Jump to content

Vatican repudiates doctrine of discovery


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, it's not a racist term.  If red power is a racist term, so is black lives matter a racist term.  So is white supremacy a racist term.   It's only racist to the woke who refuse to live in reality.   Red power is a real thing.  Do you know what it means?  It's a political power group that thinks white people have no right to be in north America and everything belongs to them.

It was a group from 50 years ago in the USA mainly….   Context matters.   So why are you using this term to describe activists now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There has been treaties signed over the years and negotiated at times through an official process.  That just shows there is no need for the Pope to get involved by repudiating the doctrine of discovery from 500 years ago. 

Your own quote shows that not all first nations signed treaties. 

Further - not all treaties cover all claimed land.

Finally - if a treaty is formed based on erroneous ownership claims they may not be entirely enforceable. Some or all of it may not apply. It would be like negotiating a lease for a property when the 'landlord' doesn't have the right to the property. The lease wouldn't be valid.

Is there any chance we could get you to think about the stuff you're actually posting before making comments your own evidence refutes?

We get you have a burning hatred for the catholic church.  That's obvious.  but you shouldn't let your unreasonable hatred of a group of people cause you to lose your own mental faculties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's true.  There has been treaties signed over the years and negotiated at times through an official process.  That just shows there is no need for the Pope to get involved by repudiating the doctrine of discovery from 500 years ago.  Things have developed with negotiations and treaties in the past couple hundred years without the need for the Pope to be involved.  He is not the ruler of Canada, likely knows nothing about Canada's complex history, and has no business in meddling in the affairs of Canada.

He's not meddling in the affairs of Canada he's repudiating the moral basis known as the Doctrine of Discovery that basically covered the entire New World and just about every indigenous person, culture, community and nation that ran afoul of it.

The Pope's simply underscoring that what happened to indigenous people was wrong.

This Is something countries like Canada recognized and started acknowledging decades ago so why you think this is meddling now is puzzling not to mention a little too late to start crying about now. You don't even believe in the Pope so why do you even care? Does it contradict your version of Christianity somehow?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We get you have a burning hatred for the catholic church

No, I have no hate for the catholic people.  I have had Catholic friends in the past.   I think they have been deceived by the system for 1,700 years.  I just believe the Bible shows the Roman system is false.   There is no authorization for a papacy in the Bible.  Peter was never a Pope.  There was no such thing until about 500 A.D.  Almost all the doctrines of Rome were invented over the past 1,700 years and are not taught in the New Testament. You need to study the New Testament.  Peter was not the rock that the Church was to be built on.  The rock was Peter's confession.  It was different Greek word that the Greek word for Peter.  Peter is Petros.  So the word Petra refers to Peter's confession of Christ.  It is not saying Peter is the Pope.   The claim that Peter is the rock is a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18.  The New Testament shows itself that all the other apostles never recognized Peter as a Pope.  Your wish to throw insults at me does not defend the truth about Rome and what the Bible actually teaches.   I will go with what God's word says.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The Pope's simply underscoring that what happened to indigenous people was wrong.

He is meddling.  He has no authority to make pronouncements on internal matters in Canada.   Rome has a terrible history  in the world for well over a thousand years.  Why should anyone pay attention to him?  The Papacy is a usurpation of the authority of God.  Popes claimed to be Christ or God on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your own quote shows that not all first nations signed treaties. 

Further - not all treaties cover all claimed land.

Finally - if a treaty is formed based on erroneous ownership claims they may not be entirely enforceable. Some or all of it may not apply. It would be like negotiating a lease for a property when the 'landlord' doesn't have the right to the property. The lease wouldn't be valid.

Is there any chance we could get you to think about the stuff you're actually posting before making comments your own evidence refutes?

We get you have a burning hatred for the catholic church.  That's obvious.  but you shouldn't let your unreasonable hatred of a group of people cause you to lose your own mental faculties.

 

quote

The whole structure of the Roman Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Christ appointed Peter the first pope and so established the papacy.  Disprove the primacy of Peter, and the foundation of the papacy is destroyed.  Destroy the papacy, and the whole Roman hierarchy topples with it.  Their system of priesthood depends absolutely upon their clam that Peter was the first pope at Rome, and that they are his successors.  We propose to show that, (1) Matthew 16:13-19 does not teach that Christ appointed Peter a pope; (2) that there is no proof that Peter ever was in Rome; and (3) that the New Testament records, particularly Peter's own writing, show that he never claimed authority over the other apostles or over the church, and that that authority was never accorded to him."

- From the book Roman Catholicism by Lorraine Boettner. ThB 1928, ThM 1929.  (Master of Theology)

 Stay tuned.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, I have no hate for the catholic people

You very very very clearly have much hatred for the catholics.  Perhaps you have a few you like, the way some racists have 'friends who are (whatever)".   But you're hatred drives you to be irrational. That is clear.  It's like hitlery saying he doesn't really hate the jews.

Does god's word preach hatred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You very very very clearly have much hatred for the catholics.  Perhaps you have a few you like, the way some racists have 'friends who are (whatever)".   But you're hatred drives you to be irrational. That is clear.  It's like hitlery saying he doesn't really hate the jews.

