Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: angelo
"Fourth Lateran Bump"
Oh, that's very nice. You are in favor of these canons?

Actually, I was only thinking of "Extra Ecclesiam, nulus salus" as a Catholic doctrine which Cardinal Kasper, et al. had forgotten.

Those canons concern not unchanging dogma, but prudential judgments made by the council in 1215. I believe that they were not codified out of malice, but out of concern for real problems at the time, and by early-13th century standards are humanistic.

69. If the law says that the Catholic Church is the official state religion, then provision was made that government authorities should be Catholic.

70. Apparently some sincerely baptised Jewish converts would continue practicing Jewish rituals alongside Catholic rituals. The council said they shouldn't mix the religions together.

67. The council was concerned that some moneylenders were charging such usurious interest rates that the lendees couldn't make a tithe to the local church. I'm not surprised they were concerned about this.

69a. Apparently men and women were falling in love and getting married to each other, only to discover after the wedding that one was Jewish and one was Catholic. In a typical medieval manner the council declared that the non-Catholics should dress differently.

69b. Apparently on Passion Sunday and during the Good Friday - Easter weekend, some non-Catholic smart alecks would mock the public devotions, and riots would predictably ensue. (I imagine that the non-Catholic minorities probably fared badly during the riots.) The council has a simple and absolute medieval solution: to keep the peace, all non-Catholics must remain indoors.

69c. (Schroeder's note) Catholics were forbidden by law to work on Sunday (and Holy Days). If they worked, they could be arrested and punished. Jews and Muslims, of course, would work on Sundays. The Synod of Narbonne said they should be discreet about it, and wear an emblem of their faith, showing that they had permission to work.

Did sinful men abuse the canons? Yes.

57 posted on 11/09/2002 8:53:33 AM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Dajjal
These canons concern not unchanging dogma but prudential judgements made by the council in 1215.I believe they were not codified out of malice,but out of concern for real problems at the time,and by early 13th century standards humanistic.

Things often look quite different from a long distance,both miles and time. I think that this is a good example of that phenomena and could serve as an object lesson for many on these threads at least if they recognize that they don't know everything.

60 posted on 11/09/2002 11:21:37 AM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson