Ecumenism-Why the Euphoria and what is the Gain for Catholics?

[Traditional_Ang]

** MICHAEL:**

NATO Warplanes (Primarily American) Bombed Serbia in 1999 during one of the Clinton Adminstration’s Scandals, NOT 1993, defending Muslin Kosovars against what Sec. of State Madeline Albright had called “Serbian Genocide”. Four facts need to be noted:

1. The bombing campaign was conducted under the aegis of NATO, which means that NATO Warplanes, and not just American warplanes, bombed Serbia and Kosovo, and that this was done with the approval and under the command of NATO.
2. The Christians in the situation were the SERBS, the ones we were bombing! The Muslims (you’ll notice I described some of the aftermath using the Daily Telegraph Article) were the ones we were defending have turned into aggressors against the Serbs, and NO ONE (with few exceptions) has commented on that!
3. President Clinton and his Administration were not CATHOLIC, opposed most of the 5 NON-negotiables of the Catholic Church, and could not be said to be Christian. In fact, many conservative Christians who objected to the Bombing Compaign were called unpatriotic and intollerant, not only by the Clinton administrtion, but by members of the Press.
4. The war against Serbia was carried out because of credible reports and evidence of genocide that was possessed by NATO and the UN. Under the “Just War” Doctrine, action is allowed in that situation to stop this.

In spite of #4 above, the Campaign against Serbia never had the approval of the Catholic Church or of its authorities, and NO ONE from any of those agencies asked for a responsible Catholic Opinion.

…cont’d, ended]
## I seem to recall that Christian America bombed Orthodox Serbia during Holy Week - very pious, I’m sure. ** In 1993 or so. 11** years ago.

---

I just do not think that Christians have even the glimmer of a right to lecture non-Christians about their deeds of evil. What impresses me is just how unspeakable the Church has been at times. That said, accusations are best left with the “accuser of the brethren”. IMO, evil is far more obvious in Church history than any good. I’m not in the CC because it is holy (!) but because Christ is.

---

**We cannot evangelise others if our own hands are dripping with human blood. Non-Christians are not fools or ignoramuses - they will remind us of our sins if no one else does. Reminding others of their crimes, does not make us free of crime ourselves. **##

Michael, I don’t see how you can fairly lay Clinton’s War against Serbia on the door of the Church. That just isn’t fair or right given who Bill Clinton is and what his administration stood for.

Michael, the Term “Holy” in the Creed ("One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) comes from a Hebrew concept of being a people set apart, and has nothing to do personal or even collective Righteousness.

You are a member of a people who are set apart unto God in the same way the People of Israel were.

And, meanwhile, the people who are doing the evangelizing aren’t the ones whose “Hands are dripping with human blood” - They’re the ones whose hands have been building shelter for the homeless, hospitals for the sick, kitchens for the hungry, etc.

I can’t see why you would say that they haven’t earned the right and duty to spread the salvific message of the Gospel to those who are dying in darkness. Unless, you feel so personality guilty that you can’t see how you could ever spread the message of the Gospel.

Speaking of “Blood on their hands”:

Moses murdered an Egyptian in Rage - Before God used him to deliver his people out of Salvery.

David Slaughtered his 10,000’s, and God called him a man after His own heart and established his (the Davidic Kingdom) forever.

Solomon was a warrior King, whom God annointed to build his Holy Temple.

Saul was the ringleader to the murder of the first Christian Martyr, Stephen, before he became the Apostle Paul.

If I recall correctly, The man who wrote “Amazing Graze” and was crucial to the founding of the Abolition Society of Great Britain started put as a Slave Trader. He knew what he was saying when he said, “Wretch like me”.

Who are you to put a limit on God’s Grace? And, who are you to tell God you won’t spread his word?

FYI, my wife and I have had a Serbian Hairstylist for the last 11-1/2 years. The War against Kosovo was what finally soured her on President Clinton.

Blessings.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Exporter]

Traditional Anglican,

The font is “fixedsys” at size 3. Can you read this easily? Oh yes.

U.S. and Nato planes bombed Catholic Serbia. The Muslims had tried to take over their nation after emmegrating there. I knew it when it happened and I quietly thought that the Baptist, Bill Clinton was happy to bomb Catholics. I could not understand it!

What is the result of this Ecumenism? I would think both hate eachother even more now.

 

[Contarini]

Traditional Ang:

Edwin:

John Wesley aside, the teachings of a religion are those the adherents of that religion actually follow.

So in discussing Catholicism, you throw away your Catechism and go by what people in the average parish think? That woulld have some very interesting results.
Traditional Ang:

And just for good measure, you get those members who attend for the social benefit and who might not really believe much of anything at all (These are oftern called “Broad Church”).

Broad Church has a rather different meaning–it’s the liberal wing, which does in fact believe some quite definite things. The historical Broad Church of the 19th century in particular should not be dismissed as you are doing. Many of its representatives (F.D. Maurice, George MacDonald) were people of great principle and we owe them a lot, whatever their errors. All fans of C. S. Lewis, for instance, owe a lot to MacDonald’s influence on Lewis (Lewis’s view that the “doors of hell are locked on the inside” is essentially a response to MacDonald, and is very different from what most people would have thought of as the orthodox view before the 19th century). In many cases, the Broad Church folks went too far (even the moderate ones), but they raised some very important questions.
Traditional Ang:

I’m not refering to those who really believe that they are receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but who just aren’t sure how He does it.

But in my experience that’s what most low-church Anglicans and high-church Methodists would say.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

---

Traditional Ang:

MICHAEL:

**

NATO Warplanes (Primarily American) Bombed Serbia in 1999 during one of the Clinton Adminstration’s Scandals, NOT 1993, defending Muslin Kosovars against what Sec. of State Madeline Albright had called “Serbian Genocide”. Four facts need to be noted:

1) The bombing campaign was conducted under the aegis of NATO, which means that NATO Warplanes, and not just American warplanes, bombed Serbia and Kosovo, and that this was done with the approval and under the command of NATO.

2) The Christians in the situation were the SERBS, the ones we were bombing!****## I know that - that, was my objection. Unless bombing one’s fellow Christians is a Christlike act. What matter which Christians dropped the bombs on their fellow-Christians? It is still wrong. All those Christians, killing other Christians

Sarcastic ? Yes - but I hate looking at these things. No wonder if some would ignore or sugar-coat them. ##

**

The Muslims (you’ll notice I described some of the aftermath using the Daily Telegraph Article) were the ones we were defending have turned into aggressors against the Serbs, and NO ONE (with few exceptions) has commented on that!

**## They have in the UK. ##

**

1. President Clinton and his Administration were not CATHOLIC,

**

## Baptists know the requirements of the Gospel; they are as human & Christian as Catholics or as Serbian Christians. Yet Christians marking the holiest season of the Christian year were the sufferers. So bringing churchmanship into this makes no sense. ##

**

opposed most of the 5 NON-negotiables of the Catholic Church, and could not be said to be Christian.

**

## I thought I was the “judgemental” one - not you When were non-Roman Christians required to agree with those points in order to be Christians ? Never. ##

**

In fact, many conservative Christians who objected to the Bombing Compaign were called unpatriotic and intollerant, not only by the Clinton administrtion, but by members of the Press.

**## Do you know for sure that they had done nothing to deserve it ? ##

**

1. The war against Serbia was carried out because of credible reports and evidence of genocide that was possessed by NATO and the UN. Under the “Just War” Doctrine, action is allowed in that situation to stop this.

**

In spite of #4 above, the Campaign against Serbia never had the approval of the Catholic Church or of its authorities, and NO ONE from any of those agencies asked for a responsible Catholic Opinion.****## Since carpet-bombing is wrong, no wonder. Christians do not need Catholics to tell them that bombing civilians is immoral. Reasonable human beings are quite capable of being moral and civilised without being Christian; Christianity has not exactly brought the world universal brotherhood and peace. ##

---

Michael, I don’t see how you can fairly lay Clinton’s War against Serbia on the door of the Church. That just isn’t fair or right given who Bill Clinton is and what his administration stood for.

****## I didn’t.
I did, however, underline “11” - since the bombing happened 11 [actually, of course, 12] years ago. IOW - it is recent, and not centuries ago (since you pointed out that many evils I mentioned were centuries ago). And was done by a country which likes to think of itself as Christian. As for Bill Clinton: he’s said to be a Baptist Christian, & I have no business unchurching him. I don’t like prying into people’s inmost souls - they are out of bounds to all but God. I think a lot of “conservative” Christians are repellently self-righteous - but that is because that is how they sound outwardly. They may be very Christ-like people for all one knows. Is that judgemental ? If someone is outwardly a Christian in some way - that is enough for them to be regarded as Christian in some way. And no, I do not reject Humanae Vitae.

---

[cont’d…]
*

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

*[cont’d…]

***We may think Muslims are savages or barbarians for killing Christians - but by what right? They might reply that they are waging holy war against infidels; just as the Israelites are represented in the OT as doing things which would certainly put Joshua & Moses in the dock for genocide and murder, had they lived today. ***
Making moral judgements is hideously difficult - how can we condemn Muslim warriors or Nazi gauleiters, but not Joshua or St. Louis IX too ? Nahum in the OT hated Assyria - but were the Assyrians any more frightful then King David or Samuel or King Josiah ? I don’t suppose that Baal-worshippers cared for Josiah of Judah any more than the Irish cared for Oliver Cromwell: both men killed out of zeal for “true religion”: but everything depends on whose religion is being suppressed. We cannot apply a moral standard to Muslims, and ignore the same deeds when Popes or Saints or kings do them. Nothing is so demoralising as the attempts that have been made to paint people as saints or monsters according as they do or do not belong to one’s own group.

**The point is, that Muslims only seem ghastly if one forgets that they are merely doing what others have done - one of the many reasons why Christian history can’t be ignored. (Have Christians been civil and tolerant and so on ? Yes, at times - but then, so have Muslims.) So the current outcry against them has to be exposed as the partial & selective thing it is. So I see no moral difference worth discussing between them - and us Christians. For every criticism we may have of them, boomerangs onto something found among us - and if we can point to good in our history, so can they. ***
IMO, the sole difference worth discussing at all is a theological one: that Jesus Christ has graciously made known His goodness to Christians, but that (as a “Church”) Muslims do not yet grasp this. And in this, there is no room for any boasting by us whatever. We are no better than they, nor they than us - but He is better than both and all. ***
Sorry to ramble - but this whole business of ethical judgement and history is v. important. A major problem with PCs - they leave no room for body-language or for accent: which are two of the major means by which we communicate meaning to each other. ##

---

Michael, the Term “Holy” in the Creed ("One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) comes from a Hebrew concept of being a people set apart, and has nothing to do personal or even collective Righteousness.

You are a member of a people who are set apart unto God in the same way the People of Israel were.**## 1. Yes, but that does not go far enough. **
2. For holiness is not only a state - it is also a vocation. Something we ought to be - as well as something we are already. And that is why (& how) it is possible to talk of Christians being anything but holy. So, St. Paul and Henry VIII are (in one sense both saints) - but there is no prospect of the latter being canonised. ##

And, meanwhile, the people who are doing the evangelizing aren’t the ones whose “Hands are dripping with human blood” - They’re the ones whose hands have been building shelter for the homeless, hospitals for the sick, kitchens for the hungry, etc.

**
**## I’m sure there are attractive Muslims & Communists. If their character does not redeem Islam - why should attractive Christians redeem Christianity’s ? I have no idea. (The Red Crescent is a Muslim charity.) **I’m sorry, but I see nothing in Christian history of any apologetic value. I believe, because there is no reason to do so. Is this sub-Christian? I don’t know.
**

I can’t see why you would say that they haven’t earned the right and duty to spread the salvific message of the Gospel to those who are dying in darkness. Unless, you feel so personality guilty that you can’t see how you could ever spread the message of the Gospel.

**## How can the Churches evangelise (say) Jews, after the hideous treatment they have had to endure, for centuries ? (And please don’t mention Pius XII, etc. - that is only one recent episode in a very ugly story. ) ##

[cont’d…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Speaking of “Blood on their hands”:

Moses murdered an Egyptian in Rage - Before God used him to deliver his people out of Salvery.

David Slaughtered his 10,000’s, and God called him a man after His own heart and established his (the Davidic Kingdom) forever.

Solomon was a warrior King, whom God annointed to build his Holy Temple.## Solomon did - David, as a shedder of blood, was forbidden to. ##

Saul was the ringleader to the murder of the first Christian Martyr, Stephen, before he became the Apostle Paul.

