E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Metro New York Synod/ ELCA. Have good friends in Brooklyn!
- Status
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
That really depends on your own personal outlook right? The EO claim to the hold to the faith of Peter. Again, all about personal interpretation. They claim that Orthodoxy was the ONLY recognized form of Christianity until the RC broke it off.
No. That’s all on personal interpretation as well. For example usually when the fathers say Peter, some interpret them to be meaning modern Roman Catholic Church. Antioch was also the see of Peter. The Orthodox believe that they are holding to the faith of Peter in which all bishops share the ministry of Peter, Peter being the princeps of the apostles such as each bishop is the princeps of his territory, again personal interpretation. I just don’t see any way to get around it. That’s why I think Catholic apologists should stop using the “personal interpretation” argument against Protestants.
B
bornagainagain
Guest
Catholic answers forum and the rest of Christ’s church
I have been a Christian most of my life but depended on my “smart” reading of the bible and superior intellect to gaurantee I knew everything.
Of course I had no Holy Spirit power evident in my life such as tongues, prophecy, miracles, even victory over my vices and flesh nature.
I was sure that Christians who spoke in tongues were possessed or so spiritually retarded that they were just making the sounds to try and pretend to be like Jesus’ disciples.
Everyone who I met who spoke in tongues was definitely not smarter than me.
And they read some scriptures weird.
Plus I got the highest score in my college phsyics class and am a commercial pilot and computer programmer to boot! How could babbling buffons know more about the bible than me?!!!
After about 10 years of this though — my leaven wore thin and I got sick of “knowing” so much about the bible but living in defeat to my flesh and fasted for 3 days to see if God would make me like the apostles (or at least not like the Pharisees which is what I felt like) then it happened.
After 1 1/2 days of fasting I was baptized in the Holy Spirit and started speaking in tongues and my whole life changed. Then my wife followed suit 3 months later. Our life hasn’t been the same since… this book describes everything EXACTLY as it is with tongues and the baptism and explains the different types of tongues that can manifest for different reasons.
I sympathize with Christians who think tongues is optional and not for all and maybe they’re right. But I also know from experience that Christians who do speak in tongues are usually on fire for God (even if they are a little wacky sometimes).
If I could have read this book 10 years ago I’m sure it would have knocked the spiritual smugness right out of me and got me depending on the Holy Spirit through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit instead of my flesh.
In Summary — if you are living in defeat to the flesh and struggling with addictions to food, drugs, porn, whatever — don’t go to more church meetings, or buy expensive courses, or go see famous preachers — read this book and see what happens when you make drawing near to God your goal come hell or highwater.
P
PJM
Guest
Friend, I’m BIG on truth, and what you share isn’t it.
If they held to “Peter” their WOULD HAVE BEEN NO SCHISM:thumbsup:Please read this from a VERY non-catholic site
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your final comment about the Protestants. Please give me a bit more information. And please understand that what I shared is the position of the RCC and Christ Himself; not only my opinion.
God Bless you,
Patrick
God Bless you,
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Friend, I’m BIG on truth, and what you share isn’t it.
Please read this from a VERY non-catholic site
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your final comment about the Protestants. Please give me a bit more information. And please understand that what I shared is the position of the RCC and Christ Himself; not only my opinion.
God Bless you,
Patrick
God Bless you,
No, they see the Roman Church as the ones who are not following the faith of Peter. Remember that one See of Peter (Antioch) went with Constantinople in the Schism. So we have one faith of Peter, and another faith of Peter. All depends on ones own personal interpretation right?
I was listening to Catholic radio and Marcus Grodi said that the main problem with Protestantism is “personal interpretation”. I immediately thought how hypocritical that statement was. I cannot think of a way around it, all use their personal interpretation at least to a degree.I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your final comment about the Protestants. Please give me a bit more information. And please understand that what I shared is the position of the RCC and Christ Himself; not only my opinion.
B
Bklynguy
Guest
There are a fair amount of Lutherans in my area of Brooklyn.
T
Through_Him
Guest
Actually you can watch mass on You-tube easy. But the daily mass has some latin in it and most churches are in english now. Mostly the basic mass is the same. Also alot of the ewtn shows are also on you-tube, Try marcus grode coming home, he discusses a lot of differences.
S
Sochi
Guest
I will assume that you are A Catholic who has taken on a role of pedagogy for some reason or other, as distinct from being the Church itself, and thus answer in your own capacity and according to your inculcation/indoctrination however well and for whatever reason you feel you might represent the Church. But you asked, so I am very curious as to why a body of Roman Catholics alleged to have as their goal the protection of the Pope and the faith could in any conscionable way be named, or continue to be named, after Christopher Columbus???
I was on the verge of joining this group and was actually in the ceremony when, after being assured I could ask questions, my inquiries were avoided, diverted, dismissed, and at last ignored. this after having heard the oath, which might to some degree explain what to me appears on the face as a horribly unfortunate anomaly. So I removed the robe and left the room. I’m glad, as years later I discovered historic information about CC that kind of blew me out of the water. Publicly this would apply to why we have a National holiday named after this creep. But pertinent to this venue, I’m actually dumbfounded that there has not been a major public retraction of their name, and huge apology on the part of the KC for ever being associated from such a bastardly scoundrel as their current namesake.
As you must by now surely know, Columbus was a robber who is directly responsible for the genocide of about 1,000,000 natives. While he was doing that he conducted sex trafficking of Indians, including children as young as 9 years old. He forced slave labor and any who did not comply had noses or ears cut off. He worked them to death through exhaustion and hunger. He cut of the hands of an entire tribe and left them. He roasted them alive. He hunted them with dogs and let the dogs eat them. He also fed some of their infants to his dogs. All this after writing to Queen Isabelle that they were more exemplary as Christians than Christians. But they weren’t, so that excused his actions in his mind, so it seems. His actions were so horrible that one of his associates became a priest and spent his life fighting the aftermath of Columbus arrival. And indeed, he was finally deported in shame by his own associates as being too horrific an influence even for them.
So that is the guy who is the namesake of a organization that protects the Pope. Is that not a wonderful reflection on His Holiness? And yet, the name persists. Why?
I was on the verge of joining this group and was actually in the ceremony when, after being assured I could ask questions, my inquiries were avoided, diverted, dismissed, and at last ignored. this after having heard the oath, which might to some degree explain what to me appears on the face as a horribly unfortunate anomaly. So I removed the robe and left the room. I’m glad, as years later I discovered historic information about CC that kind of blew me out of the water. Publicly this would apply to why we have a National holiday named after this creep. But pertinent to this venue, I’m actually dumbfounded that there has not been a major public retraction of their name, and huge apology on the part of the KC for ever being associated from such a bastardly scoundrel as their current namesake.
As you must by now surely know, Columbus was a robber who is directly responsible for the genocide of about 1,000,000 natives. While he was doing that he conducted sex trafficking of Indians, including children as young as 9 years old. He forced slave labor and any who did not comply had noses or ears cut off. He worked them to death through exhaustion and hunger. He cut of the hands of an entire tribe and left them. He roasted them alive. He hunted them with dogs and let the dogs eat them. He also fed some of their infants to his dogs. All this after writing to Queen Isabelle that they were more exemplary as Christians than Christians. But they weren’t, so that excused his actions in his mind, so it seems. His actions were so horrible that one of his associates became a priest and spent his life fighting the aftermath of Columbus arrival. And indeed, he was finally deported in shame by his own associates as being too horrific an influence even for them.
So that is the guy who is the namesake of a organization that protects the Pope. Is that not a wonderful reflection on His Holiness? And yet, the name persists. Why?
S
Sochi
Guest
Me too. It is a simple question, and it’s been a week. Still waiting for some response as how you, as a Catholic, feel about this particular anomaly: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11867197&postcount=86Friend, I’m BIG on truth
God Bless you,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Dear friend, It would seem you have been influenced by propeganda designed to at the least; confuse you and the FACTS:
The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
God Bless you,
Patrick*
P
PJM
Guest
My dear friend in Christ,
At the young age of 69 and having been very active in the Catholic Church as a teacher at many levels, and many years, trained and certified as a Marian Catechist [a Lay Apostolate approved by Rome to teach and defend our Catholic Faith], I have on multiple occasions encountered post and accusations, similar in effect to what you shared.
I have found it prudent and charitable not to respond to unfounded and unproven charges. Most especially when I don’t know anything about the person leveling the charges. But you insisted on a reply, so I feel obligated as the OP of the string to do so.
newadvent.org/cathen/04140a.htm
The above site gives an in-depth and not entirely favorable history of Columbus. Please take the time to read it. But it does not support the atrocities you shared. Nor has any of my prior study of the man, supported your positions. He certainly was far from perfect.
In this day and age, of easy access to Mass-Secular-Media, driven by their own anti-God agendas, where The Catholic Church [and rightly so] remains the “Bulls-Eye” target of ALL other faiths, most especially the thousands of Christian sects and denominations who MUST vilify Catholicism in order to explain and at least try to justify their own man- made-faiths and church continue to search for straws that give them a competitive edge over ALL of the other competing Christian faiths, who in-mass, consciously or not, do oppose God’s very clear will, as expressed in the bible. So misrepetitions are found more common place than the singular truth.
It seems to ME [personally] that in order for your post to be true that either the bible is wrong or Christ misspoke.
**John 17:13-22 **“And now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy filled in themselves. I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. **[God cannot deny Himself] ** Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. *** As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [this means exactly what it says with God’s own Powers and Authority] ***
**And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [NO OTHER FAITH OR CHURCH OTHER THAN THE CC CAN MAKE AND SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT Jesus Himself is the warranty of it being impossible for Her to teach on Faith or Morals in error] **
And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me *** And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one***
**Mt. 28 “18-20 **“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have taught you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
Mt. 16:17-19 “And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and [YOU]upon this rock I will build my church,[SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the [ALL OF] keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Thanks for you’re post.
God Bless you,
PJM
S
Sochi
Guest
Thank you for the time and effort evidenced by your answer. I am only two years shy of your young age. Having been deeply involved in the Catholic education system until the scales fell from my eyes, I respect your credentials and understand the great deal of work and study that went into them. My post, however, was not an accusation, it was a sincere inquiry based on a deal of research on the man after hearing some disturbing rumors in conversation. On looking for material about him, I found the rumors to be cleaned up versions of what actually was recorded by CC himself, Bartolome de las Casas, and others. Bartolome renounced his worldly goods to become a priest and fight on behalf of the natives. His job was short, as within ten years they had, many millions, all been exterminated or had died miserable deaths under the reign of Columbus.
Of course this is a wise manner of dealing with things which are indeed in that category. However, your own lack of research, or reluctance to do it, cannot conscionably constitute “unfounded and unproven” on my part. Also, I am not leveling charges, you are taking a simple well defined question as an attack.
Yes, I went there and read it. And you are right, PJM, it doesn’t support what I said, for a simple reason: It is a PG rated version not quoting original documentation, and the single author reference it provides looks good, but again, while it claims to be based on original documents, does not spell out the horrors in fact included in those. Perhaps you noticed that it is a Catholic article referencing Catholic articles. Might I usefully remind you the history is written by the victors? And surely you are aware that our Church has a deep history of denial about the facts of its misadventures. Perhaps that is why our current Pope is such a fabulously great breeze of fresh air?
Here is a link to an article with many reference links by an accredited journalist that might get you to a more original, complete, and very graphic expositon of what the man was really like; By his account, Bartolome became physically ill just recounting the horrors he witnessed. (Article)
This is a very pious statement, and honorable as a defensive act, but unnecessary, as I am not attacking the Church. Your reaction, from here, is nearly identical to a common phenomenon: A person has a minor breach of etiquette or inconsistency pointed out, and it is reflexively transferred to and blown up as an ethnic issue. Here you have done exactly that with an issue which isn’t even about religion, it is about a perhaps understandable mistake in association, given common ignorance. I’m just asking why, in your opinion as a Catholic, when this could be a negative perception in the light of new knowledge, hasn’t it been adjusted? It is a procedural question regarding one instance, not a wholesale attack on Christendom.
Further, your claim that the “Church [and rightly so] remains the “Bulls-Eye” target of ALL other faiths,” is besides the point at hand, and simply not so, your perception being one of ommission and greatly embellished paranoia. It is the position of someone very touchily defensive and, for the most part, categorizing legitimate questions and doubts from positions other than your learned own as attacks. That is paranoia, not apologetics.
In fact, I invite you to submit our conversation to your Marian teachers or to an interfaith scholar, Catholic or otherwise, and see if they disagree with me. You have basically set my legitimate question up as a straw man so you could defend the Church against an attack I’m not making. In fact, in analysis, it would be easy to show that my question could be in the category of a friend telling another that there is spinach in their teeth, or their fly is open. Methinks you protest way too much.
HUH??? Would you please explain how you made a staggering leap to that perception???
- I was going to make some other comments on the nature of your salutation and close relevant to the contents, but that is another matter. Thanks for your time and effort in responding.
P
PJM
Guest
Friend, I just searched all the prior post to this string and found no other by Tzimizce:shrug:
So I didn’t reply because I have not seen your questions
PLEASE send me a Private message with you’re questions and I promise to reply to them ASAP:thumbsup:
God Bless you,
Patrick [PJM] OP
P
PJM
Guest
A sincere thanks for your kind and detailed repsonse:thumbsup:
I have forwarded as you requested, your two post to a more qualified historian, than am I.
So let’s leave that sit for a bit.
Am I to understand that you were a practicing Catholic, and choose to leave the only Church founded by God because of CC? [Not trying to put words in you’re mouth; just trying to affirm your rationale.]
You have no doubt read Mt. 10: 1-8
& Mt. 16: 15- 19 wherein Christ promises that the Gate of HELL shall never succeed against His One church. That is the reference I was making.
Miight suggest you take a look also at John 17;13–22
Where Christ gives Himself as a Persoanl warrany for the teachings of the CC on all matters of Faith belief and Morals, AND grants His Own Authority and Powers to the Church through Peter in John 17: 18; John 20:21; & Mt. 28: 18-19.
God Bless you, and I will get back to you if I find information other than what I shared alreay.
Patrick [PJM]
S
Sochi
Guest
Oh, heavens, no! Thanks for asking. And from here, “…the only Church founded by God…” is highly questionable, despite the citations below. You wouldn’t want to put words in my mouth.
Mt. 10: 1-8 kind of screws Paul in the argument he had with Peter as to preaching to the uncircumcised, eh? Where would we be today??
As for Mt. 16: 15- 19, there are other ways to read that, and again, a lot goes into the conclusion the Church arrived at. Without going in to it, let us just say that without being an atheist, and not negating the alleged divinity of Jesus, I do not concur. Let’s just say that from my perspective there are far more useful ways of connecting the dots. And let’s not forget Mark 4: 33,34.Yes, that is sage advice from the Master. And 21,22 contains a good clue as to my disagreement with the citations of Matthew. But that discussion will not take place here.
Again, commendable, but open to other ways of seeing His divine mission.
But none of that is, as I pointed out, germane to the question I asked, nor to my leaving the Church. But thank you for your concern and effort.
Thanks!
Blessings!
P
PJM
Guest
=Sochi;11896898]
Mt. 10: 1-8 kind of screws Paul in the argument he had with Peter as to preaching to the uncircumcised, eh? Where would we be today??
Yes, that is sage advice from the Master. And 21,22 contains a good clue as to my disagreement with the citations of Matthew. But that discussion will not take place here.
Again, commendable, but open to other ways of seeing His divine mission.
Continued Blessings,Blessings!
Patrick
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I;m not a Knight, but two minutes of Google research yielded a simple explanation found at Wikipedia:
“The name of Columbus was also partially intended as a mild rebuke to Anglo-Saxon Protestant leaders, who upheld the explorer (a Catholic Genovese Italian working for Catholic Spain) as an American hero, yet simultaneously sought to marginalize recent Catholic immigrants. In taking Columbus as their patron, they were sending the message that not only could Catholics be full members of American society, but were, in fact, instrumental in its foundation.[16] McGivney had originally conceived of the name “Sons of Columbus”, but James T. Mullen, who would become the first Supreme Knight, successfully suggested that “Knights of Columbus” would better capture the ritualistic nature of the new organization.[17]”
I suspect that those who seek to gain a lot of mileage from the fact that a Catholic fraternal order includes the name of Columbus should recall that whatever we may think of Columbus today, he was revered in the era when the KoC were founded.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m not a Knight, but two minutes of Google research yielded a simple explanation found at Wikipedia:
“The name of Columbus was also partially intended as a mild rebuke to Anglo-Saxon Protestant leaders, who upheld the explorer (a Catholic Genovese Italian working for Catholic Spain) as an American hero, yet simultaneously sought to marginalize recent Catholic immigrants. In taking Columbus as their patron, they were sending the message that not only could Catholics be full members of American society, but were, in fact, instrumental in its foundation. McGivney had originally conceived of the name “Sons of Columbus”, but James T. Mullen, who would become the first Supreme Knight, successfully suggested that “Knights of Columbus” would better capture the ritualistic nature of the new organization.”
I suspect that those who seek to gain a lot of mileage from the fact that a Catholic fraternal order includes the name of Columbus should recall that whatever we may think of Columbus today, he was revered in the era when the KoC were founded.
If this simple explanation does not satisfy the OP, perhaps he can offer his undoubtedly far more sinister explanation as to why the Catholic Church embraces and honors the likes of Christopher Columbus.
S
Sochi
Guest
So, I am to understand that an ecclesiastically sanctioned act of spite, touted as a “simple explanation,” should serve to preserve the the alleged innocence of associating a Monster with an organization vowed to protect the Church? So was CC a model of the intensity and depths of fervor the KoC would go to to accomplish a defeat or eradication of Protestants? If so, does that stand today? Their oath might suggest so, unless it’s language has been softened. The one I heard wouldn’t fly either in public or as a representation of the Church today.I’m not a Knight, but two minutes of Google research yielded a simple explanation found at Wikipedia:
“The name of Columbus was also partially intended as a mild rebuke to Anglo-Saxon Protestant leaders, who upheld the explorer (a Catholic Genovese Italian working for Catholic Spain) as an American hero, yet simultaneously sought to marginalize recent Catholic immigrants. In taking Columbus as their patron, they were sending the message that not only could Catholics be full members of American society, but were, in fact, instrumental in its foundation. McGivney had originally conceived of the name “Sons of Columbus”, but James T. Mullen, who would become the first Supreme Knight, successfully suggested that “Knights of Columbus” would better capture the ritualistic nature of the new organization.”
I suspect that those who seek to gain a lot of mileage from the fact that a Catholic fraternal order includes the name of Columbus should recall that whatever we may think of Columbus today, he was revered in the era when the KoC were founded.
If this simple explanation does not satisfy the OP, perhaps he can offer his undoubtedly far more sinister explanation as to why the Catholic Church embraces and honors the likes of Christopher Columbus.
And please, Randy, if it is your perception that this is about gaining “milage,” you can join PJM int the penalty box for both over thinking and over reacting, though yours is in print a milder case. I don’t have a “sinister motive,” unless pushing for disassociation of the purported Church founded by God from yet another reign of terror qualifies as such. Many Church skeletons are in the past and undo-able. But ceasing the use of the name of such a hypocritical beast as CC could only be a sign of benevolent change on the part of the Church, or at lest the KoC, unless their greater priority is saving face when it is already too late in this particular matter. Isn’t there a well known dictum to “Go, and sin no more?” Sin actually means to miss the point. Perhaps the KoC might then re-examine their original motivations, that is all.
So the question remains: given what we know now, despite what ignorance or deliberate intentions motivated the organization at it inception, ought there not be some sort of course adjustment, given that there is now a widespread knowledge of CC’s actual history, and movements to unseat him as an object of ignorant National honor? Or are you OK with what he did because he was a Catholic who, for instance, refused baptism to interested natives because then they couldn’t be sold into slavery?
- Status