The Reformation

[Bluegoat]

The facts are that while all these things are true, they ran away from the Catholic faith, following leaders who were misleading them. The Church dealt poorly with some of them and justly with others. The Church dealt justly with Henry. He asked for the impossible and the Church denied it. The Church and Luther and the Church and Calvin was a whole other matter. The delegates that were sent to deal with them were not the smoothest diplomats in the papal court.

Br. JR, OSF

Why would you say that - what Henry asked for was no different than what was given in many other cases. The difference was how it would affect papacy in the secular realm.

 

[Roy5]

Luther was no saint, and no one has declared him one. I am especially disturbed by some of the things he said and wrote about peasants and Jews.

At the same time, he was 'protesting' serious corruption that existed in the church of his time. If the Council of Trent had been held before 1517 perhaps the Refomation would not have occurred. We don't know.

I do admire the courage and brilliance and charisma of Luther, whatever else may be said about him, and I tire of attempts to demonize him. As has been pointed out, if we start to judge movements by their leaders Catholicism can look dismal, too. Think of all those very unsaintly Popes! I look forward to reading a new book on the Popes entitled "Absolute Monarchs". From what I've read so far about it it apparently is quite objective.

 One positive result of the Reformation in my mind - and this will annoy many of you - is that it brought about separation of church and state in places like the USA. Protestantism splintered so much that no one group was dominant, and our forefathers proceeded to ensure that all religions were permitted in this new and great nation. Of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, 55 were Protestants. True, there has been anti-Catholicism in America, much if it an outgrowth of fear (some imported from Europe) that Catholicism basically rejected the separation of church and state. Documents like the "Syllabus of Errors" by Pius IX frightened Protestants by denouncing so firmly that separation. There still are those (here on CAF, for example) who believe that Catholicism should be accorded special privileges because it is the 'one true church'. Even in modern times - as in Franco Spain - Catholicism was the only religion that really was tolerated.  

 As long as churches are led by human beings there will be serious shortcomings. Witness someone like Fr. Corapi, such a gifted man in so many ways, such an eloquent spokesman - and see what has happened! I just finished reading a story on him in the current Our Sunday Visitor. And this sad tale has been repeated over the centuries. Some would label it the sin of pride and how it can undermine our best intentions.  

 God bless everybody - sincere and decent people of all faiths. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[JReducation]

Why would you say that - what Henry asked for was no different than what was given in many other cases. The difference was how it would affect papacy in the secular realm.

Henry asked that his marriage to Catherineof Arragon be declared null. There were no impediments to the marriage. Therefore, the marriage is valid. The Church cannot declare null that which is valid. To ask for that, is to ask for the impossible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Why would you say that - what Henry asked for was no different than what was given in many other cases.

Like nationalizing the faith?

 

[JReducation]

In our contribution to reconciliation, it may behoove us to have a proper understanding of what happened during the Reformation. But getting the facts straight may be difficult.

Also, there is an anti-Catholic prejudice that still exists among some non-Catholics, which has, I think at least in part, been handed down from the men who founded certain Protestant denominations, and their successors, and/or more extreme offshoot branches of those denominations.

A few years ago, I had an email exchange that lasted for two weeks with a Calvinist in the UK. I was actually uncharacteristically quite charitable, and tried to dispel some of the myths that he believed about the Church, but he refused to believe any of it. He was determined that the Catholic Church is bad, and could not be persuaded otherwise. Then I saw recently saw an online youtube video of certain Westboro Baptist Church members who protested in front of a Catholic Church in McAlester, OK. The priest and parishioners did not come out and complain, but - and God bless them - other Protestants from the area held a counter-protest against the Westboro Baptists. The Westboro Baptists are very anti-Catholic. Also, the early history of the Church here in the U.S. will show that Catholics (before the Bill of Rights, I think) were not allowed to vote or own land.

How can we dispel certain untruths about the Church which non-Catholics still believe? Sometimes I listen to EWTN, and how they deal with non-Catholics who call in, and who are, lets say, not exactly sympathetic to Catholicism. What the EWTN commentators try to do is to correct certain misconceptions that the non-Catholics hold. Some will listen, and some will not. Most of the time the EWTN commentators are charitable, but not always. It’s difficult to stand up to the truths of the faith without getting grumpy at times.

I don’t think it’s neccesarily a bad thing to try to get to the truth of certain parts of history. It can be difficult, too, to judge certain past situations by our current modern thinking.

Just my two-cents worth.

We certainly need to understand history. The St. Bonaventure, the Father of Historical Theology, once said that the prupose of understanding history was to: correct erros, admit faults, dispell myths, rediscover and preserve what is good and avoid the same failures. It was his belief that God speaks to us through history and we must look at history to see and hear God, not to judge people.

Luther was no saint, and no one has declared him one. I am especially disturbed by some of the things he said and wrote about peasants and Jews.

At the same time, he was 'protesting' serious corruption that existed in the church of his time. If the Council of Trent had been held before 1517 perhaps the Refomation would not have occurred. We don't know.

I do admire the courage and brilliance and charisma of Luther, whatever else may be said about him, and I tire of attempts to demonize him. As has been pointed out, if we start to judge movements by their leaders Catholicism can look dismal, too. Think of all those very unsaintly Popes! I look forward to reading a new book on the Popes entitled "Absolute Monarchs". From what I've read so far about it it apparently is quite objective.

 One positive result of the Reformation in my mind - and this will annoy many of you - is that it brought about separation of church and state in places like the USA. Protestantism splintered so much that no one group was dominant, and our forefathers proceeded to ensure that all religions were permitted in this new and great nation. Of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, 55 were Protestants. True, there has been anti-Catholicism in America, much if it an outgrowth of fear (some imported from Europe) that Catholicism basically rejected the separation of church and state. Documents like the "Syllabus of Errors" by Pius IX frightened Protestants by denouncing so firmly that separation. There still are those (here on CAF, for example) who believe that Catholicism should be accorded special privileges because it is the 'one true church'. Even in modern times - as in Franco Spain - Catholicism was the only religion that really was tolerated.  

 As long as churches are led by human beings there will be serious shortcomings. Witness someone like Fr. Corapi, such a gifted man in so many ways, such an eloquent spokesman - and see what has happened! I just finished reading a story on him in the current Our Sunday Visitor. And this sad tale has been repeated over the centuries. Some would label it the sin of pride and how it can undermine our best intentions.  

 God bless everybody - sincere and decent people of all faiths. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

What is your contribution to reunification of Christians and reconciliation?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Bluegoat]

Henry asked that his marriage to Catherineof Arragon be declared null. There were no impediments to the marriage. Therefore, the marriage is valid. The Church cannot declare null that which is valid. To ask for that, is to ask for the impossible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I always enjoy your posts Brother, but this seems to me to be a huge assumption, almost on the level of “if the Pope said it, it must be right” in which case why bother to speak about justice at all? Looking at the way decrees of nullity worked at that time it seems very unclear that there is any reason that the request was denied apart from the politics of the situation. Many other marriages in the nobility were declared null on lesser grounds.

And if I recall correctly, the Church did declare the marriage of the Kind of France valid, for sure, and then declare it invalid when it became clear that it was not going to be able to work, which suggest that the Church can indeed do the impossible.

 

[Roy5]

Let’s see now - my contribution toward the reunification of the church?

(1) My main theme is the need for a ‘big tent’ Christianity which tolerates different viewpoints on some of the major controversial issues. Which ones? The Eucharist, for example, Permitting the faithful to have different interpretations. As I recall, a poll in the US Catholic a couple years ago found that the majority of Catholics didn’t believe in transubstantiation. Why not let Christians follow their consciences on this matter? Etc.

(2) As a person of mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage I bemoan the hostility that one finds here on CAF. It seems so opposed to the spirit of Christ. As long as one branch of Christianity insists that it alone has been given the legitimate truth, that it alone is the true church, that all the rest are heretical and/or schismatic to one degree or another - as long as that condition persists, reunification will be impossible. You can't expect well-educated, self-respecting Protestants - for example - to toss aside their traditions and especially the importance many of them give to freedom of belief rather than acceptance of the doctrines and practices of Catholicism. I find that many Protestants differ among themselves but happily exchange views. 

(3) Okay. Here's the 'killer'. I don't particularly care if there is one church. In fact, I would worry a bit that it would become oppressive as it was when it dominated western Christendom and killed heretics over centuries. There can be a wonderful fellowship of Christians, living together in the spirit of reconciliation, without requiring one organic church. We can agree to agreeably disagree. I find it stimulating to discuss different beliefs in an atmosphere of mutual respect, learning from one another. Rather like America - a land of different faiths and cultural traditions but united in our common dedication to freedom. Or, even like the World Council of Churches, where churches as different as the Copts of Egypt, the Russians and other Orthodox, Baptists and Quakers, Lutherans and Mennonites, Methodists and Epsicopalians, and many others work and worship together. That would be enough of a goal for me.

 In such ways I try to contribute to good will and harmony among Christians of different affiliations. We don't need lock-step conformity to be united in Christ. I confess to being one who treasures and enjoys an atmosphere of opinion-exchange without treating one another as though some automatically are better Christians than others because they belong to a 'better' church.

 

[Stepson]

First of all, Luther had very poor health. He did not hang himself. He was very sick and he died of a heart attack. There are medical notes to prove that. Second, he did not die after a night of debauchery and whatever. His parting words were to profess his faith in Christ and he thanked God for having revealed himself to him through his sons whom he loved very much. Apparently, he was a very devoted father.

Second, we’re missing the point here. We’re not dealing with the Reformation the way that our popes leading. We’re doing what we have done for 500 years. We’re attacking and accusing.

This is a pointless exercise that will never bring unity. We must put aside what Luther, Calvin and Henry said or did for the moment. Let the Protestants deal with that. We must focus on what Catholics have done and failed to do to bring about unity.

Yes, the Protestant Reformers had faults and made many mistakes. They were not the only ones who had faults and made many mistakes. They can throw in our faces that we had clergymen sleeping with boys and little girls since the Middle Ages and it’s true. They can say that we had popes with several mistresses and it’s true. They can say that we had clergymen who sold indulgences and it’s true. They can say that they ran away from the Catholic Church to preserve their purity and to preserve the faith as it was handed down to them. We’ve heard this argument in recent history.

The facts are that while all these things are true, they ran away from the Catholic faith, following leaders who were misleading them. The Church dealt poorly with some of them and justly with others. The Church dealt justly with Henry. He asked for the impossible and the Church denied it. The Church and Luther and the Church and Calvin was a whole other matter. The delegates that were sent to deal with them were not the smoothest diplomats in the papal court.

All of that is water under the bridge now. The people of that time made their mistakes and now we have to fix it. Pointing fingers is not going to fix it. It has not worked for 500 years, why should it work today?

I seem to be the only person who has mentioned the Lutheran Catholic Accord and the Evangelical Catholic Accord, which are two major attempts to fix the rupture. I seem to be the only person to mention Ut Unum Sint, which Blessed John Paul wrote giving us guidance on how to fix the rupture.

I know that I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed. Therefore, I can’t be the only person who has read these and understands them. Why are Catholics on this thread not even looking at these things? Why are Catholics focussing back on what Bl. John Paul said was the greatest scandal in history and of which he and Pope Benedict XVI have said that the Catholics are equally guilty. We have it from two popes who are scholars that we and the Protestants are equally guilty of the rupture and that we must do certain things to fix it. That’s what we should be discussing.

We should be discussing what we Catholics need to do in our hearts, in our daily lives, in our parishes and dioceses and in the world to contribute to reconciliation. It behooves Protestants to have the same dicussion amongst themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Stop it! You are going to cause me to convert. In all seriousness, I went down to our local parish and enrolled myself in an RCIA class (Why it’s only offered in September is another topic.) My wife wants to come as well!

