Syncretism, Paganism = Native American Spirituality - Yes or No?

[trickster]

BIG QUESTION:
were the Protestant more racist than the Catholic?
were the Catholic more racist than the Protestant?
were BOTH as racists as the others?

my ignorant guess:
I guess and bet the Catholic were less racists than the Protestant. I have several reason to bet on that but I wanted to hear people who have a knowledge of both situations.

You know that is a good question Pfaffenhoffen…and the answer I have is that I don’t know…I’m not as interested in seeing what denomination is more guilty than another , it really doesn’t change the facts.

However, there was a greater tolerance of aboriginal people shown by the Catholic Church than many other Protestant churches…Protestants tended in the 1800s tended to be black and white in their thinking whereas the Catholic Church focused on core beliefs and worked with our people around those things that were’nt directly related to our salvation…that is why I tell a lot of current day traditional catholics not to be so black and white in their thinking because they might be surprised in the social innovations made by the church when the direct salvation issues weren’t affected…i.e. the catholic church did not see the loss of language as necessary as far as I know…but the Christian and indigenous relationship was like a checker board…some remarkable Catholic stories and some “not so remarkable” Catholic stories and I can leave it at that.

So, I would agree with your sense, but I am no expert here…

Bruce Ferguson

 

[trickster]

How do you measure that? The Spaniards kept slaves; they subjugated the native population. In many ways they treated the Aztecs and the Incas in a similar manner as they had the Moors and the Jews in their native Spain: first war and forced conversion, then persecution through an inquisition to make sure they were “really” Catholic because they were worried that they hadn’t completely rid the natives of their pagan beliefs.

The French were perhaps better in some sense, since they didn’t try to kill and subjugate the natives for no reason, but they had no problem lying to them and swindling them, much like the Protestant Dutch that lived nearby in New Amsterdam (York) and English in New England. That’s not to say there wasn’t fighting because there was plenty. The Dutch didn’t own slaves, but the French and English did. And they used the natives as armies to fight their wars but then didn’t treat them like allies after the victory (q.v. the French and Indian War).

But then if one looks at the lives of certain Catholics, a different picture emerges. It was some of the Franciscan Friars in New Spain (Mexico) that developed the concept of International Law and the basic underpinnings of human rights based on the way they thought the Aztecs, Maya, and other native groups in Mexico should be treated. Without them, we couldn’t have this discussion now.

All that acknowledged, the people that were fighting to keep slavery alive in the US were largely Protestant, and most Catholics were Union supporters, but then most Catholics lived in the parts of the country that stayed with the Union. Does that make them less racist? I don’t know.

When the Irish, Italians, and Polish came later, they were definitely relegated to the bottom of the social strata, and worked alongside other races for a time, but refused to intermingle. Was it because the other groups were not ethnically the same or because they were not Catholic? (i.e. was it racism or the difference of religion that kept them separate?) I’m not sure. The mixed-marriages suggest that there is some of both at play: there were plenty of mixed-ethnic Catholic marriages happening in the 1930s and 40s here, so maybe it was just the religious barrier, but then there were many more Catholics marrying European-American Protestants than African-American or Native American ones, so I’m not sure that the race barrier wasn’t just as real.

These were different times. You cannot judge the past by the standards of the present. It isn’t fair. The Spanish did very little to the natives that the natives didn’t do to each other: in fact the specific groups that they encountered used ritual human sacrifice as part of their pagan faith. They fought wars with one another for no other reason than to shed blood for their gods. I’m not being disparaging to these groups; this is historical fact. The Africans sold each other into slavery, so the Europeans buying African slaves from other Africans doesn’t make them the more culpable. The Europeans were every bit as bad as people make them out to be; the problem is that all of the other “persecuted” groups in play were equally as responsible for doing bad things to their neighbouring tribes. We as humans have progressed beyond this, but when we look back at how the Europeans came to rule the world, we forget that they weren’t worse behaved than the other groups; they were just better armed.

What I think we can say is that Catholicism helped to shape the world view that we now have that there is such a thing as universal human dignity. That’s vitally important. You can see Catholics at the forefront of many of these important advances in human dignity. Yet you can still see from this thread that when it comes to native culture, some Catholics are perfectly accepting of faux-Celtic spirituality, while still nervous about anything Native American.

AWESOME FrancisB - That reflects my understanding too…I wasn’t too sure how to answer Pfaffenhoffen other than to say that I agree with his sense that Catholics, at the end of the day, were more progressive than the Protestants…with respect to our people. I also speak to the issue when I think about my great grandparents time and the relationships to the church (1850’- 90’s)…and it was the church who created our reserve and documented our language.

As we talk more about this a lot of the readings I did as part of my studies in Quebec City was to look at the Jesuit Relations, that coupled with the well researched movie “The Robe” really puts your point into perspective. The Iroquois as an example were our peoples enemies…and even when the Iroquois and Algonquins sought refuge under the French and British wars of the 1600, it was the church who put us together on Oka Island (near Montreal,) only to realize their mistake of housing two traditional enemies, even thouh both of our peoples were Catholic at the time…we moved out to our new reserve in 1854, whom we got from the Catholic Bishop of the time (coudl be wrong but I think it was Bishop Laval>…) not sure…

So yeah…as more of this come, it makes sense, it was also Pope Paul III (I think) who used his magisterium to indicate that our peoples had souls…many of the rich spanish nobility and their clergy allies argued that we did not have souls…so I agree with your thoughts and with Pfaffenhoffen’s sense…

Cheerz and Blessings

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

My point still stands. The Native American peoples have already received the Gospel, they have already been brought in to the wider Latin tradition. You frequently bring up examples of Missionaries adapting in the early years of contact. That’s perfectly acceptable for a limited time. But you seem to be forgetting that the Native American peoples are no longer hunting buffolo on the plains with bows and arrows.

I’ll make you a deal. As soon as Native Americans actually start looking at Catholicism through the lens of a 16th century Cheyenne and not as a Catholic who has been a part of the Latin tradition for generations… then we’ll talk.

I’ll say this straight out. I have nothing against organic cultural developments around Catholicism. Irish Catholicism. French Catholic and Mexican Catholicism share the same faith (and once even the same liturgy). But they are very different in character and expression. This is natural, this organic and healthy.

However what you are proposing is simply an artificial novelty. Essentially the reasoning is “just because…” and “we want to be included too!”. If you’re having trouble relating to the Catholic Faith do not project that on every other of your fellow people. And perhaps the reason for your trouble relating to the Faith is due to your own obsession with your own culture and peoples?

It’s one thing to love your people and their culture. To enjoy the poetry of their languages and the sounds of the traditional songs that have been handed down from generation to generation. But we must not make an idol out of our ethnicities.

 

[TrueLight]

My point still stands. The Native American peoples have already received the Gospel, they have already been brought in to the wider Latin tradition. You frequently bring up examples of Missionaries adapting in the early years of contact. That’s perfectly acceptable for a limited time. But you seem to be forgetting that the Native American peoples are no longer hunting buffolo on the plains with bows and arrows.

I’ll make you a deal. As soon as Native Americans actually start looking at Catholicism through the lens of a 16th century Cheyenne and not as a Catholic who has been a part of the Latin tradition for generations… then we’ll talk.

I’ll say this straight out. I have nothing against organic cultural developments around Catholicism. Irish Catholicism. French Catholic and Mexican Catholicism share the same faith (and once even the same liturgy). But they are very different in character and expression. This is natural, this organic and healthy.

However what you are proposing is simply an artificial novelty. Essentially the reasoning is “just because…” and “we want to be included too!”. If you’re having trouble relating to the Catholic Faith do not project that on every other of your fellow people. And perhaps the reason for your trouble relating to the Faith is due to your own obsession with your own culture and peoples?

It’s one thing to love your people and their culture. To enjoy the poetry of their languages and the sounds of the traditional songs that have been handed down from generation to generation. But we must not make an idol out of our ethnicities.

Very well said!

 

[FrancisB]

That’s an interesting point, Laudate, and there is certainly always that danger. The truth of the situation is more complex, though. Have you looked into the “Indian Masses” that were used up until Vatican II? They were the traditional Latin mass in some ways, but they included the choral parts and scriptures in the native American vernaculars. Indeed, the missionaries were quite concerned about the use of the vernacular to spread the Gospel to the natives. They also altered parts of the propers to use vernacular hymns instead of the chants. There were other parts of the native cultures brought into the mass in this way. It was organic, and it was overseen by the missionaries.

