Posted on 03/13/2013 11:16:09 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
First, what we are talking about is the papal bull Romanus Pontifex issued in 1455.
The Romanus Pontifex was a specific papal bull. It pertained to the ongoing wars (counteroffensives) against pagan and Muslim kingdoms. At the time, Muslim armies were still marching across Europe and the church was on a 400 year streak of bringing relative peace to Eastern and Northern Europe via the conversion of pagans, such as the Vikings. Monarchy was also the accepted form of government at the time, meaning that any given peoples were not complete until they were ruled by one.
There is no more reason to resend this bull than there is for Britain to denounce the Magna Carta for its failure to protect the individual rights of homosexual peasants. The church also coronated kings, should they rescind all of those coronations, because we no longer accept monarchy as a valid form of government?
This historical tail chasing is simply a passive aggressive attack. The current positions of the Catholic Church are well known. If someone has a beef with them, that would at least be pertinent.
The world was a very different place in 1455 and its not helpful to pretend that it wasn't. The Romanus Pontifex was not drafted in a vacuum, and it shouldn't be readdressed in a vacuum without context. Reopening all of that "context" would likely do far more harm, than any good that could be achieved.
sheapdog:
I think perhaps you are missing the sarcasm in my post. The United states and its primary founders being Protestants are in many cases the first signs of Protestantism moving into unitariansm are deism, as were many of the founding founders, and the doctrine of manifest destiny, implicitly rooted in Calvinism, was used to justify the westward expansion of the United States. Yes, French and Spainish were here before the English got here and yes they founded colonies but I wonder where Alex’s criticism is of the principle of Manifest Destiny used by the U.S. policy makers to justify the expansion of the U.S. to the Pacific.
So in the context of what I wrote above and Alex’s post, one wonders what was the point of the Indian group calling for now Pope Francis to revoke the Papal statements from the 15th century which implicitly to me do not seem that differerent from the American principle of Manifest Destiny which is to me at least, rooted in Puritan Protestant christianity/Calvinism. Why did the Indians choose to ask the Pope of Rome to do this and not the leaders of Reformed Protestantism in say Geneva or somewhere in backwoods United States at the first whatever church in bubbaville MS, AL, etc.
it’s not a church doctrine, it’s a diplomatic decree, probably to stop countries from warring over who gets what: saying the one who got there first has first dibs.
read the book “1491” or other new books on the Americas before all the european diseases wiped out a lot of the population.
Both the Aztecs and the Incas were fairly new empires, who took over the land from other tribes who had lived there for centuries.
“...read the book “1491”...”
Thanks. I love history and will check it out. There are a number of books that I would recommend back - “Conquest” is a good one about Cortez and the Aztecs. I recently read one about the Incan Conquest that was a translation written by one of the conquistidores later in his life. It gave tremendous insight into the Spaniards and Incas very close to the actual events. It didn’t have all the political correctness you find in modern works.
So, in other words there is no reason to not rescind this other than you find it annoying.
I didn't find those "other words" anywhere in my post. Perhaps you should have spent more time reading and absorbing what I wrote.
The bull shouldn't be rescinded because its no longer relevant, none of the kingdoms it was issued to exist. As the bull referred in the main to Islamic lands (formerly Christian lands), rescinding it would encourage the Muslims in jihad across large swaths of Europe.
What could possibly be gained by rescinding it? Do you really think that if not for the bull the America's would now be full of stone-age cultures riding unicorns and farting rainbows?
Please explain the damage done if rescinded. Yet to hear that part from you.
I am impressed that you can fart a rainbow, though.
From my previous post, "As the bull referred in the main to Islamic lands (formerly Christian lands), rescinding it would encourage the Muslims in jihad across large swaths of Europe."
In short, the current governments, who now govern the territories that then held by the Christian kingdoms of the time, would give out a collective yawn, as the papal bull hasn't been relevant for over 500 years. However, the Islamists would declare that the Catholic Church was declaring that all lands in Spain, Portugal, and in the East up to Vienna were officially Islamic lands.
You have yet to state what possible good could come of trying to reconstruct alternative histories. Should the British crown send us an apology for tersely responding to our Declaration of Independence? Would anyone give a crap? This type of historical naval gazing is worse than pointless, its likely to get lots of people dead by reopening settled issues.
What could possibly be gained by rescinding it? Do you really think that if not for the bull the America's would now be full of stone-age cultures riding unicorns and farting rainbows?
As I am not a member of the native American nations, your comment makes no sense, as a retort to mine. As a matter of fact, we are now into the third iteration of posts and you have yet to explain yourself, counter a single point I've made, or give any indication that you have even read the papal bull in question. Do you have anything of substance to offer at all, or are you just trolling FR?
I’ll try again since you seem unable to grasp my question.
What is the harm in rescinding it? What would be the negatives?
Since there is no harm whatsoever in rescinding it, it would seem the only reason not to is to make a stand to gain absolutely nothing. Is it a spite thing or a I don’t feel like it situation?
You are the definition of the word obstinate. To be clear, you are being willfully ignorant. I specifically answered you question three times. You refuse to provide anything resembling an arugment. Now go away, I'm done with you.
Simple Man is done with me. How can I go on?
I don’t know how you’ve gotten this far with what little you’ve got.
Now seriously, go away.
More info on Justice Ginsburg’s ruling, please!
If she ruled against the tribe based on the Doctrine of Discovery then this IS a very important issue to be understood and addressed. Thank you so much!
We have a winner!
However bad Spanish and Portuguese rule was in Central and South America, the previous rulers were far worse.
I am not a Roman Catholic, but I'll take Roman Catholic error any day over god-kings who practice human sacrifice and cut the beating hearts out of still-living bodies to sacrifice people to their demonic false gods on a blood-stained altar.
Before North American natives start talking about how much better they were than the Aztecs, we need to understand North American tribal populations as being somewhat comparable to the warlike barbarian nomads of Mongolia and Central Asia, compared to the settled civilizations of China and India. The main reason they weren't as bad as the Aztecs is that they were nomads and weren't organized enough to systematically implement their evil practices while subjugating large populations.
Take a look at the captivity narratives of Europeans from the 1600s until the late 1800s who fell into the hands of “Indians.” With some rare exceptions, they paint a picture of barbarism and sexual lasciviousness that knew no bounds. There are reasons why it was said that white women would be better off dead if they fell into the hands of Indians.
Before people discount those narratives as exaggerated fiction written to sell books (which in some cases was a motive) take a look at the experiences of the Lewis and Clark Expedition in the Mandan Villages with wild immorality with native women. The European men were quite willing to participate in those practices, and their venereal diseases were quite likely acquired as a result.
Of course that doesn't apply to every Native American tribe, or every individual in the tribes. Also, as contact between Native Americans and Europeans increased, quite a few improvements happened in tribal behavior. Observing stable family life and land cultivation practices while attending a mission school, or seeing it at a distance while trading with white men, can have considerable effects on a culture. There are very good secular reasons to adopt Christian views of family life and work ethics -- reasons our modern culture seems to be destroying as it races to return to pre-Christian barbarism.
The myth of the “noble savage” is just that — a myth.
Christianity, even in its Roman Catholic form, proceeds from the concept of the imago dei (image of God) being present in people. That means we should treat enemies and captives with a certain level of respect due to their essential humanity.
While Christians obviously do really bad things from time to time, that Judeo-Christian concept is utterly lacking in most non-Christian civilizations. Take a look at the way the Japanese soldiers treated their captives for a modern example.
Christianity has consequences. Rejecting Christianity has consequences as well.
The Scientist and The Shaman. What a perfect "heel" tag team!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.