|
Return
to Non-Catholics Sectn. | More
?'s | Comment
or Question?
|
|
Non-Catholics
Section:
Church
History
Sources:
Various
|
|
Important
Notice: Items herein may not apply to all persons.
References and translations may vary. We make no guarantees
regarding any item herein. Do not take items out of context. Do
not inflict harm on yourself or others, break laws, take
unsuitable/incautious or inappropriate/drastic actions, or take
figurative items literally. Use of site is at your own risk and
is subject to our terms of use. For more terms information,
see below
and
click
here
|
Click
link below or scroll down to view all:
|
Question |
Comments |
|
Do
You Think the Catholic Church Was Invented After Constantine 'Legalized' Christianity? |
Consider:
*
If the Catholic Church was invented after Constantine
'legalized' Christianity, why are there historical records of the
Church existing since it was established by Christ on St. Peter?
*
If the Catholic Church was invented after Constantine
'legalized' Christianity, why can she show you an uninterrupted succession
of popes beginning with St. Peter?
*
If the Catholic Church was a fourth century invention, what
happened to the Church founded by Christ in Mt. 16:18 - the Church
that Christ promised would withstand the gates of hell?
*
If the Catholic Church was a fourth century invention, why is
the first known written use of the term "Catholic
Church" traced to St. Ignatius of Antioch, around 110 A.D. [It
should also be noted that St. Ignatius was a hearer of the Apostle
St. John, and the third bishop of Antioch.] And, why has the
term been in continuous use since that time?
*
If the Catholic Church was invented after Constantine
'legalized' Christianity, why do even non-Catholic historians
agree that the Catholic Church existed before Constantine was even
born?
|
|
Was
There a "Great Apostasy" in the Catholic Church? |
Consider:
*
Those who argue that there was a "great apostasy" in the
Catholic Church are, by default, admitting there was a time before
this presumed "great apostasy" in which the Catholic
Church existed and was the true Church. Granting this, how could
there ever be a "great apostasy" in the Church Jesus
founded considering that Jesus said that the Church He founded
would withstand the gates of hell (see Mt. 16:18)? Do you dare
think Jesus - that is, God - was mistaken? How can one imagine that Christ wouldn't fulfill His promises? Do you similarly
dare to accuse the Holy Spirit of failing in His duty to always
remain with the Church (see Jn. 14:16-17)? Do you claim that
Christ left them "orphans", despite His promise (see Jn.
14:18)?
*
If there was a "great apostasy" in the Catholic Church,
why is there no true evidence of this presumed apostasy? What
exactly do you base your claim on? How scholarly and unbiased are
these charges against the Catholic Church? Be prepared to present unbiased
and scholarly evidence for your assertions that is not
propagated by your own (or another anti-Catholic) sect.
*
If there was a "great apostasy" in the Catholic Church,
why does the Catholic Church still exist and still teach the same
doctrines she taught in apostolic times? If you believe that the
Catholic Church only held the true doctrines until the third or
fourth century, how
is it you explain that she couldn't manage hold on to Christ's
true teachings for a few hundred years but she has held on to these "later",
allegedly false, doctrines for
1600+ years?
*
If there was a "great apostasy" in the Catholic Church,
why do you (as a non-Catholic 'Christian') take your bible from
the Catholic Church that supposedly apostatized? And the doctrine of the Trinity? And date
using her dating system?
*
Are we seriously to believe there was a "great apostasy"
in the Catholic Church - the Church that Christ founded - and that
your 'church' is its replacement? Your 'church' which was founded
by a human, your 'church' which has changed its own doctrines over
time, your 'church' which has no history of miracles, martyrs,
virgins, etc., your 'church' which wouldn't even know about Christ
or the Bible if not for the Catholic Church that you claim apostatized?
Your 'church' which wasn't even around until a few hundred years
ago?
"The
Catholic Church was recognized by the whole Christian world as the
true Church of God for fifteen consecutive centuries. No man can
halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic
Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself
seriously." (Catholic Convert, Former Chief Rabbi of Rome,
Israel Zolli)
|
|
Doesn't
the Galileo Episode Prove That the Catholic Church Isn't
Infallible? |
Consider:
*
Galileo "ran afoul of the Church for expounding unproven
theories." Would you also criticize a modern school if it
would not permit an instructor to teach unproven theories as if
they true?
*
The Galileo incident never involved an infallible pronouncement.
*
Galileo was wrong in many of his theories.
*
Galileo's case involved false evidence.
*
The Church has never claimed to be infallible in matters of
science.
*
The Church has never claimed to be infallible in disciplinary
measures.
*
Galileo was said to suffer only a "minor reproof",
contrary to what some claim.
*
When the Church took action against Galileo, remember that his
research was unproven (he could provide no conclusive proof). In fact, believe it or not, the matter may
still not be fully resolved. Modern science is notorious for
putting forward its theories as fact - even though there is
contradictory evidence!
Note:
For information regarding papal infallibility and its limits, click
here
|
|
Doesn't
the Treatment of Joan of Arc Prove That the Catholic Church Isn't
Infallible?
|
Consider:
*
The condemnation of Joan of Arc may be traced to an individual -
who was not the Pope and who did not enjoy papal infallibility.
*
The case of Joan of Arc never involved an infallible
pronouncement.
*
The Church has never claimed to be infallible in determining a
particular person's innocence or guilt.
*
Why is it that you use one person's actions in the case of Joan of
Arc to condemn the Catholic Church as a whole, but when a judge in
a U.S. court rules wrongly you don't blame the entire United States?
*
Joan of Arc was canonized (declared a saint) by the pope.
Note:
For information regarding papal infallibility and its limits, click
here
|
|
Didn't
the Catholic Church Burn Bibles? |
Consider:
*
This question is commonly put forward by those outside the
Catholic Church who are attempting to portray the Church as an
enemy of the Bible. In reality, the Church is the Bible's greatest
friend - it was her children (under the influence of the Holy
Spirit) who wrote the Bible, it was she who gathered and preserved
the books, and it was she who determined which books comprise the
bible. And, when poor translations have arisen, she has taken
steps to prevent her children from reading these corrupt versions.
The Church has not burnt bibles to keep Scripture away from
people. The Church has burnt bibles - that is, poorly
translated bibles - to protect her flock. Remember that St. Peter
says that scripture can be distorted to one's destruction (see 2
Pt. 3:16), and that history proves that corrupted scriptures can have
dangerous consequences. Further, remember that the burning of
dangerous books is biblical (see Acts 19:19). Finally, ask
yourself, does not the Church that wrote, determined, preserved
and protected the Bible have a right to dispose of poor
translations as she deems appropriate?
Note:
For
more on the bible, click here.
|
|
Didn't
the Catholic Church Force People to Convert? |
Consider:
*
It is against the law in the Catholic Church to force anyone
to convert ["Can.
748 §2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace
the Catholic faith against their conscience." (1983 Code of
Canon Law)]
*
It has always been considered unlawful to force anyone to convert
against their will.
*
One cannot force anyone to believe anything.
*
If, in the past, certain persons were forced to convert against
their will, the responsibility for such actions rests with the
person(s) involved - who were, perhaps, acting out of their zeal
for the salvation of souls or who thought they were achieving "the lesser of
two evils" - and not with the Catholic Church. The Church, of
course, condemns forceful conversions of persons against their
will.
|
|
Didn't
the Crusades Authorized by the Catholic Church Kill Many
People? |
Consider:
*
Unfortunately, loss of life may be expected in all military
conflicts. This loss of life, however, should not be considered in
isolation when determining whether any particular conflict is
justified. Remember that the Crusades were largely a defensive
measure (and not a plan to make converts, contrary to the
claims of some) which "occurred after six hundred years of constant
provocation". Remember that the Church's enemies had brutally
treated people, enslaved children, destroyed property, and taken
over lands (including the holy lands). They forced conversions, persecuted
people, and threatened more takeovers. It was many years before
the Church took this military action. Is it not ironic that her
enemies attempt to portray her as "bloodthirsty" when
these hundreds of years of persecution seem more to attest to her
great patience? And, if certain events occurred during this time
in which there was excessive bloodshed, why is the Church as a
whole, rather than the individuals responsible, to be blamed?
Certainly the Church never condones excessive violence. In fact,
she would rather seek to punish her children who were guilty of
wrongful violence.
*
Why is it that you condemn the Catholic Church for violence, even
though her actions were defensive in nature, but ignore the fact
that other so called 'Christian' religions have much violence in
their past (which may be largely offensive in nature)?
*
All who call themselves 'Christian' today should realize that they may never
heard of Jesus if it wasn't for the Crusades. Of course, that's not to say that everything
that happened in connection with them was good, but if they had not
happened, you might be Muslim today. This is simply a fact of
history.
|
|
Shouldn't
the Catholic Church Be Condemned for the Inquisition? |
Consider:
*
When evaluating the Inquisition (actually "inquisitions"
since there were more than one), it is necessary to consider
things in their full context. Although enemies of the Church will point to
some abuses, they invariably fail to mention the reasons
for the Inquisition's existence and other important facts. For example, they
often fail to note that:
*
The Inquisition was restricted in scope and was limited to those
inside the Church (or who claimed to be).
*
The Inquisition sought to protect the life of children (e.g.
against ritual murders that were being performed on Christian
children) and adults (e.g. against those who considered all matter
evil and promoted murder and suicide).
*
The Inquisition sought to protect the Church's most holy of possessions
(the Eucharist).
*
The Inquisition sought to 'weed out' those who had "infiltrated
the Church with a desire to destroy her from within."
*
The Inquisition sought to 'weed out' "those who were defying
the Church's teachings and were using their influence to pervert the faith
of many."
*
The Inquisition sought to protect the faith and root out heresy -
heresy that can cause the eternal loss of souls (see Ti. 3:10-11)
*
Many persons of the time actually welcomed the Inquisition
"as an instrument of peace and security."
*
The Inquisition has been credited with "keeping Christendom
intact"
*
The Inquisition provided guilty persons an advance opportunity to
repent and receive only a light penance.
*
Certain practices of the Inquisition have been praised for their
fairness (e.g. secrecy, large juries, higher standards, etc.), especially
when compared to the secular courts of their time. In fact, they
have been called "meticulous" in comparison with the
secular tribunals of the time. They required evidence (as opposed
to mere charges) and persons were given an opportunity to repent. Even when
compared against various Protestant practices, certain aspects of
the Inquisition have been called "lenient". In fact,
some even purposely tried to have their cases heard there instead
of in the secular courts in order to gain a fairer hearing.
*
Only a small percentage of convicted persons were turned over by
the Inquisition to the state for punishment (the number of deaths
has been greatly exaggerated by non-Catholics - in fact,
some have claimed a number of persons killed which totaled more
people than had even lived there!). It was not millions that were
killed, but it has been estimated to be a few thousand over the
centuries. Compared to other court systems of this time, this
actually was considered to be "quite moderate" .
*
Although torture may have been employed in some cases it was used
less frequently than in the secular courts of that time and may
have had certain limits (possibly limited to those who
refused to admit known facts). [Note: The above
doesn't address the appropriateness of torture, but rather simply
indicates that the Inquisition used this practice less than
secular courts of the time.]
*
Punishments given by the Inquisition have been considered to
be more lenient than punishments given at that time by the secular
courts.
*
The Inquisition was not used to persecute Jews - in fact,
only those who were professed Christians were subject to Inquisition
(note that Jews of the time may have pretended to be Christians
- and had they not pretended to be such, they would not
have been subject to the Inquisition). Remember that Spain had
recently been liberated from the Muslims and had deported
non-Christians "for security reasons".
*
Although abuses occurred, they should be attributed to those
persons who perpetrated them, not the Church as a whole. Further,
it is said that the Church had a "softening effect" even
on the Spanish Inquisition. It has also been shown that the number
of abuses attributable to the Spanish Inquisition has been greatly
exaggerated by her enemies. Finally, note that "Because of the
Inquisition, Spain never suffered the internecine religious warfare unleashed by the Protestant
Reformation (except in the Spanish Netherlands). Compared to the
blood that would soon be shed between Protestants and Catholic,
and between Protestant and rival Protestant sect, the blood on the
hands of the Spanish inquisitors is but a thimbleful. Between 1551
and 1600, for example, the Spanish Inquisition claimed an average
of four lives a year - making Spain by far Christendom's safest
haven in this time of religious strife." (Crocker) |
|
Doesn't
the Catholic Church Have Many Things in its Past to be Ashamed
About? |
Consider:
*
While acknowledging and condemning the sins of those in the
Catholic Church throughout the ages, it must be noted that:
*
The sins of her members belong to those who committed them and do
not represent the official practice or teaching of the Catholic
Church.
*
The Catholic Church herself condemns all sinful behavior.
*
The Church should not be blamed for the fact that her members do
not live up to her teachings any more than the Church should be
blamed that St. Peter denied Christ (see Mt. 26:69-75).
*
The chosen people in the Old Testament also committed many crimes
- but that didn't make theirs a false religion.
*
The entire Church cannot be blamed for some sinful members any more
than the entire United States can be blamed simply because she has
some bad citizens.
*
The Church is made for sinners and will always contain sinners,
until the end of the world, as permitted by Christ (cf. Mt.
13:24-30, 2 Tm.
2:20).
*
It is only to be expected that a Church which has existed for
2,000 years will have some unfortunate occurrences its past. Sects
which have existed for far less time have also unfortunate occurrences
in their past. "There may be some problems in our history
- but at least we have a history!"
*
Often, claims against the Church are exaggerated by her enemies.
Things may be taken out of context, misunderstood, be based on rumors,
or be outright fabrications.
*
Considering only negatives produces a very distorted picture of
the Church - what about the countless benefits the Church has
brought society? What about the many great saints the Church has
produced (e.g. St. Augustine, St. Patrick, St. Francis of
Assisi...)? What about all her charitable endeavors? Her advances
to science? Her civilization of entire nations? Her protection of
the poor and persecuted? Where would the world be had it not been for the
Catholic Church? Honest, knowledgeable people would have to admit
that the world would certainly be a much worse place
without the beneficent influence of the Church for these past
2,000 years.
|
[top]
Important
Notice:
Items herein are provided for informational purposes only and
are not comprehensive. Items herein may not apply to all (or
any) person(s). Even if item(s) herein indicate say "you",
"your", "they", "non-Catholic 'Christians'", etc., it / they may
not apply specifically to you or to any given person or persons.
References and translations may vary. Items may be categorized
subjectively. We do not guarantee translation, categorization,
referencing, accuracy, or anything else concerning any item
herein. We are not responsible for - or qualified / intending to
give - any medical advice. We make no guarantee regarding any
item herein. We are not liable for any occurrence which may
result from using this site. We may change punctuation, wording,
capitalization, shorten items, etc. We caution that items herein
may be out of context. We recommend reading Scripture in full
context in an appropriate Catholic Bible. Consult appropriate,
competent authorities of the Catholic Church for assistance in
interpreting / applying Scripture. Interpretation and
application of Scripture should not be contrary to the
perennial, official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Do
not take Scripture passages out of context. Do not inflict harm
on yourself or others, break laws, take unsuitable / incautious
or inappropriate / drastic actions, or take figurative items
literally. We are not responsible for any interpretation /
misinterpretation, application / misapplication, use / misuse,
etc. of Scripture (or of any other item). Use of site is at your
own risk and is subject to our terms of use.
Click
here for important cautionary statement regarding Scripture
and other important terms/information. By using this site you agree to all terms.
For more terms information,
click
here.
We make no guarantees regarding any item herein. By using
this site you indicate agreement to all terms. For terms information,
see "Important Notice" above and click
here.
|
