Chairman of the German Bishops conference : "Christ didn't die for the sins of the people"

[canadianguy1143]

The Church of the 13th century was in greater crisis than we are today. It faced heresies, political forces, financial crisis, poor communication, curruption among the clergy and intervention from corrupt lay men, just to name a few things. I believe the greatest difference was that today news travels faster and unfortunately it is often distorted.

JR, I don’t know how we can accurately say that the 13th Century was in greater crisis than today. Perhaps it was, but none of us can truly know what it was like unless we lived in the 13th Century and I don’t think any of us are Yoda’s age!

Yes there may be books that have are detailed, but the other night I listened to a Holocaust survivor and he said that what happened during WW2 was so horrible, that no book could ever describe it.

 

[JReducation]

JR, I don’t know how we can accurately say that the 13th Century was in greater crisis than today. Perhaps it was, but none of us can truly know what it was like unless we lived in the 13th Century and I don’t think any of us are Yoda’s age!

Yes there may be books that have are detailed, but the other night I listened to a Holocaust survivor and he said that what happened during WW2 was so horrible, that no book could ever describe it.

The Shoah is an event that is not part of the Church per se. It is a universal event.

The Church of the 13th century has been well documented by men such as Francis of Assisi, Bonaventure, Dominic, Aquinas, Scotus and women such as Clare of Assisi. Then we have the documents of the Lateran Council and those that preceeded it written by many of the monks and churchmen of the time.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[CatholicGirl7]

I have seen so far several people on these forums bring up the holocaust. What does that have to do with the state of the Catholic Church today or Vatican issues? Seems like that belongs on a jewish forum of which I’m sure there are many.

 

[JReducation]

I have seen so far several people on these forums bring up the holocaust. What does that have to do with the state of the Catholic Church today or Vatican issues? Seems like that belongs on a jewish forum of which I’m sure there are many.

The Shoah certainly has a place in Catholic history and in the current state of the Catholic Church, but not in the way that we’re trying to connect it here.

The Shoah is an issue that the Church has to examine, because of the moral dimension of it. She also has to reflect on it to ensure that Catholics understand it properly and respond properly to it.

But the Shoah is not solely responsible for the state of the world and the current state of the Church. It certainly has contributed to it by the mere fact that it made in undeniable impact on human history. The Church and human history are two inseparable realities. Therefore, the Shoah and the Church are inseparable realities. But this is one of many realities in the history of the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[CatholicGirl7]

The Shoah certainly has a place in Catholic history and in the current state of the Catholic Church, but not in the way that we’re trying to connect it here.

The Shoah is an issue that the Church has to examine, because of the moral dimension of it. She also has to reflect on it to ensure that Catholics understand it properly and respond properly to it.

But the Shoah is not solely responsible for the state of the world and the current state of the Church. It certainly has contributed to it by the mere fact that it made in undeniable impact on human history. The Church and human history are two inseparable realities. Therefore, the Shoah and the Church are inseparable realities. But this is one of many realities in the history of the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

Thank you for your response. To be honest I am much more dismayed by what Stalin did than what Hitler did which is still hotly debated. I believe Stalin is considered the greatest murderer of all time and yet he receives little press for that fact. It seems that Stalin’s brutal murder of so many Christians would be of particular heartache for Catholics and the Vatican and would garner much more continued grieving and acknowledgment. So much is still being uncovered and researched so I am not sure how “properly” one can respond to either past event or why anybody should be expected to. People should respond to them how their own hearts and minds dictate. There should always be room for discussion, enlightenment, additional research and internal growth on any issue or historical event and one should always be free to express their opinions and concerns without fear of retribution.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your response. To be honest I am much more dismayed by what Stalin did than what Hitler did which is still hotly debated. I believe Stalin is considered the greatest murderer of all time and yet he receives little press for that fact. It seems that Stalin’s brutal murder of so many Christians would be of particular heartache for Catholics and the Vatican and would garner much more continued grieving and acknowledgment. So much is still being uncovered and researched so I am not sure how “properly” one can respond to either past event or why anybody should be expected to. People should respond to them how their own hearts and minds dictate. There should always be room for discussion, enlightenment, additional research and internal growth on any issue or historical event and one should always be free to express their opinions and concerns without fear of retribution.

I certainly agree that Stalin and Communism in general are guilty of some very barbaric crimes against humanity that are still coming to light. The reason for this is that the Communist world always kept a very tight barrier up between itself and the rest of the world, which Hitler did not. He committed his crimes where the whole world could watch and see.

Now that the great wall of Communism in Europe has collapsed, more information will gradually come out and more facts about the crimes against humanity will be proven. Just wait and see. This will happen.

As to whether one can and should believe what one wants to believe about the Shoah this is a very touchy subject. Three consecutive popes have said “No.” to this proposal. Three consecutive popes cannot be wrong on the same issue.

As Catholics we still have the freedom to research the Shoah. We have the freedom to examine the evidence. But we do not have the freedom to minimize it, deny it, or justify it. The last statement on this by Pope Benedict XVI was pretty clear. Any position that minimizes, denies or justifies the Shoah is in conflict witht the Church.

