Catholic history is disturbing

[Genesis315]

Here is an article defending the Inquisition:

sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/defense_of_the_inquisition.htm

And Cinette why do you say I need to study history?

Probably because you subscrbe to the views in that article, which are being used simply as a vehicle to denigrate the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II and to promote a distorted view of the doctrine of the Church concerning religious liberty, as expressed both in that past and present.

SSPX “historical” tracts are often tainted this way. They have a tract on celibacy which exists primarily to denigrate married deacons and married Eastern rite priests that claims celibacy was alway a universal practice and that any instance of married clerics was simply tolerance of evil.

 

[ChristIsLord]

It’s not worth arguing with people who can find every little fault in the Catholic Church but not acknowledge fault anywhere else.

My brother is someone who can’t stand the Catholic Church even though he’s Catholic. We got into an argument about Obama and it turned into a Catholic argument. Essentially it sunk into the Catholic Church is the worst institution in the world and no discussion is even worth it. He brought up the Crusades and I tried to explain some of the circumstances surrounding the Crusades without defending the excesses of the Crusaders. And he essentially said “I won’t listen to anyone who defends the crusades”, meanwhile he had no issue defending Muslim conquest of the Eastern Churches areas, “who can blame them after the way the Romans and later the Catholic Church treated them”. He had no problem defending the rampant looting, rape, murder, forced conversions that accompanied the Islamic conquests.

It’s sad he used to be a good Catholic, and pro-life, he recently became a teacher and I swear they brainwash you before becoming a public school teacher. He now has no problem with abortion, anti-gun (no guns at all, and this is from an ex Lieutenant in the Marines), hates the Catholic Church but will profess to be a faithful Catholic.

Long short of it is topics like this are a waste of everyones time…

 

[requiemaeturnum]

Probably because you subscrbe to the views in that article, which are being used simply as a vehicle to denigrate the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II and to promote a distorted view of the doctrine of the Church concerning religious liberty, as expressed both in that past and present.

SSPX “historical” tracts are often tainted this way. They have a tract on celibacy which exists primarily to denigrate married deacons and married Eastern rite priests that claims celibacy was alway a universal practice and that any instance of married clerics was simply tolerance of evil.

We believe in tolerance not liberty. Do you honestly believe that heretics and infidels should be free to spread around their lies freely as to cause the damnation of souls?

And of course you display such a militant anti-SSPX attitude so that you cannot even see truth when it is right on your computer screen.

 

[Peter_J]

We believe in tolerance not liberty. Do you honestly believe that heretics and infidels should be free to spread around their lies freely as to cause the damnation of souls?

What about a compromise?

For example, what if they were free except for having a ball-and-chain attached to one ankle?

 

[requiemaeturnum]

What about a compromise?

For example, what if they were free except for having a ball-and-chain attached to one ankle?

I do not know if that post was a joke, but what I was trying to say is that while individually, one is free to “embrace any religion that by the light of reason he believes to be true”, one is not free to spread his lies.

 

[Genesis315]

We believe in tolerance not liberty.

Do you believe that someone can be forced to come to faith? Do you believe that the state can hinder a man from coming to faith? What is the best way in a pluralistic society to ensure both of these authentic liberties?

Do you honestly believe that heretics and infidels should be free to spread around their lies freely as to cause the damnation of souls?

It depends on what the common good requires. The repression of religious error must be subject to higher and more general norms, as Pius XII put it.

Here is a good article from a bishop praised by Leo XIII that explains this principle well:

opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-religious-freedom-part-i.html

Here’s something I put together for another forum on this topic (it is two posts)
christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40437782&postcount=10
christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40437811&postcount=11

 

[requiemaeturnum]

Do you believe that someone can be forced to come to faith? Do you believe that the state can hinder a man from coming to faith? What is the best way in a pluralistic society to ensure both of these authentic liberties?

First question: No.

Second question: Yes, if they are choosing a false religion. If not, then the state should at least try to lead one back to the only true religion (Catholicism).

Third question: I am not a politician. I am a fourteen year old boy who wants to enter a seminary after high school. I do not know of these things.

 

[Genesis315]

I do not know if that post was a joke, but what I was trying to say is that while individually, one is free to “embrace any religion that by the light of reason he believes to be true”, one is not free to spread his lies.

