Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
catholicdebateforum · Catholic Debate Forum
  • Members Only
  • Post
  • Files
  • Photos
  • Links
  • Database
  • Polls
  • Calendar
  • Promote
  • Groups Labs (Beta)
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Show off your group to the world. Share a photo of your group with us.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

   Messages Help
Message #
Search:
Advanced
Messages 1 - 34 of 51491   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#34 From: "Lester Alberque" <alberquel@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:43 pm
Subject: Re: Dogmatic teachings need not be formally defined. 		lesteralberque
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Thanks for the input, Verga.

Les

>From: vergatt@...
>Reply-To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [catholicdebateforum] Dogmatic teachings need not be formally defined.
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:33:25 GMT
>
>You still don't get it so I will save my breath.
>
>
>Verga
>
>
>
>Please note: message attached
>
><< message5.txt >>

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#32 From: "Lester Alberque" <alberquel@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: Dogmatic teachings need not be formally defined. 		lesteralberque
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Hi Verga,

Thank you for your well reasoned arguments and the references you provide. Always a pleasure, my friend.

Les

>From: vergatt@...
>Reply-To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [catholicdebateforum] Dogmatic teachings need not be formally defined.
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:33:25 GMT
>
>You still don't get it so I will save my breath.
>
>
>Verga
>
>
>
>Please note: message attached
>
><< message5.txt >>

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#31 From: "Lester Alberque" <alberquel@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Can Papal Teaching Change. 		lesteralberque
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Hi Scott,

It appears that you haven't read the the information I provided; Leander, Hardon, etc. Whatever the case, I pointed out that the Church's earlier teaching (scripture and natural law) have changed. This you originally admitted this, but perhaps realizing the implications, now want to make it an argument about dogma, an argument clearly beside the point which I never raised in the first place.

I made an observation that a church teaching regarding morality had been reversed from slavery being allowable to it being labeled sinful, nothing more. This was a reversal in moral teaching. There have been others; there will be more.

As I have pointed out in subsequent posts, a separate argument can be made that the teaching on the morality of slavery as being infallible can be maintained without a Pope or Council so ruling (extraordinary magisterium) by  noteing that the conditions for an infallible teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium were met, and in some minds continue to be met until the present day.

I think most readers can recognize that a change in Catholic teaching regarding slavery occurred when it was recognized that both appeals to scripture and the natural law had failed.

Les

 



 

>From: "Scott Windsor"
>Reply-To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [catholicdebateforum] Re: Can Papal Teaching Change.
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:16:53 -0000
>
>--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "Lester Alberque"
> wrote:
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > I'm afraid that you've missed the point again.
> > I'm NOT arguing that nondogmatic teachings
> > cannot change.
>
>Yes, you are - because you cite nondogmatic teachings and then
>question why they have changed. Silwee Wabbit.
>
> > I'm arguing that the Church's moral teaching
> > HAVE CHANGED as has it's interpretation of
> > scripture and the natural law in the case of
> > slavery.
>
>No, you've argued how a specific statement from a specific pope (Pope
>Pius IX) can be changed by a later pope (or council). BIG difference
>here.
>
> > You have conceded this much. And wasn't it
> > the fourth session of Trent that had us
> > believe that the Church's interpretation
> > of scripure was infallible (ie could not change)?
> > But it has and not only in the case of slavery.
>
>In the case of slavery you cited a specific statement from a single
>pope. Sorry Les, I have not conceded that which you believe I have
>conceded. I conceded that the statement of Pope Pius IX had been
>changed, not "The Church's Infallible Interpretation of Scripture."
>See Les, you've caught yourself in that statement! If it is
>an "Infallible" statement, it IS Dogma! IF it IS infallible, it
>cannot change, cannot be argued against, hence it IS dogma.
>
> > It's just that there is so much documentary
> > evidence regarding the Church's pronouncement
> > on slavery that it makes perhaps the best example.
> > There are others.
>
>Well, 1) You haven't cited "so much documentary evidence..." you've
>only cited Pope Pius IX's statement on this. 2) It's not a very good
>example because opinions expressed by individual Catholics, even if
>they happen to be popes, are not ipso facto infallible and
>unchangeable.
>
> > However, regarding the institution of slavery,
> > I think that if we accept the validity of the
> > teaching on the ordinary universal magisterium
> > being infallible, then we have to accept that
> > the moral approval of slavery falls into this
> > category at least up until this teaching changed.
>
>Nope. You base your entire argument on a false premise - so your
>entire argumentation is FLAWED and INVALID.
>
> > According to the Church, dogma does not have
> > to be formerly defined to be dogma.
>
>No, you're mixing theologies again. According to the Church, it
>doesn't have to be dogma to be BINDING on Catholics contemporary to
>said ruling. For example, it is through the Ordinary Magisterium
>that Catholics are required to fast or abstain from something EVERY
>Friday. It USED to be that Catholics HAD to abstain from meat every
>Friday - but that no longer is the case. A Catholic MAY abstain from
>something else, according to one's ecclesiastical council (the USCCB
>in our case) IF said council has offered an alternative form of
>abstinence. In the case of the USA, it CAN (and should) still be
>meat, but it CAN be "something equivalent." This is BINDING on ALL
>Catholics, to this day - but it is NOT DOGMA and COULD be changed at
>any given time. That doesn't change the FACT that it IS binding,
>under penalty of mortal sin, for ALL Catholics to participate in this
>abstinence EVERY Friday (not just Fridays in Lent - and during Lent,
>it still must be meat).
>
> > Stay tuned; I'll cite the sources. I'm
> > afraid Vatican I makes this claim. .
>
>The problem, Les - is that you're still barking up the wrong tree.
>The "teaching" you profess on slavery was NEVER something that was
>BINDING on all Catholics, much less DEFINED as such by ANY pope or
>council. You're just WRONG here... admit it and move on. You've
>been pushing this slavery agenda for YEARS now - give it up, you've
>lost.
>
>In JMJ,
>Scott<<<
>
>
>

Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (11)
#30 From: vergatt@...
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:33 pm
Subject: Re: Dogmatic teachings need not be formally defi ned. 		vergatt
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
You still don't get it so I will save my breath.


Verga



Please note: message attached
Hi all,
 
Demands that a teaching be proven dogmatic or it can change overlook the fact that many if not most of our dogmatic teaching have never been defined, but they may in fact be claimed to be infallible by way of the universal ordinary magisterium.
 
"Magisterium, Ordinary - The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. WHEN THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM IS ALSO UNIVERSAL, THAT IS COLLECTIVELY INTENDED FOR ALL THE FAITHFUL, IT IS ALSO INFALLIBLE." "Modern Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon S.J., Eternal Life, Kentucky, 1999, pg 329
 
also, from the same reference there is this under the term dogma:
 
"They (dogmatic teachings) may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception or in an ordinary way as with THE CONSTANT TEACHING on the malice of taking innocent life."
 
 
"The term ordinary universal magisterium means an exercise of the Church's teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solumn definition."      The Church's Magisterium, by John Young, "Catholic Position Papers, series  A. no. 217, 1993.
 
and "All these things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solumn judgment, or  her ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM, PROPOSES FOR BELIEF AS HAVING BEEN DIVINELY REVEALED." "Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith," First Vatican Council 1870. (Was this itself an infallible teaching?)
 
The teaching on the moral permissability, indeed the scriptural basis and natural law arguments, for chattel slavery existed at the time of the Church's foundation and continued pretty much up until the 14th or 15th century, and episodically up until after the American Civil War (Blacks in the American South were chattel slaves, ie. their children were automatically slaves). This teaching, which is reflected in Pius IX's Holy Office pronouncement of 20 June 1866 (see previous post) up until the 15th century at least was a constant teaching.
 
Perhaps the best summation of the teaching on slavery which reads very much like the Holy Office's 1866 pronouncement is that of Leander, "Questiones Morales Theologicae , "  Lyons 1668-1692, Tome VIII, De Quarto Decallog Praecepto, Tract IV, Disp I, Q.3:
 
"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture (a number of paragraphs are cited). It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pas into the ownership of the captors. All theologians are unanimous on this."  (actually Aquinas, Albert the Great, and Duns Scotus supported the proslavery argument).
 
So, we have a universal ordinary magisterial teaching for about 3/4th of the Church's history the moral justification of slavery. This then would be both an infallible teaching and a dogmatic teaching even though not formally defined.
 
Note: Many of the documents I have cited here and in the previous post probably can be found on-line.
 
 
Thus, although my original post asking whether papal teaching could change is not dependent on the dogmatic nature of that teaching, in fact the ordinary conditions for a dogmatic teaching are present. But all  this changed .
 
Les
 

Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
catholicdebateforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (4)
#29 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: Can Papal Teaching Change. 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
  
--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "Lester Alberque"
<alberquel@h...> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> I'm afraid that you've missed the point again.
> I'm NOT arguing that nondogmatic teachings
> cannot change.

Yes, you are - because you cite nondogmatic teachings and then
question why they have changed.  Silwee Wabbit.

> I'm arguing that the Church's moral teaching
> HAVE CHANGED as has it's interpretation of
> scripture and the natural law in the case of
> slavery.

No, you've argued how a specific statement from a specific pope (Pope
Pius IX) can be changed by a later pope (or council).  BIG difference
here.

> You have conceded this much. And wasn't it
> the fourth session of  Trent that had us
> believe that the Church's interpretation
> of scripure was infallible (ie could not change)?
> But it has and not only in the case of slavery.

In the case of slavery you cited a specific statement from a single
pope.  Sorry Les, I have not conceded that which you believe I have
conceded.  I conceded that the statement of Pope Pius IX had been
changed, not "The Church's Infallible Interpretation of Scripture."
See Les, you've caught yourself in that statement!  If it is
an "Infallible" statement, it IS Dogma!  IF it IS infallible, it
cannot change, cannot be argued against, hence it IS dogma.

> It's just that there is so much documentary
> evidence regarding the Church's pronouncement
> on slavery that it makes perhaps the best example.
> There are others.

Well, 1) You haven't cited "so much documentary evidence..." you've
only cited Pope Pius IX's statement on this.  2) It's not a very good
example because opinions expressed by individual Catholics, even if
they happen to be popes, are not ipso facto infallible and
unchangeable.

> However, regarding the institution of slavery,
> I think that if we accept the validity of the
> teaching on the ordinary universal magisterium
> being infallible, then we have to accept that
> the moral approval of slavery falls into this
> category at least up until this teaching changed.

Nope.  You base your entire argument on a false premise - so your
entire argumentation is FLAWED and INVALID.

> According to the Church, dogma does not have
> to be formerly defined to be dogma.

No, you're mixing theologies again.  According to the Church, it
doesn't have to be dogma to be BINDING on Catholics contemporary to
said ruling.  For example, it is through the Ordinary Magisterium
that Catholics are required to fast or abstain from something EVERY
Friday.  It USED to be that Catholics HAD to abstain from meat every
Friday - but that no longer is the case.  A Catholic MAY abstain from
something else, according to one's ecclesiastical council (the USCCB
in our case) IF said council has offered an alternative form of
abstinence.  In the case of the USA, it CAN (and should) still be
meat, but it CAN be "something equivalent."  This is BINDING on ALL
Catholics, to this day - but it is NOT DOGMA and COULD be changed at
any given time.  That doesn't change the FACT that it IS binding,
under penalty of mortal sin, for ALL Catholics to participate in this
abstinence EVERY Friday (not just Fridays in Lent - and during Lent,
it still must be meat).

> Stay tuned; I'll cite the sources. I'm
> afraid Vatican I makes this claim. .

The problem, Les - is that you're still barking up the wrong tree.
The "teaching" you profess on slavery was NEVER something that was
BINDING on all Catholics, much less DEFINED as such by ANY pope or
council.  You're just WRONG here... admit it and move on.  You've
been pushing this slavery agenda for YEARS now - give it up, you've
lost.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (11)
#28 From: "Lester Alberque" <alberquel@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:15 pm
Subject: Dogmatic teachings need not be formally defined. 		lesteralberque
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi all,
 
Demands that a teaching be proven dogmatic or it can change overlook the fact that many if not most of our dogmatic teaching have never been defined, but they may in fact be claimed to be infallible by way of the universal ordinary magisterium.
 
"Magisterium, Ordinary - The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. WHEN THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM IS ALSO UNIVERSAL, THAT IS COLLECTIVELY INTENDED FOR ALL THE FAITHFUL, IT IS ALSO INFALLIBLE." "Modern Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon S.J., Eternal Life, Kentucky, 1999, pg 329
 
also, from the same reference there is this under the term dogma:
 
"They (dogmatic teachings) may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception or in an ordinary way as with THE CONSTANT TEACHING on the malice of taking innocent life."
 
 
"The term ordinary universal magisterium means an exercise of the Church's teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solumn definition."      The Church's Magisterium, by John Young, "Catholic Position Papers, series  A. no. 217, 1993.
 
and "All these things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solumn judgment, or  her ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM, PROPOSES FOR BELIEF AS HAVING BEEN DIVINELY REVEALED." "Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith," First Vatican Council 1870. (Was this itself an infallible teaching?)
 
The teaching on the moral permissability, indeed the scriptural basis and natural law arguments, for chattel slavery existed at the time of the Church's foundation and continued pretty much up until the 14th or 15th century, and episodically up until after the American Civil War (Blacks in the American South were chattel slaves, ie. their children were automatically slaves). This teaching, which is reflected in Pius IX's Holy Office pronouncement of 20 June 1866 (see previous post) up until the 15th century at least was a constant teaching.
 
Perhaps the best summation of the teaching on slavery which reads very much like the Holy Office's 1866 pronouncement is that of Leander, "Questiones Morales Theologicae , "  Lyons 1668-1692, Tome VIII, De Quarto Decallog Praecepto, Tract IV, Disp I, Q.3:
 
"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture (a number of paragraphs are cited). It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pas into the ownership of the captors. All theologians are unanimous on this."  (actually Aquinas, Albert the Great, and Duns Scotus supported the proslavery argument).
 
So, we have a universal ordinary magisterial teaching for about 3/4th of the Church's history the moral justification of slavery. This then would be both an infallible teaching and a dogmatic teaching even though not formally defined.
 
Note: Many of the documents I have cited here and in the previous post probably can be found on-line.
 
 
Thus, although my original post asking whether papal teaching could change is not dependent on the dogmatic nature of that teaching, in fact the ordinary conditions for a dogmatic teaching are present. But all  this changed .
 
Les
 

Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#27 From: "Lester Alberque" <alberquel@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:46 pm
Subject: RE: Can Papal Teaching Change. 		lesteralberque
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Hi Scott,

I'm afraid that you've missed the point again. I'm NOT arguing that nondogmatic teachings cannot change. I'm arguing that the Church's moral teaching HAVE CHANGED as has it's interpretation of scripture and the natural law in the case of slavery. You have conceded this much. And wasn't it the fourth session of  Trent that had us believe that the Church's interpretation of scripure was infallible (ie could not change)? But it has and not only in the case of slavery. It's just that there is so much documentary evidence regarding the Church's pronouncement on slavery that it makes perhaps the best example. There are others.

However, regarding the institution of slavery, I think that if we accept the validity of the teaching on the ordinary universal magisterium being infallible, then we have to accept that the moral approval of slavery falls into this category at least up until this teaching changed.

According to the Church, dogma does not have to be formerly defined to be dogma. Stay tuned; I'll cite the sources. I'm afraid Vatican I makes this claim. .

