J
jmcrae
Guest
Thanks! Would you consider it suitable for RCIA Inquirers?
- Status
C
Catherine_W
Guest
Thank you for all your answers and book suggestions. I look forward to learning more. You all have given me a pretty long list of books including:
Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott
Triumph by H.W. Crocker
Hillaire Belloc’s books on the Reformation
History of Christendom by Warren Carrol
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Newman
The Catholic Church through the Ages by John Vidmar
I really appreciate all the suggestions; however I know it will take me a long time to get through all these books (im a busy college student); so I was wondering if anyone has a suggestion to an order I should read them in. And thank you so much for all your answers!
Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott
Triumph by H.W. Crocker
Hillaire Belloc’s books on the Reformation
History of Christendom by Warren Carrol
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Newman
The Catholic Church through the Ages by John Vidmar
I really appreciate all the suggestions; however I know it will take me a long time to get through all these books (im a busy college student); so I was wondering if anyone has a suggestion to an order I should read them in. And thank you so much for all your answers!
F
FrDale_Peterka
Guest
Is “The Catholic Church Through The Ages” by John Vidmar suitable for RCIA candidates? Yes. Very much so! They will be fascinated by what the author has to say about “the bad popes”, the Vatican Council, Martin Luther, the Crusades, etc. etc. The author uses an easy, conversational tone and vocabulary.
The book is not quite an encyclopedia, but it resembles one. It has the unity and continuity of a history textbook, but it’s a collection of individual short (one-two page) articles. Just right for both front-to-back reading and easy, quick reference on a topic.
Twenty clams is a bit steep for most candidates, but it’s a book that they will read and reread and refer to often.
…and no, I’m not related to John Vidmar!
Fr. Dale in Cincinnati
The book is not quite an encyclopedia, but it resembles one. It has the unity and continuity of a history textbook, but it’s a collection of individual short (one-two page) articles. Just right for both front-to-back reading and easy, quick reference on a topic.
Twenty clams is a bit steep for most candidates, but it’s a book that they will read and reread and refer to often.
…and no, I’m not related to John Vidmar!
Fr. Dale in Cincinnati
J
jmcrae
Guest
That sounds ideal for our RCIA Library.
As soon as I can free up some money, I’ll add it.
As soon as I can free up some money, I’ll add it.
C
Catherine_W
Guest
So, I know people have already discussed this, but I am still confused. How was it ok for the church to let heretics be killed then, but not now? I’m not saying it should be ok now… Why does the time period justify these acts? Why didn’t the church excommunicate monarchs and other state officials when they imposed the death penalty for stealing a lady’s hankerchief. Today the church complains about the death penalty for criminals, and murders… how could it be ok then for heretics and stealers of hankerciefs to be put to death? And why would the Church change its opinion and now be against the killing of heretics and instead be kind to our protestant friends?
C
Catherine_W
Guest
St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre
Can someone please explain to me how this is justified. Was the pope really jubulint about these events?
Can someone please explain to me how this is justified. Was the pope really jubulint about these events?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Because society itself valued religion - it was of life-or-death importance to them to believe the right things, and to have someone coming along and preaching errors and mistakes, and getting people to believe things that are not true, was considered an attack on the human soul. To present false teachings back then was the same as to threaten someone’s life or steal someone’s money, today.
Because of the level of techology available to them at the time, and what they were able to know. The science of criminal psychology did not yet exist, for example, and also, prisons (other than bottle prisons, which were essentially a slower version of the death penalty) were not very secure.
Even today, the death penalty is permitted in cases where it is not possible to prevent the person from harming other people after he has been sentenced.
What’s different about today is that we have the ability to rehabilitate many prisoners, and make them able to work and function as normal people, using psychology - and we also have secure places where they can live while they are receiving rehabilitation, where they can’t get out and commit more crimes. Bottom line, we have better locks today, and we have the ability to help people improve themselves and their lives - which we didn’t have, before.
Today’s Protestants are not preaching errors on purpose - they are only repeating what they heard from their ancestors. It is possible that they are teachable, so instead of killing them, we invite them to come to RCIA.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Yes, & before. Several popes - Paul IV, Pius V among others - were zealous & energetic supporters of the Roman Inquisition, which was refounded in 1542. In fact, one of the causes of friction between the Papacy & several Italian states was that the states in question did not always give the Roman Inquisition a free hand to act as the Popes wanted.
The execution of heretics was not only supported by the Popes - it was seen as a grave moral obligation, as something demanded by the duty to God & the Church of Catholic authorities. This is why Luther’s proposition that “to burn heretics is against the Will of the Holy Ghost” was condemned as erroneous by Leo X. And the Inquisition in Spain under the “Catholic Kings” who unified Spain was requested by the Servant of God Queen Isabella, & set up by the Pope. Rome cannot be excused from being involved - one might as well say that Dubya was uninvolved in in the invasion of Iraq. Something is badly wrong when the Popes can be defended only by fictions.Only heretics denied that the Church could and must prosecute heretics - & the Church did so to the extent of executing them.
This is a very tangled issue, with a very long history - it can’t be answered in one-liners. It is easy to understand why Pius V thought he had a sacred duty to prosecute, torture & kill heretics - it is less easy to square this kind of thing with the Gospel.
The duty of suppressing heresy, by killing the heretic if need be, was enthusiastically supported by most Protestant thinkers, & almost all Catholics. There were exceptions - Sebastian Castellio among Protestants, for instance, & Luther in his early post-Roman period - but they are rare.
What I find sad is that there could be such widespread agreement on activity which hardly anyone would think worthy of a Christian today. The difference was in identifying the heretic; not in judging him a blaspheming wretch worthy of death. One Church’s combustible material is another Church’s holy martyr. ##
It’s a doctrine of the theology of kingship.
And a very old one - it has many pre-Christian roots, but the basic idea is that the ruler is the authority for all that happens in his realm, & is the source of justice. So his will, is law. In some forms, it is a doctrine that a thing is guaranteed to be just precisely because it is the ruler’s will. **If **there is any appeal from the ruler’s will, it is (in some form) to the ruler himself - appeal from Crown to Parliament is on this understanding an appeal to the Crown by grace of which Parliament exists. This did not go down well in the 1640s, among those who disagreed with Charles I’s attempts to exercise Divine Right; many of them, as Puritans in sympathy, believed in a doctrine of limited monarchy & (more controversially) in a right to resist tyrants by force.The issue of tyrannicide is murky - it has found defenders among Catholics & Protestants: OTOH, Tyndale, in “The Obedience of a Christian Man”, argues for Luther’s doctrine of non-resistance to tyranny. Father Mariana’s book was burned in Paris in 1625 because he argued for tyrannicide - the French position was that of absolute monarchy.
“Divine Right” is an ambiguous term - “jus divinum” can equally mean “divine law”: & this could be taken as hinting at a limit on princely authority. So the lawyers on both sides of the argument, civilians and canonists alike, had plenty to say for themselves.
The issue did not exist in isolation but was mixed up with all sorts of theories & philosophies; in France after 1438 or so, there was a strong tendency for the Crown to be seen as the defender of the liberties of the French Church - usually against the Papacy. One of the reasons for antagonism to the Jesuits before they were suppressed was their support for Roman ideas of the Pope’s authority.
…more…]
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
…last bit]
Gregory I seems to have believed in Divine Right in some sense - & the current Roman doctrine of Papal authority comes very close to it, because all other authority is made to depend on that; not on the authority of Christ, but of the Pope This would have been very strange to most canonists 700 years ago. But the Popes have not been too pleased when monarchs have made similar claims - DR is OK, as long as it is the Pope’s. ##
##
Gregory I seems to have believed in Divine Right in some sense - & the current Roman doctrine of Papal authority comes very close to it, because all other authority is made to depend on that; not on the authority of Christ, but of the Pope This would have been very strange to most canonists 700 years ago. But the Popes have not been too pleased when monarchs have made similar claims - DR is OK, as long as it is the Pope’s. ##
IMHO, no - & I think this is the sort of issue one can’t expect to find in the sources at that date.
That does not of itself make the claim improper or false, but there is no more evidence for it then, than there is for transubstantiation. One would not expect to find a discussion of the Two Natures in the OT either. ##More for Marian ideas than for PI, AFAICR.
FWIW, faith is not based on intellectual proof - Jesus Christ is not Fermat’s Last Theorem. One can no more prove faith in Him is valid than one can prove the existence of a friend by applying a protractor and slide rule to him. He is a Person, not a Puzzle ##There was an awful lot wrong - I don’t see why one cannot see the Ref. as an example of Divine “tough love”.
A
Axion
Guest
The St Bartholomew’s day massacre is another episode that has been subject to a lot of protestant “spin” from its origin, so to correct misconceptions…
- The massacre was in no way organised by the Church.
- The events resulted from the methods used by French, Dutch and Scottish calvinists to try to impose their religion on the populace of their countries. Basically this strategy, supported by Calvin’s party in Geneva was:
b) Alliance with prominent nobles, who were promised church and monastic lands for their military support and protection.
c) the forming of large armed units to “protect” Calvinist meetings and assemblies.
d) Revolt. In a particular area after a rousing sermon, the Calvinists and their armed supporters would “cleanse” and desecrate all the local churches and monasteries, destroying all altars and images, driving out priest, nuns, monks and friars, closing monasteries and installing calvinist ministers. The mass would then be banned, usually on pain of death, and the area be declared Calvinist. The majority population would be forced to attend Calvinist worship.
e) Move on to the next area. This occurred in Scotlasnd, the Netherlands and large parts of France in the 1560s and 1570s.
f) When forces were strong enough there would be a military conflict with remaining Catholic forces and the country would be taken over and declared “Reformed.”
3.In France at the time this process was well underway.
After three years of vicious civil war between Calvinists and Catholics a peace was made. The King of France and his Mother the Regent, Catherine de’ Medici, were in no way strong Catholics. The King’s sister was to be married to the Protestant huguenot leader Henry of Navarre. For this reason all major protestant lords were to assemble in the strongly Catholic city of Paris, with many of their supporters.
Many Catholics believed that Paris was to be the next target of the protestantising process, and distrusted Catherine and the Protestant lords and their retainers. An attempt weas made by extreme Catholics to assassinate Coligny the protestant military commander. It failed.
Protestants burst in to the royal palace to demand justice. Fears of Huguenot reprisals grew. Coligny’s brother-in-law led a 4,000-strong army camped just outside Paris and Catholics in the city feared it might take revenge on the Guises or the city populace itself. Catherine and her son Charles IX panicked and issued an order to attack the Protestants in the city. This was led by the King’s guards and taken up by the citizens of Paris, turning into a massacre.
- Papal reaction was reported as jubilant, ordering the ringing of bells in Rome. However what tends not to be reported is that the message that reached Rome was not of a massacre, but that an attempted Protestant revolt had been put down, and that the formerly suspect Catherine and King Charles had come out firmly on the Catholic side. This was however twisted subsequently as support for a massacre.
- Status