If I recall correctly, The man who wrote “Amazing Graze” and was crucial to the founding of the Abolition Society of Great Britain started put as a Slave Trader. He knew what he was saying when he said, “Wretch like me”.**

## That proves my point. TY. St. Paul, once converted, did not behave as if cruelty was compatible with being Christian. He did not sanctify evil. But Christians have. And we are quite capable of doing evil with the best of intentions - which is heart-breaking. ##**

Who are you to put a limit on God’s Grace? And, who are you to tell God you won’t spread his word ?

**## I’m not - I merely happen not to think that preaching the Prince of Peace while committing murder is a convincing witness. The Church has a gigantic credibility problem because of her past - here in the UK one sees it, whereas the USA looks (to me, an outsider) as if it is cushioned from some of the effects of this.

**Say “missionary” *here ***- and many think, “imperialism”. Not “Christ the Redeemer”. This is one reason why President Bush is so hated here: he’s apt to summed up as “one of those dreadful Christian fanatics who believes in that Jesus nonsense”. That, is what one is up against - & not without reason. Churches have done great damage, and these things are not soon forgotten. Nor should they be.

**St. Paul does not tell Christians to be vicious - but it is the easiest thing in the world to point to vicious Christians. Starting at the self - never at the supposed sins of others. Critics are not going to be impressed by a spiel about the meaning of “holiness” in Mediterranean religions - they want to know why Christians have slaughtered Muslims & Jews, molested children, bombed Serbian Christians, helped to murder Rwandans, or supported Fascist murder squads. It is foul stuff - and it is true. Not all critics are immoralists - some are repelled by what Christians have done. How can one blame them ? I refuse to. Vatican II noted that the CC had this very problem - I am not making it up. **

Of course, if one thinks the Churches have had a purely benign and unbloody record, what is there to say ? I prefer reality and truth to the pleasing fiction of a purely benign Church. Tillich was right: there is something “demonic” in Christianity. Unflattering ? Of course: that does not make it false. ##

FYI, my wife and I have had a Serbian Hairstylist for the last 11-1/2 years. The War against Kosovo was what finally soured her on President Clinton.

## TY for proving my point. I apologise for sounding like an anti-Christian, but IMHO the moral objection against Christianity is irrefutable. And trying to defend the indefensible only makes Christianity look even worse. I’ve made points against Christianity, because they are the sort of things people mention. If we ignore these things, the more fool we. But, Christian faith is not based on argument - it is based on Christ. It is as well for us that God is not just, but gracious. ##

Blessings.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Contarini]

Gottle,

I agree entirely with the point you’re trying to make. On the other hand, in modern secular society the story is told in a very one-sided way. Everyone knows about Christians defending slavery, but relatively few know about the absolutely crucial role of Christians in bringing slavery to an end. Every atrocity Christians have committed is exaggerated, and all the good we have done is ignored. The problem I face–in particular as an adjunct professor of history at a secular university–is how to be honest about our past without further enabling this vicious distortion of history. This is my third semester teaching a basic Western Civ class, and I’m still struggling with this. Probably I always will, but I hope I’m getting better at it. The more I come to understand what a biased view of history (in an anti-Christian way) most students have, the less guilty I feel about emphasizing the other side of things. And at the same time I don’t want to whitewash anything. There is no easy answer.

On this board, the emphasis you’ve placed on our sorry past is absolutely appropriate. I’m just pointing out that the attitudes of many secular people–particularly in Western Europe but also in many circles here in the U.S.–are not necessarily based on a fair evaluation of the evidence either.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

Gottle,

I agree entirely with the point you’re trying to make. On the other hand, in modern secular society the story is told in a very one-sided way. Everyone knows about Christians defending slavery, but relatively few know about the absolutely crucial role of Christians in bringing slavery to an end.

