How/Why did the Catholic Church move from burning heretics to pachamama and social justice?

[Inkfingers]

I think that the question is fairly self-evident...

Does anyone have any answers to this (please, no out-right anti-Catholicism and the like, as I'm looking to see how the change occurred and not just to unleash a load of "POPERY!!!!!!" type comments)?

 

[pdudgeon]

I think that the question is fairly self-evident...

Does anyone have any answers to this (please, no out-right anti-Catholicism and the like, as I'm looking to see how the change occurred and not just to unleash a load of "POPERY!!!!!!" type comments)?

What you are talking about are two extreme and opposite reactions by popes to the mandate to go and evangelize the whole world.

On the one hand, we have a pope who recognizes that command from God, and calls to everyone to come and join the Church just as they are, with no guidance and no exclusions.

On the other hand, you have a pope who, abhorring the sin found within the Church, follows the example of Jesus when He cleared the moneychangers out of the Temple, and purified it.

 

[Inkfingers]

What you are talking about are two extreme and opposite reactions by popes to the mandate to go and evangelize the whole world.

On the one hand, we have a pope who recognizes that command from God, and calls to everyone to come and join the Church just as they are, with no guidance and no exclusions.

On the other hand, you have a pope who, abhorring the sin found within the Church, follows the example of Jesus when He cleared the moneychangers out of the Temple, and purified it.

But why the change though from the Witch Hunter with a torch to Cuddly Social Justice?

Something significant has changed in the character of the Church (and in my own opinion it is not for the better).

 

[BobRyan]

I think that the question is fairly self-evident...

Does anyone have any answers to this (please, no out-right anti-Catholicism and the like, as I'm looking to see how the change occurred and not just to unleash a load of "POPERY!!!!!!" type comments)?

Good question.

Step 1. Can we allow ourselves to discuss "historic fact" even to this day? To talk about what "exists" as historic fact? If not then the entire thread is something we choose not to discuss... still.

Step 2. What were the arguments, rationale, logic, reason for all that intolerance of dissenting views in the dark ages? Was it the Bible? was it tradition? was it merely abuse of power? superstition? What was it? just historically speaking, facts, talking just about "what existed".

Step 3. Is there in history some sort of "declaration" that all that was wrong... naming names... identifying infallible documents that we now say were dead wrong to say what they said?

===================================

When the "Holy Roman Empire" existed - dominated by the Papacy - physical persecution of dissent was unstoppable. But then through a lot of sacrifice the Protestant Reformation removed outright direct control of civil governments from the direct control of the Papacy.

Still there exists today various forms of persecution of non-Catholic groups in almost all-Catholic countries in S. America and elsewhere.

So then how does the Catholic church hold influence in countries where she does not have direct control - is the real question here.

Notice that immigration problems are almost never "from Protestant nations to Catholic ones". The Catholic church is always trying to get protestant nations to let Catholics from Catholic nations migrate in even outside the legal immigration mechanism. And hmmm... "why is that"??? Why wold the Catholic church want "more Catholics" to live in Protestant nations?

Looks like a very liberal policy on the surface doesn't it?

Exactly how long ago "Was it" That the Catholic Church stood up and said that "the extermination of heretics" clause in Lateran IV's canon law "was not only not infallible.... but was a sin... was dead wrong"?? I am guessing from your thread that you suppose such a thing has already happened.

In the world which we all "imagine to ourselves" to live in -- ALL GROUPS are saying "The dark ages had a lot of big mistakes in it -- lets move past that and agree to never make such horrendous mistakes again in the name of religion".. but are they "all" willing to say that? in the 1990's?, 2000's?, 2010's? If not - who is still out there claiming that calls to "exterminate" the other guys in the dark ages - is still to be considered "infallibly correct"??

Some folks will say "well lets forget about the century upon century of dark ages persecution in the Holy Roman Empire and just talk about persecution of Protestants in England...followed by persecution of Catholics in England then ... for however many decades that went on". Ok ...let's do. Is there anything from the Anglican church today claiming that persecution of Catholics was ever "infallibly correct" to do? Is there any "push back" from the Anglican church today when it comes to naming historic incidents where England persecuted Christians? Do they complain about people discussing that at all?

 

[Inkfingers]

When the "Holy Roman Empire" existed - dominated by the Papacy - physical persecution of dissent was unstoppable. But then through a lot of sacrifice the Protestant Reformation removed outright direct control of civil governments from the direct control of the Papacy.

....into the hands of the usurous bankers whom the Calvinists and their ilk supported and enabled to create a globalist capitalist banking empire we see today.

I explicitly was asking about changes in the Roman Catholic Church AND stated "no anti-Catholicism".

 

[BobRyan]

....into the hands of the usurous bankers whom the Calvinists and their ilk supported and enabled to create a globalist capitalist banking empire we see today.

I explicitly was asking about changes in the Roman Catholic Church AND stated "no anti-Catholicism".

And what you got was a discussion about actual history. I assume you are not interested in history from your post above... so then.. .if historic fact should be avoided... then what do you propose as the basis for discussion? This should be interesting.. in fact more interesting than I at first supposed.

Or is there some sliver of historic fact that you would consider valid? If so ... please name it and we can discuss that.

Maybe "the church of England" instead?

Some folks will say "well lets forget about the century upon century of dark ages persecution in the Holy Roman Empire and just talk about persecution of Protestants in England...followed by persecution of Catholics in England then ... for however many decades that went on". Ok ...let's do. Is there anything from the Anglican church today claiming that persecution of Catholics was ever "infallibly correct" to do? Is there any "push back" from the Anglican church today when it comes to naming historic incidents where England persecuted Christians? Do they complain about people discussing that at all?

And of course I obviously am not a member of the Anglican church - but I am willing to talk about "What exists" as historic fact.

your response post above "appears" to indicate that you suppose the Catholic church would object to discussion of historic fact when it comes to the Catholic Church -- do you also think that the Anglican church would also complain if anyone wanted to mention historic fact regarding the church of England?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think that the question is fairly self-evident...

Does anyone have any answers to this (please, no out-right anti-Catholicism and the like, as I'm looking to see how the change occurred and not just to unleash a load of "POPERY!!!!!!" type comments)?

I think it's fair to note, that when their political power was taken away, the flamethrower was no longer available as a tool to use.

Based on how the protestant governments treated non-christians in their colonialism until they lost their political power - it's more of a human problem than anything else.

 

[Inkfingers]

And what you got was a discussion about actual history. I assume you are not interested in history from your post above... so then.. .if historic fact should be avoided... then what do you propose as the basis for discussion? This should be interesting.. in fact more interesting than I at first supposed.

Or is there some sliver of historic fact that you would consider valid? If so ... please name it and we can discuss that.

Maybe "the church of England" instead?

And of course I obviously am not a member of the Anglican church - but I am willing to talk about "What exists" as historic fact.

I was asking about the internal history in the Roman Catholic Church, NOT giving opportunity for a Protestant diatribe about how they were all badwrongcorrupteeeeevil.

What changed INSIDE the Catholic Church that took away the Inquisitor and brought in the SJW?

 

[Inkfingers]

I think it's fair to note, that when their political power was taken away, the flamethrower was no longer available as a tool to use.

Based on how the protestant governments treated non-christians in their colonialism until they lost their political power - it's more of a human problem than anything else.

Yes, it could be a loss of power that leads to a change in activity, but I would expect the desire to remain even if the torch had to be put away because secular power get snippy about it.

 

[BobRyan]

I think it's fair to note, that when their political power was taken away, the flamethrower was no longer available as a tool to use.

Based on how the protestant governments treated non-christians in their colonialism until they lost their political power - it's more of a human problem than anything else.

But the question remains - no matter who is doing it - what were the reasons and what reason do they have today for changing on that point?

That is the specific point made in the OP - as it singles out the Catholic Church for a review of that topic.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, it could be a loss of power that leads to a change in activity, but I would expect the desire to remain even if the torch had to be put away because secular power get snippy about it.

Loss of dominant power requires a change in strategy if your goal is the same

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, it could be a loss of power that leads to a change in activity, but I would expect the desire to remain even if the torch had to be put away because secular power get snippy about it.

People act the way they perceive their gods to be, this has always been true throughout history.

In a world where people don't believe in gods, keeping up appearances of being "good people" is most important. So they won't kill you per se, but will emphasize you out of every aspect of life as per "being civilized"

 

[BobRyan]

I was asking about the internal history in the Roman Catholic Church, NOT giving opportunity for a Protestant diatribe about how they were all badwrongcorrupteeeeevil.

What changed INSIDE the Catholic Church that took away the Inquisitor and brought in the SJW?

Spain - SJW battles
WATCH: Anti-lockdown riots continue in Madrid, as police response grows increasingly violent

Italy - SJW battles
Two-Thirds of Italians Fear Riots, Social Unrest Over Coronavirus

Italy Risks Losing Grip in South With Fear of Looting, Riots

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But the question remains - no matter who is doing it - what were the reasons and what reason do they have today for changing on that point?

That is the specific point made in the OP - as it singles out the Catholic Church for a review of that topic.

The burning bit goes all the way back to the Orthodox days, heretics would be burnt when pronounced with an anathema. It was part of the custom.

As far as the reason why, I can imagine a few scripture passages as a reason, but it still seems pretty bizarre to me. I mean, if someone is guilty of a sin of imagination, why make yourself guilty of murder? Just don't get it.

 

[BobRyan]

The burning bit goes all the way back to the Orthodox days, heretics would be burnt when pronounced with an anathema. It was part of the custom.

