Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Lady of Guadalupe story is pretty remarkable actually.. and I'm not even Catholic. It certainly led to good things at least.
The only problem is that they were indulging in goddess worship there long before the Spanish imposed Catholic Christianity. What we see in the central American invasions is that the indigenous people there hid there paganism in Christian symbolism (Ogun became James, the goddess became Mary, and so on)...some Santeria cults look utterly Roman Catholic (though they are really not), they attend allegedly Christian churches, do the Rosary, celebrate Christian holidays (with hidden occult meaning) and much more. One Latino Catholic family I know here in Dorchester MA still keep bowls of water for the souls their mambazo controls. The Lady of Guadalupe is NOT Mary though she disguises herself as such...she is a principality (a fertility spirit assigned to that area).
I don't think you should blame the Lady of Guadalupe on that. But I do agree that all of the Santeria stuff is bad news. Very bad news. I've encountered it myself.. I live in South Texas where I suspect some of it lingers.
It goes for all HUMANITY. It is true there are tares among the wheat, there were bad popes, bishops and priests (those who are entrusted to be good shepherds).Jesus said "You shall know them by their fruits" and when we read Matthew 25 we can see clearly there is difference between the 5 unwise virgins and the 5 wise virgins (see the judgment after verse 31)...some (about half) who are in the church, doing all the right church things, like tares among the wheat, are not really Christians (Romans 8:9) though they wear the name tag. The truth is He NEVER knew them (and this goes for Priests, ministers, Bishops, laymen, whatever...).
Act like what??? To be honest, it was the British (protestants) who subjugated and enslaved the natives when they conquered the East Coast. In the West, wherever the Spanish and Portuguese (Catholic) went, they tried to evangelize and convert the natives, show them European ways, not enslave them. And to the extent that they were mistreated, it was the secular soldiers that did so. The Friars tried to protect the natives from the conquistadors.If they are followers of Jesus and had/have HIS Spirit within they DO NOT act like this (save some of the masses convinced they were to obey these alleged Christian leaders who were actually the children of Belial...and I do not care if they took a bath or ate some bread and drank some wine)
The same is true of today's leaders who are billed as "Christians"...you shall know them by their fruits...compare their attitudes and actions with Matthew 25....are they sheep or goats disguised as sheep?
Many are called but few are chosen!!!!
They didn't 'impose' Catholicism on anyone. Also, voodoo, like what you're talking about, has nothing to do with Catholicism, though it looks a bit like it. Regarding your Latino Catholic family's practice, it's not Catholic, so why do you conflate the two. They can be Catholic and engage in totally non-Catholic practices. Look at Nancy Pelosi.The only problem is that they were indulging in goddess worship there long before the Spanish imposed Catholic Christianity. What we see in the central American invasions is that the indigenous people there hid there paganism in Christian symbolism (Ogun became James, the goddess became Mary, and so on)...some Santeria cults look utterly Roman Catholic (though they are really not), they attend allegedly Christian churches, do the Rosary, celebrate Christian holidays (with hidden occult meaning) and much more. One Latino Catholic family I know here in Dorchester MA still keep bowls of water for the souls their mambazo controls. The Lady of Guadalupe is NOT Mary though she disguises herself as such...she is a principality (a fertility spirit assigned to that area).
Santaria is not Catholicism.I don't think you should blame the Lady of Guadalupe on that. But I do agree that all of the Santeria stuff is bad news. Very bad news. I've encountered it myself.. I live in South Texas where I suspect some of it lingers.
They didn't change her into Mary. Their worship involved bloody genocide to appease their gods, completely different from the religion 10 million people were converted to.I do not blame the Lady/goddess they have always worshipped there, I blame those who try to change her into Mary. It is not even that I deny ALL alleged apparitions of Mary (God can and will do what ever He wills to bring in as many as He can), but this one, like "Our Lady of Bayside", is not Mary.
Again, you're not speaking of Catholicism, you're speaking of a cult that calls itself Catholic.The goddess’s name is Tonantzin Coatlaxopeuh (now Mary), and I was in error, Ogun is St. Peter not James. James is the god Ogou Feray. Their god Chango is now St. Barbara, to whom they pray for protection from lightning storms...Ellegua is St. Anthony...Osain is Saint Joseph the earthly husband of Mary...and so when they pray to Saint Jude for healing (instead of going to Christ) or any other such pagan practice (praying to saints or spirits) they are not really in contact with the real St. Jude but a fallen spirit (in some cases a familiar in others a principality or power)...thanks be to God for my brothers and sisters of the RC church who do not indulge in such things.