And if I go home to Rome it is because of responses like these not the “heretic, wolf in sheep clothing or monster” comments we all have seen. I came here not knowing anything about Catholicism. I only knew what older (somewhat biased) generations told me. Unfortunately, the first people I ran into on this forum were the ones that are not speaking from a place of charity and respect. Something brought me back and I read and spoke to people I should have been speaking to in the first place. I am glad I did.

I am only saying this to point out that I’m sure that I’m not the only one in my situation. You never know who is reading these posts and what impact your words might have on somebody. Labeling people in a negative term is an efficient way of closing opened minds.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Reformation was the Great Apostasy and its fruits have been confusion and error such that “Christians” today support abortion, the destruction of embryos, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and same sex marriage. It is not widely known that Luther became physically ill when, as a Catholic priest, he was consecrating the Eucharist. He admited to struggles with Satan. The man was quite disturbed spiritually. Perhaps the Church did not deal with him in the best manner, but those were different times–times when there was a firm belief in Christ, even among the Reformers.

What I would say is this that we don’t know his motives for sure. Anyone can make excuses to justify their behavior, and the number one is to blame another. In this case he choses the blame the Church. What we do know is that he went into a rage against the Church to destroy her. But as always as it didn’t happen, just like others who tried to destroy her, he did not succeeded.

By his behavior towards the Church, I can only conclude that he did not believe the CC from the beginning. we can only conclude by what we see today, when we see priests leaving the Church, getting married and some continue to try to destroy her with their outrages claimings against hte Church.

So, that is how I concluded that martin luther had some evil motives and it was not about what about wrongs of some in the Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Well, what opened this thread was

So I’m having a discussion with a person about the reformation. … I honestly don’t know much about this period in history, but figured there would be some one on here that is better versed in it. I will be looking some more on my own when I get a little time, but hopefully someone on here will be able to help out a little

There are several strands to this discussion so far, among them the need to dispel the inherited bitterness that many on both sides have grown up with. But we must begin by establishing the facts of the case, must we not? That is the purpose of the thread. For my part, I would be very sorry to be repeating things that are not actually true. Our Lord said, “All who are of the Truth hear My Voice”. Now it is very clear that there are conflicting versions of Luther’s life. Before we lose the plot, can somebody point us to sources? Which ones are reliable, and which are not? How, for example did he die, and what is the authority for the assertion? My own earlier comments were from a seemingly authoritative library book that I read several years ago but no longer have access to, unfortunately. None of us will get anywhere by simply repeating opposite versions of the alleged facts. I for one very much want to know what are the reliable facts of this matter. It is not out of a desire to be nasty to anyone; we must love the Truth.

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

I forget exactly how many volumes the set is, but it is several feet of shelf space, “The complete works of Martin Luther” would be the place to get Luther on Luther. The classical biography “Here I Stand” is a pretty good source and there are other anotated biographies of Luther to be found. There is quite a lot written about him.

I am currently reading St. Thomas Aquinas on Faith and Prayer where he goes through the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer phrase by phrase. The cover notes indicate that this could have well been a source Luther used for his “Large Catechism”.

I don’t want to defend everything Luther wrote or said, but even though the forces that followed on his work were not of his doing.

One of my favourite quotes from Luther, after the Marberg meeting with Zwingli where Zwingli was arguing for the “symbolic” understanding of communion is: “I would far rather share Blood and Flesh with the Pope than bread and wine with Zwingli”.

Let us also remember that Erasmus while not following Luther, was quite critical of the Popes of the day. There was something to be corrected. Was it done the best possible way? No. We are still suffering the consequences but I would think that most informed Lutherans and Catholics will come to the position that as long as we both confess the historic creeds of the Church, we are Christians. With differences, but Christians all the same.

 

[JReducation]

I always enjoy your posts Brother, but this seems to me to be a huge assumption, almost on the level of “if the Pope said it, it must be right” in which case why bother to speak about justice at all? Looking at the way decrees of nullity worked at that time it seems very unclear that there is any reason that the request was denied apart from the politics of the situation. Many other marriages in the nobility were declared null on lesser grounds.

And if I recall correctly, the Church did declare the marriage of the Kind of France valid, for sure, and then declare it invalid when it became clear that it was not going to be able to work, which suggest that the Church can indeed do the impossible.

