Please refute this anti-Catholic assertion

[MarcoPolo]

the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?

Why didn’t everyone they evangelize convert to 100% Catholicism if people just did what they are told? The argument is nonsensical and offers no evidence of support. It’s like the Da Vinci Code argument where you just make up whatever you want that supposedly really happened, and to explain the lack of evidence for that view, you just say, “History was written by the winners, so the real history was destroyed in book bonfires” or something like that –– and voila! You have your own history with no evidence!

 

[livingwordunity]

the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?

The Catholic Church goes back to antiquity when Latin was a common language. And the Church expanded while Latin was still common. Latin was to the ancient world what English is to today’s world. But even today, while Latin isn’t commonly spoken, it is still commonly used not just in the Catholic Church but in secular science, medicine, and in legal language. Latin was the language of the Roman Empire which was vast, and the Catholic Church inherited the language when She inherited and Christianized the Roman Empire.

 

[dronald]

yes, reformation, except that’s not exactly what happened back then i don’t think. that was more like outright schism and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. and it didn’t seem to stop there, the splintering kind of just carried on and went out of control. of course, the church had her own issues but there will always be issues. i think it’s better to deal with them from within rather than breaking and causing conflict

It was pretty tough throughout the centuries to stand up to the Catholic Church. Now when we look back at the “tougher opinions” of certain Popes we can say that it wasn’t infallible and can dismiss it as non-binding. Back then though, to tell a Pope he was wrong could mean excommunication and the end of your life, regardless of whether his words were binding in matters of faith and morals. There were others that peacefully tried to disagree with the CC and were excommunicated, all their followers spread out and killed. The best example I can come up with would be the Waldenses.

The Waldenses based their lack of faith in the Church entirely on reading the Bible and saying there are contradictions. This is the sort of thing that can happen when everyone has Bibles and everyone can read.

Now, I’m not saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong, but it is historical.

 

[adawgj]

Many of the great literates were Catholics in that time period

Dante, St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas A Kempis, and many more. Medieval monks were the leading intellectuals at the time.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?

You must remember also that the Catholic Church has taken great pains to visualize the scriptures through art and stained glass windows within the churches to help the illiterate learn and know the teachings of God. The Church has taught the teachings of Jesus since it began. Oral tradition has been part of the teachings of the Church since its inception. All of these forms of teaching are, and have been guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JRTJ]

Let me quote Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman here for effect.
He converted to Catholicism after having lived most of his life as an Anglican:

“To be steeped in History is to cease to be a Protestant”

This quote says everything that needs to be said about what you asked!

God bless

 

[roads152]

the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?

This statement presents itself as unfortunate.
Perhaps as unfortunate as saying that Jonah would not have been thrown overboard if the authorities checked the capacity of the boat before it sailed.
It can also be equally as unfortunate as saying St. Paul would have fulfilled his dream of preaching up to Spain if he only took the plane instead of the boat.

 

[Randy_Carson]

no, but what if there had been protestants from the time for example. and perhaps that was the reason the reformation was so successful? perhaps people didn’t know the faith well enough to defend it because they wouldn’t understand mass or read scripture?

Angel-

I don’t want to over-romanticize the middle ages, but I think that people were MORE interested in their faith in times gone by than they are today.

The Reformation would probably never happen today due to indifference.

 

[adf417]

From the 12th century on, there were a lot of heretical movements. Now one could argue that the people who didn’t join these movements were ignorant, or were in fear of what happened to the people who did join. . . .

But certainly these heretical movements were powerful voices of critique and they had an effect on the Church.

It is certainly true that free religious choice wasn’t present in the Middle Ages. One can’t assume from the fact that nearly everyone theoretically belonged to the Church that they all were devout and orthodox. in fact we know that they weren’t.

At the same time, we have plenty of evidence of devout, passionate faith in medieval Catholicism, including members of the lower classes. It was a mixed bag. But contrary to the stereotype some have, intelligent lay participation increased throughout the Middle Ages. The period right before the Reformation was a period of intense lay piety.

Protestant and secular historians often try to shoehorn medieval renewal movements into the category of “precursors of the Reformation.” This is prejudiced. One generally good textbook that I used when teaching a class put the Dominicans and Franciscans in the “later Middle Ages” under the category of responses to corruption, while dealing with other 13th-century developments in the previous chapter. That’s a relatively subtle example of the kind of thing I’m talking about.

Not sure how helpful any of this is . . . .

Also, by the later Middle Ages there was quite a bit of literacy, and a lot of religious literature was available in the vernacular. To some extent this was the case from very early on as well–in Anglo-Saxon England, for instance, large chunks of the Bible were translated into English.

Edwin

Edwin I hope it is becoming more and more evident how the church is needing you back home. We have a hard time expressing the truth as well as you do and need more like you to help.