You have to separate the way people practice their faith, vs the faith Catholicism teaches. Just like you have to separate the politics within the Catholic Church from the faith Catholicism teaches. I see weird things my fellow Catholics do every day, but that's not necessarily what the faith teaches them they need to do. Look at Nancy Pelosi, she claims to be Catholic, but she's pro-abortion, and against much of what the Catholic Church teaches. I try to tell her "If you aren't going to embrace the faith, why claim to be Catholic?"I know.. but I partly agree with the other poster that it's been badly mixed up.
I took a mission trip up to New York in 2016 and saw things similar to this in action as others had alerted me to it...specifically with what's known as Santeria. Sad to see it occur.I do agree that all of the Santeria stuff is bad news. Very bad news. I've encountered it myself.. I live in South Texas where I suspect some of it lingers.
There were actually several moments where Catholics did the same as the Protestants. We cannot do falsehood with that one claiming it was just Protestants who did so since other Catholics called this out. Just as there were Protestant ministers who resisted other Protestants doing slavery. There were Bishops/priests resisting fellow Priests who advocated for slavery and pushed for thing. It was very complex - and the same goes for the BOARDING schools which the Church has apologized for...To be honest, it was the British (protestants) who subjugated and enslaved the natives when they conquered the East Coast. In the West, wherever the Spanish and Portuguese (Catholic) went, they tried to evangelize and convert the natives, .
It goes for all HUMANITY. It is true there are tares among the wheat, there were bad popes, bishops and priests (those who are entrusted to be good shepherds).Act like what??? To be honest, it was the British (protestants) who subjugated and enslaved the natives when they conquered the East Coast. In the West, wherever the Spanish and Portuguese (Catholic) went, they tried to evangelize and convert the natives, show them European ways, not enslave them. And to the extent that they were mistreated, it was the secular soldiers that did so. The Friars tried to protect the natives from the conquistadors.
I have no doubt that Catholics have done horrible things. It's human nature. I was speaking of the Catholic Church and those who stand for it.There were actually several moments where Catholics did the same as the Protestants. We cannot do falsehood with that one claiming it was just Protestants who did so since other Catholics called this out. Just as there were Protestant ministers who resisted other Protestants doing slavery. There were Bishops/priests resisting fellow Priests who advocated for slavery and pushed for thing. It was very complex - and the same goes for the BOARDING schools which the Church has apologized for...
Apologized for what? That some Catholics have done horrible things? Sure. But not that the Church has done any of this by its teachings.
- Boarding schools: A Black Hole in Native History- National Catholic Reporter
- The Role of the Churches | Facing History and Ourselves
Today, the Catholic Church has apologized – Pope Benedict XVI did so in 2009 and Pope Francis did in 2015. So we cannot act as if it was all good since it was not.
I don't believe there was any such claim. Had there been, there would be no need for evangelization.And the claim that they had no souls and needed to be evangelized is NOT what CHRIST advocated.
As said best elsewhere:
At the same time that Spain instituted the policies of encomienda and repartimiento, the Spanish King Ferdinand promulgated the Laws of Burgos which spelled out how Indians are to be treated. Those were the first laws which spelled out measures regarding the freedom of the Indians, the regulation of their work and their conversion to Christianity. In general, the new Spanish land owners in the Americas ignored the Laws.
In 1513, King Ferdinand told the Native Americans that God had declared that the Pope rules all people, regardless of their law, sect, or belief. This included Christians, Moors, Jews, Gentiles, or any other sect. He asked that the Native Americans come forward of their own free will to convert to Catholicism or
Again, a secular ruler trying to speak for the Church.Furthermore, the Natives who resisted were to be held guilty of all resulting deaths and injuries.
“with the help of God we shall use force against you, declaring war upon you from all sides and with all possible means, and we shall bind you to the yoke of the Church and Their Highnesses; we shall enslave your persons, wives, and sons, sell you or dispose of you as the King sees fit; we shall seize your possessions and harm you as much as we can as disobedient and resisting vassals.”
Well, we know that the Franciscans made every attempt to learn the language of the people, so this is on the Conquistadors. The Franciscans evangelized gently, for their time and place.Upon contacting an Indian village, the Spanish conquistadores or the priests who accompanied them would read a document known as the ‘Requirement,’ which recited the history of the world from the Christian viewpoint. They would then demand that the natives accept the Christian myth as true and submit themselves to the Spanish Crown and the Catholic Church. It did not make any difference that the natives might not understand Spanish or Latin, or that they might have their own history of the world. Once the word of the Spanish god was revealed, a just war could be waged on those who rejected it.
Yeah, I think murdering war captives and your own would qualify as under the control of Satan...The instructions given to the first 12 Spanish missionaries to New Spain (what is today Mexico and the American Southwest) in 1523 told them that the Indians were under the control of Satan, captive to the vanity of idols, and had to be redeemed for Christianity. According to the instructions, the souls of New Spain were being unlawfully reaped by the devil and the flesh. Christ does not enjoy the souls that he bought with his blood.
