4:58

"Aren't religious fanatics dangerous whether their religion is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or whatever?"

If you are going to pick a source then please choose a less bigoted one MyFirst0.

Let's discuss and hopefully settle this.

All 265 Popes are just mere men and never claimed to be more than a mere human being.

Just like the Old Testament prophets (Hebrew, Nabi) were mere men, so are the Popes. The Prophets were chosen by God to speak in His name, in other words, the prophets were God's spokesmen. The prophets were trying to lead the people to God by speaking God's truth.

Same thing basically with the Popes and with papal infallibility which is based on Christ's mandate. In  St. Matthew 28-19-20, Christ instructed the Church to preach and teach everything He taught until the end of the world and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit "to guide them to all truth".

Christ's mandate and promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from His teachings, 1Tim. 3:15, even if individual Catholics might. This inability of the Chruch to teach error is infallibility; it is a negative protection.And Christ provided the Chruch a method by which it could preserve intatact all His teachings. Infallibility was a divine prerogative given by Christ to St.Peter and through apostolic succession of bishops to keep them from error in teaching His faith and morals in its fullness.

The infallibility of the Pope simply means that IN his official teachings or definitions, PROVIDED he speaks ex cathedra, that is as successor of St.Peter, is Vicar of Christ, the temporal head of the Church AND in matters of faith and morals AND with the intention of binding all the faithful, God will not allow him to define erroneous doctrine. The Pope is infallible only when all these conditions I just enumerated are present.  

Infallibility is rarely used. Some infallible pronouncements in relatively recent times were Bl. Pius IX's definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, in 1950 Pope Pius XII's infallible declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life and the last was in 1994 when Bl. Pope John Paul II declared that only men can be ordained to the priesthood.

Not all of the Pope's encyclicals are infallible in themselves but they may contain infallible doctrines that the Church has taught from the beginning. Humanae Vitae comes to mind here.  Also, none of the 16 documents which came out of Vatican II are infallible documents.

Again, infallibility is a Divine charism that attaches in a special way to the Pope only when he speaks in his official capacity as shepherd and teacher to confirm the faithful in their Faith and morals.The Holy Spirit prevents a Pope from officially teaching error and this charism follows from the existence of the Church itself. If the Church is to do what Christ said it would and not do what He said it would not do such as have the gates of Hell prevail against it, ----then it must be able to teach infallibly.

For men to be saved they must  know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon when it comes to official teaching in faith and morals. That's why papal infallibility exists.

Infallibility has nothing to do with Pope Pius XII during WWII.

Again,

The abundant, incontestable documentary evidence proves beyond doubt that Pope Pius XII labored without pause for peace, assisted the Allies, was not silent, opposed Nazi racial atrocities, and that the Church fed, sheltered, and clothed victims of war, especially Jews.

As far as the Pope having to do more than others,

I know of no world leader who did more to resist the Nazis, rescue Jews and warn the world of the horrors of Nazism and Communism than this great man. 

myfist0 -

The vid is a nice, highly selectively supported, attempt to draw moral equivalency, but if you read Breivik's 'Manifesto' you learn even he did not really consider himself a Christian, so what's a fella to do?

The fact that those endorsing and promoting the notion of the 'Christian Terrorist' have to go back to the Crusades to find supporting evidence says all you need to know.  The problem of the Crusades has been resolved; the problem of Muslim terrorism, not so much.

Crazy people like Kazynski & Breivik harbor all sorts of internally contradictory thoughts & rationales, some of which may be rooted in religion by virtue of having grown up in a world containing it.  It's only in pursuit of an agenda that stereotypes (yanked up from a 1000 years ago, no less, in this case) get applied in situations like this; similar to what happened with the Loughner murders (RightWingers, Tea Party in particular) but with a different target.

Suspecting another act of Muslim terrorism was not unreasonable early on, given the nature of the events and the past decade's experiences, especially after an ostensible claim of responsibility was made by a Muslim extremist group.  That turned out to be bogus, of course, but unlike in the Loughner incident, Fox didn't continue to insist over and over, against all evidence, that it was a Muslim extremist attack, as the legacy media continued to push the meme of RightWing-inspired violence in the Loughner case long after it was known he was a mostly apolitical whack job with, if anything, leftist leanings.

Fox wasn't the only news outlet to verbalize the potential connection to Muslim terrorism early on, BTW, but it is the one which is selectively criticized routinely, so this little video didn't surprise me in the least.

Contemporary Christians don't commit mass murder with the blessings, let alone financial and logistical support, of any portion of organized Christianity, whatever flavor.  When someone who is a practicing Christian commits mass murder in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, publicly proclaiming so, and for whose act responsibility is claimed, or whose act is endorsed or praised, by any organized Christian entity, then we'll have one contemporary instance of Christian Terrorism.

Until then, the only organized acts of contemporary religious terrorism will have been committed by Muslims, who have, as it happens, killed far more Muslims in such acts than so-called Infidels.

Exactly.

O'Reilly rightly asked where is the evidence that Breivik practiced organized Christianity?

If Christianity is behind his murderous terrorism, then show the evidence or quit the mindless repeated mantra that it is.

The video did it's job. The thread is now back on topic. 

Then let's keep it on topic: The Radicalization of Anders Breivik

Thank JFK?

He did a great job on that video blog. Thanks Daiwa

"You're a nazi for watching this video to the end."

LOLed at that.

We have strayed a bit. However, the fact is that the Norwegian was motivated by a potent mix of Islamophobia, race pride, political angst and perhaps nordic racial supremacy theories. My point is that Chistianity in its organised religion avtar is capable of generating extreme violence and the history of Europe, North and South America are replete with examples. Islam in its jehadist form too has taken a similar course. I believe that jehadist violence stms from certain genuine grievances, but this does not mena that I am justifying violence. There is no place for moral grandstanding in this.

No, it stems from the Koran and the supremacist Mullahs who preach jihad as a religious obligation.  Stop apologizing for what the jihadists do not; quite the opposite, they glory in it.  The only 'grievance' they have is that those they kill 'dishonor' the Prophet, in their sole judgment, fully justifying murder, individually or en masse.  Period.  End of story.

Watch the video.  It's a bit whimsical, but deadly serious.

The video is worth a blog on its own, and I think it gets to the root of the problem in Europe.  That is their lack of free speech causing others to find alternative ways to vent their anger. (A side issue is the media practicing victimization).  While Europe pretends to have free speech, it really is an anathema to them, and they have no comprehension of what it is.  I can see the frustration that it would cause, although I cannot comprehend the violence it then generates among some.  No one doubts that America has a lot of loony tunes people.  There are more KKK and NBP rallies than you can shake a stick at.  Yet those groups, which practice hate speech on a daily basis, perform relatively few acts of violence.

In Europe it is the exact opposite.  Indeed, while the incompetent media attempts to blame speech for every violent act, the simple reality is most of it has nothing to do with hate speech.  The media is trying to create a European environment by the abolition of free speech.  The narrator was right.  The only real perpetrator, if one has to find one other than Anders Behring Breivik, is the media.

H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.  You are a one trick blunder.  Your ancestors are responsible for the massacre of 20% of the population of Eurasia - so we have to execute you for that?  Grow up and quit looking for a victim just because some one called you a name as a child.  Your point is the point the narrator made in the video.  YOU are the cause of the massacre.  And you will continually be the cause as long as you look for victimhood instead of accepting responsibility.  That is not only accepting it on your own behalf, it is recognizing that adults are responsible for their actions.  Not H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.  You are  sad pathetic caricature of Anders.

I agree in total.

.................................

To me, the video as well as the manifesto ramblings show that the Norway killer was fed up with the Islamification of Norway and his killing spree was his morbid way of resisting and bringing attention to the matter. 

Again, Christianity didn't produce Breivik. Breivik was not a Christian nor was his mass murder of innocents an act of CHRISTIAN TERRORISM.  CHRISTIAN TERRORISM is an oxymoron.

Your point is incorrect and dishonest. It's time to abandon this mindlessly repeated mantra.

No one denies that plenty of violence has been done by purported Christians, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is the source of that evil.

As a matter of fact, it's just the opposite. For over 2,000 years, through Christ's teachings, Christianity provides a moral code that condemns extreme violence against innocent people.