tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6775996385624284930..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Popes, heresy, and papal heresyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger202125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80812049009540121062023-08-09T09:17:01.670-07:002023-08-09T09:17:01.670-07:00In the case of a Pope declared heretical, I don...In the case of a Pope declared heretical, I don't see how that would affect the reception of the sacraments by ordinary Catholics. If the Pastor appointed by the local bishop has faculties, which he obviously has, then the sacraments would be valid, even if the bishop were in communion with the heretical pope. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-211048729262837472022-03-22T10:15:10.045-07:002022-03-22T10:15:10.045-07:00Dr. Feser et al (who stuck to topic):
Thank you f...Dr. Feser et al (who stuck to topic):<br /><br />Thank you for providing different perspectives and greater knowledge.<br /><br />It is much appreciated.dudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77188131695294492962021-07-21T19:31:01.068-07:002021-07-21T19:31:01.068-07:00Pope Francis knows exactly what he is doing and wh...Pope Francis knows exactly what he is doing and who it is that he is doing it for.<br /><br /><< Pope Francis, I am sure, is very well aware of the doctrine of papal infallibility, knows how high are its provisos—and is astute enough never to trigger its mechanism.>> - A Year After "Amoris Laetitia". A Timely Word by Anna M. SilvasF M Shyanguyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04600807364234749777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52350051701333139792021-07-21T18:55:23.025-07:002021-07-21T18:55:23.025-07:00Church exists in Time so time is relevant. The Fai...Church exists in Time so time is relevant. The Faith was deposited with Jesus and the Apostle. While Jesus is with his Church, the Apostles died. This is what is true: <br /><><br /><br />Act of Faith:<br /><br />O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; I believe that Thy divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.<br /><br />F M Shyanguyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04600807364234749777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86360291822441498012021-07-21T18:40:26.709-07:002021-07-21T18:40:26.709-07:00<< It may be that the '83 Code modified ...<< It may be that the '83 Code modified the law in some way relevant to this issue, which would be further evidence of the malice of JP2...>><br /><br />Code of Canon Law online.F M Shyanguyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04600807364234749777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37069838290000011662021-01-21T10:52:37.766-08:002021-01-21T10:52:37.766-08:00To enter God's Catholic Church (founded in 33 ...To enter God's Catholic Church (founded in 33 A.D.) and leave<br />the anti-Christ vatican-2 heretic cult (founded on 8 Dec 1965) please proceed to<br />the Formal Abjuration of heresy on ... Section 40 of > www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com<br /><br />The Formal Abjuration of heresy places you into the Catholic Church if you are properly Baptized.<br />Baptism was falsified by Montini ("paul-6") on 15 May 1969 ( see Section 7.7).<br />Dogma sources mandating Abjuration listed on Section 40.1<br />One must save their soul in the one way prescribed by the Catholic God ... by the one Divine faith.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13353872767408425068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4516184120129297792019-12-03T18:24:18.391-08:002019-12-03T18:24:18.391-08:00The Honorius example is of course frequently menti...The Honorius example is of course frequently mentioned in this contexts, but it is hard to know what to make of it. For one thing, this declaration only happened after his death, so of course it wouldn't be used as evidence that a Pope could be known to be a formal heretic now. In addition, church history still recognizes him as a Pope, so there is no indication that he was regarding as having lost his chair as a result of his heresy. Besides all of this, this seems to have occurred at a time in history when the distinction between formal and material heresy was not fully worked out, and clearly before the parameters regarding correction, etc. as we know them today were formally in place. And, on top of all this, it was prior to the clear declarations of primacy of jurisdiction. (Everyone can readily agree, I think, that the Honorius case does not touch on infallibility, since nothing about what he did comes within miles of an ex cathedra statement, even though the Orthodox will sometimes adduce this case as an argument against Vatican I teachings on the papacy). My strong sense is that by today's standards, Honorius could not be said to have been a formal heretic, and at most his position could have been denounced posthumously, in the formal way that it was. I suppose councils still have a right to issue disagreements about someone's acts, even if they fall short of formal heresy, but anathematization is pretty strong stuff. But, the example is there to be wrestled with, to be sure. eclecticextrovertynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82129353748469460942019-07-19T10:18:27.051-07:002019-07-19T10:18:27.051-07:00Pope Honorius was eventually judged by the Church ...Pope Honorius was eventually judged by the Church to be a heretic. He was not merely condemned for a heterodox opinion. That the Pope was held to such a high standard of expectation (heresy simply by omission and failure to provide a complete orthodox account) is arguably proof that the early Church considered the bishop of Rome to be absolutely unique in his role or function.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69452363761586235582019-06-28T20:49:55.888-07:002019-06-28T20:49:55.888-07:00I have read only a few comments, but here is a wri...I have read only a few comments, but here is a wrinkle. Given that Popes have primacy of jurisdiction (maybe someone has raised this), even if in theory a unanimity of bishops declared him a heretic, he'd have a court of appeal to himself. Now, one could claim that he was no longer Pope and thus cannot appeal to himself, but this begs the question (i.e. how do we know he is not pope, if that has not yet been determined in an appeal (not to mention renders an arguably ad hoc exception to the claim of universal primacy). <br /><br />Given this, I am not sure it is even clear that the Pope could be a public formal heretic, or, if he could, that it could ever be sufficiently determined.eclecticextrovertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20075544377791904822019-06-24T12:24:00.973-07:002019-06-24T12:24:00.973-07:00A bit of overdone self-projection in this comment ...A bit of overdone self-projection in this comment by the looks of things.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86411165388503446442019-06-24T06:10:40.172-07:002019-06-24T06:10:40.172-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22662309574603487132019-06-07T11:31:01.864-07:002019-06-07T11:31:01.864-07:00Well said Didymus.
This is why you need proper qu...Well said Didymus.<br /><br />This is why you need proper qualifications and definitions. When I was debating in Facebook Chat some idiot Mark Shea Fanboyz he defined "slavery" the way you described it. I insisted you needed precise terms. "Chattel Slavery" is the "slavery" most people popularly think of here. That is where the bondsmen is not seen as a human being with rights under natural or the moral law. He is seen as no better than "Cattle" which is immoral since humans are not irrational animals and the term "Chattel" comes from the word "Cattle". How a Radtrad like Aquinan can sit there defending it as a positive term in light of Traditional Scholastic moral teaching is beyond me? <br /> As to wither or not "Theoretical Slavery" ever existed well logic dictates in the course of history there have been (even among the Pagans) Masters who saw their slaves as fellow humans & treated them accordingly. In American Law pre-revolution if a slave was murdered even by his master it was a hanging offense. But I believe at most a handful of masters who murdered their slaves ever suffered this fate and mostly it happened for political purposes. That is as a sacrifice to the just outrage of abolitionists. Slavery is as such practically speaking a sort of institution where even if in civil law you try to protect the rights of slaves the master still has inordinate power over them and can be tempted to villainy & it can still devolve into tyranny.<br /><br />As we have seen the Roman pagans in additional to having chattel slavery had chattel parenting where the Father had the right to kill his children or wife at will. Saying that is evil is not the same as saying parenting is evil. <br /><br />Of course the moral difference between Parenting vs Theoretical Slavery is Parenting is intrinsically good where as theoretical slavery is merely "not contrary to the natural & moral law". It's not intrinsically good and by nature can never be.<br /><br />Cheers. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59809467860896819592019-06-06T19:15:06.151-07:002019-06-06T19:15:06.151-07:00And that is my peace.And that is my peace.Didymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36191689858849814602019-06-06T19:13:37.824-07:002019-06-06T19:13:37.824-07:00Aquinian,
"Slavery is the permanent state of...Aquinian,<br /><br />"Slavery is the permanent state of bondage in which the entire work effort of the subject belongs to the master," said no slave-owner, ever; Hell, said nobody, ever. That's just not the definition of slavery. That's a theoretical relationship that's never existed. So of course the Church has never condemned it. Even if it did exist, how could She? Even your liberal bogeymen wouldn't condemn that. It's my capitalist life! Come on man.<br /><br />No, slavery is much, much more. Slavery is about owning people, bodies, souls. I can buy slaves, and I can sell them. Not their labour, them. And I can breed them like cattle and enslave their offspring and when they're done I can hamburger them - for the dogs, because cannibalism is gross whether the Church has condemned it or not.<br /><br />And the Church has absolutely condemned what I described. And even if you deny that, you cannot deny that it condemns everything that it is built upon. I live in a former slave colony, and you cannot begin to understand the lack of Christian worldview, of sound medieval and ancient philosophy, of common sense, required to participate in that. The only way to justify it at all is by jettisoning all of that and adopting the worldview of your liberal bogeymen, with modern ideas like scientific racism and real social classes. You've got to throw out the golden rule, for Heaven's sake. Aquinian, how would you like to be a slave?<br /><br />Only then, after you have denied Christ to His Face, can you own a man, or at least believe you do. I am a man under authority, but that authority is God's alone. I am,<br /><br />DidymusDidymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58587030359670898472019-06-06T00:12:36.560-07:002019-06-06T00:12:36.560-07:00Didymus
You are a nice person (unlike moi). But ...Didymus<br /><br />You are a nice person (unlike moi). But I think Aquinan is nuts.<br /><br />>they use the term "slavery" without qualification, and they approve it as morally unobjectionable.<br /><br />So he has some weird personal dogma or novelty of his own making that it is wrong to qualify the term slavery and it is not important to define it? Since you had to do some major teeth pulling to get him to finally spit out a definition.<br /><br /> When he does define it (& at face value I agree with him. If anything I suggested it first) he says "Slavery is the permanent state of bondage in which <b>the entire work effort of the subject belongs to the master.</b><br /><br />In other words your master owns your labor and service. He doesn't own "you" per say.<br />He can't just do what he wants to you without regard to the moral and natural law.<br /><br />That is theoretical "slavery" vs the "Chattel" version of the Romans and other heathen which is immoral and intrinsically evil.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56062358028963915272019-06-05T23:57:12.659-07:002019-06-05T23:57:12.659-07:00>In other words, you don't care what the bi...>In other words, you don't care what the bishops of the Catholic Church have always taught; if they disagree with your liberal dogmas they're idiots.<br /><br />Says the hypocrite Radtrad who refers me to a "liberal" paper as an authority but throws it under the bus when it contradicts his incoherent narative. <br /><br />Get bent.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5080010332117953482019-06-05T23:55:41.602-07:002019-06-05T23:55:41.602-07:00>Didymus, I'm using "slavery" to ...>Didymus, I'm using "slavery" to mean "slavery" and you and Yak are trying to insist that "slavery" in fact always, or usually, means "chattel slavery."<br /><br />No loser I am insisting the term "slavery" need to be defined and qualified with the proper adjective so we can know what is condemned by the Church and what is not.<br /><br />But you for some mad reason want to be as ambiguous as Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper on crak!<br /><br />You are an idiot. BTW I agreed with your definition of slavery which after much teeth pulling by my counter part you finally provided. My problem with you is I don't think YOU agree with your own definition of slavery.<br /><br />I don't think you have a coherent thought in your head. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3520269053951773492019-06-05T23:55:29.136-07:002019-06-05T23:55:29.136-07:00And we come to the truth: "Anyway it is inte...And we come to the truth: "Anyway it is interesting to see the American Bishops have always been clueless idiots way before even our era."<br /><br />In other words, you don't care what the bishops of the Catholic Church have always taught; if they disagree with your liberal dogmas they're idiots.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71274491060076457332019-06-05T23:47:23.572-07:002019-06-05T23:47:23.572-07:00Aquinan you really need to read your sources. All... Aquinan you really need to read your sources. All you have shown me is a paper on [Bishops] John England and Patrick Lynch personal defense of slavery and their use or misuse of the Pope for a political end.<br /><br />To provide the relevant quotes your own paper "John England supported slavery as did his fellow Charleston writers and thinkers, especially in their generally anti-British, pro-Irish belief. British and Yankee Protestants were so closely aligned with abolitionists that the bishop, and his opponents, could not separate religion from slavery. These points drove him to argue the distinction between international slave trade and American domestic slavery...................In the controversy over pro-slavery and abolition, with the attendant controversy over Catholicism and Protestantism, there was no middle ground. <b>Bishop England could not advocate Catholicism and abolition because the terms of the argument were formed by the Protestant abolitionists. </b>He could not advance his plans to evangelize blacks and Native Americans because Northern Protestant missionaries had already taken the field and American Catholic bishops were opposed to his plans. John England thus found himself defending Irish-Democratic values in the South and that defense obliged him to support the enslavement of African Americans.END QUOTE<br /><br />Also you should read your footnotes in your own article.<br />Quote" Historian Robert Emmett Curran holds the Pope[Gregory XVI] condemned slavery and seemed to condemn the slave trade as well. Cyprian Davis agrees with this position. James Hennessy holds that the Pope condemned the slave trade but not slavery; and John T. Noonan holds that the Pope did not condemn either slavery or the slave trade. For a discussion of these points of view, see Quinn,“Three Cheers”: 71 note 19. Adam L. Tate, “Confronting Abolitionism: Bishop John England, American Catholicism and Slavery,” Journal of the Historical Society 9:3 (September 2009): 373<br /> <br />Aquinan you really don't sound like a bishop or a scholar. You sound like your hero Bishop England. A propagandist. <br /><br />Anyway it is interesting to see the American Bishops have always been clueless idiots way before even our era. Also it kills the Radtrad myth of the golden era of Catholicism.<br />That myth for the good of the faith should die.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11391960965669048512019-06-05T23:40:17.410-07:002019-06-05T23:40:17.410-07:00Yak, you'll say anything won't you?