Does god's word preach hatred?

You can say that until you are blue in face, but I know I don't hate Catholics.  I have known lots of them.  I was one once myself until I learned what the Bible teaches.  It is the false teachings that are contrary to the Bible that is the problem.  The poor people have been made slaves to a false system.  If you want to discuss how that is, fine.  That would be rational.  But you are losing credibility by your constant insults and it does nothing to defend the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You very very very clearly have much hatred for the catholics.  Perhaps you have a few you like, the way some racists have 'friends who are (whatever)".   But you're hatred drives you to be irrational. That is clear.  It's like hitlery saying he doesn't really hate the jews.

Does god's word preach hatred?

Christ said this to Peter:   "18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; "  Matthew 16:18 KJV   This is the verse that the Roman church claims gives them the authority to have Popes and the priesthood.   But you have to consider that this verse was not referring to Peter as the "rock".   Christ was referring to the confession that Peter had just made.

Christ asked Peter "But whom say ye that I am?"   Matthew 16:15 

Peter responded "16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Matthew 16:16

So in Matthew 16:18 when Christ said "thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" He was referring to Peter's confession that he had just made (in verse 16).  The confession is the rock that the church would be built on, not on Peter. 

 The book of Acts and the Epistles show that the other apostles did not consider Peter as the head of the church or a pope.  In fact Peter was publicly rebuked by the Apostle Paul.  If Peter was really the Pope, no other apostle would have rebuked him.  See Galatians 2:11-14 KJV

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

quote

The whole structure of the Roman Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Christ appointed Peter the first pope and so established the papacy.  Disprove the primacy of Peter, and the foundation of the papacy is destroyed.  Destroy the papacy, and the whole Roman hierarchy topples with it.  Their system of priesthood depends absolutely upon their clam that Peter was the first pope at Rome, and that they are his successors.  We propose to show that, (1) Matthew 16:13-19 does not teach that Christ appointed Peter a pope; (2) that there is no proof that Peter ever was in Rome; and (3) that the New Testament records, particularly Peter's own writing, show that he never claimed authority over the other apostles or over the church, and that that authority was never accorded to him."

- From the book Roman Catholicism by Lorraine Boettner. ThB 1928, ThM 1929.  (Master of Theology)

 Stay tuned.

That completely has nothing in the slightest to do with the points raised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Christ said this to Peter:   "18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; "  Matthew 16:18 KJV   This is the verse that the Roman church claims gives them the authority to have Popes and the priesthood.   But you have to consider that this verse was not referring to Peter as the "rock".   Christ was referring to the confession that Peter had just made.

Christ asked Peter "But whom say ye that I am?"   Matthew 16:15 

Peter responded "16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Matthew 16:16

So in Matthew 16:18 when Christ said "thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" He was referring to Peter's confession that he had just made (in verse 16).  The confession is the rock that the church would be built on, not on Peter. 

 The book of Acts and the Epistles show that the other apostles did not consider Peter as the head of the church or a pope.  In fact Peter was publicly rebuked by the Apostle Paul.  If Peter was really the Pope, no other apostle would have rebuked him.  See Galatians 2:11-14 KJV

That's nice.  You very very cery clearly have severe hatred towards the catholics.  You should not let that distort your logic or reason.

I mean seriously - you posted quotes that disprove your own statements. That can't be a good sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That's nice.  You very very cery clearly have severe hatred towards the catholics.  You should not let that distort your logic or reason.

I mean seriously - you posted quotes that disprove your own statements. That can't be a good sign.

No, I definitely don't hate Catholics.  Actually I love them.  I am trying to help you see that system is a false system.  There are some that would probably rather go to heaven.  Salvation is through Christ alone, not through a Pope or a church, not by good works.  see John 14:6 and Ephesians ch2, 8, 9

Dr. Henry M. Woods says:

"If Christ had meant that Peter was to be the foundation, the natural form of statement would have been, "Thou are Peter, and on thee I will build my church"; but he does not say this, because Peter was not to be the rock on which the church was built.  Note also that in the expression 'on this rock' our Lord purposely uses a different Greek word, Petra, from that used for Peter, Petros.  He did this to show that, not Peter, but the great truth which had just been revealed to him, viz, that our Lord was the foundation.  Built on the Christ, the everlasting Saviour, the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church.  But built on the well-meaning but sinful Peter, the gates of hell would surely prevail; for a little later our Lord had to severely rebuke Peter, calling him 'Satan'" (Our Priceless Heritage, p. 40)

- the book "Roman Catholicism" by Lorraine Boettner 

" 6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."  John 14:6 KJV

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, I definitely don't hate Catholics. 

Nobody was asking you - i was telling you.  It's obvious you do hate them. You've even explained why.

Why else would  you be here so upset that the pope made a statement that doesn't even have anything to do with religion?  The only reason is that it infuriates you that he's relevant and that catholics have some sort of say in the world.

And I get that. Fine - you hate Catholics, you hate the church, you hate the pope. You've got all the hates. Great.  Lots of people hate things, nobody expects you to be perfect.

But you let it cloud your thinking - don't do that. It's a VERY bad habit that leads to very bad things over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...