Church Confidence?

[FabiusMaximus]

I just wanted to share an observation:

I’m a history lover. I love anything that has to do with history. It’s a great passion of mine.

I love reading about how the old Church was so confident of itself. When the first Christians were persecuted, their drive for truth and to spread the message of the Risen Christ. No persecution stopped them. We triumphed.

When Christianity became the dominant religion of Europe, the Church was still confident in itself. It felt like it had a mission to convert those who did not believe, filled with confidence that it had the truth. When threats besieged Europe, like Islam in Spain, or against the Byzantines, or in central Europe with the Turks - Christians rallied as Christians to fight against the invaders. There were no apologies for Christianity, no shame for moral standards. The Church (all of it - Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox) proudly saw itself as the bastion of Western culture and civilization.

But today, I see a Church that no longer believes in itself. It’s disrespected, trashed, insulted - and it remains silent. It goes about with these silly interreligious dialogues.

Now I’m not saying that we should go about invading and converting the heathens, but it just seems the pride of being a Christian has fallen away. Has anyone perceived this?

 

[CompSciGuy]

This is kind of how I saw it for a while… But I think the more I’ve learned, the more I still kind of see the old church in the new one. I guess the approach is a little different but the Church still stands as that bastion of truth. I think the main reason the Church is different today in its influence is because Church and state are now separated.

I think it is good to look at the Church in context with all of history and think of today’s religious speakers and theologians in the same light as the ones of old. There were so many heresies, such as the Gnostics, the Arians, the Donatists, the Manichaeans, the Iconoclasts, Pagan Europe, and the others, and the Church fought these and prevailed. Just think of today’s challenges to the Church in that context; we are now fighting against secularism and relativism, the new heresies of our time. The Church will prevail again. And just as in the old days we had Justin Martyr, Augustin, and Thomas Aquinas, today we have Peter Kreeft, Scott Hahn, Fr. Barron, Chesterton and all these great Christian thinkers who actively counter the errors. The state of the Church today is really no different than it was then.

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

The Church no longer has an army. That changes things quite a bit. Whether or not that change is for the better or worse is going to depend a lot on your perspective on things

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The Church no longer has an army. That changes things quite a bit. Whether or not that change is for the better or worse is going to depend a lot on your perspective on things

I don’t think so.

The Christian community has continue to be strong-willed long after the end of the crusades. For centuries the Church has no longer held the power to rally armies, but it still felt it had the authority to be Europe’s teacher. It didn’t shy away from determining what proper morality was Now it seems to have lost its will.

 

[choliks]

Actually, in 1986, The archbishop of Manila called on the faithful to support the ouster of a dictator to restore freedom and democracy. People from all walks of life (regular folk, nuns, priests, artists, etc.) linked hands in front of soldiers and tanks. In what was a bloodless revolution, the dictator was deposed by an “army” of the faithful. The same call was made more than a decade later to remove an immoral president from office.

 

[MaryandJoseph]

My confidence in the Doctrines and beliefs of the Church is Rock Solid as I know that Jesus is the Head, where my confidence is shaken a bit is in the HUMAN leadership.

Being “inclusive” to the point of watering down the doctrines of our faith…

Political Correctness and the fear of offending anyone…

Human leadership Not willing to stand up for what our faith has taught and believed since the time of the apostles…

I am Catholic DISPITE the human leadership because I know that this is the Original Church and I have faith that God will purge the Church and return her to a more pure and holy state.

My Confidence is with Jesus Christ:thumbsup:

 

[Contarini]

I just wanted to share an observation:

I’m a history lover. I love anything that has to do with history. It’s a great passion of mine.

I love reading about how the old Church was so confident of itself. When the first Christians were persecuted, their drive for truth and to spread the message of the Risen Christ. No persecution stopped them. We triumphed.

When Christianity became the dominant religion of Europe, the Church was still confident in itself. It felt like it had a mission to convert those who did not believe, filled with confidence that it had the truth. When threats besieged Europe, like Islam in Spain, or against the Byzantines, or in central Europe with the Turks - Christians rallied as Christians to fight against the invaders. There were no apologies for Christianity, no shame for moral standards. The Church (all of it - Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox) proudly saw itself as the bastion of Western culture and civilization.

But today, I see a Church that no longer believes in itself. It’s disrespected, trashed, insulted - and it remains silent. It goes about with these silly interreligious dialogues.

Now I’m not saying that we should go about invading and converting the heathens, but it just seems the pride of being a Christian has fallen away. Has anyone perceived this?

Yes, this has happened, and with good reason, because the triumphalist Christianity of the Middle Ages can be seen in retrospect to have had a demonic aspect to it.

Deny this, and you deny truth for the sake of feeling good.

I am not interested in trashing medieval Christianity. I think it was a glorious period in many ways. But there was a dark shadow side to its glory. And those of us who recognize this (that is, anyone who looks at history honestly) can never again feel the confidence that Christians felt in the fourth or even in the eleventh century. (Christians in the high Middle Ages were not quite as “confident” as you seem to think, mind you. As the Middle Ages progressed, more and more people became aware of how endemic corruption was to institutional Christendom. Unfortunately, the Protestants drew entirely the wrong lesson from this, thinking that if they could “recover the Gospel” they could get things right–Luther was pretty quickly disillusioned of this idea, but Protestants have often preferred to focus on the hopeful young Luther instead of the darkly realistic older Luther.)

Catholics have an advantage over Protestants in this regard: since Catholics are tied to the medieval past, they are less prone to think that by cutting ties to the past Christians can “get it right” and create a triumphalist Christianity with no demonic undertow. Catholics do sometimes manage to think this, but it is relatively harder for them–or perhaps I’m too optimistic.

Protestants, on the other hand, seem to come up with a new version of triumphalism every generation or so.

Edwin

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Yes, this has happened, and with good reason, because the triumphalist Christianity of the Middle Ages can be seen in retrospect to have had a demonic aspect to it.

Deny this, and you deny truth for the sake of feeling good.

I deny it, I deny it, I deny it.

I think the Church of the Middle Ages was magnificent. It took a society in total ruins after the collapse of the only governing authority (the Roman Empire), and picked up the pieces of a fallen culture to restore Western civilization. And not only did it preserve it and restore it, it contributed immensely to it. Science, literature, technology, architecture, agriculture - these (and much more) are fields in which the Church contributed invaluably. We hold a massive debt to the Church of the Middle Ages. I’m proud to call that my inheritance.

While I think in modern standards the Church did wrongs - and indeed, nobody, absolutely nobody, denies this - the error you make here is that you judge the Church soley on modern worldviews. When you live in a society whose entire worldview is based on the small community, and purification of evil, some of the measures the Church undertook become necessary. If a person committed a grave sin, then evil entered into the community, and it must be expunged. This is why so many practices were acceptable then. They saw the world in an entirely different light. When the worldview shifted, so did the Church. I think it’s unfair to place such blame on what occurred squarely on the Church. Especially since, contrary to what many assert, secular authorities had more than enough power to clamp down on the Church.

The Frankish Empire certainly attempted to do so. Spain took essentially absolute control over the Church. Later on, in medieval France, the French king promulgated the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourge which placed the Church in France directly under the government’s regulation. So the power was there, and it was exercised on occasion. The fact is, everyone simply saw this way of life as valuable and acceptable.

No one denies that the Church became corrupt, but there are too many important details that are often ignored. Especially with regards to the corruption itself. Many forget that the main reason for corruption was not because of bad popes - but because of the bubonic plague which decimated the clergy, and left the Catholic Church in a state of deep crisis.

 

[Contarini]

I deny it, I deny it, I deny it.

I think the Church of the Middle Ages was magnificent.

I entirely agree with this whole paragraph. You have misunderstood me (in spite of my explicit disclaimer) if you expected otherwise.

While I think in modern standards the Church did wrongs - and indeed, nobody, absolutely nobody, denies this - the error you make here is that you judge the Church soley on modern worldviews

No, my “error” here is that I am a traditional Christian and not a relativist. I don’t think that right and wrong should be judged by modern standards, but by eternal standards. We may perceive certain moral concerns better at some times than at others–in fact we clearly do–but that doesn’t mean that what was good in 1300 is bad now.

Certain actions may not be prudential or good for society now that were good for society then. But when I speak of a “demonic undertow” I’m obviously not talking about that. I’m talking about absolutes.

When you live in a society whose entire worldview is based on the small community, and purification of evil, some of the measures the Church undertook become necessary.

That’s consequentialism.

If a person committed a grave sin, then evil entered into the community, and it must be expunged.

Yes. This is the “scapegoat” approach described by Girard. It is from this (at least in part) that Jesus died to deliver us. For Christians to return to this way of thinking is to deny Jesus.

This is why so many practices were acceptable then.

They saw the world in an entirely different light. When the worldview shifted, so did the Church.

I expect an atheist to think this way, not a Christian. You are making the Church the purely passive puppet of “worldview.” The Church shaped worldview to a great extent. You are happy to say this when the shaping was good. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I think it’s unfair to place such blame on what occurred squarely on the Church. Especially since, contrary to what many assert, secular authorities had more than enough power to clamp down on the Church.

I don’t put blame squarely on the Church. I’m not interested in putting blame at all.

Your description of the government “taking control of the Church” is overly simplistic. Throughout the Middle Ages and early modern period there was a delicate balance between civil and ecclesiastical power. Even in early modern Spain, it’s not true that the government simply controlled the Church without qualification. Certainly there was a tendency in that direction in the early modern era–a tendency greatly exacerbated and accelerated by the Reformation.

No one denies that the Church became corrupt, but there are too many important details that are often ignored. Especially with regards to the corruption itself. Many forget that the main reason for corruption was not because of bad popes - but because of the bubonic plague which decimated the clergy, and left the Catholic Church in a state of deep crisis.

Then why do you find Bernard complaining about corruption in De Conversatione two centuries before the bubonic plague?

He says that it’s extremely hard to be a godly person and be Pope. He said this as part of advice to a new Pope who had been one of his disciples. . . .

So much for your “confidence.” The holiest people of the Middle Ages generally didn’t share this confidence, but were aware that human sinfulness deeply affected the Church.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

I was going to say, they lost that confidence because they saw some of its negative fruits.

The Church is called to humility - not fake humility, but real humility.

But Contarini has presented his case better than I have. That kind of confidence is what caused the creation of Residential Schools in my country, which were active until my grand-parents time.

I love the medieval period, and I think there is a ton of stuff we have lost that they understood. That doesn’t mean though that we haven’t learned some important lessons.

 

[CopticChristian]

QUOTE=FabiusMaximus;8219067]I just wanted to share an observation:

I’m a history lover. I love anything that has to do with history. It’s a great passion of mine.

I love reading about how the old Church was so confident of itself. When the first Christians were persecuted, their drive for truth and to spread the message of the Risen Christ. No persecution stopped them. We triumphed.
The Church (all of it - Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox) proudly saw itself as the bastion of Western culture and civilization.

But today, I see a Church that no longer believes in itself. It’s disrespected, trashed, insulted - and it remains silent. It goes about with these silly interreligious dialogues.

QUOTE]

This is a fascinating dialogue about history and the Church. When speaking of the Church it is personified and Nominalized. If it is Nomanalized then it begs the question that many Protestants deny. The Church is visible and invisible. Nomanalization creates that imaginery by doing so and I am not sure that it is or understood in reality. This is classic generalization. I am OK with the Nominalization becase in doing so it says, subconciously as the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church teaches that the Church is visible and invisible. To speak of something denied suggests internal struggle with reality. This is good.

I see Protestant thought as destructive and corruptive and to speak and dismiss the 1600’s as some sort of unified pride denies the reality. The Orhtodox schismed or vice versa in 1054. So when we speak of Unified Christianity of a unified Church in the world we have to speak of 1054 and prior not forward.

You could even take it one step further as it regards the Oriental Churches and say that unity was not in 1054.

We triumphed? This has to be qualified as Protestants did not exist prior to 1600 and when coming into existence were divisive and destructive. This rose colored view of what you would like it to be is contrary to your love, history.

 

[rinnie]

I just wanted to share an observation:

I’m a history lover. I love anything that has to do with history. It’s a great passion of mine.

I love reading about how the old Church was so confident of itself. When the first Christians were persecuted, their drive for truth and to spread the message of the Risen Christ. No persecution stopped them. We triumphed.

When Christianity became the dominant religion of Europe, the Church was still confident in itself. It felt like it had a mission to convert those who did not believe, filled with confidence that it had the truth. When threats besieged Europe, like Islam in Spain, or against the Byzantines, or in central Europe with the Turks - Christians rallied as Christians to fight against the invaders. There were no apologies for Christianity, no shame for moral standards. The Church (all of it - Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox) proudly saw itself as the bastion of Western culture and civilization.

But today, I see a Church that no longer believes in itself. It’s disrespected, trashed, insulted - and it remains silent. It goes about with these silly interreligious dialogues.

Now I’m not saying that we should go about invading and converting the heathens, but it just seems the pride of being a Christian has fallen away. Has anyone perceived this?

No I can say that is something I have never seen. I see Priests in the RCC who gave up their life today to share the good news exactly the same as in the day of Christ.

I see so much good still in the world. When I get a day that I start to believe that maybe there is no good I hear or see others sorrow and love for the fellow man.

I see tears in strangers eyes and feel them in my own when I see a Mother on TV screaming and crying that she has lost EVERYTHING. Her home, her children, her husband, mother whole family through a disaster.

I see at Church what the people do. I saw my OWN Priest take gifts to a home from the angel tree for kids, because the mother never came to get them for whatever the reason.

I see MANY MANY Priests with SO much love and concern for the broken, sick, helpless, defenseless. And I say Thank you Jesus.

And I thank him for the people here that try so hard to reach out to the hopeless and give them hope.

And I never forget to thank God for our current Pope and our Past John Paul II he has brought so many people to God.

 

[jam070406]

Yes, this has happened, and with good reason, because the triumphalist Christianity of the Middle Ages can be seen in retrospect to have had a demonic aspect to it.

Deny this, and you deny truth for the sake of feeling good.

I am not interested in trashing medieval Christianity. I think it was a glorious period in many ways. But there was a dark shadow side to its glory. And those of us who recognize this (that is, anyone who looks at history honestly) can never again feel the confidence that Christians felt in the fourth or even in the eleventh century. (Christians in the high Middle Ages were not quite as “confident” as you seem to think, mind you. As the Middle Ages progressed, more and more people became aware of how endemic corruption was to institutional Christendom. Unfortunately, the Protestants drew entirely the wrong lesson from this, thinking that if they could “recover the Gospel” they could get things right–Luther was pretty quickly disillusioned of this idea, but Protestants have often preferred to focus on the hopeful young Luther instead of the darkly realistic older Luther.)

Catholics have an advantage over Protestants in this regard: since Catholics are tied to the medieval past, they are less prone to think that by cutting ties to the past Christians can “get it right” and create a triumphalist Christianity with no demonic undertow. Catholics do sometimes manage to think this, but it is relatively harder for them–or perhaps I’m too optimistic.

Protestants, on the other hand, seem to come up with a new version of triumphalism every generation or so.

Edwin

Wow, so the Church of the middle ages was demonic.

 

[Bluegoat]

Wow, so the Church of the middle ages was demonic.

Satan tries to insinuate himself into the Church in every age.

 

[jam070406]

Satan tries to insinuate himself into the Church in every age.

Yeah, true. I am guilty of not reading the post more deeply. Knee jerk reaction. Mea culpa.

 

[rinnie]

Satan tries to insinuate himself into the Church in every age.

You better believe it. And trust me he is in EVERY Church. You may be sitting beside him this Sunday.

On a lighter note, years ago a Protestant customer of mine asked me If I believe that the devil is in the Catholic Church also? I said are you kidding me. I know he is, he drives me every Sunday

Just kidding, I have to be nice to the ole ball and chain today is his Birthday.

 

[CopticChristian]

Satan tries to insinuate himself into the Church in every age.

Would 1600 qualify?

 

[Bluegoat]

Would 1600 qualify?

From the beginning until the present.

 

[fred_conty]

I just wanted to share an observation:

I’m a history lover. I love anything that has to do with history. It’s a great passion of mine.

I love reading about how the old Church was so confident of itself. When the first Christians were persecuted, their drive for truth and to spread the message of the Risen Christ. No persecution stopped them. We triumphed.

When Christianity became the dominant religion of Europe, the Church was still confident in itself. It felt like it had a mission to convert those who did not believe, filled with confidence that it had the truth. When threats besieged Europe, like Islam in Spain, or against the Byzantines, or in central Europe with the Turks - Christians rallied as Christians to fight against the invaders. There were no apologies for Christianity, no shame for moral standards. The Church (all of it - Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox) proudly saw itself as the bastion of Western culture and civilization.

But today, I see a Church that no longer believes in itself. It’s disrespected, trashed, insulted - and it remains silent. It goes about with these silly interreligious dialogues.

Now I’m not saying that we should go about invading and converting the heathens, but it just seems the pride of being a Christian has fallen away. Has anyone perceived this?

Hi, You said
It goes about with these silly interreligious dialogues.
and
it just seems the pride of being a Christian has fallen away. Has anyone perceived this?​

I personally an in favor the dialogues over killing one another which occurred then.
I don’t feel the crusades was an especially bright point in our history.
How about the great imbalance between those who lived in Castles and huts.
Shall I go on citing the other great acts of love they performed.
We should all stand up and cheer. I am impressed.

As far as today, how much impact are all christian faiths having on the movie industry today?
And I’ve noticed we have a teeny problem which sucking fetuses out of the womb.
And are our churches overflowing with people!
And our christian homes have really conquered the drug problems.
Would anyone like to finish this?

I’d say it’s a tie.

 

[jam070406]

Hi, You said
It goes about with these silly interreligious dialogues.
and
it just seems the pride of being a Christian has fallen away. Has anyone perceived this?​

I personally an in favor the dialogues over killing one another which occurred then.
I don’t feel the crusades was an especially bright point in our history.
How about the great imbalance between those who lived in Castles and huts.
Shall I go on citing the other great acts of love they performed.
We should all stand up and cheer. I am impressed.

As far as today, how much impact are all christian faiths having on the movie industry today?
And I’ve noticed we have a teeny problem which sucking fetuses out of the womb.
And are our churches overflowing with people!
And our christian homes have really conquered the drug problems.
Would anyone like to finish this?

I’d say it’s a tie.

I think you made the poster’s point. Catholics need to be fed the Truth of their own True authentic Faith and not have it watered down to appease non Catholics or as to not offend.