Would there be any Martyrs today?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iotaunum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iotaunum

Guest
It seems that there are hardly any Catholics left who are willing to not only stand up for the one True faith, but who are not afraid to say that it is the one True Faith.

I find that plenty of Catholics (of course all should be) are willing to say that yes, the Catholic Church is the one True Faith - but just not too loudly these day. This is what saddens me the most. Catholics today seem to have a fear (and that is indeed an appropriate word) of “upsetting” anyone who believes to the contrary.

Catholics should not fear to say: The Catholic Church is the one and only True Church/religion set up by God outside of which there is no salvation. All other religions/faiths are therefore false.

And in Charity we are to preach these truths to others because we should love them enough to have concern for their soul. I have many friends who are not Catholic; Protestants of all persuasions, agnostics, athiests and new agers etc, whom I love; but in no way would I be willing to withold my Catholic views in religious/moral matters just incase I might “offend” someone.

If we read the lives of the Saints and the Popes and Church councils for the past 2,000 years, we see that in no way was the Church or its members willing to keep silent or avoid mentioning what may “offened” others if it was the Truth of the Holy Catholic Religion.

For example, I was reading recently some of the views of Canonised saints on Islam and Muhammad. These would not go down well today. Likewise, here are some examples of the teaching of the Popes on Islam which could now be considered controversial:

Pope Eugene IV -Council of Basel- Session 19 1434:

“… once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”
*
Pope Clement V - Council of Vienne - 1311-1312: *

“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) … in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness."

I am not singling out Islam from any other non-catholic religion - its just that this is the topic I was researching - I love all Muslims with the love Christ commanded us to have for all men - for His sake. However, It seems to me that if these Popes, or the saints - or the hundreds of Bishops and clerics at these Councils for that matter were to come back toady and repeat their Canons/teachings - the vast majority of Catholics would say that they were out to cause trouble or are being uncharitable and infact would not want these Saints to be canonised. Some would actually accuse these Popes/Saints/Bishops of gaing against the will of Christ!

However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. These seemingly harsh statements have paralellels in other less controversial issues. Catholics now have such ecumenical Fear of “offending others” that they won’t raise their voice to assert Catholic Truths which are under attack. For example, I know some (including priests) who are not putting the Church’s teaching foward on the invalidity of Womens “orders” because it offend the protestant ministers they were praying with just the other day, or they dont want to seem against womens rights.

Likewise, if Catholic were to state that Islam, or Judaism, or any protestant sect is false - they are branded anything from “haters” to “anti-semitic”! Infact, Catholics are encouraged NOT TO try and spread the faith and convert others, as if this act of charity commanded by Christ Himself were a sinful act.

It makes me wonder; if Catholics are unwilling to speak up for their faith for fear of “offending others” then how may would be willing to make a full profession of Faith in the one true Church, and die as Martyrs, should physical persecution ever force us to chose?
 
It still happens very frequently. Three priests and about fifty laypeople were just crowned with martyrdom in Iraq a few Sundays ago.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
 
Hi nice post. I understand where you are coming from. But if I may contend a little.

We must remember that our interpretation of nullas salus can be biased and misdirected. For God can show mercy upon those outside the visible communion of the faith and offer salutery repentance.

Take a look at Christs attitude towards the good samaritan in the Gospel. of all the people that passed the man on the road the good samaritan picked him up and was chartiable. Christ wants us to be like the good samaritan.

the samaratians by the way were a heretical group who were outside the visible communion of the true faith and yet Christ tells us to be like them. what Christ wants is good actions not arguments.

for martyrs I have two blogs that provide martyrs although one is relatively new.

www.thebloodofthemartyrs.blogspot.com
www.loyaltothemagisterium.wordpress.com

Pax
Stephen
 
It still happens very frequently. Three priests and about fifty laypeople were just crowned with martyrdom in Iraq a few Sundays ago.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
That is not exactly what I was thinking of. However, it is sad to hear about these horrible deaths and we must continue to pray that the persecution of the Church in this area stops.

What I mean is Martyrs in the traditional sense or the word. I dont’t really know much about this particular incident, and perhaps some of these would fit the term. However, A Martyr is traditionally one who knowingly accepts death rather than renounce his/her faith when the option is given. Perhaps some, or even all of these victims fit that category (I havent read much about it yet) but risking your life to practice your religion or having no choice in the matter is not considered martyrdom, as the Church as considered it traditionally.
 