Henry’s claim that the marriage was invalid because Cahterine was his sister-in-law is not an obstacle to a valid marriage, unless the other spouse is alive.

The case in France was very different. The case was that the marriage was not invalid from the beginning, because the canonists were able to prove, on appeal, that it never worked from the time of courtship. If there is a conflict between the couple, during the courtship, there cannot be a valid marriage. For validity, you must enter into the marriage as a covenant, not as an agreement to learn to live with each other.

Yes, the pope is the highest legislator in the Christian Church. Therefore, when the appeal reaches him, his word on the matter is final. He is the keeper of the keys and the man with the power to bind and unbind. He cannot unbind a marriage. He can bind and unbind law. He was being asked to unbind one marriage in England and bind another in France. That’s not within his power to do.

Well, what opened this thread was There are several strands to this discussion so far, among them the need to dispel the inherited bitterness that many on both sides have grown up with. But we must begin by establishing the facts of the case, must we not? That is the purpose of the thread. For my part, I would be very sorry to be repeating things that are not actually true. Our Lord said, “All who are of the Truth hear My Voice”. Now it is very clear that there are conflicting versions of Luther’s life. Before we lose the plot, can somebody point us to sources? Which ones are reliable, and which are not? How, for example did he die, and what is the authority for the assertion? My own earlier comments were from a seemingly authoritative library book that I read several years ago but no longer have access to, unfortunately. None of us will get anywhere by simply repeating opposite versions of the alleged facts. I for one very much want to know what are the reliable facts of this matter. It is not out of a desire to be nasty to anyone; we must love the Truth.

I’ve read many biographies on Martin Luther. He’s is required to get a degree in Catholic Spiritual Theology from any pontifical university in Rome. They all point to illness as the cause of death. There were medical records to the effect.

My favorite biographies are

Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. 1985–93, 3:369–79.
Iversen OH. Martin Luther’s somatic diseases: A short life history 450 years after his death

Iversen is the better of the two.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Let’s see now - my contribution toward the reunification of the church?

(1) My main theme is the need for a ‘big tent’ Christianity which tolerates different viewpoints on some of the major controversial issues. Which ones? The Eucharist, for example, Permitting the faithful to have different interpretations. As I recall, a poll in the US Catholic a couple years ago found that the majority of Catholics didn’t believe in transubstantiation. Why not let Christians follow their consciences on this matter? Etc.

Because truth is not relative. You either have a pulse or you don’t.

(2) As a person of mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage I bemoan the hostility that one finds here on CAF. It seems so opposed to the spirit of Christ. As long as one branch of Christianity insists that it alone has been given the legitimate truth, that it alone is the true church, that all the rest are heretical and/or schismatic to one degree or another - as long as that condition persists, reunification will be impossible. You can’t expect well-educated, self-respecting Protestants - for example - to toss aside their traditions and especially the importance many of them give to freedom of belief rather than acceptance of the doctrines and practices of Catholicism. I find that many Protestants differ among themselves but happily exchange views.

Many Protestants have. Freedom is a means, not an end. It is given to man to find Truth. Christians need not be hostile, nor antagonistic toward each other to achieve unity. They need to be willing to listen. Very often, they find that they disagree on less points than they think. The position of the Catholic Church is not that it has been given the legitimate truth. The point is that the fullness of the Christian Faith subsists in the Catholic Church. This does not mean that truth is not found outside of the physical boundaries of the Catholic Church. It does mean that Catholicism has something for which Protestants are looking. That being said, Catholics will also find that Protestants often misunderstand what Catholics are talking about, because we have many arrogant Catholics who can’t communicate faith politely and humbly.

(3) Okay. Here’s the ‘killer’. I don’t particularly care if there is one church. In fact, I would worry a bit that it would become oppressive as it was when it dominated western Christendom and killed heretics over centuries. There can be a wonderful fellowship of Christians, living together in the spirit of reconciliation, without requiring one organic church. We can agree to agreeably disagree. I find it stimulating to discuss different beliefs in an atmosphere of mutual respect, learning from one another. Rather like America - a land of different faiths and cultural traditions but united in our common dedication to freedom. Or, even like the World Council of Churches, where churches as different as the Copts of Egypt, the Russians and other Orthodox, Baptists and Quakers, Lutherans and Mennonites, Methodists and Epsicopalians, and many others work and worship together. That would be enough of a goal for me.