 

Les

 



 

>From: "Scott Windsor"
>Reply-To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: [catholicdebateforum] Can Papal Teaching Change.
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:34:54 -0700
>
>Yes, Les - papal teachings THAT ARE NOT DOGMATIC can change. THAT is the
>essence of your dispute here. If it is not a DOGMATIC teaching, then it CAN
>CHANGE. Period, end of story. So, unless you can demonstrate that such a
>teaching that "was dogmatic" and has now "changed" has taken place - YOU
>HAVE NO ARGUMENT!
>
>You can keep preaching this "slavery" issue till the cows come home - but
>until you demonstrate the DOGMATIC NATURE of said teachings, YOU HAVE
>NOTHING. Your argumentation is EMPTY. Got it?
>
>You try to brush this off and say, "Dogma has nothing to do with it..." when
>in fact it has EVERYTHING to do with it. If it's not dogma, it can change,
>even if it comes from a pope or council.
>
>Scott<<<
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lester Alberque [mailto:alberquel@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:48 AM
> To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [catholicdebateforum] Can Papal Teaching Change.
>
>
> Whoa Scott,
> Please review the messages. I asserted nothing but asked if papal
>teachings can change. It was you who introduced "dogmatic." Whether these
>were dogmatic or not is irrevalent to my point.
>
> Pope Pius IX taught that, "It is not contrary to the natural and divine
>law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given." Instruction of the
>Holy Office (predecessor to the CDF) , 20 June 1866, in reply to a question
>from the Vicar Apostolic among Galla (of Ethopia). Also see pg 78 of
>"Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History of Catholic Teaching
>Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery," John
>Maxwell, Chichester, U.K.. Also Fr. Owen O'Sullivan, "The Furrow" No I, pp
>37-42, 2003.
>
> Then Pope John Paul II told us, "The seventh commandment forbids acts
>and enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial or
>totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being
>bought, sold and exchanged like merchantise, in disregard for their person
>dignity. In is a sin..." Catechism of the Catholic Church, Image Books,
>Doubleday, N.Y., 1983, #2414, page 639
>
> Also see "Gaudium et Spec, # 27, and Pope John Paul II's reference to
>slavery in "Vertatis Splendor #80 as one of those acts included in "There
>exists acts which per se and in themseles independently of circumstances,
>are always seriously wrong by reason of their object...." Incapable of being
>ordered" This means intrinsically disordered.
>
> While claiming that these are not "dogmatic" but conceding the change
>tacitly admits that what the Church claimed was permitted by scripture
>("divine law") and in accordance with the "natural law "in 1866 became a sin
>against the seventh commandment and intrinsically disordered in 1983. Also
>that biblical interpretation by the Church can be in error as it was in the
>case of slavery. Alternately, one can maintain that the Bible itself is
>historically and culturally conditioned and sometimes expresses what we now
>realize to be error.
>
> Dogma has nothing to do with it. Still, since this post is lengthy, lets
>discuss what is dogma in a separate post, with appropriate documentaton, of
>course.
>
> Les
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/2003

MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (11)
#26 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:34 pm
Subject: RE: Can Papal Teaching Change. 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
 
Yes, Les - papal teachings THAT ARE NOT DOGMATIC can change.  THAT is the essence of your dispute here.  If it is not a DOGMATIC teaching, then it CAN CHANGE.  Period, end of story.  So, unless you can demonstrate that such a teaching that "was dogmatic" and has now "changed" has taken place - YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!
 
You can keep preaching this "slavery" issue till the cows come home - but until you demonstrate the DOGMATIC NATURE of said teachings, YOU HAVE NOTHING.  Your argumentation is EMPTY.  Got it?
 
You try to brush this off and say, "Dogma has nothing to do with it..." when in fact it has EVERYTHING to do with it.  If it's not dogma, it can change, even if it comes from a pope or council.
 
Scott<<<
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lester Alberque [mailto:alberquel@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 7:48 AM
To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [catholicdebateforum] Can Papal Teaching Change.

Whoa Scott,
   Please review the messages. I asserted nothing but asked if  papal teachings can change. It was you who introduced "dogmatic."  Whether these were dogmatic or not is irrevalent to my point.
 
   Pope Pius IX taught that, "It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given." Instruction of the Holy Office (predecessor to the CDF) , 20 June 1866, in reply to a question from the Vicar Apostolic among Galla (of  Ethopia). Also see pg 78 of "Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery," John Maxwell, Chichester, U.K.. Also Fr. Owen O'Sullivan, "The Furrow" No I, pp 37-42, 2003.
 
   Then Pope John Paul II told us, "The seventh commandment forbids acts and enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchantise, in disregard for their person dignity. In is a sin..." Catechism of the Catholic Church, Image Books, Doubleday, N.Y., 1983, #2414, page 639
 
Also see "Gaudium et Spec, # 27, and Pope John Paul II's reference to slavery in "Vertatis Splendor #80 as one of those acts included in "There exists acts which per se and in themseles independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object...." Incapable of being ordered"  This means intrinsically disordered.
 
While claiming that these are not "dogmatic" but conceding the change tacitly admits that what the Church claimed was permitted by scripture ("divine law") and in accordance with the "natural law "in 1866 became a sin against the seventh commandment and intrinsically disordered in 1983. Also that biblical interpretation by the Church can be in error as it was in the case of slavery. Alternately, one can maintain that the Bible itself is historically and culturally conditioned and sometimes expresses what we now realize to be error.
 
Dogma has nothing to do with it. Still, since this post is lengthy, lets discuss what is dogma in a separate post,  with appropriate documentaton, of course.
 
Les

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (11)
#25 From: "Lester Alberque" <alberquel@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:47 pm
Subject: Can Papal Teaching Change. 		lesteralberque
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Whoa Scott,
   Please review the messages. I asserted nothing but asked if  papal teachings can change. It was you who introduced "dogmatic."  Whether these were dogmatic or not is irrevalent to my point.
 
   Pope Pius IX taught that, "It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given." Instruction of the Holy Office (predecessor to the CDF) , 20 June 1866, in reply to a question from the Vicar Apostolic among Galla (of  Ethopia). Also see pg 78 of "Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery," John Maxwell, Chichester, U.K.. Also Fr. Owen O'Sullivan, "The Furrow" No I, pp 37-42, 2003.
 
   Then Pope John Paul II told us, "The seventh commandment forbids acts and enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchantise, in disregard for their person dignity. In is a sin..." Catechism of the Catholic Church, Image Books, Doubleday, N.Y., 1983, #2414, page 639
 
Also see "Gaudium et Spec, # 27, and Pope John Paul II's reference to slavery in "Vertatis Splendor #80 as one of those acts included in "There exists acts which per se and in themseles independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object...." Incapable of being ordered"  This means intrinsically disordered.
 
While claiming that these are not "dogmatic" but conceding the change tacitly admits that what the Church claimed was permitted by scripture ("divine law") and in accordance with the "natural law "in 1866 became a sin against the seventh commandment and intrinsically disordered in 1983. Also that biblical interpretation by the Church can be in error as it was in the case of slavery. Alternately, one can maintain that the Bible itself is historically and culturally conditioned and sometimes expresses what we now realize to be error.
 
Dogma has nothing to do with it. Still, since this post is lengthy, lets discuss what is dogma in a separate post,  with appropriate documentaton, of course.
 
Les

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (11)
#24 From: vergatt@...
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:55 am
Subject: RE: Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery 		vergatt
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
Scott
Then by all means go for it.
I for one don't believe that Less has a sincere bone in his body and am
convinced that he writes just becasue he loves the sound of his own keyboard.


Verga

--- "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...> wrote:

I don't mind getting a little dirty myself - and I do fancy bacon with my
eggs in the morning, so it's worth it if you get the pig.

Scott<<<


> -----Original Message-----
> From: vergatt@... [mailto:vergatt@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 3:20 PM
> To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [catholicdebateforum] Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery
>
>
> Les
> Debating you reminds me of the saying: "Never wrestle with a pig,
> you both get dirty and the pig seems to enjoy it."
>
>
> Verga
>
>
>
> Please note: message attached
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> catholicdebateforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/2003
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/2003



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
catholicdebateforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (12)
#23 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:05 am
Subject: RE: Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
  
I don't mind getting a little dirty myself - and I do fancy bacon with my
eggs in the morning, so it's worth it if you get the pig.

Scott<<<


> -----Original Message-----
> From: vergatt@... [mailto:vergatt@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 3:20 PM
> To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [catholicdebateforum] Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery
>
>
> Les
> Debating you reminds me of the saying: "Never wrestle with a pig,
> you both get dirty and the pig seems to enjoy it."
>
>
> Verga
>
>
>
> Please note: message attached
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> catholicdebateforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/2003
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/2003

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (12)
#22 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:35 am
Subject: Re: Message from Brian 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
 
Brian wrote:
> "The Catholic priesthood was not established by
> Jesus.  It is a manufactured office of man, just
> like the church that manufactured it."
 
sw:  And on what authority/research are we supposed to accept this pontifical statement from Brian?  Brian offers NO proof, NO support, only HIS word - and we're supposed to bow to Brian's word.  NOT!
 
