Books on corruption in the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter PiousTemplar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PiousTemplar

Guest
Can anyone give me a list of books to read concerning the reformation, the state the Church was in, and what types of corruption were present? Any Catholic ones? So far I have only read non catholic and some anti-catholic ones which put the Church in a pretty bad light.

Thanks guys, God Bless.

PiousTemplar.
 
How the Reformation Happend and Characters of the Reformation, both by Hillaire Belloc, are very good and offer exactly what you are looking for (and more). 🙂
 
PiousTemplar said:
Can anyone give me a list of books to read concerning the reformation, the state the Church was in, and what types of corruption were present? Any Catholic ones? So far I have only read non catholic and some anti-catholic ones which put the Church in a pretty bad light.

Thanks guys, God Bless.

PiousTemplar.
Click to expand...
OK, you have got the references, thanks to nice members.
But, i would not care less.
Reformation critics that say that the Church was in Bad Shape are targeting the wrong target. What if it was even badder than what they say. What is the problem?
Did not they read the gospels? St. Peter denied Christ 3 times, Judas Iscariotes betrayed Him, all but one fled when He was crucified. What a “good” beginning !!! Think that anything could be worse? The Catholic Church during Reformation they were Angels compared to these !!!

Yet, and repeat, yet, those were all saints and chosen by God to be the Founding Fathers of the Church.

The Reformation Leaders were looking for a Holy, Saint, heavenly Church and found a Church of Sinners. Then, they told, it is us, we, who are going to Reform the Church.

Wrong. The Only one Who Reforms the Church is the Only One who sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, transforming them from weak and mean men to Saints able to give their lives for Jesus.

What we have got is Churches which have the name of the Reformer: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, etc.

Our Church went on being the Church of the Holy Spirit through the Council of Trent.

I think that you should read the book, if you like. I am not at all advising you or counseling you or in any way interfering with your options and decisions.

I am just giving my viewpoint, which, if good, Ok, if bad, may the erased away.

But, I am never in the defensive with Protestant critics about the State of Corruption of the Church in Reformation.

I ask? Corruption? What Corruption? Why to use the word Corruption and ont the word “sin”? Corruption is a civil legal term not a religious one! And the Apostles? Isnt the People of God, by definition, a People os Sinners on the way to Heaven? What is the surprise? Did the Reformers created (created (?)) Churches os Saints, Incorruptible?

It is so tiring to be on the defensive that I prefer the attack!!!

No, our Catholic Church is a Church of sinners driven by the Holy Spirit. And the more sinners we are, the more is glorified and shown the Grace of the Holy Spirit. I do not mean sin on purpose to show the greatness of the Holy Spirit, of course.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
OK, you have got the references, thanks to nice members.
But, i would not care less.
Reformation critics that say that the Church was in Bad Shape are targeting the wrong target. What if it was even badder than what they say. What is the problem?
Did not they read the gospels? St. Peter denied Christ 3 times, Judas Iscariotes betrayed Him, all but one fled when He was crucified. What a “good” beginning !!! Think that anything could be worse? The Catholic Church during Reformation they were Angels compared to these !!!

Yet, and repeat, yet, those were all saints and chosen by God to be the Founding Fathers of the Church.

The Reformation Leaders were looking for a Holy, Saint, heavenly Church and found a Church of Sinners. Then, they told, it is us, we, who are going to Reform the Church.

Wrong. The Only one Who Reforms the Church is the Only One who sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, transforming them from weak and mean men to Saints able to give their lives for Jesus.

What we have got is Churches which have the name of the Reformer: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, etc.

Our Church went on being the Church of the Holy Spirit through the Council of Trent.

I think that you should read the book, if you like. I am not at all advising you or counseling you or in any way interfering with your options and decisions.

I am just giving my viewpoint, which, if good, Ok, if bad, may the erased away.

But, I am never in the defensive with Protestant critics about the State of Corruption of the Church in Reformation.

I ask? Corruption? What Corruption? Why to use the word Corruption and ont the word “sin”? Corruption is a civil legal term not a religious one! And the Apostles? Isnt the People of God, by definition, a People os Sinners on the way to Heaven? What is the surprise? Did the Reformers created (created (?)) Churches os Saints, Incorruptible?

It is so tiring to be on the defensive that I prefer the attack!!!

No, our Catholic Church is a Church of sinners driven by the Holy Spirit. And the more sinners we are, the more is glorified and shown the Grace of the Holy Spirit. I do not mean sin on purpose to show the greatness of the Holy Spirit, of course.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut friend! Interesting read!
 
H. W. Crocker III in “Triumph, the Power and Glory of the Catholic Church” gets into the whole Church history from AD 33 on, but I am told by some nonCatholics that he is ‘dreadfully biased’.