All true.​

The problem I see, is that there would in large part have been no slavery had Christians not started it again. (One can hardly blame Muslims for Christian slavry- or contrariwise. That is the most obvious qualification to make.)
I’m not as impressed by Christian conduct in this as I once was, partly because there was slavery of a sort in the early middle ages (in monasteries, say - my source is A.J. Carlyle); and because Chesterton relies on an argument from silence here: the absence of Catholic voices against it may mean, not that there was an unchronicled line of Catholic John Woolmans crying out against it, but that there were no such characters at all: that it was seem as quite OK morally. I hate this tendency of taking the credit for ending evil X or furthering good Y: I call it “Blucherism” - it is analogous to ascribing the victory over Napoleon to a late-comer, and ignoring the fact that it was Wellington who bore the heat of the day. It is a notable trait in RC apologetics, and is all too clear in pre-Conciliar books. The CC sails along, looking down her prow at the (she thinks) negligible little life-boats clustering round her, the S.S. Milk White Hind - all is shape-shape in her, but not in them, she says. But: she is so full of her own wonderfulness, that she is befogged by it - and strikes a reef. The CC is far too full of…the CC - she is as bad as any individual man at “decreas[ing] that He may increase”, at dying that she may live. Theologically, I think she desperately needs a “theology of the cross” instead of a “theology of glory”. For how can a Church be conformed to Christ without dying His death ?
That is why the unprosperity of the C of E does not trouble me; her very degradation, were it a thousand times worse than it is, keeps her from some of the temptations which trouble the CC; her very lack of human might, leaves room for the infinite graciousness of God to work all the more mightily. This is why atrocity-swapping is so vain - it proceeds on an assumption that outer prosperity is proof of Divine favour. It implicitly ignores the covenant-faithfulness and loving-kindness of the Father, “who has shut up all men to disobedience, that He may have mercy upon all.” God has no favourites - not even Churches. And thank God for that. For how can God fill a Church with His grace, if it is full of self ? How can He have mercy on a Church, if it is not under His righteous judgement ? ##

Every atrocity Christians have committed is exaggerated, and all the good we have done is ignored. The problem I face–in particular as an adjunct professor of history at a secular university–is how to be honest about our past without further enabling this vicious distortion of history. This is my third semester teaching a basic Western Civ class, and I’m still struggling with this. Probably I always will, but I hope I’m getting better at it. The more I come to understand what a biased view of history (in an anti-Christian way) most students have, the less guilty I feel about emphasizing the other side of things. And at the same time I don’t want to whitewash anything. There is no easy answer.

On this board, the emphasis you’ve placed on our sorry past is absolutely appropriate. I’m just pointing out that the attitudes of many secular people–particularly in Western Europe but also in many circles here in the U.S.–are not necessarily based on a fair evaluation of the evidence either.

It’s good to know one is not alone. I hope I haven’t scandalised anyone…​

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Exporter]

This is a Vatican Document on Ecumenism.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
" Today, in many parts of the world, under the inspiring grace of the Holy Spirit, many efforts are being made in prayer, word and action to attain that fullness of unity which Jesus Christ desires. The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.
The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities. At these meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both Communions. In addition, the way is prepared for cooperation between them in the duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience; and, wherever this is allowed, there is prayer in common. Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform.

When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.

• It seems to me that in the last paragraph the auttthor is saying all paople will become Catholic. Am I correct? How could a nonCatholic partake of the Eucharist?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

You are correct – there will be one Church, one shepherd, one flock, one baptism. It may be, as the Catholic Church is today, a communion of Churches all in communion with one another, but that is the ultimate goal.

Deacon Ed

 

[Contarini]

## All true.

The problem I see, is that there would in large part have been no slavery had Christians not started it again.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. When are you talking about? Early modern enslavement of Africans? As far as I can tell, there was never a time when slavery ended in the Western world. But after the triumph of Christianity, slavery became very rare except on the frontiers of Christendom where Christians and non-Christians (especially Muslims) enslaved each other. Medieval Christendom was never without slavery, but it did not develop a permanent slave population, apparently because there was a tendency to free slaves after a generation or so (I’m getting this information in part from the Western Civ textbook by Jackson Spielvogel which I use in the class I’m teaching; Spielvogel doesn’t seem to have a pro-Christian bias, so I’m fairly confident this is accurate). The growth of the slave trade in the early modern era was driven by economic reasons. I don’t see how it was a matter of Christians “starting” something that had ended, but rather of Christians finding newly advantageous and profitable something that both Christians and Muslims had been doing to some extent all along. The real innovation, which I don’t think came until the 18th century (though I could be wrong), was the idea that religion made no difference so that it was perfectly OK to enslave fellow-Christians. That was a departure from the historic Christian stance, as I see it.

(One can hardly blame Muslims for Christian slavry- or contrariwise. That is the most obvious qualification to make.)

True, but the fact that Muslims were enslaving Africans on a large scale before Christians were does mean that one can’t really speak of Christians “starting it again.”
Gottle of Geer:

I’m not as impressed by Christian conduct in this as I once was, partly because there was slavery of a sort in the early middle ages (in monasteries, say - my source is A.J. Carlyle); and because Chesterton relies on an argument from silence here: the absence of Catholic voices against it may mean, not that there was an unchronicled line of Catholic John Woolmans crying out against it, but that there were no such characters at all: that it was seem as quite OK morally.

Of course there was slavery in the early Middle Ages, although I would distinguish quite sharply between slavery and serfdom. The Church, as far as I can tell, condemned the enslaving of fellow-Christians. I don’t claim that it condemned slavery altogether. But something caused the transition from widespread slavery in the late Roman world to serfdom in the early Medieval world, to a late medieval situation in which serfdom had almost entirely disappeared. And I think the Church’s attitude definitely had something to do with it.

There are quite a few instances of the Church speaking out against slavery and the slave trade. It was never an outright condemnation but rather a condemnation of specific acts of unjust enslavement. But it seems clear that the Church regarded slavery and the slave trade as an evil though not necessarily evil (much like war). That’s news to a lot of people, who sincerely believe that the view of white American Southerners in the 19th century was representative of the historic Christian position.

In the early modern era, both the Vatican and the Inquisition issued numerous condemnations of the enslavement of Africans and Native Americans. They could have done more to enforce these, but they were certainly not silent. Granted, Protestants did more than Catholics to end slavery, and in 19th-century America most Catholics opposed abolitionism and were able to mount an argument that they were being faithful to the Tradition in taking this stance. That’s a rather dubious argument, however. In short, I think the Church has a very mixed record on this issue. But mixed is precisely what it is–the Church remains an institution that (in contrast to most non-Christian societies) did not take slavery completely for granted and frequently condemned the slave trade and the unjust enslavement (i.e., not resulting from crime or a just war) even of non-Christians from completely different cultures. That’s reason for modest pride, I think.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Contarini:
I’m not sure what you mean by that. When are you talking about? Early modern enslavement of Africans? As far as I can tell, there was never a time when slavery ended in the Western world. But after the triumph of Christianity, slavery became very rare except on the frontiers of Christendom where Christians and non-Christians (especially Muslims) enslaved each other. Medieval Christendom was never without slavery, but it did not develop a permanent slave population, apparently because there was a tendency to free slaves after a generation or so (I’m getting this information in part from the Western Civ textbook by Jackson Spielvogel which I use in the class I’m teaching; Spielvogel doesn’t seem to have a pro-Christian bias, so I’m fairly confident this is accurate).
**** **## I didn’t know that - thanks. ##

**

The growth of the slave trade in the early modern era was driven by economic reasons. I don’t see how it was a matter of Christians “starting” something that had ended, but rather of Christians finding newly advantageous and profitable something that both Christians and Muslims had been doing to some extent all along.**
**## Then matters are even less happy than I thought, if it never ceased - for I thought it had died by 1200. If Christians never ceased it, what can one say ? **

---

On a happier note, I found this: We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.geovisit(); http://visit.webhosting.yahoo.com/visit.gif?us1106777164

**

The real innovation, which I don’t think came until the 18th century (though I could be wrong), was the idea that religion made no difference so that it was perfectly OK to enslave fellow-Christians. That was a departure from the historic Christian stance, as I see it.

---

---

True, but the fact that Muslims were enslaving Africans on a large scale before Christians were does mean that one can’t really speak of Christians "starting it again."## I ought to have rephrased myself - I was restricting my comments to Christian behaviour and the Christian tradition of conduct and attitudes on the matter, and prescinding entirely from the Muslim traffic. Sorry about the confusion ##

Of course there was slavery in the early Middle Ages, although I would distinguish quite sharply between slavery and serfdom. The Church, as far as I can tell, condemned the enslaving of fellow-Christians. I don’t claim that it condemned slavery altogether. But something caused the transition from widespread slavery in the late Roman world to serfdom in the early Medieval world, to a late medieval situation in which serfdom had almost entirely disappeared. And I think the Church’s attitude definitely had something to do with it.

