Questions d'un Jeune ex-catholique : Les vérités méconnues de la foi Catholique

Récemment, une personne proche m'a partagé une série de questions qu'elle a reçues de la part d'un jeune protestant Rwandais ayant quitté l'Église Catholique. Ce dernier, s'interrogeait sur les fondements des croyances Catholiques et leur raisons d'être. Dans ce blogpost, je vais aborder ces questions brièvement et clarifier certains aspects de la foi Catholique, afin de répondre à ces préoccupations légitimes et souvent mal comprises.

......................

1) "Où est-il écrit dans la Bible que nous pouvons prier en nous appuyant sur la Vierge Marie et les Saints ?"

Réponse 1: Dans le livre de l'Apocalypse, nous trouvons une description des saints au ciel, représentés par les 24 vieillards (littéralement traduits du terme grec "presbuteros", signifiant anciens). Un ange est également mentionné, portant les prières des saints, qu'il présente à Dieu. Cela offre une image symbolique de la manière dont nos prières sont apportées devant Dieu par les anges et les autres saints célestes. Cette représentation souligne l'idée que les prières des fidèles sont soutenues et portées au ciel par l'intercession d'autre saints:

• Apocalypse 5:8-10: "Et quand il eut pris le livre, les quatre êtres vivants et les vingt-quatre vieillards se prosternèrent devant l'Agneau, ayant chacun des harpes et des coupes d'or pleines de parfums, qui sont les prières des saints. Et ils chantaient un cantique nouveau, disant: Tu es digne de prendre le livre et d'en ouvrir les sceaux; car tu as été immolé, et tu nous as rachetés à Dieu par ton sang, de toute tribu, langue, peuple et nation."

• Apocalypse 8:3-4 : "Un autre ange vint, et il se tint sur l'autel, ayant un encensoir d'or; on lui donna beaucoup de parfums, afin qu'il les offrît, avec les prières de tous les saints, sur l'autel d'or qui est devant le trône. La fumée des parfums monta, avec les prières des saints, de la main de l'ange devant Dieu.” 

On trouve également l’histoire du grand prêtre Onias, qui a eu une vision du prophète Jérémie. Bien que mort depuis plusieurs siècles, Jérémie continuait à prier pour le peuple juif. Il s'est écoulé environ 400 à 500 ans entre la mort de Jérémie (vers 570 avant Jésus-Christ) et la rédaction du livre biblique des Maccabées (entre 124 et 63 avant Jésus-Christ). Cet épisode montre clairement que les saints, même après leur mort, peuvent intercéder pour ceux qui sont encore sur terre:

• 2 Maccabées 15:12-16 : "Voici ce qu'il vit: Onias, ce grand prêtre, homme vertueux et bon, modeste dans ses manières, doux dans ses paroles, et exercé dès l'enfance dans toute espèce de vertu, étendait les mains et priait pour toute l'assemblée des Juifs. Ensuite il parut un autre homme remarquable par sa vieillesse et sa dignité; son aspect respirait la majesté; une grandeur imposante marquait tous ses traits. Onias prit la parole, et dit: Celui-ci est Jérémie, le prophète de Dieu, qui prie beaucoup pour le peuple et pour la ville sainte."

Nous avons également l'exemple du prophète Samuel, qui, même après sa mort, a été attribué une intercession prophétique. Cette intercession a servi à effacer l'iniquité du peuple juif, comme le mentionne le livre biblique de Siracide. Cet épisode illustre que les saints peuvent continuer à agir en faveur du peuple de Dieu, même après leur passage dans l'au-delà.:

• Siracide 46:13-20 : "Samuel fut aimé du Seigneur. Il établit la royauté et oignit des princes sur son peuple. Par la loi du Seigneur, il jugea l'assemblée, et le Seigneur visita Jacob. Par sa fidélité, il fut reconnu prophète, et il montra ses paroles comme un visionnaire véridique. Il invoqua le Seigneur Tout-Puissant lorsqu'il fut pressé par ses ennemis tout autour, et il offrit un agneau sans tache. Le Seigneur tonna du ciel, et il fit retentir sa voix. Il extermina les princes de Tyr, et tous les chefs des Philistins. Avant le temps de son sommeil éternel, il témoigna devant le Seigneur et son oint: Je n'ai pris de personne, ni taureau, ni agneau, et personne n'a porté plainte contre lui. Après son sommeil, il prophétisa encore, et annonça au roi la fin de sa vie; il fit entendre sa voix de dessous la terre, en prophétie, pour effacer l'iniquité du peuple."

Pour lire plus à ce sujet, voici un lien: https://practicalhelpwitheric.blogspot.com/2024/05/intercession-of-saints-no-need-for.html

2) "Pourquoi se confesser à un prêtre si lui aussi est pécheur?"

Réponse 2: important de noter que le critère établi par le Seigneur n’est pas que le prêtre soit sans péché, mais qu’il soit un juste de Dieu, car, comme le dit l'Écriture, "la prière du juste a une grande efficacité" (Jacques 5:16). Les prêtres, par leur ordination, sont rendus justes par le Christ et ont reçu le ministère particulier de la réconciliation, transmis par Jésus aux apôtres, puis transmis par la succession apostolique. En tant que successeurs des apôtres, les prêtres exercent ce ministère de pardon et de réconciliation (Jean 20:21-23), agissant ainsi au nom du Christ dans le sacrement de la confession. Cette pratique s’appuie donc sur l’autorité donnée par le Christ lui-même aux apôtres, et à travers eux aux prêtres, pour pardonner les péchés et réconcilier les fidèles avec Dieu.

• Jacques 5:16 : "Confessez donc vos péchés les uns aux autres, et priez les uns pour les autres, afin que vous soyez guéris. La prière fervente du juste a une grande efficacité."

• Jean 20:21-23 : "Jésus leur dit de nouveau: La paix soit avec vous! Comme le Père m'a envoyé, moi aussi je vous envoie. Après ces paroles, il souffla sur eux, et leur dit: Recevez le Saint-Esprit. Ceux à qui vous pardonnerez les péchés, ils leur seront pardonnés; et ceux à qui vous les retiendrez, ils leur seront retenus."

• Actes 19:18-19 : "Plusieurs de ceux qui avaient cru venaient confesser et déclarer ce qu'ils avaient fait. Et un bon nombre de ceux qui avaient exercé les arts magiques, ayant apporté leurs livres, les brûlèrent devant tout le monde; on en estima la valeur à cinquante mille pièces d'argent."

3. "L'utilisation d'images sacrées, d'images de Dieu, de la Sainte Marie et des saints."

Résponse 3: L'idée d'utiliser des images sacrées lorsque l'on entre en présence de Dieu vient directement de Dieu lui-même, telle qu'elle a été révélée au patriarche Moïse. Dieu n'est pas opposé aux images sacrées, mais il est en effet contre les images représentant d'autres divinités (des idoles). Il ne tolère aucune autre divinité devant Lui en présence de Son peuple. Cependant, les images utilisées pour honorer Dieu et guider les fidèles vers Lui sont permises et même encouragées, comme le montre l'exemple des chérubins sur l'Arche de l'Alliance.

• Exode 25:18-22 : "Tu feras deux chérubins d’or; tu les feras d’or battu, aux deux extrémités du propitiatoire; fais un chérubin à l’une des extrémités, et un chérubin à l’autre extrémité. Tu feras les chérubins sortant du propitiatoire à ses deux extrémités."

• Nombres 21:8-9 : "L'Éternel dit à Moïse: Fais-toi un serpent brûlant, et place-le sur une perche; quiconque aura été mordu, et le regardera, conservera la vie. Moïse fit un serpent d'airain, et le plaça sur une perche; et quiconque avait été mordu par un serpent, et regardait le serpent d'airain, conservait la vie."

Voici un lien pour pousser un peux plus la reflection: https://youtu.be/jJhvG6z0qno

 4. "Prier pour les défunts?"

Réponse 4: Nous avons aussi l'exemple des soldats juifs qui, après être tombés au combat, furent découverts avec des amulettes d'idoles, ce qui était considéré comme un péché grave pour des Juifs. En effet, ils n’auraient pas dû toucher à ces idoles. Pourtant, Israël a prié pour ces soldats même après leur mort, demandant à Dieu de leur pardonner cette offense. En plus de la prière, une collecte fut organisée pour offrir un sacrifice d'expiation au Temple de Jérusalem pour leurs péchés. La Bible qualifie cet acte de prier pour les défunts et d'offrir un sacrifice pour leur pardon de "fort bien et noble" et le décrit comme une "pensée pieuse et sainte" (2 Maccabées 12:39-45). 

Cet épisode souligne l'importance de la prière pour les morts et montre que cette pratique est enracinée dans les traditions bibliques.

·        2 Maccabées 12:39-45 : "Le lendemain, Judas et ses compagnons vinrent, pour enlever les corps de ceux qui étaient tombés, et les déposer avec leurs proches dans les tombeaux de leurs pères. Ils trouvèrent sous la tunique de chacun des morts des objets consacrés aux idoles de Jamnia, que la loi interdit aux Juifs; il devint alors évident à tous que c'était là la cause de leur mort. Tous bénirent la conduite du Seigneur, juste juge, qui révèle les choses cachées, et se mirent en prière pour implorer le pardon du péché commis. 

    Le vaillant Judas exhorta le peuple à se garder du péché, car ils avaient vu de leurs propres yeux ce qui était arrivé à cause du péché de ceux qui étaient tombés. Après cela, il fit une collecte parmi tous ses soldats, environ deux mille drachmes d'argent, qu'il envoya à Jérusalem pour offrir un sacrifice expiatoire, agissant fort bien et noblement dans la pensée de la résurrection. Car s'il n'avait pas espéré que ceux qui étaient tombés ressusciteraient, il eût été superflu et sot de prier pour les morts. Mais, s'il pensait à la magnifique récompense réservée à ceux qui s'endorment dans la piété, c'était là une pensée pieuse et sainte. C'est pourquoi il fit faire ce sacrifice expiatoire pour les morts, afin qu'ils fussent délivrés de leur péché."

St. Paul a prié pour Onesiphore qui etait dejà mort:

·        2Timothé 1:16  “Que le Seigneur répande sa miséricorde sur la maison d'Onésiphore, car il m'a souvent consolé, et il n'a pas eu honte de mes chaînes; au contraire, lorsqu'il est venu à Rome, il m'a cherché avec beaucoup d'empressement, et il m'a trouvé.  Que le Seigneur lui donne d'obtenir miséricorde auprès du Seigneur en ce jour-là. Tu sais mieux que personne combien de services il m'a rendus à Éphèse”

 Voici un lien pour plus d’info sur Onesiphore: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/08/st-paul-prayed-for-a-dead-man-onesiphorus.html

5) "Baptême des enfants"

Réponse 5: Pour comprendre le baptême des enfants, il est important de comprendre l'alliance de la circoncision chez les Juifs. 

Genèse 17:12: "A l'âge de huit jours, tout mâle parmi vous sera circoncis, selon vos générations, qu'il soit né dans la maison, ou qu'il soit acquis à prix d'argent de tout fils d'étranger, qui n'est point de ta race."

Dans le Nouveau Testament, le baptême d'eau est la nouvelle circoncision en Christ, remplaçant la circoncision juive de l'Ancien Testament. 

Colossiens 2:11-12: "Et c'est en lui que vous avez été circoncis d'une circoncision que la main n'a pas faite, mais de la circoncision de Christ, qui consiste dans le dépouillement du corps de la chair: ayant été ensevelis avec lui par le baptême, vous êtes aussi ressuscités en lui et avec lui, par la foi en la puissance de Dieu, qui l'a ressuscité des morts."

La circoncision juive incluait les enfants, même les nourrissons de 8 jours. De la même manière, la nouvelle alliance qui est indiqué par le baptême d’eau, aussi appelée la circoncision en Christ, inclut également les enfants des croyants, tout comme l'ancienne circoncision de la loi incluait les enfants des croyants dans l'Ancien Testament.

Actes 2:38-39: "Pierre leur dit: Repentez-vous, et que chacun de vous soit baptisé au nom de Jésus-Christ, pour le pardon de vos péchés; et vous recevrez le don du Saint-Esprit. Car la promesse est pour vous, pour vos enfants, et pour tous ceux qui sont au loin, en aussi grand nombre que le Seigneur notre Dieu les appellera."

The Future of Christianity: Charismatic Unity and Doctrinal-Moral Dis-Unity

 

1) "what do you think Christianity will look like in the future?"

Christianity is growing and spreading across continents and cultures. We can also note that Christianity in its different facets is fast becoming more charismatic in its expression regardless of which theological obedience a particular Church tradition falls in, Catholic, Protestants, and Orthodox. The statistics shared in the book section 'The New Shape of World Christianity' by Mark Noll bears witness to it, Pentecostals & Charismatics are the fastest growing section of Christianity, far surpassing Evangelicals in all continents in numeric numbers (Millions : Mio) except in Oceania where Evangelicals accounts for 4.4 Million and Pentecostals / charismatic, 4.3 Million (see page 22). In all other continents, traditional Evangelicals Churches are being surpassed by Pentecostals/Charismatic Churches, Africa (69.6 Mio vs 126 Mio); North America (43.2 Mio vs 79.6 Mio); South America (40.3 Mio vs 141.4 Mio); Asia (31.5 Mio vs 134.9 Mio); and Europe (21.5 Mio vs 37.6 Mio).

All protestant's denominations are being swept by the Charismatic phenomenon which was once reserved to the Pentecostal denominations and Catholicism. Even Catholicism that has always had room for the miraculous and supernatural in its doctrinal grid, has undergone a popularization of the Charismatic phenomenon since the 1960's. I therefore think that the Church as a whole will grow more in tune with its historical Charismatic nature. One can only hope that it will also grow closer in unity with each others too.

2) "What will be the major issues and challenges?"

The major issue that Christianity face is division. And this is accentuated by the fact that a growing segment of the Church population is considered to be independent and hence disconnected to their historical origin within the Holy Catholic Church and hence freeing themselves from the bounds of normative doctrinal orthodoxy. This will make dialogue and understanding of each others more difficult as each groups develop their own language to express their faith. Misunderstandings are bound to abound in Christian dialogues if the trend continues and is not rectified.

A typical example is found in the book, "Testing Prayer" by Dr. Candy Brown, (Harvard University Press), in which she noted the following, reflecting a continuous suspicion between Christians which maintain alive the division, even within the pentecostal-charismatic system: 

"Certain Protestant respondents acknowledged that they were healed through the prayers of Catholics while simultaneously revealing an anti- Catholic bias. A woman from Imperatriz noted that “I had a balance disorder from an ear infection. I was very dizzy and could not stand on my feet for too long. I would fall from side to side. One day a Catholic sister prayed for me. I had a lot of faith and independent of her religion I was cured.” From this woman’s perspective, healing did not validate the beliefs of the person praying but instead reflected God’s compassionate response to the faith of the person seeking intercession." (Page 189)

Another issue I see is in the realm of morality. As different ideological influences search to make their peculiar morals or ethical practices enshrines within denominational systems, this will create more factions and defections within the protestants churches and orthodox churches. As for the Catholic Church, having a central head, the Pope, and a living teaching authority (the magisterium of the Church) that preserve the unity of the faith, morals and the revealed tradition, stability is expected to remain within its corridors. Nevertheless, dissenting voices within will continue to trouble the faithful by obscuring the authoritative position of the Church on questions related to morals and else. And this will continue to create discontent among uninformed Catholics and be the cause of possible schismatic behaviors if not formal schismatic acts.

Hence unity is the biggest challenge of Christianity in all its current expression now and in the foreseeable future.

Quéstion de Youtube: L'intercession de Marie et l' origine de l' Eglise Catholique

 Au mois de Janvier 2020, j'ai publier une version amateur repondant en bref au Pasteur Marcello sur ces vues lier à l'Eglise Catholique qui s'intitule, 'Réponse au Pasteur Tunasi sur Marie'. Quelque mois plutard, une personne portant le nom de Clotilde réagit à la video en soulevant une series de questions. Je retranscrit ci-dessous ces questions et mes réponses (avec quelque ajustement de forme) avec l'ésperance que ça pourait aussi aider ceux qui pourront avoir les même questions.

..............

Bonjour Clotilde. Permez moi de répondre aux questions poser dans l'ordre dans laquelle elles furent presenter: 1. "L'eglise primitive ne priais pas Marie" Il est important de comprendre que le mot prier signifie requête et non adoration. En vue de cette clarification, il y' a des évidences historiques qui montrent le contraire de ton assertion et en voici deux exemples qui nous viennent des premiers Chrétiens avant même que la Bible soit canonisé en l'an 393 (AD 393):

a) «Mère de Dieu, [écoute] mes requêtes ; ne nous méprise pas dans l'adversité, mais sauve-nous du danger »(Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).

b) « C'est pourquoi, nous vous prions, la plus excellente des femmes, qui vous glorifiez de la confiance de vos honneurs maternels, de nous garder sans cesse en souvenir. O sainte Mère de Dieu, souvenez-vous de nous, dis-je, qui nous vantons de vous et qui, dans les hymnes d'août, célèbrent la mémoire, qui vivra toujours et ne s'effacera jamais » - (L' Oraison sur Siméon et Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

On voit bien que les prémiers chrétiens, bien avant même la canonisation de la Bible, demandaient à la sainte Mère, la vierge Marie, d'interceder en leur faveur.

2) "Rome ... la nommée CATHOLIQUE." Prémierement, Il ne faut pas confondre l'Empire Romaine et l'Eglise de Rome. Cette dernière fait reference à l'Eglise du Seigneur qui était à Rome (Romains 1:8, 15). Deuxiement, l'Eglise du Seigneur n'a pas été nommée Catholique par la Rome (les Romains), car le mot Catholique est d'origine Grec (katholikos) et non Latine qui etait la langue romaine. Et le mot 'Catholique' veut simplement dire 'universel', car l'Evangile du Royaume doit atteindre toute les nations, donc son universalité (Mathieu 24:14). Troisièmement et le plus important, la première fois que le mot 'Eglise Catholique' apparait dans un document historique, c'est dans les ecrits de St. Ignace qui fut l'êveque d'Antioche (la Turkie moderne) entre l'année AD 105-107 et non de l'êveque de Rome. St. Ignace fut martyrisé par l'empire Romaine pour sa foi en Christ. Je le cite:

« Partout où apparaît l'évêque, que le peuple soit, de même que partout où est le Christ Jésus, il y a l'église catholique." - Lettre à l'Eglise de Smyrne (daté entre AD. 105-107)

Il est donc faux et incorrect de dire que c'est la Rome qui a donné à l'Eglise du Seigneur le nom de Catholique. Il n'y a aucun fondement historique à celà!

