Houston, we have a problem...
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,378
    I'm well past being surprised at the number of more-Catholic-than-the-Pope partisans and to the extent sacred music is served I sometimes count myself of your party. I'm only saddened though by obstinacy in the face of an exhortation to charity, and have to assume that many don't have any personal experience of muslim friends or acquaintances. One of my best friends is a Mozart enthusiast who grew up in Turkey and lives in Rotterdam. Before the travel ban he visited and only had to put up with being quizzed about communism; now I'll have to do all the traveling. St David's has headscarved neighbors I used to exchange greetings with; their brothers tell me since 2016 they've had to be wary of showing themselves in their own front yard.
    We hear a lot about 'Islamophobia' today. No doubt much of it is real, and it is shamefully ignorant. But that doesn't make them innocent as lambs.
    As the grandson of a sheep farmer, I'm starting to wonder if my Houston friend has direct experience of lambs either. ;-)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,278
    Islam is a political system cloaked in religion that seeks world domination. Yes, there are some peaceful Muslims. I would count the followers of the Aga Khan among the peaceful, but the mainstream Muslims persecute them. Many Muslims are not peaceful and would like nothing better than to destroy the west and Christianity. Their scripture tells them to move to non-Muslim countries and try to take them over. I do not see how Islam is in any way compatible with western culture. The Byzantines once bragged on their good relations with the Turks. How did that work out for them?
  • ...to move to non=Muslim countries and try to take them over..
    We see it happening before our very eyes. A European Union and a US which have officially turned their backs on their Christian heritage, and are host to fervently believing Muslims who in time will become the dominant demographical group simply by out-breeding the native populations. Our leadership and most of our people are blind to this historical trend. Ha! We thought it was over at Lepanto. They didn't and don't. Our memories are short. Theirs are long. They never forget, and are in no hurry their mission to fulfill - while we worship the golden calf of money and hedonistic commercialism - perhaps slightly paraphrasing how it was said, Apres nous le deluge! Our only hope is a turning back to God. We need desperately leaders with vision and we have none. Not one.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    Charles, old man, I think we can agree here!!!!

    I'll mark my calendar.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,378
    turned their backs on their Christian heritage
    Technically it's a puritan heritage, and we can thank the protestant's mutual distrust for our liberty to celebrate this week's Feast of the Appropriated Saturnalia in popish fashion. I don't believe we can credit Catholicism for equality before the law in other first world countries either: the French right disgraced itself in the Dreyfus affair and only had the briefest of Pétainist interregnum after that, and for all the savagery of ISIS we've never seen an equivalent of the Inquisition.
  • ...we've never seen...
    Savage as was the Inquisition, one might posit that ISIS is/was more than its equal in pure unalloyed savagery and hate. Still, the general thrust of your above comment is spot on.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,728
    We, unlike ISIS, can draw a distinction between Church and State. The Inquisition as a Church court, certainly in its earlier forms, was restrained in its savagery
    Innocent IV, Bull Ad Exstirpanda (May 15, 1252)
    ... are to be coerced ... into confessing ... , although one must stop short of danger to life or limb"
    There also seem to have been a long period in the 'Dark Ages' when Christendom had eliminated the savagery of Classical Roman law, and the death penalty and torture were absent, at least in theory. It was the rediscovery of Classical Rome which brought it back into judicial use. War had of course never been eliminated.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,278
    The Inquisition is over-blown in many minds today. The Spanish Inquisition is well-documented since the Inquisitors were university trained lawyers who kept meticulous records. Thirty five hundred or so were executed in Spain, more for treason and subversion than anything. This was over several centuries. No one was executed for witchcraft since the Spanish lawyers didn't believe in it. In contrast, 25,000 or so would be a more accurate figure for executions in England or France. Keep in mind that the church and state were so closely tied together any treason against one was treason against the other.

    So here we are today. Are we supposed to overlook the murder and mayhem caused by those peaceful Muslims because we have been led by corrupt and sinful politicians who didn't live up to Christian principles?

    What we need are more banners, rainbow flags, banal music and to smoke some good organic compounds with our friends the peaceful Muslims. That will do it.

    As I have said before, we do pretty well in the "gentle as doves" application of scripture. We are dumb as rocks when it comes to being "wise as serpents."
  • >> We hear a lot about 'Islamophobia' today. No doubt much of it is real, and it is shamefully ignorant.

    Hm... ignorance can encompass a lot... take for example an insistence on characterizing Islam as a "religion of peace"... what are we to make of the millions of Moslems all over the world (from governments on down to individuals) who consistently fail to disown, far less protest, ISIS and all the others who perpetrate violence in the name of "Allah"?
    When the silence by these millions is so deafening, year after year, can it be read it as tacit approval? Maybe a shaming term like islamophobia is a bit harsh? I wonder.

    about this >> As I have said before, we do pretty well in the "gentle as doves" application of scripture. We are dumb as rocks when it comes to being "wise as serpents."
    Right, CharlesW
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    Here's an interesting bit about the "savage" Inquisition:

    Henry Kamen was a historian attacking the Spanish inquisition. His views changed after in 1960s he started to work on his 'Spanish Inquisition' book. Based on historical evidence he concluded that the inquisition was not made up of fanatics who rejoiced in torture and executions and that, for example, Inquisition gaols were better run and more humane than ordinary Spanish prisons.

    For the period prior to 1530, Henry Kamen in 'Spanish Inquisition' estimated there were about 2,000 executions in all of Spain's tribunals.

    Available source shows that the number of people executed between 1500-1700 could be reconstructed as 1303. The real death toll is probably slightly higher.

    Those are numbers for Spain, in other countries the inquisition was not as powerful, so accounts saying that Inquisition killed millions could be put on the same shelf as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".


    See: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/39443/what-was-the-death-toll-during-the-inquisition

    It's pretty well-settled that the "savage, kill-happy" tales about the Inquisition were spread largely by groups and individuals which hated the Church.

    BTW, this morning's news tells us that ISIS killed 11 Christians in retribution for the US' killing of al-Baghdadi. So Muslim savagery......yah, no doubt about it.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,278
    King James I of England - yep, the same King Jimmy the Protestants and Evangelicals swear by as the conduit to revealed truth - was paranoid about witchcraft. Thanks to him, thousands of supposed "witches" were killed in England. Some of his paranoia probably led to the events in Salem.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,374
    The expulsions, on the other hand...were ultimately harmful to the interests of the Church.
    Thanked by 1JL
  • ViolaViola
    Posts: 377
    I must defend my native land of England here! Interestingly most of the executions for witchcraft under James I of England, VI of Scotland took place in Scotland where the victims (not all women) estimated at about 4,000, were burned at the stake. The Protestant Reformation which became law in Scotland in 1560 encouraged this hysteria, as prayers to saints and religious practices like visiting holy wells, previously lawful, were outlawed and demonised. England had previously had a more relaxed attitude to witchcraft, tending only to prosecute where murder was suspected. Those convicted in England were hanged rather than burned. James, King of Scots since 1567, toughened this up when he became King of England in 1603, but the numbers of supposed witches executed in England were less than half of those in Scotland and he lost interest towards the end of his life. One mustn't forget that as a child James was indoctrinated by hard-core Protestants, desperate to turn him against his ill-fated Catholic mother, Mary Queen of Scots.
    However far more Catholic priests were executed (horribly) in England under Elizabeth than in Scotland. Awful things were and are done in the name of religion.
  • ...his ill-fated Catholic mother...
    I couldn't possibly remember where I read this, but... it is said that when Elizabeth was told that Mary was no longer among the living she said 'it is marvelous in our eyes'. Surely that was one of the saddest days in British history.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,374
    That was Elizabeth I in . . . November 1558, upon being told of her accession upon the death of her half-sister, Mary I.
  • ViolaViola
    Posts: 377
    It is said that Elizabeth's final years were haunted by visions of dismembered corpses and severed heads dripping blood, reminders of the many priests and other Catholics, not least her cousin Queen Mary, martyred during her reign. One could say 'serves her right' but God's mercy (like Pilling Moss) is boundless and one must pray that she might have come to repentance. In which case no doubt those martyrs welcomed her into heaven.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,728
    Surely all Elizabeth's years were haunted by severed heads and dismembered corpses, her mother was beheaded when she was two and a half! And another of her father's wives when she was eleven.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,278
    I have thought that if Henry VIII is not in hell, God owes all who are an apology. Thoroughly rotten family.
  • He had accumulated 400 pounds in weight,
    died thinking that he was a good Catholic,
    and bequeathed his soul to our Lady of Walsingham.
    What a twisted mind!
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • Charles,

    Have you spoken to Bishop Barron about this problem you have, wanting to consign this man to Hell?
    Thanked by 1francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,278
    Typical over-reaction. I suspect his own actions sent him there. He preceded me by several hundred years so I had nothing to do with it. Were you planning to canonize him or something? LOL

    Bishop Barron? He's Latin Rite, isn't he? I understand some in that rite are quite attached to him, but I have no knowledge of him.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,575
    Charles

    BB thinks (erroneously of course) that very few, if any souls, find themselves in hell. I pray for his soul in each rosary that he (and many other bishops) don’t find their skulls embedded in that terrible paved road leading to the eternally damned.

    I beseech all here to pray daily for our clergy from the top down.

    This echoes St. John Vianney, the patron saint of priests, who said, “When people want to destroy religion they begin by attacking the priest; for when there is no priest, there is no sacrifice: and when there is no sacrifice, there is no religion.”
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Charles,

    Canonizing is above my pay grade.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,713
    To canonize or not to canonize, that is the question that depends upon the context. O, taste and see, how gracious the Lord is...

    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,278

    Canonizing is above my pay grade.


    They pay you? LOL

    All kidding aside, I think I can safely say that good old Henry was the epitome of evil in his day. His daughter Elizabeth wasn't much better.

    I still know next to nothing about Bishop Barron. There is a deacon here who promotes speeches by him. I have wondered if BB is the latest in a long line of individuals who have a following among a certain group of Catholics because he says what they want to hear.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    HE Barron had a TeeVee series "Catholicism" (PBS) which had him running all over Europe and the USA looking at really beautiful churches, statues, graphic art pieces, etc.

    Served as the Rector at Mundelein Seminary. Good speaker, likes to do his own variant on Bill Buckley ("I'm Smart. Listen Up!") which is far more tolerable than was Buckley's, until you understand that he's not.......quite.......down-the-middle orthodox.

    Became Bish, moved to Cali, and then developed doubts about Hell.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW tomjaw
  • Blaise
    Posts: 439
    Well, I do not doubt the reporters, but this is all the more reason why I should study German (in addition to my desire to sing choral works in its original form), given the almost steady stream of reports of heresy coming out of Germany.

    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    Blaise,
    for my pet hypothesis about us Germans concerning heresy, you might like to read earlier in this thread. Being catholic or protestant was (until recently) mainly a result of historic accidents rather than a question of personal conviction. The percieved differences between catholic and protestant are mostly cultural, in-depth questions about teaching and theology are considered as something for the experts, and of little relevance for 'ordinary' people.

    If one had asked people 40 years ago whether, in their lifetime, west and east Germany would unite rather than lutherans and catholics, my guess is a vote of 1:100.

    Btw. I think that the talks of bishop Barron are more 'orthodox' than the beliefs of the majority of German catholics (and the Dutch as well), and certainly an interesting way of getting traditional teaching back into people's minds.
  • the talks of bishop Barron are more 'orthodox' than the beliefs of the majority of German catholics (and the Dutch as well)


    Praise of Bishop Barron or criticism of Dutch and German Catholics?
    Thanked by 3tomjaw francis Elmar
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,154
    @Elmar Switzerland is similar, (my wife is Swiss). They have different holidays depending on whether it is a Catholic or Protestant Canton.

    I do note that apparently how you voted in the 1930's had some bearing as to whether you were Catholic or not.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,712
    For the sake of accuracy, here's a commentary Bp. Barron wrote on the question of how many people are in Hell, from 2011:
    https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/is-hell-crowded-or-empty-a-catholic-perspective/22323/

    If this reflects his current position too, he doesn't really embrace an idea of universal salvation, but only notes that the Church has not exercised Her authority to settle the question of whether any particular people have been eternally lost, or how many.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CharlesW
  • Chonak,

    I finally see (thanks to your link) where Bishop Barron makes his error.

    When we die, our eternal destiny is fixed. We have chosen definitively for or against God. If Hell is empty, then everyone who died unrepentant and all the rest is nevertheless able to be changed after that death. This is contrary to what we know to be true. Hoping (and praying) for the conversion of living souls is quite sensible, for these do yet have time to reform, even at the very last minute. (Oscar Wilde comes to mind). No one currently alive is presumed already to be in hell or beyond the reach of God's mercy -- but that's not a change in the Church's teaching. To claim that we can reasonably hope that everyone will accept God in the end is jousting at windmills.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    Praise of Bishop Barron or criticism of Dutch and German Catholics?
    All of these to some extent. I guess that Catholicism here would be better off if we had someone around like the maker of 'Catholicism' (our former chaplain has some potential, indeed).
  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    ... then everyone ... is nevertheless able to be changed after that death. This is contrary to what we know to be true.
    Chris, I am curious what exactly we know (rather than believe) in this respect!
  • I am curious what exactly we know (rather than believe) in this respect!

    We know whatever the Church teaches regarding the final judgments. That includes what Chris mentioned - that Sanctifying Grace can only be obtained before death; that souls who die in the state of mortal sin cannot have the Beatific Vision. There is no confessional in the afterlife. Of course, I think his earlier point was that we also cannot presume that any particular soul is in hell, no matter how depraved they may have been, because they may have been granted a moment of conversion just before death. We also know that hell is not empty - the fallen angels are cast out from heaven.

    Faith in the Doctrines of the Church (i.e. defined De Fide) is not simply belief as opposed to knowledge. For example, I can believe that the earth is round. I can also know that the earth is round. I can believe that the earth is flat. But, I cannot know that the earth is flat. Mere belief implies a degree of incertitude. Knowledge implies (in this case) certainty.

    As Catholics, we know that Church Doctrine is true, we do not merely believe it to be true. We know this even without physical proof, because these truths have been revealed to His Church by God, Whom we know to be incapable of error or falsehood.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,575
    For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [5] I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:

    [6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
    Jude

    Hell is real, and yes, souls are there... already.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,728
    I am very reluctant to try to tell God what He may not do because it does not fit my understanding of theology. That does not affect my readiness to behave on the assumption that the teaching is correct. Fortunately I am not a bishop, nobody needs to learn from my inadequate grasp of the truth.
    18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
    19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
    20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. (1 Pet. 3:18-20 RSV)

    6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God. (1 Pet. 4:6 RSV)
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    ... As Catholics, we know that Church Doctrine is true, we do not merely believe it to be true...

    There seems to have been a misunderstanding about "to believe"; unfortunately - and perhaps tellingly - it means "to suppose" as well as "to have trust/faith in" (same in many other languages ...)

    While knowing (as applied to verifiable facts and, somewhat less, scientific knowledge) may imply an even higher level of certainty than trusting, the latter goes deeper than a purely intellectual statement. Whatever your certainty level of knowing that Christ has redeemed the world throug His Sacrifice, that He is present in the Eucharist, that He leads the Church through the Holy Spirit etc., that won't be as much of a basis for Faith as true believing.

    This is why I am reluctant with respect to statements, how sure we can be about the correctness of the Teaching; especially when it comes to competition with certainty in the sciences. I rather take John 20,29.
  • Elmar,

    If it came from the German bishops at any time in the last 40 years, a statement should be treated carefully. If it came from certain bishops, it can be treated as reliable. Other bishops' statements can be treated as personal opinions at odds with the faith.

  • Elmar
    Posts: 371
    Chris, have you got an authorative black-/whitelist?
  • Elmar,

    The Vatican doesn't list the reliability of individual bishops' statements. In that sense, I don't have an authoritative black-/whitelist.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,575
    When modernism INFILTRATED the church heirarchy (notice I delineate heirarchy, NOT the Church itself), the "statements" of bishops have become that which will be tested, especially over time (if time even lasts long enough). If their statement contradicts the doctrine handed down to us, you should be wary of the fruit that falls from the tree.
    Thanked by 1bhcordova