Brian wrote:
> It's dangerous people like Scott Windsor and his
> "American Catholic Truth Society" with their divisive
> and derisive slogans ("Protestant Arguments? We Stomp
> Them!") who purvey a false religion.
sw:  Brian, don't fear me - fear God.  And many of us who participate in the forums of the American Catholic Truth Society do indeed "stomp" Protestant arguments - for many/most of them (their arguments) are easily squashed.
 
Brian writes:
> Thanks to pressure from right-minded free-thinkers
> like myself, Mr. Windsor was pressured into removing
> such devisive slogans from his bigotted, anti-semitic,
> and racist website.
 
sw: 1) The slogan has not been removed.
2)  There has been no "pressure" from people like Brian.  Most of what Brian has posted has been unsupported and unsupportable nonsense. 
3)  Please document anything "bigotted, anti-semitic and racist" on my website.
4)  This very statement from Brian just proves him to be an outright liar.
 
Brian concludes:
> Mr. Windsor is a bigotted anti-semite who has
> slandered Jews, protestants, and all others who have
> disagreed with his radical brand of Christianity.
sw:  And of course, as per his M.O., Brian has posted NO evidence of such slanderous and libelous allegations. 
 
sw:  I suspect Brian is just throwing another tantrum because he has been moderated (again) on the BattleACTS List.
 
Scott<<<
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:18 PM
Subject: [catholicdebateforum] Message from Brian

Brian wrote:
 
--- Catholicwolf00@... wrote:

> Tell me -- why cannot any priest in the priesthood
> of believers say Mass?"
>
> If we share in Christ's priesthood, why can't we do
> all the things Christ does?  Sorry Jim, your
> argument is inconsistent.  Certain people are called
> for certain things.  Not to mention the OT predicts
> a separate class of Levites in the New Covenant!

The Catholic priesthood was not established by Jesus.
It is a manufactured office of man, just like the
church that manufactured it.

It's dangerous people like Scott Windsor and his
"American Catholic Truth Society" with their divisive
and derisive slogans ("Protestant Arguments? We Stomp
Them!") who purvey a false religion.

Thanks to pressure from right-minded free-thinkers
like myself, Mr. Windsor was pressured into removing
such devisive slogans from his bigotted, anti-semitic,
and racist website.

Mr. Windsor is a bigotted anti-semite who has
slandered Jews, protestants, and all others who have
disagreed with his radical brand of Christianity.

Brian

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)
#21 From: "Scott Windsor" <scott@...>
Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:18 am
Subject: Message from Brian 		scott@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Brian wrote:
 
--- Catholicwolf00@... wrote:

> Tell me -- why cannot any priest in the priesthood
> of believers say Mass?"
>
> If we share in Christ's priesthood, why can't we do
> all the things Christ does?  Sorry Jim, your
> argument is inconsistent.  Certain people are called
> for certain things.  Not to mention the OT predicts
> a separate class of Levites in the New Covenant!

The Catholic priesthood was not established by Jesus.
It is a manufactured office of man, just like the
church that manufactured it.

It's dangerous people like Scott Windsor and his
"American Catholic Truth Society" with their divisive
and derisive slogans ("Protestant Arguments? We Stomp
Them!") who purvey a false religion.

Thanks to pressure from right-minded free-thinkers
like myself, Mr. Windsor was pressured into removing
such devisive slogans from his bigotted, anti-semitic,
and racist website.

Mr. Windsor is a bigotted anti-semite who has
slandered Jews, protestants, and all others who have
disagreed with his radical brand of Christianity.

Brian

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)
#20 From: vergatt@...
Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 10:19 pm
Subject: Re: Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery 		vergatt
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
Les
Debating you reminds me of the saying: "Never wrestle with a pig, you both get
dirty and the pig seems to enjoy it."


Verga



Please note: message attached

Hi Verga,

I think Scott has already conceded that the moral teaching on slavery (the Church based this teaching on scripture and the natural law) did in fact change. He maintaines that it was not dogmatic, yet implicit in his admission are three of the points which I raised.

However, there is the fourth point. Was the Church teaching on slavery (much as the traditional teaching against women being ordained priests) infallible by way of the ordinary magisterium? Maybe we can exaimne this point in greater detail.

How do you define ordinary and ordinary universal magisterium?

Merely saying I'm wrong isn't really a argument. As Scott would say "document" or retract.

 

Les

 



 

>From: vergatt@...
>Reply-To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [catholicdebateforum] Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery
>Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:24:41 GMT
>
>No we can't and you are still wrong.
>
>
>Verga
>
>
>
>Please note: message attached
>
><< message5.txt >>

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
catholicdebateforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (12)
#19 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 9:43 pm
Subject: Re: Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
 
First off, Les, you need to document that it is a "dogmatic" teaching and would therefore would be an "unchangeable" teaching.  You have not provided that, so until you do, you're operating from a false premise and we have nothing to answer.
 
So yes, Les - document or retract your argument that is based in a false premise.
 
Scott<<<
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [catholicdebateforum] Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery

Hi Verga,

I think Scott has already conceded that the moral teaching on slavery (the Church based this teaching on scripture and the natural law) did in fact change. He maintaines that it was not dogmatic, yet implicit in his admission are three of the points which I raised.

However, there is the fourth point. Was the Church teaching on slavery (much as the traditional teaching against women being ordained priests) infallible by way of the ordinary magisterium? Maybe we can exaimne this point in greater detail.

How do you define ordinary and ordinary universal magisterium?

Merely saying I'm wrong isn't really a argument. As Scott would say "document" or retract.

 

Les

 



 

>From: vergatt@...
>Reply-To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [catholicdebateforum] Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery
>Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:24:41 GMT
>
>No we can't and you are still wrong.
>
>
>Verga
>
>
>
>Please note: message attached
>
><< message5.txt >>

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
catholicdebateforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (12)
#18 From: "Lester Alberque" <alberquel@...>
Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery 		lesteralberque
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Hi Verga,

I think Scott has already conceded that the moral teaching on slavery (the Church based this teaching on scripture and the natural law) did in fact change. He maintaines that it was not dogmatic, yet implicit in his admission are three of the points which I raised.

However, there is the fourth point. Was the Church teaching on slavery (much as the traditional teaching against women being ordained priests) infallible by way of the ordinary magisterium? Maybe we can exaimne this point in greater detail.

How do you define ordinary and ordinary universal magisterium?

Merely saying I'm wrong isn't really a argument. As Scott would say "document" or retract.

 

Les

 



 

>From: vergatt@...
>Reply-To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [catholicdebateforum] Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery
>Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:24:41 GMT
>
>No we can't and you are still wrong.
>
>
>Verga
>
>
>
>Please note: message attached
>
><< message5.txt >>

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (12)
#17 From: vergatt@...
Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery 		vergatt
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
No we can't and you are still wrong.


Verga



Please note: message attached

Hi All,

Thank you for admitting at the onset that the church teaching on slavery has changed. You argue that it could change because it was not "dogmatic."

But lets examine what you are admitting:

(1) What the Catholic Church teaches in the moral area to be permissable or objectively sinful can change, or put another way, moral teachings may be historically or culturally conditioned and may change.

(2) Claims that certain actions are in keeping with the "natural law" or are "intrinsically immoral" have changed.

(3) Contrary to the claim that the Catholic Church always interprets Holy Scritpute correctly (see Session 4 of the Council of Trent), biblical teachings are not absolute or inerrant and hence some can and do change.

(4) And since the Catholic position on the morality of slavery was taught at all times (at least until about 1500 AD) and in all places, can we agree that the conditions for an infallible moral teaching by way of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which existed for about 3/4 of the Church's history but then was changed?

Les

 



 


The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
catholicdebateforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (12)
#16 From: "Lester Alberque" <alberquel@...>
Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:00 pm
Subject: Change in Churc Teaching on Slavery 		lesteralberque
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Hi All,

Thank you for admitting at the onset that the church teaching on slavery has changed. You argue that it could change because it was not "dogmatic."

But lets examine what you are admitting:

(1) What the Catholic Church teaches in the moral area to be permissable or objectively sinful can change, or put another way, moral teachings may be historically or culturally conditioned and may change.

(2) Claims that certain actions are in keeping with the "natural law" or are "intrinsically immoral" have changed.

(3) Contrary to the claim that the Catholic Church always interprets Holy Scritpute correctly (see Session 4 of the Council of Trent), biblical teachings are not absolute or inerrant and hence some can and do change.

(4) And since the Catholic position on the morality of slavery was taught at all times (at least until about 1500 AD) and in all places, can we agree that the conditions for an infallible moral teaching by way of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which existed for about 3/4 of the Church's history but then was changed?

Les

 



 


The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (12)
#15 From: "Scott Windsor" <scott@...>
Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 4:11 pm
Subject: CCC Teaching on Original Sin 		scott@...
Send Email Send Email
  
IN BRIEF
413 "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the
living. . . It was through the devil's envy that death entered the world"
(Wis 1:13; 2:24).

414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have
freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is
definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.

415 "Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil
one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up
against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him" (GS 13 # 1).

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human
beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by
their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice;
this deprivation is called "original sin".

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers,
subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to
sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is
transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that
it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG # 16).

420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than
those which sin had taken from us: "where sin increased, grace abounded all
the more" (Rom 5:20).

421 Christians believe that "the world has been established and kept in
being by the Creator's love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set
free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . ."
(GS 2 # 2).

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 6/1/2003

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)
#12 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 11:11 pm
Subject: Do Papal teachings change? 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
  
-----Original Message-----
From: John Médaille
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:30 AM
Cc: bigscott@...
Subject: Re: Do Papal teachings change?


At 07:21 AM 6/5/2003 -0700, Lester Alberque wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Someone suggested that we need a new quesstion. Here's one.
>
>Holy Office, Instruction 20, June 1866:
>
>   " It is not contrary to the natural and divine lae for a slave to be
> sold, bought, exchanged or given..."
>
>
>
>Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2414:
>
>    "The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that..lead to the
> enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged
> like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity."
>
>Which papal teaching is correct????

Neither of these are dogmatic teachings, and as such are subject to
revision.


John C. Médaille
http://www.medaille.com

"Faith is not primarily a comfort, but a truth about ourselves.  What we in
fact believe is not necessarily the theory we most desire or admire.  It is
the thing that, consciously or unconsciously, we take for granted and act
on." --- Dorothy Sayers


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 6/1/2003

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)
#10 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 11:02 pm
Subject: Re: FW: Do Papal teachings change? 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
  
--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Windsor"
<bigscott@a...> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lester Alberque [mailto:alberquel@h...]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:22 AM
> To: CatholicOpenDiscussion@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: bigscott@a...
> Subject: Do Papal teachings change?
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Someone suggested that we need a new quesstion. Here's one.
>
> Holy Office, Instruction 20, June 1866:
>
>   " It is not contrary to the natural and divine lae for a slave
to be sold,
> bought, exchanged or given..."
>
>
>
> Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2414:
>
>    "The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that..lead
to the
> enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and
exchanged like
> merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity."
>
> Which papal teaching is correct????

Neither is a dogmatic statement and either are subject to change and
judgment by either another pope or, if necessary, a future council
of the Church.

Scott<<<

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)
#9 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 11:35 pm
Subject: FW: Do Papal teachings change? 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lester Alberque [mailto:alberquel@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 7:22 AM
To: CatholicOpenDiscussion@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bigscott@...
Subject: Do Papal teachings change?

Hi all,
 
Someone suggested that we need a new quesstion. Here's one.
 
Holy Office, Instruction 20, June 1866:
 
  " It is not contrary to the natural and divine lae for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given..."
 
 
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2414:
 
   "The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that..lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity."
 
Which papal teaching is correct????
 
Les

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)
#8 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 3:49 pm
Subject: For What Purpose? 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
  
--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "P." <nandimri4@y...>
wrote:
> Quite simply, most of the main relegions of the world will
> eventually and quite simply fade away.  Thus one must not forget
> where they came from, I guess you can say im "educating" you, too
> some extent.  I choose not to take much consideration into most
> relegions because I know they will become a minority in the times
to
> come.  And I would not want my children to follow the "false"
> ancient ways that man once belived in.  What do I belive in now I
> guess you be wondering.  Well I guess you can call me an Athiest.

I think you're more of an agnostic than an atheist, and perhaps not
even that.  You acknowledge the "Great Spirit," which is a god, of
sorts - so you aren't atheist (no god) and not quite agnostic
(acknowledging of "a god" or "supreme being" but not any one
specifically).

I
> simply can not except the fact that one ethireal being made man,
> made me.  There is just to much corruption in the bible.  I was
once
> an avide christian mind you.  I once had the love of Christ, but
He
> is nothing to me now.  The ways of the Great Sperit, I have
witinsed
> some very un-belivble things from a Naviho Medicen man, some of
the
> things he has done and said to me I can not deny.  Same goes with
> the Cahtlocs, Christians, all of the Old Age relegions, there is
> some "connection" between them all.  So I do not deny that
> something "exsists" out there, I just have a feeling that it is
not
> some all mighty "God".  There is definetly, definetly more to it
> then just getting on my knees to pray, I know for sure.  There is
> more to it then just a book.

No doubt that Christianity, TRUE Christianity, is much more than
just getting on your knees and far more to it than "just a book."
If that was your concept of it, then what you left was not
Christianity.

> There is also many other reasons why I choose not to follow any
Old
> Age sect/cult what ever.  They seem to hold man back.  They keep
us
> in a state of bondage.  It seems that man can not continue to grow
> because relegion is still today, holding us back.

"Growth" is a matter of perspective.  I feel I have grown a LOT in
my spiritual walk with God.  I do not feel bound or limited, in fact
I am freed from the bondage of sin.

> But untill the
> day comes where all the relegions of the
> world finally fade away, we will be in
> this state for a long time to come.  If
> we dont destory our selves before that
> time comes.

What kind of "Great Spirit" would allow mankind to destroy itself?

> I can assure you there is going to be no
> great end, there is going to be no Rapture,
> or comming of Christ, he will probably be
> alien I dont know.  There is no hell, there
> is no heaven, everything just "is".

You can make no such assurances.  You are not God, nor the Great
Spirit -  you are Patrick.  John Lennon wrote a song about this, but
it was just a dream, not reality.  Jesus Christ was a real man,
whose existence on this earth changed reality for all men for all
time.  That is something that is undeniable.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

PS- You really didn't answer my question, I asked WHY you are doing
this.  I'd like to know your motive behind this and perhaps we can
work toward a common end - but we need a common beginning first.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#7 From: "P." <nandimri4@...>
Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 9:33 pm
Subject: Re: Native American Mistreatment? 		nandimri4
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
Quite simply, most of the main relegions of the world will
eventually and quite simply fade away.  Thus one must not forget
where they came from, I guess you can say im "educating" you, too
some extent.  I choose not to take much consideration into most
relegions because I know they will become a minority in the times to
come.  And I would not want my children to follow the "false"
ancient ways that man once belived in.  What do I belive in now I
guess you be wondering.  Well I guess you can call me an Athiest.  I
simply can not except the fact that one ethireal being made man,
made me.  There is just to much corruption in the bible.  I was once
an avide christian mind you.  I once had the love of Christ, but He
is nothing to me now.  The ways of the Great Sperit, I have witinsed
some very un-belivble things from a Naviho Medicen man, some of the
things he has done and said to me I can not deny.  Same goes with
the Cahtlocs, Christians, all of the Old Age relegions, there is
some "connection" between them all.  So I do not deny that
something "exsists" out there, I just have a feeling that it is not
some all mighty "God".  There is definetly, definetly more to it
then just getting on my knees to pray, I know for sure.  There is
more to it then just a book.

There is also many other reasons why I choose not to follow any Old
Age sect/cult what ever.  They seem to hold man back.  They keep us
in a state of bondage.  It seems that man can not continue to grow
because relegion is still today, holding us back.  But untill the
day comes where all the relegions of the world finally fade away, we
will be in this state for a long time to come.  If we dont destory
our selves before that time comes.

