You wrote:
“What you have offered is a boatload of denials, based on not much.”
What you have offered is a boatload of assertions, based on less than nothing.
“Oh, but many do, much for reasons I mentioned.”
Nope. And if so, then it is for the reason I mentioned.
“But keep telling yourself those denials, maybe someday all doubt deep within may be silenced. Meanwhile...I hardly believe a sentence which you write.”
I don’t believe what you write. The difference is that I am more factual than you are. You wrote: “Tourists pay money for the opportunity to line up just to gawk at all the “finery”.” Again, the most beautiful of all things in Vatican City is St. Peter’s basilica and it’s free. You don’t pay a dime. That’s a fact. You also falsely claimed: “The gold itself came much from earthly “empire”.” Not true. Donations. So, you don’t have to believe “hardly” anything I write. The problem is that what I write is factually correct. Your problem is with reality.
“Most of them incorporate a fubar element, which you’ll defend by argument of assertion. It’s a pattern. We know you here, vladi.”
And yet, you’re the one making assertions - false ones that anyone who knows about the subject would recognize.
“Including that from kings of old...you did establish most of the gold had been there (Vatican City) for a while...with those kings I mentioned (some of the “donors”) gaining such through subjection of others.”
Nope. There were no lareg donations of gold from monarchs in regard to St. Peter’s basilica. Now, if you go to the Cathedral of Sevilla you’ll find the 42 meter tall central nave is decorated with three tons of gold leaf - and that is from the Spanish conquests and trade. That is not what happened with St. Peter’s.
“Enslaving Africans for the Portugese...and enslaving South & Central American Indians for the Spanish. Enslaving involveds killing those who will not accept being chained it must be remembered.”
Still had nothing to do with St. Peter’s.
“An RC pope had written up where the dividing line between where those of either nation could collect slaves.”
The Treaty of Tordesillas in no way was intended to promote the slave trade. Does it even mention slavery? I just scanned the 4 main points of the treaty. In which one is slavery discussed? I might have missed it. Tell me where you saw slavery in there. Also, After Eugenius IV so strongly condemned slavery just 50 years before, no approval of slavery in the New World could ever be given or accepted by the Church. The unintended consequence of avoiding a massive war between Portugal and Spain (with the Treaty of Tordesillas) was the spread of slavery - something the Church did not want.
“You have told us you have Ph.D in history, but the memory as expressed is highly selective...”
No, actually my memory seems to be much better than yours.
“It is only by way of a priori (bigoted?) opinion that it may be safely assumed Peter would not rebuke the RCC for having at one point, made the Church into palatial estates.”
It is only by way of a priori (bigoted?) opinion that it may be safely assumed St. Peter would rebuke his Church for having some palatial estates used by clergy, pilgrims and the poor.
“Some of the methodology of how they recieved those lands (elsewhere other than Vatican City?) were anything but by way of donation, for some of them had been taken by wholesale murder of those whom dared to speak or preach the Gospel differently than the RCC.”
Name them. Please identify all of the “lands” where “wholesale murder of those whom dared to speak or preach the Gospel differently than the” Church led to Church ownership of the property.
“How much of the gold which you may count as “donation” arrived by way of the sale of indulgences?”
Probably none. Indulgences were sold by those violating Church law. The Church never, ever supported the sale of indulgences and condemned it in canon law. Those who would violate the Church’s canon law on indulgences would not be interested in sending money from the illegal sales to support the Church. Money could be donated for some indulgences when someone fulfilled all the other requirements for it, but those lacking money were expected to give none. Thus, there were no sales by the Church.
“Gold coinage and jewelry, melted down, ending up in some of the gold adornments seen to this very day? Would Peter have approved of the saleof indulgences?”
Nope. And neither did the Church.
“If so...that would be a good way to come up with the monies needed to pay off all the lawyers, and uhm, settlements. What would Peter say to such as that?”
The same thing the Church has always said - priests should behave morally ALWAYS.
“But here’s the catch...be careful how that sort of thing is answered, word it carefully, or end up telling false prophecy in the effort to make everything of the past, and that of the present, “look good”.”
No, I’ll just tell the truth as always - and I already did.
“Men may forget, but the Lord knows where every atom of the gold came from, can recall where in the earth it had all been once hidden...”
He can. He also knows the heart of every anti-Catholic bigot posting on the internet. Think about that.
“There is no excusing it, or denying it to God.”
There’s nothing to deny here nor would I. The gold came from donations. I wouldn’t be surprised if some small amount of it was someone’s ill-gotten gain. So is much of America if you ask the Indians. God knows, however, and anyone who did anything deserving punishment at the end of time will get it. It’s just that simple.
“He’s not swayed by ‘argument by assertion’ from puny men,”
True, but you’re being unfair to yourself. You really should call yourself puny.
“...no matter how smart they think they are, or how hard they spin, spin, spin.”
And yet you keep doing it rather than posting facts? Read the Treaty of Tordesillas. Get back to me. Let me know if I missed a passage on slavery. I might have. Maybe you’ll find it. At this point, I have to doubt that.
The vague allusion to you have read treaties is meaningless. What is recorded to have occured as result is not. The spirit displayed is self evident.
Meanwhile, all which you write is just a big broom sweeping any and all error (even gross offenses to the Spirit of the Lord) under the rug.
It's an awfully lumpy rug, that one.
Something the Church did not want?
Later, the 1481 Papal Bull Aeterni regis granted all lands south of the Canary Islands to Portugal, while in May 1493 the Spanish-born Pope Alexander VI decreed in the Bull Inter caetera that all lands west of a meridian only 100 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands should belong to Spain while new lands discovered east of that line would belong to Portugal. A further Bull, Dudum siquidem, made some more concessions to Spain, and the pope's arrangements were then amended by the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 negotiated between Spain and Portugal.
In South America, the Jesuits protected native peoples from enslavement by establishing semi-independent settlements called reductions. Pope Gregory XVI, challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839 (papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus), and approved the ordination of native clergy in spite of government racism.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_the_Age_of_Discovery)
I guess you're going to admit to Blue Dragon that you made a mistake in your timing about by whom and when slavery was "condemned"?
As to the ways the Roman Catholic Church obtained her vast wealth, this essay gives some insight http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm:
“The most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.. will cause thee to appear pure of all stain before the judge everlasting” (2) as long as she granted him, Gregory, what he asked of her, that, money, real estates, and investitures which yielded abundant revenues to the Church: a practice which became a tradition during the oncoming centuries.
Gregory went even further and sent the nobleman Dynamius a cross containing “fillings” from St. Peter’s chains, telling him to wear the cross at his throat,
“which is like as if he were wearing the chains of St. Peter himself.,” and adding “these chains, which have lain across and around the neck of the most Blessed Apostle Peter, shall unloose thee for ever from thy sins”.
The gift, of course, was not a free one. It cost money and gold. (3)
Not content with this, Gregory began to send out “the keys of St. Peter, wherein are found the precious filings and which by the same token also remit sins” - provided the recipients paid in cash or with costly presents. (4)
Once it became known that the relics of St. Peter, when combined with the spiritual power of his successors, could remit sins, it was natural that most of the Christians throughout Christendom longed to go to the tomb and thus partake of Peter’s and the pope’s spiritual treasures. The latter invariably involved earthly treasures of money, silver and gold, or deeds of real estate. And that is how the pilgrimage to Rome, called the Pardon of St. Peter, was initiated - curiously enough, mostly by Anglo-Saxons.
In addition to encouraging the belief that Peter’s tomb was in Rome and that his successors had “filings” from St. Peter’s chains, the popes encouraged the belief that by coming to the Eternal City the pilgrims could address the Blessed Peter in person. The Church, far from discouraging such dishonest humbuggery, gave her approval to it: witness for example the notable St. Gregory of Tours, who, in his De Gloria Martyrum, gave a detailed description of the ceremony that had to be performed in order to speak with the Prince of Apostles. (5)
The pilgrims had to kneel upon the tomb of St. Peter, the opening to which was covered by a trap door. Then, raising the door, he had to insert his head into the hole, after which, still remaining in that posture, he had to reveal in a loud voice the object of his visit to the saint. Offerings of money were thrown in. Then veneration and obeisance were to be offered to St. Peter’s successor, the pope.
I'll save the sordid story of the false Donation of Constantine and the unabashed usurpation of temporal power over all the known world and how the popes loudly claimed to be the feudal lords of all the islands of the ocean, and started to dispose of them according to their will for another day.
Perhaps the crucial portions of the information need be found in associated supporting documents Like from pope Martin V in regards to Dom Henrique ..ah, that rings a bell. That pope was offered by Henry captured Africans as slaves following the success of the little war against the Moors to sieze Ceuta,and is said in various historical accounting to have authorized Henrique to take slaves in disruption of that same trade which had been plied by the Saracens. There is abundant evidence Henry did so. While head of a portion of what was it "The Orders of Christ"?
Regardless of some other pronouncement by this Eugenius IV opposing slavery...for that was limited to be in regards to the taking of slaves among baptized Christians among native peoples (*possibly including no taking of Christians by Christians period, for that too had occurred on occasion as kings and kingdom squabbled.) No taking of Christian slaves by other Christians, and no sale of them. But with some mention of "regret" that natives of some islands had been taken into servitude -=-- those referred to being the ones having been already baptized.
Yet you presented that in context of conversation here as to meaning it would prohibit the taking of slaves in Africa, which it most certainly would not (unless they had been baptized as Christians) and would in fact implicitly continue allowance of the then fairly recent developing practice of taking slaves in Africa and other locales.
Then there is a (somewhat distilled but accurate enough) explicit;
"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slaveryfrom the Dum Diversas (translates as Until Different, right?) of Pope Nicholas V.
I do love how you seem to attempt to bluff and capitalize upon perceived ignorance which the googlesterium can make short work of. A fuller translation presented by an apparently honest Catholic, which can serve for now; http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html
The undeniable emerges. For a time the RC church from it's highest levels supported/endorsed slavery within some limit, but lacking limit and having explicit endorsement for the taking of unconverted of the Saracen/Muslims into slavery, by Christians (the Muslims themselves at this time having themselves been slavers of many centuries standing, taking not only Africans, but many European Christians captive into slavery). The papal bulls were much in response to the that.
I could go on, and tackle much of the rest which you have written in my direction, but it's so full of tangles and snarls as to be little worth the effort, with offerings from "opposite land" like the below, galor;
Factually correct on some single plane here and there occasionally but not everywhere, while taken altogether so entirely misleading (deliberately?) to be completely incorrect in wider scope of conversation.
How much of the gold in Vatican City came from the sale of indulgences --- the Lord only knows, but I seriously doubt it be none or even "not all that much", which is just as good or better formed opinion than labeling all of it with the misleading "all donations".
You required I bring proof? Where's the accounting for the "all donations" claim beyond your own table pounding assertions? Even if from kings and other assorted nobles, it's still tainted, much of it.
Large donations from Monarchs? I covered that slightly, in pointing towards how the RC church of that time was "wedded" to the worldly kings, each deriving power or reflecting between them the subjugation and forced acceptance by all, of the powers and authority each laid claim to hold over other human beings. Wealth by subjugation. Not limited to full enslavement of others to bring the gain...for partial enslavement can be more profitable and easier to manage in the long run, but by wholesale subjugation of humans nonetheless.
Though there be reasons for everything, that sort of thing isn't exactly what the Lord had in mind, I take it, but in too many ways the RCC participated for long centuries, in such systems and profited from the participation.
The kings themselves didn't much get out there and tote barge or lift bale. No, they had serfs do pretty much all of it. And some of those "noblemen" of the time had gotten their lands through the murdering of previous owners and townsfolk for daring to preach (a form of) the Gospel without permission from the RC church, with the church itself receiving, being given some of (small) lands taken in that manner, directly, all having been conducted towards these "other than themselves" preachers with blessing from the RCC. Yes, the church blessed even murdering, said it was for the wider cause of Christ. Said it was neccassary (to stop those ignorant preachers from preaching it wrong!)
That too [the immediately above] is factual enough, with supporting links not too difficult to find.
I'm rather surprised you can't see it. Perhaps more distance from the subject matter is required for clearer appraisal. It matters little as to a "that's how they did it in those days" sort of defensive explanation. The church supported the kings and nobles (but not always and not every king and noble) and the nobles (irregularly but most typically) supported the powers of the RC church, with interplay of politics along the way. That much is undeniable by any. The little man was often (not always) all but enslaved by the system. He could scarcely speak out without risking deadly reprisal from the nobles in their own name, or from the nobles in the name of the church, of from an office of the church under the authority of a king on one level but simultaneously under the authority of the church, with "Inquisition" conducted in the name of the RC church...but still, here and there, speak out they did. Sometimes that would be tolerated, but other times that could get a guy killed. It's a mixed bag. In light of the overall oppressive practices, how could the money not be somewhat tainted in all the mix? Yet there it is, still on parade, still testimony of things other than "all by donation", still testimony of the sinfulness of man not being able to be neatly separated from "church", yet what else can be expected? That all sin or taint stop short of any church organizations walls?
I don't expect as much, nor say any church must be infallible, or "infallibly led" for who in the heck has much ever "infallibly followed?" Not the RCC, regardless of the frequently made claim, that they themselves out of all humaninty and among all other Christian organizations, has at all times been infallible. To believe otherwise is a form of sheer madness, in light of the available evidences.
Only by the grace of God and blood of Christ are any justified
Under banner of the RC church hundreds of thousands lost their lives and properties. Those such as Albigensians and Cathars at times lost both quite suddenly.
How about all the properties taken from accused heretics? Over the course of 7 centuries of Inquisition that had to add up. Can you give full accounting for what occured? Doubtful anyone could (although Ilorente attempted it) yet that seems the level of proof that must be approached, which if proximity is achieved, by pattern displayed here on these pages would be swept aside as not arising ex-cathedra, or not as to teachings and morals, which even if accepted still leaves a "do as we say, not as we do have done".
What again of the crusades against the Albigensians and Cathars? Whole towns and villages with associated nearby properties taken by force by nobles, in the name of the church, doing so with the blessings of the church--- resulting in lands gone over to those whom did the killing, with some small portions given over directly to the church.
Are you saying all those properties thus gained have now been otherwise lost (to the RCC), with only some ditillation of purity among the funding used in the buildup of the reamining holdings on display or existant in Vatican City? It's not so much concerning that remaining visible crust (even of some of the gold) as it is about the past "rising of the dough" that formed that crust in the first place.
...And the tourist still gawk, even at those open air venues or church buildings they do not have to directly pay to the church to view. Which was the point, the viewing of the finery, not the "paying" for it which you latched on to in the rush to correct myself and others.