heavenward, with arms outstretched and palms up.

2. The Lord’s Supper. Here’s the order: (1) the bishop offered a greeting; (2) the congregation responded; (3) there was a “kiss of peace” (men to men, women to women); (4) church members brought their own small loaf of bread and flask of wine from home; the deacons took these and spread them out on the Lord’s table, emptying the flasks of wine into one large silver cup. (5) The bishop and the congregation engaged in a liturgical “dialogue” with the congregation; (6) the bishop led the congregation in prayer; (7) the bishop and the deacons broke the bread and distributed the cup to the congregation. (8) Something would be said to each member as he or she received the elements (e.g., “The bread of heaven in Christ Jesus,” with the response of “Amen.”) Unconsumed bread and wine would be taken home by church members to use for celebrating communion at home during the weekdays.

3. Benediction. E.g., “Depart in peace,” spoken by the deacon.

The Origin of Sign of the Cross?

Pope Benedict XVI makes the sign of the cross during a mass in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican on the occasion of the conclusion of the XII bishops' synod, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. (AP Photo/Pier Paolo Cito)

Source: CatholicSay

The sign of the cross is a beautiful gesture which reminds the faithful of both the cross of salvation while invoking the Holy Trinity. Technically, the sign of the cross is a sacramental, a sacred sign instituted by the Church which prepares a person to receive grace and which sanctifies a moment or circumstance. Along this thought, this gesture has been used since the earliest times of the Church to begin and to conclude prayer and the Mass.

The early Church Fathers attested to the use of the sign of the cross. Tertullian (d. c. 250) described the commonness of the sign of the cross: “In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross” (De corona, 30).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) in his Catechetical Lectures stated, “Let us then not be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the cross our seal, made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in everything; over the bread we eat and the cups we drink, in our comings and in our goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are traveling, and when we are at rest” (Catecheses, 13). Gradually, about the ninth century, the sign of the cross was incorporated in different acts of the Mass, such as the three-fold signing of the forehead, lips, and heart at the reading of the gospel or the blessing and signing of the bread and wine to be offered.

The earliest formalized way of making the sign of the cross appeared about the 400s, during the Monophysite heresy which denied the two natures in the divine person of Christ and thereby the unity of the Holy Trinity. The sign of the cross was made from forehead to chest, and then from right shoulder to left shoulder with the right hand. The thumb, forefinger, and middle fingers were held together to symbolize the Holy Trinity– Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, these fingers were held in such a way that they represented the Greek abbreviation I X C (Iesus Christus Soter, Jesus Christ Savior): the straight forefinger representing the I; the middle finger crossed with the thumb, the X; and the bent middle finger, the C. The ring finger and “pinky” finger were bent downward against the palm, and symbolize the unity of the human nature and divine nature, and the human will and divine will in the person of Christ. This practice was universal for the whole Church until about the twelfth century, but continues to be the practice for the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

An instruction of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) evidences the traditional practice but also indicates a shift in the Latin Rite practice of the Catholic Church: “The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. …This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left).” While noting the custom of making the cross from the right to the left shoulder was for both the western and eastern Churches, Pope Innocent continued, “Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this– picture the priest facing the people for the blessing– when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right….” Therefore, about this time, the faithful began to imitate the priest imparting the blessing, going from the left shoulder to the right shoulder with an open hand. Eventually, this practice became the custom for the Western Church.

In the classic work, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite by Adrian Fortescue and J. B. O’Connell, the sign of the cross is made as follows: “Place the left hand extended under the breast. Hold the right hand extended also. At the word Patris [Father] raise it and touch the forehead; at Filii [Son] touch the breast at a sufficient distrance down, but above the left hand; at Spiritus Sancti [Holy Spirit] touch the left and right shoulders; atAmen join the hands if they are to be joined.” Although this practice may have evolved from the original and still current practice of Eastern Rite, it nevertheless has been the standing custom for the Latin Rite Church for centuries.

No matter how one technically makes the sign of the cross, the gesture should be made consciously and devoutly. The individual must be mindful of the Holy Trinity, that central dogma that makes Christians “Christians.” Also, the individual must remember that the cross is the sign of our salvation: Jesus Christ, true God who became true man, offered the perfect sacrifice for our redemption from sin on the altar of the cross. This simple yet profound act makes each person mindful of the great love of God for us, a love that is stronger than death and promises everlasting life. The sign of the cross should be made with purpose and precision, not hastily or carelessly.

