When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[josie_L]

If he responded to the scriptures I posted, I missed it. I am still wondering what he makes of the Apostolic teaching that the body of the heretic should be delivered to Satan so his soul can be saved.

I didn’t know this Guanophore where is this to be found in scripture?

 

[josie_L]

“The problem we have here Edwin (apart from the inconciseness of Leo’s bull), is how we are defining “official teachings” I take it to mean, that by official, we are referring to something infallibly taught, and quite frankly the evidence you provide this? Moreover, if it was not infallibly taught then the Church could not have erred (do you see where I’m getting at with all this).”

One comment only. What Edwin said, what I said, is that Exsurge Domine certainly is a teaching, a Papal exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is not infallible. But that to which assent must be given, as is anything taught under the Magisterium.

Now resuming not posting.

GKC

This was taken from Lumen Gentium #25:

"This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to the decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

I don’t have a problem assenting to Exsurge Domine but how can I determine his mind and intention if as I said I don’t know what he is affirming vis a vis #33?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gladly, thanks for the idea, guano…

“Slaves should be told …[not] to despise their masters and recognise they are only slaves”. –Pope Gregory I, on Pastoral Care

“All men are equal by nature but … a hidden dispensation by providence has arranged a hierarchy of merit and rulership, in that differences between classes of men have arisen as a result of sin and are ordained by divine justice”–Pope Gregory I, commentary on the Book of Job

**Pope Gregory IX **in the thirteenth century placed official support for slavery and slave trafficking into Canon Law and he sanctioned slavery as four categories:
slavery through being captured in war, being condemned to slavery as punishment for a crime, children of a mother who was a slave, a father selling his child into slavery, and people voluntarily selling themselves into slavery. —Steven Epstein, Wage Labour & Guilds in Mediaeval Europe (1995), page 226 and Ambe J. Njoh, Tradition, culture and development in Africa (2006), page 31

Pope Martin V ordered traffic in Christian slaves to not be forbidden, but sale to non-Christian masters would be a crime; he also permitted a crusade against Africa in 1418 and in 1441 officially allowed the Portuguese to trade in African slaves. But earlier in 1425 he made sure it was totally illegal for a Muslim or Jew to trade in Christian slavery.

“we grant to you…full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ…to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery”–the Papal Bull Dum Diversas by Pope Nicholas V (1452) to King Alfonso V of Portugal. **Pope Calixtus III and Pope Sixtus IV ** renewed these declarations in 1456 and 1481 respectively. In 1514 **Pope Leo **also confirmed them.

In 1488 **Pope Innocent VIII **was given and accepted a gift of 100 slaves from King Ferdinand II of Aragon. Most of these were distributed to nobility and cardinals.

In 1535 **Pope Paul III **“declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome”.

What we see are huge contradictions and inconsistencies from the Catholic Church over millennia regarding slavery. I could point out bull after bull and statement after statement where popes and councils declared slavery inappropriate and unacceptable and forbidden and then turn around years later and revoke those statements. You can see the Church pander to Spain and Portugal for centuries and at the very best they turned a blind eye when they finally did forbid it.

The Church was against slavery of “Christians” but regularly allowed it against Muslims, Jews, and non-Christians.

Perhaps you can get us started by posting an official document that condones slavery?

 

[GKC]

This was taken from Lumen Gentium #25:

"This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to the decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

I don’t have a problem assenting to Exsurge Domine but how can I determine his mind and intention if as I said I don’t know what he is affirming vis a vis #33?

Not sure myself. But whatever it is, you gotta affirm it. And, logically, I think it’s possible to get an idea of what he was saying. Edwin is saying that, too.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

One comment only. What Edwin said, what I said, is that Exsurge Domine certainly is a teaching, a Papal exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is not infallible. But that to which assent must be given, as is anything taught under the Magisterium.

Now resuming not posting.

GKC

Yes. It is a teaching.

Once more, with feeling!

Originally Posted by PRmerger
Yes, it was a teaching to the entire Church about the heresies promulgated by Luther.

I condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.

Nothing more and nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by josie L View Post
Telling Luther he was a HERETIC!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Indeed it is, but it must be understood with some nuance, of course.

Capital punishment is not forbidden by the CC.
CP for heretics? Perhaps not, as there are other means of correction. But, woe to them!

Indeed, Scripture is quite clear that heresy is a very serious entity.

To promote heresy within the Church is rather like the sin of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num 16) which Jude warned against:

Jude 10-11 “…these men revile whatever they do not understand…Woe to them! For they…perish in Korah’s rebellion.”

Luther and Korah seem to have been brothers in their rebellion. TAnd things did not fare too well for Korah–as decreed by God, no less!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger View Post
And I thought I answered it.

“And my answer to what Catholics ought to understand that 11-word sentence to mean is: heretics hurt the Church. Heretics are wrong. Heretics need to be stopped. That is the will of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[GKC]

Yes. It is a teaching.

Once more, with feeling!

Yay!

GKC

 

[josie_L]

Not sure myself. But whatever it is, you gotta affirm it. And, logically, I think it’s possible to get an idea of what he was saying. Edwin is saying that, too.

GKC

GKC, please ponder these words for a moment:

“which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.”

Please read this article: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4210

p.s. If you are not sure then please do not propose what I should logically affirm.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t know this Guanophore where is this to be found in scripture?

I guess he is not technically a heretic, but an intractible sinner.

1Cor.5
[1] It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife.
[2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
[3] For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment
[4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
[5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I could see how people might think that delivering a disobedient person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved, equates to capital punishment.

Then there is this passage which presumably refers to excommunication:

I Tim. [18] This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare,
[19] holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith,
[20] among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

---

 

[thegreypiper]

Gladly, thanks for the idea, guano…

“Slaves should be told …[not] to despise their masters and recognise they are only slaves”. –Pope Gregory I, on Pastoral Care

“All men are equal by nature but … a hidden dispensation by providence has arranged a hierarchy of merit and rulership, in that differences between classes of men have arisen as a result of sin and are ordained by divine justice”–Pope Gregory I, commentary on the Book of Job

What we see are huge contradictions and inconsistencies from the Catholic Church over millennia regarding slavery.

The Church was against slavery of “Christians” but regularly allowed it against Muslims, Jews, and non-Christians.

Agreed there was a lack of consistency. This is primarily in regard to your last assertion – wrong, or at least this was as inconsistent as any other papalism. Paul III in 15378 forbade the slavery of the New World Indians:

said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. Sublimus Deus

Pretty strong stuff! Note also the phrase “and all other people”!

I would also like to note that slavery has been a fundamental fact of human existence since the beginning of history. When the NT was being written, slavery was right up there with death and taxes as an inevitable fact of life.

Although there was much Christian rationalization and justification for slavery, it was only under the Christian banner that slavery was fought or abolished. By Popes, by Christian abolition societies in Britain, where it was first abolished, and in the US, where abolition was quite literally a holy crusade. When is the last time you really listened to the words of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”? “As Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free…”

Slavery still exists in Africa, and through the Muslim world.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess he is not technically a heretic, but an intractible sinner.

1Cor.5
[1] It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife.
[2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
[3] For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment
[4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
[5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I could see how people might think that delivering a disobedient person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved, equates to capital punishment.

Then there is this passage which presumably refers to excommunication:

I Tim. [18] This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare,
[19] holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith,
[20] among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

---

Yes. And, interestingly, I did a search for a post by itsjustdave1988 that I remember being quite insightful, and found a conversation between guanophore and him, quite apropos to this discussion:

Originally Posted by guanophore View Post
The only way that one can, in good Christain conscience, disobey an authority placed there by God, is to somehow discredit for themselves that the authority is valid. Otherwise, such persons could be charged with the sin of rebellion.

Originally Posted by itsjustdave1988
It seems to me to be the “sin of Korah’s rebellion” which was warned against in the NT (cf. Jude 11, Num 16).

 

[guanophore]

Gladly, thanks for the idea, guano…

“Slaves should be told …[not] to despise their masters and recognise they are only slaves”. –Pope Gregory I, on Pastoral Care

How is this any different than the writings of the Apostle Paul? Do you believe he condoned slavery?

I think there is a big difference between the pastoral care of those who are enslaved and condoning slavery.

“All men are equal by nature but … a hidden dispensation by providence has arranged a hierarchy of merit and rulership, in that differences between classes of men have arisen as a result of sin and are ordained by divine justice”–Pope Gregory I, commentary on the Book of Job

This seems like a commentary on the status of social structure, and a speculation about why they might exist.

**Pope Gregory IX **in the thirteenth century placed official support for slavery and slave trafficking into Canon Law and he sanctioned slavery as four categories:
slavery through being captured in war, being condemned to slavery as punishment for a crime, children of a mother who was a slave, a father selling his child into slavery, and people voluntarily selling themselves into slavery. —Steven Epstein, Wage Labour & Guilds in Mediaeval Europe (1995), page 226 and Ambe J. Njoh, Tradition, culture and development in Africa (2006), page 31

While I will accept that these four categories of becoming a slave are accurate, I will need a better reference to this from canon law. Observing that there are categories of slavery is not the same as sanctioning slavery.

Pope Martin V ordered traffic in Christian slaves to not be forbidden, but sale to non-Christian masters would be a crime; he also permitted a crusade against Africa in 1418 and in 1441 officially allowed the Portuguese to trade in African slaves. But earlier in 1425 he made sure it was totally illegal for a Muslim or Jew to trade in Christian slavery.

Where do you find this “order”?

“we grant to you…full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ…to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery”–the Papal Bull Dum Diversas by Pope Nicholas V (1452) to King Alfonso V of Portugal. **Pope Calixtus III and Pope Sixtus IV ** renewed these declarations in 1456 and 1481 respectively. In 1514 **Pope Leo **also confirmed them.

Sounds like the directives of men invested in temporal power. Has the feel of resentment to it as well,don’t you think?

Do you believe that these represent the Teachings of the Church?

In 1488 **Pope Innocent VIII **was given and accepted a gift of 100 slaves from King Ferdinand II of Aragon. Most of these were distributed to nobility and cardinals.

For many, this became a life of ease, and many slaves were spared much suffering by being given into Christian homes. This follows the instructions of St. Paul to Philemon regarding Onesimus, who ran from his master, and was sent back as a brother.

In 1535 **Pope Paul III **“declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome”.

Not sure what you mean by this. I asked you for an official Church document, but you seem to be citing examples from a history book on slavery?

Maybe this is similar to our current American Bishops recognizing the “;lawfulness” of abortion, while teaching that the law of the land violates the law of God.

What we see are huge contradictions and inconsistencies from the Catholic Church over millennia regarding slavery. I could point out bull after bull and statement after statement where popes and councils declared slavery inappropriate and unacceptable and forbidden and then turn around years later and revoke those statements. You can see the Church pander to Spain and Portugal for centuries and at the very best they turned a blind eye when they finally did forbid it.

Indeed, there are many contradictions and inconsistencies in the practice of the faith over milennia. I think it is important not to confuse these with the Teaching of the Church.

The Church has always struggled to live in the world, but not be “of” it. I dont’ think that Paul condoned slavery, either, yet he knew that changing the social norms through living a Christian life no matter what one’s circumstances would eventually be more valuable.

The Church was against slavery of “Christians” but regularly allowed it against Muslims, Jews, and non-Christians.

I think you are not reading your own sources posted here, which clearly indicate that Christian slaves were kept as well as those of other status.

 

[GKC]

GKC, please ponder these words for a moment:

“which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.”

Please read this article: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4210

p.s. If you are not sure then please do not propose what I should logically affirm.

Good article. And what, generally, I understood. The parallel is not exact, since
Exsurge Domine is the Pope, not a Pontifical Commission, exercising his teaching authority, in the Ordinary Magisterium, which, absent the marks of infallibility (which distinguishes it from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium or from an ex cathedra teaching), is not infallible. But I don’t think that eliminates the faithful’s requrement to assent to the Ordinary Magisterium.

And good heavens, I’d never tell you what, precisely, you have to affirm. Just that you have to affirm whatever was being taught. You seem particularly worried about the term “logically”. I mean that logically, Exsurge Domine seems to be a Papal exercise of the teaching authority, in the ordinary magisterium and that by definition, that teaching requires your assent, per para 753 of Canon Law.

What that teaching is, precisely, I wouldn’t try to tell you. But, logically (meaning using my logical capability) I can make a guess at what it was, that is, what Leo was saying.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

Agreed there was a lack of consistency. This is primarily in regard to your last assertion – wrong, or at least this was as inconsistent as any other papalism. Paul III in 15378 forbade the slavery of the New World Indians:

said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. Sublimus Deus

Pretty strong stuff! Note also the phrase “and all other people”!

I would also like to note that slavery has been a fundamental fact of human existence since the beginning of history. When the NT was being written, slavery was right up there with death and taxes as an inevitable fact of life.