Since the Shoah falls into the domain of morals, there is no need for a pope to invoke infallibility on this. Because as Catholics we are bound to obey and believe whatever the pope teaches on matters of faith and morals until such time as he or another pope say that this is infallible or that new information has shed new light on the subject and the Church redefines her position on the subject.

Now, the Church will never say that something is a sin and then change her mind. That’s not the way it works. What the Church often does is say that something is not acceptable as it stands. If the way it stands changes, then the Church can say something different.

Given the information that we have about the Shoah, the Church says that it is unacceptable for any Catholic to take a less than serious or grave position on it. The Holy Father takes this so serioiusly that he has told Bishop Williamson that he will not have faculties as a Catholic bishop or have any episcopal authority in the Church until he distances himself from his position on the Shoah. Should the good bishop decide not to distance himself from his currrent position on the Shoah, he will essentially be a validly ordained priest and consecrated bishop who can never function as either again. If he does, he faces grave sin.

When a pope puts this much weight on something, we have to say that it is an important part of Church history, because it has had an impact on who can be a bishop in the Catholic Church, even if the impact is on one bishop. That’s enough to establish a presedent. See what I mean?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[canadianguy1143]

I have seen so far several people on these forums bring up the holocaust. What does that have to do with the state of the Catholic Church today or Vatican issues? Seems like that belongs on a jewish forum of which I’m sure there are many.

I brought it up as an example that eventhough there are people who went through it, we may never know some of the more hideous things that went on.

If we don’t know something that happened very recently, then how can know what the 13th century, whom NONE of use went through, was truly like. Sure, some of it can be documented, but it could never give us an accurate picture.

Even though we have internet and access to mass communications like never before, I am sure that there are things going on that we don’t know. So how can we say that the 13th Century was worse?

I didn’t know/forgotten about Stalin. That is something, I hope changes.

 

[JReducation]

I brought it up as an example that eventhough there are people who went through it, we may never know some of the more hideous things that went on.

If we don’t know something that happened very recently, then how can know what the 13th century, whom NONE of use went through, was truly like. Sure, some of it can be documented, but it could never give us an accurate picture.

Even though we have internet and access to mass communications like never before, I am sure that there are things going on that we don’t know. **So how can we say that the 13th Century was worse?**I didn’t know/forgotten about Stalin. That is something, I hope changes.

The bold is mine.

I believe the point is that we have enough documentation by credible sources to say that the Church was in terrible crisis at the time and that some of those issues are no longer issues, while others repeat themselves and new ones arise.

Therefore, the point is that the Church is not in the worse crisis it ever had, because it has had other periods of crisis. The result has been the same. She has come out stronger and the Holy Spirit has blessed her with many gifts to overcome the crisis.

In the 13th century some of the greatest gifts that the Holy Spirit gave the Church was the reform of monasticism, the birth of new mendicant orders, the birth of secular orders, the Lateran Council, the contributions of Aquinas, Bonaventure and Scotus to Catholic theology, the education of the secular clergy and the conversion of many Catholics, just to name a few.

Today we see similar fruits. Again we have another period of birth of new religious communities, new secular institutes and societies of apostolic life. We have a renewed interest in global affairs and a departure from isolationism. The Church again is involved in a process of metacognition and proprioception. There is an increased interest in missionary action. The youth are more engaged in the mystical and ascetical life of the Church. Theology is expanding trying to offer a better understanding of the faith. And the Church is encouraging the faithful to actively engage in the apostolate.

To every situation that has arisen through the centuries the Church is gifted with grace to respond. We need not be there to see that there were serious problems that were more challenging given the circumstances and limited resources of the time.

But the most important issue of all, to return to the topic of this thread, is the fact that the Church of today lives in a world of faster communication where issues can be addressed more quickly and probably with less publicity and intervention from the laity. This was a major problem in the 13th century all the way through the Renaissance. The laity was too involved in the internal affairs of the Church, especially of religious life and of the Vatican. This involvement is blocked, which reduces the number of factions and makes it easier for the Vatican and religious superiors to work calmly and more objectively. There isn’t as much influence of secular power and threats as there was in the past. The intervention of the secular powers was always a major problem.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[redrosetea]

The bold is mine.

I believe the point is that we have enough documentation by credible sources to say that the Church was in terrible crisis at the time and that some of those issues are no longer issues, while others repeat themselves and new ones arise.

Therefore, the point is that the Church is not in the worse crisis it ever had, because it has had other periods of crisis. The result has been the same. She has come out stronger and the Holy Spirit has blessed her with many gifts to overcome the crisis.

In the 13th century some of the greatest gifts that the Holy Spirit gave the Church was the reform of monasticism, the birth of new mendicant orders, the birth of secular orders, the Lateran Council, the contributions of Aquinas, Bonaventure and Scotus to Catholic theology, the education of the secular clergy and the conversion of many Catholics, just to name a few.

