Well done. Nice use of Newman to elucidate the Vigilius controversy and defend papal infallibility generally. Even some Catholics need a reminder that the Pope is not habitually infallible.
Did the church ever repent of or suggest the massacre was evil?
As a Protestant, the Huguenot massacre still lives in our minds as a representation of Roman “piety”. It would seem that more care is given to the ex cathedra than to the devastatingly bad behavior of Catholics and Rome herself. From the outside, it appears as if authority and position matter more than love or forgiveness which makes us wonder why anyone should care about the claims of authority or position.
Obviously I was not personally affected and also don’t take issue with ensuring accurate reflections of your theology.
Also, it's important for all of us to recognize our biases when looking at history. In the English-speaking world, our popular narratives have tended to exaggerate Catholic abuses and interpret them outside of their historical contexts, while sanitizing the actions of the British and of Protestant and anti-clerical regimes more broadly. All Christians should repent of the abuses perpetrated by the leaders of their respective communions, while also learning the complexity of the events that gave rise to the grievances we still carry after these many centuries.
More long pieces like this please
I love that St. John Henry has no problem just roasting people when they’re being biased and unreasonable.
Distinguo!
Well done. Nice use of Newman to elucidate the Vigilius controversy and defend papal infallibility generally. Even some Catholics need a reminder that the Pope is not habitually infallible.
Did the church ever repent of or suggest the massacre was evil?
As a Protestant, the Huguenot massacre still lives in our minds as a representation of Roman “piety”. It would seem that more care is given to the ex cathedra than to the devastatingly bad behavior of Catholics and Rome herself. From the outside, it appears as if authority and position matter more than love or forgiveness which makes us wonder why anyone should care about the claims of authority or position.
Obviously I was not personally affected and also don’t take issue with ensuring accurate reflections of your theology.
Also, it's important for all of us to recognize our biases when looking at history. In the English-speaking world, our popular narratives have tended to exaggerate Catholic abuses and interpret them outside of their historical contexts, while sanitizing the actions of the British and of Protestant and anti-clerical regimes more broadly. All Christians should repent of the abuses perpetrated by the leaders of their respective communions, while also learning the complexity of the events that gave rise to the grievances we still carry after these many centuries.
I agree. A we Protestants see the same tendency in reverse and it serves no one.
Yes, the contemporary pope himself grew angry when he learned the full details. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/saint-bartholomews-day
John Paul II also repented of the event on several occasions.
JPII was an habitual apologizer.
A helpful guide to the doctrine of papal infallibility and to its rather stringent limits.
What year was Newman’s letter from there?
From my reading, Sept. 15, 1572.
Thank you for shedding light on a much abused and much misunderstood doctrine.