Have you read the allocution that quote references in the Syllabus? The Syllabus is not intended to be read apart from the allocutions they cite. The quote you provide is froma condemnation of rationalists who denied the necessity and obligations of faith, it has nothing to do with the spread or repression of religious error, nor any duty or right of the state to force people to come to faith (or any lack or right to such duty for that matter).

 

[Genesis315]

First question: No.

Good, we are in agreement

Second question: Yes, if they are choosing a false religion. If not, then the state should at least try to lead one back to the only true religion (Catholicism).

Sorry, I meant “the faith.” But from what you said, I think you would agree that the state cannot hinder anyone from freely coming to the true faith.

And I would also agree that the state has certain duties towards the true religion as well and everyone has a duty to spread and defend the truth by means consonant with the Gospel.

Third question: I am not a politician. I am a fourteen year old boy who wants to enter a seminary after high school. I do not know of these things.

Right, we do not have the authority or expertise to decide these things. But surely a General Council can advise states on how this should be done. And this is where I find many supporters and members of the SSPX err. They misunderstand the decree of Vatican II on this topic as some sort of dogmatic constitution rather than one that directs a certain course of action based on principles (that I asked you about above) in order to ensure the common good. They also misunderstand exactly when the state does have the right to suppress false religious activity (the old article (the article by the Archbishop of Mainz, which is primarily based on St. Thomas, explains this well).

If you read the two links I provided above (the posts I made for another forum), you will see how this is both the official interpretation given to the declaration before voting as well as the interpretation of the current Holy Father and the variance with the SSPX position is negligible (it amounts to one of practicality).

However, instead of taking the traditional approach of seeking “to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition” (as Pius XII puts it), they do the opposite and strive to make it into contradiction. They seek battles where none should exist.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

It’s not worth arguing with people who can find every little fault in the Catholic Church but not acknowledge fault anywhere else.

My brother is someone who can’t stand the Catholic Church even though he’s Catholic. We got into an argument about Obama and it turned into a Catholic argument. Essentially it sunk into the Catholic Church is the worst institution in the world and no discussion is even worth it. He brought up the Crusades and I tried to explain some of the circumstances surrounding the Crusades without defending the excesses of the Crusaders. And he essentially said “I won’t listen to anyone who defends the crusades”, meanwhile he had no issue defending Muslim conquest of the Eastern Churches areas, “who can blame them after the way the Romans and later the Catholic Church treated them”. He had no problem defending the rampant looting, rape, murder, forced conversions that accompanied the Islamic conquests.

It’s sad he used to be a good Catholic, and pro-life, he recently became a teacher and I swear they brainwash you before becoming a public school teacher. He now has no problem with abortion, anti-gun (no guns at all, and this is from an ex Lieutenant in the Marines), hates the Catholic Church but will profess to be a faithful Catholic.

Long short of it is topics like this are a waste of everyones time…

Is that all he can come up with is the Inquisitions? Something that happened hundreds of years ago? Good grief…

 

[Peter_J]

I do not know if that post was a joke,

It was.

 

[benedictus2]

The evidence is there you choose to ignore it.
I dont wish to relive the Reformation.

You do not wish to relive the deformation.
Why is that? Afraid of the skeletons in the closet? Afraid to find out that what you thought was a brilliant white history was dredged in mud actually quite putrid? Or is that you are you just beginning to find out the real truth about the reformation and all its evil and can’t handle it.

The reason we are having this discussion is PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE “REFORMATOIN”.

If you do not want to relieve the reformation then you should not have started posting the lies about the Catholic Church in the first place. The lies that are pertuated by Protestants of the reformation. Can’t you see how irrational you sounded just now?

My point is and always is
The Roman Catholic Church is not what it claims to be

A point which you have tried to substatntiate with lies which after a quick google search you found out to be so hence forced to accept that you have been spreading lies.

And yes, the Catholic Church is what she claims to be: The Body and Bride of Christ.

 

[Genesis315]

Just another note on religious liberty. It would be perfectly just and in line with the teaching of the Church if a completely Catholic country want to prevent missionaries of foreign sects or other agitators from disturbing the peace and unity of that nation. In fact this was the case even in the 1970s in some Latin American countries and affirmed in concordats signed by pope Paul VI (those concordats also affirmed Catholicism as the state religion–as it is to this day in some countries). That is generally the situation envisioned by the 19th century papal condemnations–the radical libertines were claiming a right to essentially undermine and destroy Catholic society.

