What is the "Crisis"?

[Pious_Mat]

I believe there is a crisis in the Church, but one that must be put into Historical context: It is certainly not as large as the Reformation, or as devastating as anything that happened to the Early Church, but it is certainly different. Catholics in good standing are abandoning the teachings of the Church, with some priests, Bishops, and nuns claiming that things like the Church’s teaching on contraception don’t matter. This is entirely internal and illusive. The solution is partially time, and partially clarification and better education in the faith. Also, the Church is split into far too many factions–groups like the SSPX are an affront to the universal nature of the Church. Also, the strange divides in the Church between more traditional and more progressive members is an equal affront. There ought to be only one kind of Catholic: the faithful, orthodox Catholic.

Also, to say that Vatican 2 “saved” the Church is extreme misinterpretation of what the Council said, and anything who thinks such ought to re-read the Council’s documents. I agree that Vatican 2 was a good thing, and made many things more accessible to the laity, but doctrinally, it didn’t change anything, and didn’t intend to change much on a pratical level either. It was a matter of outlook and ideology: how we teach what will always be true. Second, few people realize that Vatican 2 is nowhere near being completely implemented. Remarks like those above comparing the Latin Mass to the Titanic are a dead giveaway that the poster has never read the V2 documents on the liturgy, which give Latin a special place as liturgical language (John 23 himself said that we need latin in our Church), and did not mandate folk masses or liturgical experimentation. In fact, it gave Gregorian Chant pride of place. All it intended for the Mass was that it might be somewhat simplified, and that changeable parts, like the readings, collects, etc. might be said in the vernacular. The main goal was having the laity fully understand and participate in a mass that has organically developed over 2000 years, and the Holy Father would concur that this certainly could be done with the 1962 missal. It never said anything about ad populam, all-vernacular, modern-music, communion in the hand, EMHCs, etc, etc, etc.

As to the vocations crisis, the Vatican announced in 2000 that it was, on a global level, over. There are still problems in the US, Canada, Ireland, and other countries, but these nations seems to be spiritually regressing (I know, I live in Canada). This is not to say that vocations should not be a priority: it should be at the top of the list.

 

[IrishAm]

An interesting question with some passionate answers.

I think the Crisis – and I believe there is one – is a Crisis of Faith.

Faith in the Church.
Faith in her leaders.
Faith in her members.
Faith in her God, who saved us by His Son, and moves us and the Church through His Holy Spirit.

So many on both ends of the spectrum want things THEIR WAY, whether that means to move back or move what they perceive as being “ahead.” The Church wants things God’s way. And, frankly, I’m not going to claim to have the key to what God’s way, or what God’s timeframe, is.

If the Holy Spirit moves the Pope to proclaim all Masses are to be said in Swahili – well, I’m going to learn the responses.

That’s what it means to be Catholic. That’s what humility and obedience are all about. To think otherwise is to be . . .well, to be Protestant, I guess. . . .

 

[Brother_John]

An interesting question with some passionate answers.

I think the Crisis – and I believe there is one – is a Crisis of Faith.

Faith in the Church.
Faith in her leaders.
Faith in her members.
Faith in her God, who saved us by His Son, and moves us and the Church through His Holy Spirit.

So many on both ends of the spectrum want things THEIR WAY, whether that means to move back or move what they perceive as being “ahead.” The Church wants things God’s way. And, frankly, I’m not going to claim to have the key to what God’s way, or what God’s timeframe, is.

If the Holy Spirit moves the Pope to proclaim all Masses are to be said in Swahili – well, I’m going to learn the responses.

That’s what it means to be Catholic. That’s what humility and obedience are all about. To think otherwise is to be . . .well, to be Protestant, I guess. . . .

Agreed.

I’d like to throw something more out there.

Also, in coincidence with Vatican II, was a tremendous upheaval in our lifestyles, particularly in the US.

Womens’ Lib, Two-income homes, an influx of cheap foreign goods…(remember when everything in the 70’s was “made in Japan”?)

Recall, before Vatican II, Daddy brought home the bacon, and Momma cooked it. Our parents prized posessions (besides their house) was their ONE car, their “automatic” washer/dryer, the refirgerator, and their ONE television (and if you were properous, it was a COLOR television)

So, a LOT of things were-a-changin’ during those times. And, for many, the allure of the “good life” siphoned off many potential candidates for Holy Orders. Our families are focused on “cool toys” instead of their faith.

