Here’s more info on the bull, in which the following bulls can be read to understand more clearly.like the Papal Bull Dum Diversas:
Infallible teachings are open to discussion as to their full implications and the relationship between the dogma and other teachings. Some difference of opinion on interpretation of a dogma is also possible.Good quotes, and I understand what you’re saying. I guess I just find there to be a profound difference between infallible teaching and non-infallible teaching. One has been stamped with God’s seal of approval and is definitely correct. The other is a teaching by current leaders which is likely correct, but not for certain. The non-infallible teaching should be more open to discussion and debate, while the infallible teaching should be closed to debate.
Not slavery? Are you kidding me? What do you think Afonso V was doing? This was all about conquest of North Africa. And here is a quote from a subsequent bull Romanus Pontifex:And why or rather how did you arrive at the conclusion that this particular bull was inmoral?
Have you evaluated the historical context or are judging it from the 20th century perspective?
The sarracens were invaders of the kingdom of Spain. They had already conquered important and vast areas of the Iberic peninsula.
They enforced conversion by the sword killing monks and priests and anyone not willing to convert to islam.
Also and perhaps this is your gripe with this particular document is the bolded passage:
Are you by any chance equating servitude to slavery?
It has been postulated before you know…
But it denotes ignorance of the middle ages system of governemnet. A king, duque, prince, baron they all had people who where put under their care (In servitude).
Sometimes perhaps too many times these masters abused their position of power.
BUT they were certainly NOT slaves.
So the bull constitutes “the permission to liberate their country from the sarracens and incorporate them into the servitude of the rest of the servants of the kings of Spain and Portugal”.
This bull does not contain any doctrinal issues it merely confirms to the rulers of the kingdom of Spain and Portugal that they can wage a just war against the sarracens.
Where is the inmorality :ehh:
Believe me there are better examples of Pope’s personal debauchery but you will not find any that taught error to the faithfull…
And to your earlier question: how did I come to my earlier conclusion that this was immoral? Simple: I’m not a relativist.since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit – by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith.
The traditional interpretation of the gates of hell passage is that the Church is indefectible:I believe the quote is that Jesus said ‘… the gates of hell will not prevail against it’
meaning that the church will not be destroyed.
The importance of that is to say that the church is still around, it was not destroyed (not that the church is infallible).
Jumping in here with two points. Firstly, the CCC contained an error in its first edition on the subject of lies and morality: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” The bolded text was dropped from the revised (current) edition. It is an error to say that a false assertion is only a lie if the person has a right to the truth. Errors in Church teaching are possible, but only in the non-infallible teachings. However, the Holy Spirit protects the non-infallible teachings from ever erring to such an extent as to lead the faithful away from the path of salvation. So these errors are not of Satan, as you suggest.If it was POSSIBLE for the Church to teach lies as doctrines, we could not trust any of it. The only way we can trust it is because the Holy Spirit protects it (not because Bishops and Popes are all morally upright, wise, and insightful).
Sinful Popes are no different than sinful Scribes and Pharisees. Do as they say, not as they do. In fact, Alexander-4 is my favorite of the “evil” Popes.
Well, for sure we can deduce it was response to the power and aggression of the Turkish Empire at the time. This is what I’m saying about understanding this in sequence. The same Pope condemned the handling of these people also. So its a matter of understanding servitude as opposed to slavery. Have Christians gotten out of hand historically? Look at Mexico, and Columbus didn’t come here to the USA for nothing.Not slavery? Are you kidding me? What do you think Afonso V was doing? This was all about conquest of North Africa. And here is a quote from a subsequent bull Romanus Pontifex:
And to your earlier question: how did I come to my earlier conclusion that this was immoral? Simple: I’m not a relativist.
Invading, searching out, capturing, vanquishing, subduing, and reducing people to perpetual slavery while conquering land is never a moral thing to do. To argue that relative to the time, it was an acceptable practice, that’s relativism.
“successor of the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom”
I think I understand what you’re saying. Don’t agree 100%, but I think I understand. It still seems to be reading quite a bit into the phrase “the gates of Hell shall not prevail”. As I stated in a previous post, I see a gate prevailing in a battle is when you are on the offensive. So I read this statement more as when the Church is on the offensive and Hell is on the defensive, then the gates of Hell won’t prevail. What exactly does that mean? I don’t know for sure.I’m saying much more than that. I’m saying that, if the Assumption was a lie from satan, we can’t trust ANY Church doctrine. We would have no way to isolate satanic doctrines, and everything the Church taught would be suspect, even if only one teaching was actually a lie. We would have no way to know how many lies had infiltrated Church doctrine, and no way to identify and correct them.
If it was POSSIBLE for the Church to teach lies as doctrines, we could not trust any of it. The only way we can trust it is because the Holy Spirit protects it (not because Bishops and Popes are all morally upright, wise, and insightful).
One cannot achieve spiritual perfection unless s/he accepts the full doctrine of the Church. But, obviously, nobody actually KNOWS full Church doctrine (it’s a BIG subject). There were Saints who achieved spiritual perfection, such as St. Ignatus of Loyla, long before Assumption was taught as doctrine. Had someone suggested it to him and he said, “naw, I don’t think so,” it would not have mattered.
But, had Assumption been taught in Ignatius’ day, he could not have achieved spiritual perfection if he knew about it but rejected it.
We are not required to personally discern the truth of things that the Church has not taught (such as Assumption in Ignatius’ day). We may very well believe things that are not true, but we can yet achieve perfection if we accept the teaching of the Church, to the best of our knowledge and ability.
(It is important that I make clear that I am NOT saying we can achieve perfection by ONLY accepting Church doctrine. There’s a lot more to it than that. But we can never get there if we REJECT Church doctrine. We don’t even get out of the starting gate)
Which is not a doctrine of the Church. The Pope is giving certain people permission to do bad things. That doesn’t mean he is giving US permission to do bad things. In order for something to be considered doctrine, it must apply to all Catholics everywhere.
You could point to any number of Popes who were personally very sinful. You chose to cite a Pope who was actually pretty good (his reign was only eight years, but he accomplished many amazing things). There are far worse examples you could have cited, such as Alexander-4. I think he committed just about every sin that the Church has a name for, and didn’t feel any remorse at all. But that doesn’t mean WE can commit these sins. As a man, he was detestable, but as a Pope, he was faithful to his Office. He never attempted to enshrine his faults or sins into Catholic doctrine.
Jesus tells us to respect the Authority of the Church, even if its leaders do not obey Church teaching:
Sinful Popes are no different than sinful Scribes and Pharisees. Do as they say, not as they do.
In fact, Alexander-4 is my favorite of the “evil” Popes. I bring him up often, because he is the worst of the worst. When people come here and bring up Pope Nicholas-5 (actually, I think you’re the first) or Pope Stephen-6 (who comes up often because of the Cadaver Synod), I say, “let’s not piddle with the small timers. Let’s talk about Alexander-4.” Because, if personal imperfection actually impact Church doctrine, Alexander would surely have had the greatest impact. But, like all Popes, he was a sinner (just worse than the others), but he was faithful to his Office. This, in itself, is a remarkable testimony to how well the Holy Spirit protects the Papacy.
So?However, did you notice how he started the bull…