Having attended masses with the Iroquois (I hope you’ve made peace with them by now, Bruce), I can tell you that this is still the way things are conducted. There are some native clergy, but largely it is still the Franciscans and Jesuits that are administering to the natives. They still use a mass structure close to the old Indian Masses, but based on the Pauline Missal (it helps that the Ordinary Form adopted many of the novelties of the Indian Masses, but American Catholicism had been very forward on the use of the vernacular since the founding of a uniquely American church; one has only to look at the life and work of + Carroll, first Bishop of Baltimore to see that.

Once you’ve attended a few of these masses, I think you will see that it is perfectly natural. It is no different than the way St. Patrick converted the Irish. The only real difference was that these things were introduced into the Celtic Church before the break with Constantinople, let alone before the Reformation, so no one questions the authenticity of these practices. If you really think this is detrimental to the faith, go and experience the mass with the natives in your area before you criticise something. This is not just valid Catholicism going on here, it is part of the richness of the American Church, and if we aspire to have a vibrant local church, we have to be ready to embrace every valid part of it and reject only that which is detrimental to the faith. This is how the holy North American martyrs conducted themselves; if you can make a pilgrimage to Auriesville, I think it might open your eyes.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

I’m not averse to a vernacular Mass of the Catechumens for missionary purposes. Or even as a permanent reform of the Extraordinary Form whilst retaining the Latin Roman Canon (which to me appears more in line with what the Vatican II Council asked for). I’d still prefer to attend a liturgy completely in Latin but I know that comes down to personal taste.

I’m also not averse to including traditional American Indian forms music settings for the Mass. Even at the Extraordinary Form. Such is known in Germany where vernacular German hymns were sung. As long as it’s in good taste (the best musicians are ones you don’t see!), reverent and you have the permission of the Church do as your hearts content. And in such a case I really don’t see why there has to be endless threads about the subject in the Traditional Catholic sub-forum.

However… when you [not you personally Francis, but in general] begin talking about removing the golden (or gold-plated) chalice and replacing it with a piece of pottery because some Spaniard centuries ago pillaged the gold mines of an Aztec city (a people separated from your own like 2nd century Irishmen and Iranians) then we have a problem. That’s taking away from the honour of God because of your own historical and cultural hang ups.

When people start talk of introducing Native American spirituality into the Church and Christianising it… well that’s just down right dangerous.

 

[Kaben123]

Never heard of those 1 million spaniards and britons captured by North African Pirates. Do you believe that? Where were they? In the Mediterraneum? Well, if you say so, I must investigate.
I am not defending the Muslims. Just to tell you, the North Africa was totally Christian and was captured by the Muslims. Your story of the Janissaries is true. The rapes were true. Do you know that 400 years after, in the recent Yogoslavia war, the christians avenged thoses rapes raping thousands of Muslins women? So much is the collective conscience.

Yes, North African pirates ravaged the coasts of Europe (not just Spain and Britain).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_on_the_Barbary_Coast. They went all the way up to Britain, and then took people who lived close to the coast with them back to North Africa where they were sold.

North Africa was not Christian during the 1500-1700s when this took place, I know that it was in the early days.

I am not defending African slave trade, but what I am saying is that a lot of people seem to think that the slave trade of Africans by Europeans is somehow unique, due to some inherent evil of Europeans (Hollywood’s fault). The reason why people think this specific slave trade is unique is because the American culture has major influence (not just in their own country), and that this is the slave trade that Americans know about. The slave trade of Africans by Middle easterners was with all likelihood much larger than that by Americans (because it went on for about a thousand years. The US hasn’t even existed that long).

The pictures are horrible of course, but as I said, not in anyway unique, as your teacher claimed. Slaves have always been treated in a terrible way, whether it be African, Roman, Chinese or European ones. It was not a new thing when the Europeans bought African slaves, it had always been done. Europeans took other Europeans as slaves for thousands of years before, and slavery was present everywhere on the planet. It was present far longer in the Middle East (long into the 20th century), until the Europeans abolished slavery in other countries too.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, North African pirates ravaged the coasts of Europe (not just Spain and Britain).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_on_the_Barbary_Coast. They went all the way up to Britain, and then took people who lived close to the coast with them back to North Africa where they were sold.

North Africa was not Christian during the 1500-1700s when this took place, I know that it was in the early days.