Let’s be honest with ourselves…life back then was MUCH simpler, and our faith was a much bigger part of our lives, regardless of which faith we belonged to.

So, to blame it all on Vatican II, in my mind is unfair. Does V2 have it’s shortcomings? Could be. But is it wholly (not Holy) responsible for the decline in our Church that some see?

Naw

 

[hasikelee]

Ok, now I’ll throw my “opinion” out there.

Personally, and I doubt that I’m alone, I believe that Vatican II SAVED the Church (particularly in the West) from total collapse.

Why? Because the age of technology and information was coming upon us. Television, in particular gained a strong foothold in our society during the 50’s.

People started asking questions, and wanting answers. It is even more prevalent today with computers and internet.

Perhaps Church leaders could see, that teaching the faithful to do this and do that, simply because “Sister Dorothella said so” wasn’t going to hold much longer. Something had to change. Church leaders could see thousands gravitating to Protestant denominations. Today, so-called non-denominationals are popping up like pimples on a teenager.

Yes, Mass in Latin, and so many other Church traditions are/were beautiful. But then again, so was the Titanic. And we all know what happened there. Consider for a moment, that the Second Vatican Council “saw the iceberg” BEFORE it was too late.

to be continued…

I will confess, I love the TLM. But, this post brings out some of my thoughts on the entire subject. Sometimes I worry that all this focus on TLM is overlooking an important fact: Christ’s leaders and His Church designated the importance of the TLM.

I do not wish to debate it on this thread. I just agree with some of your points and the implication of them.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

An interesting question with some passionate answers.

I think the Crisis – and I believe there is one – is a Crisis of Faith.

…So many on both ends of the spectrum want things THEIR WAY, whether that means to move back or move what they perceive as being “ahead.” The Church wants things God’s way.

…If the Holy Spirit moves the Pope to proclaim all Masses are to be said in Swahili – well, I’m going to learn the responses.

That’s what it means to be Catholic. That’s what humility and obedience are all about. To think otherwise is to be . . .well, to be Protestant, I guess. . . .

I’ve posted this before, and think it is appropriate to do so again now. It’s an excerpt by Dietrich von Hildebrand from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.”:

"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.

…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass. [latin-mass-society.org/study.htm]](http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm]).

…But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the rubrics of the new Ordo (as distinct from the text itself) are at variance with the definition of the essence and raison d’etre of Holy Mass given by the Council of Trent. Consequently it must be feared that in their sermons, many priests will be encouraged to emphasize the character of the “assembly of the people of God” at the cost of both the mystery of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the ineffable gift for every individual soul granted in the sacrament of the Eucharist–faith in which is already menaced by certain heretical trends rampant in the Church.

Are theocentrism, the most intimate communion of the individual with Christ in the Eucharist, the reality of the glorious union with the saints, the militant, suffering and triumphant Church, recollection and reverence–are all these truths fostered in the new Ordo as securely as in the old? And are not these precisely the truths that need to be emphasized at the present moment?
We must not overlook the fact that behind many of the deplorable phenomena of our times–promiscuity, the rapid spread of criminality, student rebellion–there lurks a deep despair which echoes a cry for redemption, the ever-present longing of the anima naturaliter Christiana for Christ, the Epiphany of God, in His full supernatural glory. The unique character of our time calls not for yielding to the secular spirit–that can only increase the current despair–but for the full disclosure of the glory of the depositum Catholicae fidei.

Thus I hope and pray that the Tridentine Mass will not be abolished, but will continue to be celebrated side by side with the new Ordo. Furthermore, I hope and pray that in the course of time, its superiority, from the pastoral as well as the doctrinal standpoint, will be recognized by the Holy See, and that in the future the Tridentine Mass will be reinstated as the official liturgy of the holy Mass in the Western Church."

 

[japhy]

I keep saying and will say again, it’s not a problem it will fix itself.

You think the lack of catechesis (or the amount of awful and wrong catechesis) is “not a problem” and “will fix itself”? How do you propose it will do that?

Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 40: Nevertheless, from the fact that the liturgical celebration obviously entails activity, it does not follow that everyone must necessarily have something concrete to do beyond the actions and gestures, as if a certain specific liturgical ministry must necessarily be given to the individuals to be carried out by them. Instead, catechetical instruction should strive diligently to correct those widespread superficial notions and practices often seen in recent years in this regard, and ever to instill anew in all of Christ’s faithful that sense of deep wonder before the greatness of the mystery of faith that is the Eucharist, in whose celebration the Church is forever passing from what is obsolete into newness of life: in novitatem a vetustate.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 46: The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them. It is fitting that such a one should have received a liturgical formation in accordance with his or her age, condition, state of life, and religious culture. No one should be selected whose designation could cause consternation for the faithful.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 80: As for the Penitential Act placed at the beginning of Mass, it has the purpose of preparing all to be ready to celebrate the sacred mysteries; even so, “it lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance”, and cannot be regarded as a substitute for the Sacrament of Penance in remission of graver sins. Pastors of souls should take care to ensure diligent catechetical instruction, so that Christian doctrine is handed on to Christ’s faithful in this matter.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 170: In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, “there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful”, so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood.

In closing, let’s see what Vatican II said about it (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 14): Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the Liturgy. … *t is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the Liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy.

So it sounds like the Church, when confronted with the issue of poor catechesis (or lack of catechesis) does not say “the problem (if it is one) will resolve itself”, but rather “we must correct the problem by improving our catechesis”.*

 

[japhy]

Perhaps Church leaders could see, that teaching the faithful to do this and do that, simply because “Sister Dorothella said so” wasn’t going to hold much longer.

And yet the faithful still “do this and do that, simply because ‘Sister Dorothella’ said so”… Communion in the hand was illegally forced onto people (and Communion on the tongue denied) in the US, people accept poor teaching from their pastors (and non-ordained homilists) today, and they abhor Latin because it’s “pre-conciliar” even if they were born after the council. Because people tell them so.

Church leaders could see thousands gravitating to Protestant denominations.

Was the rate of outflow from the Catholic Church to various Protestant denominations higher in the years before Vatican II than it has been since? Do you have statistics on that?

Yes, Mass in Latin, and so many other Church traditions are/were beautiful. But then again, so was the Titanic. And we all know what happened there. Consider for a moment, that the Second Vatican Council “saw the iceberg” BEFORE it was too late.

The “Mass in Latin, and so many other Church traditions” were not abrogated nor looked down upon by Vatican II. Have you read Sacrosanctum Concilum? I suggest you read it, and then read these four articles:

Participation (Fr. Richard J. Schuler)
From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many (Fr. Cassian Folsom, O.S.B.)
The Mass of Vatican II (Fr. Joseph Fessio)
The Development of the Mass Since 1960 (Leo Darroch)

 

[Brother_John]

Communion in the hand was illegally forced onto people (and Communion on the tongue denied) in the US,

While this may have happened in other churches, I have personally NEVER witnessed Communion on the tongue denied. EVER. And, as I stated in another post, at the church I attended when CITH was started, it didn’t just “slide in illegally”. It was presented to us by our pastor, with meticulous instruction on how it was to be done properly, and it was an OPTION.

 

[catharina]

The crisis in the Church is exemplified by two extreme groups who echo the identical sentiment of: “We know better.” By doing so, they present horrible challenges to the function of charity within the Church and within the world. In promoting agendas that would make them “the boss of Rome” they’ve created a polarization that has fed the decline in religious vocations since young people might be doubly cautious (with reason) about serving in a “family” where the extremes will not stop belittling leadership and one another. It’s tragic.

 

[latinmasslover]

If the Holy Spirit moves the Pope to proclaim all Masses are to be said in Swahili – well, I’m going to learn the responses.

I, however, would ask for a detailed report on his mental health. If there was nothing wrong with him, I’d hire somebody to find out what he’s dabbling in.

 

[latinmasslover]

The crisis in the Church is exemplified by two extreme groups who echo the identical sentiment of: “We know better.” By doing so, they present horrible challenges to the function of charity within the Church and within the world. In promoting agendas that would make them “the boss of Rome” they’ve created a polarization that has fed the decline in religious vocations since young people might be doubly cautious (with reason) about serving in a “family” where the extremes will not stop belittling leadership and one another. It’s tragic.

This question may not have a point, depending on your answer:

The Crusades and the Inquistion: good or bad? in your opinion.

 

[latinmasslover]

And, as I stated in another post, at the church I attended when CITH was started, it didn’t just “slide in illegally”. It was presented to us by our pastor, with meticulous instruction on how it was to be done properly, and it was an OPTION.

Only *after *the abuse was rampant and Rome gave in with the indult.

 

[Brother_John]

Only *after *the abuse was rampant and Rome gave in with the indult.

So, if Rome “gave in” with the indult, then Rome must obviously have concluded that it wasn’t an “abuse” per se, but a “variance”.

 

[markadm]

So, if Rome “gave in” with the indult, then Rome must obviously have concluded that it wasn’t an “abuse” per se, but a “variance”.

Don’t be so sure(!). We’d like to think all parts of the Church are equally guided by the Holy Spirit, but it is equally possible for those individuals within the Church to err and/or make imprudent decisions.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The crisis in the Church is exemplified by two extreme groups who echo the identical sentiment of: “We know better.” By doing so, they present horrible challenges to the function of charity within the Church and within the world. In promoting agendas that would make them “the boss of Rome” they’ve created a polarization that has fed the decline in religious vocations since young people might be doubly cautious (with reason) about serving in a “family” where the extremes will not stop belittling leadership and one another. It’s tragic.

Yes, this division reminds me of this observation Fr. Brian Harrison made in the book, “The Reform of the Reform?” by Fr. Thomas Kocik (Ignatius Press). Italics are his:

"In short, what we have witnessed in these thirty years has been a tragic polarization and fragmentation among Catholics, in regard to the liturgy. But while so many have been drawing swords either to defend or attack the post-conciliar changes in the rite of Mass, not many seem to have noticed that the very existence of such tension, bitterness, and division is about the most eloquent possible evidence that the liturgical reform introduced in the name of Vatican Council II has been seriously defective. What both liberals and conservatives often forget is the fact that, in the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas, "The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church’s unity.

… The implications of this profound truth for the post-Vatican II liturgical reform seem to me very serious. If one of the main purposes of the eucharistic liturgy is to “renew, strengthen, and deepen” [CCC 1396] the unity of all Catholics in the one Mystical Body, then what are we to think of a reform that, whatever its positive results may have been, has also managed to provoke more discord, mutual alienation, and disunity than any officially introduced liturgical innovation in the entire history of the Church?

… Now, can the new rites be said to have promoted “unity” [Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) no. 1] among believers, when we see more strife and disunity than ever in connection with the liturgy? It may be true that Catholics and Protestants now feel less divided than before, but not in the way the Council Fathers expected. They hoped that liturgical reform would help Protestants to become more Catholic in their thinking; but all that has happened is that Catholics have demonstrably become more Protestant in their thinking! The Vatican II Fathers, as we have just heard, hoped that a revised liturgy would be a means of “help[ing] to call all mankind into the Church’s fold” [SC, no. 1]. But how could anyone claim that this hope has been even partially fulfilled when in most countries rates of conversion to Catholicism have plummeted to an all-time low, priests and religious have abandoned their holy vocations in tens of thousands, innumerable other Catholics have given up the faith altogether, and of those who do still profess it, fewer than ever now attend Mass regularly?"

(pp. 154-157)

 

[DustinsDad]

So, if Rome “gave in” with the indult, then Rome must obviously have concluded that it wasn’t an “abuse” per se, but a “variance”.

Um, perhaps they concluded “too fast”…“Whatever the reasons for this practice, we cannot ignore what is happening worldwide where this practice has been implemented. This gesture has contributed to a gradual weakening of the attitude of reverence towards the sacred Eucharistic species whereas the previous practice had better safeguarded that sense of reverence. There instead arose an alarming lack of recollection and a general spirit of carelessness. We see communicants who often return to their seats as if nothing extraordinary has happened… In many cases, one cannot discern that sense of seriousness and inner silence that must signal the presence of God in the soul.
…Then there are those who take away the sacred species to keep them as souvenirs, those who sell, or worse yet, who take them away to desecrate it in Satanic rituals. Even in large concelebrations, also in Rome, several times the sacred species has been found thrown onto the ground.
…Now I think that it is high time to review and re-evaluate such good practices and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice that was not called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor by the Fathers, but was only accepted after its illegitimate introduction in some countries. Now, more than ever, we must help the faithful to renew a deep faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in order to strengthen the life of the Church and defend it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith that this situation continues to cause.”
(Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship in a just released preface to the book Dominus Est by Bishop Athansius Schneidier)

Here’s what really gets my goat about the whole thing…

I was born in 1969 and right about the time of my First Communion recepetion in the hand was being “implemented”, I say implemented because we were given explicit instructions on how to receive in the hand, practiced it that way, and it was really driven home at the time that this is the way to do it, and I think about 30 seconds was given to the fact that they “used” to “have” to receive by sticking out your tounge and having the priest place it there…a kind of subtle stearing away from the “old way” and enthusiastically encouraging and spending much time with the “new way”. Now you can imagine that a bunch of 1st and 2nd graders weren’t going to rock the boat and try to do something completely different from everyone else, especially since the other way was given about 15 seconds of non-instruction.

