Am I of cursed lineage?

[MacQ]

Are you saying that Canaan wasn’t cursed at all, or that the reason of being cursed isn’t to be taken literal, which is what I already know?

Well, your initial post seemed to be looking at things quite literally, and searching for a literal answer…I guess I don’t understand what you’re asking.
You seemed to be wanting to know if YOU are cursed because of your lineage/ancestry.
That’s a literal take.
The non-literal take is that those stories symbolize mankind in general…
I’d say we’re all cursed (by the same things the ancients were…our propensity for self will, making war on others, lack of trust in God, pursuing things not of God, sinning…etc.).

 

[Nanotwerp]

Well, your initial post seemed to be looking at things quite literally, and searching for a literal answer…I guess I don’t understand what you’re asking.
You seemed to be wanting to know if YOU are cursed because of your lineage/ancestry.
That’s a literal take.
The non-literal take is that those stories symbolize mankind in general…
I’d say we’re all cursed (by the same things the ancients were…our propensity for self will, making war on others, lack of trust in God, pursuing things not of God, sinning…etc.).

To be honest, I don’t even believe Noah’s ‘grandsons’ were real people; just symbolization of where the people settled. I type as if I take things literally so I won’t cause confusion. Fundamentalism is one of my biggest pet peeves.

 

[MacQ]

To be honest, I don’t even believe Noah’s ‘grandsons’ were real people; just symbolization of where the people settled. I type as if I take things literally so I won’t cause confusion. Fundamentalism is one of my biggest pet peeves.

Ok, well I was confused. Hope you get your answers.

 

[The_Serpent]

Acts 8: 26 - 40; tells the story of the eunuch of Candace Queen of Ethiopia being converted to the faith by Philip.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

When studying the first books of the Bible, I’ve noticed that most every early descendant of Ham turned out evil and corrupted…

For example: Ham didn’t cover Noah’s nakedness and was cursed
Canaanites were mostly deemed evil
Nimrod was a corrupted leader
Egyptians enslaving the early Israelites

I don’t get this; is Ham’s whole lineage cursed? The descendants of both of the brothers of Ham contributed greatly to the early Biblical history, while the descendants of Ham didn’t.

The short answer is, No. Jesus delivered us all from spiritual bondage and all “curses,” if any ever existed, were lifted by Jesus’s self-sacrifice, as Porthos 11 said.

The Vatican officially stated this to be the case in 1861, when P. Fr. Vincenzo M. Gatti, O.P., of the Pope’s Roman Congregation of the Index, charged with censoring ideas which were unacceptable to Catholic Doctrine, wrote with the authority of Pope Pius IX to censure a bishop in New Orleans who had expressed such ideas in an article in a diocesan paper:

The Bishop supposes that there exists a natural difference between the Negroes, whom he calls the children of Canaan, and the Whites, when he says that the latter are the privileged ones of the great human family and the former are still now lying under the curse of Noah. And he makes it the latter’s duty to be the Negroes’ sheperds, fathers, and masters…we also must observe that both the ancient and the modern supporters of the theory of slavery advanced as one of the reasons for its acceptability the fact that the Negroes have been subjected to others by the curse of Noah. But those who oppose this theory, besides denying its validity, at least after the Christian era when the curse would not be valid any longer, deny the fact itself, i.e., that the Negroes descend from Canaan.

OBSERVATION: The Bishop calls the Negroes poor children, while they are not such. As I stressed above, Noah did not curse Canaan…but even if they were cursed by Noah, they are not cursed any longer after the coming of Jesus Christ when, as the Apostle says, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile, between freeman and slave, between man and woman, since we are all sons of the same divine Father. In contrast, Bishop Martin seems to consider the opposite teaching to be the teaching of the Gospel. Did Jesus Christ say: “Go snatch them by force from their native country, drag them to your countries, and convert them?” No, He did not. But He sad: “Go throughout the world; teach all the people…and preach the Gospel to every man.” And did He say: “In exchange for the spiritual good that you will do, exploit them as instruments for your material interests?” No, He did not, but rather he said: “Freely give what you have freely received.” As we know from history, the Negroes are sold by the chiefs who put them on the market after snatching them by force from their native land. These unfortunates are brought by slave traders who take advantage of them as their own property. The aim of teaching the Christian Faith, even if it exists, which very often it does not, is a trifling matter and it does not justify the iniquity which they commit in this trade."

 

[Zipply]

Nanotwerp-

The reason you can’t get a straight answer is that on this issue, the Church is in transition. 500 years ago, virtually every Catholic was what we would now call a fundamentalist. Today, virtually no European biblical scholars are, a few American catholic scholars are, and a great mass of American lay people are fundamentalist.

Over the last 140 years, the Church has been promulgating half-hearted denials of scriptural fundamentalism which use vague language. Read Dei Verbum as the most recent major example. This half hearted language about being sensitive to genre doesn’t actually answer anyone’s specific questions about anything. See a lot of threads on here about interpreting the Old Testament. They are all debates between fundy Catholics and people talking on about ‘genre’.

Did God command the extermination of the Amelekites or not? Saying ‘You have to be sensitive to genre’ is NOT any kind of answer to this question…but that is all the help the church has thus far offered on the subject, so in online battles, fundies usually win.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Nanotwerp-

The reason you can’t get a straight answer is that on this issue, the Church is in transition. 500 years ago, virtually every Catholic was what we would now call a fundamentalist. Today, virtually no European biblical scholars are, a few American catholic scholars are, and a great mass of American lay people are fundamentalist.