3) A la question: "pourquoi tous les saints que vous prier sont tous des européens. Je n'ai jamais vu de Saints asiatique, américains ou africain." Au fait il y a toujours eu des saints dans tout les continent, inclut le continent Africains et celà depuis pres de 2000 ans. A titre d'exemple, St. Augustin parexample etait un Africain, il vivait à hyppo (l'Algerie moderne).

Tu trouveras même toute une liste des saints qui proviennent d'Afrique dans cette rubrique de Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_saints_chr%C3%A9tiens_d%27Afrique_du_Nord

4) A votre derniere remarque: "Une dernière chose: osée :4: 6. Tu me dira sûrement que tu une bible,mais.la lis tu?"

Oui je posede une bible et je fais aussi partie d'un groupe de lecture biblique hebdomadaire et celà depuis bien plus de 5 ans. On a même eu l'occassion de la lire completement en commun de la Genèse à l'Apocalypse une fois, et personnellement j'ai dejà lu ma bible dans son entiereté à 3 reprises. Je peux vous rassurer tres chère qu'il ne me manque ni de la connaissance des saintes Ecritures ni ne suis-je sur le chemin de la destruction et celà grâce à l'Esprit de Verité qui me conduit:

'Quand le consolateur sera venu, l'Esprit de vérité, il vous conduira dans toute la vérité' - Jean 16:13

Merci pour vos questions et remarques.

Que Dieu vous benit.

A Messianic Jew Problem with Catholicism

I have recently watched a series of videos from this extraordinary Jewish Messianic ministry in Israel called, 'One For Israel'. Their staffs are dynamic and the quality of their message delivery is quite outstanding. This Christian ministry geared for the evangelization of non-Christian Jews is operated by Jewish converts to Christianity. By their own statistic of the year 2017, Messianic Jews (Israelite Christian) amount to only 0.3% of the Jewish population, which means they have approximately 50,000 Jewish Christians in the land of Israel. It is an extreme minority that is not always welcomed in the Country due in part by the opposition of Rabbinical Judaism (the predominant religion in Israel).

Despite the great work that "One For Israel" is doing, there is one particular feature of their work that tries to depict repeatedly Catholicism in the worst possible light. I think this may very well be due to the fact that One For Israel is a Christian organization run by protestant Christians trained at the Dallas Theological Seminary. This latter one is not known to being friendly to the Catholic faith as clearly articulated by David Currie. Due to the repeated comments against the Christian Catholic faith, I thought It would be useful if I put in this blog comments that I had put in the YouTubes where those issues were presented. I will focus on only two specific claims for now.

A. Is The Catholic Cross Problematic?

In a 2018 conference presentation by Dr. Eitan Bar about Jewish Evangelism in Israel which can be found in the following link (Click Here), Dr. Eitan Bar gave a message which can only be presented as being at the same time so encouraging in one hand and so disappointing on the other side. 

The disappointment comes from his repeated desire to divide furthermore the Christian Church founded by the Lord Jesus 2000 years ago with statements like this:

"We do not share [preach] the blond, blue eye gentile Jesus who is dead on a Catholic cross for 2000 years now. We share a Jewish, Israeli Messiah -Yeshua - who is not dead but alive and changing people's lives" (see comment in minutes 25:08).

Put aside the blond hair and blue eye comment which is inconsequential given that Asians depict him as an Asian, African depict him as an African, and Europeans depict him as a European for the simple reason that each world demography want to identify themselves with the Lord Jesus trans-ethnic work of salvation. None of these folks are saying with their images of the Lord Jesus Christ that he is not Jewish, or that he was not a Jew. This is not the point of the artwork. The art has an anthropological motif, not a historical motif!

Moreover, about the issue of the Cross of Christ in Catholic Churches, it is worth noting that St. Paul (a Jew himself) who was a witness of the resurrected Messiah spoke of the importance of a depiction of Jesus on the Cross:

A) 1Corinthians 2:2, "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with youexcept Jesus Christ and him crucified."

B) Galatians 3:1, "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes, Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified."

Clearly, St. Paul the apostle does not shy away from the thought of a Crucified messiah even though he knew very well that he was resurrected and sited at the right hand of God as Lord overall. Dr. Eitan simply brings his extreme prejudice against Catholicism in his theology, and this prevents him to fully appreciate why the Cross has been so central to the Christianity of history.

I love "One For Israel" ministry but their attitudes towards Catholicism are extraordinarily misguided! May the Lord Jesus' prayer to the Father for the unity of his Church be fully realized once again!