Unfortunately, faith is not meant to be an entertaining academic exercise. When people of different faiths worship in each other’s faith traditions, they are assenting to the beliefs of that tradition. That’s why real people of faith will often pray together, but not worship together.

In such ways I try to contribute to good will and harmony among Christians of different affiliations. We don’t need lock-step conformity to be united in Christ. I confess to being one who treasures and enjoys an atmosphere of opinion-exchange without treating one another as though some automatically are better Christians than others because they belong to a ‘better’ church.

It’s not a matter of who has a better Church. It’s a matter of what is necessary for salvation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let’s see now - my contribution toward the reunification of the church?

(1) My main theme is the need for a ‘big tent’ Christianity which tolerates different viewpoints on some of the major controversial issues. Which ones? The Eucharist, for example, Permitting the faithful to have different interpretations. As I recall, a poll in the US Catholic a couple years ago found that the majority of Catholics didn’t believe in transubstantiation. Why not let Christians follow their consciences on this matter? Etc.

(2) As a person of mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage I bemoan the hostility that one finds here on CAF. It seems so opposed to the spirit of Christ. As long as one branch of Christianity insists that it alone has been given the legitimate truth, that it alone is the true church, that all the rest are heretical and/or schismatic to one degree or another - as long as that condition persists, reunification will be impossible. You can't expect well-educated, self-respecting Protestants - for example - to toss aside their traditions and especially the importance many of them give to freedom of belief rather than acceptance of the doctrines and practices of Catholicism. I find that many Protestants differ among themselves but happily exchange views. 

(3) Okay. Here's the 'killer'. I don't particularly care if there is one church. In fact, I would worry a bit that it would become oppressive as it was when it dominated western Christendom and killed heretics over centuries. There can be a wonderful fellowship of Christians, living together in the spirit of reconciliation, without requiring one organic church. We can agree to agreeably disagree. I find it stimulating to discuss different beliefs in an atmosphere of mutual respect, learning from one another. Rather like America - a land of different faiths and cultural traditions but united in our common dedication to freedom. Or, even like the World Council of Churches, where churches as different as the Copts of Egypt, the Russians and other Orthodox, Baptists and Quakers, Lutherans and Mennonites, Methodists and Epsicopalians, and many others work and worship together. That would be enough of a goal for me.

 In such ways I try to contribute to good will and harmony among Christians of different affiliations. We don't need lock-step conformity to be united in Christ. I confess to being one who treasures and enjoys an atmosphere of opinion-exchange without treating one another as though some automatically are better Christians than others because they belong to a 'better' church.

There is no such thing as a better church. For us Catholics there is only one Church, one found By Christ.
We as Catholics are not free to believe what we want, we are commanded to believe in one Truth. we do not subscribe to relativism but One Truth. One Christ, One Church, One Faith, One Spirit. We must agree in One Faith because the Father, the Son, and the HS all agree.

Jesus in His days was also treated like He was arrogant because He stated things that some found it to be arrogant. The Truth sounds arrogant for many, but to me it is just the Truth and nothing more.

I would want to be where the Truth is and not in some place where man can discuss the Truth and cannot never know what Truth is.

Obedience is something that has been avoided but obedience is what God requires from us.

 

[JReducation]

There is no such thing as a better church. For us Catholics there is only one Church, one found By Christ.
We as Catholics are not free to believe what we want, we are commanded to believe in one Truth. we do not subscribe to relativism but One Truth. One Christ, One Church, One Faith, One Spirit. We must agree in One Faith because the Father, the Son, and the HS all agree.

**Jesus in His days was also treated like He was arrogant because He stated things that some found it to be arrogant. The Truth sounds arrogant for many, but to me it is just the Truth and nothing more. **

I would want to be where the Truth is and not in some place where man can discuss the Truth and cannot never know what Truth is.