---

There are quite a few instances of the Church speaking out against slavery and the slave trade. It was never an outright condemnation but rather a condemnation of specific acts of unjust enslavement. But it seems clear that the Church regarded slavery and the slave trade as an evil though not necessarily evil (much like war). **## I can see this as an instance of the gradual education of the Church - but it fits very badly with the theory that the Church is the all-knowing - because instructed by the all-knowing Christ - instructress of the nations. It seems that the Church is not markedly more enlightened than the “nations round about”. The Church’s ethical lapses may seem small beer to some, at least given the character of the God she worships - but they do create a difficulty, perhaps not for her being elected by God, but, for her character as a sign of the Kingdom of God…
[cont’d…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is why I don’t agree with Michael - because the Church (however conceived of) so often seems unlike the God she claims as her Lord. It seems that we both see her election - but emphasise different aspects of it ##

That’s news to a lot of people, who sincerely believe that the view of white American Southerners in the 19th century was representative of the historic Christian position.

**

---

****In the early modern era, both the Vatican and the Inquisition issued numerous condemnations of the enslavement of Africans and Native Americans. They could have done more to enforce these, but they were certainly not silent. Granted, Protestants did more than Catholics to end slavery, and in 19th-century America most Catholics opposed abolitionism and were able to mount an argument that they were being faithful to the Tradition in taking this stance. That’s a rather dubious argument, however. In short, I think the Church has a very mixed record on this issue. But mixed is precisely what it is–the Church remains an institution that (in contrast to most non-Christian societies) did not take slavery completely for granted and frequently condemned the slave trade and the unjust enslavement (i.e., not resulting from crime or a just war) even of non-Christians from completely different cultures. That’s reason for modest pride, I think. ****
In Christ,

Edwin**## It’s not nothing, true - and yet, is it a good idea for Christians to take pride in it ? This sounds very churlish, but can we think in that way ?**** I don’t see that we can take any credit for such good as we can do. ##

---

 

[Contarini]

I think our differences are differences of emphasis. I agree that it’s shameful that we haven’t been more markedly better than “the nations round about” in this respect. But the fact is that there are elements of Christianity that have historically shown themselves hostile to slavery in a way that I’m not aware of in other religions. However, comparisons are odorous.

No, of course we can’t take credit for the gifts we have been given. But in proclaiming the Gospel to the world, I don’t think we should be ashamed of pointing to the genuine effects of the Gospel in the history of Christendom–precisely as a gift we have been given–while admitteding candidly the many ways in which we’ve fallen short of living out that gift.

I’m not really interested in showing that Christianity is better than non-Christian societies in this regard, only in resisting the common belief in Western society today that Christianity has some sort of peculiarly bad record. I can’t see that it does. All I want to do is clear away some of the preconceptions people have so that the Christianity they experience can speak for itself. There will be plenty in that alone to put them off, but hopefully grace will work anyway . . . .

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Exporter]

Deacon Ed:

You are correct – there will be one Church, one shepherd, one flock, one baptism. It may be, as the Catholic Church is today, a communion of Churches all in communion with one another, but that is the ultimate goal.

Deacon Ed

---

Deacon Ed, This idea, as you phrased it, is more than fantastic but it seems to me to be far in the future.

If we were to limit Ecumenism only to those Denominations who are Christian there is a great amount of work to be done.( not attempt to absorb the Buddhists, Muslims or jews)

It did seem as you pointed out, the Vatican has the objective for all Christians to believe in the Catholic Eucharist and to recieve it. That means all Christians will be Catholics - or a variety of Catholocity.

 

[Contarini]

***************************************************************************
If we were to limit Ecumenism only to those Denominations who are Christian there is a great amount of work to be done.( not attempt to absorb the Buddhists, Muslims or jews)

But that’s all Ecumenism means. It does not refer to relations with other religions, which are on a completely different footing.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[HagiaSophia]

Exporter:

If we were to limit Ecumenism only to those Denominations who are Christian there is a great amount of work to be done.( not attempt to absorb the Buddhists, Muslims or jews)

Perhaps you are confused with the terminology? There are two different dialogues ongoing: one is Ecumenical which deals with other Christian faiths-- the other is Inter-religious which deals with non-Christian faiths .

The Council documents, statements and dialogues are very different between these two different groups.

.

 

[CrusaderNY]

A Little History, and how a Pope should apply “Ecumenism” without selling out the Church, which is what many non-Catholics hope for

Back in the 1800’s certain Roman Catholic leaders with some of their Anglican friends, were attempting “unity” with Rome, whilst entertaining strange illusions as to how this would be accomplished. It was in the spring of 1895, when the great Pope Leo XIII caused the English to see, that to become a Catholic, one might still remain an Englishman, but not an Anglican. There was no equivocating with this pope!