I can assure you there is going to be no great end, there is going
to be no Rapture, or comming of Christ, he will probably be alien I
dont know.  There is no hell, there is no heaven, everything
just "is".

P.




--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Windsor"
<bigscott@a...> wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> What *exactly* do you seek?  I will not deny that Native Americans
> were mistreated and taken advantage of, but let's face facts.
>
> 1) I, today, am not responsible for the acts of some White Men of
> the past.
>
> 2) Consider the fact that many Native American tribes went to war
> against the Europeans.
>
> 3) Now, consider the fact that the Native Americans LOST the war
> against the Europeans.
>
> In most, if not all, other "conquests" of the Europeans,
> the "conquered" were either assimilated or anihilated.  With the
> Native Americans, most tribes were given the ability to be
sovereign
> nations within the United States.  Again, I'll grant you that
there
> was some mistreatment even here - by today's standards, but I
> reiterate, if this had been the 13th century instead of the 19th
and
> 20th centuries - there would not have even been reservations.
>
> So I ask again, Patrick, what *exactly* are you seeking from us,
> today, in the 21st century?  Or, are you "seeking" anything at
all?
> Maybe you're just angry?
>
> Scott<<<

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#6 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: Native American Mistreatment? 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
  
Patrick,

What *exactly* do you seek?  I will not deny that Native Americans
were mistreated and taken advantage of, but let's face facts.

1) I, today, am not responsible for the acts of some White Men of
the past.

2) Consider the fact that many Native American tribes went to war
against the Europeans.

3) Now, consider the fact that the Native Americans LOST the war
against the Europeans.

In most, if not all, other "conquests" of the Europeans,
the "conquered" were either assimilated or anihilated.  With the
Native Americans, most tribes were given the ability to be sovereign
nations within the United States.  Again, I'll grant you that there
was some mistreatment even here - by today's standards, but I
reiterate, if this had been the 13th century instead of the 19th and
20th centuries - there would not have even been reservations.

So I ask again, Patrick, what *exactly* are you seeking from us,
today, in the 21st century?  Or, are you "seeking" anything at all?
Maybe you're just angry?

Scott<<<

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#5 From: vergatt@...
Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Native American Mistreatment? 		vergatt
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
P. Wrote
>I'll leave it at that.

>P.

Leave it at what?
You posted mainly opinions and one review or someone who disagreed with the
style and not the substance of the book.

Your comments were not supported by documentation of any sort.

Now As I pointed out historians (like you and I) have biases and if you read a
Catholic one you might come away with a different perspective.

If you want to pick one point of my critque and discuss that fine I will be more
then glad to, but you really need to support your position with legitimate
documentation from legitimate sources.

Just so we are clear sweepeing genralizatins don't fly with me.


Verga


Please note: message attached
"Labeling is what you do best!"

Hay,

Hold it right there for one moment, you said "American Catholic". 
This book was writen by a Catholic man, who is a Catholic prof. with
a very prestigous track record, in other words 100% catholic.  First
off, I would like to point out that any relegion has a sort of way
of turing around any infromation into their favor.  Now, this is not
usually so, but I have found that many relegions (Be it a Christian
to Sikhism) tend to make other "rival" relegions look bad. I mean
the Pope never even approved of Sir Issac Newtons findings of the
universe untill recently! Now a good example would be the calling of
say the Ralien Movement a "cult". 

Now the word cult has a lot of negitive conitation to it.  That very
word is commonly used in a very negitave way, esp by the media.  Now
what the media consider a cult, is a small, evil religious group,
often with a single charismatic leader, which engages in
brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the
end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry
in preparation for a massive war.  A some what generelized
defination, but typically, that was what the avrage person would
think.  And I am sure that is what most people here consider a
cult.  Now of crouse the proper definition of cult would be that the
word is derived from the Latin noun "cultus" which is related to the
Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a
deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be
applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists or
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics, Hindus or Muslims.  But
thats not what we all think about this word now is it?  In
otherwords, its simply a way to lable a new/old relegious movment
that does not follow the lablers relegion. 

Now in the Yahoo! group ACTS, they labled The Grail Movement as a
cult, thus giving me the impresion right away, that you must
consider it an "evil" group.  Alas, perhaps you dont even consider
what its positive meanings are.  I checked out the website, imo, it
just seems silly, but I do not consider it a cult. 

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps the religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer  

So, in essence, if this book was published and made by a regular un-
biased group of people, then perhaps I would consider it and re-
think my views of the Native culture, but because it derives from a
Catholic view point, I would have to choose not to take the full
meaning of the book.

"...some occasional choppiness and confusion engendered by the
book's mixed chronological/topical organization..." An Editorial
Review by the Library Journal on "The american Catholic Experience:
A History from Colonial Times to the Present". 

A reviewer of the book that you speak of.

Now, I take it you are not fully aware of how the Native culture
is.  Allow me to start off with some quots, this time who said them
Scott :):
"Rather than going to church, I attend a sweat lodge; rather than
accepting bread and toast [sic] from the Holy Priest, I smoke a
ceremonial pipe to come into Communion with the Great Spirit; and
rather than kneeling with my hands placed together in prayer, I let
sweetgrass be feathered over my entire being for spiritual cleansing
and allow the smoke to carry my prayers into the heavens. I am a
Mi'kmaq, and this is how we pray." Noah Augustine, from his
article "Grandfather was a knowing Christian," Toronto Star, Toronto
ON Canada

"The culture, values and traditions of native people amount to more
than crafts and carvings. Their respect for the wisdom of their
elders, their concept of family responsibilities extending beyond
the nuclear family to embrace a whole village, their respect for the
environment, their willingness to share - all of these values
persist within their own culture even though they have been under
unremitting pressure to abandon them." Mr. Justice Thomas Berger,
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry

"If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the
rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will
disintegrate and the words will be gone.  Our bible IS the wind."
Statement by an anonymous Native woman

".....the North American public remains ignorant about Native
American religions. And this, despite the fact that hundreds of
books and articles have been published by anthropologists,
religionists and others about native beliefs......Little of this
scholarly literature has found its way into popular books about
Native American religion..." Native American Religions by Arlene
Hirschfelder and Paulette Molin

Verga Wrote:
"In 1492 an entirely new misson territory opened up.
It was filled with pagan blood thirsty savages who engaged in
Cannabalism and adultery and were hardly the peace loving bucolic
people that they are frequently and incorrectly painted to be.
Their infant mortality rate was incredibly high they had no
discernable literacy and worst of all they worshipped false gods."

Now Verga, you must remeber some very important things.  There are
several hundrend tribes across North and South America, some of
these tribes have very different ways and practices, while most
typically follow one same belife system.  What tribe do you speak
of?  You too may also be considerd biasd by saying "they worshipped
false Gods", false Gods to who, the Catholics?  By simply
saying "blood thirsty savages who engaged in Cannabalism and
adultery and were hardly the peace loving bucolic people" sounds
completly absurd and alas unbiased, typical of course coming from a
white man. (j'k, most native people would not put of with tripe such
as that just to let ya know)


"Am I saying that the missons were perfect? No of course not.
But they did try to bring civilization to a cultural wasteland."

Please, your person defition, define "civilization".  Your saying
that they were not "civilized" and would would simply say that they
were "savages"?  Come on man, I really consider that an insult.  I
mean why would "God" make a peoples "savage" and "blood thristy"
like that?  Wouldn't "God" have "put" them there with a meaningful
way of life?  Why didnt "God" give them the same "relegion" as the
one that you follow? 
Tried indeed, but failed, some would say that it made things worse,
or even made the people who were subjected to the missons stronger,
and even angry at what was done to them.  Infact, my father made it
his mission of his life to aid and keep the Native traditions alive,
and not to be forgotten because of the actions made by the the
Catholic Church.

You also go on to say, "Especially one that condemns an entire
faith for the actions of a few".  How is this just a "few"?  It went
on all across the world.  The Catholic Church decided to make it
their "mission" (No pun intended) to go out and "spread the Gospels
and baptize people", according to Jay P. Dolan.  Would it also be,
at that time, be most of the Catholics mission to go out and spread
the word of God?  I mean, it was in a Catholics general mind set to
go and do this right?  Otherwise I doubt they would have even
considerd going to those "filty savages".  So im sure it was not
just "a few", it was perhaps the whole of the Catholic peoples to
spread the Word.  Infact, have you ever seen the movie "The
Mission"?  A very powerfull yet very sad movie *tear in eye*, just
thinking about it saddens me a little, or is the Catholic faith so
strict that you can not even go out and see a movie?