Obedience is something that has been avoided but obedience is what God requires from us.

I agree with almost everything you’re saying except what I bolded.

If you know anything about Judaism, you would know that Jesus did not sound arrogant at all. They thought he was nuts, but not arrogant. He ate with sinners, defended the rights of the poor and the most vulnerable. He preached that the Kingdom of God was present. He protected the simple people from the arrogance of their leadership. If anything, he came across as as a good man who had lost his mind.

If you read Caritas et Veritas, the Holy Father points out that Truth is always humble, never arrogant. St. Paul speaks the same when he defines Charity, which is the greatest truth of all.

We can communicate truth with great humility. We must communicate truth with great humility. We must communicate truth as an invitation, not as an imperative. Faith must be freely accepted, not imposed nor assumed out of a false sense of duty. One of the best examples of this is St. Anthony of Padua.

When Francis sent Anthony to preach he commanded him never to argue with the heretics, to treat them with kindness, to refrain from embarrassing them and to preach truth by his walking. Anthony made it a habit to go into a town where there was a heretic preaching. He would find the point furthest from the heretic so as not to disturb him. He would begin to preach from the Scripture. Anthony was a Doctor in Sacred Scripture. He would never mention the heretic, nor did he condemn what the heretic said. Instead, he preached the truth in such a persuasive and gentle manner that he converted people and heresy collapsed, because it lacked the strength and simplicity of Anthony’s preaching.

Dominica founded an order priests dedicated to preaching and teaching truth. He commanded them to be the most humble brothers to all, especially to the heretics. They were to avoid conflicts and confrontations. That’s why you will never see a Dominican in a debate with a non Catholic. Dominic would roll over in his grave. Nor will you ever find Franciscans condemning Protestants. That’s not the way to preach truth. Personal witness preaches truth. Francis and Dominic converted the world around them by their manner of being, not so much by their rhetoric. We have to embrace the simplicity of Christ. Like Christ, we may look like good men who lost their minds, but that’s how truth is preached. Arrogance has no place in evangelization anymore than relativism does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wisdomseeker]

I agree with almost everything you’re saying except what I bolded.

If you know anything about Judaism, you would know that Jesus did not sound arrogant at all. They thought he was nuts, but not arrogant. He ate with sinners, defended the rights of the poor and the most vulnerable. He preached that the Kingdom of God was present. He protected the simple people from the arrogance of their leadership. If anything, he came across as as a good man who had lost his mind.

Dominica founded an order priests dedicated to preaching and teaching truth. He commanded them to be the most humble brothers to all, especially to the heretics. They were to avoid conflicts and confrontations. That’s why you will never see a Dominican in a debate with a non Catholic. Dominic would roll over in his grave. Nor will you ever find Franciscans condemning Protestants. That’s not the way to preach truth. Personal witness preaches truth. Francis and Dominic converted the world around them by their manner of being, not so much by their rhetoric. We have to embrace the simplicity of Christ. Like Christ, we may look like good men who lost their minds, but that’s how truth is preached. Arrogance has no place in evangelization anymore than relativism does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Ok, brother. here it is. Jesus said: I am the Truth… no one come to the Father but through me… My Father… which made the high priest tear up his garments…
I am the door…He did many things that the Saducees and Pharisees considered to be arrogant and today, protestants find arrogant because what the CC affirms to be the Truth…

There is no arrogance in affirming the Truth… We don’t have to go around affirming for no reason but when it is questioned, it must be affirmed.

I don’t like to get into debate. I state what the Church says, and leave at that. I don’t like back and forth. we cannot prove the Truth, it can only be stated.

 

[Roy5]

Wisdomseeker and JReducation

Your responses to my posting reflect the problem. Traditional Catholics honestly believe that they alone have the full splendor of the true faith, that their church is protected from doctrinal error, and that all other Christians are lacking in spiritual truth. They share this mindset with hardshell Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and certain forms of fundamentalist Protestantism.  

