If you could change one historical outcome

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnStrachan

New member
Catholic Revisionism 101

Change one historical outcome in the history of the church. What would it be and why?

Catherine of Aragon had a son that outlived infancy. A whole lot of pain could have been avoided.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bring Martin Luther to Rome to study with the Bishops after he posted his 95 theses so he could help identify where there was abuse and things that need reform (tweaked) rather then letting him go astray after condemnations. (I know, wishfull thinking). But Luther was more of a soft Catholic reformer at the beginning until he went rogue. Had the council of Trent happened at the beginning of Luther’s posting of the 95 theses, maybe we would not have the 40 000 + denominations we have today.
 
Last edited:
There would always have been a rupture somewhere down the line as even St Paul and St Jude mention divisions.
 
Roe v Wade didn’t pass (US Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion on demand).
 
JohnStrachan said:
Catherine of Aragon had a son that outlived infancy. A whole lot of pain could have been avoided.
Click to expand...
Weirdly, I’ve been seeing more and more Anne Boleyn apologists on you tube lately.
It’s beyond me how any woman could be rooting for Anne, but there you have it.
 
If I could, I’d go all the way back and prevent The Fall from occurring with Adam and Eve. No original sin, and none of the constant suffering and misery that has come as a result
 
Last edited:
Although I see where you’re coming from, and agree to an extent, there’s something to be said for a ‘happy fault.’
412 ** But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308
Click to expand...
 
I have several. Unrelated and without hierarchy of importance. All equally grave in my eyes. These ones:
The Great Schism.
The persecution of St. John Goldenmouth (happened within the church).
Collaboration with the Nazi and Communist parties (from the side of those who did it).
 
. In the 1700s the Jesuits had made considerable progress evangelizing China. Jealous Dominicans etc complained to the pope about Jesuits adapting to veneration of ancestors. The pope
Might have understood this as compatible with Catholicism, but he was misled by misinformation.
The Church was drastically cut back, for centuries.
 
About 40 years ago the General of the Jesuits became incapacitated, and St. JP 2 took direct control. He made some moderate improvement, but I think he underestimated how deep .modernism has sunk in.

He yielded to Jesuit pressure and allowed them to choose their own leader after less than 2 years. Had he held control for, say, 20 years, history may have been different.

Some modernists would have left. Some liberals might have been kept from becoming more liberal or more powerful.

Some orthodox seminarians might have been encouraged to stay on. Some Jesuit institutions might not have been secularized.

Perhaps the Jesuits would not be shrinking rapidly today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top