Although there was much Christian rationalization and justification for slavery, it was only under the Christian banner that slavery was fought or abolished. By Popes, by Christian abolition societies in Britain, where it was first abolished, and in the US, where abolition was quite literally a holy crusade. When is the last time you really listened to the words of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”? “As Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free…”

Slavery still exists in Africa, and through the Muslim world.

We also need to distinguish the difference between chattel slavery and indentured servitude, please read this article: catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

God bless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is the problem with the way you see things. If you see something you don’t like in history, despite it coming from the Pope himself cooperating with corrupt temporal powers, you’ll use legalease to somehow claim it wasn’t a teaching of the Church. On one hand documents like Lumen Gentium tell us that we must accept all ex cathedra AND regular pronouncements/opinions of the pope and yet when popes make horrible decisions like these to allow eslavement with certain conditions, etc. you claim they are not Church “teachings.”

You can never be wrong with this maleable argument. You can make anything work for you. If the pope sends legates to an official council (Honorius) telling them to fight for monothelitism, you claim it’s not “from the Chair,” not ex cathedra. It’s just his private opinion. A private opinion that a Pope asked legates to fight for at a council? That sounds pretty ex cathedra to me. And the guy was excommunicated, thankfully. But you can claim that it wasn’t official because he didn’t put an anathema on it in some official letter. You’ll always worm out of it if you want to?

With slavery I gave you case after case of popes condoning slavery IN WRITING and in their actions. You can slide out of that one by saying, “well that was a papal decree with temporal folks, not an official teaching of the Church!” So the Church can allow torture, wars, burning folks at the stake, stabbing guys like Jan Hus in the back after offering him a safe passage, slavery, and all sorts of other lovely things just as long as they use the legal loophole of NOT making it an official teaching at Sunday catechism, it’s ok…

You asked for examples. I gave them. And why I obliged you and actually thought you’d be open minded to them, I’m not sure? You predictably looked for legal loopholes and minutae to slide through history making the Church look untainted by slavery. It’s not.

And another great strategy you have is asking for some official obscure Catholic teachings in the umpteen million page canon law and zillions of decrees and paperwork of Catholicism knowing that nine out of ten people can’t find it. If you’re presented with historical decrees by popes and actions by the Church it won’t be good enough. There’s plenty of evidence I just gave you for the Church condoning and even encouraging slavery, especially for their cronies Spain and Portugal. You have decided in your head that the Church cannot err and can do no wrong so why even discuss these things with people? You have already indicated that you and all of us should submit our minds and wills to the Pope because he’s brighter, holier, and more learned than we are. Not all of us here are willing to surrender our wills and minds to someone just because they’re learned and holy. You are. That’s great. But when people are this divergent in their praxis, their approach to the faith, I think there’s little to be gained except prideful argumentation and debate from both of us. So I’ll cease. It’s fruitless and not worth me getting carpel tunnel syndome over!

How is this any different than the writings of the Apostle Paul? Do you believe he condoned slavery?

I think there is a big difference between the pastoral care of those who are enslaved and condoning slavery.

This seems like a commentary on the status of social structure, and a speculation about why they might exist.

While I will accept that these four categories of becoming a slave are accurate, I will need a better reference to this from canon law. Observing that there are categories of slavery is not the same as sanctioning slavery.

Where do you find this “order”?

Sounds like the directives of men invested in temporal power. Has the feel of resentment to it as well,don’t you think?

Do you believe that these represent the Teachings of the Church?

For many, this became a life of ease, and many slaves were spared much suffering by being given into Christian homes. This follows the instructions of St. Paul to Philemon regarding Onesimus, who ran from his master, and was sent back as a brother.

Not sure what you mean by this. I asked you for an official Church document, but you seem to be citing examples from a history book on slavery?

Maybe this is similar to our current American Bishops recognizing the “;lawfulness” of abortion, while teaching that the law of the land violates the law of God.

Indeed, there are many contradictions and inconsistencies in the practice of the faith over milennia. I think it is important not to confuse these with the Teaching of the Church.

The Church has always struggled to live in the world, but not be “of” it. I dont’ think that Paul condoned slavery, either, yet he knew that changing the social norms through living a Christian life no matter what one’s circumstances would eventually be more valuable.

I think you are not reading your own sources posted here, which clearly indicate that Christian slaves were kept as well as those of other status.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s my take as well. It is an exercise of the teaching authority of the Church, obviously IMO. You’re right on all points.

You seem particularly worried about the term “logically”. I mean that logically, Exsurge Domine seems to be a Papal exercise of the teaching authority, in the ordinary magisterium and that by definition, that teaching requires your assent, per para 753 of Canon Law.

What that teaching is, precisely, I wouldn’t try to tell you. But, logically (meaning using my logical capability) I can make a guess at what it was, that is, what Leo was saying.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

That’s my take as well. It is an exercise of the teaching authority of the Church, obviously IMO. You’re right on all points.

Yes. The Church was teaching, as Scripture does, that heresy is bad. Bad things happen when you teach heresy. It’s icky to go against God.

 

[GKC]

Yes. The Church was teaching, as Scripture does, that heresy is bad. Bad things happen when you teach heresy. It’s icky to go against God.

Yep. Bad things.

Any particular kind of bad thing, that might be concluded, from the wording of #33?

GKC

 

[guanophore]

This is the problem with the way you see things. If you see something you don’t like in history, despite it coming from the Pope himself cooperating with corrupt temporal powers, you’ll use legalease to somehow claim it wasn’t a teaching of the Church.

I don’t see where the problem is, Gurney. I also don’t see the legalese. It is really quite simple. The Church is infallible, and does not sin. When the sinful, fallible humans who are members of her choose to sin, such as aligning themselves with corrupt temporal powers, they separate themselves from grace, and from protection of the gift of infallibility. The Church founded by Christ cannot, and does not, teach sin, so of course, it is not a teaching of the Church!

On one hand documents like Lumen Gentium tell us that we must accept all ex cathedra AND regular pronouncements/opinions of the pope and yet when popes make horrible decisions like these to allow eslavement with certain conditions, etc. you claim they are not Church "teachings."

You have yet to demonstrate that the decision to allow enslavement is horrible. You also have not demonstrated how it is that the pope has the ability or the authority to stop slavery. You could start with Paul, and explain how his teaching and pastoral guidance was not directed toward “ending the horrible slavery” rather than teaching people how to cope with a present social evil.

You can never be wrong with this maleable argument. You can make anything work for you. If the pope sends legates to an official council (Honorius) telling them to fight for monothelitism, you claim it’s not “from the Chair,” not ex cathedra. It’s just his private opinion. A private opinion that a Pope asked legates to fight for at a council? That sounds pretty ex cathedra to me.

Then you don’t understand the nature of ext cathedra.

Honorius did espouse and promote heresy. It is heresy because the Church has defined heresy. When an individual departs from the teaching of the Church, no matter who it is, they have fallen into heresy.

And the guy was excommunicated, thankfully. But you can claim that it wasn’t official because he didn’t put an anathema on it in some official letter. You’ll always worm out of it if you want to?

I am certain that Honorius made every “official” effort to pander his heresies. Many officials in the Church have used “official” channels to promote sin and heresies. The fault is not in the pure bride of Christ, but in the individuals committing these sins. It is certainly quite wormy.

With slavery I gave you case after case of popes condoning slavery IN WRITING and in their actions.

I asked you for Church documents.

You can slide out of that one by saying, “well that was a papal decree with temporal folks, not an official teaching of the Church!”

I will evaluate that at such time as you are able to produce one.

So the Church can allow torture, wars, burning folks at the stake, stabbing guys like Jan Hus in the back after offering him a safe passage, slavery, and all sorts of other lovely things just as long as they use the legal loophole of NOT making it an official teaching at Sunday catechism, it’s ok…

I think you are suffering under some fantasy that the Church can prevent men from sinning. This is not the case. It is wrong to encourage sin, and it is wrong to promote sin. These are the official teachings of the Church. You seem to be invested in laying the deeds of wickedness at the feet of the Church, rather than the hearts of the persons who birthed them. I am not sure why it is so important for you to blame the Church for people’s sins. It is like blaming Christ for the sin of Judas.

You asked for examples. I gave them. And why I obliged you and actually thought you’d be open minded to them, I’m not sure? You predictably looked for legal loopholes and minutae to slide through history making the Church look untainted by slavery. It’s not.

I can stipulate that since the time of Paul the Apostle, slavery has been a social condition with which the Church has been obliged to contend. Not all persons in positions of authority have done so with Christlike attitudes. The Church, however, does not support slavery. I am not sure why it is important to you to blame the Church for the institution of slavery, either. It is a social condition that existed prior to Christianity for milennia.

I do agree, though, that persons calling themselves Christians who do not treat other human beings with the love of Christ do malign the reputation of Christ, and of the Church. To that extent, the Church is “tainted” by their sinful actions.

 

[guanophore]

And another great strategy you have is asking for some official obscure Catholic teachings in the umpteen million page canon law and zillions of decrees and paperwork of Catholicism knowing that nine out of ten people can’t find it.

If you wish to strenuously assert, such as you have, that the Catholic church teaches and supports slavery, then it seems to me that you will be able to produce some evidence to support your assertion.

Yes, it is a strategy that I have learned since I came here to CAF, and discovered all the preposterous allegations that are made against Catholicism that are based upon prejudice and ignorance.

If the official teaching on this is so “obscure” that it cannot be found, what makes you think it even exists?

If you believe the Church teaches this, why can’t you just locate the salient reference in the searchable online Catholic Catechism?

If you’re presented with historical decrees by popes and actions by the Church it won’t be good enough.

That is because an historical decree by a pope does not necessarily equate to Church teaching. Popes have done many things that are contrary to Church teaching, starting from Peter not associating with the Gentiles after “certain men” came from Jerusalem to Antioch.

There’s plenty of evidence I just gave you for the Church condoning and even encouraging slavery, especially for their cronies Spain and Portugal. You have decided in your head that the Church cannot err and can do no wrong so why even discuss these things with people?

I have a clarity that the sins of men do not taint the teaching of Christ, and that He has preserved His Truth infallibly in the Church, in spite of the failings of those in positions of authority that have not followed them.

I don’t equate the identity of the Church founded by Christ with the actions of men who have departed from her Truth.

You have already indicated that you and all of us should submit our minds and wills to the Pope because he’s brighter, holier, and more learned than we are.

I don’t believe I indicated any such thing. On the contrary, I think it would be a very dangerous thing for you, in particular, to do.

Not all of us here are willing to surrender our wills and minds to someone just because they’re learned and holy. You are. That’s great.

I think you are missing the point here, Gurney. Catholics believe that the Pope is the successor of Peter, and that Jesus gave Peter the care and feeding of the flock. The reason to submit is because Jesus has appointed him to shepherd us. Although I will say that, for the last century, we have been blessed to have shepherds who are holy and learned men.

But when people are this divergent in their praxis, their approach to the faith, I think there’s little to be gained except prideful argumentation and debate from both of us. So I’ll cease. It’s fruitless and not worth me getting carpel tunnel syndome over!

I am not sure what you mean by a “divergent praxis in their approach to faith”. Divergent from what? Are you saying that my practice of separating the acts of sinful men from the Holy and infallible Bride of Christ makes a discussion with me fruitless?

 

[josie_L]

Good article. And what, generally, I understood. The parallel is not exact, since.

I got sidetracked with the non-infallibe statements by the papal magisterium, but I stand corrected.

And good heavens, I’d never tell you what, precisely, you have to affirm. Just that you have to affirm whatever was being taught. You seem particularly worried about the term “logically”. I mean that logically, Exsurge Domine seems to be a Papal exercise of the teaching authority, in the ordinary magisterium and that by definition, that teaching requires your assent, per para 753 of Canon Law.

No, I’m particularly worried why some people seem determined (Edwin) to make me believe that what was being affirmed in the bull is that Leo X taught burning heretics was according to the will of the Spirit. Moreover, it is difficult to assent to something that isn’t concise, in fact, I do not see the logic in that. I did however have a chance to research more on the matter and as a result I found this (a History/Religion professor from Duke University Hans Hillerbrand):

"An additional weakness of the document was that it refrained from identifying the specific censures for the forty-one propositions. The quotations from Luther simply received the label "respective haereticos aut scandalosos aut falsos aut piarum aurium offensos vel simplicium mentium seductivos et ventati catholicae obviantes."4 This vagueness was especially significant in light of the absence of any explicit verdict as to which sentences were outrightly “heretical.”

ts.mu.edu/content/30/30.1/30.1.6.pdf

What that teaching is, precisely, I wouldn’t try to tell you. But, logically (meaning using my logical capability) I can make a guess at what it was, that is, what Leo was saying.

Fine, but guesses don’t really help in this instance.