Why Christians needed the CRUSADES! And why we still need it today!

Taken from The Splendor of the Church blog

Iglesia Ni Cristo®: The Church of Christ during the time of the Apostles is the Catholic Church

And then they will claim that the CHURCH of CHRIST (Catholic Church) became a "persecutor Church"? 

It's like rejecting a DOCTOR's medical advise just because you saw him SMOKED a cigar which is dangerous to his health.  The cigar and the doctor's smoking habit will never ceased him to be a doctor.

Church members could make bad decisions but that will NOT make the CHURCH a fake one.  

On the contrary, no matter how a fake doctor heals, his activities will always be seen as illegal for he is practicing medicine without having the credentials to do so.

How about the Iglesia Ni Cristo® of Manalo, would their claim of "Total Apostasy"prove the CATHOLIC CHURCH is not anymore the REAL CHURCH?

How a Protestant spin machine hid the truth about the English Reformation

By Dominic Selwood
The Telegraph

if Catherine had borne Henry a son, everything would be different…

...May 23, is the anniversary of King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon —­ the event which started the English Reformation.

In 2003, Charles Clarke, Tony Blair’s Secretary of State for Education and Skills, expressed strong views on the teaching of British history.

I don’t mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for the state to pay for them.

In response, Michael Biddiss, professor of medieval history at Reading University, suggested that Mr Clarke’s view may have been informed by Khrushchev’s notion that historians are dangerous people, capable of upsetting everything.­­­­­

In many ways, Khrushchev was correct. Historians can be a distinct threat —­ both those who create “official” history, and those who work quietly to unpick it, filling in the irksome and unhelpful details.

Rulers in all ages have tried to control how history sees them, and have gone to great lengths to have events recorded the way they want. The process is as old as authority itself.

The result is that generations of people learn something at school, only to find out later that it was not so. For instance, children brought up in the communist countries of the 20th century have little idea of the indiscriminately murderous mechanics at the heart of their founding revolutions. More recently, in the United States, anyone young enough not to have lived through the two recent Iraq wars might, if they only read political memoirs, actually believe that the wars were fought to root out al Qaeda.

So what about England? Has our constitutional monarchy and ancient tradition of parliamentary democracy protected our history from political manipulation? Can we rely on what we are taught and told, or are there myths we, too, have swallowed hook, line, and sinker?

Where better to start than with that most quintessentially English of events ­— the break with Rome that signalled the birth of modern England?

For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church, and up and down the country Tudor people preferred plain-speaking, rational men like Wycliffe, Luther, and Calvin. Henry VIII achieved what all sane English and Welsh people had long desired ­– an excuse to break away from an anachronistic subjugation to the ridiculous medieval strictures of the Church.

We are brought up to believe that Catholicism is, well, un-English

For many in England, the subject of whether or not this was true was not even up for debate. Even now, the historical English disdain for all things Catholic is often regarded as irrefutable and objective fact. Otherwise why would we have been taught it for four and a half centuries? And anyway, the English are quite clearly not an emotional race like some of our continental cousins. We like our churches bright and clean and practical and full of common sense. For this reason, we are brought up to believe that Catholicism is just fundamentally, well … un-English.

Queen Elizabeth II visited Pope Francis at the Vatican

Seen by some as a visit by a state leader, but Catholics in the blogsphere is seeing this event as a sign of unity in the Christian world-- Anglicans and Catholics together again.  As one of the commentary by a certain Karen Wilkinson, she says "The Pope has already opened the door for the Anglicans in union with Rome. there are quite a few Churches that have already made the move. Welcome Home."

The Queen's visit is very significant for Christians because she has met met 6 Popes during her reign namely Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. And the latest is Pope Francis making it seven Popes.

Here is the story from Catholic News Agency:

Pope, Queen enjoy casual tea during first meeting

Vatican City- Although short, the April 3 encounter between Pope Francis and Queen Elizabeth in the Vatican has been described as cordial and informal, during which the two exchanged gifts and casual conversation.

Taking place in the papal office of the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall, the official tea between the Bishop of Rome and the British Monarch came after the Queen’s lunch with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano, and lasted only 17 minutes.

During the visit, Queen Elizabeth was accompanied by her husband Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The two were in Rome only for the day, following an initial invitation extended to Her Majesty by President Napolitano last year, which she was not able to accept due to poor health.