"First American was essentially a protestant country until the mid
1900's Maryland was the only colony which could have been
called "Catholic" and the protestants still out numbered the
Catholics for quite some time." 

Why do you think the Catholics moved to Canada?  Because there was
it seemed to be more "free" in Canada then it was in the US "at that
time"  Also note that "assimilation" did not come into full force
untill the early 1900's.  In the very beggining all the Euro's
wanted was to just get rid of all the Natives on "their" land that
they "claimed".  But this was not so, because they wanted to take
advantage of them.  It was the Natives who first showed them of
their ways and traditions.  They took full advantage of this.  Thus
merctinilsm(sp?) was born.  They would give the natives cheep crap
like mirrors and pots and pans (they had all that already but
better!), in exchage for their hides and furs for profit.  Obviously
the Native culture was funcunting well, they were very clean (euros
obviously were not), they had everything made, everything was fine,
untill of course the settlers landed....and then "it"
started....     

"Second are you equally willing to accuse the protestant churches
whose members engaged and were the backbone of the African slave
trade?"

In Canada in 1946, the majorty of the schools was run by the
Catholics.  Also it was not only the catholics, but also the
protestant as you pointed out, Anglican, United Church, and even
Presbyterian.  Also this a very hypocritical question, I will take
the 5th on this one.  (lol)

"The "Euros" made slaves to the Black people on their cotton fields,
the "Euros" made the Brown people slaves to their God(s), the Euros
made the Yellow people slaves to their gold mining, and finally
the "Euros" made slaves to the White people by creating the
Constitution"  Quote by P.

I'll leave it at that.

P.







   



--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "Verga" <vergatt@j...>
wrote:
> P.
> There is a problem with yur post.
> It is heavely biased, you need to look at things from several
angles
> before you make a judgement. Especially one that condemns an
entire
> faith for the actions of a few.
> If you look a "The american Catholic Experience: A History from
> Colonial Times to the Present" you will see a slightly different
> picture.
> Christ final admonition to the apostles was to go forth in his
name
> spreading the Gospels and baptizing  people.
> In 1492 an entirely new misson territory opened up.
> It was filled with pagan blood thirsty savages who engaged in
> Cannabalism and adultery and were hardly the peace loving bucolic
> people that they are frequently and incorrectly painted to be.
> Their infant mortality rate was incredibly high they had no
> discernable literacy and worst of all they worshipped false gods.
>
> Am I saying that the missons were perfect? No of course not.
> But they did try to bring civilization to a cultural wasteland.
> As far as your point about assimilation the Catholic Church did a
> much better job of assimilating then did any other religon. Most
of
> the protestant groups did their best to wipe out the tribes or to
> take them as slaves.
>
> Couple of other points that you want to keep in mind.
> First American was essentially a protestant country until the mid
> 1900's Maryland was the only colony which could have been
> called "Catholic" and the protestants still out numbered the
> Catholics for quite some time.
> Second are you equally willing to accuse the protestant churches
> whose members engaged and were the backbone of the African slave
> trade?
>
> Verga
>
>
> --- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "P." <nandimri4@y...>
> wrote:
> > Check out:
> >
> > http://www.sd83.bc.ca/stu/9801/mrl3hp.html
> >
> > nuf said
> >
> > Tell me that this is "Not good".  This time I will resist the
urge
> > to pontific (but it so fun!), no bs now, this is for real.  On a
> > later topic, why did your/my God make misquitos?
> >
> > P.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
catholicdebateforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#4 From: "P." <nandimri4@...>
Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 9:42 am
Subject: Re: Native American Mistreatment? 		nandimri4
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
"Labeling is what you do best!"

Hay,

Hold it right there for one moment, you said "American Catholic".
This book was writen by a Catholic man, who is a Catholic prof. with
a very prestigous track record, in other words 100% catholic.  First
off, I would like to point out that any relegion has a sort of way
of turing around any infromation into their favor.  Now, this is not
usually so, but I have found that many relegions (Be it a Christian
to Sikhism) tend to make other "rival" relegions look bad. I mean
the Pope never even approved of Sir Issac Newtons findings of the
universe untill recently! Now a good example would be the calling of
say the Ralien Movement a "cult".

Now the word cult has a lot of negitive conitation to it.  That very
word is commonly used in a very negitave way, esp by the media.  Now
what the media consider a cult, is a small, evil religious group,
often with a single charismatic leader, which engages in
brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the
end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry
in preparation for a massive war.  A some what generelized
defination, but typically, that was what the avrage person would
think.  And I am sure that is what most people here consider a
cult.  Now of crouse the proper definition of cult would be that the
word is derived from the Latin noun "cultus" which is related to the
Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a
deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be
applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists or
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics, Hindus or Muslims.  But
thats not what we all think about this word now is it?  In
otherwords, its simply a way to lable a new/old relegious movment
that does not follow the lablers relegion.

Now in the Yahoo! group ACTS, they labled The Grail Movement as a
cult, thus giving me the impresion right away, that you must
consider it an "evil" group.  Alas, perhaps you dont even consider
what its positive meanings are.  I checked out the website, imo, it
just seems silly, but I do not consider it a cult.

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps the religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer

So, in essence, if this book was published and made by a regular un-
biased group of people, then perhaps I would consider it and re-
think my views of the Native culture, but because it derives from a
Catholic view point, I would have to choose not to take the full
meaning of the book.

"...some occasional choppiness and confusion engendered by the
book's mixed chronological/topical organization..." An Editorial
Review by the Library Journal on "The american Catholic Experience:
A History from Colonial Times to the Present".

A reviewer of the book that you speak of.

Now, I take it you are not fully aware of how the Native culture
is.  Allow me to start off with some quots, this time who said them
Scott :):
"Rather than going to church, I attend a sweat lodge; rather than
accepting bread and toast [sic] from the Holy Priest, I smoke a
ceremonial pipe to come into Communion with the Great Spirit; and
rather than kneeling with my hands placed together in prayer, I let
sweetgrass be feathered over my entire being for spiritual cleansing
and allow the smoke to carry my prayers into the heavens. I am a
Mi'kmaq, and this is how we pray." Noah Augustine, from his
article "Grandfather was a knowing Christian," Toronto Star, Toronto
ON Canada

"The culture, values and traditions of native people amount to more
than crafts and carvings. Their respect for the wisdom of their
elders, their concept of family responsibilities extending beyond
the nuclear family to embrace a whole village, their respect for the
environment, their willingness to share - all of these values
persist within their own culture even though they have been under
unremitting pressure to abandon them." Mr. Justice Thomas Berger,
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry

"If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the
rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will
disintegrate and the words will be gone.  Our bible IS the wind."
Statement by an anonymous Native woman

".....the North American public remains ignorant about Native
American religions. And this, despite the fact that hundreds of
books and articles have been published by anthropologists,
religionists and others about native beliefs......Little of this
scholarly literature has found its way into popular books about
Native American religion..." Native American Religions by Arlene
Hirschfelder and Paulette Molin

Verga Wrote:
"In 1492 an entirely new misson territory opened up.
It was filled with pagan blood thirsty savages who engaged in
Cannabalism and adultery and were hardly the peace loving bucolic
people that they are frequently and incorrectly painted to be.
Their infant mortality rate was incredibly high they had no
discernable literacy and worst of all they worshipped false gods."

Now Verga, you must remeber some very important things.  There are
several hundrend tribes across North and South America, some of
these tribes have very different ways and practices, while most
typically follow one same belife system.  What tribe do you speak
of?  You too may also be considerd biasd by saying "they worshipped
false Gods", false Gods to who, the Catholics?  By simply
saying "blood thirsty savages who engaged in Cannabalism and
adultery and were hardly the peace loving bucolic people" sounds
completly absurd and alas unbiased, typical of course coming from a
white man. (j'k, most native people would not put of with tripe such
as that just to let ya know)


"Am I saying that the missons were perfect? No of course not.
But they did try to bring civilization to a cultural wasteland."

Please, your person defition, define "civilization".  Your saying
that they were not "civilized" and would would simply say that they
were "savages"?  Come on man, I really consider that an insult.  I
mean why would "God" make a peoples "savage" and "blood thristy"
like that?  Wouldn't "God" have "put" them there with a meaningful
way of life?  Why didnt "God" give them the same "relegion" as the
one that you follow?
Tried indeed, but failed, some would say that it made things worse,
or even made the people who were subjected to the missons stronger,
and even angry at what was done to them.  Infact, my father made it
his mission of his life to aid and keep the Native traditions alive,
and not to be forgotten because of the actions made by the the
Catholic Church.

You also go on to say, "Especially one that condemns an entire
faith for the actions of a few".  How is this just a "few"?  It went
on all across the world.  The Catholic Church decided to make it
their "mission" (No pun intended) to go out and "spread the Gospels
and baptize people", according to Jay P. Dolan.  Would it also be,
at that time, be most of the Catholics mission to go out and spread
the word of God?  I mean, it was in a Catholics general mind set to
go and do this right?  Otherwise I doubt they would have even
considerd going to those "filty savages".  So im sure it was not
just "a few", it was perhaps the whole of the Catholic peoples to
spread the Word.  Infact, have you ever seen the movie "The
Mission"?  A very powerfull yet very sad movie *tear in eye*, just
thinking about it saddens me a little, or is the Catholic faith so
strict that you can not even go out and see a movie?

"First American was essentially a protestant country until the mid
1900's Maryland was the only colony which could have been
called "Catholic" and the protestants still out numbered the
Catholics for quite some time."

Why do you think the Catholics moved to Canada?  Because there was
it seemed to be more "free" in Canada then it was in the US "at that
time"  Also note that "assimilation" did not come into full force
untill the early 1900's.  In the very beggining all the Euro's
wanted was to just get rid of all the Natives on "their" land that
they "claimed".  But this was not so, because they wanted to take
advantage of them.  It was the Natives who first showed them of
their ways and traditions.  They took full advantage of this.  Thus
merctinilsm(sp?) was born.  They would give the natives cheep crap
like mirrors and pots and pans (they had all that already but
better!), in exchage for their hides and furs for profit.  Obviously
the Native culture was funcunting well, they were very clean (euros
obviously were not), they had everything made, everything was fine,
untill of course the settlers landed....and then "it"
started....

"Second are you equally willing to accuse the protestant churches
whose members engaged and were the backbone of the African slave
trade?"

In Canada in 1946, the majorty of the schools was run by the
Catholics.  Also it was not only the catholics, but also the
protestant as you pointed out, Anglican, United Church, and even
Presbyterian.  Also this a very hypocritical question, I will take
the 5th on this one.  (lol)

"The "Euros" made slaves to the Black people on their cotton fields,
the "Euros" made the Brown people slaves to their God(s), the Euros
made the Yellow people slaves to their gold mining, and finally
the "Euros" made slaves to the White people by creating the
Constitution"  Quote by P.

I'll leave it at that.

P.











--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "Verga" <vergatt@j...>
wrote:
> P.
> There is a problem with yur post.
> It is heavely biased, you need to look at things from several
angles
> before you make a judgement. Especially one that condemns an
entire
> faith for the actions of a few.
> If you look a "The american Catholic Experience: A History from
> Colonial Times to the Present" you will see a slightly different
> picture.
> Christ final admonition to the apostles was to go forth in his
name
> spreading the Gospels and baptizing  people.
> In 1492 an entirely new misson territory opened up.
> It was filled with pagan blood thirsty savages who engaged in
> Cannabalism and adultery and were hardly the peace loving bucolic
> people that they are frequently and incorrectly painted to be.
> Their infant mortality rate was incredibly high they had no
> discernable literacy and worst of all they worshipped false gods.
>
> Am I saying that the missons were perfect? No of course not.
> But they did try to bring civilization to a cultural wasteland.
> As far as your point about assimilation the Catholic Church did a
> much better job of assimilating then did any other religon. Most
of
> the protestant groups did their best to wipe out the tribes or to
> take them as slaves.
>
> Couple of other points that you want to keep in mind.
> First American was essentially a protestant country until the mid
> 1900's Maryland was the only colony which could have been
> called "Catholic" and the protestants still out numbered the
> Catholics for quite some time.
> Second are you equally willing to accuse the protestant churches
> whose members engaged and were the backbone of the African slave
> trade?
>
> Verga
>
>
> --- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "P." <nandimri4@y...>
> wrote:
> > Check out:
> >
> > http://www.sd83.bc.ca/stu/9801/mrl3hp.html
> >
> > nuf said
> >
> > Tell me that this is "Not good".  This time I will resist the
urge
> > to pontific (but it so fun!), no bs now, this is for real.  On a
> > later topic, why did your/my God make misquitos?
> >
> > P.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#3 From: "Verga" <vergatt@...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: Native American Mistreatment? 		vergatt
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
P.
There is a problem with yur post.
It is heavely biased, you need to look at things from several angles
before you make a judgement. Especially one that condemns an entire
faith for the actions of a few.
If you look a "The american Catholic Experience: A History from
Colonial Times to the Present" you will see a slightly different
picture.
Christ final admonition to the apostles was to go forth in his name
spreading the Gospels and baptizing  people.
In 1492 an entirely new misson territory opened up.
It was filled with pagan blood thirsty savages who engaged in
Cannabalism and adultery and were hardly the peace loving bucolic
people that they are frequently and incorrectly painted to be.
Their infant mortality rate was incredibly high they had no
discernable literacy and worst of all they worshipped false gods.

Am I saying that the missons were perfect? No of course not.
But they did try to bring civilization to a cultural wasteland.
As far as your point about assimilation the Catholic Church did a
much better job of assimilating then did any other religon. Most of
the protestant groups did their best to wipe out the tribes or to
take them as slaves.

Couple of other points that you want to keep in mind.
First American was essentially a protestant country until the mid
1900's Maryland was the only colony which could have been
called "Catholic" and the protestants still out numbered the
Catholics for quite some time.
Second are you equally willing to accuse the protestant churches
whose members engaged and were the backbone of the African slave
trade?

Verga


--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "P." <nandimri4@y...>
wrote:
> Check out:
>
> http://www.sd83.bc.ca/stu/9801/mrl3hp.html
>
> nuf said
>
> Tell me that this is "Not good".  This time I will resist the urge
> to pontific (but it so fun!), no bs now, this is for real.  On a
> later topic, why did your/my God make misquitos?
>
> P.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#2 From: "P." <nandimri4@...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 11:43 am
Subject: Re: Native American Mistreatment? 		nandimri4
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
--- In catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Windsor"
<bigscott@a...> wrote:
> This was "P's" first message to the ACTS group:
>
> A post to start things off, it is rather late where I am right
now,
> so Id just like to see what the christian view point in this issue
> is. For many years, Native children all across north america have
> been sent to a Missionary. Now for those of you not aware of what
> such a place is, a missionary is a place where children are taught
> of the way of the Lord. It was started in the mid-late 1800's and
> ended at around the 1950s I belive. Now, I am sure many people
here
> know of what occured in these places, and unfortuinatly much of it
> was not good.

Check out:

http://www.sd83.bc.ca/stu/9801/mrl3hp.html

nuf said

Tell me that this is "Not good".  This time I will resist the urge
to pontific (but it so fun!), no bs now, this is for real.  On a
later topic, why did your/my God make misquitos?

P.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
#1 From: "Scott Windsor" <bigscott@...>
Date: Fri May 30, 2003 1:05 am
Subject: Native American Mistreatment? 		smwindsor
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
  
This was "P's" first message to the ACTS group:

A post to start things off, it is rather late where I am right now,
so Id just like to see what the christian view point in this issue
is. For many years, Native children all across north america have
been sent to a Missionary. Now for those of you not aware of what
such a place is, a missionary is a place where children are taught
of the way of the Lord. It was started in the mid-late 1800's and
ended at around the 1950s I belive. Now, I am sure many people here
know of what occured in these places, and unfortuinatly much of it
was not good.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (8)
Messages 1 - 34 of 51491   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Message #
Search:
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help