Besides the recent martyrs in Iraq, several priests have been killed in Brazil recently. We just don’t hear about all the martyrdom that happens.
 
You think those priests and parishioners in Iraq did not know that they were risking death by openly practicing their faith? They DID make the choice. They chose to defy the repressive Islamists who threatened to kill them, and they died for that choice.
 
That is not exactly what I was thinking of. However, it is sad to hear about these horrible deaths and we must continue to pray that the persecution of the Church in this area stops.

What I mean is Martyrs in the traditional sense or the word. I dont’t really know much about this particular incident, and perhaps some of these would fit the term. However, A Martyr is traditionally one who knowingly accepts death rather than renounce his/her faith when the option is given. Perhaps some, or even all of these victims fit that category (I havent read much about it yet) but risking your life to practice your religion or having no choice in the matter is not considered martyrdom, as the Church as considered it traditionally.
risking your life to practice your faith or having no choice is not martyrdom? as we say in Ireland ‘‘pull the other one’’. :irish2:

what magisterial document or teaching have you got to maintain such a contention?
 
Lead the way.

If you feel that we are all failing at this, show us how its done.

(I hope Brother Jay will forgive me for this.)

As St Francis said, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.”
 
Hi nice post. I understand where you are coming from. But if I may contend a little.

We must remember that our interpretation of nullas salus can be biased and misdirected. For God can show mercy upon those outside the visible communion of the faith and offer salutery repentance.

Take a look at Christs attitude towards the good samaritan in the Gospel. of all the people that passed the man on the road the good samaritan picked him up and was chartiable. Christ wants us to be like the good samaritan.

the samaratians by the way were a heretical group who were outside the visible communion of the true faith and yet Christ tells us to be like them. what Christ wants is good actions not arguments.

for martyrs I have two blogs that provide martyrs although one is relatively new.

www.thebloodofthemartyrs.blogspot.com
www.loyaltothemagisterium.wordpress.com

Pax
Stephen
I really don’t understand your contention at all. The dogmatic statements of the Church are to be understood as the Church has always understood them and it the very same sense as the Popes defined them, There is no confusion on my part in this regard.

As for the good samaritan part - Christ is not saying we should not preach the truth, nor did He stop - this parable does not teach anything other than what the Church said it teaches - and it most certainly does not teach that charitable actions are all that is required for salvation, if indeed that is what you are implying.

"outside the visible communion of the true faith" - Since the Church has been dogmatically and infallible defined as Visible, there is no*** Invisible Church ***nor part of Church which is invisible, if that is what you are implying.

"what Christ wants is good actions not arguments"
  • I dont understand this part at all. I hope this is not part of the contention you have with my post, since I do not encourage arguments either. Christ wants people to believe and become members of His mystical body, AND have good actions. Good actions alone does not suffice, and neither does faith alone. Both have bee condmened by Christ and the infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium.
 
I really don’t understand your contention at all. The dogmatic statements of the Church are to be understood as the Church has always understood them and it the very same sense as the Popes defined them, There is no confusion on my part in this regard.

As for the good samaritan part - Christ is not saying we should not preach the truth, nor did He stop - this parable does not teach anything other than what the Church said it teaches - and it most certainly does not teach that charitable actions are all that is required for salvation, if indeed that is what you are implying.

"outside the visible communion of the true faith" - Since the Church has been dogmatically and infallible defined as Visible, there is no*** Invisible Church ***nor part of Church which is invisible, if that is what you are implying.

"what Christ wants is good actions not arguments"
  • I dont understand this part at all. I hope this is not part of the contention you have with my post, since I do not encourage arguments either. Christ wants people to believe and become members of His mystical body, AND have good actions. Good actions alone does not suffice, and neither does faith alone. Both have bee condmened by Christ and the infallible teachings of the Universal Magisterium.
Pius IX condemned the notion that those outside the Catholic Church have a good hope of eternal life. Entertaining such an idea undermines the Church’s infallible teaching that outside of her there is no salvation. Such a false view results in a wellspring of indifferentism which has already infected the Church and the world today. ***Pius XI clarified that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church may still be saved, but this is a narrow exception to the divine rule. How many are truly ignorant of the claims of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church? Only God knows, and God alone is the Judge. ***Pius IX has told us that it is unlawful to proceed to further inquiry about the salvation of those outside the Church. Instead, we continue to labor in the harvest by planting the seed, and leave the growing to God.
scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html#nsallus

and let me remind you that John is a traditionalist.

Take a look at the roman centurion. He was a pagan and outside the visible communion of the Church and yet Jesus calls him a man of great faith.
 
Our “quasi-martyrs” are those Christians who actively reject same sex marriage and the homosexual agenda. Those who, in return are called homophobes & haters by society.

They also are those Christians who actively work against the governmental forces who want to destroy all protections on human life.
 
That is not exactly what I was thinking of. However, it is sad to hear about these horrible deaths and we must continue to pray that the persecution of the Church in this area stops.

What I mean is Martyrs in the traditional sense or the word. I dont’t really know much about this particular incident, and perhaps some of these would fit the term. However, A Martyr is traditionally one who knowingly accepts death rather than renounce his/her faith when the option is given. Perhaps some, or even all of these victims fit that category (I havent read much about it yet) but risking your life to practice your religion or having no choice in the matter is not considered martyrdom, as the Church as considered it traditionally.
Those who died in Iraq are martyrs of the traditional sense. We have a Chaldean priest here in Vancouver who tells us that in Iraq you could be killed just by going to church. And yet people still go to Church. That is the same profession of faith that the early Christian martyrs professed. Even in the face of certain persecution, they do not waver in their faith. They come to church to worship and praise God even though it could be the last moment of their lives. It would have been easier to be safe and stay home on a Sunday, but they came anyway Sunday after Sunday.

What happened in Iraq is not a random terrorist attack, this has been going on for a long time.
 
risking your life to practice your faith or having no choice is not martyrdom? as we say in Ireland ‘‘pull the other one’’. :irish2:

what magisterial document or teaching have you got to maintain such a contention?
For a start, I never claimed to have a magisterial document to prove what has traditionally been considered Martyrdom by the Catholic Church - nor do I require one. Since I have not spent anytime looking for a specific document in this regard I do not know whether any magisterial documents addressed the issue. That being said, I have read a lot about the martyrs and the saints writings on Martyrdom. Traditionally, the Church has required in the Canonisation process that 1/ a Martyr acts of his own free will in dying for the faith, 2/ that he is given the option of living/lesser sentence were he to renounce his faith.

This is logical. If someone is killed against their will without knowing it - they are not a Martyr. Likewise, if someone knows there is a risk in practicing their faith, and they are killed they are not a Martyr Ipso Facto - unless they die becuase of their testimony of Christ.

Of all the Martyrs canonised by the Church, if you can name one who does not fit the tradtional description of a Martyr, then I will accept that all the books I have read so far on the matter have been wrong. Also, don’t think I am lessening these deaths which have occured becuase I dont think that every Christian killed by a non-christian is a Martyr.

P.S. I’m Irish too, and I never intended to misrepresent Catholic teaching on the matter. If you want to debate the issue on another thread I will be happy to.
 
Pius IX condemned the notion that those outside the Catholic Church have a good hope of eternal life. Entertaining such an idea undermines the Church’s infallible teaching that outside of her there is no salvation. Such a false view results in a wellspring of indifferentism which has already infected the Church and the world today. ***Pius XI clarified that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church may still be saved, but this is a narrow exception to the divine rule. How many are truly ignorant of the claims of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church? Only God knows, and God alone is the Judge. ***Pius IX has told us that it is unlawful to proceed to further inquiry about the salvation of those outside the Church. Instead, we continue to labor in the harvest by planting the seed, and leave the growing to God.
scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html#nsallus

and let me remind you that John is a traditionalist.

Take a look at the roman centurion. He was a pagan and outside the visible communion of the Church and yet Jesus calls him a man of great faith.
I don’t understand why you post this in reply. I have stated before that I am not confused on the interpretation of Dogmas such as this. I have a whole lot of theology manuals in latin and English from 1889 to 1970 and some written after, as well as St Thomas’ Summa and they are consistant in how Catholic dogmas are to be interpreted. The meaning of the dogmas are clear to me. It seems as if you are trying to refute a position I did not put foward?
 
Lead the way.

If you feel that we are all failing at this, show us how its done.

(I hope Brother Jay will forgive me for this.)

As St Francis said, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.”
ByzCath,

Naughty, but so what I was thinking.
 
Those who died in Iraq are martyrs of the traditional sense. We have a Chaldean priest here in Vancouver who tells us that in Iraq you could be killed just by going to church. And yet people still go to Church. That is the same profession of faith that the early Christian martyrs professed. Even in the face of certain persecution, they do not waver in their faith. They come to church to worship and praise God even though it could be the last moment of their lives. It would have been easier to be safe and stay home on a Sunday, but they came anyway Sunday after Sunday.

What happened in Iraq is not a random terrorist attack, this has been going on for a long time.
Again, I never said that they were or were not Martyrs. All that I said was that, since I had not read the article, I was not sure if all of the people killed there could be called Martyrs in the traditional sense. I accept your opinion but I dont want to derail the thread into a discussion on what traditionally constitutes a Martyr in the Catholic Church - though this would be an interesting topic for another thread. I do agree that all who brave persecution to practice the faith are heroic in doing so, and I pray for all who are in similar situations. Who knows, this sort of persecution could be in our countries next!
 
For a start, I never claimed to have a magisterial document to prove what has traditionally been considered Martyrdom by the Catholic Church - nor do I require one. Since I have not spent anytime looking for a specific document in this regard I do not know whether any magisterial documents addressed the issue. That being said, I have read a lot about the martyrs and the saints writings on Martyrdom. Traditionally, the Church has required in the Canonisation process that 1/ a Martyr acts of his own free will in dying for the faith, 2/ that he is given the option of living/lesser sentence were he to renounce his faith.

This is logical. If someone is killed against their will without knowing it - they are not a Martyr. Likewise, if someone knows there is a risk in practicing their faith, and they are killed they are not a Martyr Ipso Facto - unless they die becuase of their testimony of Christ.

Of all the Martyrs canonised by the Church, if you can name one who does not fit the tradtional description of a Martyr, then I will accept that all the books I have read so far on the matter have been wrong. Also, don’t think I am lessening these deaths which have occured becuase I dont think that every Christian killed by a non-christian is a Martyr.

P.S. I’m Irish too, and I never intended to misrepresent Catholic teaching on the matter. If you want to debate the issue on another thread I will be happy to.
My brother in Christ. I know you didnt claim to have one. I am asking you to provide me one. You can not just throw out a claim that the church teaches this and that without providing evidence of such claims and teaching. give me book, chapter and verse that supports your claims on martyrdom.

those who risked their lives for Christ Jesus knowingly or unknowingly are martyrs end of story. They were Christian, living for Christ, someone came and ended their life because of such witnessing. THAT IS MARTYRDOM 😊👍
 
I don’t understand why you post this in reply. I have stated before that I am not confused on the interpretation of Dogmas such as this. I have a whole lot of theology manuals in latin and English from 1889 to 1970 and some written after, as well as St Thomas’ Summa and they are consistant in how Catholic dogmas are to be interpreted. The meaning of the dogmas are clear to me. It seems as if you are trying to refute a position I did not put foward?
I am showing you that the church, although retains the infallible teaching of nulla salus does not know the mind of God. for he alone is judge and transcends their understanding of him. my own theological outlook is that if Christ can offer salutery repentance for those who commit suicide he can do so for those who are visibly outside the communion of the faith. and lets face it, if people knew the truth how many would refuse Christ? therefore the visible church down here transcends the material and when a soul leaves the body it meets Christ ( who refuses noone ) and offers them a chance for salutery repentance. Lets face it, if you as a buddist met Jesus when your soul departed from your body you would certainly believe and thus enter the kingdom.

Take a look at the theif on the cross. Christ offered him a place in the kingdom. he was not even baptised, but through his last minute BELIEF was welcomed into paradise.

Pax
Stephen
 
Lead the way.

If you feel that we are all failing at this, show us how its done.

(I hope Brother Jay will forgive me for this.)

As St Francis said, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.”
Well, I don’t know what to make of your post. Not knowing you personally, I don’t know whether you are annoyed by my comments, or otherwise. Giving you the benefit of the doubt however, I will assume you are light hearted. This being the case: I do speak out and I hope I have spoken only the Truths of the Catholic Faith and clearly. In my personal life, I make clear these truths in discussions with non-catholics as well as Catholic Priests and Bishops whom I have spoken with recently. This is the faith I inherited and I was brought up to think this way - especially by an elderly priest. However in reference to the Martyrdom part - I do hope that if I was in the same sitution that the Canonised Martyrs found themselves in, that I would do what they done. However, no one knows how faithful we sould be in their situation until we are in it ourselves. I would hope I would do the right thing. As for the "If you feel that we are all failing at this, show us how its done." part - I hope you don’t think I was addressing you personally, or anyone else on this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top