I’m pretty sure he got a straight answer is the post right above yours.

 

[Paleocon]

Nanotwerp-

The reason you can’t get a straight answer is that on this issue, the Church is in transition. 500 years ago, virtually every Catholic was what we would now call a fundamentalist. Today, virtually no European biblical scholars are, a few American catholic scholars are, and a great mass of American lay people are fundamentalist.

Over the last 140 years, the Church has been promulgating half-hearted denials of scriptural fundamentalism which use vague language. Read Dei Verbum as the most recent major example. This half hearted language about being sensitive to genre doesn’t actually answer anyone’s specific questions about anything. See a lot of threads on here about interpreting the Old Testament. They are all debates between fundy Catholics and people talking on about ‘genre’.

Did God command the extermination of the Amelekites or not? Saying ‘You have to be sensitive to genre’ is NOT any kind of answer to this question…but that is all the help the church has thus far offered on the subject, so in online battles, fundies usually win.

Just ignore posts like this Nanotwerp. The Church has never been fundamentalist, unless by fundamentalist you mean orthodox.

The curse of Canaan was fulfilled when the ancient Israelites conquered the Canaanites over three thousand years ago.

 

[Zipply]

Just ignore posts like this Nanotwerp. The Church has never been fundamentalist, unless by fundamentalist you mean orthodox.

Just for an easy example, the famous, oft-invoked Galileo incident.

 

[Paleocon]

Just for an easy example, the famous, oft-invoked Galileo incident.

Galileo never would have got what he got if he hadn’t been as obtuse and belligerent as he was. That doesn’t justify it, but it also discredits the anti-Catholic myth that the Church was rabidly anti-science.

 

[Zipply]

Yes, we’ve all heard that dodge used a thousand times. What every serious person referring to the Galileo incident is talking about is that a reversal had to be made on a matter of scriptural interpretation. The Church made it, and eventually made it graciously, and it points out this sea change in how scripture is used in the Church. It’s just the most obvious example.

The same point can be made by placing the great scriptural encyclicals of the last 140 years parallel to each other to see how the Church has moved to allow greater latitude in interpretation of the Old Testament, which is this sea change manifesting again.

Americans don’t want to hear it, but this is part of the development of doctrine. It’s a real, Catholic thing.

 

[Paleocon]

Yes, we’ve all heard that dodge used a thousand times. What every serious person referring to the Galileo incident is talking about is that a reversal had to be made on a matter of scriptural interpretation. The Church made it, and eventually made it graciously, and it points out this sea change in how scripture is used in the Church. It’s just the most obvious example.

The same point can be made by placing the great scriptural encyclicals of the last 140 years parallel to each other to see how the Church has moved to allow greater latitude in interpretation of the Old Testament, which is this sea change manifesting again.

Americans don’t want to hear it, but this is part of the development of doctrine. It’s a real, Catholic thing.

And what differing interpretations of a scripture passage has to do with fundamentalism I’ll never know.

The Church’s teachings on scriptural interpretation have not changed. If they had, you could cite two encyclicals to show this change, yet you cannot.

 

[Zipply]

Oh no, I’d be very glad to have the discussion with you. Let’s set some terms and maybe start a new thread. What exactly is it that you want me to demonstrate?

 

[Paleocon]

Oh no, I’d be very glad to have the discussion with you. Let’s set some terms and maybe start a new thread. What exactly is it that you want me to demonstrate?

Cite two encyclicals which contradict each other in their teaching on how to interpret scripture.

 

[Zipply]

Where did I say that encyclicals contradicted each other? you’re not reading very closely. The encyclicals on scripture I refer to (beginning with Provendentissimus Deus in the 1870s) are part of the modern era. What they contradict is the way scripture was used in the Church for the first 1700 years.

You want to try again?

 

[Paleocon]

Where did I say that encyclicals contradicted each other? you’re not reading very closely. The encyclicals on scripture I refer to (beginning with Provendentissimus Deus in the 1870s) are part of the modern era. What they contradict is the way scripture was used in the Church for the first 1700 years.

You want to try again?

Then cite two contradictory magisterial statements on the matter. This would be easy to do if you were correct.

 

[Zipply]

You want me, as a Catholic, to demonstrate the fallibility of the Magisterium of the Church?

You really do run a low-level debate, don’t you.

How about I show that the great majority of the Church Fathers used as simple historical fact all of the Old Testament, and never knew about symbolic language as described in Dei Verbum and the CCC? Or that the Church in the 17th century was doing same exact thing as it had in the 3rd and 5th, and then had to backtrack on it in the light of the scientific revolution?

Heh, you must think I’m a noob. Show that magisterial statements contradict, when the whole purpose of drafting a magisterial statement is to word it so that it doesn’t contradict previous ones. What a laugh.

 

[Paleocon]

Show that magisterial statements contradict, when the whole purpose of drafting a magisterial statement is to word it so that it doesn’t contradict previous ones. What a laugh.

So you can’t show that the Church has changed, but are making that up.

 

[Zipply]

Yes, Paleo, I’m making it all up. The reason the cardinals were threatening Galileo with a heresy trial in the 1600’s over Copernicanism contradicting the Old Testament, and yet the last several Popes teach that there is no contradiction between Catholicism and even human evolution is because nothing has changed.

that makes all kinds of sense.

 

[Paleocon]

Yes, Paleo, I’m making it all up.

Glad that’s established.

I have no intention of arguing with someone who admits they can’t support their position.