SINCE, however, you have already been reading nothing but biased stuff from the ANTI-Catholic POV, it might be a nice treat to read something which (again according to a nonCatholic) is ‘Catholic biased’, just as a counterpoint. . .😃
 
BTW, I just finished reading Belloc’s “Characters of the Reformation” which I enjoyed as capsule studies and as a kind of starting point, but would take some of them with a grain of salt as M. Belloc did not have available at the time of his writing many documents which are now available and which, if he had been able to study them, I think would have made him address certain characters in a different way. I think he’d have done more justice to the non-Catholic ones --not that he didn’t try to in his way but again, he didn’t have the available documentation --and that would have made his work more valuable. Still for the Catholic parties especially, and Mary Tudor and Sir Thomas More above all, the particular insight into them and their role in the whole time I found extremely valuable. Too often people paint Mary Tudor as a bloodthirsty crazed fanatic (she was not) and tend to downplay Sir Thomas More’s reasons for opposing Henry VIII, and to ignore his temperament, the actual point he was standing for, and how DIFFICULT it was for him. These insights I found fascinating and helpful.
 
@Tantum I think any book that “doesn’t” paint the Catholic Church in a bad light will be considered biased by them. Without exception every protestant/non denominational “christian” I know (I’m not speaking for their entire congregations, just the handful that I know personally so take it as that) but not a one of them will listen to me talk about the Catholic Church. They just echo the falsehoods and poison they hear by their self ordained preachers who individually interpret the Bible or spew that sola scriptura nonsense at them and instruct them to attack Catholics (though they use the term “evangelize”). Protestantism and Non denominationalism are riddled with inconsistencies and even heresies depending on how far they interpret scriptures themselves. Always a dangerous game when you gamble your soul into a Church that isn’t founded by God.
 
BigFellaMick said:
@Tantum I think any book that “doesn’t” paint the Catholic Church in a bad light will be considered biased by them. Without exception every protestant/non denominational “christian” I know (I’m not speaking for their entire congregations, just the handful that I know personally so take it as that) but not a one of them will listen to me talk about the Catholic Church. They just echo the falsehoods and poison they hear by their self ordained preachers who individually interpret the Bible or spew that sola scriptura nonsense at them and instruct them to attack Catholics (though they use the term “evangelize”). Protestantism and Non denominationalism are riddled with inconsistencies and even heresies depending on how far they interpret scriptures themselves. Always a dangerous game when you gamble your soul into a Church that isn’t founded by God.
Click to expand...
This is not necessarily so. There are books that are considered good and scholarly on both sides, and others that are clearly biased.

Of course, there are people who consider anything that doesn’t agree with them biased.🤷

Something like The Reformation by McCulloch is generally considered to be a good solid account, or Owen Chadwick’s book which is often available used. Chadwick is not Catholic, I don’t know about McCulloch. But I’ve never heard either called biased.
 
Bluegoat said:
This is not necessarily so. There are books that are considered good and scholarly on both sides, and others that are clearly biased.

Of course, there are people who consider anything that doesn’t agree with them biased.🤷

Something like The Reformation by McCulloch is generally considered to be a good solid account, or Owen Chadwick’s book which is often available used. Chadwick is not Catholic, I don’t know about McCulloch. But I’ve never heard either called biased.
Click to expand...
MacCulloch is a lapsed Anglican. Chadwick was merely Anglican.

GKC
 
Tantum_ergo said:
BTW, I just finished reading Belloc’s “Characters of the Reformation” which I enjoyed as capsule studies and as a kind of starting point, but would take some of them with a grain of salt as M. Belloc did not have available at the time of his writing many documents which are now available and which, if he had been able to study them, I think would have made him address certain characters in a different way. I think he’d have done more justice to the non-Catholic ones --not that he didn’t try to in his way but again, he didn’t have the available documentation --and that would have made his work more valuable. Still for the Catholic parties especially, and Mary Tudor and Sir Thomas More above all, the particular insight into them and their role in the whole time I found extremely valuable. Too often people paint Mary Tudor as a bloodthirsty crazed fanatic (she was not) and tend to downplay Sir Thomas More’s reasons for opposing Henry VIII, and to ignore his temperament, the actual point he was standing for, and how DIFFICULT it was for him. These insights I found fascinating and helpful.
Click to expand...
I’ve collected Belloc for around 45 years and love the man dearly. You are right about the grain of salt. But I often suggest CHARACTERS as well as HOW THE REFORMATION HAPPENED. But,as with all things historical, well rounded reading is essential.

GKC
 
Tantum_ergo said:
H. W. Crocker III in “Triumph, the Power and Glory of the Catholic Church” gets into the whole Church history from AD 33 on, but I am told by some nonCatholics that he is ‘dreadfully biased’.

SINCE, however, you have already been reading nothing but biased stuff from the ANTI-Catholic POV, it might be a nice treat to read something which (again according to a nonCatholic) is ‘Catholic biased’, just as a counterpoint. . .😃
Click to expand...
Belloc used to say that when he read history bent in an one direction, his instinct was not to straighten it, but to bend it the other way.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top