Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[stfassisi]

Pointing out some possible abuses by some Jesuits who wee not following the teachings of the Church does NOT mean the Church sanctioned it.

As always there are those who who disregard what the Church teaches

Here is an excerpt from New Advent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

Slavery and Christianity

“”The Trinitarians, founded in 1198 by St. John of Matha and St. Felix of Valois, established hospitals for slaves at Algiers and Tunis in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and from its foundation until the year 1787 it redeemed 900,000 slaves. The Order of Our Lady of Ransom (Mercedarians), founded in the thirteenth century by St. Peter Nolasco, and established more especially in France and Spain, redeemed 490,736 slaves between the years 1218 and 1632. To the three regular vows its founder had added a fourth, “To become a hostage in the hands of the infidels, if that is necessary for the deliverance of Christ’s faithful.” Many Mercedarians kept this vow even to martyrdom. Another order undertook not only to redeem captives, but also to give them spiritual and material assistance. St. Vincent of Paul had been a slave at Algiers in 1605, and had witnessed the sufferings and perils of Christian slaves. At the request of Louis XIV, he sent them, in 1642, priests of the congregation which he had founded. Many of these priests, indeed, were invested with consular functions at Tunis and at Algiers. From 1642 to 1660 they redeemed about 1200 slaves at an expense of about 1,200,000 livres. But their greatest achievements were in teaching the Catechism and converting thousands, and in preparing many of the captives to suffer the most cruel martyrdom rather than deny the Faith. As a Protestant historian has recently said, none of the expeditions sent against the Barbary States by the Powers of Europe, or even America, equalled “the moral effect produced by the ministry of consolation, and abnegation, going even to the sacrifice of liberty and life, which was exercised by the humble sons of St. John of Matha, St. Peter Nolasco, and St. Vincent of Paul” (Bonet-Maury, “France, christianisme et civilisation”, 1907, p. 142).

A second revival of slavery took place after the discovery of the New World by the Spaniards in 1492. To give the history of it would be to exceed the limits of this article. It will be sufficient to recall the efforts of Las Casas in behalf of the aborigines of America and the protestations of popes against the enslavement of those aborigines and the traffic in negro slaves. England, France, Portugal, and Spain, all participated in this nefarious traffic. England only made amends for its transgressions when, in 1815, it took the initiative in the suppression of the slave trade. In 1871 a writer had the temerity to assert that the Papacy had not its mind to condemn slavery” (Ernest Havet, “Le christianisme et ses origines”, I, p. xxi). He forgot that, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime” (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery — a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church.

In our own times the slave trade still continued to devastate Africa, no longer for the profit of Christian states, from which all slavery had disappeared, but for the Mussulman countries. But as European penetrations progresses in Africa, the missionaries, who are always its precursors — Fathers of the Holy Ghost, Oblates, White Fathers, Franciscans, Jesuits, Priests of the Mission of Lyons — labour in the Sudan, Guinea, on the Gabun, in the region of the Great Lakes, redeeming slaves and establishing “liberty villages.” At the head of this movement appear two men: Cardinal Lavigerie, who in 1888 founded the Société Antiesclavagiste and in 1889 promoted the Brussels conference; Leo XIII, who encouraged Lavigerie in all his projects, and, in 1890, by an Encyclical once more condemning the slave-traders and “the accursed pest of servitude”, ordered an annual collection to be made in all Catholic churches for the benefit of the anti-slavery work. Some modern writers, mostly of the Socialist School — Karl Marx, Engel, Ciccotti, and, in a measure, Seligman — attribute the now almost complete disappearance of slavery to the evolution of interests and to economic causes only. The foregoing exposition of the subject is an answer to their materialistic conception of history, as showing that, if not the only, at least the principal, cause of that disappearance is Christianity acting through the authority of its teaching and the influence of its charity. “”

[Mad Dawg]

It intrigues me that I have read, maybe even in this thread — certainly on this forum, the high and enthusiastic approval given to those who destroyed objects of beauty in Anglican churches.

It seems too much of a challenge for some to entertain the notion that even the Church took time, centuries, millennia in the case of slavery, to figure things out. Plenty of things remain as problems not only not solved but scarcely perceived as problems.

Children as they enter adolescence have to deal with the disppointment that arises from the very clear imperfections and lack of omnicompetence of their parents. Some children never get over it. Others come to understand that parental authority survives even the massively obvious imperfections of the parents.

And there is an aversion to nuance, an "all or nothing" template which cannot allow perfection in any one respect in anything which is not perfect in every respect.

Oh well.

[hosepipe]

The gemstones of the foundation of the New Jerusalem are also metaphors: / "And the foundations of the wall of the city [were] garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. – Revelation 21:19-20"
------------------------------

I indeed, dear sister, I love to watch the Jewerly Channel on cable for entirely different reans then buying anything.. i GEMS are displayed in all their shining glory.. ALL kinds of gems.. with glowing phrases about them.. and displayed in theor best light and settings..

I buy nothing but consider "the METAPHOR", you know, the biblical metaphors.. about precious stones.. Display quite beatifully(to me) on threads such as this.. The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinists and all mannar of different "christians".. and even NoN christians sharing their "views".. While "observing" that jewerly show my mind wanders to New Jerusalem.. new in quality and experience thast I hope to experience one day.. The metaphore (of precious stones/ saints/ sheep) becomes a little more tangible t me..

Precious stones are precious to those that they are precious to.. And I wonder; how to compare a ruby, an emerald, a diamond, chrysolite and a amethyst.. You cannt compare them for they are unique.. born from much heat and pressure.. and inately precious.. Precious in their essence.. Even Alexandrite... A new stone discovered Tanzite(sp") is beautiful..

There is stones on that show I have never observed before as, Im sure, there will be in New Jerusalen also.. When the metaphone becomes real and the preciousness of the Lords work in all of us will be displayed and ENJOYED.. I appreciate the "service" those on/on that show give me.. for they preach to me in ways they did not intend, I sure.. LoL..

[stfassisi]

And who leads the individual Roman Catholic and Orthodox to believe that the teaching of their church is right?

It's all contained in the Domatic teaching of the Church,in the Catechism and other various doctrines.

Sadly ,some choose not to follow them

[Quix]

It’s all contained in the Domatic teaching of the Church,in the Catechism and other various doctrines.

= = =

Rather self-servingly convenient for political power mongers, it seems to me.

Alas, it’s not such a tidy little consistent box from 300-400 years ago to now as is contended. Not by several light years worth of distance, at least.

[Mad Dawg]

Pointing out some possible abuses by some Jesuits who we[r]e not following the teachings of the Church does NOT mean the Church sanctioned it.

Part of the religions which hold that the Pope is the Antichrist and all that is that the Pope is so much in control that nothing happens without his knowing and approving it. Bogeymen make far better targets for abuse and emotionalism than do real people.

I was just reading a history of Lay Dominicans and found this:

Munio de Zamora, then, gave the Rule to the Third Order in 1285. But this action antagonized the incumbent Pope, Nicholas IV. Pope Nicholas was a former Minister General of the Franciscan Order. He had an idea of what to do with the Penitent movement: attach all the penitent groups to the Franciscan Order. Thus, he was quite unhappy with de Zamora's action in affiliating a substantial sector of the penitent movement with the Dominicans. This, along with several other grudges which he seems to have had against Zamora, caused him in 1290 to demand that the Dominican General Chapter remove this Master General from office. The General Chapter met, and refused to remove him. In the next year, 1291 -- Pope Nicholas deposed him personally. But by now the Third Order was firmly established, and survived.

As I like to say, I don't believe in organized religion. I'm a Catholic.

[blue-duncan]

"It's all contained in the Domatic teaching of the Church,in the Catechism and other various doctrines"

I understand, but the question is "who leads the individual Roman Catholic and Orthodox to believe that the teaching of their church is right?"

[stfassisi]

Part of the religions which hold that the Pope is the Antichrist and all that is that the Pope is so much in control that nothing happens without his knowing and approving it. Bogeymen make far better targets for abuse and emotionalism than do real people.

Well said ,Dear MD

[hosepipe]

As an aside Crystallography itself is an interesting subject.. How cystals form in thier unique ways.. even ice(water).. Each precious stone has its own unique lacework and crystal composition.. indentifiable as a "substance" unique.. A diamond is not a diamond because its clear and hard.. Its a diamond because of its structure and makeup.. also a topaz and other stones.. Its cystaline structure is idenifiable and different from other precious stones..

I present Crystallography as an intesting subject to study to those that have the time and energy.. I stumbbled on the subject a few years ago.. but am no Gemologist..

So interesting that ICE(drystals) have air in it thats why it does not form under water.. it floats.. The bottom of lakes(and ocean) are not frozen because of that(partly)..

Is GoD COOL OR WHAT?...

[stfassisi]

The answer to who leads the Church

From The Catechism
813 The Church is one because of her source: “the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.”259 The Church is one because of her founder: for “the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body.”260 The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.”261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:

All individual Catholic’s are to follow or they are not in unity

[Quix]

So . . . maybe I have this straight, now . . .

WHEN

the RC edifice wants to emphasize it’s authoritarian control over ALL of Christendom [from it’s perspective] . . . it emphasizes the fantasy that it has been in thorough going control from the moment Christ contrasted pebble Peter with The Rock Christ Jesus until this moment . . . no vagaries of doctrine and dogma . . . no great evils etc. . . . just a seamless pristine authoritarian control then to now.

WHEN the RC edifice wants to foster the fantasy that it’s a bumbling collection of extended family members stumbling through religious existentialism . . . it presents quite another picture entirely.

Are you trying to convince me that the RC edifice is schizophrenic?

Or plagued with a MPD—Multiple Personality Disorder?

Or is this all just convenient posturing of various fantasies and spun yarns for effect in differing contingencies?

[blue-duncan]

Let me make it easy. Does the Holy Spirit lead the individual Roman Catholic to believe that what the church teaches is truth?

[stfassisi]

“”Rather self-servingly convenient for political power mongers, it seems to me.””

Perhaps you can show the “self-servingly” in those who followed the teaching of the church.

Start with Mother Teresa of Calcutta and then proceed with Saint Francis of Assisi and perhaps you can go deeper into history and show us how “self serving” Saint John Chrysostom was?

[Quix]

Wonderful exceptions to the rule, it seems to me.

Or are you saying that none of the magicsterical were self-serving political power mongers???

LOL.

ROTFLOL

GTTM

[stfassisi]

It’s obvious that you did not read the Catechism

Did you miss this part?

“”The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church,””

[1000 silverlings]

Quite a power you have there, AG, to understand what The Church apparently has not for 2000 years.

lol. Broken down into the individuals that makes it up, does "The Church" have anymore understanding than another individual? sometimes yes, sometimes no.

The Apostles themselves could not understand Christ with Him right there in their midst. After He was gone away and the HS came to dwell in them, they began to understand everything.

This concept that you have that we make ourselves humble, and holy and perfect, or that we must have some big ornate edifice with statues and icons to put us in the mood is a fundamental misunderstanding. It's like needing a golden calf .

Maybe it inspires awe and reverence in some people and serves as an aid to their idea of religion. It doesn't "help" them believe, as belief is a gift of God and comes from hearing the Word.

Jesus said that the kingdom is within, and that is the only place it's found. It's not in the land of Greece, or Italy or Israel. It is within every true believer.

I have read Alamo's posts for a long time and was once confused by some of what she said too, but after awhile, when they are all seen in continuity, and consistency, AG posts nothing that boasts of herself, but if she boasts at all , she boasts in God and gives Him the glory.

[blue-duncan]

You made the comment “Dear Sister, the protestant belief that their scripture interpretations are always guided by the Holy Spirit is the cause of these groups you mention.”

My question is a simple “yes” or “no” question. “Does the Holy Spirit lead the individual Roman Catholic to believe that what the church teaches is truth?”

I did not ask if the believer is “indwelt” by the Holy Spirit.

[Alamo-Girl]

A very interesting question. Thank you for pinging me to this sidebar, dear brother in Christ!

[stfassisi]

The answer is yes when they are following the teachings of the Church and no when they are not following the church’s teaching.

An example would be a Catholic voting for a pro choice politician's thus ignoring what Church’s teaching of pro life

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights - and thank you for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

Humility is not always wrapped in expected wrappings.

I doubt the Pharisees considered Jesus to be humble when He said that He and the Father are One. If they only knew...

I and [my] Father are one.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. - John 10:30-31

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:5-11

To God be the glory, not man, never man!