I am not defending African slave trade, but what I am saying is that a lot of people seem to think that the slave trade of Africans by Europeans is somehow unique, due to some inherent evil of Europeans (Hollywood’s fault). The reason why people think this specific slave trade is unique is because the American culture has major influence (not just in their own country), and that this is the slave trade that Americans know about. The slave trade of Africans by Middle easterners was with all likelihood much larger than that by Americans (because it went on for about a thousand years. The US hasn’t even existed that long).

The pictures are horrible of course, but as I said, not in anyway unique, as your teacher claimed. Slaves have always been treated in a terrible way, whether it be African, Roman, Chinese or European ones. It was not a new thing when the Europeans bought African slaves, it had always been done. Europeans took other Europeans as slaves for thousands of years before, and slavery was present everywhere on the planet. It was present far longer in the Middle East (long into the 20th century), until the Europeans abolished slavery in other countries too.

Maybe we need to start another thread on the Catholic Church and the African Slave trade?

 

[trickster]

Maybe we need to start another thread on the Catholic Church and the African Slave trade?

Hi all…I am without a computer for a few weeks, but just checking in on the thread (at my sisters for Christmas Dinner) and things are looking interesting…can’t wait till I can wage in again…

Cheerz all, have a beautiful and peaceful day remembering the Incarnation at the birth of Our Lord…and by the way wasn’t Jesus bornin April aroudn 06? Ah, yet another thread…Merry Christmas all…much love and have a good new year…and we’ll get back together sometimes in the New Years…

Cheerz Blessings

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Either you assume the glories and black spots of the past
or
you do not assume the black spots BUT DO NOT ASSUME THE GLORIES, say the defeat of Nazis, and so on…

Howerver, all of us are influenced by our past. Colonization has affected all, both the colonized and the colonizer, so to pretend that the influence of those days are not relevant is to be in denial of inter-generational socialization. We are often facing more subtle forms of racism, colonialism etc., even when we go to the market, or walk down the street and so forth…some are more sensitive than others to this… don’t assume that the world you think you see is the world that exists… Thoughts?

Bruce

 

[trickster]

My point still stands. The Native American peoples have already received the Gospel, they have already been brought in to the wider Latin tradition. You frequently bring up examples of Missionaries adapting in the early years of contact. That’s perfectly acceptable for a limited time. But you seem to be forgetting that the Native American peoples are no longer hunting buffolo on the plains with bows and arrows.

I’ll make you a deal. As soon as Native Americans actually start looking at Catholicism through the lens of a 16th century Cheyenne and not as a Catholic who has been a part of the Latin tradition for generations… then we’ll talk.

I’ll say this straight out. I have nothing against organic cultural developments around Catholicism. Irish Catholicism. French Catholic and Mexican Catholicism share the same faith (and once even the same liturgy). But they are very different in character and expression. This is natural, this organic and healthy.

However what you are proposing is simply an artificial novelty. Essentially the reasoning is “just because…” and “we want to be included too!”. If you’re having trouble relating to the Catholic Faith do not project that on every other of your fellow people. And perhaps the reason for your trouble relating to the Faith is due to your own obsession with your own culture and peoples?

It’s one thing to love your people and their culture. To enjoy the poetry of their languages and the sounds of the traditional songs that have been handed down from generation to generation. But we must not make an idol out of our ethnicities.

The idea that just because aboriginal people are no longer hunting buffalo they should no longer be influenced by a world view developed through that hunting and gathering world. Keep in mind the buffallo hunt only ended about one hundred years ago (1870’s) by some very cruel hunting projects of sportsmen in the United States. There are voumes of books written on the exploitive nature of that act and perhaps conspiracy threories of how that bufallor hunt destroyed the aboriginal peoples. However, most anthropologists will say that oral cultures created at one point in history are re-told, re-worked, renewed as time goes on and in such a manner as to answer questions. We saw in the 1890s the messianic movement (which WAS syncretic) I think… I need to review that though. Catholicism exists on exactly this kind of remembered history. Many of our practices as Catholics come from a time and age where the catalyst for the development of those ideas and world views no longer exists. So I would question your thinking that just because our people no longer hunt or fish for the most part, we would loose the spirituality around that reality…look forward to your developing thoughts on this too.

 

[trickster]

My point still stands. The Native American peoples have already received the Gospel, they have already been brought in to the wider Latin tradition. You frequently bring up examples of Missionaries adapting in the early years of contact. That’s perfectly acceptable for a limited time. But you seem to be forgetting that the Native American peoples are no longer hunting buffolo on the plains with bows and arrows.