So here we are decades later, and this is still the norm of the way kids receive instruction on their first Communion. I saw it with my son, and I saw it just this past year with my niece.

Folks can say they are now both on equal footing, but that’s just not the case from what I see. From the time of First Communion on up, “in the hand” is given as the norm. Only when someone stubles across and finds “tradition” or finds a deep love for the Eucharist and does some research, does one go out on a limb and start receiving the old way again.

And this doesn’t even mention the fact that even receiving on the tounge in the oridinary parish means while standing. One of the most touching things I found in the EF was the reception of the Eucharist kneeling (and on the tounge). And that is definately not an option in the OF.

Anyway, my two cents (and a little pocket change above from the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship)

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[IrishAm]

Don’t be so sure(!). We’d like to think all parts of the Church are equally guided by the Holy Spirit, but it is equally possible for those individuals within the Church to err and/or make imprudent decisions.

Certainly Martin Luther thought that was the case.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Certainly Martin Luther thought that was the case.

There is no guarantee that prudential decisions of the Vatican are guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[catharina]

Yes, this division reminds me of this observation Fr. Brian Harrison made in the book, “The Reform of the Reform?” by Fr. Thomas Kocik (Ignatius Press). Italics are his:

"In short, what we have witnessed in these thirty years has been a tragic polarization and fragmentation among Catholics, in regard to the liturgy. But while so many have been drawing swords either to defend or attack the post-conciliar changes in the rite of Mass, not many seem to have noticed that the very existence of such tension, bitterness, and division is about the most eloquent possible evidence that the liturgical reform introduced in the name of Vatican Council II has been seriously defective. What both liberals and conservatives often forget is the fact that, in the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas, "The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church’s unity.

… The implications of this profound truth for the post-Vatican II liturgical reform seem to me very serious. If one of the main purposes of the eucharistic liturgy is to “renew, strengthen, and deepen” [CCC 1396] the unity of all Catholics in the one Mystical Body, then what are we to think of a reform that, whatever its positive results may have been, has also managed to provoke more discord, mutual alienation, and disunity than any officially introduced liturgical innovation in the entire history of the Church?

… Now, can the new rites be said to have promoted “unity” [Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) no. 1] among believers, when we see more strife and disunity than ever in connection with the liturgy? It may be true that Catholics and Protestants now feel less divided than before, but not in the way the Council Fathers expected. They hoped that liturgical reform would help Protestants to become more Catholic in their thinking; but all that has happened is that Catholics have demonstrably become more Protestant in their thinking! The Vatican II Fathers, as we have just heard, hoped that a revised liturgy would be a means of “help[ing] to call all mankind into the Church’s fold” [SC, no. 1]. But how could anyone claim that this hope has been even partially fulfilled when in most countries rates of conversion to Catholicism have plummeted to an all-time low, priests and religious have abandoned their holy vocations in tens of thousands, innumerable other Catholics have given up the faith altogether, and of those who do still profess it, fewer than ever now attend Mass regularly?"

(pp. 154-157)

Interesting observation by Father Brian Harrison.

How it happened is anybody’s guess but it’s more than obvious that in these days of post-Vatican II, the two exreme groups have revealed themselves. What’s most remarkable to me is their mutual chant; more than anything it is anti-Papacy in tone. They wave the same banners; all insult the Pope - and that is the heart of Protestant belief. So it’s as easy for me to believe that the actions of Vatican II REVEALED that these views existed, rather than CAUSED such views to exist in the first place.

 

[catharina]

This question may not have a point, depending on your answer:

The Crusades and the Inquistion: good or bad? in your opinion.

My opinion is that the Crusades and Iniquisition are a part of Church history and world history. Truly, that’s my opinion.

As Our Lord, Jesus Christ said in John 14:1:

“Let not your heart be troubled.
You believe in God, believe also in me.”

Douay-Rheims Bible