Following his Spring Letter, he gave another in June 1895. Pope Leo traces for them and all of us, the image of the Church, sketches her prominent features, bringing out in relief the characteristic mark of her Unity. Never did Leo ever give up any of her Rights and Prerogatives. There was no compromising and no suppressing of the truth in favour of Conciliarism as has been done by the weak signators of Vatican II.

It was again in the spring of 1896 when this holy Pontiff appointed a Commission to re-examine the whole question of the “validity” of Anglican “orders”. In September of that year, he decreed a most important and Infallible Judgment, called “Apostolicae Curae”, showing that Anglican Orders, according to the Ewardine Ordinal had in those Three centuries, regarded the Catholic Apostolic Church as Null and Void. The re-examination of this Anglican Ordinal proved that the Sacrament of Holy Orders no longer existed in the Anglican Church.

**Later that year Leo XIII settled the matter for all time, answering in detail the three ingredients that make up a valid Sacrament: the Intent, the matter, and the form of the rite of Ordination. **

Those on both sides who tried for a false unity fell back and admitted that The Judgment had overthrown their whole position.

In Pope Leo XIII’s Bulla declaring Anglican Orders invalid, we have a powerful weapon to use against this false new Montinian Rite. Let us use it, just as Leo XIII showed the substantial defects, and the corrupt intention of the persons ordaining this rite and its intention of manifestly excluding the essence of the priesthood, namely the power to offer Divine Sacrifice, thus resulting in the invalidity of the Sacraments when the Form does not truly Signify the Effect intended by Christ, and the Church HE founded. This can easity be used and show up this new Vatican II rite in possibly exposing its invalidity.

This decree of Leo XIII, as might be expected brought forth howls of anger from the Anglicans! Responding to this reaction the Cardinal and Bishops of the Province of Westminster wrote a “Vindication of the Bulla of Pope Leo XIII.”

In their own document, the English Bishops {of Leo XIII’s time} using the judgment of Pope Leo XIII wrote their: “Catholic Doctrine of the Priesthood “a.k.a. “The Vindication.” “Priest and Sacrifice are correlative terms with us at all times, and indeed with all nations, except insofar as your own Communion may be an exception. A Priest is one who offers sacrifice: and as it is the sacrifice, so it is the priest who offers it. Since our sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Our priest is one appointed and empowered to offer up that sacrifice; then one who has received this power from God by means of the words of consecration in the Canon of the Mass, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the appearances of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially. The priest may have other powers annexed to his office, such as the power to forgive sins; and he may likewise be charged with the duty of preaching the word of God, and exercising pastoral care over the people consigned to him. But these other powers and duties are super-added and consequent. They are suitably annexed to the priesthood, but they are not of its essence. ”

HagiaSophia:

Perhaps you are confused with the terminology? There are two different dialogues ongoing: one is Ecumenical which deals with other Christian faiths-- the other is Inter-religious which deals with non-Christian faiths .

The Council documents, statements and dialogues are very different between these two different groups.

.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

***************************************************************************
Deacon Ed, This idea, as you phrased it, is more than fantastic but it seems to me to be far in the future.

Yup, but it will be even further in the future if we don’t start now!

If we were to limit Ecumenism only to those Denominations who are Christian there is a great amount of work to be done.( not attempt to absorb the Buddhists, Muslims or jews)

It did seem as you pointed out, the Vatican has the objective for all Christians to believe in the Catholic Eucharist and to recieve it. That means all Christians will be Catholics - or a variety of Catholocity.

I think it would be better to say that the Church would look more like she looked in the first 1,000 years. Unity in belief, diversity in practice. Whether we call ourselves “Catholic” or “Orthodox” doesn’t really matter. If we all share the same faith then the name isn’t important (other than what we were first called in Antioch – “Christian”).

Deacon Ed

 

[HagiaSophia]

A Little History, and how a Pope should apply “Ecumenism” without selling out the Church, which is what many non-Catholics hope for

All of this wouldn’t happen to come from the website which proudly proclaims: …“We announce to you a great joy!*
The Catholic Church Has Elected Pope Pius XIII”*
October 24, 1998 would it?