Problems with the Week for Christian Unity

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humber from Rome to Constantinople to bring the two halves of the Church together. Unfortunately the opposite happened when the cardinal excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch returned the favor to the cardinal. That's when things got bad and haven't been fully resolved since.

Why did the schism occur? Well, to our modern-day sensibilities, the reasons seem very minor. There were differences in opinion when it came to the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. There were some differences in belief regarding the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread during the Eucharist. Throw in the mix the controversy surrounding the filioque clause, which is a controversy over whether we should say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, or just the Father, in the Nicene Creed.

These theological differences created a rift which ultimately created what is known as the Great Schism of 1054. Historians will say tensions were accumulating in the preceding centuries and that this schism was really a massive overreaction. Modern-day popes have all attempted, along with Eastern Patriarchs, to mend the schism and reunite these who parts of the Church. Partial reunions have resulted in what are known as Eastern Catholic Churches.

Now to the modern day, where there isn't a single schism in the Catholic Church resulting in two slightly different but very similar churches agreeing on 99% of issues. Now we have tens of thousands of Christian churches all over the world with wildly different beliefs. Instead of arguing over the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread, most Protestant churches do not even believe in the Real Presence. Instead of debating Petrine Primacy, or the status of Pope as First Among Equal Patriarchs, most Christian communities outright reject any form of papacy whatsoever.

Yet, despite these facts, for centuries, the Catholic Church has strove to convert the Eastern Orthodox Church back to the Catholic Church established by Our Lord. There was a desire for unity in belief and purpose. There has always been respect between the East and the West, but yet always an underlying desire for reunification.

Fast-forward to now. We hardly ever hear about conversion. We don't hear about missionaries entering into non-Catholic areas to will souls to Christ. We now speak mainly of dialogue and "deep respect" for other "religious traditions". This isn't just for Protestant denominations but other non-Christian religions.

I think this new approach is very problematic. Christ gave us a mission to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He did not say dialogue with other groups and just come to some kind of mutual respect. He told us to go out there and win converts. Of course, we are not the ones who do the converting, it's God himself.

To me, the new approach goes against the wishes of Jesus Christ who prayed that we be united as one, together. Furthermore, Our Lord tells us repeatedly that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him. Who are we to take all that Christ is saying and ignore it and tell him we know better.

I think all too often we see conversion as something negative, when it's only something positive. Our approach can certainly be negative, there is no doubt about that. We should meek, humble, and loving. Jesus himself said his followers should be recognized by their love. For this we must strive. However, at the same time, we cannot fall into a sense of indifferentism. It is a moral failing on our part to refuse to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

God's love for us is a gift, and God himself became incarnate to teach us the way to eternal life. Who are we to withhold this most incredible gift from others out of a misplaced sense of respect? In a secular sense it would be like finding out our friend had a winning lottery ticket worth millions of dollars but refused to tell him about it because we didn't want to disrupt him.

If we truly believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth to die for our sins so that we may be united more closely with him in this life and the next, it would be incredibly wrong for us to prevent others from knowing about this.

I think about this sometimes when thinking about the idea of conversion. Sometimes as devout Catholics, the question comes up of whether we should tell others of Christianity because by doing so they are held to a higher standard whereas before they would perhaps be living with invincible ignorance and thus lack moral culpability.

However, this is the wrong question. Again, back to the analogy of the million-dollar lottery ticket. Would we refuse to tell someone about the millions they won because maybe they'd have to make decisions as to how to spend it? To prevent them from being burdened, we simply do not let them know.

Of course this is not a great analogy as many people do actually suffer from winning the lottery. However, no one has ever been worse off for coming closer to Jesus Christ.

That's why I have issues with some of the language used in the modern world when it comes to other religions. I agree that we must have the utmost respect towards other people, and we should never address the traditions of others in a derogatory way. We must be kind and humble. But being kind, humble, and respectful does not mean fully consenting or agreeing with others. We have a mission, we have an incredible gift. Christ tells us about a peace that only he can give. Who are we to stop others from receiving the peace of Christ?

Let your light shine and do not hide it from the world. Bring the message of Christ to the whole world. They deserve to know Our Lord like you do.

Feast Day of the Martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket

Today, December 29, is the feast day of St. Thomas Becket who was killed by knights of King Henry II after the king uttered his famous words "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" There are other translations as well.

To summarize, very basically, the king wanted to remove some of the privileges enjoyed by the Church in England. St. Thomas objected to these changes. Although Thomas and the king had been friends for some time, and the king assumed Thomas would support his ambitions, Thomas remained steadfast in supporting the Catholic Church.

After St. Thomas was killed in the cathedral of Canterbury, the king expressed remorse and did public penance. He confessed publicly and then monks and others whipped him.

I found a really good summation of the whole thing here: https://epicpew.com/st-thomas-becket/

Unfortunately the Canterbury Cathedral is no longer under Catholic control. Also, part of the public contrition of King Henry II was to build a shrine to St. Thomas a Becket. In his insane lust for power, Henry VIII, several hundred years later, destroyed the shrine and then put the deceased Becket on trial. What an absolute mockery and sacrilege to such a great man of God.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

I found the following article very interesting. It was taken from www.catholic.net.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

by Ellen Rice

"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 3 at 10 p.m. It is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.

In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.

The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.

The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.

The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.

What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.

One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V, killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.

The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake, and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.

Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts - once true believers in the Inquisition myth - were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us (historians) had."

And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?

Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.

Ellen Rice is assistant to the editor of Catholic Dossier.

Cathedrals, Basilicas and Churches Stolen from the Catholic Church

Throughout its history, the Catholic Church has built the most spectacular and awe-inspiring places of the worship the world has ever seen. For centuries, churches were the tallest structures of every town in Europe, and around the world. In many countries, this remains the case. They remain the most breath-taking monuments in society. Often built by members of society as a work of love, these buildings touch the sky, and upon entering, people are transported to a new world. You can feel the presence of God all around you. The Catholic Church realizes the importance of these great structures, and that is why for over 1,000 years, the Church has built some of the most amazing examples of human achievement.

Unfortunately, however, the Church suffered great loss in her history. Many of these amazing places of worship were conquered by heretics and schismatics. Often, the treasures of these churches, preserved for generations for the benefit of all were ransacked and stolen. Often Churches were badly damaged, often left in disrepair. Even if these churches were not damaged, they were still stolen. This is very sad, and unfortunate. Almost every magnificent place for Christian worship that has achieved great fame in a country, be it a church, basilica, or cathedral, was once a Catholic or remains one to this day. I will look at some of the most famous Cathedrals in the World, which were stolen from the Catholic Church.

Ulm Münster

Located in Germany, it is the tallest church in the world, and was the tallest building in the world from 1890-1908. It was built in 1377 by Catholics, and later taken from them by Lutherans. The Cologne Cathedral of Germany is the second tallest church in the world, but it has 2 spires instead of one.



Wells Cathedral

The building of this amazing Cathedral began in 1191 by Bishop Reginald de Bohun. It was worked on during the 12th and early 13th centuries, and was mostly completed by 1239. In the years and decades to come, more expansions were made to accommodate a growing congregation. Eventually the Cathedral was taken over by Anglicans.

Westminster Abbey

Perhaps the best-known Cathedral in the United Kingdom, Westminster Abbey is the Cathedral where the Kings and Queens of England are crowned. This is quite a spectacular building, which resembles the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France. It was completed before King Henry VIII, but Henry violently took over this Cathedral, like many others, when he broke away from the Catholic Church.

These are just 3 examples of Churches which were apprehended illegally by non-Catholic groups. Fortunately, most of the most beautiful cathedrals in the world remain the property of the Catholic Church. The next time you see a magnificent church, remember that it was probably once a Catholic Cathedral.

Good Things Reformers said about the Roman Catholic Church

Protestant Reformers are known for their disagreements with the Catholic Church, but many Protestants nowadays have thrown the baby out with the bath water, by thinking that the Protestant Reformers disagreed with every single practice of the Catholic Church, despite possibly its use of the Bible and love of Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Trinity. In this essay, I will explore some things the reformers had to say which were in keeping with Catholic beliefs, to show that Protestants today have gone much further from the originial Church than they think.

Martin Luther:

On Mary:
(Special thanks to Dave Armstrong for this information):

Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)

He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
(Ibid.)

God says . . . : "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God.
(Ibid.)

Luther, in general, had a great devotion to Mary. Something many protestants have lost, unfortunately.

Martin Luther praised the saying of the Rosary to those who understood what they were doing, and were not equating Mary with God, which the Catholic Church condemns as well.

On the Bible:
Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."