I’ll make you a deal. As soon as Native Americans actually start looking at Catholicism through the lens of a 16th century Cheyenne and not as a Catholic who has been a part of the Latin tradition for generations… then we’ll talk.

I’ll say this straight out. I have nothing against organic cultural developments around Catholicism. Irish Catholicism. French Catholic and Mexican Catholicism share the same faith (and once even the same liturgy). But they are very different in character and expression. This is natural, this organic and healthy.

However what you are proposing is simply an artificial novelty. Essentially the reasoning is “just because…” and “we want to be included too!”. If you’re having trouble relating to the Catholic Faith do not project that on every other of your fellow people. And perhaps the reason for your trouble relating to the Faith is due to your own obsession with your own culture and peoples?

It’s one thing to love your people and their culture. To enjoy the poetry of their languages and the sounds of the traditional songs that have been handed down from generation to generation. But we must not make an idol out of our ethnicities.

We’ll were not negotiating anything. We are having a wonderful conversation where neither of us has to “win or lose”. I am sincerely interested in ideas and one of the reasons I like Catholic Answers so much is because - with the predominance of conservative thinkers" it is a gold field for thinkers like me because it is a true place of respectful challenge and mutual development of ideas…and I love that…ok…your deal now…

I can’t talk about the Cheyenne, but much of what our people were like was recorded in the 1600’s by the Jesuit’s in their Jesuit Relations. Now, in providing some context I understand that these narratives talked about were “dramatic” in that they were used as funding tools, and they were told from a place of interpretation. It was the 16th century French Jesuit world view in which our peoples’ world was translated and presented to the world.

So, you are correct when you say we don’t live like that anymore…do you guys still wear kilts? However, there is another tradtiions and that is a remembered oral tradtition. That remembered tradititon was passed down (and edited) from generation to generation to answer the questions facing all of humanity (i.e creation storie, etc.). Culture is not a product, it is not a thing…it is a living process of which some parts die and some part get born…in our language as an example, many words did not exist. We did not have “butter” nor “milk” prior to contact, so those words were made up…“horses” whom the Spanish introduced to aboriginal people were called “great dogs” by the Sioux as an exampl…so culture is a living organic thing that adapts, reinvents and makes sense of the world and experience we live in these days.

So while we agree on the idea that cultures provide a context for participating in all aspects of our church, they do not REPLACE what the church teaches…I think that has been a clear statement from my end since the beginning of my conversations on Catholic Answers…you said it yourself that you are ok with Spanish, Meixcan and Celtic kinds of masses…and all that I am saying is that in the Catholic Church today we ought to fully exercise that with respect to full indigenous participation in the church today…surely you cannot be against this even when it means incorporating our authentic selves as Catholics…we cannot be anything BUT Aboriginal Catholics or Catholics who relate to our faith from an Aboriginal perspective…can you disagree with that?

 

[trickster]

My point still stands. The Native American peoples have already received the Gospel, they have already been brought in to the wider Latin tradition. You frequently bring up examples of Missionaries adapting in the early years of contact. That’s perfectly acceptable for a limited time. But you seem to be forgetting that the Native American peoples are no longer hunting buffolo on the plains with bows and arrows.

I’ll make you a deal. As soon as Native Americans actually start looking at Catholicism through the lens of a 16th century Cheyenne and not as a Catholic who has been a part of the Latin tradition for generations… then we’ll talk.

I’ll say this straight out. I have nothing against organic cultural developments around Catholicism. Irish Catholicism. French Catholic and Mexican Catholicism share the same faith (and once even the same liturgy). But they are very different in character and expression. This is natural, this organic and healthy.

However what you are proposing is simply an artificial novelty. Essentially the reasoning is “just because…” and “we want to be included too!”. If you’re having trouble relating to the Catholic Faith do not project that on every other of your fellow people. And perhaps the reason for your trouble relating to the Faith is due to your own obsession with your own culture and peoples?

It’s one thing to love your people and their culture. To enjoy the poetry of their languages and the sounds of the traditional songs that have been handed down from generation to generation. But we must not make an idol out of our ethnicities.