In 1525, the Dominican official Tomas Ortiz reported that Indians ate human flesh, engaged in sodomy, went naked, and had no respect for love, virginity, or the truth. He reported:
“It may therefore affirm that God has never created a race more full of vice and composed without the least mixture of kindness or culture.”
And the fact remains that Catholics did things, even some priests, but not sanctioned by the Church.Of course there were Catholics that helped to fight for freedom when others used the religious to cause others to
No avoiding that. Facts are facts.
What happened to "Baptism now saves you"? I agree about 'Saying some stock prayer or eating bread and drinking some wine', but if you say a prayer with meaning, and recognize Jesus in the bread and the cup, that's a different matter. If you're baptized, you are born of his spirit.That is an entirely different matter and I agree with you for the most part. In my opinion none of these colonialists and slavers were children of God (certainly not followers of Jesus) and most (except the utterly convinced through indoctrination or fear) will be judged. I do not care if one is Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Baptist, or whatever....what denominational theology one adheres to makes no difference. A bath (as a baby or otherwise) makes NO difference. Saying some stock prayer or eating bread and drinking some wine makes no difference. The question is ARE YOU BORN of HIS SPIRIT? Do you have "the Spirit of Christ" in you....do you follow God or your traditions? All slavers will be judged, some more harshly. I also agree that, in most cases, the friars (like the Quakers and Jews and even some protestant ministers) did in fact try to protect the people.
What happened to "Baptism now saves you"? I agree about 'Saying some stock prayer or eating bread and drinking some wine', but if you say a prayer with meaning, and recognize Jesus in the bread and the cup, that's a different matter. If you're baptized, you are born of his spirit.
We say that baptism removes Original Sin and any mortal sin you may have committed. Original sin is what we're all born with. You're right that parents have the responsibility to develop the child's faith, and if they don't, it's on them! But parents may not be well catechised themselves, so the Church gives K-12 education in the faith on top of that, culminating in Confirmation. But education is a life-long endeavor. But the Baptism alone is an indelible mark, and does, indeed, make the child a child of God. Hitler rejected his baptism, as do those who fall away with knowledge. If they're ignorant, we trust God in his mercy to help them.It is about the heart not the outward signs or verbal profession alone. When an infant is Baptized the Parents take on the responsibility of developing the child's foundation of faith...if they faith it is not the child's fault but the Baptism alone does not make the child of these people a child of God. For by grace we are saved...through faith...! Now do not misunderstand God always has the waters of immersion play a significant role in sanctification (even as far back as the Torah) and when our Lord appeared (incarnate) He re-explained the truer meaning and significance of all things of the "Law"....(the deepest implications of adultery, the Sabbath, and so on). So I am not blanketly disagreeing with you but our theologies may differ in fine details. For example, Adoph Hitler was baptized in the German Catholic church but in time he was shown to be a tare (Jesus NEVER knew Him, that worker of iniquity), he was not "saved" nor was he a child of God (Romans 8:9). We see this real faith with its fruit as evidence in Paul (Ephesians 2:10) and in James (James 2:18) and elsewhere.
Simon was an adult, and didn't get it.another great example is that of Simon Magi who we are told "believed and was baptized" but in the comment that follow out of the mouth of Peter we discern that though Simon believed because he had seen the works of the Spirit his heart was wrong before God (he would have bought the power if available and wanted it for his glorification). If the heart is wrong the ritual is ineffectual.
Their baptism, in fact everyone's, requires more than just being baptized, although baptism is the gateway. If they fall away, that's on them. That's why we have a central authority to rely on.Now also I mention the Protestant and Catholic leaders who use their authority for filthy lucre (which Peter warns against) or go on to be revealed as adulterers, practicing Sodomites, or pedophiles. They all professed to believe and were baptized but none of them are the "children of God" (you shall know them by their fruits).
I'm not against you, either, brother. I just want people to understand the role of the Catholic Church throughout history, for the Catholic Church is nearly omnipresent in History since AD33.Now please. I am not God and final judgment is His perogative entirely and if He wills He can wash away any sin of any person (aside actual blaspheme of the Holy Spirit) through the work of His Son on the cross and by His resurrection from the dead. But if His revealed will is true then He discerns the heart and all these people (man or women, straight or gay, Catholic or Protestant, sinner or saint) will all be seen as either IN CHRIST or not based on whether or not CHRIST was in them.
If there is any other way a man might be saved then He being judge will most assuredly get those souls in but that is not my business and I must follow faithfully the ordinance of God that has been given to me (and that is in the New Covenant).
May the grace of God be on us all...be at peace, I am for you not against you (we do not have to agree on every matter my brother but I am happy to continue to discuss)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?