<&...Yak, you'll say anything won't you?<br /><br /><< You mean the paper you just put up that says "John England and Patrick Lynch relied on their own interpretation, of papal dicta on slavery in their propaganda efforts." >><br /><br />The paper is by a modern liberal. Try and take from it only the data that's reliable, the actual quotes from the bishops and the pope, and resist the irresistible (to you) temptation to adopt as your own the liberal opinions of the author. <br /><br />Others reading here will find this no great challenge. Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88094075828760304032019-06-05T23:16:42.659-07:002019-06-05T23:16:42.659-07:00Didymus, I'm using "slavery" to mean...Didymus, I'm using "slavery" to mean "slavery" and you and Yak are trying to insist that "slavery" in fact always, or usually, means "chattel slavery." But that isn't true, not nearly so, as you can see by perusing the literature. Not only is that not true, but you also insist that "slavery" as I am using it (i.e. correctly) is entirely theoretical and not actual, whereas "chattel slavery" is what everybody actually practiced, but that isn't true either.<br /><br />Read what Bishop England and Gregory XVI wrote above - they use the term "slavery" without qualification, and they approve it as morally unobjectionable. They are talking about the actual slavery then in practice, in the USA. <br /><br />You have a choice - either you say that Roman and American slavery was "chattel slavery" and then accept that this was approved by the Church, or you can say that Roman and American slavery was not "chattel slavery," and maintain that "chattel slavery" was condemned.<br /><br />But what you cannot maintain is that Roman and American slavery was "chattel slavery" and that this was condemned by the Church.<br /><br />What WAS condemned was the slave trade, which involved numerous injustices, beginning with the greatest injustice of all, reducing free men to slavery without a just cause.<br /><br />The abolition of slavery by the victorious Northern aggressors in the civil war was not about love for the slaves, either. You can see that at a glance by noticing that the slaves were put out of their positions by law, could not be employed on wages because the Southern economy could not be restructured instantly to pay for that, and so ended up in utter poverty and misery wandering the countryside. The real motive was to damage the economy of the South. The Catholic approach, as Leo XIII made clear, was to lift the slaves by education and instruction and gradually free them as they became capable of supporting themselves. Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40810541687494962912019-06-05T23:04:57.423-07:002019-06-05T23:04:57.423-07:00part 2
>The problem with the "chattel slav...part 2<br />>The problem with the "chattel slavery" line is precisely that IT is the "theoretical slavery" that you claim "approved" slavery was.<br /><br />Drugs? So "theoretical slavery" allows us to violate the human rights of a slave under natural law and the moral law? It allows us to declare a bondsmen is not a person? Yeh that is the opposite claim of all the documents cited here and all the statements of the Popes. You also contradict yourself.<br /><br /> >The slavery of the Romans and the Americans was not condemned.<br /><br />I think you equivocating here(again). We have already conceded (& I stated it from the beginning) that theoretical slavery is not "contrary to the moral and natural law" by the ruling of the Church. Your objection makes about as much sense as saying "No ecumenical council of the Church condemned the worship of the Canaanite god Molech" so somehow it wasn't idolatry? That is just silly. As Fr, Rutler once said on EWTN quoting an American slave trader's observation of Spanish slavery "they treat their slaves with the same brutality as we do but not with the same contempt". Romans institutionally and legally didn't see slaves as human beings and Americans saw them as 3/5th of a human being. Also the Flood paper I linked above said this.<br /><br />Quote"It was not until 1864, during the Civil War, that the Catholic Bishop of Florida issued an appeal to the Catholics of the Southern Confederate States to <b>ameliorate</b> the existing legal system of <b>chattel slavery</b> and divest it of the features which would make it <b>odious to God and man.</b> But he states that<br />the law of God does not reprove slavery. He proposes that as a means of setting the Confederacy upon a solid basis,<b> a servile code should be drawn up and adopted, defining clearly the <i>rights</i> and duties of slaves.</b>END QUOTE<br /><br />That sounds like a condemnation to me and an explicit acknowledgement the institutional slavery on the South was both legally as well as practically unjust in the Confederacy. Of course Pius VII called for the slave trade to be banned across the board.<br /><br />You are just full of S**t at this point.<br /><br />>People who actually read might find this of interest: https://www.academia.edu/33782613/CHARLESTON_CATHOLICS_AND_SLAVERY_COMPARING_BISHOP_JOHN_ENGLANDS_AND_BISHOP_PATRICK_LYNCHS_DEFENSE_OF_SLAVERY<br /><br />You mean the paper you just put up that says "<b>John England and Patrick Lynch <i>relied on their own interpretation,</i> of papal dicta on slavery in their propaganda efforts."</b><br /><br />You might as well cite Fr Martin on homosexuality.<br /><br />>So there you have Pope Gregory XVI EXPLICITLY stating that the condemnation of the "slave trade" was not a condemnation of slavery in the USA. <br /><br />Based on their "own interpretation" of the Pope's words according to your own source which as rooked you again. Pathetic!<br /><br />Stop making a fool of yourself.<br /><br />>OK Yak, which of us sounds like a Catholic bishop, not to mention a Roman Pontiff, and which a confused liberal? I'll leave that to others to work out.<br /><br />Not you since you cannot read even your own paper.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67727708382287412542019-06-05T23:03:58.548-07:002019-06-05T23:03:58.548-07:00I think I broke you Aquinan. I don't feel b...I think I broke you Aquinan. I don't feel bad about it.<br /><br />>So you CAN'T cite an authority, you can only cite laymen summarising the position of others. But I knew that already.<br /><br />Neither can you by your own double standard. You are your OWN AUTHORITY for your dogmatic and basically weird belief the term "chattel slavery" exclusively refers to the buying and selling of slaves and NEVER as a technical metaphysical description for an immoral version of bonded servitude & that using this term somehow "perverts" Church teaching? Which is basically insane at this point.<br /><br />>As for the elephant in the room, the one you simply will not address, the Church didn't condemn Roman slavery, and she didn't condemn American slavery. FACT. <br /><br />Nope that is an opinion. That is about as intelligent an objection as listening to a Protestant heretic complain the term "Bishop of Rome" isn't in Holy Writ & makes no sense. Clearly Roman slavery was intrinsically immoral if you can kill your slaves at will as well as your family members. That is not hard to figure out. <br /><br />>Not only did Pius VII (or Gregory XVI, or Pius IX, or Leo XIII) not correct the bishops, the Jesuits and other religious had their own slaves. So did some of the bishops themselves in the USA.<br /><br />Clearly the Popes did correct the bishops as they all called on Slavery to be abolished across the board & for Catholics to free their slaves. It's right in the paper I linked to so look it up. Also there is the use of the term "Chattel Slavery" for immoral versions of slavery which it appears has been used since the 17th century and right into the 20th. <br />Your personal dogma the term "chattel slavery" perverts doctrine is your own queer novelty.<br /><br />> And no, don't repeat the lie that "Pius VII told the bishops to cut it out" <br /><br /><b>Yet you lied clearly about Feser ever claiming Slavery was against natural law"?</b><br />I trust my memory and you have already shown you can' t be trusted from your own citations.<br /><br />> Do you think nobody will read anything here except what you write?<br /><br />I don't know who here believes Feser has ever taught Slavery across the board without qualification is against natural law? He said rather explicitly even Masters cannot make their slaves act against their natural ends.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42120203455627700412019-06-05T22:27:03.086-07:002019-06-05T22:27:03.086-07:00Aquinian, my point is that you're using a comm...Aquinian, my point is that you're using a common word in an uncommon way. Your definition of slavery is unusual, to say the least, and almost meaningless. Of course the Church hasn't condemned that. I don't even think that's illegal in most places. Hell, that sounds like living in socialist Canada until tax freedom day. That's why I asked you to define your terms.Didymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35106465164054626332019-06-05T20:14:33.178-07:002019-06-05T20:14:33.178-07:00Here's an excerpt from the paper linked above:...Here's an excerpt from the paper linked above:<br /><br /><< One fervent public letter was not enough to express the full range of [Bishop] England’s indignation. On 10 October 1840 he expounded on the Catholic Church and slavery. He defended the common Catholic teaching which held that slavery was ‘not incompatible with natural law.”19 He pointed out that the 1839 Provincial Council of the U.S. bishops had virtually ignored the slavery issue.20 Why should Forsyth invoke British abolitionists, and by extension American abolitionists, in the argument? He quoted the pontiff: “Though the Southern States of your Union have had domestic slavery as an heir-loom, whether they would or not, they are not engaged in the Negro traffic that is the Slave trade”. >><br /><br />So there you have Pope Gregory XVI EXPLICITLY stating that the condemnation of the "slave trade" was not a condemnation of slavery in the USA. <br /><br />OK Yak, which of us sounds like a Catholic bishop, not to mention a Roman Pontiff, and which a confused liberal? I'll leave that to others to work out.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.com