In terms of your statement "However what you are proposing is simply an artificial novelty. Essentially the reasoning is “just because…” and “we want to be included too!”. If you’re having trouble relating to the Catholic Faith do not project that on every other of your fellow people. And perhaps the reason for your trouble relating to the Faith is due to your own obsession with your own culture and peoples?" all I can say is that we are not connecting quite yet.

I am not proposing an artificial novelty. I am proposing a pragmatic way in which the teaching of our church can make sense to today’s aboriginal communities and particularly the urban aboriginal communities in our own diocese. (Vancouver, BC). I am not the only one out there…the Edmonton Catholic DIocese has, for example, an Aboriginal Catholic Parish, so there is nothing “novel” about what I am proposing.

The apostolic arguement is a “just because” arguement and you don’t hear me dismissing the arguement “just because”…I value the apostolic arguement and I orient my thinking to that arguement. So my challenge to you is why would you minimize my “just-because” arguements? Are they not of equal value to a truthful discussion in a global faith and one supposidly of inclusion and love? Didn’t the fishermen and tax collectors in Jesus’ apostles each have their own’ “:just because” arguemetns or thoughts.? The “we want to be included to:”…isn’t that the basis of all of our prayer life? Correct me if I am wrong to assume that I want to be part of the church?

What trouble realting to the faith do I have? That is a pretty "judgemental statement"and it might have been stated when you were on a roll but it is a judgemnt none the less about me…I question - as we all should - to strive for deeper understanding not to find arguements to dismiss our church…and that is why everything in me believes that if we look deeper we will find the basis for a bridging aboriginal theology that connects and orientates an authentic conversation between indigenous world views and catholic teaching…

We do not make idols out of our ethnicitiies? Who is doing that, and if you are refereing to me…give me some examples, otherwise - on your roll - you have a very creatiave mind…where am I idolizing my people’s way? That is for you to elaborate on…since it is your statement.

Anyways, I believe that covers most of your last posting…you are very talented in packing a whole lot of meaning and levels of complexities in such short statements!

Cheerz brother

Bruce

 

[trickster]

That’s an interesting point, Laudate, and there is certainly always that danger. The truth of the situation is more complex, though. Have you looked into the “Indian Masses” that were used up until Vatican II? They were the traditional Latin mass in some ways, but they included the choral parts and scriptures in the native American vernaculars. Indeed, the missionaries were quite concerned about the use of the vernacular to spread the Gospel to the natives. They also altered parts of the propers to use vernacular hymns instead of the chants. There were other parts of the native cultures brought into the mass in this way. It was organic, and it was overseen by the missionaries.

Having attended masses with the Iroquois (I hope you’ve made peace with them by now, Bruce), I can tell you that this is still the way things are conducted. There are some native clergy, but largely it is still the Franciscans and Jesuits that are administering to the natives. They still use a mass structure close to the old Indian Masses, but based on the Pauline Missal (it helps that the Ordinary Form adopted many of the novelties of the Indian Masses, but American Catholicism had been very forward on the use of the vernacular since the founding of a uniquely American church; one has only to look at the life and work of + Carroll, first Bishop of Baltimore to see that.

Once you’ve attended a few of these masses, I think you will see that it is perfectly natural. It is no different than the way St. Patrick converted the Irish. The only real difference was that these things were introduced into the Celtic Church before the break with Constantinople, let alone before the Reformation, so no one questions the authenticity of these practices. If you really think this is detrimental to the faith, go and experience the mass with the natives in your area before you criticise something. This is not just valid Catholicism going on here, it is part of the richness of the American Church, and if we aspire to have a vibrant local church, we have to be ready to embrace every valid part of it and reject only that which is detrimental to the faith. This is how the holy North American martyrs conducted themselves; if you can make a pilgrimage to Auriesville, I think it might open your eyes.

Yes the Iroquois are my friends today! Thanks for that understanding of the Algoquin-Iroquois past…much appreciated!

Bruce Ferguson

 

[trickster]

However… when you [not you personally Francis, but in general] begin talking about removing the golden (or gold-plated) chalice and replacing it with a piece of pottery because some Spaniard centuries ago pillaged the gold mines of an Aztec city (a people separated from your own like 2nd century Irishmen and Iranians) then we have a problem. That’s taking away from the honour of God because of your own historical and cultural hang ups.

When people start talk of introducing Native American spirituality into the Church and Christianising it… well that’s just down right dangerous.

Laudate Dominum your missing my point about the gold plated chalices…it is not about that … it is about the inconsistency of the Christian message about the blood of Jesus in that chalice and how Jesus has been exploited too in that the Spanish Catholics and their military buddies raped, killed and stoled gold from Atzecs temples, etc. in the name of that Jesus who’s blood is in the chalice…it is those kind of inconsistencies that are not spiritually nourihing to the Aboriginal catholic…I can give many more examples…

What needs to be done is that we need to talk about those things…we need to enter a reconciliation process about the inconsistencies that have murdered our people, separated families in the name of Catholic charity, etc., and come to an understanding which can mean renewal of relationships…the documents that have been quoted to me on this indicate that our local bishops have every right to use discretion on these kinds of questions…

It is not dangerous what I am talking about since it is allowed for in canon law and papal writing…

And Laudaute when you say something so unkind as “When people start talk of introducing Native American spirituality into the Church and Christianising it… well that’s just down right dangerous”, you are closing the door on me and other aboriginal people (which you have no right to do) by not allowing us to be ourselves when we enter what is supposed to be a safe and reverent place for all Catholics and Our Lord. …that my brother is more likely the dangerous road for our church…

Bruce Ferguson

 

[FutureCatholic1]

this hurts my eyes

 

[fred_conty]

I would like to bring up two points since I’m new in this conversation.
The first is that there is nothing wrong with cultural Masses, where
the music and singing is of the native land and people. We have them
elsewhere, so it dosen’t seem to me that this would be problematic.

However having said that with one side of my mouth, the other side
says that in a society that we find ourselves in today, many
people move around from their birthplace to other places. And if they
do not find a cultural Mass that they have been accustomed to, then
what will happen to their faith? Maybe a happy mixture of cultural with
the non-cultural Mass would be wise for the future generations.

Now by cultural Mass I don’t refer to changing the form and material
used in the sacraments but only to the periferal material and non-essential
elements to be of cultural heritage. Vestiments to a certain degree, song,
musical instruments, church design, and so on.

Just a thought.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi all…I am without a computer for a few weeks, but just checking in on the thread (at my sisters for Christmas Dinner) and things are looking interesting…can’t wait till I can wage in again…

Cheerz all, have a beautiful and peaceful day remembering the Incarnation at the birth of Our Lord…and by the way wasn’t Jesus bornin April aroudn 06? Ah, yet another thread…Merry Christmas all…much love and have a good new year…and we’ll get back together sometimes in the New Years…

Cheerz Blessings

Bruce

Be safe.

 

[trickster]

I would like to bring up two points since I’m new in this conversation.
The first is that there is nothing wrong with cultural Masses, where
the music and singing is of the native land and people. We have them
elsewhere, so it dosen’t seem to me that this would be problematic.

However having said that with one side of my mouth, the other side
says that in a society that we find ourselves in today, many
people move around from their birthplace to other places. And if they
do not find a cultural Mass that they have been accustomed to, then
what will happen to their faith? Maybe a happy mixture of cultural with
the non-cultural Mass would be wise for the future generations.

Now by cultural Mass I don’t refer to changing the form and material
used in the sacraments but only to the periferal material and non-essential
elements to be of cultural heritage. Vestiments to a certain degree, song,
musical instruments, church design, and so on.

Just a thought.

I agree with your points. Many aboriginal people were also denied access to their home reserves due to Canadian law as well…so when we talk about “urban aboriginal” people (and that is my focus) much of what I am talking about is also reinvention of our cultures as experienced in urban and contemporary settings. once this is done,then those dynamics can form part of the mass…

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

youtu.be/8L1Fslf3g2M

This video is helpful in understanding the concepts of “ghosts” and “spirits” which I find in these threads are often seen as the same thing by Catholic Answer participants. Ghosts, this video says, are not talked about by Aboriginal people and we don’t like them…they are "“nitche manitous” (bad spirits) but “manitou” (spirits) are good things and this video does a good job in explaining.

Syncretic movements INCLUDES the Ghost Dance, this messianic movement is clearly not what I have been talking about…so I want us to distinguish weaving Aboriginal components into our catholic tradition with taking two traditions and CREATING A NEW RELIGION.

This may be helpful in updating peoples understanding of weaving aborignal elements into our Catholic faith so we can be Catholics on the terms the Creator gave us…both Aboriginal AND Catholic.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster