Combox for:
How the Early Protestants Stole Thousands of Catholic Churches and Monasteries and Called These Mortal Sins "Reform" [14 April 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
thousands.html
Again, all of this, inlcuding all of your articles on the systematic and non-systematic deliberate murder, torture and suppression of Catholics at the hands of Protestants should all be individually linked on one section of your site. Not general ones, but each one over the past several months.
Catholic sin notwithstanding, this needs to be out in the open. All I ever hear about are the sins of Catholics by atheist secularists and Protestants alike (Strange bedfellows indeed).
Anti-Catholics who love to count and usually grossly exagerate the sins of individual Catholics never, ever make any mention of any of this.
When it is brought up, it is quickly discarded, equivocated, rationalized or simply denied.
Near my home in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, England there is Monk Bretton Priory. Or rather there was. What is left is a chimney piece a few low walls, and the drains. The picture of Fountains abbey gives a false picture in a sense.
I can put it this way; in England it wasn't so much dissolution of the monastries as the destruction of them.
You could 'feel' the absence.
Thinking about it now we used to picnic inthe kitchen, play hide and seek in the fireplace.
The plans in the ruins.
Again, all of this, including all of your articles on the systematic and non-systematic deliberate murder, torture and suppression of Catholics at the hands of Protestants should all be individually linked on one section of your site. Not general ones, but each one over the past several months.
And again, as I stated before, I created a new web page precisely for this purpose:
Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...index-
page.html
There is a little gap between new papers being posted and listed in the web pages. I update that about every 3-4 weeks. I'm about 40 papers behind right now.
Cool.
Dave,
I haven't looked specifically and thoroughly into this issue of "property redistribution" during the Reformation, so I would like to tread lightly in my comments here.
Obviously there was a secularizing effect in operation in this "appropriation" of Church property, and no doubt more than a little base greed in some secular rulers.
However, Dave, I wonder whether you are sensitive to the terrific force of Luther's complaint, produced in one of your own quotes, that the bishops whose property was being taken were more like feudal lords than spiritual leaders. This had been an ongoing complaint against the episcopate, the priests, and most especially the papacy for several centuries, and, since you want to talk about "mortal sin," it should be noted that the feudalization of the Church went along with the rampant commission of the sin of simony by numerous bishops and popes. Christendom was simply sick and tired of the gross unfaithfulness and carnality of the leadership, and by the time we get to Luther, it's just far too late for anything BUT a terrific cultural explosion to occur.
Now I understand that part of your motive in posts like this is to show historically untutored Protestants that the Reformation was not simply a bringer of good things, but that a lot of bad things were done in its name. I've got no problem with that, since ideology and prejudice among Protestants is just as bad as among Catholics.
But to me, the larger theological context involved in taking these churches and other properties from a grossly corrupt feudal bureaucracy that had for centuries been confusing spiritual and temporal powers makes the "stealing" of the property comprehensible as something quite other than just some nutjobs shamelessly committing a mortal sin. As early as Bernard of Clairvaux the papacy was being chided for its worldliness and love of material splendor, and just on the Catholic side (as you'd recognize it) this continues through Dante, Francis, Dominic, parties in the 15th century whose names I can't at this moment recall, and the Catholic reformers leading up to and into the Council of Trent.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but given the nature and the stridency of the authority claims of Catholicism, you as a Catholic cannot downplay the responsibility of the Church, particularly of the papacy, for fomenting division by centuries of gross immorality and simony.
It's like the story of the pope showing off his temporal splendors to Dominic and said "See, Peter no longer has to say 'Silver and gold have I none," and Dominic quipped back, "Yes, but now he can neither say 'Rise, take up your bed and walk." This is all much, much bigger than you seem to make it out to be in posts like this.
Hi Tim,
It's been the standard response through the years of Protestants to play up and grossly exaggerate the sins of the Catholic Church to justify the sins of the Reformers.
The only problem with it is that it is not historically accurate (not to the degree that Protestants have maintained), and has been increasingly rejected by historians of the period. For example, Alister McGrath, in his most recent book:
"[R]ecent scholarship has moved decisively away from the earlier tendency . . . to underplay the social and economic aspects of the emergence of Protestantism in order to emphasize its religious and political elements . . . and has rightly cast doubt on any attempt to define the movement solely or chiefly in terms of the theological agendas of its leading figures. . . .
"In the second place, the tidal wave of studies of local archives and private correspondence has confirmed the suspicions of an early generation of scholars - that it is unacceptable to determine the state of the pre-Reformation European church through the eyes of its leading critics, such as Luther and Calvin. It is increasingly clear that attempts to depict the late medieval church as morally and theologically corrupt, unpopular, and near-terminal decline cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence available. As in every period, the church possessed strengths and weaknesses and sought to consolidate the former and address the latter. It is now clear that Catholic reforming movements were not a response to the criticisms of the Protestant reformers but were deeply enmeshed within the pre-Reformation church - where, paradoxically, they created an appetite for reform that laid the ground for Protestantism in some respects."
(Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution - A History From the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First, New York: HarperCollins, 2007; from Introduction, p. 8 )
I'd been saying the same thing since 1990, after reading Catholics Grisar and Janssen and secularist Will Durant. It's very nice to see that the Protestant historians are getting up to speed on the actual facts . . .
But the "myth of Protestant origins" is still alive and well (and, no doubt, will continue to be so), despite the new consensus in "Reformation" historiographical scholarship.
I should add also that the most sinful example of theft: Henry VIII's grab, had to utilize massive lying about the state of the monasteries, in the form of Cromwell's ridiculous kangaroo courts and their trumped-up "reports." The Wikipedia noted this:
"Meanwhile, during the autumn of 1535, the visiting commissioners were sending back to Cromwell written reports of all the lurid doings they claimed to be discovering, sexual as well as financial. A "horrified" Parliament enacted laws in early 1536, relying in large part on the reports of "impropriety" Cromwell had received, . . .However, the claims of misbehaviour were greatly exaggerated."
Historians now know that this process was a more or less complete rationalization of sin. The traditional Anglican rationalization was that there was all this scandal and so noble Henry stepped in and reformed the monasteries. Now historians know that he had decided to do so before any such reports (even bogus ones) were received. Surprise!!! Like this was some shocking revelation?
So in the very example of the most outrageous stealing, justified under Protestant pretenses, the facts of the matter as now ascertained by historians, simply cannot sustain any semblance of justification for such sins.
You can't prove your contentions of massive Catholic "scandal" by anything other than recourse to the usual empty Protestant polemics that have been used for centuries. You can't document it in any compelling fashion.
Henry didn't have any real jurisdiction over the Church anyway. So the lie that he was head of the Church was the first foolishness put into place before the Great Theft could take place at all.
Thus, the error of caesaropapism was key to committing the sin of wholesale theft.
Philip Melanchthon admitted essentially the same thing with regard to the greed and inappropriate jurisdiction of the German princes over the Church, and longed and yearned for the bishops to come back again. The very fact of his regret proves that the bishops couldn't have been half as bad as it was made out by a lot of Luther's fiery rhetoric.
There's another way to describe Protestant historical revisionist attempts to justify wholesale plunder under the guise of "spiritual reformation:"
historical bolshevism, "christian-style."
But I'm not relying on Luther and Calvin, Dave, or any other Reformation figure. No doubt you don't wish to take issue with Bernard and Francis and Dominic on the temporal corruption of the Church. I wonder if you've looked into the issue of the papacy's centuries-long affair with simony, which the Medieval Church considered to be a gross heresy.
At any rate, when evaluating calamities that come upon the Church - in this case, the loss of many churches and monasteries - I think it would be better to follow the lead of Catholic historians like Bede and William of Malmesbury and just admit that when disaster comes on the Church it's because God is punishing His sinful people. This is one area where the Catholic needs quite a different kind of "apology" than the typical sort which apologetics gives.
I think it would be better to follow the lead of Catholic historians like Bede and William of Malmesbury and just admit that when disaster comes on the Church it's because God is punishing His sinful people
Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't it be both? When heathen nations invaded Isreal it was because Isreal sinned. Does that mean the invaders were committing no sin? Of course not. God was not happy with them either. He just used them as an instrument of punishment.
Protestant theft is the same thing. They justified it by thinking they were more holy than the Catholics. It turned out they were just as corrupt. The church had it's doctrine right. The problem was with its morals. They ended up with bad doctrine and bad morals.
Schisms always promise a holier church than the one they are leaving. Sometimes that is true for a while but you cannot keep sin and corruption out. Our hearts will always ache for the church to be as holy as she should be. But there will always be disappointing episodes.
. . . when disaster comes on the Church it's because God is punishing His sinful people.
No one ever said that he Catholic Church was not in need of reform. No argument there. Whether the theft of thousands of properties is part of that judgment, however, is debatable.
The fact remains that the monasteries (especially in England) were not all that corrupt in the overall scheme of things. So if it was indeed a judgment, why would God choose a portion of the Church that was relatively pious?
Not to mention all those who were butchered, especially in England, for simply being Catholics. These were the most holy people in the Church (folks like St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher). So it is hardly feasible to claim that they were being "judged" for being faithful to their religious beliefs: having their intestines painfully drawn out of their bodies, and hearts cut out while they were alive, etc. These were martyrs.
I've documented 1375 of them:
161 English and 269 Irish Catholic Martyrs During the Reign of the Tyrant Henry VIII: 1534-1544 [at the Very Least: 430 Martyrs]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...yrs-
during.html
312 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth ("Bloody Good Queen Bess"): 1558-1603
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...and-
heroic.html
123 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors in the Post-Elizabethan Era: 1603-1729 (+ 66 English Martyrs of Unknown Dates / Martyr Resources)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...and-
heroic.html
444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors, Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, Cromwellians, Etc.: 1565-1713
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...and-
heroic.html
Many hundreds of these martyrs were monks who refused to comply with Henry's sinful decrees. You would call that "judgment"?
In any event, the theft cannot be justified. If it wasn't for this, and political power gained, Protestantism probably would never have gotten off the ground.
And this is now historical consensus.
I don't think it has any relation to Protestants today, in terms of culpability. I'm simply documenting the history for the record.
I think Dave has touched upon a raw nerve that's not necessarily a "protestant raw nerve," but one generally shared by rebellions and their latter day supporters. It's extremely difficult to maintain an aura of distinctive innocence or superior virtue if you have a lot of historical baggage the movement you're defending has to carry as the price for its present-day existence or ascendant position.
The US is always going to have to accept its wilingness to accomodate slavery as its price for the creation of the Constitution. It's an ugly fact, but to our credit we don't tiptoe around it anymore.
Nor, on the other side of the world, do the Russians when it comes to dealing with facing the ugly facts of Soviet brutality concerning the Orthodox Church as its price for creating the new "godless" Communist state. (We all know by now that communisim itself became the new atheistic form of religion.) However, when the new Russian government went forward to rebuild the great cathedrals, and giving back the Orthodox Church its once prominent place, there was very little finger pointing, historical revisionism and pious self-justification from some of the formerly communist, now democratic members of Russia's new state.
In the meantime, here we are bickering and fighting over what should be a straight-forward acceptance of a brutal upheaval by the Protestants of the monasteries/convents, and other church-owned properties by outright greedy members of the nations' respective "nobility" upon turning Protestant. Ironically, the Russians admitted their intelligentsia went overboard and committed atrocities. The English nobility to this day almost coughs on the very thought of having to accept any (even far distant) historical responsibility for its top-down "revolution" five centuries ago. Good heavens, they must be asking, what else will the great unwashed, Labor, and even some Tory commoners start asking for?
Perhaps some good old fashioned demonstrations of real patriotic and civic responsibility. We must never sell the English nobility short on its capabilities to continually reinvent ways to maintain its reputation as the most unteachable lot of "aristocrats" in Europe. After all, the English nobility which used the "reformation" to steal private property of the Church for its own greed, then only to follow up on that by shoving a new way of worship down the throats of their subjects, following that up by four hundred years of continual mismanagement of the same "church" it stole property from, killed its former leaders" and let it run itself into the ground through the acceptance of almost every form of faddist nonsense -- well, perhaps we might well be asking too much of some people.
Let England's nobles swallow their pride; if possible.
Dave,
Hmmm...well, I believe Tim Enloe's call for a balanced look at this issue is well-advised.
But, it bears pointing out that the property claims of Rome are only valid when one continues to make the arrogant claim that Rome is THE church as opposed to all others and the Reformers and others recognized the truth of this as the Reformation continued to spread throughout Europe some five hundred years ago. If this is not the case, then the idea that Rome once "owned" monasteries and other properties throughout Europe contra the local churches and other historically present realms reflects a view of the church that is far afield from more sensible perceptions of the Church from the perspective of the magisterial Reformers and other Protestant voices.
Like many historical issues, a simplistic look at it like you present is naive and doesn't deal with all the facts. You haven't addressed, for example, how the Roman church came into possession of these properties in the first place or how for centuries simony and other wickedness perpetuated and strengthened the hold of the church on an increasing acreage in Europe.
But all this seems a bit out of place at the very time the Holy Father is here in our land with the humble and appropriate posture concerning sexual abuse and molestation of children by your own priests. Are you ready to stop pointing the finger at Protestants and their historical issues and instead look to your own communion and see and deal with the corruption that is still there even after centuries of protest? How about--instead of taking the time to talk about hundreds of years old property issues and the supposed unjust actions of Protestants toward Rome with the obvious intent of continuing your apologetic for Rome...how about taking the time instead to register solidarity with the Holy Father in crying against the abuses of Roman child-molesting priests?
You can't really expect Protestants to take this sort of criticism seriously when huge issues remain in the Roman curia and throughout the priesthood in terms of corruption and vice. I mean, it is one thing to criticize Henry VIII and his policies but that was five hundred years ago. In contrast, children are still being molested by priests even today. Something has to be done to stop the corruption that takes place in your church, among your priests directly, by your bishops through covering up these horrific sins, and throughout the world. The words and hopeful action of the Holy Father and other mindful Catholics is an excellent start and I commend this wholeheartedly, but it really does make any titular finger-pointing you do toward Protestants seem hollow and wholly unconcerned with larger more pressing issues.
Clearly Kevin, you must be more resourceful than to come back with the child molestation cases to bolster your defense of Protestant excesses during the Tudor reign? Please, tell me you are. But if you're not, I might be inclined to believe that you could be a lapsed Catholic just looking for an opportunity to demonstrate how cleverly you can express your outrage. Sadly, I speak with experience here so I recognize this tact when I see it.
However, if you're Protestant, then how about sticking to the historical subject at hand and refrain from dredging up this issue as a bully club because you're afraid it's you have left to use.
Really, Steven, I'm not even mildly interested in arguing about things like Protestant excesses during the Tudor reign. I'd rather watch similar revisionist history of that period on Showtime--it at least would be more entertaining.
I really don't have a dog in this fight except to say that things are not all as simple as Dave has presented and that there truly are more important things to attend to--I'm not using the issue of priests who molest children as a "bully club" here--I truly am interested in seeing legitimate repentance and reformation in the Catholic Church so that not one more child has to suffer as others have. So, I'm no lapsed Catholic seeking to vent but everyone should be venting about the horror of this issue and the fact that it's little more than a bother to you in this discussion speaks volumes to me.
Kevin,
Something has to be done to stop the corruption that takes place in your church, among your priests directly, by your bishops through covering up these horrific sins, and throughout the world. The words and hopeful action of the Holy Father and other mindful Catholics is an excellent start and I commend this wholeheartedly, but it really does make any titular finger-pointing you do toward Protestants seem hollow and wholly unconcerned with larger more pressing issues.
Well, first of all, Dave is more than correct and more than within his rights in pointing out Protestant hypocrisy and wickedness. And I congratulate him for doing so. I only hope he continues to do so.
All the same, Kevin, I do understand where you are coming from. And it pains me to say this but, truth be told, I even agree with you at one level!
SO, LET ME SAY THIS LOUD AND CLEAR!
SHAME ON YOU BISHOPS! Shame on you for having allowed so terrible thing to occur! What, Your “Excellencies,” what were you thinking? (are you listening Catholic Bishops?).
Those were CHILDREN, for Christ’s sake!! CHILDREN!! Dear Heaven’s, have you lost your minds?
Or have you not read, oh, disgraced men?
“Suffer the little children to come unto me” Mt. 19:14
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...%22&
version=rhe
Where is your shame, oh you, most disgraced of the Lord’s one Church? Where is your honor, Oh you, most worthless shepherds of the Lord’s one Church?
But I dare not be too severe, lest I forget my own weakness, and that, in any event, the Lord is not so much a demanding judge as a compassionate counselor, one who speaks to us all, Catholic and Protestant alike, saying, “Learn, little children, learn to forgive! Yes, learn to forgive.”
So, dear friend, in order to keep things in balance, let us turn away from the thought of those who, perhaps through ignorance or weakness, have failed to do what they ought (I’m struggling to be charitable here), and let us instead give ear to the words of that most saintly and honorable of Bishops – St. Augustine, who would have us mindful of the fact that,
“…Cyprian and his colleagues had such love for unity that they continued in unity with those whom they considered to be traitors to the truth, without any apprehension of being polluted by them.”
Imagine! Are you listening my Protestant brothers?
And the saintly Augustine continues:
‘[T]here are some in the house of God … as not to be themselves the very house of God, which is said to be built upon a rock, Matthew 16:18 which is called the one dove, Song of Songs 6:9 …If any one shall neglect this house when it arrests and corrects him, the Lord says, "Let him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican." Matthew 18:17 … For this house is composed [not only] of those that are good and faithful [but also of] others … that they belong not to the substance of the house … but on
but only as the chaff is said to be among the corn. … Of this countless multitude are found to be not only the crowd which within the Church afflicts the hearts of the saints … but also the heresies and schisms which exist in those who have burst the meshes of the net… of whom it is said, "They went out from us, but they were not of us"… For they are more thoroughly separated, now that they are also divided from us in the body, than are those who live within the Church in a carnal and worldly fashion, and are separated from us in the spirit.”
On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book VII) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...thers/
14087.htm
And though I don’t have the sermon handy, I have this translators note from Augustine’s Sermon 137:
1. “It is not one of Augustine’s best sermons. It rambles, as indeed most of them do when of any length; but this one rather aimlessly, with no general sense of direction…[Ha! Now I don't feel so bad about my own post!]. His fire is directed against the “hirelings,” that is to say insincere or worldly Catholic priests and bishops who are more concerned with their own interests and status than with the spiritual welfare of their flocks, so that they condone the malpractice of influential parishioners and possible benefactors, rather than rebuking them for their sins.”
So, as you can see, there will always be evil, even (especially?) in the Lord’s one Church. Thus Steven has a valid point:
“If you're Protestant, then how about sticking to the historical subject at hand and refrain from dredging up this issue as a bully club because you're afraid it's you have left to use.”
Protestants simply cannot hide their disobedience and disloyalty behind the failures of a few recalcitrant churchmen, no matte how weak, how sinful, how disgraceful they may be. No, they must cease denying the truths of history (which are so manifest) and cease tearing at the Lord’s sacred body by their endless divisions.
But now, let us all learn to forgive. Let us learn to love. Let us think of our own sins! Are we really any less vile? And has not Mercy Himself forgiven all? Were not the nails of the cross, like so many fangs of that ancient serpent, able to purchase for us, as we say in the Mass, “the rewards of eternal life?”
So we’ve been forgiven - and forewarned! The Lord will indeed hold us accountable unless we all learn to love and learn to forgive from our hearts, even as Love Himself has forgiven us. And loved us He has. For God, as the holy apostle tells us, is “kind even to the wicked and the ungrateful.”
“But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” Luke 6: 35
“for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”
We should all let these words penetrate into our uttermost being, even as we oppose so many evils and so may profou
and so many profound injustices:
“for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”
And after all, who, my dear friends, is not, in his own way, among the “unthankful” and “the evil?”
quoting Chesterton from memory-'nobody believes the monastries were born in corruption, only that they became corrupt'
What did the Reformation do? Plundered and then destoyed them. Surely a holy and reverential movement would have tried to start again, reorganise things, installed new leadership.
Well, they did install people, but not abbots or holy monks, but merantile barons. In not a few places anyway.
Really, the return of the Barbarians.
Tim Enloe has made a lengthy response on his own site, remarkable for its tunnel vision and complete unwillingness to interact with either:
1) my original post,
or
2) my counter-replies to his comments above:
http://www.timenloe.net/wordpress/?p=626
His post ignores, as well, the innumerable times that I have openly acknowledged that Catholics have committed many sins throughout history.
I will happily side with Protestants indignant with what occurred, like Cobbett, or historians like Alister McGrath, rather than the partisan rhetoric of Tim.
This is an ethical issue: not one upon which we can exchange polemical spin. That's how I presented it, with several citations from non-Catholics, like Cobbett, Durant, Dickens, Melanchthon, and Wikipedia.
Don't let Tim fool you: he very much has an agenda, and is interpreting this data through the lens of his own schema of Church history. He wants to make out that I am the one with the huge "apologetic" agenda. My only agenda is to highlight various facts of what occurred during the 16th century, that very few people (Catholic or Protestant) are aware of.
I find it humorous that both Tim and his buddy Kevin Johnson attempt to avoid the issue by switching the focus to something else: Tim goes back to the 11th century, while Kevin fast forwards to our time and the sexual scandal in the Catholic Church.
As usual, a normal dialogue on the actual issue at hand (i.e., my post) is unable to be had. What a shame.
While I'll admit that every victim of molestation wasn't satisfied with what Pope Benedict had to say on this shameful chapter, the pontiff did seem to have gone a long way in bringing healing to these people. He faced the issue head on even before he landed in Maryland.
But I'll leave it to Benedict's harshest critics on this matter, and Catholicism's in general, if they want to lock arms with Bill Maher, et al, or decide to move forward. This choice is as easy as it gets.
Dave,
I stumbled across your blog. A couple comments:
1. I don't see myself as protesting anything. I am a Christian and worship in Christ's Church.
2. I long for the unity of the Church at our Lord's return.
3. I watched the Pope's Mass at St. Peter's and found myself getting angry at the massive wealth, and the knowledge that St. Peter's was paid for by the sales of indulgences. Why wasn't Vatican II the response of the Church instead of Trent?
Thanks for visiting!
I'm delighted at the sentiment you express in #2, and agree wholeheartedly with it.
But you're certainly protesting what you describe in #3. So #1 clashes with #3 and your comment is thus incoherent.
Vatican II came 400 years after Trent and there was much development over that time, so it was a vastly different council. Trent had to protect the Church's faithful from the false doctrine that had been introduced by self-proclaimed "reformers."
As for St. Peter's, see my post, Biblical Evidence For Building Expensive Church Buildings and Cathedrals
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
buildings.html
A correction:
I meant to reference the litany of the Blessed Virgin, not in the Mass, when I said that the Lord had purchased for us “the rewards of eternal life."
You see, in my parish church (Holy Rosary), the rosary and litany are said everyday just before the 5:15 pm Mass. And since I’ve been attending this rosary and Mass - with varying degrees of regularity - for about 20 years now, I just naturally tend to associate them very closely, though I most definitely know the differences.
So I guess I just momentarily got my circuits crossed! 
From the litany.
“Let us pray. O God, whose only begotten son, by his life, death, and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life, grant, we beseech you, that meditating upon these mysteries of the most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain, and obtain what they promise, through the same Christ our Lord.”
Amen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lit...sed_Virgin_Mary
http://www.holyrosaryparish.org/
Commenting by HaloScan
