catholicism and the Jewish people - a test case for authority

[GraceSaves]

Colin,

I didn't want your version of the outcome. I want the actual Canon Law that you say they were following. Show me a copy of the written document. It's gotta be online somewhere.

God bless,

Grant

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by LisaMC:
Since no one else attempted to answer this one, I'll answer myself:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />By the way, are any of you familiar with how the African slave trade came to the Americas? If I was RC, I wouldn't be so quick to point the finger on that one.

Does the name Bartolome De las Casas ring any bells?

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/spanish/lascasas.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Lisa dear.

I am well aware that there were Catholicis who were involved in slave trade. CAtholics sin. I have acknowledged that many times. Find me in Catholic theology where slave trading is approved. You miss the whole point. What some men did is not the issue. The Baptist Churches were using the Bible to explain why slavery was okay and why nig... weren't human. I bet there were sermons every Sunday on it and that blacks were inferior people. It was common baptist theology. I am sure when I get to the Library about this I will find baptist writings that said these very things. I like how you jump on the Baptist side in all of these arguements even though your AOG. Truth really means very little to you. It is keeping the old anti-catholicism going that your about.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

I like how you jump on the Baptist side in all of these arguements even though your AOG. Truth really means very little to you. It is keeping the old anti-catholicism going that your about.

You mean nobody told you it's a conspiracy. The whole world against Roman Catholicism.

Truth means everything to me. You, however, are the one who is missing the point. Father de las Casas, hailed as a saint, found it horrific to use indian slave labor in the Americas because this was their own land. However, he thought it was okay to use African slave labor. It was in fact he who suggested switching from the ever dwindling indian population in the Americas to using the African slaves, a move he later regretted.

I bet there were sermons every Sunday on it and that blacks were inferior people. It was common baptist theology. I am sure when I get to the Library about this I will find baptist writings that said these very things.

First, let me tell you the scoop on the AoG. When the AoG first formed, blacks were not allowed to become ordained ministers. This lead to another penecostal branch which I can't remember currently. However, the AoG now openly admits to this error and has changed the policy.

Now, I like how you say "I bet there were sermons every Sunday on it." How many Baptist services have you attended? I have attended quite a few myself.

The difference in the Baptists and RC on their atrocities? Well, apparently, the Baptists knew enough not to flaunt their shame, thus the "white sheets and hoods" (that's presuming only Baptists belonged to the KKK). Did the RCC find it necessary to hide their identities to spread their hate?

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Colin,

Can you point me to the Canon Law that says we should physically persecute the Jewish people?

God bless,

Grant

Hi Grant, I am not sure which canons the pope was quoting when he used them as justification for the imprisonment of the entire Jewish population of Rome into an overcrowded ghetto. I am looking into it. Concerning the conditions within the ghetto, comment has already been made re no schools, doctors, libraries (all banned by the pope) etc. A more personal account comes from a letter written in desperation to the pope, begging for help. He wrote on behalf of his seven family members, living within the one room: “because for a long time, our four children have been afflicted with diarrhoea that wont go away. Since they have to relieve themselves constantly, especially at night, the stench is overpowering, as we lack even a convenient place to keep the excrement.” This was the direct result of papal law in Rome.

More generally, R. Hilberg, in "The Destruction of European Jews" has shown where 22 canon laws have their direct counter-point in Nazi anti-Jewish legislation; Jews not allowed to appear on the streets during Christian holy days, banned from owning property, banned from giving evidence against Christians in court (this did wonders for christian rape statistics)forced to wear distinctive clothing so that they could be shunned, banned from public office, not permitted to eat with christians, should have their books burnt, not allowed to build synagogues, not allowed to talk with christians about religion, compulsory ghettoes, christians not perpitted to sell or to rent property to Jews, Jews not alowed to study etc. In this list, sometimes actual canons are quoted, eg 3rd Lateran Council, canon 26, 4th Lateran council, canon 68, othertimes only synods or councils are quoted. I do not know if a synod can pass a canon, and so Ill mention that up front.

What the list again shows is that the normative experience of the Jewish community of the catholic church was an experience of persecution and ostracism. This has and continues to make witnessing to Jewish people difficult.

