Corrupt Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scimitar60
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

scimitar60

Guest
From the amount of books I have read about the Church during the Renaissance and Medieval period; it seems that the Church gets the picture of some sort of villain.

Most of them say the Church didn’t give anyone freedom of speech, like, if someone had an opinion about the faith they were immediately jailed etc. A lot of them also say that the Pope often threatened to remove blessings of a certain Italian state, which made the certain states give the Pope gifts to try cool his anger.

Was it really like this? Or is this just the normal view of the Church to most atheists today?
 
scimitar60 said:
From the amount of books I have read about the Church during the Renaissance and Medieval period; it seems that the Church gets the picture of some sort of villain.

Most of them say the Church didn’t give anyone freedom of speech, like, if someone had an opinion about the faith they were immediately jailed etc. A lot of them also say that the Pope often threatened to remove blessings of a certain Italian state, which made the certain states give the Pope gifts to try cool his anger.

Was it really like this? Or is this just the normal view of the Church to most atheists today?
Click to expand...
Read history… I was stunned when I found out what people who claimed to be Christ followers have done. This isn’t strictly a catholic problem either.
 
scimitar60 said:
From the amount of books I have read about the Church during the Renaissance and Medieval period; it seems that the Church gets the picture of some sort of villain.

Most of them say the Church didn’t give anyone freedom of speech, like, if someone had an opinion about the faith they were immediately jailed etc. A lot of them also say that the Pope often threatened to remove blessings of a certain Italian state, which made the certain states give the Pope gifts to try cool his anger.

Was it really like this? Or is this just the normal view of the Church to most atheists today?
Click to expand...
You have to place things in historical perspective. Things back in those days were very harsh and cruel. States were usually much more closely allied with the Church than today. What was usually considered a heresy by the Church was considered a crime by the state, many times punishable by death. But so were many things in those days.

Like Christ, the Church has two natures, one human and one Divine. The Divine nature of the Church is perfect, without blemish or fault. The human nature, unlike Christ’s human nature (He was like us in all things but sin), comes from those of us who make up the Church on earth, and we are all afflicted by the results of Original sin, namely darkness of intellect and weakness of will.
 
In those days there was much corruption in the Church…this is true. However this is not the same as saying that the Church was corrupt for the essential, dogmatic teachings of the Church were not effected by the corruption.
Much of the corruption stemmed from the fact that the church was too much involved in “politics” at that time, which istelf resulted from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

As others have said, things were quite different in those days. While it is tempting, it is also dangerous to try to impose our modern views and concepts on other times and cultures. For instance, you mention “Freedom of Speech”. Freedom of Speech was an unknown concept in medieval times. Saying something bad about a king, prince, or other nobleman would be just as likely to get you tossed in jail as saying something bad about the church.

So - do read history, but do so carefully.

Peace
James
 
Four words: [European wars of religion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European wars of religion)

Who started the wars, the “corrupt” Church or the politicians backing the Reformers?

Remember that “history” is written by the winners–one of which was England–which is why the circumstances which caused those wars are not discussed in Anglophone schools.
 
While it may be shocking to read the things that Christians have done throughout history, perhaps a Lutheran articulation of a point made earlier will be helpful. We tend to look at the individual Christian life as a connundrum called the Sinner Saint-- simul iustus et peccator. It is applied from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, as he laments his petition to God (and his reader) asking who will liberate him from his body of sin and death? Thanks be to God, it is Christ.

The Church of Christ, similarly constituted of sinner saints in the particular, will reflect that connundrum in the aggregate. We can evalutate history according the standards of God’s Holy Word, because that doesn’t change (hence, its role as canon, or rule of faith.) We can recognize the errors of the Church in the past, just as we can recognize them in the present, which gives us opportunity to repent and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. The Scriptures unveil thousands of years of history, critiquing kings and princes and even prophets and high priests as sinners in need of repentance. The unwinding of Church history over the last 2000 years should not surprise us when it reflects our common patrimony. The Church is not divine per se, but she is the place where the Holy Trinity comes to receive and forgive and bless repentant sinners, saving them from sin, death, and the devil.

While there were some unsavory characters in the long 2000 year history of the Church (and your offering below only scratches the surface, not to mention the couple thousand years before that going back to Abraham) there are many more saints of amazing faith and love, still remaining the salt of the earth. Numberless fathers and mothers sacrificed all for their children… priests who served faithfully without any historical footnote… monastics without name who took great pains to transcribe the Holy Scriptures and the works of the ancient Fathers, preserving them to our day… and so on. But of course, in the scope of eternity, whether we recognize a name as worthy of note is really quite meaningless… what really matters, is how that name is known by God Almighty.

The Church is composed of we sinners, who are saved by grace through faith in Christ. When we are called together into community as the local congregation, diocese, or globally as the Universal Church, we should not be surprised to find sinners being sinners. Ours is not to excuse sin, but to call all to faith and repentance… in every generation.

Grace and peace.
 
Jesus,our Lords peace be with You.
Dear friend,times was different,people was,and in a way so was the Church,but we are not here to judge. We have no way to understand what the times was then,and I always try to see something good in everything,God let His Church survive all those times,and it still stands like God want,so lets not judge,lets pray that if something wrong was done back then,they who did wrong,will be forgiven if they did it for the best of the Church and in that way for all of us who live now. Sorry for my bad english.
 
The Church was never corrupt. Christ himself said that Hell would prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18). If the Church had become doctrinally corrupt then it would mean that Hell had prevailed and that Christ was wrong.

The Church is a perfect organization made up of imperfect people. It was the acts of individuals dubiously claiming to be acting under the auspices of the Church who were corrupt. As was mentioned earlier, Church and State were much more aligned in the Middle Ages than they are today. The Inquisition, for example, was actually carried out by State authorities who just happened to be Catholic.

Look at it in today’s perspective: There are been accusations of sexual abuses by priests. Is that a corruption of the Church or of the individual priests?
 
It wasn’t always like that. There were times in which people spoke out against the corruption,etc. No, not everyone was jailed. However, you must keep in mind that in those days if you did spout heresy then you also were probably wanting to overthrow the state as well since they were intertwined more than they are now. That is why it is so strange to us living in the 21st century to see what could be punishable by death and imprisonment a couple of centuries ago. Times were very different then. The philosophy and complete world view was totally unlike ours.
 
I think we are coming to very similar conclusions, but I’d be careful how dogmatically one defines precisely what Christ meant when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16.) The direct context is actually offensive rather than defensive (the power Christ gives the Church overcomes the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil… like a conquering kingdom over a defeated kingdom.) The power of the Keys is superior to the powers of hell’s gates.

Christ Himself did not ellucidate precisely what “prevail against” meant, but the early Fathers do not, to my recollection, infer that it means there will never be corrupt men at the helm of the Church, doing terrible things, sometimes even with those Keys Christ gave them. The Church is not conquered by the failures of men, anymore than it is conquered by the powers of hell… even though the failures of men are many, and the powers of hell are fearsome. We do not need to defend all things done by men in the Church, even when they hold valid Holy Orders and sit in the ancient seats of Patriarchs… their responsibility is much like ours, that all must be faithful unto death, that we may receive the crown of life.

Peace be with you.
Lost_Sheep said:
The Church was never corrupt. Christ himself said that Hell would prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18). If the Church had become doctrinally corrupt then it would mean that Hell had prevailed and that Christ was wrong.QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
scimitar60 said:
From the amount of books I have read about the Church during the Renaissance and Medieval period; it seems that the Church gets the picture of some sort of villain.
Click to expand...
It’s tough being the big dog. Everyone wants his shot at you.
 
WorkerPriest said:
I think we are coming to very similar conclusions, but I’d be careful how dogmatically one defines precisely what Christ meant when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16.) The direct context is actually offensive rather than defensive (the power Christ gives the Church overcomes the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil… like a conquering kingdom over a defeated kingdom.) The power of the Keys is superior to the powers of hell’s gates.
Click to expand...
Very interesting.

I have also heard Curtis Martin (the Catholic who runs the Cardinal Newman Society, not the running back) say that “prevail” is possibly a mistranslation and that maybe “withstand” would be better. Your thoughs?
 
Wow, thanks all for the answers, I cant wait to read even more!

The only problem I have is that sure, maybe if it was one book that claims this then it might be biased and untrue; but almost ALL sources claim it. 🤷
 
I think “prevail” is probably a safe translation of the Greek “katisxusousin,” but like so many things with translations, the sense of a translated word tends to morph with time, culture, and place. It does seem to me, that translating that Greek work as “withstand” helps better articulate the sense of the passage, where Christ is delivering to the Apostles a power that will save souls from the imprisoning slavery of hell. It aligns with the idea that Christ’s Kingdom is breaking into the world, binding Satan through His sacrifice on the Cross, and delivering to men His means of grace and salvation through Word and Sacrament.

Something else I found interesting, digging back into that passage, is the word translated as “hell.” It’s different than I remember being used for other applications of that word. Most of the time when you see the English “hell,” the Greek is either “gehena” or “hades,” each of which seems to imply a place or location, even if spiritually. The word in this passage is “adou,” which might be more along the lines of “the unseen spiritual world.” To translate that word “hell” is probably not wrong, per se, but it loses a little something to our modern ears.

Might be neat to hear that passage as, “… on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the unseen spiritual world shall not withstand it.” Almost makes it link more closely with some of St. Paul’s writings, as he reminds us that we struggle not against flesh and blood. Thanks for the inspiration to dig deeper into the text, and pull out my patristic references again. As a general reference, I highly recommend St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Matthew 16.

Blessings to you.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.
mark_a said:
Very interesting.

I have also heard Curtis Martin (the Catholic who runs the Cardinal Newman Society, not the running back) say that “prevail” is possibly a mistranslation and that maybe “withstand” would be better. Your thoughs?
Click to expand...
 
For anyone interested, I did a quick chek of the term used in Mt 16:18 and found this:

The term used is katisxusousin. According to Strongs definition, it means:

  1. *]to be strong to another’s detriment, to prevail against
    *]to be superior in strength
    *]to overcome
    *]to prevail

    Peace
    James
 
As a general point it is important to be aware that especially in the English speaking Protestant cultures blackening he reputation of the Church has been a centuries long imperative…hence the Black Legend.

EG most people assume the Inquisition killed far far more people than in fact it did. The brief atheist Inquisition during the French red Terror killed in months what the Spanish Inquisition did in decades.

The Church was far from perfect but its sins are magnified for political reasons.
 
Aboveallbereal said:
As a general point it is important to be aware that especially in the English speaking Protestant cultures blackening he reputation of the Church has been a centuries long imperative…hence the Black Legend.

EG most people assume the Inquisition killed far far more people than in fact it did. The brief atheist Inquisition during the French red Terror killed in months what the Spanish Inquisition did in decades.

The Church was far from perfect but its sins are magnified for political reasons.
Click to expand...
… and the atrocities committed by Protestants are literally written out of history, as is the Protestant failure to support the remaining European Catholic states in their battles against militant Islam.
 
scimitar60 said:
From the amount of books I have read about the Church during the Renaissance and Medieval period; it seems that the Church gets the picture of some sort of villain.

Most of them say the Church didn’t give anyone freedom of speech, like, if someone had an opinion about the faith they were immediately jailed etc. A lot of them also say that the Pope often threatened to remove blessings of a certain Italian state, which made the certain states give the Pope gifts to try cool his anger.

Was it really like this? Or is this just the normal view of the Church to most atheists today?
Click to expand...
Jesus brought the light into the world. We generally want to believe that we’re enlightened ourselves at any point in our lives or history but it takes time for the gospel to have it’s effect. And it *has *had it’s effect on the world and will continue to until that light shines fully within mankind. Until then the Church will continue to carry the gospel intact and proclaim it-getting better at heeding it herself as time goes on. People in the Church can be corrupted but her gospel remains uncorrupted.
 
Well said, mate.
fhansen said:
Jesus brought the light into the world. We generally want to believe that we’re enlightened ourselves at any point in our lives or history but it takes time for the gospel to have it’s effect. And it *has *had it’s effect on the world and will continue to until that light shines fully within mankind. Until then the Church will continue to carry the gospel intact and proclaim it-getting better at heeding it herself as time goes on. People in the Church can be corrupted but her gospel remains uncorrupted.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top