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that ALL OF THEM MAY BE ONE, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." - John 17:20-21 

B. Was Pope Pius XII Bad for The Jews?

In another video by Dr. Eitan Bar titled, "It is time to talk about Anti-semitism in the Church" (link here), he attacks again the Catholic church for what he perceives (incorrectly may I add) as the silent complicity of the Catholic Church in partnership with Hitler NAZI party for the killing of Jews during the Holocaust.

May I suggest a correction to the presentation of Dr. Eitan Bar? Since he repeatedly informed his listeners that he was once 'moved to jealousy by the truth' in his teenage years which inevitably led to his conversion to Christianity, I hope he can be again moved by jealousy for truth in his prime years as an important figure in Israel evangelism.

I take the liberty to replicate a small excerpt from a Protestant thinker about the significant role that the Catholic Pontiff - Pope Pius XII - played during the period of the holocaust in helping Jews. Since he might be less inclined to listen to Catholics (I presume), maybe listening to a fellow Protestant who ain't favorable to Catholicism would help him consider this point from a non-prejudicial place of thinking (Here is the link to the full source):

"For it was Pius XII, not the deceased Pius XI, who protested the October 1943 order from Berlin to arrest the 8,000 Jews in Rome. In a letter given to Obersturmbannführer Herbert Kappler, the SS Commander in Rome, the Vatican warned that the Pope would publicly denounce the planned arrests of all Jews of Italian citizenship if the Germans followed through with them. Adolf Eichman later wrote: "The objections given and the excessive delay in the steps necessary to complete the implementation of the operation, resulted in a great part of Italian Jews being able to hide and escape capture." 

Pius XII can also be confirmed to have vigorously and repeatedly protested the National Socialist actions through direct communications with the German government. The Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, testified at the Nuremburg Trials: "I do not recollect at the moment, but I know we had a whole deskful of protests from the Vatican. There were very many we did not even read or reply to."

Israeli sources report that papal relief programs saved more Jews than any other, an estimated 860,000. It is not an accident that 80 percent of Italy's Jews survived the war despite the German occupation, about four times more than survived the war in other occupied countries. Many important Jewish leaders of the era, including Israel's first president, first foreign minister, and chief rabbi were explicit in their gratitude towards Pius XII and the Catholic Church for their defense of the Jewish people.

Time Magazine printed a letter from Albert Einstein in 1940: "Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . . Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

Science and Religion: Questions about the Scientific Revolution

A couple of months ago, I was on an online debate with a group of non-Christians (atheist/agnostic) discussing the interface between Religion and Science, particularly the Christian religion. This latter designation is important since all of them seemed to have been former Christians by their own account. The dialogue touched many topics and one of them is the claim that Christianity has been opposed to Science in previous centuries. When asked to prove their points, they offered the following two names as the alleged proof that there was religious persecution of scientists in Medieval time. Of course, they always go for many centuries in the past because it is not obvious now to use contemporary history to support their case. They always rely on ancient history, I assume, hoping that people would not check the historical record to verify their claims. I have learned that when in dialogue with a virulent secularist (atheists and others), ALWAYS FACT-CHECK them! ALWAYS! Their persuasiveness rely on their interlocutor ignorance of history, science, and philosophy.

I. QUESTION ABOUT RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION OF SCIENTISTS?

1) The Case of Michael Servetus:

Michael Servetus wasn't executed for his science but because he entered in conflict with protestant reformers by upholding the heretical doctrine of 'Unitarianism'. He published his book, The Restoration of Christianity, which put him in trouble with his co-religionist reformers. The book was not a scientific book as the title itself shows! The Cambridge trained Historian Dr. Hannam had this to say about Severus: 

"The book infuriated Calvin, to whom Servetus had foolishly sent an advance copy ... Servertus escaped but fled through Geneva where Calvin himself lived. There he was apprehended and at Calvin's insistence, executed as a heretic. In later years Servetus's work on the heart led to him enjoying a reputation as a martyr for science. This is unwarranted because he was executed for purely religious ideas that had nothing to do with anatomy."

- Source: God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. Chapter 14: The Reformation. Page 292 - (ePub version)

Even today when a Government enjails or executes someone for an ideological reason, that person doesn't automatically become a martyr for what the person happened to have studied at school (example, electrical engineer) nor doesn't he become a martyr for the type of professional work he does (example, electronic maintenance). His persecution is unrelated to his educational background or professional work. So it is the same as the ancient trials on heresy. If the trial is about doctrines, then this can't be transferred to whatever the person's job or lack of a job happened to be (gardener, scientist, book-keeper, etc). As sad and regrettable was Servertus trial, he was put in trial for his religious views, and NOT for any scientific ideas.

2) The Case of Bruno Giordano:

As unfortunate as Bruno death was, it is nevertheless important to present the historical data correctly. Bruno Giordano was not a scientist but rather a mystic as documented historian Tim O Neil (Tim is an atheist by the way):

Bruno the Mystic: To begin with, any knowledge of Bruno that goes beyond internet memes will make the idea that he was in any sense of the word a “scientist” immediately dubious.  Bruno was a brilliant and eclectic thinker who ranged over a number of the disciplines of his day, and so is difficult to put into any one category.  He was a metaphysicist, a magus, an expert in mnemonics, a neo-Pythagorean, a neo-Platonist and an astrologer. He advocated a kind of philosophical reasoning, but it was one focused on images and symbols and the use of visualisations and metaphors.  He had a cosmology that included the physical universe, but he rejected the use of mathematics to explore it, considering that too limiting and preferring what he believed was his own intuitive sense for symbols, sacred geometries and what simply felt right. His eccentric melange of ideas included things like Copernicus’ heliocentrism and Nicholas of Cusa’s centreless infinite universe, but it also included magic, stars and planets with animating souls, ancient Egyptian religion and Pythagorean symbolism.  Probably the best word to describe him in modern terms is to say he was a “mystic”."

- Source: https://historyforatheists.com/2017/03/the-great-myths-3-giordano-bruno-was-a-martyr-for-science/

Moreover, Bruno's trouble with the Catholic Church had nothing to do with him doing science since he wasn't a scientist to start with. It was about theology. Heresy is always about a fight against orthodox theology from within the ranks and nothing else. Bruno wrote books calling (i) the Pope the beast of the apocalypse (while still being a Church member), (ii) denying the trinity, teaching the view that the Holy Spirit was the soul/spirit of the world, (iii) teaching that only the Hebrews descended from Adam and Eve and that the rest of the Nations descended from two people that God made the day before (hence questioning the doctrine on the original sin); (iv) that Christ was not God, but a distinguished magician that mocked people, etc.

Clearly, his many grievances against the Church were doctrinal in nature and not scientific. And he was handed over to secular authority after his ecclesial judgment on these matters of doctrines and not for any science-related issue. Also, see the translated letter from 1606, the day he was executed by the secular authority that details the issues of Bruno in his many trials and they happened to have been doctrinal in nature. As unfortunate as his death was, Bruno doesn't qualify as the Science Martyr some ill-intended atheists try to pass him for.

II. OTHER QUESTION ABOUT SCIENCE AND RELIGION?

3) Kick Starting the Scientific Revolution (1543 - 1632)

When the uninformed skeptics finally realize that Christianity has been quite favorable and conducive to the emergence and growth of modern science in the medieval period, they usually react in two ways: The first option, they recognize their error and concede the point and no longer regard Science and the Christian religion as being at war. The second option, they double down in their historical ignorance and try to find alternative reasons for how science might have arisen in medieval times without giving credit to Catholic Christianity.

In my experience, my skeptical interlocutor (usually the virulent no-nothing atheist type) chooses option two and proposes alternatives for he can't bring himself to the realization that he was historical clueless about his misgivings against Christianity. The particular skeptics I was exchanging with made two particular claims: (1) The precursor to the scientific revolution started by Christian scientists was preceded by the discovery of mathematical documents preserved by non-Christian Arabs. (2) The printing press was the technological advancement that kick-started the whole thing and that it is not thanks to Christian fervor or Christian interest to knowledge and progress.

Allow me to interacts with these two claims: 

(a) Recovery of Ancient Documents

The recovery of ancient Greek philosophy documents from Arab countries (which were the possession of Eastern Greek-speaking Christian Monk before the Islamic invasion) was recovered purposely by the Latin speaking Christian monks, priests and clerics of the West who would take these works written in classical Greek and Arabic languages and translate them in Latin for a wider consumption in Cathedral schools and later in Universities which were mainly promoted by the Church. These works were translated from the 12th century onward up to the time of the 'scientific revolution'.

As Cambridge historian Hannam acknowledges, these documents were acquired and translated by Churchmen:

"The most prolific of the translators was Gerard of Cremona (1114-84), who spent many years in Toledo working on the manuscripts in the library there."

Source: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution; Chapter 4: The 12th century Renaissance. Page 63

 We also know that Gerard of Cremona worked in concert with other translators in Toledo under the direction of Bishop Raymond.

(b) The Invention of the Printing Press

The Printing Press was produced by the religiously motivate German, Johannes Gutemberg. If you wondered, why on earth the Printing Press which spurred the scientific revolution as my skeptic friend would have argued was first invented? I bet that the answer to the inventor of the printing machine would surprise many. Here is a line that Gutemberg wrote on the first book that he printed:

"God suffers in the multitude of souls whom His word can not reach. Religious truth is imprisoned in a small number of manuscript books, which confine instead of spread the public treasure. Let us break the seal which seals up holy things and give wings to Truth in order that she may win every soul that comes into the world by her word no longer written at great expense by hands easily palsied, but multiplied like the wind by an untiring machine. Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall soon flow in inexhaustible streams the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of man! Through it God will spread His Word. A spring of pure truth shall flow from it! Like a new star, it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cause a light heretofore unknown to shine among men."

– Lines written in the Gutenberg Bible by Johannes Gutenberg

 Isn't it interesting to note that the printing press was made with the inventor's religious fervor to see the multi-production of Bibles to reach the whole world as the driving force and impetus for his ingenuity? 

 Hence we see that both main points the skeptic mentioned as instrumental to the scientific revolution were essentially done, carried out, and produced by motivated Christians in the Middle age. There is no escaping this fact. What is sure, there were NO atheists or skeptical secularists on the horizon when science was emerging. For all their grievances against religion, their historical contribution to science is nowhere to be found, except sadly in their internet Memes and/or Popular Atheistic books. What we do witness contrary to popular belief in our secular world, it is that fervent and passionate Christians along the way championed the emergence and progress of natural philosophy and science during the middle age (medieval period).

4) Why for 1,500 years did Christianity fail to produce a Scientific Revolution?

The other question I received once from a skeptic was rather unexpected but I think It had some good legitimacy. If Christianity was the principal cause that brought the Scientific Revolution and the emergence of modern science in the 16th Century, why didn't modern science arise earlier? I guess this is a fair question. It is important to note that this question doesn't nihilate what we have already covered above about Christian scientists' contribution to new field of scientific studies or the role the Church played with the translated documents and the innovative emergence of the printing press.

Nevertheless, let consider the question on its own right.

First, though Christianity emerged in the first century in Palestine as a persecuted minority throughout the Roman Empire. It wasn't an established institution until many centuries later, as it contended against many powers trying to control it until Pope Gregory VII in 1066 AD freed the Church from the political hands of European political leaders (Kings, Nobles, and Dukes) and strengthen Church discipline.

Second, the scientific revolution didn't occur in a vacuum. The 16th century might have been the revolutionary period but it was preceded by many natural scientific endeavors from earlier on which aggregated knowledge from the previous Millenium. Many minds had to succeed to each other while leaving a growing body of knowledge to the new generation. As an example the Franciscan priest Roger Bacon (who is considered as one of the founders of the scientific method, empiricism) in the 13th century (1214-1294 AD) built on the work on previous Christian thinkers.

As Medieval historian, Tim O Neil (who happens to be an atheist) points out, the advent of the Scientific Methods was preceded by an aggregation of prior knowledge from Christian thinkers, each adding their own contributions to the vast body of knowledge growing incrementally toward the eventual explosive 'Scientific Revolution'. Tim puts it this way about the pre-scientific revolution thinkers, which many have contested did not exist due to the alleged Church persecution of scientists, and I quote: 

"I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents have usually run away to hide and scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong."

This quote from an atheist such as Tim also resolves one of the frequent misleading assumptions of skeptics which assumes that natural scientists/philosophers pre- 16th Century were either inexistent or living in fear of the Church. Clearly this is an unfounded claim.

Thirdly, regarding the emergence of Modern science when it did, it is not always obvious to know why something happened (cause-effect relationship) but sometimes a simple correlation can be indicative of a hidden parameter. I submit this view: Christianity was still expanding throughout Europe during those 1500 years and meeting obstacles to its philosophical views in the European continent. But when all Europe became fully Christianized, that's when its view which was already being practiced by those who held the Church views on nature, philosophy, and theology exploded throughout the continent unimpeded as new knowledge aka modern science. The evidence for this reasoning of mine is that I noticed that it just happened that the scientific revolution occurred in the same time laps of when Europe was fully Christianized. I quote again Tim,

"Jenkins notes that we tend to think of Christianity as a religion which began in the Middle East and then spread west, via the Roman Empire, eventually finding some kind of natural home in Europe before expanding across the globe from there in the Modern Era.  Whereas, in fact, it was not until around 1500, with the conversion of the last European pagans in the Baltic and the expulsion of the last major Muslim presence in Spain, that Europe became fully Christian." 

- (Review of the history book, The Lost History of Christianity, by Professor of History at Baylor University, Dr. Philip Jenkins)

I think this information from Dr. Philip Jenkins does point us toward a possible answer. Europe was still being Christianized, and hence growing in awareness in what Christianity could offer intellectually. Therefore it took time for Christianity to bring about the rise of science. However, when everybody was embracing the same natural sciences and philosophical worldview (scholasticism) proposed by the Catholic Church, that's when the scientific revolution of the 16-17th century started to emerge forcefully throughout continental Europe. Hence, Christianity is absolutely in the heart of the process for the rise of science despite the time it took to be fully formed as a new discipline of investigation of the natural order created by the Creator.