From Godly to Sinful

[S.A.M.]

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. I believe many priests are willing to the return to the Vatican precisely because the Pope does not support such hereticism

IN WHAT an Australian bishop calls the most significant Anglican-Catholic development in nearly 500 years, the Pope has invited disenchanted Anglicans to return to Roman Catholicism - as Anglicans.

Hundreds of thousands of Anglicans worldwide, including hundreds of Australians, are expected to take up the offer to be reunited through a structure that makes them full Roman Catholics while allowing them to keep their spiritual and worship traditions. Anglo-Catholics, as Anglicans with a strong Catholic inclination are called, have been seeking unity more urgently, feeling disenfranchised over the ordination of women and homosexuals as priests, then bishops.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/a...pope-offers-return-to-fold-20091021-h90t.html

 

[Doreen]

Here's some more evidence....
http://churchslavery.blogspot.com/

A couple of damning quotes....

SLAVERY:

The Third Lateran Council of 1179 imposed slavery on those helping the Saracens. The legitimacy of slavery was incorporated in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, based on the Decretum Gratiani, which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1226:
24. Cruel avarice has so seized the hearts of some that though they glory in the name of Christians they provide the Saracens with arms and wood for helmets, and become their equals or even their superiors in wickedness and supply them with arms and necessaries to attack Christians. There are even some who for gain act as captains or pilots in galleys or Saracen pirate vessels. Therefore we declare that such persons should be cut off from the communion of the church and be excommunicated for their wickedness, that catholic princes and civil magistrates should confiscate their possessions, and that if they are captured they should become the slaves of their captors. We order that throughout the churches of maritime cities frequent and solemn excommunication should be pronounced against them. Let those also be under excommunication who dare to rob Romans or other Christians who sail for trade or other honourable purposes. Let those also who in the vilest avarice presume to rob shipwrecked Christians, whom by the rule of faith they are bound to help, know that they are excommunicated unless they return the stolen property.


Still not convinced the Church supported slavery? Consider the following quotation from the Apostolic Constitution written by His Holiness, Pope Nicholas V, on January 8, 1455 ("Apostolic Constitutions" carry more authority than an "Apostolic Letter", and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued as an Apostolic Letter):
We (therefore) 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,...
The full text can be read at this link: Papal support for slavery

 

[Doreen]

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. I believe many priests are willing to the return to the Vatican precisely because the Pope does not support such hereticism



http://www.theage.com.au/national/a...pope-offers-return-to-fold-20091021-h90t.html

Not supporting heretism is not the same as saying it is moral to kill heretics.

But my previous post should put the issue to rest. The Vatican has supported slavery and the Bible justifies this stance. Now they don't. They changed.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html

 

[S.A.M.]

What is the document where they reversed the decrees of the Romanus Pontifex?

 

[Doreen]

What is the document where they reversed the decrees of the Romanus Pontifex?

Did you see Papal support for slavery in what I posted?
Do you think that the VAtican supports slavery today?

The Vatican has supported slavery. It does not now. It changed its mind. I will not go further work for you.

 

[S.A.M.]

Did you see Papal support for slavery in what I posted?
Do you think that the VAtican supports slavery today?

The Vatican has supported slavery. It does not now. It changed its mind. I will not go further work for you.

No its okay, I am looking for documentation as evidence of reversal of theological [not practical] stance . I will wait until someone can provide it for both sides of the stance.

 

[Doreen]

What bothered me was you have papal writings in support of slavery. Slavery was later opposed by the Popes. This means the position changed. Suddenly we must back this up by finding a document that specifically rescinds an early document. That is not necessary to meet the general request of the OP which is to show change, regardless of how the Popes did or did not refer to earlier writings. I am not saying they did not. I am saying that it just comes off as making us work even more when the basic issue is settled. At certain times in history the VAtican supported slavery. It does not now do this.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sure but the OP clearly stated that slavery [for example] is now taught as sinful. I have yet to see evidence for this.

Without any documentation its pretty easy to claim that there was no reversal, just an inability to impose dogma.

 

[Doreen]

No its okay, I am looking for documentation as evidence of reversal of theological [not practical] stance . I will wait until someone can provide it for both sides of the stance.

The Pope is God's messenger on earth. What a Pope says is theological doctrine. The Pope does not merely make practical doctrines, they are by definition theological ones. he is the ultimate theological expert and all his opinions on morality are theological ones or he would not be public with them.

 

[S.A.M.]

The Pope is God's messenger on earth. What a Pope says is theological doctrine. The Pope does not merely make practical doctrines, they are by definition theological ones. he is the ultimate theological expert and all his opinions on morality are theological ones or he would not be public with them.

Okay. Does the Pope allow the marriage of divorced people in Catholic churches?

 

[Doreen]

Sure but the OP clearly stated that slavery [for example] is now taught as sinful. I have yet to see evidence for this.

Without any documentation its pretty easy to claim that there was no reversal, just an inability to impose dogma.

1) I don't think you understand what a Pope is.
2) The Popes have over time, reversed position on slavery.

That they failed to impose their dogma in favor of slavery is a practical issue, as you would say.

To me saying that clearly stated opinions that contradict each other are really an inability to impose dogma makes absolutely no sense. They changed the dogma.

 

[Doreen]

Okay. Does the Pope allow the marriage of divorced people in Catholic churches?

SAM, I don't respect your approach to a conversation in this thread. A suggestion for how it could be more honest would be if you made an assertion and tried to back it up instead of asking people to go through a lot of work while you hop around and ask short questions when any core issue of value, at least on the slavery issue, has already be settled. I realize that your approach may seem to mirror the way atheists approach theists in the specific style they demand evidence, but as a non atheist I find it no more ethical in your hands.

So I will leave this thread.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM, I don't respect your approach to a conversation in this thread. A suggestion for how it could be more honest would be if you made an assertion and tried to back it up instead of asking people to go through a lot of work while you hop around and ask short questions when any core issue of value, at least on the slavery issue, has already be settled. I realize that your approach may seem to mirror the way atheists approach theists in the specific style they demand evidence, but as a non atheist I find it no more ethical in your hands.

So I will leave this thread.

Thats fine, there is no compulsion to accomodate my interests. For me the issue is simple and one of evidentiary support.

I can give you an example of this. In Islam, there is regilious prohibition against mutilation. But Muslims are routinely circumcised. Does this mean that the priests do not care about the scriptures or have reversed position on it? Not really, they simply do not care to pontificate on it because culture precedes dictate; in Islam its become routine to circumcise and now the dogma is that it is unIslamic to NOT circumcise, based on some Hadiths, which surprisingly appear to have greater validity than the Qur'an.

Now we come to the issue of FGM, which is as old as male circumcision. When pressed on the issue of whether FGM is permitted by Islam, scholars put out a fatwa declaring it to be un-Islamic. However, there is still no dictate on male circumcision.

So just the fact that the Pope does not punish the divorced is not evidence that they have reversed a theological stance. It means they have simply decided not to make an issue of it. Otherwise there should be a Papal decree to the effect that divorced people can marry in Catholic church.

 

[(Q)]

Muslims are routinely circumcised. ... they simply do not care to pontificate on it because culture precedes dictate; it is unIslamic to NOT circumcise, based on some Hadiths, which surprisingly appear to have greater validity than the Qur'an.

Is it any wonder why non-Muslims observe such hypocrisies in your religion when this type of atrocity continues yet a cartoon depiction causes rioting in the streets and murder, and then you have the nerve to pontificate your religious beliefs to us?

 

[iceaura]

Thats fine, there is no compulsion to accomodate my interests. For me the issue is simple and one of evidentiary support.

The issue is simple and one of you simply denying perfectly good evidence.

The Christian Church once admitted slaveowners as officials - even clerics - in good standing. No longer. It once forbade moneylending at compound interest as a sin and (when it held State power) a crime, there are now Western bankers prominently represented in the governance of many Christian organizations and respected leaders in their Church, the Vatican itself maintains bank accounts and employs bankers. It once forbade divorce, now there are divorced Christian clerics. And so forth.

You are being quite silly - if there was in fact no "documentation" (the historical record apparently not qualifying) of any of that, so what?

I can give you an example of this. In Islam, there is regilious prohibition against mutilation. But Muslims are routinely circumcised. Does this mean that the priests do not care about the scriptures or have reversed position on it? Not really, they simply do not care to pontificate on it because culture precedes dictate;

Which leads to the obvious observation that Islam does not prohibit mutilation.

Because the cultural features that Islam does prohibit in fact, clerics have no hesitation "pontificating" about - to the point of inciting riots in the streets.

The "documentation" is interesting, but not precedent over reality.

 

[S.A.M.]

if there was in fact no "documentation" (the historical record apparently not qualifying) of any of that, so what?

Then there is no official recant. Its like the law that made homosexuality illegal in India. This year we officially recanted it and this makes gay marriage a legal issue in Indian courts.

 

[(Q)]

Then there is no official recant. Its like the law that made homosexuality illegal in India. This year we officially recanted it and this makes gay marriage a legal issue in Indian courts.

It's amazing how reality manages to demonstrate how utterly absurd religious doctrine has on it.

 

[iceaura]

Then there is no official recant. Its like the law that made homosexuality illegal in India.

There is no official.

And it is not like the law, in Western cultures. The debate over divorce in Ireland makes that very clear, if you care to check.

 

[S.A.M.]

There is no official.

And it is not like the law, in Western cultures. The debate over divorce in Ireland makes that very clear, if you care to check.

Of course there is. There is the Bible. Surely they would alter what is wrong if they accepted it to be so?

 

[iceaura]

Of course there is. There is the Bible. Surely they would alter what is wrong if they accepted it to be so?

The Bible is not an official.

And no, why would they attempt to alter anything, when interpretation is their job? That would be like altering the Quran, when you had discovered that Adam and Eve never existed in physical fact, that the story of Noah was a myth, that slavery was a bad thing, etc.