Peace!!!

 

[Dorothy]

One does not have to have a high IQ to believe and respond to what Jesus did for us. The basic truths were explained to people who were illiterate. Even stained glass windows with symbols were used to impress upon them the truths of the faith.

The latin words used in the Mass were explained and meaning of them taught to them beforehand.

Jesus chose the apostles not from the learned, but from simple hard-working men. Many times intellect can get in the way of pure faith.

 

[JRKH]

the catholic church had everyone as followers because most people were illiterate and the mass was in latin so no one could understand it and also no one could read scripture, so they basically just did whatever they were told therefore the church could do whatever it wanted. rebuttals?

Frankly - I don’t see anything particularly “anti-Catholic” here because nothing in this says that the Catholic Church was right or wrong - or that the protestants were right or wrong…It’s more of a comment on the social / cultural / educational condition of peoples in the past.

if the people were "just doing what they were told (not really thinking for themselves) … then who “told” large groups of them to stop being Catholic?
These men were in the same position as the Catholic Church. If the people just did as they were told - then the protestant leaders could just “do whatever they wanted”…

If - as stated above “most were illiterate” - then it would not have mattered if the Scriptures were in Latin or some Vernacular since they could not have read it anyway. Those who were educated at the time were educated in Catholic run Schools and would have been taught Latin as a matter of course.
As for the mass being in Latin…The Homilies would not have been…These would have been in the vernacular and this is where the lessons would come from.

Sorry if the above is a bit disjointed…I just jotted down the thoughts as they came to me.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The premise of your question contains huge generalisations.
a) Most people were illiterate? What period of history are you referring to? in the hey day of the unified Byzantium Empire this is not true. By the late Dark Ages, Early Middle Ages this is True. Don’t forget however that all of the ruling class could and did read.

b)The Mass was in Latin and no one could understand it? The Mass was first said in Latin in the West because that was the language that people could understand they had trouble with Greek. Latin was the Commonly understood language through out the Western Empire, after the fall of Rome around 540AD, Language did diversify however right through out the Dark Ages and Middle Ages Latin was commonly understood, it was the Language of government and the educated and ruling classes, It is the mother language of most western European languages in use today and was part of the Princeton entrance exam as late as 1927. My Father heard the Mass in Latin as the vernacular was not used until after Vatican 2 and I have a Sunday missal of his with the Latin on one side and the English on the other.

c) The Church therefor could do what ever it wanted? The Church was constantly challenged. The invaders from the North were Arians. the Church did not take the easy way out with them, after the fall of Rome the entire West was Ruled by Arian Princes the Church stuck to the revealed Truth and over time about 120 years converted them to the Truth, history is full of petty Princes and Rulers challenging the Church let alone the constant problems and challenges to change her doctrine from the Emperor in Constantinople.

A comment like the one above does not deserve a rebuttal, the ignorance displayed in its content is surly rebuttal enough!

Good post…

Peace
James

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

Also, we must be careful not to disparage less educated people who listened to the better educated ones, to the doctors of the Church.

How many people today can give a full in-depth explanation of the roles of every single vitamin and micro element in a multi-vitamin formulation? Yet, all people benefit from taking those multi vitamins, whether they understand the scientific basis or not.

 

[Contarini]

and this is probably when someone would say that it was how people finally figured that catholicism was wrong. because they read the bible and compared

Well, it wasn’t that simple. The mainstream Reformation was driven by academics and rulers, not common people. There was a “Reformation of the common man,” but it was largely suppressed and/or manipulated by the elites (at least that’s what most secular historians would say–I recommend the work of Peter Bickle).

The version you’re describing is called the “Whig” interpretation and it’s basically Protestant propaganda.

Also, medieval theology and piety were saturated in Scripture. It’s hard to know what illiterate people thought, but as I said there was a lot of vernacular religious literature and it shows a very good knowledge of the Bible. The idea that people in the Middle Ages ignored the Bible is, again, Protestant propaganda.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

IThe best example I can come up with would be the Waldenses.

The Waldenses based their lack of faith in the Church entirely on reading the Bible and saying there are contradictions. This is the sort of thing that can happen when everyone has Bibles and everyone can read.

Actually, Waldensianism doesn’t seem to have been, in the beginning, a doctrinal movement at all. Peter Waldo and his followers were refused permission to preach by the local bishop. Certainly Waldensianism did develop doctrinal disagreements with the Church, but the movement was primarily about moral and spiritual reform rather than about doctrine.

The two best scholars on the subject I know are Gabriel Audisio and Euan Cameron. A lot of the older material is very propagandistic and makes historically untenable claims (such as that the Waldensians were the descendants of an early Christian dissenting group).

Edwin