Once they succeeded, a new approach was necessary to ensure authentic rights of all people, and especially those of the Church.

Generally, in regards to the OP, there have definitely been abuses in regards to inquistions and crusades, but much was blown out of proportion by anti-Catholic black legends. Ecclesiastical courts for adjudicating heresy still exist, etc. These things are not evil of themselves. The saints who were inquisitors (Sts. Peter of Verona, Pius V, Bl. Peter of Casteleua, etc.) executed their office justly but others did not–such is the fallen nature of man).

 

[Cinette]

To Genisis315

“It would be perfectly just and in line with the teaching of the Church if a completely Catholic country want to prevent missionaries of foreign sects or other agitators from disturbing the peace and unity of that nation.”

I totally disagree. God gave us all free will and the Concordata is not the way to go. One can never enforce such a thing - Even God would not do that!

 

[rpp]

But it has taught error. Therefore would you call the Catholic Church is not what you calim it to be,

The Church has never taught error. You cannot prove this because there is no evidence. (Yes I am sure you will try to drag out the topic of Pope Honorius, but that has been repudiated so many times it is boring. Or perhaps you will point to some imaginary or local Church council. All these things have been long discussed here and it is clear that the Church has never taught error.)

 

[TurboVW]

Has anyone else delved into Catholic history and found the utter corruption and moral depravity shocking? I find it hard to really be proud of my Catholic roots when there is sooooooo much corruption in it. I wish it was one or two isolated incidences but corruption and lust for power seem to pervade every second of the Church’s history. And it continues to this day.

Like it’s been said before, all of history is disturbing. Corruption occurs in every place where there are levels to power. History was made by humans, not all Catholic, not all God-fearing. Humans are subject to error.

Look in the history of any organized religion and you’ll find mistakes, errors, misjudgements, corruption, etc.

 

[rad]

In case of rape, a non-aborticient treatment may be use (e.g. spermacide). However, abortion is never morally licit. See more here: usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

St. Augustine (AD 354-430) said, “There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation”, and held that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin.

He and other early Christian theologians believed, as had Aristotle centuries before, that “animation”, or the coming alive of the fetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the [Catholic] church in 1140. As this collection was used as an instruction manual for priests until the new Code of Canon Law of 1917, its view of abortion has had great influence.

At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that “quickening” “the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her” was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin.

Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.

The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
cbctrust.com/abortion.html#3

 

[rad]

From my discussion with him, he didn’t understand Catholicism and/or misrepresented Catholic teaching either purposefully or out of ignorance on several occasions.

For instance, Fr. Ambrose once claimed “Pope Benedict allowed abortion up to 17 (seventeen) weeks.” When I asked him to produce the evidence, he either wouldn’t or couldn’t. He was more the type to thrust out false witness about Catholic teaching without bothering with verifiable supporting documentation.

St. Augustine (AD 354-430) said, “There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation”, and held that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin.

He and other early Christian theologians believed, as had Aristotle centuries before, that “animation”, or the coming alive of the fetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the [Catholic] church in 1140. As this collection was used as an instruction manual for priests until the new Code of Canon Law of 1917, its view of abortion has had great influence.

At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that “quickening” “the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her” was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin.

Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.

The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
cbctrust.com/abortion.html#3

 

[Peter_J]

The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the [Catholic] church in 1140.

If you’re right, then that is very disturbing. But I seriously doubt that you are right. Perhaps the canon law that you refer to was local, i.e. only accepted by part of the Church?

At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that “quickening” “the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her” was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin.

Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.

I don’t find this part of your post so disturbing. I mean, so Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory XIV were wrong. So what, what’s the big deal?

 

[rad]

From my discussion with him, he didn’t understand Catholicism and/or misrepresented Catholic teaching either purposefully or out of ignorance on several occasions.

For instance, Fr. Ambrose once claimed “Pope Benedict allowed abortion up to 17 (seventeen) weeks.” When I asked him to produce the evidence, he either wouldn’t or couldn’t. He was more the type to thrust out false witness about Catholic teaching without bothering with verifiable supporting documentation.

To be fair to Father Ambrose, he did reply to you. This answer to you from Father Ambrose came up on a goodle search of Catholic Answers. He gave you the quotes which I have now given you.