 Can you understand why mainline Protestants find that attitude arrogant and judgemental? Most of those I know have no such approach. They may prefer the Lutheran church or the Methodist church or the Baptist for whatever reasons, but few of them claim that their church alone is the true church. Actually, most Catholics I know don't echo your views either. In fact, I find Catholics in general more open-minded than many evangelical Protestants, who also can be very dogmatic. 

  My own view is that none of us can claim to know very much. Even St. Paul said that we are to walk by faith rather than by sight, that 'now we see through a glass darkly." We all should approach theology with deep humility because of our severe limitations as human beings. Catholics are ordered simply to believe what they are told to believe. I rebelled against that because I feel that I should have the right to investigate these matters myself. Some will, of course, dismiss this as egotism or rebelliousness. Sorry, I am not ready to turn my brain over to any church, and I am quite sure that God is pleased that I'm using it to develop more and more spiritual understanding.  

  I do salute many Catholics, the Mother Theresas and the Fr, Damiens, but I recall the shock when I first read (for example) in Aquinas that heretics should be turned over to the civil authorities to be executed. And I remember the disgust I felt when I first read the 'Syllabus of Errors' by Pius IX in which democratic values I warmly embrace were so roundly denounced. And through the years I have come to question the position of the church on such key matters as transubstantiation, that huge panoply of saints (many of them with wild and unlikely - mythological? - stories), priestly celibacy, birth control, etc.

  But 'different strokes for different folks'. I certainly respect many other faiths, among them the Quakers, Mennonites, Salvation Army folk, and others. If the world were more like these Christians what a much better world we would have. 

  Yet, God bless you and people of every religion.. If you are happy in your faith, fine. I wasn't able to find satisfaction within the Catholic Church. This notion that God somehow favors Catholics or the Catholic Church doesn't appeal to me. Christ lifted up the Good Samaritan as our example, certainly a despised heretic in that age and place. I go with Matt. 25, when Jesus spoke of who would enter the kingdom. He said nothing about doctrines or church affiliation.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The original post is an historical question, not an apologetics question. Please try to stick to sharing historical information.

Thanks

 

[Limerickman]

As a Roman Catholic looking back at Martin Luther and the Reformation, I do have some sympathy for some of the views he expressed on issues like indulgences.
Pope Leo X was undoubtedly a charlatan who was more interested in money/power/sex than in adhering to God’s laws.

Charging the faithful to obtain indulgences would have persuaded me to disobey the Pope at that time.

The fact is though that Luther’s words unleashed chaos and mayhem throughout Europe while his views on Roman Catholic doctrine were plain wrong in my view.
Despite being excommunicated Luther maintained that he was a Roman Catholic priest right up until his death.

 

[JReducation]

As a Roman Catholic looking back at Martin Luther and the Reformation, I do have some sympathy for some of the views he expressed on issues like indulgences.
Pope Leo X was undoubtedly a charlatan who was more interested in money/power/sex than in adhering to God’s laws.

Charging the faithful to obtain indulgences would have persuaded me to disobey the Pope at that time.

The fact is though that Luther’s words unleashed chaos and mayhem throughout Europe while his views on Roman Catholic doctrine were plain wrong in my view.
Despite being excommunicated Luther maintained that he was a Roman Catholic priest right up until his death.

I have always found Luther much more interesting than Henry or Calvin. Luther was the only one of the three who refused to be “kicked out” of the Church. That’s why he insisted that he was a Catholic to the end of his life. Whereas, Henry and Calvin wanted to keep the Catholic Church at a distance.

There is an interesting dialog between Luther and his wife. I can’t recall what he was writing, but she pointed out to him that he was being to harsh and even arrogant. He responded, “They have made me so.” He’s not the first or the last person to deny responsibility for his choices. That’s not what I found interesting. What I found interesting is that he acknowledges that he is a very angry man and that his anger is coloring his spiritual and theological works. When reading his work, we were always reminded to keep in mind that this was an angry man, not just a heretic. There were two layers to his work, error and anger. I have often believed that the latter is more dangerous than the former. When you’re angry, you tend to stand your ground, even if you suspect that you’re wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF