jump to navigation

The 16th Century Protestant Revolt And the Current Crisis in the Church April 3, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, persecution, reading, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
trackback

History may or may not repeat itself, but historical situations do recur.  In this time of incredible crisis in the Church, it is helpful sometimes to review the history of previous crises.  The protestant revolt in the 16th century was a time when it appeared all of Christendom might fall into error.  The parallels between that disastrous period of time and our own are perhaps greater than many realize.  Whether the condition of the Church today is better or worse than that of, say, the dark year of 1560, when Calvinists very nearly gained France to their side through a narrowly foiled secret plot (endorsed by Calvin himself) to murder not only the French king but dozens of Catholic nobles, is difficult to say.  What has remained constant between that time and this is the tendency for bad Catholics to make up the lead ranks of the revolutionaries.  I guess the primary difference is that in the current disastrous state of the Church, as in the Arian crisis, the revolutionaries lack the honesty and decency to formally separate themselves from union with the Church, instead pretending they represent a “truer,” “purer,” “reformed” Faith.  Of course, much of the reason for that has been the fault of numerous timorous pontiffs, who have lacked the nerve to openly challenge the modernist-progressive cabal by excommunicating them as they, and the faithful, so richly deserve.

At any rate, in keeping with today’s focus on the current religion of leftist secular paganism and it’s historical antecedents, this excerpt from pp. 285-6 of William Thomas Walsh’s Philip II:

One of the biggest factors in causing all this corruption was the interference of the State, newly conscious of its unity and power, in the affairs of the Church.  Priests were badly disciplined because there were too many political bishops.  There were political bishops because kings, even in Spain, had seldom missed an opportunity to wring privileges from unwilling Popes when they had them in their power.  Often the Pope had to allow the King to name the bishops, as the price of having Christianity preached at all, and he chose the lesser of the two evils.  In view of all this, it is strange that men go on repeating cant phrases about the interference of the Church in the State in the Middle Ages.  Sometimes, yes; but more often the other way around. Philip took it as a matter of course that he was to be consulted before the Pope nominated a bishop in any of his dominions.  If any Pope had dared to dictate Philips appointments……..!!!!!!!

Three other facts about the corruption of the clergy are often forgotten: 1) Many of the accounts of church scandals originated with the enemies of the Church, who have been proved guilty of gross exaggerations or of downright lying.  Sometimes the scandalmonger is an exposed cheat, like Llorente; sometimes a scribbler in the pay of one of the Pope’s political enemies, like the lewd neo-pagan Pontano; or a credulous retailer of indiscriminate gossip or a disappointed office-seeker. Being contemporary does not make a man truthful or reliable.  In all ages there has been a continuous and curiously uniform propaganda to discredit the Church and all connected with her.   Documents of the Alta Vendita, made public by the papal government of 1846, disclosed a systematic and deliberate campaign of slander.  One letter said:

“Our ultimate end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution – the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea.  The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year.  It may last many years, a century perhaps……….Crush the enemy whoever he may be; crush the powerful by means of lies and calumny………If a prelate comes to Rome from the provinces to exercise some public function, learn immediately his character, his antecedents, above all, his defects.  If he is already a declared enemy…..envelop him in all the snares you can lay under his feet; create for him one of those reputations which will frighten little children and old women…….paint him cruel and sanguinary: recount regarding him some trait of cruelty which can easily be engraved in the minds of the people.

If this was never formulated so concretely until the nineteenth century, it describes, with startling accuracy, what the enemies of the Church had been doing for centuries.  It describes what they did to the reputation of Philip II.

2) It is to be noticed that when the breach occurred, it was the ignorant and corrupt priest, monk, or nun who rushed forth to join Luther and Calvin in the liberty of the new dispensation.  Theodore Beza, as a Roman Catholic, is a glaring example of the too common corruption.  Though not even a priest, he enjoys the incomes of two benefices, through political influence, lavishes the Church’s money on his concubine, and generally leads a vicious and dissolute life.  When the Church is under attack, he hastens to join the enemy.  As Calvin’s lieutenant, this “righteous” man thunders against the corruption of the Old Church, of which he was partly the cause.  There is no doubt about the laxity of the monasteries of Sevilla and Valladolid, whose members embraced protestantism; nor of the degeneracy of the Augustinians in Saxony, who broke away from the Church almost to a man in 1521 (so much so that they may as well be called “Luther’s Own”).  In England it was the reformed Observantine Franciscans who withstood Henry VIII even to death, while the relaxed Conventuals and other badly disciplined monks and priests formed the nucleus of the Church of England.  The first protestants, as a rule, were bad Catholics. [very much as we have seen in the Church since the crisis exploded at and after Vatican II, the already soft and corrupted orders have fallen into total dissolution, while a few observant orders – and a number of new ones, clinging to the disciplines of the past – have maintained their own, or grown substantially.]

———–End Quote———-

So, contrary to what you have almost certainly been taught from both teacher and toob, the pre-Reformation Catholic Church was not simply a corrupt, effete, cynical, self-serving institution enriching itself off the enforced donations o f a benighted peasantry desperate to believe in any kind of Good News, no matter how falsely presented it may have been.  Or more accurately, to the extent that description was ever true, the Church was very often not to blame for that state of things.  The State had a great deal to answer for in whatever deficiencies were present in Christendom on the eve of the protestant revolt.

The campaign of deliberate smear by vituperation practiced by protestant-leftists then……is it much different from the epithets of “Nazi,” “racist,” “islamophobe,” “sexist,” etc., we hear now?  It seems Alinsky was far from the first Alinskyite – the protestants and masons of the Alta Vendita had him beat by centuries.

Walsh’s history is heavy, at times ponderous, and a bit too focused on minute details (do I really need 1 ½ pages – 700 words – on the exotic gowns worn by Philip II, his third wife Isabel, and their entourage at their wedding?) but it is undeniably Catholic in outlook.  He is very similar to Warren Carroll in that respect, but did not have some of the small, but still noticeable, baggage that Carroll carried with him (a too great deference to the post-conciliar ethos,  and a tendency to gloss over certain topics).  Philip II is Walsh’s magnum opus, but I look forward to reading other books by the author.  History has always been my first love, and even though this is a trying read at times, I am learning a great deal.  I plan on reading the rest of this author’s oeuvre as I can.

Advertisements

Comments

1. Camper - April 4, 2017

I do not understand – is it slander or true that Phillip II interfered with the selection of bishops?

Tantumblogo - April 4, 2017

He insisted on approving whoever the pope nominated. He did on a few occasions actually recommend to the pope who he wanted as bishop in certain sees. But his bishops were uniformly solid, unlike most other kings.

2. Canon212 Update: Pray for Strength to Fight Heresy and Its Confusion in FrancisChurch! – The Stumbling Block - April 4, 2017

[…] THE 16TH CENTURY AND THE 21ST:  THE STATE WAS BEHIND THE ATTACKS ON THE […]

3. God Bless the U.S.A. - April 5, 2017

above: “One of the biggest factors in causing all this corruption was the interference of the State, newly conscious of its unity and power, in the affairs of the Church.”

comment: Into the midst of the “Reformation” came St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church who wrote about Church / State relations and who by doing so seems to have influenced the creation of our nation.

profile of St. Bellarmine – http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=101

“This outstanding scholar and devoted servant of God defended the Apostolic See against the anti-clericals in Venice and against the political tenets of James I of England. He composed an exhaustive apologetic work against the prevailing heretics of his day. In the field of church-state relations, he took a position based on principles now regarded as fundamentally democratic – authority originates with God, but is vested in the people, who entrust it to fit rulers.”

————————————————————————————–

“St. Robert Bellarmine’s Influence on the Writing of the Declaration of Independence & the Virginia Declaration of Rights”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6607

His feast day is Sept. 17th, Constitution Day

—————————————————————————————

“How Charles Carroll Influenced U.S. Founding Fathers” by Scott McDermott, a circulation librarian at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, writer and convert

https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/zchascarroll.htm

Charles Carroll was the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence and was related to Bishop John Carroll, first bishop of the new United States. His cousin Daniel signed the Constitution.

“Educated by Jesuits in France, Carroll was steeped in the Catholic political tradition: from St. Thomas, through St. Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suárez, all the way down to Montesquieu.

His thought clearly reflects Catholic political precepts such as the priority of the common good, corporatism, the liberty of the Church, popular sovereignty, the natural law, and what later came to be called subsidiarity.

But Carroll had to be careful about quoting any of the great Catholic doctors of the Church, because of the taboo against Catholicism in English political life. Carroll brought these ideas into the mix at the time of the Founding, without acknowledging their source.”

etc,


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: