Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[wisdomseeker]

lewrockwell.com/orig3/rubin1.html

have anyone of you ever read this book?

 

[Contarini]

lewrockwell.com/orig3/rubin1.html

have anyone of you ever read this book?

Yes. I didn’t like it, to put it mildly. Crocker’s absolutely right that someone needed to reply to the spate of books around the turn of the millennium smearing the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, it seems to me that he responded in kind, with the same kind of one-sidedness.

I find his attitude to the Eastern Church particularly appalling, but in general his happy glorification of triumphalist violence, and his failure to see the ironies of Christian history, is pretty disturbing. I read it a long time ago, so it’s hard for me to remember specifics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Fox like Martyrs Mirror includes the entire list of Catholics up until the reformation as those that died for the faith. Fox mentions Cyprian and lauds Cyprian for being a wonderful example.

If someone could read the Patristics and then see that both of these treatises dishonestly include Catholics as their Christians in suffering and then deny that this was the Catholic Church not some sort of Protestant figment of Christianity they would conclude that Fox and Martyrs mirror lied. The lie is inferring that this is Protestant history of Christianity. There is no Protestant history of Christianity prior to 1600.

That’s not a “lie.” It’s a view of church history with which you happen to disagree!

I find it an untenable view, but again, error is not a lie.

The claim by some Catholics that one can just point out obviously from history that the Church called itself the “Catholic Church” and thus must always have been the same is an unconvincing one. One has to go deeper than that, and discern whether a fundamental continuity has been preserved in doctrine, practice, etc. The Protestants of the Reformation era believed that they were restoring/renewing the Gospel and a more authentically Catholic form of Christianity in general, and that those members of the Church of their day (including the Pope and most of the bishops) who resisted these reforms were cutting themselves off from the true Church.

Protestants did have a lot of trouble with the later medieval centuries, which they wanted to condemn without sawing off the branch they were sitting on. To my mind they never came to a fully consistent position. (I know Reformed Baptists today who say that “Rome” didn’t become apostate until the Council of Trent–but this doesn’t make much sense of some of the language used by sixteenth-century Protestants about pre-Tridentine Catholicism, nor does it do justice to the basic continuity between Trent and the Middle Ages.)

Two basic documents that make the Protestant case are John Calvin’s Reply to Sadoleto from 1541 and John Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England from 1562.

Again, I’m not claiming that the arguments found in these texts are right, only that they were sincerely made and that a lot of learned people believed them in the sixteenth century–many believe them to this day.

Edwin

 

[Musician]

As a student of the Middle Ages and of the Renaissance, I have read too much history of the blood shed by the strife caused by the Reformation to believe it to be good.
It is sad that so many millions have been led astray by false doctrines, heresies, and untruths.
I find it very sad that so many Protestants find it necessary to recruit Catholics (e.g., Latin America)…
Anyone who reads a little of the biography of Queen Elizabeth (the first one) will realize the heinous crimes against Catholics in England, and their martyrdoms.
I just can’t see any good in the Reformation, sorry.

 

[Contarini]

You dont’ think it might have been the Douay?

No, because they are talking about John Trevisa and about manuscript copies that they believe date from approximately the 14th century.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Of course they were. They were writing about what they believed had existed centuries earlier.

The KJV preface says this, but it appears to be talking about what we call the “Wyclif” Bible. That’s not under dispute. Everyone knows that there was such a Bible, and that it was banned by the Catholic Church. The question is whether there was such a Bible approved by the Catholic Church even tacitly (i.e., not condemned). It is possible that the KJV translators refer to some Bible approved by the Catholic Church that has since been lost, but it seems far more likely that they refer to the “Wycliffite” Bible.

Furthermore, if such Bibles existed in 1611, obviously they hadn’t been destroyed in the “first wave” of iconoclasm. That doesn’t harm your thesis much, since Cromwell’s era was still in the future! But more to the point, you are multiplying entities without necessity by supposing (without any evidence) that they refer to something other than the “Wyclif” Bible.

I would like to see your evidence from the other authors. The CE says that they claimed that the whole Bible was translated before the time of Wyclif, not that these copies existed to their own day.

A word about lying: I think that you are ignoring the ease with which a convenient rumor could be honestly accepted as truth in the 16th century (and many other centuries)–I’m not referring to the KJV passage in particular, but in general to your generalizations about whether sixteenth-century authors can be trusted. I have no reason to believe, for instance, that Foxe deliberately lied about anything in his account of Protestant martyrs, but that doesn’t mean that I accept uncritically anything for which I have only his say-so–I don’t.

Indeed, and that’s why I use “Wyclif” in scare quotes. The point is that there was a Bible associated with his followers, and that this Bible was banned by the Church as either heretical or at least tending to encourage heresy, both because of a general suspicion of laypeople reading the Bible directly and because of a concern about the bias of the translation (which was more directly at work in the case of Tyndale, later–I have not studied the “Wyclif” Bible enough to be sure how much ground there was for such a concern in that case).

I repeat: the KJV translators appear to be speaking of the “Wyclif” translation–that is, the translation that was current in the late Middle Ages in England and which was forbidden by the Church. No one is disputing that this translation existed. The question is whether there was an earlier translation (or a later one not forbidden by the Church).

Which historians and where? This article speaks of Protestants destroying Catholic books (and also of the Protestant insistence on destroying images of the Cross, which you allege sometimes led them to destroy Bibles), but does not further specify.

Edwin

Duffy, in STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS, mentions the Durham incident. The only references I can find to destroying Bibles, in STRIPPING, appear to refer to Catholics destroying CoE books.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Marcarios,

That is quite a lot of speculating for one post - from Hus to Assange and all victims! Truly brathtaking

But, I did not exactly catch your point on if the PR did any good? Did it? And, if so, what good did it do?

God bless

I dont see how the sale of indulgences , which was questioned even before Luther is any different then what the Jews were doing with the Temple when Christ overturned the tables of the money changers and those who sold doves and such things … Something funny about the Indulgence Business in Europe , 100 years before Luther , Jan Huss questioned the motives of the Roman Catholic Hiearchy and he was burned at the stake at a so called “Ecumenical” Council. What they did to Huss , they would have done to Luther if they could. I think a modern example albeit non religious is the whole deal with Julian Assange. If it was up to the State Dept they would want him dead too.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

I find it difficult to follow your logic on this point. If you would give me a clarification (or two) I would certainly appreciate it…

Maybe it all hinges on what we mean by ‘lie’? As in, someone who intentionally misrepresents what they know to be true into some type of distortion would be guilty of a ‘lie’. Conversely, someone who believes this lie and repeats it would be guilty of error - but not of lying. Is this an acceptable working definition? We now are to look at sincerity.

I am guessing that a lot depends on what it takes to convince someone. When you say, “The claim by some Catholics that one can just point out obviously from history that the Church called itself the “Catholic Church” and thus must always have been the same is an unconvincing one.” Are you taking into account the statements from the ECF? That they ALL acknowledged Peter’s Successor as the legitimate leader of the Church founded by Christ that now (at least by 130AD) was called Catholic? That the beliefs of the Real Presence, Christ was True God and True Man, that all sins can be forgiven by men ordained by the Apostles, and their Apostolic Successors and that Mary is the Mother of God? All of these things were taught by the early Catholic Church in the 1st and 2nd Centuries and these doctrines are the same today. The Protestant rebellion changed all of that - and, I think that would be counted as not good.

With this in mind … how can you argue that one is giving an honest (albeit faulty) description of one’s history - if, like those arguing from the Council of Trent forward that the Catholic Chruch lost the mandate from Christ. When, as you say, “Protestants did have a lot of trouble with the later medieval centuries, which they wanted to condemn without sawing off the branch they were sitting on”
As I understand this sentence, there has to be a prior agenda (e.g., not cutting the supporting branch) before you can advance such a hypothesis. With the agenda in place, any effort to seek, find and then present a truthful position is permanently compromised.

God bless

That’s not a “lie.” It’s a view of church history with which you happen to disagree!

I find it an untenable view, but again, error is not a lie.

The claim by some Catholics that one can just point out obviously from history that the Church called itself the “Catholic Church” and thus must always have been the same is an unconvincing one. One has to go deeper than that, and discern whether a fundamental continuity has been preserved in doctrine, practice, etc. The Protestants of the Reformation era believed that they were restoring/renewing the Gospel and a more authentically Catholic form of Christianity in general, and that those members of the Church of their day (including the Pope and most of the bishops) who resisted these reforms were cutting themselves off from the true Church.

Protestants did have a lot of trouble with the later medieval centuries, which they wanted to condemn without sawing off the branch they were sitting on. To my mind they never came to a fully consistent position. (I know Reformed Baptists today who say that “Rome” didn’t become apostate until the Council of Trent–but this doesn’t make much sense of some of the language used by sixteenth-century Protestants about pre-Tridentine Catholicism, nor does it do justice to the basic continuity between Trent and the Middle Ages.)

Two basic documents that make the Protestant case are John Calvin’s Reply to Sadoleto from 1541 and John Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England from 1562.

Again, I’m not claiming that the arguments found in these texts are right, only that they were sincerely made and that a lot of learned people believed them in the sixteenth century–many believe them to this day.

Edwin

 

[mirandajb]

The good fruits I see coming out of the reformation is scholarly discussion , the thirst for Bible studies that are so well done in protestant circles and all those former ‘protestant’ ministers and other converts to the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church, who have explored ,argued against , studied and grappled with all the reasons to believe, who have seen and experienced the lack of authority that is the very real and natural fruit of the protestant revolt and have realised that Authority comes from God and was handed down to the apostles and from them on in succession this is how the truth was to be preserved. They hold a mirror up to so called ‘Cradel Catholics’ because they are on fire and I believe the Holy Spirit is pouring out his fire on the Church anew through them, they are the new Pentacost recent Popes have prayed for.

It may have been the work of the devil but God certainly allowed it and from this emanated the propagation of the Word like never before…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mirandajb,

Good insight!

God bless

It may have been the work of the devil but God certainly allowed it and from this emanated the propagation of the Word like never before…

 

[benedictus2]

Trying to get back on track… I would say that Luther said it well “I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests.” [Walch. IX. 1311]

Wishing I had seen this forum thread post earlier since it is one that I have grappled with alot since coming into the fullness of the faith from the Church of England 3 years ago, I did go back and read ALMOST all posts so as to try not to repeat points already made. I think it was Petergee who made the very good points that, error has been occurring since the very beginning of church history and that at many times saints have been highlighted because of their very work and writings against such heresies to bring the faithful back to the truth.
To those who have grappled with the idea that somehow God intended for the reformation , that it was part of His plan, I say there is a scripture verse that you may be only partly familiar with, as I once was , you may be leaning on ’ God makes ( or works) all things for good’ but the real verse is Romans 8:28 and the key part that hit me like a baseball bat recently is the last , often un quoted part " with/for those who love him,* who are called according to his purposes*". To me this says that the reformation may have been the Devil’s plan to try to destroy the Church but he can not thwart God and as you know Jesus promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against’ His Church , that the Holy Spirit would be with his apostles until the end and that we are called to be One as the Father and Jesus are one.

The good fruits I see coming out of the reformation is scholarly discussion , the thirst for Bible studies that are so well done in protestant circles and all those former ‘protestant’ ministers and other converts to the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church, who have explored ,argued against , studied and grappled with all the reasons to believe, who have seen and experienced the lack of authority that is the very real and natural fruit of the protestant revolt and have realised that Authority comes from God and was handed down to the apostles and from them on in succession this is how the truth was to be preserved. They hold a mirror up to so called ‘Cradel Catholics’ because they are on fire and I believe the Holy Spirit is pouring out his fire on the Church anew through them, they are the new Pentacost recent Popes have prayed for.

Importantly the oneness of the Church can not be an almost ethereal 'we all believe in the same Jesus but you believe your way and I believe mine and let’s all relatively love eachother by never saying anything against eachother in judgment and we will all meet in heaven ’ kind of oneness. No, it is an essential oneness, a oneness that is in Jesus as he is in the Father so that when people see the Church they see Jesus and so see God. To me this is a Church of sacrificial love, and ocean of mercy and unwavering teaching of truth , a marriage of both the human and Divine in essence…where else can you see ALL of the Gospel , despite all the human frailties, but in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Brilliant!! Simply Brilliant! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

It may have been the work of the devil but God certainly allowed it and from this emanated the propagation of the Word like never before…

That is a very faulty assumption.

You are assuming that if there was no reformation there would not be the propagation of the Gospel. Totally ludicrous.

The Catholic Church is world wide not because the Church has been relaxing on the couch, feet on the coffee table and watching TV.

I think it was Gandhi who said that if the Christians were united, then India would be a Christian country or something along those lines.

More than that, if there was no Protestant Reformation, those who are now mired in wrong doctrine will know correct doctrine.

There probably would not be this almost firm strangle-hold of liberalism and relativism if it were not for the reformation.

There will only be One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as Christ had prayed for.

But yes, God did allow it because He can bring about something beautiful from even the most abject of situations.

Take a look at those who are in the forefront of Catholic Apologetics - they are former protestants. Having been there and done that, they can explain why one should not go there and do that.

 

[Contarini]

Maybe it all hinges on what we mean by ‘lie’? As in, someone who intentionally misrepresents what they know to be true into some type of distortion would be guilty of a ‘lie’. Conversely, someone who believes this lie and repeats it would be guilty of error - but not of lying.

Yes, although in the case in question I’m not sure I’d say that there was a deliberate lie at any point. I guess I’m having trouble understanding why you assume that all error must originate from a deliberate lie. I think you underestimate the complexity of reality and the human capacity for error.

I am guessing that a lot depends on what it takes to convince someone.

I’m afraid that if you are trying to persuade me that Catholic apologists don’t have an equally pressing agenda, you do not have much chance of success.

History doesn’t line up neatly with any set of confessional imperatives.

Edwin

 

[Maryann_C]

As a student of the Middle Ages and of the Renaissance, I have read too much history of the blood shed by the strife caused by the Reformation to believe it to be good.
…
Anyone who reads a little of the biography of Queen Elizabeth (the first one) will realize the heinous crimes against Catholics in England, and their martyrdoms.
I just can’t see any good in the Reformation, sorry.

I appreciate your concern for human suffering but without it , without the opportunity to be tested by fire , or being devoured by lions or Crucifixion many would not have had the opportunity to give the ultimate witness to love and faith in Jesus. Without the Church surviving despite such sacrifice and hardship throughout the world from the very beginning what claim would we have to the truth?

As a student of the Middle Ages you know that the ‘Reformation’ is only one contributing factor to the blood shed and strife. One can not take the ‘Reformation’ as an individual- purely religious movement ( although on the face that was the main thrust) , because the Church was so entwined with the socio political and economical system ( by necessity after the fall of Rome to fill the void) , just as the same way one can not look at many Islamic countries today as purely religious entities.
There is a book called The Protestant Reformation by H.J Hillerbrand former Dean of Theology at Duke, he brilliantly looks at the reformation country by country against the socio-political scene of each and Europe as a whole, as well as looking at the different lead Protestant figures.
Perhaps naturally we in the US tend to look at what happened in England and think ;that was the Reformation, but prof Hillerbrand quite rightly says that what happened in England was really a slightly different kind of reformation to the rest of Europe. Luther’s movement was to a certain extent ‘hijacked’ by the German ‘princes’ ( as Luther himself later realised he had been) for their own political advantages.
Is this anything that sounds familiar? political figures ‘piggy-backing’ off religiosity to gain political power and influence?

 

[Maryann_C]

That is a very faulty assumption.

You are assuming that if there was no reformation there would not be the propagation of the Gospel. Totally ludicrous.

The Catholic Church is world wide not because the Church has been relaxing on the couch, feet on the coffee table and watching TV.

I think it was Gandhi who said that if the Christians were united, then India would be a Christian country or something along those lines.

More than that, if there was no Protestant Reformation, those who are now mired in wrong doctrine will know correct doctrine.

There probably would not be this almost firm strangle-hold of liberalism and relativism if it were not for the reformation.

There will only be One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as Christ had prayed for.

But yes, God did allow it because He can bring about something beautiful from even the most abject of situations.

Take a look at those who are in the forefront of Catholic Apologetics - they are former protestants. Having been there and done that, they can explain why one should not go there and do that.

I am so glad you said this because when I read the same which you quoted I too felt it was not quite on target. Still my only problem is that you seem to agree that *God did allow it * I have a problem with this because it would be the same as saying ‘God allows all sin’ and therefore to some this would seem as if He agrees with it or even causes it. However if one says 'God allowed it because we have free will to choose good from bad, to love him or reject Him" then I believe that is more in line with Church teaching? I am sure I am picking hairs and this potentialy deep subject has been well debated in other forums.

 

[guanophore]

That is a very faulty assumption.

You are assuming that if there was no reformation there would not be the propagation of the Gospel. Totally ludicrous.

What is totally ludicrous, Bene, is your assumptions and projections into what someone else is saying. On the contrary, no assumption was made here.

I responding this way, you reject the teaching of your own Church. If you recall the Easter Vigil, you will remember that the sin of Adam and Eve is called “oh necessary evil”. The Church is not saying that the evil that happened was “good”, but that God used it for his better purposes.

It may have been the work of the devil but God certainly allowed it and from this emanated the propagation of the Word like never before…

God allowed the Fall, God allowed the Crucifixion of His Only Son, and brought good out of these evils. Miranda is right on! And she is making no faulty assumptions. God could have propogated His Word however He chose. He chose to use The Reformation to make good. He could have redeemed us however He wished, but He chose to die on the cross.

The Catholic Church is world wide not because the Church has been relaxing on the couch, feet on the coffee table and watching TV.

No one but you has suggested this is the case.

I think it was Gandhi who said that if the Christians were united, then India would be a Christian country or something along those lines.

No one has said otherwise.

More than that, if there was no Protestant Reformation, those who are now mired in wrong doctrine will know correct doctrine.

This is the faulty assumption, since there have been heresies since the beginning of the Church! The teaching of right doctrine does not mean everyone accepts it. If there were not a paucity of right doctrine being taught in Germany at the time of Luther, then there would not have been 95 Theses.

There probably would not be this almost firm strangle-hold of liberalism and relativism if it were not for the reformation.

The liberalism and relativism has more to do with culture, politics, science and industrialism.

There will only be One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as Christ had prayed for.

This is an assumption.

But yes, God did allow it because He can bring about something beautiful from even the most abject of situations.

It is interesting that you called Miranda’s post “ludicrious” and based upon false assumptions, then find it expedient to say the same thing.

Take a look at those who are in the forefront of Catholic Apologetics - they are former protestants. Having been there and done that, they can explain why one should not go there and do that.

Which is her very accurate point…

Great post Miranda!

Too bad benedictus can only appreciate what you have said if she says it herself.

 

[guanophore]

I am so glad you said this because when I read the same which you quoted I too felt it was not quite on target. Still my only problem is that you seem to agree that *God did allow it * I have a problem with this because it would be the same as saying ‘God allows all sin’ and therefore to some this would seem as if He agrees with it or even causes it. However if one says 'God allowed it because we have free will to choose good from bad, to love him or reject Him" then I believe that is more in line with Church teaching? I am sure I am picking hairs and this potentialy deep subject has been well debated in other forums.

I understand your point, but God does allow evil, that greater good can ensue. All one need do for proof is look at a crucifix.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

I do not think that there is anything that could not be made more complicated. But, however someone decides to increase the complexity - there is probably a simple (not necessarily ‘easy’) explanation.

Let me try again - from the 2nd Century on, the following beliefs were already well establshed - and these are the same beliefs that the Catholic Church has today.

1.) the Real Presence,
2.) Christ was True God and True Man,
3.) that all sins can be forgiven by men ordained by the Apostles, and their Apostolic Successors and
4.) that Mary is the Mother of God?

Now, while the leaders of the Catholic Church that Luther intereaced with did not set the example they should have - they were still the leaders, and the legitimate Successor of Peter was there, too. Now, if you want to know what Luther & Co could have done - he could have looked to Catherine of Siena for guidance.

Now the ‘good’ done by the PR is that it showed that the Catholic Church;s doctrines are not only the same yesterday and today, but those who leave completely deviate from what was taught for the first 16 Centuries of Christianity. The simple explanation is that the profound disappointment experienced by those in the 16th Century Church became derailed and they went their individual ways. As we continue to simplify, this derailment has continued on for 500 years and currently has 30,000+ variations with all denying each others doctrines. I realize this could be viewed as ‘over-simplified’ but, that is what makes a horse race. Getting to the bottom of the matter and not the side-issues is never easy.

Ultimately, the lie was that Peter was not put in charge by Christ - and 16 centuries meant nothing. Some of his successors were genuine disappointments - but, that fact did not open the door for others to try and re-direct the mission of Christ. This original lie has lead to on-going error.

God bless

Yes, although in the case in question I’m not sure I’d say that there was a deliberate lie at any point. I guess I’m having trouble understanding why you assume that all error must originate from a deliberate lie. I think you underestimate the complexity of reality and the human capacity for error.

Yes, or more broadly what one’s standards of evidence are.

Not all of the Fathers spoke of Rome at all, and those who did are not an unambiguous as you’re implying. There’s no point arguing through the prooftexts, both because this has been done over and over on this forum and because I agree that the patristic evidence points to some kind of authority for Rome. However, I think it isn’t clear just how far that authority extends, and I recognize that many learned church historians do not see what you and I see.

To my mind, the fairest summary of the patristic evidence is in Olivier Clement, You Are Peter.

Again, I’m not sure what the point would be of arguing these issues. I believe in all the things you mention. However, the sixteenth-century Protestants came up with what they found convincing explanations of the patristic evidence. In the end it seems to me that they were fudging, but if you really want to know how honest and intelligent people could not see what is so clear to you, go read something like Chemnitz’ Examination of the Council of Trent. He deals with the patristic evidence topic by topic in great detail.

I should add that there was some degree of dishonesty in the sense that some Protestants were willing to exaggerate the agreement of the Fathers with them for polemical purposes. However, to the Protestants the fact that they disagreed with the Fathers on some points was not a deal-breaker, because they didn’t see the Fathers as infallible. That did not, from their perspective, mean that they didn’t belong to the same Church. And by and large they seem to have sincerely believed that the Fathers agreed more with them than with “Rome.”

I think one of the key factors in the Protestant approach was a focus on the precise forms Catholic belief and practice had taken in the sixteenth century. This is why Newman is so important in the history of these debates–while “development” can sometimes be an excuse for historical fudging, it’s a key concept for both sides in any serious historical debate today. To the sixteenth-century Protestants, faced with the ahistorical claim by Catholic apologists that the early Church really did look much like the late medieval Church, it seemed pretty obvious that they were in principle getting back to early Christianity, even if they disagreed with some patristic ideas that they thought had led to later “corruptions.”

And it depends on which Protestants we’re talking about. Luther was probably one of the most cavalier in his treatment of the Fathers. Later Lutherans and early Reformed folks took the Fathers much more seriously. The Puritans, once again, sometimes just didn’t care, though they were a broad category.

I’m afraid that if you are trying to persuade me that Catholic apologists don’t have an equally pressing agenda, you do not have much chance of success.

History doesn’t line up neatly with any set of confessional imperatives.

Edwin

 

[mirandajb]

That is a very faulty assumption.

You are assuming that if there was no reformation there would not be the propagation of the Gospel. Totally ludicrous.

The Catholic Church is world wide not because the Church has been relaxing on the couch, feet on the coffee table and watching TV.

I think it was Gandhi who said that if the Christians were united, then India would be a Christian country or something along those lines.

More than that, if there was no Protestant Reformation, those who are now mired in wrong doctrine will know correct doctrine.

There probably would not be this almost firm strangle-hold of liberalism and relativism if it were not for the reformation.

There will only be One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as Christ had prayed for.

But yes, God did allow it because He can bring about something beautiful from even the most abject of situations.

Take a look at those who are in the forefront of Catholic Apologetics - they are former protestants. Having been there and done that, they can explain why one should not go there and do that.

You started off by saying that my assumption is ludicrous, but ended by by agreeing with my assumption, albeit subtly. Look at the products of the Protestant movement who have helped the Catholic church today, especially in the increase and knowledge of the Word and even our own Catholic traditions…Steve Fray, Scott Hann, Jeff Cavins (founder of EWTN and the Great Adventure Bible series), Mike Cumbie and the list goes on…God bless. forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

[mirandajb]

I am so glad you said this because when I read the same which you quoted I too felt it was not quite on target. Still my only problem is that you seem to agree that *God did allow it * I have a problem with this because it would be the same as saying ‘God allows all sin’ and therefore to some this would seem as if He agrees with it or even causes it. However if one says 'God allowed it because we have free will to choose good from bad, to love him or reject Him" then I believe that is more in line with Church teaching? I am sure I am picking hairs and this potentialy deep subject has been well debated in other forums.

You will have to understand the difference between God’s divine will and His permissive will. God bless.