Today we see similar fruits. Again we have another period of birth of new religious communities, new secular institutes and societies of apostolic life. We have a renewed interest in global affairs and a departure from isolationism. The Church again is involved in a process of metacognition and proprioception. There is an increased interest in missionary action. The youth are more engaged in the mystical and ascetical life of the Church. Theology is expanding trying to offer a better understanding of the faith. And the Church is encouraging the faithful to actively engage in the apostolate.

To every situation that has arisen through the centuries the Church is gifted with grace to respond. We need not be there to see that there were serious problems that were more challenging given the circumstances and limited resources of the time.

But the most important issue of all, to return to the topic of this thread, is the fact that the Church of today lives in a world of faster communication where issues can be addressed more quickly and probably with less publicity and intervention from the laity. This was a major problem in the 13th century all the way through the Renaissance. The laity was too involved in the internal affairs of the Church, especially of religious life and of the Vatican. This involvement is blocked, which reduces the number of factions and makes it easier for the Vatican and religious superiors to work calmly and more objectively. There isn’t as much influence of secular power and threats as there was in the past. The intervention of the secular powers was always a major problem.

Fraternally,

JR

Jr you are a wonderful teacher I always learn so much from you…Thank you for all you do here

 

[CatholicGirl7]

The bold is mine.

I believe the point is that we have enough documentation by credible sources to say that the Church was in terrible crisis at the time and that some of those issues are no longer issues, while others repeat themselves and new ones arise.

Therefore, the point is that the Church is not in the worse crisis it ever had, because it has had other periods of crisis. The result has been the same. She has come out stronger and the Holy Spirit has blessed her with many gifts to overcome the crisis.

In the 13th century some of the greatest gifts that the Holy Spirit gave the Church was the reform of monasticism, the birth of new mendicant orders, the birth of secular orders, the Lateran Council, the contributions of Aquinas, Bonaventure and Scotus to Catholic theology, the education of the secular clergy and the conversion of many Catholics, just to name a few.

Today we see similar fruits. Again we have another period of birth of new religious communities, new secular institutes and societies of apostolic life. We have a renewed interest in global affairs and a departure from isolationism. The Church again is involved in a process of metacognition and proprioception. There is an increased interest in missionary action. The youth are more engaged in the mystical and ascetical life of the Church. Theology is expanding trying to offer a better understanding of the faith. And the Church is encouraging the faithful to actively engage in the apostolate.

To every situation that has arisen through the centuries the Church is gifted with grace to respond. We need not be there to see that there were serious problems that were more challenging given the circumstances and limited resources of the time.

But the most important issue of all, to return to the topic of this thread, is the fact that the Church of today lives in a world of faster communication where issues can be addressed more quickly and probably with less publicity and intervention from the laity. This was a major problem in the 13th century all the way through the Renaissance. The laity was too involved in the internal affairs of the Church, especially of religious life and of the Vatican. This involvement is blocked, which reduces the number of factions and makes it easier for the Vatican and religious superiors to work calmly and more objectively. There isn’t as much influence of secular power and threats as there was in the past. The intervention of the secular powers was always a major problem.

Fraternally,

JR

Thank you for your response. I have to question the last couple statements you made that there was more of a secular threat in 13th century. More than today? It seems to me that there is considerable secular involvement now both within and outside of the Church which I consider a much more severe situation.

 

[manualman]

I hope the quote has somehow been taken badly out of context.

Isn’t what he is saying explicitly Pelagianism? Surely he’s educated more than I am and realizes this??

 

[TMC]

I hope the quote has somehow been taken badly out of context.

Isn’t what he is saying explicitly Pelagianism? Surely he’s educated more than I am and realizes this??

Who knows what was said and what he meant. We have a verbal statement made in another language and perhaps presented out of context. Based on what I read he may have meant that God did not have to have an expiatory sacrifice, but chose this method of redeeming mankind to show the depth of His love for and solidarity with His people. I don’t think the statement that God could have redeemed us differently is heretical, but I don’t see heresy behind every tree.

 

[manualman]

Who knows what was said and what he meant. We have a verbal statement made in another language and perhaps presented out of context. Based on what I read he may have meant that God did not have to have an expiatory sacrifice, but chose this method of redeeming mankind to show the depth of His love for and solidarity with His people. I don’t think the statement that God could have redeemed us differently is heretical, but I don’t see heresy behind every tree.

This is exactly why I wrote my first sentence. I hope you are right.

It’s odd that I recently had cause to look up the Pelagian heresy. How curious to note that Pelagius theorized that original sin had no stain for future generations, that Jesus’ life and example were just a positive counterpoint to Adam’s bad example (NOT a loving acceptance of the consequences of our sin) and that humanity has within its power and will the ability to live a life virtuous enough to earn God’s eternal friendship and reward in heaven.

Naturally, the early church did its job, called this idea heretical and reaffirmed that Christ died because of all our sins so that we could be forgiven and receive the Grace that is so crucial for us to be healed of the consequences of original sin.