Take care, Colin

 

[DanPC]

"Last I checked, you guys still live in the United States and support this nation. Even though we didn't act to save the lives of innocent Jews until it was in our OWN best interest."
Grant, we Americans never did save Jews. We could have bombed the railroads to the camps but didn't. Sorry to say but I have not seen any evidence we did anything to help the Jews other than win the war--helping those that had hidden, etc by ending the war.

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Colin,

I didn't want your version of the outcome. I want the actual Canon Law that you say they were following. Show me a copy of the written document. It's gotta be online somewhere.

God bless,

Grant

Hi there, what is the status of a papal bull? I really dont know. I have been trying to find cum nimbis abserdum, but no luck so far.

On a more general note, I have tried not to simply give "my version." I have quoted history, re thousands of Jews being killed, and catholic synods, official catholic papers, cardinals etc etc.

Now I can only repeat that what I have yet to hear in reply is any sorrow. No one has said, "this is terrible, those poor people" or some such. I am reminded of a number of scriptures, Proverbs re "correct a wise man and he will love you", Isaiah re "they had no shame, they did not know how to blush" and Jeremiah, "but if you will not hear it, my soul will weep in secret for your pride."
You have options here, guys. Yes I repeated this history because I think it makes a strong case against infallability re morals, but that does not foreclose on your ability to regret what was carried out in the official name of your church. You can still have the integrety to feel shame, and the humanity to grieve. The victims here are not the catholic church but the Jewish people.

Dan has tried to tell me that maybe the church was right to ethnically cleanse Spain, that the mass murder of 3,000 at one time was probably an OK way to defend the sanctity of Jesus - as if Jesus, who said "forgive them, they know not what they do" would think it was in keeping with the unconditional and limitless love he showed. Wake up! This was obscene when ever it happened. Dont say, "Its just the way things were back then" Did they have the Bible or not?
What would you think if a telly evangelist caught in adultery said, "dont fuss, its just a sin of the time?" We would all reply, "No way! This is a sin against the eternal commands of God! Thats a pathetic excuse!" And so we should.

Have the decency to know remorse.

Take care, Colin

 

[GraceSaves]

Colin,

You don't allow us time for pity. You are using these atrocities to attack our faith. This isn't about them; it's about the Church.

God bless,

Grant

 

[DanPC]

Lisa,
Did you read the link. He was a great humanitarian who defended the Indians for his adult life. Everything said about him sounded very good except the last bit. And that is defensible too in that he was trying to save Indidans from work that was too difficult. I don't believe it says he was the one working the Indians or African slaves. Those that demanded the labor are at fault, not the poor Dominican priest who labored to save as many Indians as he could. I will quote the one negative thing said about him--and I don't think it was all that bad as it stemmed from his love of the Indians.
"Ironically, this great and sincere humanitarian, convinced that the fast disappearing Arawak Indians could not physically tolerate the hard labor expected by the Spanish, recommended the importation of African slaves to do the hard labor. de las Casas believed that the Africans were constitutionally more fit for hard labor than were the Amerindians."

Colin, I would advise reading a neutral source--as neutral as possible on historical subjects. Or if that is difficult, sources from both sides. Little history is value neutral and reading one side isn't very informative.

Bob--"IF you had Baptist "Popes" declaring that the KKK principles/agendas were noble...
I thought every Baptist was their own Pope, infallibly interpreting Scripture by themselvse as Sola Scriptura teaches.

Colin--"No one has said, "this is terrible, those poor people" or some such." That is how heretics were dealt with then. You are using todays standards to judge other times. (If you go to an Islamic country you might lose your hand for stealing. It isn't terrible--it's the law.)

"The victims here are not the catholic church but the Jewish people." Civil criminals are victims now? If they did the crime they should have been punished. If they didn't, then they shouldn't. You haven't proven they were guilty or innocent. I can't either. They were found guilty I thought you wrote somewhere. If so, they were punished as anyone else would have been at that time.

"Dont say, "Its just the way things were back then" Did they have the Bible or not?"
I am talking about civil crimes that should be punished. You don't like the Catholic Church so see no reason that blasphemous statements and actions should be punished in a society that was run by a church dominated state.
If you want to look at some crimes now days try artificial birth control (abortifacient) and abortion. I think the Catholic church is against both but the Baptists are not solidly on board on either issue. In the US there are 3-4,000 abortions a day. That is not counting chemical abortions. And all of these are sanctioned by many Christians churches, including some Baptist ones.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Colin -

you said

are papal bulls, popes quoting canon law, the official words of synods of bishops, the deeds of saints etc meaningless and pointless to catholics? Is Jewish suffering meaningless and pointless to catholics?

Have a cold shower and answer nicely. From memory, you are the guy who told me the virtues of blind obedience to the catholic church leaders. Im the guy who pointed out that such an attitude would have led you to sin.

Jewish suffering is of no greater consequence than the thousands of Catholics who were murdered by Anglicans and Scottish Calvinists. What is it with you and the Jews anyhow? The whole world at that time was enveloped in an attitude that the way to treat one's enemies was the rack, the stake, and the drowning pond. You act as if Catholics were not also persecuted severly.

And as mentioned to you ad nauseum there is nothing in the OFFICIAL TEACHINGS of the Church which endorses such behavior towards one's enemies. The actions taken at the time were the personal decisions of those in charge of the Church. I am sure that by now they have long since faced Jesus for what they did and answered to Him.

Why is it that you cannot take a simple concept like differentiating between the tares and the field and understand it? Tares in the field never affect the field itself. It remains a field, filled with rich, fertile soil which will also grow wheat.

Face it, Colin, you really just love to trash the Church and this is a convenient whippin' boy upon which to vent your frustrations.

Brother Ed

 

[BobRyan]

bob --- "IF you had Baptist "Popes" declaring that the KKK principles/agendas were noble, Godly, to be rewarded AND IF you had those "popes" engaging in and ordering FURTHER KKK activity. Then YES you would have the SAME problem today."

Thess --
I have to say you get the rabid dog anti-catholic award. congrats. There is nothing in any of your biggoted posts worth responding to.


Classic non-response to the events of history.

Classic dodge of the devastating comparisons.

Classic defensive ad-hominem rant when confronted with YOUR OWN argument in a way the spells out just how vapid your "We Catholics are just like the KKK" argument really is.

This is NOT a Catholic Board. Non-Catholics DO see the point that you so desire to cover up.

You CAN't use "we are right because we always ignore anyone who says we were wrong" argument here like you would on a Catholic-only board. It just doesn't work.

why not actually address the devstating points raised?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"IF you had Baptist "Popes" declaring that the KKK principles/agendas were noble, Godly, to be rewarded AND IF you had those "popes" engaging in and ordering FURTHER KKK activity. Then YES you would have the SAME problem today as we SEE in the RCC's case."


DanPC --
bob.
I thought every Baptist was their own Pope, infallibly interpreting Scripture by themselvse as Sola Scriptura teaches.
.

Dodging the point.... again??

You see Dan it was You who chose to compare brutal torture and its endorsement by top Catholic leadership to the fact that a Baptist MEMBER would dare to be a member of the KKK.

My point was - this is NOT the official voice of the Baptist church endorsing the KKK - AS we have in the centuries long brutal torture, abuse and condemnation of millions of Christians by the Catholic church. My point was that to GET anywhere NEAR that level of complicity - the Baptists would NEED a SINGLE voice that spoke AS the voice of the church AND THEN endorse the brutal torture and extermination of dissenting voices - or of slaves - take your pick.

The failure comparison THAT YOU chose is devastating.

That is obvious to Catholic and non-catholic reader alike - but since this is a NON-Catholic message board - you can not simply offer non-responses and hope to "diffuse" the clear and obvious point of the comparison.

So what will you do?

Will you be able to find even ONE apology from the official voice of the RCC that it's policy of brutal torture was "wrong"???

The ball is in your court. Do something compelling with it this time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Brother Ed And as mentioned to you ad nauseum there is nothing in the OFFICIAL TEACHINGS of the Church which endorses such behavior towards one's enemies. The actions taken at the time were the personal decisions of those in charge of the Church. I am sure that by now they have long since faced Jesus for what they did and answered to Him.

That "sounds good" until you uncover the facts.

The RCC has STILL not apologized for those monsterous acts and EVEN HERE we see Catholic DEFEDING that insanity saying "Well they were acting in accord with their times and those heretics were thought-terrorists".

So WHY when the Pope goes out of his way to FRAME an apology is he SO careful NOT to say that the inquisitions, the torture of heretics - NONE of it was "WRONG"??

In fact Dr Carroll of EWTN is VERY emphatic that this is the case. That the Pope was VERY careful so that NOTHING that the Church actually DID is being apologized for - NO specific wrong is "Admitted" in that "Apology" according to Carroll. AND in the same breath he admits that "EVEN Billy Graham would be burned at the stake by the church were he to have spoken the SAME THINGS then that our laws protect him in doing today".

Fascinating!!

And yet ... it goes on.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Imagine the Mormons or JW's making such a claim!!

What a low blow that would be to their stature even though they are already considered to be cults.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob,

What is your stance on the death penalty in the United States?

God bless,

Grant

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
"EVEN Billy Graham would be burned at the stake by the church were he to have spoken the SAME THINGS then that our laws protect him in doing today".

Ah yes. Quotes without verifiable sources.

When was this said?

Did you hear it yourself or was it related to you?

If you heard it yourself, did you record it? Take notes? Or simply parapharse what you think you heard with quotation marks to make it appear authentic.


Very poor.

Very lacking.

And so typical of anti-Catholic slander.

All you need to do now is tell me to "prove it isn't true".

 

[DanPC]

Bob and Colin, I am not going to help you here but making ridiculous allegations is not going to get you an apology nor much of a response other than what has already come your way. Making an allegation that the Eucharist is tied to mass murders is something Jack Chick might not even dare to do.
Repulsive, blasphemous bigotry does not engender the apologetic repsonse you so desire.

"Will you be able to find even ONE apology from the official voice of the RCC that it's policy of brutal torture was "wrong"??"
I keep reading about all of this brutal torture here and in books written by Protestants that differ with the Catholic Church. Trouble is that the "facts" relied upon are anything but--some truth but very limited. The infamous inquisitions where executions were done by the state--not church--were like 1 day of abortions worldwide. I acknowledge there were abuses but not on the scales you allege. Your allegations are not supported by the facts which proves to be a devastating blow to your argument and makes you look like bigots.

 

[thessalonian]

Bob,

I repeat. YOUR A BIGGOT.

"Oh he ad homenemed me again. I'm tellin.".

[ February 11, 2003, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[LisaMC]

Dan,

Lisa,
Did you read the link. He was a great humanitarian who defended the Indians for his adult life. Everything said about him sounded very good except the last bit. And that is defensible too in that he was trying to save Indidans from work that was too difficult. I don't believe it says he was the one working the Indians or African slaves. Those that demanded the labor are at fault, not the poor Dominican priest who labored to save as many Indians as he could. I will quote the one negative thing said about him--and I don't think it was all that bad as it stemmed from his love of the Indians.

Did you read the part of my post where I said he was hailed as a saint? Or the part where I said he later regretted recommending the use of African slaves? It was not my intent to slander de las Casas. I purposefully chose a non-derogatory article about him. My point is, before you guys go pointing your fingers at others about racism, slavery and such, you might want to brush up on history.

de las Casas believed that the Africans were constitutionally more fit for hard labor than were the Amerindians."

Completely understandable rationale . . .

 

[LisaMC]

Dan,

bob.
I thought every Baptist was their own Pope, infallibly interpreting Scripture by themselvse as Sola Scriptura teaches.

Even if this were true, that still leaves each individual "sinning" Baptist responsible for his own sins.

 

[DanPC]

Lisa,
He appeared to have led a saintly life to me. Left his European home and lived in the wilds of America, dedicating his life to helping the Indians. Hmmm... I am sure there were Catholics that were much worse that were involved in the slave trade.