As far as the reason why, I can imagine a few scripture passages as a reason, but it still seems pretty bizarre to me. I mean, if someone is guilty of a sin of imagination, why make yourself guilty of murder? Just don't get it.

Orthodox what?

The split between the RCC and the Orthodox was around 1000 A.D.

Persecution of Christians was going on before that... and after that in Europe.

Lateran IV in its "extermination of heretics" clause does not specify "burning", I don't see any reason to limit persecution of Christians just to burning.

 

[Victor in Christ]

But why the change though from the Witch Hunter with a torch to Cuddly Social Justice?

Something significant has changed in the character of the Church (and in my own opinion it is not for the better).

Its not only the RCC, many churches/denominations/faith groups are based on outward works, they'll transform themselves according to social change for an outward show of righteousness which Satan and the worldling loves to see. Religious marketers like the Pharisees and scribes in Christ's time. Christians must have a righteousness in the heart which exceeds outward righteousness.

Matthew 5:20

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Orthodox what?

The split between the RCC and the Orthodox was around 1000 A.D.

Persecution of Christians was going on before that... and after that in Europe.

Lateran IV in its "extermination of heretics" clause does not specify "burning", I don't see any reason to limit persecution of Christians just to burning.

Since no one who was into the smell of burning humans alive is here to testify, It would all be guess work anyway.

However, it might make a good cross reference with Molech worship and the fleshing out of the Histories of Israel in church history.

 

[Albion]

But why the change though from the Witch Hunter with a torch to Cuddly Social Justice?

It isn't as though there was a "switch" from one to another decided upon at some time in the past. What you are asking about took centuries to develop.

But here are some "reasons"-- the Social Justice emphasis mainly, but not entirely, is associated with the current Pope who was a career political extremist in his home Argentina before being elevated to the Papacy. His social views are about the same as they were before he became Pope.

And, if we concentrate on the bigger picture, the development over time that I referred to, the answer is mainly to be found in the loss of political power that the Papacy experienced during the 18th and (mainly) 19th centuries. Being unable to stop the forces of Rationalism, Popular Democracy, Nationalism, Darwinism, and Socialism, the Papacy responded in two ways in reaction to its loss of status and influence.

For one, she re-asserted her power in newer ways by "invalidating" Anglican orders (300 years after the Reformation), by hosting a new "ecumenical" council which armtwisted the attending bishops into declaring the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and by announcing a new dogma, the Assumption of Mary (which is based strictly upon legend).

As concerns Social Justice, the gradual move in that direction begins later, after the Church had pretty much lost the battle to oppose this godless movement it had wanted, earlier on, to prevent. The Church chose the alternate route of "Christening" the general idea of Socialism, so as to be able to compete on the same playing field with the Socialist political forces.

 

[paul1149]

I think it's fair to note, that when their political power was taken away, the flamethrower was no longer available as a tool to use.

Based on how the protestant governments treated non-christians in their colonialism until they lost their political power - it's more of a human problem than anything else.

I think this is the key. The RCC was about power, and wielded it ruthlessly against those who would not comply. But eventually that ability was taken from them (they lost the last Vatican States militarily in the 19th Century) and had to fall back on persuasion. The goal among many there still seems to be power and position, and the most convenient way to achieve it in our day is to comply with the workings of the spirit of the age, seen in the one-world religion and government that is coalescing.

 

[Inkfingers]

It isn't as though there was a "switch" from one to another decided upon at some time in the past. What you are asking about took centuries to develop.

But here are some "reasons"-- the Social Justice emphasis mainly, but not entirely, is associated with the current Pope who was a career political extremist in his home Argentina before being elevated to the Papacy. His social views are about the same as they were before he became Pope.

And, if we concentrate on the bigger picture, the development over time that I referred to, the answer is mainly to be found in the loss of political power that the Papacy experienced during the 18th and (mainly) 19th centuries. Being unable to stop the forces of Rationalism, Popular Democracy, Nationalism, Darwinism, and Socialism, the Papacy responded in two ways in reaction to its loss of status and influence.

For one, she re-asserted her power in newer ways by "invalidating" Anglican orders (300 years after the Reformation), by hosting a new "ecumenical" council which armtwisted the attending bishops into declaring the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and by announcing a new dogma, the Assumption of Mary (which is based strictly upon legend).

As concerns Social Justice, the gradual move in that direction begins later, after the Church had pretty much lost the battle to oppose this godless movement it had wanted, earlier on, to prevent. The Church chose the alternate route of "Christening" the general idea of Socialism, so as to be able to compete on the same playing field with the Socialist political forces.

Interesting post, thank you.

So you would not put the change in Roman Catholicism down to, say, infiltration by Maxists and Freemasons (a charge often made concerning Vatican II and, with Bergoglio, increasingly looks less a matter of tinfoil hats and more a quite reasonable accusation)?