The Spanish Inquisition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Righteousone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is quite a quote. Can anyone substantiate it?.
I gave the reference above. However, on further investigation, I believe that the quote may be somewhat misleading in two ways:
  1. I think it refers to servitude, not slavery.
  2. After the sentence is given, there is a disclaimer to the effect that the Roman Pontiffs have made every effort to abolish slavery.
 
Actually, the quote that I was referring to was: Instructio Number 1293: Found in Collectanea, Vol. 1, pp. 715-720. It is an “Instructio” of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on some disputed questions, including questions of “servitude.” However, on further investigation, although it does say it is not contrary to the natural law, as quoted above, it adds that the Roman Pontiffs have made every effort to abolish slavery.
**However, there are other documents such as Dum diversas **of Nicholas V, which David Love says ushered in the West African slave trade: (emphasis mine)

"“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.

there is a similar** bull **issued by Nicholas V, Romanus Pontifex, which was a followup to Dum Diversas:
“…weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that 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.”

Still, this is off the topic of the Spanish Inquisition.
Well, well, well, well, well.

Is a Bull infallible? Is an “Instructio” infallible?

Check wiki on “Dum Diversas”
 
Well, well, well, well, well.

Is a Bull infallible? Is an “Instructio” infallible?

Check wiki on “Dum Diversas”
I don;t think that a Bull or Instructio is infallible, but a papal bull must be taken seriously by Catholics. I don’t know what the exact interpretation of these statements concerning perpetual slavery are in either Dum Diversas or Romanus Pontifex, but they appear to be problematic in light of other statments against slavery?
 
I don;t think that a Bull or Instructio is infallible, but a papal bull must be taken seriously by Catholics. I don’t know what the exact interpretation of these statements concerning perpetual slavery are in either Dum Diversas or Romanus Pontifex, but they appear to be problematic in light of other statments against slavery?
I think that this issue is the smoking gun re papal infallibility.

Here’s a quote re this issue which also mentions the same pope and bull:

From James Reston, Jr.'s " Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors "

“Evangelizing infidels was the highest of Christian callings, and could cover up a multitude of sins. The search for the gold of Black Africa and the muscle of black slaves was always subsumed in the higher and more noble-sounding goal of Christianizing the infidel and attacking heretical Islam. The theology of crusade expressly encompassed slavery. Its pre-Christian roots lay in Aristotle’s concept of natural law about the master and the slave. St. Augustine sanctioned the concept when he argued that slavery was a form of divine punishment for man’s original sin. St. Thomas Aquinas had expanded this theology still further with the argument that slavery provided a valuable service for both master and slave, for the weak supposedly benefited from being dominated by the strong. …** In 1452, Pope Nicholas V had issued a bull which specifically authorized the King of Portugal to make war on the infidels, to conquer their lands, and to enslave their natives.** Conventional medieval thinking saw blacks as descendants of the accursed biblical figure of Ham and therefore subject to eternal slavery, and this was melded with the lore of Cain. Medieval observers could recoil at the suffering of blacks at the same time they rejoiced at the prospect that black souls were being saved from eternal damnation. [But] not everyone was fooled by this hypocrisy.”

James Reston, Jr., Dogs of God, Anchor Books, Copyright 2005 by James Reston, Jr., pp. 114-116.

Re papal infallibility, it doesn’t matter what the later popes said re slavery. It’s what this pope said.
 
I think that this issue is the smoking gun re papal infallibility.

Here’s a quote re this issue which also mentions the same pope and bull:

From James Reston, Jr.'s " Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors "

“Evangelizing infidels was the highest of Christian callings, and could cover up a multitude of sins. The search for the gold of Black Africa and the muscle of black slaves was always subsumed in the higher and more noble-sounding goal of Christianizing the infidel and attacking heretical Islam. The theology of crusade expressly encompassed slavery. Its pre-Christian roots lay in Aristotle’s concept of natural law about the master and the slave. St. Augustine sanctioned the concept when he argued that slavery was a form of divine punishment for man’s original sin. St. Thomas Aquinas had expanded this theology still further with the argument that slavery provided a valuable service for both master and slave, for the weak supposedly benefited from being dominated by the strong. …** In 1452, Pope Nicholas V had issued a bull which specifically authorized the King of Portugal to make war on the infidels, to conquer their lands, and to enslave their natives.** Conventional medieval thinking saw blacks as descendants of the accursed biblical figure of Ham and therefore subject to eternal slavery, and this was melded with the lore of Cain. Medieval observers could recoil at the suffering of blacks at the same time they rejoiced at the prospect that black souls were being saved from eternal damnation. [But] not everyone was fooled by this hypocrisy.”

James Reston, Jr., Dogs of God, Anchor Books, Copyright 2005 by James Reston, Jr., pp. 114-116.

Re papal infallibility, it doesn’t matter what the later popes said re slavery. It’s what this pope said.
The response probably is that the proclamation was not ex cathedra.
 
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SLAVERY, PART 1

A number of church anti-slavery documents in Latin were reprinted by Dr. Jaime Luciano Balmes (1810-1848), El Protestantismo Comparado Con El Catolicismo (Barcelona, Spain: Brusi, 1842, 1844, 1849, 1857; through a 13th edition, Barcelona: Editorial Araluce, 1934). His book was also translated into Italian, as *Il Protestantismo Paragonato col Cattolicismo nelle sue Relizione con la Civiltà Éuropea *(Roma: G.B. Zampi, 1845, 1846), French, as Le Protestantisme Comparé au Catholicisme dans ses Rapports avec la Civilisation Européene, 8th éd., rev. et cor. avec soin, et augm. d’une introduction par A. de Blanche-Raffin (Paris, 1870), and finally English, by C. J. Hanford and Robert Kershaw, as *European Civilization: Protestantism and Catholicity Compared *(Baltimore: Murphy & Co, 1850, 1874).

Balme’s purpose was to show that Protestantism had a poorer anti-slavery record than Catholicism. Examples that Dr. Jaime L. Balmes cited include data from the following years:

441 A.D. (censuring slavers)
549 A.D. (church buildings as refuges for escaping slaves)
566 A.D. (excommunication-of-slavers proviso)
583 A.D. (church issuance of freedom papers)
585 A.D. (use church property to free slaves)
595 A.D. (freeing entrants to monastic life)
616 A.D. (liberty restoration proviso)
625 A.D. (ban new slaves, use church property to free current slaves)
666 A.D. (ban shaving slaves)
844 A.D. (use church property to free slaves)
922 A.D. (defines slave-trade as homicide)
1102 A.D. (ban slave trade)

Dr. Jaime L. Balmes cited:

Pope Adrian I (771-795): “According to the words of the apostle, as in Jesus Christ we ought not to deprive either slaves or freemen of the sacraments of the chuch, so it is not allowed in any way to prevent the marriage of slaves; and if their marriages have been contracted in spite of the opposition and repugnance of their masters, nevertheless they ought not to be dissolved,” and

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225/7 - 1274) with respect to marriage: “slaves are not obliged to obey their masters.” And: “Human law is law only in virtue of its accordance with right reason: and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.” In “Summa Theologica”, I-II, Q.93, Art. 3 ad 2.
 
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SLAVERY, PART 2

Code:
      ". . . the Church, from the beginning, regarded [the slave trade] as immoral . . . In 873, John VIII wrote to the rulers of Sardinia . . . ordering them to restore freedom to slaves bought from the Greeks. . . . "on Oct. 7, 1462" "Pius II" issued a "condemnation" of the "slave trade."] [See also Biography of Pius II.]
St. John Chrysostom [345 A.D. - 407 A.D.], Patriarch of Constantinople, said “Slavery is the fruit of covetousness, of extravagance, of insatiable greediness” in his Epist. ad Ephes., Homil. XXII. 2.

Pope Eugene IV condemned slavery in the Canary Islands in 1435 and ordered immediate manumission (within 15 days). Other Popes condemning slavery included Gregory XIV (1591); Innocent XI (1686); Benedict XIV (1741), and Pius VII (1815). See The Catholic Church and Slavery, by Lane Core, Jr. Core says that Paul III explicitly attributed slavery to “the enemy of the human race, Satan.”

In 1537, Paul III excommunicated those who enslaved the Indians of America and confiscated their property. . . . In 1838, Gregory XVI condemned all forms of colonial slavery and the slave trade, calling it inhumanum illud commercium."

“In a letter to the bishops of Brazil (May 5, 1888), Leo XIII recalled the Church’s unceasing efforts in the course of centuries to get rid of colonial slavery and the slave trade and expressed his satisfaction that Brazil had at last abolished it.”

“From the 15th century Catholic missionaries, theologians, and statesmen never ceased to strive for the abolition of ignominious traffic in human beings.”

“During the French Revolution, at the instigation of a Catholic priest, the Abbé [Henri] Grégoire [1750-1831], the National Assemby in 1794 decreed the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in all French colonies. In 1890, Cardinal Lavigerie (1825-1892) founded the antislave league of France for combatting of slavery and the slave trade on an international basis.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 13 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1967), “Slavery and Christianity,” pp 282, 284.

Vol 6, pp 786-787, adds that Gregory XVI’s 3 Dec 1839 In supremo “condemned slavery and the slave trade and forbade all Catholics to propound views contrary to this.”

This was not new doctrine, as the record shows. For example, in “1102 a council held in London saw fit to decree: ‘Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals.’”—New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 13 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1967), p 284.

Shortly before, in 1095, Pope Urban II had condemned not merely stealing (slavery is man-stealing) but also the abuse by the rich of the poor (slavery involves people with money buying other people): “‘Therefore we must consider especially how severely punished will be he who steals from another, if [since] he is infernally damned for [merely] not being generous with his own possessions.’ For so it happend to the rich man in the familiar [rich man and Lazarus] Gospel story (Luc. 16:19-31). He [the rich man] was not punished for stealing from another, but because having received wealth, he used it badly.” Source: Prof. Patrick J. Geary, ed., Readings in Medieval History (Orchard Park, New York: Broadview Press, 1989), p 423.

King Alfred the Great (871-899) had faced the issue earlier; “when Alfred the Great made laws for his English subjects he . . . turned . . . to the Old Testament. . . . his . . . law . . . opened with a recital of the Decalogue [Ten Commandments] and proceeded with a recital of much of the Mosaic legislation contained in Exodus. The buyer of a Christian slave must free him without payment.”—Claude G. Montefiore and Herbert M. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938), p 638.

Clearly, just like other sins, the sin of slavery kept recurring.

The Byzantine Emperor Justinian [527 A.D. - 565 A.D.] said this about slavery: “Captivity and servitude are both contrary to the law of nature; for by that law all men are born free.” (Institutes, 21 November 533 A.D.) (This was 1,243 years before the U.S. Declaration of Independence said likewise!) And Justinian was repeating what was already then established.
 
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SLAVERY, PART 3

Roman jurists had already developed the maxim that any doubts in cases of freedom or slavery, should be resolved in favor of liberty.—William E. H. Lecky (1838-1903), The Substance of History of European Morals (from Augustus to Charlemagne), 2 vols, ed. Clement Wood (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), I, p 295.

For example, Roman jurist Domitius Ulpianus (c. 160 A.D. - 228 A.D.) had said, “by the law of nature all men are equal.”—Digest, L, 17.32; and “natural law regards all men as equal”—On Sabinus, Book XLIII.

This concept was foreshadowed in the Bible: “In reality, the Hebrew slave is a hireling [employee],” says Henry J. Grimmelsman, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Mt. St. Mary Seminary of the West, Cincinnati, The Book of Exodus (Norwood, Cincinnati, Ohio: The Seminary Book Store, 1927), p 144.

The word “slave” was never used in the Hebrew Bible except Jeremiah 2:14 in criticism context. Instead, terms such as “made . . . to serve with rigor” and “hard bondage” (Exodus 1:13-14) were used to describe the forbidden thing (forbidden by Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7). Naturally, as Prof. Grimmelsman writes, the Hebrews had employees only, no slaves; and had received national punishment when, after several hundred years of freedom, under Judah’s last king, an attempt was made to establish slavery, says Rev. George Cheever, God Against Slavery, supra, pp 107-115.

You can refute slavers’ false claims that the Bible repeatedly says ‘slavery is ok.’ Simply call attention to the fact is that the word ‘slavery’ is not even in the Bible; nor the word ‘slaves,’ not until Rev. 18:13, listing examples of evils Christ destroys.

Popes Urban VIII (1639); Leo XIII (1888); and Gregory XVI denounced slavery, the latter “in a papal brief, In supremo (1839).”—Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to John Paul II (San Francisco: Harper, 1997), pp. 303, 339, 350.

Pursuant to English and U.S. constitutional and criminal law, slavery was illegal and unconstitutional. Protestant abolitionists such as Harriet Beecher Stowe and William Lloyd Garrison also opposed slavery. In 1854, Stowe published a list of anti-slavery Biblical principles, copied extensively from even earlier works.

One of their colleagues, Rev. Parker Pillsbury, a survivor into the 1880’s, wrote a book citing the following incident: In 1829, outgoing Pope Leo XII (1823-1829) or incoming Pope Pius VIII (1829-1830) told Mexico to abolish slavery “for the glory of God and to distinguish mankind from the brute creation.”—Parker Pillsbury, Acts of the Anti-Slavery Apostles (Concord, N.H., 1883), pages 67, 81, and 381. (Pillsbury did not cite which Pope it was).

Rev. Pillsbury had earlier cited Catholic anti-slavery action, in his 1847 book, Forlorn Hope, p 94.

Abolitionists knew this otherwise unknown Roman Catholic Church activity and were citing the fact even six decades later as the 1883 Pillsbury book shows.

Catholic church history of actions against slavery was also cited by Harriet Beecher Stowe, in her Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin (Boston: John P. Jewett & Co, 1853), pp 237-240, and specifically citing Dr. Jaime Luciano Balmes’ church history.​

As we see, Mexico followed Church teaching to end slavery. Ny law, Mexico banned slavery. In retaliation, the United States invaded Mexican territory. Sadly, Protestant churches became cheer-leaders for the U.S. war of aggression. See Rev. Pillsbury, Forlon Hope, supra, pp 58-68. The majority of “Bible-Belt” clergy and Protestants were in fact heathens, p 21.

For general background on the U.S. War of Aggression against Mexico, see Rev. William Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, supra, three chapters, pp 272-305.

Slavery was primarily operated by tobacco. Tobacco pushers are aggressive, expansionist. The War against Mexico was part of their expansionist goals. In a moral sense, therefore, Mainstream U.S. Protestant Churches were promoting slavers’ causing atrocities and deaths, instead of the Gospel. See also Rev. Foster’s identifying a more sinister motive, in Brotherhood of Thieves (1843), pp 71-73 (concubines for themselves).

The Roman Catholic Church, by being anti-slavery, was thus continuing its former opposition to the tobacco lobby and its immorality (1493, arrested smoker from Columbus ship; 1642, condemning tobacco use and setting an excommunication penalty, says Julien L. Van Lancker, M.D.,“Smoking and Disease,” pp 231, 235, in the US DHEW NIDA book, Research on Smoking Behavior (Dec 1977).
 
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SLAVERY, PART 4

Per 2 Corinthians 10:12-13, comparing with others is unwise. The correct comparison is with Bible Laws. When Adam was charged with sin, his carnal mind automatically sought to evade the Bible Law, by comparing, by finger-pointing at, changing the subject onto, others’ errors, e.g., Eve’s. Eve in turn compared with, finger-pointed at, changed the subject onto, the serpent’s flaws. Genesis 3:11-13.

Likewise, when slavers’ sin was raised, they carnally responded by comparing, finger-pointing, subject-changing, e.g., the evils of Yankees in ill-treating their employees, the slave-trade, the tariff, certain hypocrisies, etc. As comparing, finger-pointing, subject-changing is the reaction of the carnal mind, note that yourself, on this subject (and others), among alleged/professed Christians.

Wherefore, it is clear why the above-cited Pope, Gregory XVI, told Catholics to not defend slavery. Not only is it sin, but the defense involves oneself in the carnal unrepentant practice of subject-changing, comparing with, finger-pointing at, others. The only correct response to notification of one’s Bible-Law violation is David’s, to confess and stop sinning, 2 Samuel 12:13.

Per Matthew 7:21, only the obedient are deemed Christian; the disobedient to Bible Law are heathens, mere self-proclaimed Christians, but not so in reality. Recall this: Northern slavers had obeyed the Bible Laws, had stopped their slaving ways without a war to force them. Southern slavers refused to repent, refused to do likewise. Civil War thereafter came about.
 
The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile

Do I see priests, Bishops, or a Pope leading the charge. Nope

That would be like thinking the Pope today has control over the United States Goverment and it’s international affairs.

We are probably also talking about 2000 people over 300 years killed and about 40,000 Jews leaving Spain.

would someone care to guess how many Catholics were killed by the Church of England–today’s Anglicans

Would someone want to guess on the amount of witches burned at the stake by the puritans in this country during the 17 and 18th century?

Oh and by the way read your bible for Jesus did not condemn slavery.
 
The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile

Do I see priests, Bishops, or a Pope leading the charge. Nope

That would be like thinking the Pope today has control over the United States Goverment and it’s international affairs.

We are probably also talking about 2000 people over 300 years killed and about 40,000 Jews leaving Spain.

would someone care to guess how many Catholics were killed by the Church of England–today’s Anglicans

Would someone want to guess on the amount of witches burned at the stake by the puritans in this country during the 17 and 18th century?

Oh and by the way read your bible for Jesus did not condemn slavery.
So, how many do you have?
 
The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile

Do I see priests, Bishops, or a Pope leading the charge. Nope

That would be like thinking the Pope today has control over the United States Goverment and it’s international affairs.

We are probably also talking about 2000 people over 300 years killed and about 40,000 Jews leaving Spain.

would someone care to guess how many Catholics were killed by the Church of England–today’s Anglicans

Would someone want to guess on the amount of witches burned at the stake by the puritans in this country during the 17 and 18th century?

Oh and by the way read your bible for Jesus did not condemn slavery.
The Inquisition was sanctioned by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478 according to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Inq/si.htm
 
The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile

Do I see priests, Bishops, or a Pope leading the charge. Nope

That would be like thinking the Pope today has control over the United States Goverment and it’s international affairs.

We are probably also talking about 2000 people over 300 years killed and about 40,000 Jews leaving Spain.

would someone care to guess how many Catholics were killed by the Church of England–today’s Anglicans

Would someone want to guess on the amount of witches burned at the stake by the puritans in this country during the 17 and 18th century?

Oh and by the way read your bible for Jesus did not condemn slavery.
The RCC and Dominicans were hand-in-glove with the government of Spain during the Inquisition. There was no separation of church and state then, that great right established by our Protestant forefathers in this country.

NO witches were burned alive in this country. Hanged during the Salem witch trials, yes. Burned, no.

England under Elizabeth I hanged Catholics, mainly priests and others who sneaked into England to proselytize and serve Catholics, which shouldn’t have been a crime, but that the pope had excommunicated Elizabeth, called her a bastard and openly called for her execution and replacement by the foolish, Catholic Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth’s cousin.

In England, the state and religion were not separate; whoever opposed Elizabeth opposed her church. Same under Mary I, who burned alive about 350 persons, far more than Elizabeth executed.

Jesus didn’t oppose homosexuality, either, but the RCC does.
 
The argument that the Prots had a worse history than the RCC in regards to slavery is immaterial.

The material point is that a pope in a bull defended slavery.

Is a pope writing in a bull infallible? Can we ignore what popes write in bulls? Do popes write bulls anymore? What’s a bull, anyway? It’s not an encyclical, I assume.

Many allege that the RCC is unchanged for all time. Many others deny this. This defense of slavery, which apparently strongly influenced Portugal and Spain’s behavior in the New World, is indefensible, and suggests that the RCC’s opinion of slavery changed. Did anyone condemn the pope’s defense, indeed *advocacy *of slavery? Certainly not in Spain or Portugal, where to oppose the pope was to oppose the government.

What about usury–defined as the loan of money at interest, nowadays, excessive interest, formerly, any interest, forbidden to Christians–Catholics–but allowed to Jews. Apparently there are papal bulls forbidding usury, defined as the loaning of money at interest. Is that still forbidden?
 
Since many here keep talking about the Spanish Inquisition, I thought I’d add for people to read David Goldstein’s 1943 book. This clears up the many lies that have been formed over the years regarding the Spanish Inquisition and the church. This man of Jewish faith also converted to Catholicism. Please see:
www.trosch.org/for/inquisition.html
If he is a Jew who went shmad, of course he’d going to defend anything the Catholic church did. Converts tend to be like that; they try to prove their conversions “took”, so to speak.

And that’s not just true of converts to Catholicism, I have known converts to other faiths who acted the same way.

My mother’s ancestors were survivors of the Spanish Inquisition; they were told to either convert to Catholicism or be forced to leave Spain (or die, in some cases.) They chose to leave, but when the Inquisition caught up with them elsewhere, they finally decided to convert just to save their lives/keep from having to move again, but they kept practicing Judaism in secret.

So don’t try to tell me the Spanish Inquisition was a nice event…my family history says otherwise.

And yes, it is true that the Spanish Inquisition was orchestrated by Spanish (Catholic) monarchs, but remember that in those days, there was no separation of church and state as there (thankfully) is today in the USA.

The Pope could have ordered F&I to stop what they were doing, and if they were devout Catholics, they would have obeyed.

Keep one other thing in mind: Catholic historians and apologists like to say that the Spanish Inquisition did not go after Jews, but after lapsed Catholics.

They are being rather disingenuous when they say this…they neglect to point out to unaware non-Catholics the Catholic belief that once they have baptized someone (by force or by choice), they regard that person as CATHOLIC, for all time. Therefore, the church felt they DID have jurisdiction over such persons, as CATHOLICS. They no longer regarded them as JEWS.
 
The argument that the Prots had a worse history than the RCC in regards to slavery is immaterial.

The material point is that a pope in a bull defended slavery.

Is a pope writing in a bull infallible? Can we ignore what popes write in bulls? Do popes write bulls anymore? What’s a bull, anyway? It’s not an encyclical, I assume.

Many allege that the RCC is unchanged for all time. Many others deny this. This defense of slavery, which apparently strongly influenced Portugal and Spain’s behavior in the New World, is indefensible, and suggests that the RCC’s opinion of slavery changed. Did anyone condemn the pope’s defense, indeed *advocacy *of slavery? Certainly not in Spain or Portugal, where to oppose the pope was to oppose the government.

What about usury–defined as the loan of money at interest, nowadays, excessive interest, formerly, any interest, forbidden to Christians–Catholics–but allowed to Jews. Apparently there are papal bulls forbidding usury, defined as the loaning of money at interest. Is that still forbidden?
A Bull is a form of Apostolic letter, recognisable by the leaden seals attached to it, from which the name arises. Many documents have been labelled Bulls over the centuries; for about the last 500 years, this definition has been the accepted one. One other point as to the format: it will have a superscription giving the Pope’s title “Servant of the Servants of God”. Thus, one can tell that *Apostolicae Curae * (my favorite bit of Papal writing) is a Bull.

The contents of a Bull are not necessarily infallible. This does not necessarily mean that they are not required to be affirmed.

And one of the accused at Salem died under the *peine forte et dure *method of interrogation. No burning, true.

GKC
 
“The task of Inquisition was not to persecute Jews but to cleanse the church of unorthodoxy. The Inquisition was NOT concerned with infidels outside the church but with Heretics within it”---------George E. Sokolsky in his book “We Jews”.
 
“The task of Inquisition was not to persecute Jews but to cleanse the church of unorthodoxy. The Inquisition was NOT concerned with infidels outside the church but with Heretics within it”---------George E. Sokolsky in his book “We Jews”.
…and to the Catholic church, anyone baptized (whether willingly or by force) IS A CATHOLIC, even if they are really Jews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top