I volunteered to help with the RCIA program this year. I find myself so frustrated. I do not impose my will or butt heads with anyone. I am quiet and respectful. I never would challenge another teacher in front of students. I am getting very frustrated.
Last night the subject was church history. As usual in my Diocese the study started off with comments like ‘We’re not proud of the crusades” or “We know there were evil Popes” and when we reached Martin Luther it was as if he were a great hero that saved us all.
I am so tired of getting the World’s view of the Church and apologizing for being the Church Christ founded. What about all the great things we gave the world?
I am deciding whether to peacefully quit form the program or taking the teacher aside and letting him know how I feel.
i agree with Catholic90. Those don’t sound anywhere near as bad as the things RCIA catechists often get away with. I mean- the Church has been great for society overall, but we had some very bad times. Let’s be honest about it all. I do agree that the world view of the Church is very negative at the moment. But that will change, with God’s grace.
Neither of those actions will change the history of the Church. It would be wrong for the Church to claim to be historically the true Church founded by Jesus and his apostles and then to ignore or gloss over all the elements in that history.
Except for Martin Luther they sound pretty accurate. Of course old Martin is often held up as a model of some sort, primarily because protestants hold him in such esteem.
His, Luther, supporters always bring up the issue of indulgences as if that was the only thing that Luther attacked.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A few of Luthers more expressive comments:
I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist.
I saw clearly that the papacy was to be understood as the kingdom of Babylon and the regime of Nimrod the mighty hunter.
Jews and papists are ungodly wretches; they are two stockings made of one piece of cloth.
You owe God nothing more than to believe, and to confess. In everything else he gives you your freedom,- you can do what you wish without any peril to your conscience. He who believes that Christ has taken away his sins is as sinless as Christ.’
If there were no other evil wiles to prove the pope the true Antichrist, yet this one thing were enough to prove it. Hearest thou this, O pope, not most holy, but most sinful? O that God from heaven would soon destroy thy throne and sink it in the abyss of hell!
**O Christ, my Lord, look down, let the day of thy judgment break, and destroy the devil’s nest at Rome! **
Of the sensual papistical dolts at Rome, cardinals, bishops, priests and the like, it is not necessary to speak here. Their works are manifest. All honorable secular authorities must confess they are simply abandoned knaves, living shameless lives of open scandal, avarice, arrogance, unchastity, vanity, robbery and wickedness of every kind. Not only are they guilty of such living, but shamelessly endeavor to defend their conduct. They must, then, be regarded enemies of Christ and of all honesty and virtue.
Luther wanted and desired nothing more or less than the destruction of the Catholic Church in general and the Papacy in particular. Anyone who thinks differently and believes that Luther was a hero of some sort has been grossly misguided by the supporters of revisionist history.
Maybe I should start posting a few of his quotations from time to time so that those who fall for the catechists claims that Luther only wanted what was good for the Church can see what the man was really all about.
There have been many different crusades in the history of the West. These ranged from the Reconquista in Spain, which had as its ultimate aim the expulsion of all Islamic presence from the Iberian Peninsula, to the so-called Northern Crusade in the Baltic and in parts of Eastern Europe to defeat the pagan cultures that was waged by the Teutonic Knights, to the Albigensian Crusade in southern France, to extirpate a pervasive heresy. The struggles to defend Europe from the armies of the Ottoman Turks over the centuries – in particular to save Vienna from conquest was also considered a crusade. Of course, the chief effort that bears the name of which you ask was the long series of wars that had as heir aim the recovery of the Holy Land from the domination of Islam.
These most famous of the crusades were undertaken from 1095-1271. There were Eight Crusades in all, but the most successful was the first, from 1096-99, that captured Jerusalem and established Latin Kingdoms in he Holy Land. The succeeding crusading campaigns were launched chiefly in response to the inevitable Islamic reaction to the sudden invasion of Palestine by Christian hosts. The later campaigns were remarkable failures, such as the Seventh (1248-54) and Eighth (1270) Crusades by King St. Louis IX of France. Also of note was the infamous Fourth Crusade (1202-04) that did not even reach the Holy Land but instead sacked Constantinople and deposed the Byzantine Emperors.
As for whether there was justification to kill in those wars, one must remember to place the Crusades in their proper historical context. The period was a violent one, filled with war and strife. The cause that sparked the Crusades was a noble one – specifically, the arrival of the Seljuk Turks as a potent military force in Asia Minor. The Turks swept into Asia Minor and, at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, smashed the Byzantines and seized whole stretches of Anatolia. Devout Muslims, they were opposed to pilgrims wandering over their land and so launched a program of harassment. Word spread of deaths and oppression, reaching Europe over the next years.
The First Crusade was launched in reply to the appeal for aid by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus to Pope Urban II for help. The pontiff found all of Christendom willing to listen. In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, he called upon all Christians to take up arms and to go on a crusade. The objective, he said, was the capture of Jerusalem. The response was overwhelming as the common folk willingly pledged themselves with the knights and other soldiers. There was thus a genuine religious zeal that accompanied the effort. It is true that the nobility and royalty of much of Europe also took up the flag of crusade, sensing that there might be rich treasure and enormous financial opportunities awaiting them in the Levant, but we should not underestimate the genuine enthusiasm of the times and the belief that this was a just war.
i definitely don’t think you should quit. That’s what the devil & his liberal followers want. I would say something.
From what i know about the crusades, they weren’t as bad as some say & the corruption during the “Reformation” wasn’t either… From my info, no one was “selling indulgences”, at least no one very high up in the Church… But even if some individual was, that doesn’t mean the Church condoned his actions… It didn’t.
I am also sick of hearing the worldly view of the Church. I also have had to stand up in RCIA & refute some distored statement or another…
Just look at it as your job & Jesus is your boss… & the payment comes after you die… It certainly doesn’t come in this world…
Thank you to everyone. I appreciate the feedback. I’m not going to quit. I will see the presenter at 6:30 am Mass next week and I’m going to just let him know I feel the rpesentation was negative and maybe we can focus on more positive aspects of the Church we both love.
Actually on balance they were, and they were three centuries, not a “moment”. You must not know the history involved.
Why shouldn’t we be proud? We defended ourselves against an invasion of savages. Arabs were civilized, you could reason with them, but Turks were Genghis Khan’s Horde with a thin veneer of Islam. The entire holy land belonged to us, it was a part of Byzantium, and the Turks, under the Seljuk clan, tried to steal it.
What was it he called the epistle of James, the straw epistle?
Several sources of his beliefs and quotations
95 Thesis, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,(probably the most comprehensive in demonstrating his hatred and utter contempt for the Catholic faith and the Papacy) The Appeal To The Ruling Class, The Freedom of a Christian Man; To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, Why the Pope and his Recent Book are Burned and Assertions Concerning All Articles and the Smalcald Articles
These are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. He was a very prolific writer.
And to think there are those who think believe he should be canonized.
I’m impressed that you are defending the Crusades. They were violence and murder in the name of God, something we should never do and that we fear in Muslims. While it is fair to say they were defensive, the actions within them were terrible. Murder, rape, pillaging etc. So let’s not say it was a proud chapter in the church’s history. The Holy Land is, and has always been, the most hotly contested piece of land in the history of the world. Being proud of the Crusades isn’t going to help.
Who is “we?” “We” are doing that very thing at this very moment. When you send soldiers into war, they are not going to behave like Saints. They are there to kill the enemy and to strike “shock and awe” into his relatives.