Catholic Teaching and Belief in Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Catholic Teaching and Belief

Author

Comment

rcesq

Catholic Teaching and Belief

Lead

[-]

Posts: 2107

Jan 24 08 3:49 AM

Tags : None

I daresay that the primary reason most people visit this forum and participate either actively by posting or passively by lurking, do so because they have been captivated by Joseph Ratzinger as a teacher. I know that was the case with me, when I first paid attention to him beginning with the 2005 Good Friday meditations, and then heard his homilies on the occasion of Pope John Paul II's funeral, at the beginning of the Conclave and then his magisterial sermon on the occasion of his inauguration.

Several members of this forum over the past few years have voiced the wish that they could have been students in Herr Professor Dr. Ratzinger's classes or be participants in his continuing Schulerkreis meetings. Unfortunately, since Cardinal Ratzinger's assignment as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and now his calling as Pope, that is not possible for newcomers.

But it is possible, in a very modest way, to pay tribute to Pope Benedict XVI's phenomenal pedagogical talents by engaging in thoughtful discussions about questions of Catholic teaching and belief. Such discussions occur periodically on various threads in this section and in other, less frequently visited, sections in this forum. However, often discussions in the threads are cut off by the posting of news items or other worthy distractions. This new thread is intended to be a place where questions of all kinds can be asked about the Catholic faith and, when the subject arises, other faith traditions or belief systems.

I envision this thread as encompassing questions that go to the heart of Catholic belief (e.g., what is the Trinity?)(actually I'm sort of kidding with that question as a starter because I think the only sensible answer ultimately is that it is a Mystery) to those that are more peripheral (e.g., what do you do with holy water and what are holy cards?).

The ground rules are the same as for the forum as a whole: reasoned discourse, courtesy, respect for opposing views, no name-calling, ad hominem attacks or allegations that someone is a heretic or a schismatic. Please note that it's OK to state (if true) that a view expressed or a position taken does not comport with Catholic teaching and belief, and OK to identify such a view or position are being, according to Catholic teaching or belief, heretical or schismatic. I hope all who participate can understand and appreciate the difference.
In other words, those who post on this thread should follow the example of the man after whom this fanclub is named. Pope Benedict XVI's Angelus comments about the La Sapienza incident set the standard.

So, forum members, go to it: you're invited to post your questions or make your comments here. I hope this thread will prove helpful to everyone in understanding Roman Catholicism better and enabling all to grow to love the Catholic faith and Our Lord more.

Reply Quote

Advertisement
	Remove this ad Remove this ad

Benodette

Re: "Can Faith Broaden Reason?"

#1

[-]

Member

Posts: 16610

Jan 24 08 11:24 AM

I am not sure if this is the place for these quotations. The article from which they are taken is also posted on the People in the News thread.

At a symposium in New York on January 20th, entitled "Can Faith Broaden Reason?" Father Julian Carron, president of Communion and Liberation, made these comments.

Quote:
Father Carron described the general current European view of religion as "a sign of abandonment of ideals of reason and rationality."

"In Europe," Father Carron said, "religion is treated as the equivalent of believing in ghosts."

Quote:
He continued his presentation describing the nature of faith in our lives. "Faith is an act of the intellect. ... It's an act of knowledge that grasps the presence of something that reason would not know how to grasp, but that reason has to affirm nonetheless, otherwise something that is within our experience would be eluded."

Father Carron was one of two C&L priests on the panel. The other was Mgsr. Lorenzo Albacete, a theologian, physicist, author and columnist. The panel was completed by Robert Pollack, professor of biology at Columbia University in New York and Joseph Weiler, a New York University professor of law, both Jewish.

I think the quotations regarding Europe are grossly exagerated.

The second quotation does not seem to make much sense. Perhaps someone could interpret it in clearer language.

C&L is greatly valued by Pope Benedict and it is a strong force in Italy. Lay movements in general seem to have found fertile ground there.

Has anyone come into contact with any lay movements and have they found those contacts enriching?

New York symposium examines whether faith can broaden reason

Can anyone find the complete presentations given at the symposium?

Reply Quote

mag6nideum

Re: "Can Faith Broaden Reason?"

#2

[-]

Member

Posts: 2856

Jan 25 08 4:52 AM

Benodette, thanks for your interesting post.

Quote:
C&L is greatly valued by Pope Benedict and it is a strong force in Italy. Lay movements in general seem to have found fertile ground there.

By pure chance I came upon a book in a second hand book shop the other day. The title: The Pope's Armada. Unlocking the secrets of mysterious and powerful new sects in the Church. Author: Gordon Urquhart. Published 1995.

The Pope refered to in the title is John Paul II. The author had been a member of Focolare for nine years. He discusses the CL, Neocathcumenate and Focolare movements, and as the title indicates he is not enamoured by them as far as I could see by paging through the book. In spite of the Dan Brownish title, the author seems to try to stick to facts. But for all I know this book is an attempt to totally discredit and black wash these movements. On the other hand, Urquhard himself was the leader of the youth section of Focolare in the UK and editor of the English section of its magazine New City.

In the last chapter he calls the new movements the "Octopus Church" of John Paul II. This "octopus" displays (in his eyes) a deep mistrust, even hatred, of the world; they are basically fundamentalist although they present themselves as the embodiment of conciliar values. He even quotes Cardinal Ratzinger saying they are the Council's only positive result (??!) but he gives no source for this statement!

I haven't read through the book systematically, but the author reached some worrying conclusions in the last chapter - if he can be taken seriously at all, of course.

Does anyone know of this book? Should one spend time reading through its 400+ pages?

Reply Quote

Benodette

Re: "Can Faith Broaden Reason?"

#3

[-]

Member

Posts: 16610

Jan 25 08 12:10 PM

I am not sure if a discussion like this is what Rcesq had in mind when starting this thread and if it is wildly off course I am sorry for bringing this up here. We do have a thread on C&L but it has never attracted many contributions and in any case the question of lay movements is wider than just C&L.

The reason I mentioned it here is because members of these groups seem to give the impression that they are living the whole faith more completely than the rest of us and this, I think, can be divisive. They have become very influential and the Pope sees them as a hope for the future of the Church. For that reason alone they embody many questions of Catholic belief and practice.

As far as I am aware the big movements like C&L and Focolare do not yet have much of a foothold in the US. The same is true of the UK. In Italy they do, and they also have tentacles in the political sphere. Some prominent Italian politicians are members of C&L. As an outsider, they appear to me to be roughly equivalent to the fundamentalist right in the USA. If I am wrong here I am sure our US members will correct me.

I am not familiar with the book you mention Mag but I have encountered quite a few articles which register disquiet at the growing influence of these groups and the way they form a church within a church. I have also, in conversation with clergy, come across disquiet. C&L I am told insists that its members only attend services in designated C&L churches with their own priests. This raises an interesting question, because every day the four housekeepers at the Apostolic Palace attend Mass celebrated by the Pope I make this last comment tongue in cheek.

Joseph Ratzinger became a great admirer of Don Guissiani, the founder of C&L, in the 1970s. He said Guissiani transformed his life and his funeral eulogy in February 2005, delivered without notes, is said to have contributed to his election. It is a tremendously eloquent address.

This quoatation is from an address Cardinal Ratzinger gave to the World Congress of Ecclesial Movements, sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Laity, in Rome, in May 1998.

Quote:
It was a wonderful event for me personally when I came into closer contact with movements such as the Neocatecumenate, Communion and Liberation, and Focolare and experienced the energy and enthusiasm with which they lived the faith and were impelled by their joy in it to share with others the gift they had received. This was in the early 1970's, a time when Karl Rahner and others were speaking of a winter in the Church. And it did seem that, after the great blossoming of the Council, frost was creeping instead of springtime, and that exhaustion was replacing dynamism. The dynamism now seemed to be somewhere else entirelywhere people, relying on their own strength and without resorting to God, were setting about creating a better world of the future. That a world without God could not be good, let alone a better world, was obvious to anyone who had eyes to see. But where was God in all this? Had not the Church in fact become worn-out and dispirited after so many debates and so much searching for new structures? What Rahner was saying was perfectly understandable. It put into words an experience that we were all having. But suddenly here was something that no one had planned. Here the Holy Spirit himself had, so to speak, taken the floor. The faith was reawakening precisely among the young, who embraced it without ifs, ands, or buts, without escape hatches and loopholes, and who experienced it in its totality as a precious, life-giving gift. To be sure, many people felt that this interfered with their intellectual discussions or their models for redesigning a completely different Church in their own imagehow could it be otherwise? Every irruption of the Holy Spirit always upsets human plans. But there were and are more serious difficulties. For these movements had their share of childhood diseases. One could feel the power of the Spirit in them, but the Spirit works through human beings and does not simply free them from their weaknesses.

In that address he suggested that these 20th Century lay movements are the "fifth wave" of the Holy Spirit, referencing Missionary Monasticism, the Cluniac Reform, the Mendicant Orders, and Missionary Expansion as the 4 previous "waves" of the Holy Spirit through history, all following a similar, recognizable pattern.

Quote:
I would like, as a kind of first try at clarifying terminology, very briefly to distinguish three different types that can be observed at any rate in recent history. I would call them movement, current, and action. I would not characterize the liturgical movement of the first half of this century, or the Marian movement that had been gaining increasing prominence in the Church since the nineteenth century, as movements, but as currents. These currents might subsequently solidifying concrete movements like the Marian Congregation or groupings of Catholic youth, but they nevertheless extended beyond them. The sorts of petition drives for the proclamation of a dogma or for changes in the Church that are becoming customary today are for their part not movements, but actions. The Franciscan awakening of the thirteenth century probably provides the clearest illustration of what a movement is. Movements generally come from a charismatic leader and they take shape in concrete communities that live the whole gospel anew from this origin and recognize the Church without hesitation as the ground of their life, without which they could not exist.

You can read it the complete address here.

The Tidings ran an article on the Popes support for lay movements in August 2005.
Lay movements have an old friend in new pope.

Pope Benedict has at least twice addressed big gatherings of ecclesial movements in St Peters square and makes references to them in many of his speeches.

Quote:
The Ecclesial Movements want to and must be schools of freedom, of this true freedom. Let us learn in them this true freedom, not the freedom of slaves that aims to cut itself a slice of the cake that belongs to everyone even if this means that some do not get any.

We want the true, great freedom, the freedom of heirs, the freedom of children of God. In this world, so full of fictitious forms of freedom that destroy the environment and the human being, let us learn true freedom by the power of the Holy Spirit; to build the school of freedom; to show others by our lives that we are free and how beautiful it is to be truly free with the true freedom of God's children.

3 June 2006: Vigil of Pentecost - Celebration of First Vespers and encounter with Ecclesial Movements and New Communities

Quote:
Communion and Liberation is a community experience of faith, born in the Church not by the will of an organized hierarchy but originating from a renewed encounter with Christ and thus, we can say, by an impulse derived ultimately from the Holy Spirit. Still today, it offers a profound way of life and it actualizes the Christian faith, both in a total fidelity and communion with the Successor of Peter and with the Pastors who assure the governing of the Church and through spontaneity and freedom that permit new and prophetic, apostolic and missionary achievements.

Address to the members of the Communion and Liberation Movement

Quote:
When I was still a professor and then Cardinal, I had the occasion to express my conviction that Movements are really a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. And precisely as the encounter of the charisms, they also show the richness of both gifts and unity in the faith.

For example, could one forget last year's extraordinary Pentecost Vigil that witnessed the joint participation of many Movements and Ecclesial Associations? The emotion I felt in participating in St Peter's Square in such an intense spiritual experience is still alive in me.

Address to the Bishop-Friends of the Focolare Movement

The The full text of the speech given by Father Carron in NY, referred to above, has now been released.

Quote:
For a majority of people religion has nothing to do with reality. Religion has to do with a nebulous feeling in relationship with the divine. Such a feeling is difficult to identify, because what I feel in front of the Mystery is not easy to grasp and one person might have it and another might not. Therefore for a majority of people religion has nothing to do with the knowledge of reality. For them religion is not related with reason.

This can explain the second characteristic of the present situation, which is confusion. The modern world had surrendered regarding the possibility of knowing. This can seem strange at a time when science prevails. But this negative attitude with regard to knowledge and a high emphasis of science are not contradictory. Recently the Pope spoke about the resignation of western civilisation before reality.

Complete address

So, given that the Pope is such a supporter, are those of us outside these faith clubs just a little second rate in comparison? What do members think?

Reply Quote

rcesq

Re: Movements

#4

[-]

Posts: 2107

Jan 26 08 1:26 AM

A quick comment: I'm not familiar with Focolare or Comunione e Liberazione or, for that matter, Opus Dei, but here's a piece by John Allen dated August 26, 2005 that provides a little insight into C&L. Not having met anyone who belongs to these movements, I can't say whether I'd feel like a "second rate" Catholic in comparison. Perhaps I would, if they were truly holy. (For instance, on my vacation in Egypt I met some Coptic monks whose demeanor was utterly saintly. They didn't make me feel second rate, but I knew that they were absolutely first rate Christians.)

Personally, I belong to two Catholic Orders which have a spiritual component in addition to their service aspects and I find that getting together for such events as saying the Rosary, or First Fridays, or members-only Masses and retreats, is very helpful in bringing some more focus and conscious effort into living the faith. Of course, the Orders are also social organizations that you join by invitation only, so you're with friends and others who are pretty like-minded. I don't know if that's how the "movements" operate.

Do the members of the Orders feel that they're "better" Catholics than others? Those members with whom I associate would say definitely not. If anything, you soon realize how far you've got to go to live up to the teachings of Christ. As for having political influence, many members may be considered to be politically involved to the extent that almost all are "pro-life" and many participate in political activism on that score. But I wouldn't say that the Orders are organized political action groups. In fact, that would be prohibited under American tax law.

As for being "second rate" anything -- in my opinion how I rate on a spiritual level is determined by me myself. If I were to feel and act "second rate" in the presence of members of Catholic movements, well, then, perhaps I should examine why that is. On the other hand, if a member of a movement were to make me feel "second rate" or treat me as "second rate," I submit that the movement-member would need to do some serious soul searching because Christ wouldn't stand for such an attitude.

Actually, Christ would probably be appalled at the attitudes towards the Church that many of its members display. For instance, I'm not at all surprised that some priests express "disquiet" about the presence of lay movements in their parishes. Alas, in my experience, the desire for power and control is quite prevalent amongst clergy and bishops, although it's often disguised as a kind of passive-aggressive "pastoral" attitude. Lots of arbitrary, unfair and even self-serving decision-making is disguised as "this is what Jesus would do for the good of the parish." So to the extent that a parish priest doesn't have control over a lay movement, he is not very likely to welcome it with open arms. It takes a really strong priest to be able to live with active, vocal parishioners who don't follow his lead. But this reality is not really disillusioning, though, because the Apostles behaved this way too.

Finally, Benodette, your initial post noted that the opinion stated about the attitude towards faith in Europe was exaggerated. Well, I still remember Tony Blair's remark right after he left office:

Quote:
Tony Blair was reluctant to speak out about the depth of his faith while he was prime minister for fear that voters would regard him as a "nutter", he reveals in an interview.

Slapdowns by Alastair Campbell, Blair's communications chief at the time, to questions on his Christianity - "We don't do God" - have commonly been interpreted as an effort to prevent the former prime minister from waxing lyrical.

But Blair's comments in a BBC1 documentary suggest he himself acknowledged there was danger in such exposure.

The Guardian. Was Blair right? I know that amongst my relatives in Holland, all of whom went to Catholic elementary and high schools, the idea of living as a religious person is laughable. Environmentalism has become the new faith. The only time most of my Dutch cousins set foot in a chapel is at their parents' funerals. It's funny how they accept without question notions about global warming that are based in part on phony science, but find it impossible to accept the divinity of Christ.

Reply Quote

rcesq

Humility

#5

[-]

Posts: 2107

Jan 28 08 10:37 PM

Quote:
I pray that we'll never again follow the paths that some of our ancestors took. "Religion" and "religious" people perhaps need to learn true humility even more than the irreligious. We speak so easily of Christian humility. Do we even grasp the real meaning of that overused word? Especially when it comes to dogma and doctrines? We tend to be so convinced of our utter "rightness" in matters that are, ultimately, a much greater mystery than we can even begin to comprehend.

Mag6nideum: I agree and disagree with your sentiments as stated above. Of course we should all pray that we will never again visit physical violence upon our brothers and sisters in the name of the Christ. Will that happen? Well, it looks as if the Irish are managing to refrain from killing each other and that was supposedly based on religious sectarianism. So that's good. I can't think of anywhere else that Christians are engaged in violence against each other -- against other religions, obviously that is going on, although Christians don't seem to be the ones taking the initiative.

Your musing that "religion and religious people need to learn true humility more than the irreligious" is where we begin to part company. To the extent that believers in Christ (that's what I'll focus on) are required to strive after true humility, you're right: being humble is part of our faith. But to the extent that your comment implies that the virtue of humility is not one that the irreligious should strive for, or that the irreligious are perhaps more naturally possessed of that virtue, I disagree. Arrogance and pride are vices that afflict all humanity, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. Some of the most prideful, arrogant human beings have been those without any faith. Men like Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot come to mind.

I cannot profess to know the full meaning of true Christian humility, except to say that it consists in emulating as best we can Christ's own example at the Last Supper and throughout His life. Although I agree that when it comes to dogma or doctrines one can be dogmatically convinced of one's "rightness," I do not agree that such conviction is necessarily the antithesis of humility or that it demonstrates a lack of humility. Here Christ's example is telling: He didn't hesitate to tell the Pharisees what their problems were and would chastise His own followers for their erroneous thinking. I don't think being humble requires a believer to be bashful about proclaiming the faith. Take Joseph Ratzinger, for example. He is by all accounts one of the most genuinely humble people around, but whole forests have been felled in support of what he is convinced is the "rightness" of the Roman Catholic Church.

I, for one, believe that Christ is Our Redeemer, God and Man, one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered and died for our sins. I believe He rose from the dead and will come to judge the living and the dead. I'm not going to bash people on the head who don't share these beliefs, but, if the occasion arises, I might try to convince them that I am right (I don't have the missionary spirit required to go forth and convert all nations). Is this a lack of proper humility?

Now, I grant you that when it comes to the liturgy, say, I am opinionated and, believe me, it takes a lot of effort not to utter the opinions I post here in the parishes where I attend services or to the priests and liturgists who perpetrate what I consider to be travesties. The sin of pride rears its ugly head on that score all the time! But could you seriously argue that Christian humility requires one to smile and blissfully sing along to "Here I am, Lord?" Oops. The devil keeps dangling the temptation to be sarcastic and I simply cannot resist. $:\$

Reply Quote

Unicorn

Re: Humility

#6

[-]

Member

Posts: 2673

Jan 29 08 12:45 AM

I have come lately to this thread, which promises to be one of very insightful discussions -- thank you, Rcesq, for starting it. If I may offer some thoughts as to the discussion at hand, on the virtue of humility.

Mag6 and Rcesq, I have read your very thought-provoking comments, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Christians (Catholic or non-Catholic) must certainly never visit violence -- physical or otherwise -- on others in the name of Christ. I will never understand how anyone who calls himself a Christian can carry out acts of cruelty on his fellow human beings.

May I offer a different view, however, on this particular comment of Mag6:

Quote:
"Religion" and "religious" people perhaps need to learn true humility even more than the irreligious.

Rcesq, I don't quite think that in making such a comment, Mag6 meant to say that "the virtue of humility is not one that the irreligious should strive for, or that the irreligious are perhaps more naturally possessed of that virtue." I think (and Mag6 can surely tell me if I am wrong) perhaps our friend meant something along these lines: since we have been blessed with the Faith, and can be said to be far more enlightened (for want of a better word) than the "irreligious", then there is all the more reason for us to have learned true humility, and to practise it.

Certainly everyone, religious or not, should strive for humility -- but because we already have an "edge", so to speak (and for want of a better word -- I am rather tired today, and my brain is half-asleep! I hope I won't offend anyone in posting these comments.), in having the light of our faith to guide us, then we have no "excuse" for not practising true humility. It sometimes happens that there are certain Christians who, sadly, bring a distinct air of self-righteousness in their relations with other people, including those who belong to other faiths or those who didn't belong to their Church or community. It also happens that some members of Catholic lay movements act with the same self-righteous attitude, as if they knew better -- and were better Christians! -- than their own fellow Catholics, because they were members of this movement or that movement, and had taken part in outreach programs, charity projects, and sundry other activities. This sort of attitude is lamentable indeed.

Quote:
I don't think being humble requires a believer to be bashful about proclaiming the faith.

Quite so, Rcesq. But I suppose what Mag6 is trying to say is that in proclaiming the Faith, one must not resort to avenues that would belittle those who do not share our faith, or serve to give others the impression that we wish to "impose" our beliefs on others, by whatever means -- if we did, then can we really say that we have been enlightened by our faith? You are quite right in citing the example of Benedict XVI -- but it is precisely his personal humility, a humility that comes from his firm belief in Christ and in the Catholic faith and which inspires him to proclaim the Faith with reasonableness and a respect for others, that has earned him the attention and yes, the respect, of even those who disagree with him. As you said:

Quote:
I'm not going to bash people on the head who don't share these beliefs, but, if the occasion arises, I might try to convince them that I am right. Is this a lack of proper humility?

Of course not, my friend, and I don't think that's what Mag6 meant at all. Joseph Ratzinger never bashed anyone on the head; but he proclaimed his faith not just in his teachings and his writings, but in his own personal example of humility, which inspired the way he related with everyone he met, and that, in itself, is also a way of proclaiming the Gospel. "By their deeds, ye shall know them."

Sadly, there were quite a few folks from the Catholic Church from ages past who didn't hesitate to "bash" those who didn't share our faith -- take the Crusades, for example; indeed, atrocities were committed by both the Muslims and the Christians. Such an attitude persists up to this day, in some form or another, albeit not in violent terms -- nonetheless, this is a cause for concern. Every Christian is called to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, but the means through which such proclamation is done should always be determined with love and respect for our non-Christian brethren. Otherwise, we simply end up employing that Machiavellian doctrine "the end justifies the means", and it is in adopting such an "attitude" that we can say Christian humility is lost, and lost with appalling and tragic thoroughness.

Quote:
The devil keeps dangling the temptation to be sarcastic and I simply cannot resist.

That's OK, he dangles it in front of me a lot of times too.

--------------------
Proud to be Papist!

"Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved ..." - Benedict XVI

"He knocks at the door, he is close to us and thus true joy is close, which is stronger than all the sorrows in the world, and in our life." - Benedict XVI

Reply Quote

mag6nideum

Re: Humility

#7

[-]

Member

Posts: 2856

Jan 29 08 2:09 PM

Rcesq, thanks for your challenging response to what you've rightly called my "musings" after reading the lovely story of the meeting between Brother Arnold and Cardinal Ratzinger.

I specifically brought up the question or virtue of "humility" in the Christian context and especially in light of the history of Christianity in all its guises, traditions, "churches", sects, sects from sects, "movements" etc. ect. etc. And when we speak of the history of Christianity, its splits and schisms, its religious wars between Catholic and Protestant, the "wars" of sects against the main stream traditions/confessions from which they sprang, it becomes clear that doctrinal and dogmatic differences fed the disunity that we, especially today with the benefit of hindsight, find almost unbelievable to understand.

Also, I am convinced - and will not easily change my opinion -that humility with regard to many aspects of the different and differing doctrines built around or upon the foundation of the Twelve Articles (the Apostolic Credo) confessed by almost every Christian denomination, was and still is lacking in many instances.

This conviction I base on an ongoing study of the cathechisms of various denominations. It was again an eyeopener for me to read the "Heidelbergse Kategismus", the "Dordtse Leerrels" (you will understand the Afrikaans here, but these confessions are exact translations of the original Dutch Reformed confessions).
I've also begun to study the Catholic Cathechism, but haven't done much there because I'm forever reading Catholic theological books. However, when one reads the commentaries on each of the Reformed confessional articles, it is astounding to see the absolutist degree of conviction with which many of these confessions are often pitched against that of the RCC. I have to admit that I'm reading my old cathecism book which appeared in 1949!! Maybe things have changed a bit since then but it is clear to me that the authors authorised by the synod are often far from correct in their assessments of the Catholic confession. At times I would say they are misleading the cathegists. So what have we here? Is this humility? It is not even factually spot on.

I can go on and on: lack of humility on questions around baptism, when to be baptised, the theology of baptism, whether to drink the Eucharist from the same goblet or from small individual wine glasses, etc etc etc. (These doctrinal squabbles and opposites are to be found between the Protestant branches. The RCC's views are often also opposed.) Absolute condemnation of the fact that in the RCC only the priest may drink the Eucharistic wine/blood of our Lord. Not to speak of issues like Indulgences and the really big doctrinal questions such as the hackneyed idea that the RCC focusses more on "workrighteousness" instead of the sole grace of the "Cross". I'm sure you all know these arguments.

And when one reads these confessions, every single one of them is supported by Bible verses. The RCC cathechism also supports with, and refer to, Scripture. However, for many of these verses the opposite idea can also be found in Scriptures! It is exactly because of this that I see the need for more humility right across the spectrum of Christianity. Because of rock-like beliefs in certain interpretations of the Credo and the Bible, Christians had killed one another.

Unicorn understood what I meant when I said religious people should have more humility than irreligious (I should have said agnostics perhaps!) We "keep ourselves busy" with the things of God. That is no joke. Catholics are fond of speaking of "mystery". Yes. I agree. And before such mystery some humility is needed. The great theologians have always been honest about the fact that there will always be less than final answers to some questions. In the meantime unnecessary blood flowed, IMO.

Quote:
But could you seriously argue that Christian humility requires one to smile and blissfully sing along to "Here I am, Lord?" Oops. The devil keeps dangling the temptation to be sarcastic and I simply cannot resist.

I think you know my anwer to this.

Anyhow, I don't know the song "Here I am Lord".

Reply Quote

Benodette

Re: Humility

#8

[-]

Member

Posts: 16610

Jan 29 08 3:45 PM

Quote:
I am convinced , and will not change my opinion, that humility with regard to many aspects of the different and differing doctrines built around or upon the foundation of the Twelve Articles (the most well know Apostolical Credo) confessed by almost every Christian denomination, was and still is lacking in many instances.

..when one reads these confessions, every single one of them is supported by Bible verses. The RCC cathegism also supports with and refer to Scripture. But for many of these verses the opposite idea can also be found in Scriptures, by the way. It is exactly because of this that I see the need for more humility right across the spectrum of Christianity. Because of rock-like beliefs in certain interpretations of the Credo and the Bible, Christians had killed one another.

Catholics are fond of speaking of "mystery". Yes. I agree. And before such mystery some humility is needed. The great theologians have always been honest about the fact that there will always be less than final answers to some questions. In the meantime unnecessary blood flowed,

I completely agree with Mag6 and the sentiments expressed by Unicorn. The endless arguments between Christians on the interpretation of scripture, and which nuance of which doctrines to accept, modify or reject, have raged for centuries. While such theological arguments do not now lead us to burn people at the stake or to commit other brutal crimes in the name of faith, it certainly still leads to lack of charity.

Just look at the way people have reacted to Archbishop Marinis retirement and I make no apologies for mentioning this again in this context because I found it really shocking and one wonders what these people would think or do if some serious doctrinal issue were under discussion.

On the question of Tony Blair doing God

Rcesq the context for the we dont do God remark was Tony Blairs declaration that God would judge his decision to take the country into a war in Iraq.

Explaining how he managed to live with the decision to go to war in Iraq, Mr Blair replied:

Quote:
"If you have faith about these things then you realise that judgement is made by other people. If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

Bearing I mind that this whole escapade was hugely unpopular in the country, it was not the brightest remark for Blair to have made and it was not surprising that Campbell tried to stop the conversation. It proved not be a very bright remark from him either.

Blair: 'God will be my judge on Iraq'

Reply Quote

Benodette

Re: What goes on in Medjugorje?

#9

[-]

Member

Posts: 16610

Jan 29 08 3:51 PM

Spe Salvi posted a question on Medjugorje on Community.

Quote:
What is the Holy Father's views on false apparitions and when will he make a statement to his faithful about the biggest hoax in the Catholic world 'Medjugorje'.
Have we been updated on the latest investigations, if any ??

Galanterie and Unicorn have provided some information there.

I have also posted it here as questions regarding the authenticity of Marian apparitions are often asked by Catholics and especially by non-Catholics.

This clip is especially for you Rcesq. It certainly tells me all I need to know about Medjugorje.

What goes on in Medjugorje?

Reply Quote

rcesq

Re: What goes on in Medjugorje?

#10

[-]

Posts: 2107

Jan 29 08 7:11 PM

Quote:
This clip is especially for you Rcesq.

So, Benodette, you think I can't appreciate spiritual exercises?

And just for you, Mag6nideum: "Here I am Lord". My favorite part of this song is the way it seamlessly makes the transition from the First Person to the first person. Talk about doctrinal confusion!

Reply Quote

Advertisement
	Remove this ad

rcesq

Humility

#11

[-]

Posts: 2107

Jan 29 08 7:44 PM

Quote:
Because of rock-like beliefs in certain interpretations of the Credo and the Bible, Christians had killed one another

Mag6nideum: These are internecine feuds. I'm not so sure they have direct connections to questions of doctrine as such or whether questions of doctrine become connected to such aspects of the human condition as clan and tribal membership or the wielding of power and authority. For instance, in my county more people are killed in the halls of the family court than in the criminal courthouse. This tells you that the strength of the passions that run amongst relatives is far stronger than that which operates between strangers. The same dynamic probably applies to disputes between Christians or, today, between Sunnis and Shiites.

Furthermore, when dealing with the wars of religion, we all know that these wars involved far more issues than simply whether the warring sides believed in transubstantiation or consubstantiation or in salvation by works or by faith alone. All these wars have significant economic, social and cultural components to them as well. On many an occasion the faith was used as a surrogate for venal power grabs by both secular and religious leaders.

As for the shoring up of catechetical teachings with Scripture by all denominations, well, we all know that the devil can quote Scripture. And I'm not sure that all misinformation about the RCC is wilful. Even Catholics don't agree about what their Church believes or requires. But let's face it, non-Catholics aren't called "Protestant" for nothing, so again I'm not willing to assume that their disagreements with the Church arise out of a lack of proper humility.

Basically, I would still like to sound a mild note of opposition to the view that doctrinal disputation -- on big or small issues -- cannot arise from the fact that one view is simply right and all the others are just as simply wrong. To be sure, on many matters we can be dealing with shades of grey or with questions that are beyond our knowing. But I will not readily acknowledge that on certain matters of faith it is improper or not in tune with Christian humility to be righteously insistent upon the truth of one's beliefs.

Take the martyrs, for instance. Is it pride that leads them to the stake or the gallows or the firing squad? After all, most martyrs are offered a chance to recant and admit that they are (or might be) wrong. Would Christian humility require them to submit?

And although I am one of the first to advocate that religious discussions be conducted with respect for the other, there are some views held by others that deserve no respect whatsoever: human sacrifice and polygamy come to mind.

Reply Quote

galantarie

ACTS OF VIOLENCE

#12

[-]

Member

Posts: 7066

Jan 29 08 11:15 PM

Member

"UNICORN" said this above:

Quote:
Sadly, there were quite a few folks from the Catholic Church from ages past who didn't hesitate to "bash" those who didn't share our faith -- take the Crusades, for example;

I whole-heartedly disagree on this subject of the Crusades; as well as the Gnostics, Abesinginians, Cathars, and even the 16th Century French Calvinists [sorry "Mag6nidium"], and 17th Century Jansenists...(and in reference to just what "RCESQ" said above about the practices of the AZTECS and Maya and other waring-bloody and truly unhealthy-traditions of some indiginous peoples)!
(Unlike other times maybe of unjustified provocation)!...In these particular cases, The Church did not initiate the conflict. The very survival and Life of the Holy Roman Church was truly at stake! I truly believe such action against those groups, as well as the Crusades, was initiated by Christ Himself....And, are we (as Christians) suppose to keep the rest of mankind in darkness?; or, are we mandated to instruct mankind in the pure light of His unbounding truth for ALL MEN.
Fr. George Rutler gave a wonderful instruction on this subject.
-------------------------------------------------------
Now: In the case of the Crusades, more and more frequently, Christian pilgrims were being ambushed and murdered in the Holy Land, denied access to Holy sites, and Holy shrines were being destroyed by Muslem/Islamic Fundamentalists. The Church of the Nativity was literally "buried"; and the Church of the Holy Selpulchar needed to be rebuilt. Spain, and the whole lower Mediterannean was being "over-run" by Jahadists who were forcing their faith onto all subjudcated conquered lands in the name of Mohammed/ "Allah".
Christianity was in peril (even across the boot of Italy); and even Christian woman were being abducted and sent to far-off harems!
Pope Urban was not a war-monger; but a great man of compassion.
St. Bernard explained why the so-called "crusade " was a vital neccessity to the Life of the Church.

Two-hundred years prior to the Crusades, if it was not for the valiance of Charlemagne, Europe would neither be Christian or united. There would not have resulted in latter years the great universities and Cathedrals we are so much in awe of today. Charlemagne was a great champion of education, as well as "Defender of the Church"...despite the resulting split between Byzantium and the Western Heilige Romanishe-Reich .

Sometimes, Christians do need to PHYSICALLY defend themselves and stand for the principles Christ endowed us with.
It may seem like a contradiction to those who see Christ as a pacifist...and point to the martyrs of the early years of the Church.
BUT, I truly believe that St. Constantine did see that Cross in the Sky. His forces were victorious; and that is why we still have Christ's Church Universal with us to this very day.
Sometimes evil must be combatted by the unfortunate sword; but only when (and in cases) where dialogue has fully lost its ability to end a conflict....And, in the case of the Crusades, unfortunately, that WAS the case....

_________________
P.S: I also came to this thread late; as my computer did not pick this discussion up, or even list it until this night!

"I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."
[Ratzinger:"Salt of the Earth"]

May Our Papa's radiant-light continuously shine forth to illuminate Christ for the world!

Reply Quote

mag6nideum

Re: ACTS OF VIOLENCE

#13

[-]

Member

Posts: 2856

Jan 30 08 8:37 AM

Quote:
These are internecine feuds. I'm not so sure they have direct connections to questions of doctrine as such or whether questions of doctrine become connected to such aspects of the human condition as clan and tribal membership or the wielding of power and authority

Hi, Rcesq: I agree with your view here, perhaps to a large extent. But this has not always been the case.

Anyhow, the case of Luther (as an example) was very quickly taken up by certain German princes and leaders of the many small principalities that formed the "Germany" of the 16th century. They gave the Reformation in Germany force and momentum. I've read somewhere that the word "Protestant" derives from the fact that these German prince-electors who backed the reformation loudly protested against the Reichstag's measures to squash the reformation movement, and that's the origin of the designation "Protestant", which I don't like at all, because it has this political aura.

rcesq, I have no quarrel with anyone standing up for the core beliefs of the Christian faith. I'm not a wishy-washy relativist, especially with regard to non-Christians. That is why I have admiration for Joseph Ratzinger. It is the in-fights within Christianity that concerns me. The kind of never-ending nit-picking that one sees on some blogs where name calling and character murder seem to be the sport of the day. And most of this takes place around questions of doctrine. The perpetrators are mostly amateurs, lay persons. They don't seem to have learnt anything from the very high level of search for the truth that do - thanks heavens - occur these days in the theological field and on certain ecumenical commissions. There I do detect much more charity and humility for the simple reason that those guys are fully aware that the Church of Christ should be One Body. By virtue of their thorough training they also show much more understanding of the differences in principles and Biblical exegesis that motivated the different confessions in Christianity.

Galantarie, you are correct. The Crusades have a complex history. And the Islam certainly was not innocent in this history. A pity some of those Crusades were organised so haphazardly that control over the Crusaders were at times completely lost so that some crazy bloodshedding took place. We'll never hear the end of it, while the Islam is handled with kid gloves today out of fear and political correctness in the West.

About the French Calvinists I've probably heard only one side of the story. I've long ago decided not to go too deeply into these matters, it is too upsetting for a modern person. But I do know of the famous massacre of St Bartholomew's Night (24 August 1572) in Paris, when thousands of Protestants were killed - in one night. This spread to other towns in France. Thousands of French Protestants at last fled France and 200 of them reached the Cape (and I therefore have French Huguenot-blood!). But I also know about the history of the reformation in England where Catholic blood flowed. And if I think of the dissolution of the monasteries, the destruction of art works and Catholic beauty I just see red.

So, yea, I still plead for more openness, charity and humility all round, and I'm happy to see it in the theological world. Let's hope some of it will trickle down to grass roots level, without creating relativist wimps.

Reply Quote

Unicorn

Re: ACTS OF VIOLENCE

#14

[-]

Member

Posts: 2673

Jan 30 08 9:47 AM

Galantarie, let me assure you that I am well aware of the reasons -- spiritual and otherwise -- behind the Crusades, as well as of the many travails of pilgrims to the Holy Land during those very difficult times, as I am equally well aware of the roles of Constantine and Charlemagne in the history of the Church.

That being said, as Mag6 has aptly pointed out, the history of the Crusades is both very complex, and very painful. And a part of that painful history is the fact that the leaders were often not able to control their soldiers as firmly as they should have -- hence the bloodletting, particularly during the Siege of Jerusalem, which took place during the First Crusade (and should be differentiated from the Siege of Jerusalem of 1187 when, tragically, the city fell to Saladin's armies).

There is a Latin document called the "Gesta Francorum" written by a knight in the party of Bohemund of Taranto which provides a particularly graphic (at least to my mind) account of the Siege, where even the women and the Jews residing therein at the time were killed by the Crusaders. Somehow, I think that our Lord Himself was profoundly grieved at the death of the innocent in that heartbreaking siege, which was carried out for the noblest of intentions -- to defend the Holy Land -- and yet degenerated into such terrible bloodshed.

(Note: For interested readers, selections from the Gesta Francorum can be read from this link provided by the Fordham University website: Gesta Francorum)

I wholeheartedly agree that a Christian should defend his Faith, and defend it by physical means, if it is absolutely necessary. But let it not be in such a manner that so many of the innocent -- though they may not be Christian -- lose their lives in the process, or in such a way that leads us to abandon the teachings of Christian charity and mercy. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming like the very "enemies" against whom we endeavor to defend the Faith.

Quote:
We'll never hear the end of it, while the Islam is handled with kid gloves today out of fear and political correctness in the West.

Sadly, Mag6, this is very true. The thing is, the Church has already acknowledged, and asked forgiveness for, its "sins" -- hence the truly historic document "Memory and Reconciliation". Will we ever hear anything of the sort from Islam? Somehow I doubt it ... they themselves are embroiled in the sort of bloody conflicts that Christianity found itself similarly embroiled in at least 500 years ago! Methinks they still have a long way to go in settling their own differences, and I doubt if anyone will even dare to really speak about the atrocities committed by the Saracens and the Turks, all supposedly in the name of Allah (a case in point is the Armenian genocide in the early years of the 20th Century, which is still being denied by Turkey). Heaven knows that there are precious few voices raised within the Islamic community itself against the lack of reciprocity for Christians in Muslim states.

Quote:
It is the in-fights within Christianity that concerns me. The kind of never-ending nit-picking that one sees on some blogs where name calling and character murder seem to be the sport of the day. And most of this takes place around questions of doctrine. The perpetrators are mostly amateurs, lay persons.

I quite agree, Mag6. Benodette has already mentioned one such instance, i.e., the sea of vitriol that was heaped on Archbishop Marini upon his retirement.

That's the irony of it all ... the "amateurs" who carry on such lamentable arguments on doctrine, the liturgy, and other higher theological issues probably haven't had all that much theological and doctrinal education in the first place, and yet they sound and act as if they know all there is to know about a certain doctrine or dogma -- and heaven help those who disagree with them! What they are doing, whether they realize it or not, is actually a disservice to the Faith.

I'll always believe that there are better and more charitable ways to defend our Faith, without having to compromise the fundamental truths of Christianity, and we must never cease to seek such ways. Karol Wojtyla, and now Joseph Ratzinger, are truly inspiring examples that this can be done and done magnificently, and we are blessed that they have been called to the See of Peter, to show us how, in truly living and defending our Faith with courage, intelligence, commitment and humility, we can "become perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

--------------------
Proud to be Papist!

"Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved ..." - Benedict XVI

"He knocks at the door, he is close to us and thus true joy is close, which is stronger than all the sorrows in the world, and in our life." - Benedict XVI

Reply Quote

galantarie

Re: ACTS OF VIOLENCE

#15

[-]

Member

Posts: 7066

Jan 30 08 10:26 PM

Member

"Mag6nidium" states she never looked into the other side of the tale. I below give a small glympse, concerning:

The "Thirty Years War", and this period of religious strife in France, which "Mag6nidium" refers to above; and which I have condensed from "Miniatures of French History" by Hilaire Belloc:

The Dutchman, Cornelius Jansen was born in 1585, and was educated in Louvain and Paris. Jansen was influenced by writings of Michel deBay (1513-1589), a friend of Jean duVergier deHauranne (1581-1643) the chaplain of Port Royale Convent [who was righteously damned by Pope Urban VIII, whose famous moto/emblem were the worker bees], writer of "Augustinus", an attack on the Jesuit Ordre.
Jansenists sought to destroy freedom of will, refused grace as a gift from Jesus to all men (believing rather that the flesh and man were always sinful, and could not be redeemed by the death of Christ). The Jansenists claimed that Christ died only for those predestined to Salvation!
(What indeed was a great heresy!) It all began with the sick and debauched family of Mdme. Arnald and her children; and spread throughout Port Royale. They were against dancing, theater and the divine nature of man. From them, the Calvinists were also influenced:...and they too wrongly believed in predestination...again saying that only a few were intended to be saved. They too preached against free-will. To them [1] man was doomed by Adam, [2] not redeemed through Christ, [3] one should never question one's faith..being totally distrustful of Reason, and, [4] said what the Jesuit Fathers taught was semi-Pelegian.
M. de St. Cyrian duVergier, a really troublesome fanatic, sailed to Port Royale because Cardinal Richelieu in Vincennes [1638] and Pope Urban [1642] condemned the Jansenists/Calvinist doctrines [hopefully to bring their heretic movement to an end]. Most of the Jansenists fled to Holland* with Utrecht as their capital to escape penalizations.
Wisely, Pope Clement XI [1649-1721] closed their convent at Port Royale ["The Lord's Vineyard"]. The Jesuits, the great soldiers of Roman-Catholicism, tried to spread the nobility of mankind, proclaimed that salvation is for ALL [that Christ shed His Blood for all mankind], and sought to preserve the free will of men (saying pre-ordination is correct, but NOT predestination); and, that free-will was man's key to moral responsibility and concept of sin.
As a result of the Jesuit preaching, the Armenians rejoined the Mother Church, but Jansenists, Huguenots and Puritans were deported....

By the organizing genius of Cardinal Richelieu and then Cardinal Mazarin (who succeeded him in 1643), peace was restored to a distracted Europe by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648....By this treaty of Westphalia, France was confirmed in the possession of Alsace and the Bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun. Salzburg, Austria became the religious capital of the Hapsburgs.
________________________________
*: This included the family of my Maternal grandfather, the Carn 's from Avignon.

: Richelieu was buried in the Chapel of Sorbonne

Quote:
which his magnificence had built.
In the Revolution, a butcher's boy (the grave having been rifled) stole his embalmed head. It had many adventures; but in our time was purchased from its last collector and now is attached to its trunk most decently re-interred.

So ends Hilaire Belloc's account of Cardinal Richelieu, [1929]
Below, I quote from Belloc's Introductory to his marvelous biography of Richelieu:

Quote:
...It is the permanent deflection of Europe from his time to ours, into a state which leaves Christians divided doubly: which has broken Christiandom into a mosaic of nationalities: which has erected the worship of nationality into a religion usurping the ancient religion whereby Europe came to be: and which has left a line of cleavage between the Catholic and the Protestant culture which has become a gulf increasing before our eyes....Were men to-day sufficiently aware of the chaos into which Christiandom has fallen, such a study would be superfluous....But is is true that the will of man directs the fate of man, collectively as well as individually, and ...."

Read also Belloc's "How the Reformation Happened".
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The heartbreaking story of James Stuart II of England should also be read in the rendition of the great historian Hilaire Belloc.
Also, if one wants to read about EXTREME, unbelievably cruel religious intolerance with Hitleristic-extermination, read the book:
"A Great and Noble Scheme", by John Mack Faragher.

"I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."
[Ratzinger:"Salt of the Earth"]

May Our Papa's radiant-light continuously shine forth to illuminate Christ for the world!

Reply Quote

mag6nideum

Re: ACTS OF VIOLENCE

#16

[-]

Member

Posts: 2856

Jan 31 08 1:19 PM

HTML Comments are not allowed

Reply Quote

mag6nideum

Re: ACTS OF VIOLENCE

#17

[-]

Member

Posts: 2856

Jan 31 08 5:23 PM

I don't believe it!! A post that took me two hours to finish has just disappeared when I edited it - and this message appeared instead: "HTML comments not allowed." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

What did I do wrong?? I'll never have faith in this system again! Groan, groan, groan....grrr

Reply Quote

galantarie

Eeek! Her Posting disappeared....

#18

[-]

Member

Posts: 7066

Jan 31 08 5:40 PM

Member

It has unfortunately happened to many of us, many times:...Remember poor "UNICORN" 's horror?
I learned my lesson, to copy the message before hitting the ADD REPLY button. I feel for you "Mag6nidium"!!

To go back to my former posting, here is some of what I wanted to say about the plight of the CAJUNS, and the almost destruction of the Jesuit Ordre as well. (The info was from an old 18-04-2001 posting of mine, gathered from info prior to 45 years ago! I try to save all things relating to my life....):

Then in 1648 the Huron Nation was totally destroyed by the pagan Iroquois through an emissary of the Dutch mandate: demanding that the Huron must be destroyed. Raqueneau son of Charles l, said, "We cannot hope but to follow him [Father Daniel] in the burning path which he had trod; but we would gladly suffer for the Glory of the Master whom we serve."

Chief Massasoit [of the ill-fated Pequot tribe] had two sons, Alexander and Philip. Many of the Massasoit's people were converted to Christianity by the preaching of Father Champlain.

In 1648, aged but 15 years, James Stuart ll escaped from civil torn England, and entered into the army of King Louis lV of France.
England and Holland were for centuries trade rivals; and France fought both Holland and Spain.

Many native Americans were also converted by Massachsetts' John Elliot back since 1646.
Elliott established a Christian church in those 'Indian" territories by 1660. He translated into Alogonquin the complete Bible; traveling among the Indians, helping the sick and the afflicted, planting numerous Indian churches and saw 24 of his converts become "ministers." But, unlike the Jesuit missionaries who demanded nothing but allegiance to Christ, Elliot"s converts were still forced to pay a yearly tribute of $486 to the King of England. One of Elliot's Christian
Indian preachers was John Sassamon. Three other Indians were accused of murdering him; and were thus executed! The English were cruel to the Indians; and, many Indian women and Children were made slaves to the English. Some were sold to the Spanish in the West Indies. And even Philip's son [grandson of Chief Massasoit] was made a slave in the Bermuda Islands. Others fled to the Catholic Canadian tribes.
In 1663, Controller Colbert of France (with his French tax reforms)
built-up the French Navy and Merchant Marines.

Eventually James Stuart ll became Duke of York; and, initiated the siezure of New Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664.

In 1667, Arcadia became firmly French.

The Duke of York's brother, King Charles ll of Greater Britain and Ireland, proud of his Norman heritage, signed the Treaty of Dover in 1670. Louis XlV gave Charles ll a subsidy enabling Charles ll to refurbish his army and meet state expenditures. The Duke of York strengthened his brother Charles' desire for a permanent standing army whilst still in service to Louis XlV. [To the Dutch, this looked like an enormous threat!]
Indeed, the French pushed northward into Grandpre.

Philip [son of Chief Massasoit] was shot in the back; supposedly by an Indian sympathetic to the English cause in 1676. In New England, the Pequot Indians were massacred by the English settlers.

In 1678, the Dutch instigated, by infiltration [espionage and internal intrigue], a story that the French were to murder Charles ll and place his brother James on the throne. A purjured testimony by Titus Oates sent a score of innocent Catholics to death....
In 1682, James helped in the remodeling of borough corporations and county governments in the British Isles, creating lord lieutenancies, deputy lieutenancies, and magistaries...
[Read about Robert de Cavalier, Sieur delaSalle through the year 1684.] And, by 6 February 1685, James, Duke of York, indeed did become King James ll, upon his brother's demise....
James ll prolonged the Parliamentary session of November 1685. Catholics were finally admitted to the privy council, given commissions in the army, and once again were permitted to hold office in State Universities [previously held only by members of the Anglican Church]. <READ " AN INSTANCE OF THE FINGERPOST" by Ian Pears.>
In July 1687, in order to reprieve the Test Act, James ll dissolved Parliament's Summer Session. By, September, acting in a legal decision on the case "Godden vs Hales" where non-Anglican Protestants were permitted to hold offices, Roman-Catholics and Jews too could secure posts. (If possible, read
the history of the Bassano Family and their role in the British Conservatoirs of Musique of the late-Seventeenth Century!) And so, James ll secured a new Parliament.
James ll held a genuine belief in religious toleration as a matter of principle. By the Winter of '87, James ll established an anti-nobility and gentry policy. He issued a Declaration of Indulgence [inwhich his subjects were given the free exercise of religion; and thereby separate Church from State].
In 1688, seven Anglican bishops petitioned against James ll. In June 1688, a son was born to King James ll.
William lll of Orange [Holland] who was the husband of James' daughter Mary; [ also the Stadholder of the Dutch Republic], felt threatened by the birth of his "brother-in-law"!
....or, I should say Mary felt threatened she'd loose any chance at "power" in the realm; and, instigated her husband [who already despised the English and Catholics ] to ensurp the English throne....knowing that under James ll, France had an ally, and...that Louis lVX would be a greater threat to the Dutch [Hapburgian] schemes.
By September 1688, James ll declined Louis lVX's offer of assistance....
Now, the Dutch were infiltrating the English Parliament's Whig and Tory Parties.
With anti-French supporters [who used the plight of the Huguenots as an excuse]
and playing-upon the general English people's prejudices, the average Englishman/woman was duped into believing he was being "liberated' from a Catholic King who held his allegiance to the Pope. Their liberator/messiah would be William lll and his "conquering armies" ( who couldn't even speak English)! William, husband of Mary, landed with his forces on 5 November 1688. James attempted to flee to France; but, was intercepted at Kent on 21 December, 12 days after 'escaping".
On the 22nd of February 1689, the Convention-Parliament put out a false pretext that James ll abdicated and deserted his people and throne "for the Jesuits". In turn the Anglican Church reinstated its supremacy as the Church of State. William lll reinstated the Test Act, began throwing the French out of New Foundland (French Acadia, as I wrote of above), and initiated the Irish bondage
and thus began upon Ulster, all those troublesome centuries of woes.

Also, in 1689, the English under William lll of Orange [Mary's husband], invaded beautiful Arcadie....also believed to have been named after the native American word for Pollack Fish
[the Aquoddie] but I rather think it was after ancestral ties....

In 1689, James ll, in horror of the events and so-called "English atrocities" of William lll's powerful reign that betook his homeland, tried to regain his throne with Irish and French supporters, which he roused while obediently residing as a humble lay-clergyman in the custody of French Jesuits cloistered in northern France. After-all, although William lll was his son-in-law, William lll was a Dutchman at that; after the order of the type he [as Duke of York] had thrown-out of New York!
The Jansenist and Calvinists in Holland in this same year formed the "Union of Utrecht. [More than 175 years later, the "Treaty of Utrecht" made them one body.]
The French Fleet defeated the English and Dutch at the Battle of Beachy Head in June 1690. But, William lll defeated James ll at The Battle of the Boyne, on the 11th of July 1690.
Immediately, Louis XlV ordered his subjects in Arcadie to drive-out the English invaders!

Then James ll indeed did take a lay position with Jesuits who sheltered him whilst
in Exile in Northern France [even as centuries before the Clunists succored a shelter for St. Thomas of Cantebury].

Hatred between the English whites and the Canadian "Indians" was heightened by the ruthless acts of English genocidal attitudes; and people like Hannah Dustin [who in March 1697 killed three Indian women, two men and five children, in their sleep]....Mrs. Dustin forced a child, Samuel Lenardson, to shoot one of the women. Initially, on their bloodbath, one Indian woman escaped, though she was severely bleeding from Tomehawk wounds, with a little Indian boy....but Mrs. Dustin cold-heartedly found them; and slaughtered them! Then she returned
and took all ten bloody scalps (which the family kept for generations in a linnencloth) as something they were very proud-of!!

History shows that the "English" went full-force against the French, and we see the beginnings of the War of the League of Augsburg! Irish were starved, exploited and subjected. Irish commerce was regulated and ruined; whilst all but the Protestant inhabitants of the "Unhappy Isle" were shut-off from their share in their own government. The determination to hold the Erin subjects impoverished was founded on the fear that Eire would go in league with the Stuarts and other anti-Hapsburgians on the Continent, and try to regain the English throne.
This sacrifice of Justice to expediency sowed a bitter heritage of discord; and Irish have eversince been in bondage, tutalgion and subjugation in Northern Ireland to the English authorities, who were really Dutchmen!
The "Treaty of Rijswijk" [1697] concluded the "War of the League of Augsburg",
and ended James ll's legal claim to the English throne.

In 1700, Charles ll of Spain died, with neither children nor brothers to succeed him; and willed his dominions to the grandson of Louis XlV.

James Stuart ll died the 16th September 1701
in St.Germaine, France [as a cloistered, holy man in exile].

The War of Spanish Succession broke-out in 1702 when Louis attempted to enforce the claim of his grandson.

Anne, James ll's other daughter, remaining in Scotland, permitted 45 representatives from Scotland to the English House of Commons, and 16 to the House of Lords. She became Queen upon the death of her brother-in law William lll.
In Canada, by the year 1710, the English took Port Royal. This act of Union was only stated in responses to the so-called "French-threat" of the War of the Spanish Succession [1701-13];
because of the ever-present threat in their minds that the French Army would try to regain the throne for the Stuarts [ though, in truth, Louis aided the Stuarts out of COMPASSION].
By the Peace Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, made with Louis lV, the grandson of Louis XlV was permitted to occupy the Spanish throne, on the condition that France and Spain never should be united, and the English took rule of Acadia [Canada] out of Port Royal calling it Annapolis.
The Electress of Sophia's Hanover Hapsburgian son, George, took over the English throne upon Anne's [ Mary's sister's] death in 1714.
And, so it was that the Scots in 1715 rose in disgust unsuccessfully...and to this
the tragedy of the Bonnie Prince Charlie, caused the British to have a German King....a FACT which Hitler tried to take advantage-of with the sympathies of the Duke of Windsor in the 20th century, who abdicated when Hitler was obviously the War's loser....
But, as with any incident in history, it also brought to England, personages as Haendel, who benefited England; as well as the historically enriching visits of Haydn and vanBeethoven...but THAT IS ANOTHER STORY for some-other time!....

The Protestant English would not tolerate the French Catholics, even though the treaty said they would. Neither would the English tolerate the French language or traditions. George ordered the Acadian French to swear a loyalty oath to him
knowing their fervent Catholicism made their loyalty first to God and the Roman Pontiff .
In 1726, they only signed on the "word" of their new English governor, that they could remain neutral in a war if England fought France or the Indian Nations of the New World. The innocent Acadians did not know that the Governor's word was worthless, in lieu of 16,000 Acadians. The English constantly taughted the Acadians; the Acadians were closer to the Mimac Indians than the English.
They loved and lived with their land;, and, they were respected by the native Americans. The English were jealous as to how well the Acadians managed to live in the "primitive wiles". Like the Hebrews in Egypt, which the English likened them to [under the reign of the Newts and Wesets], the Acadians, under English tyranny, grew numerous and appeared, more and more in English eyes, to be a threat. When War officially broke-out between France and England, a few Acadians managed to leave Acadia for territory still under French Claim and Jurisdiction, and, took up arms for France!

Hostilities began appropriately enough in America as a result over the dispute over possession of the Ohio Valley. Soon the whole question of British or French domination of North America was involved.

The while in France, Pasquile Quesnal [1634-1719] author of "Moral Reflections on the New Testament" [1687-94] was influencing Blais Pascal. Pope Clement Xl in 1715 damned this movement as "of one race" with the heretic Jansenists of the immediate past.

In 1748, there was the so-called peace treaty of Aux la Chapelle [which only resulted in the English treating Cajuns more cruelly]! English felt the Cajuns couldn't be trusted. Again they accused the Jesuit Catholic Priests of being spies! [Boy does this sound familiar; as if were talking about 21st Century Ulster!] In 1743 the English had placed an add in the London Gazette; and 4000 English came to settle in Halifax. Since the English couldn't get along with the Indians as the Cajuns did so well; the English blamed the Cajuns for all their troubles [Gee this sounds like pre-WW ll Germany!] with the Micmac Indians.
In 1749, Governor Cornwallis demanded not only loyalty oaths from the Cajuns; but, that they should fight their French-blooded brethren, if a war should break-out. [Previously, in 1726, they were promised in such a case, neutrality.]
The French built Fort Beau Sejour, in New Brunswick, near their border. Arcadian representatives appealed to Governor Cornwallis to let their people go [similar to Moses] to French Canada. Cornwallis forbade them; not only insisting they remain, but also made them under "house-arrest" prisoners in their own homes. Some Cajuns escaped. Governor Hopson continued the Marshall Law.
In 1752 George Washington (aged 21) was asked to go into the French Ohio Territory and speak with the French Commandant. He took one of his former teachers with him to act as interpreter. Washington, being young and observant was also "misled" in his ideals, so he said latter-on, when he led the American forces of the American Revolution against the English.

It was LaSalle in the 17th Century who sailed down the Ohio and claimed the territory as fertile missionary grounds in the Name of France, "Eldest Daughter of the Church". The English obviously had no deed or claim of any sort on the land. The English had no rights to give Virginians land tracks in the Ohio Territory. The English governor of Virginia, Dinwiddy, asked George Washington
[as a dupe] to speak with the French General, knowing that the observant young American would furnish him with much information leading to the hopeful eradication of the French when a war would be officially proclaimed. The French General had already died in Winter Quarters before Washington reached the specified fort; but Washington did converse with the new gracious Commandant, Legareur de St. Pierre, Knight of the Ordre of St. Louis. On his journey, Washington came upon perfect place for a fort [the fork of the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers] upon a hill. He also spoke extensively with Shingiss, half chief of the Delaware tribe, and other Indians of importance as Monakatoocha. He also met four French deserters from a company of ten, who traveled with eight canoes and supplies to bring stores to their Lake Eerie Fort. They described to Washington, in detail, the small four forts between New Orleans and the Black Islands, as having 30 to 40 men. Shingiss had just met with the French Commandant in the forts of Presque Isle on the Eerie, and Fort LeBoeuf
on French Creek. He also told him about the French-Catholic Indian Nations
[the Chippaways, Ottoways and Orundaks] fighting the English. [In fact, Washington accumulated all the necessary information to guarantee an English victory.]
Washington dismissed as ignorance the reasons for the Indians friendship with the French; he said that the Indians did not meddle in "white-man's affairs" unless it was forged upon them.
Captain Joncaire was the man totally in charge of French-Indian affairs. Along with Msr. Riparti, the French Commandant made many sincere promises of love and friendship; living in peace and trading with the natives, and a respect for the newly emerging breed of "Americans". As a gesture of friendship, the Commandant sent down to Washington's quarters in Loggs-town, many goods and provisions, particularly to the Indians. Washington stated that the Commandant was "extremely complacent" with him and his men; treating him and his men very generously with presents, love, commeradady and awards to Shingiss and the people of the Delaware. Washington reported too, "He told me that the city belonged to them; that no English had the right to trade upon those waters." The French traded by treaty; they were given Montreal to settle in, and other lands they could trap and navigate BUT NOT SETTLE. The English ONLY
looked for settlements and expansion of land possession.
In 1754, the Governor of English Canada became Charles Lawrence, major of the English infantry, a chancellor in Governor Cornwallis' Cabinet and Lt. Governor of Nova Scotia. [This Cornwallis was the Uncle to the General defeated by Washington in Yorktown.] Lawrence picked-upon Father LeLoutre.
He claimed New Brunswick for England.
When George Washington was 23, he accompanied the ill-fated General Braddock Company. Washington was the only one who came out unscathed. At this time, June 1755, Governor Lawrence, with the English Governor of Massachusetts, William Shirley, sent 2000 troops to wipe-out Beau Sejour.
After succeeding, Governor Lawrence began shooting all Cajuns who would not fight for England. Lawrence ordered Captain Hanfield of Port Royal (Annapolis) and Capt. Alexander Murray of Windsor, to meet at the English Fort Edward in Windsor. From there he expounded to them the "Grandpre Extermination".
English Colonel Mocton, in charge at Beau Sejour, seized all Cajuns without trial.
Colonel Winslow of Massachusetts was ordered to march on Grandpre. The French settlements of Minas, Cobequid, Riviere aux Canards were all invaded by English troops. THE CAJUNS WERE MURDERED IN THEIR OWN HOMELAND by invaders. Those Cajuns, who had "by the sweat of the own brow" built their homes and cultivated their lands for generation AND BY TREATY IN PEACE WITH THE NATIVE TRIBES; who carved beauty out of the wilderness, had been invaded by power-hungry English! The Native Americans felt the very same way; they were treated by the English in a similar manner the
English treated their Cajun brothers. The Cajuns never took anything from the Indians. They lived side by side. They treated one-another as equals, mixed with them; and even took each others language and customs. The Cajuns felt the land was for everyone; and the Micmac's saw that the Cajuns used the land wisely. The Indians cared little that the Cajuns worked part of their land; the Cajuns had not come as conquerers. The English were different.: They were possessive; they believed themselves superior. They wanted things only their way. [To the English, the Indians were dirty savages; neither were the Cajuns their equals. They insisted upon creating a Canada and the American Colonies completely English.] The English made code and ruthless plans....

Without any real orders from the English King, Lawrence ordered all Cajun males over the age of 10, to appear at the village Church of St. Charles.. the same scene took place in Annapolis, Minas, Winsor, all over Arcadiana. There were 1800 men and boys at the Church in Grandpre. "Fat" Colonel Winslow spoke: "Your land and tenements, cattle and all kinds of livestock of all sorts, are forfeited to the crown"....all would be taken, even their pets!. Only what they could lightly and feasibly carry upon themselves, would they be allowed to carry-off with them, as they would be exiled from Canada in due time by English vessels; and meanwhile they were still under house-arrest! Those at the Church
could not go home to their women-folk and children to warn or tell them; nor at all prepare for their fate! The Cajun men and boys were put under guard in the various Churches were they were at.
At this very same time, Englishmen were searching their homes, raping their women, and seizing all weaponry. Without their men, many of the Cajuns families died of starvation; 34 families in Grandpre alone became severely sick. When Winslow seemingly sympathetic permitted a few Cajun men to return to their families [with a death sentence put upon the others if they didn't return in specified time] to inform and help the sick women. [Most men and boys were still locked-up in the Churches.] Those who did "run away" in Annapolis were
tracked-down; very few escaped into the woods. The English soldiers burned their homes, crops, and drove-off their cattle. This caused any run aways to die of starvation and exposure in the wilderness; still a few were helped by the Micmacs who hid them from the English. In Cumberland alone, the English burned 253 homes, and their vast wheat, flax and hay fields. Then they began pushing the men and boys onto ill-equipped "ships"...161 at a time. [And this went on for months.] Families were totally separated; people were herded together like cattle [WHOEVER SAID HITLER WAS THE FIRST]. The English were deliberately cruel to them. Mass suffering occurred; babies were torn from their mothers and trampled-upon, or just "killed out-of-fun" by the English!
A few that did manage to escape, assimilated with the Micmac Indians and other friendly tribes.
The English had to get rid of the Cajuns to fulfill their dream of power and increase in the New World: their predestination of enlargement of the British Empire. This was just 20 years prior to the Yankee revolt!
The French citizenry were powerless to do anything, yet....

Those Cajuns who were shipped to the American colonies [as Virginia], were kept under lock and key by the English officials. They weren't permitted to wander around and find work. Crowds of them were herded into warehouses
and guarded by English soldiery. The Cajuns were kept in unsanitary, inhuman and squalid conditions; inwhich so many became ill and died. The English were afraid of the Cajuns. They said Cajuns would set a bad example for their slaves and Negroes; whom the Cajuns felt espoused to. Some American born families did help them as much as they could under the threatening circumstances and
English climate. Even prominent planters, as George Washington, young and just returned, were almost persuaded to help them. [There were many who had no love for England, or the crown.] Ideas about a free America and United States were already stirring and circulating because of boys like John Adams. In France, Lafayette was but eight years old. Ben Franklin openly admired the French people and spirit. The English were getting "sticky" over their American cousins!...

The Seven Years War [1756-1763] reached proportions of what virtually amounted to a world conflict....English colonial forces strove for dominating a mastery not only of America, but also over India, and the Far East.

In 1759, the French under General Montcalm, were defeated by the English by September. That battle decided for North America that its civilization should be English.

Le Sieur de Montcalm on the night of his death was told of his mortal wounds. He replied "he was glad of it" [dying]..."so much the better...I am happy I shall not live to see the surrender of Quebec." To his principle officers he said, " I wish you all comfort, and to be happily extricated from your present perplexities."...

[The French cause lost in America], the French missionary effort could only be found on the tiny islands off of New Foundland, Guadeloupe and a few other possessions in the West Indies and a portion of French Guiana in South America.

In 1765, Virginia began to protest English tyranny. They finally began to think of themselves as Virginians, not Englishmen. They knew enough about the English and English atrocities; since many men and boys were recently in the service of the English.

Rat infested, and vessels loaded down with scurvy were sent to England with many incarcerated Cajuns. Many believed that once they reached England, they could redress the English King their grievances and be permitted to reenter France. One of these vessels, the "Excelsior" sank with 300 aboard. [Their vessels hardly made it.]
Upon the high seas, because of the American Revolution, and other assorted English fears, 1200 Cajuns upon entering England, were locked-up in Newgate and other English prisons. The Cajuns were considered prisoners of war; since English were technically still at war with the French [but, the Cajuns weren't French citizens!]. Some Cajuns were forced while under guard to work on English farms [similar to Nazi slave agricultural laborers] while the Englishmen who were out of the farms being drafted into English service in the "colonies", to fight the French there, and eventually the so-called American Patriots and Yankees. The Cajuns were always under close guard and had no privacy.

Some of the Cajuns who remained in the Americas, escaped or boarded ships for the Indies; always hoping for freedom. A few were lucky to find a refuge in South Louisiana and keep their identity!
Britain, with the exception of Louisiana, which France turned over to Spain for her help and part in the War [but was given back under Bonaparte, and in turn was sold to the newly formed United States Republic for 15 million dollars because of the near bankruptcy of the French economy of 1815----the result of the Treaty of Vienna] ruled all the rest; becoming the mightiest Empire on this earth!
Although France was permitted her trading privileges in India; she was forbidden to build any forts or maintain any troops even in India. France's treasury was depleted, her trade almost ruined, and all the chances for the French cause of Catholic conversions practically completely shattered.

In 1773, surrendering finally to a 20 year capaign of intrigues an calumny, Pope Clement XlV ordered the Ordre of the Jesuit Society, formerly the bulwark of the Church, it's Official right-hand, and its most highly regarded arm of missionary might and educational zeal, severed! The driving force behind this were the writers and thinkers of the New French "Enlightenment" movement, agnostics and athiests. Voltaire wrote: "Once we have destroyed the Jesuits, we should have easy work with the Church."The only friend the Jesuits had left was Catherine the Great of Russia. Thanks to her, in the next century the Jesuit Ordre was eventually reestablished; and also, in the 20th Century, by the gratitude of Our Holy Mother, who requested that Russia should be consecrated unto Her [READ ABOUT FATIMA, PORTUGAL], Russia was spared from communistic tyranny and oppression. ____________________________________________

"I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."
[Ratzinger:"Salt of the Earth"]

May Our Papa's radiant-light continuously shine forth to illuminate Christ for the world!

Reply Quote

rcesq

Bloody History Signifying What?

#19

[-]

Posts: 2107

Feb 1 08 3:54 AM

Galantarie: I appreciate the time and effort you have obviously taken to repost your summary of 150 years of European and North American history, but I must confess that I am not entirely sure of the point you wish to make. Are you agreeing with me that the bloody wars which occur periodically throughout Western society are only to some degree connected to disputes over doctrinal/religious issues, but that in the main these wars arise for reasons that are economic, political, tribal or cultural? From what I could glean in your lengthy narrative, the Cajuns happened to be Catholics, but the English who persecuted them didn't do so because the Cajuns were Catholic. In other words, the Cajuns were not martyrs for their faith, but victims of a land grab.

Reply Quote

galantarie

Re: Bloody History Signifying What?

#20

[-]

Member

Posts: 7066

Feb 1 08 2:43 PM

Member

You are wrong, "RCESQ". It was a religious "extermination".
They would not tolerate Catholics in their midst in the New World. Each piece of history with the English monarchy was connected...going into the French Monarchy. All was/is connected; even today with Northern Ireland....Just hope they can now keep the "peace"!

P.S.: I lived most of my life in South Louisiana...until I was 36 years old. Believe me, I know....

________________________________________________

"I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."
[Ratzinger:"Salt of the Earth"]

May Our Papa's radiant-light continuously shine forth to illuminate Christ for the world!

Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>


Homepage \| Biography \| Joseph Ratzinger Archives \| Pontificate of Benedict XVI \| In America \| In Israel \| In the UK \| In Mexico & Cuba Benedict Books (in the US) \| Benedict Books (in the UK) \| Fan Club Shop \| Store \| The Forum \| The Benedict Blog

Yuku free message boards

Catholic Teaching and Belief

Catholic Teaching and Belief