Talk:Sublimis Deus

Untitled

Could anyone add a section about how Henry VIII and Elizabeth I reacted to this bull? Fuzzyblob (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Name change to "Sublimis Deus"

If indeed it is true, as the article states, that the bull was really titled "Sublimis Deus" (and not "Sublimus Dei"), then the article should certainly be renamed. I've not yet been able to find the Latin text, but various searches seem to indicate that the original title is indeed "Sublimis Deus". ­—Pinnerup (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And now I found the Latin Latin source text (and uploaded it to Wikisource). Indeed the bill is named "Sublimis Deus", so I'm renaming this article. —Pinnerup (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The official site Papalencyclicals lists it as Sublimus dei even though the original bull was named Sublimis dei. So the confusion is actually found at the official level of the Catholic church.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It can be a nom. sing. adjective so "Exalted God" Alcibiades979 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Papalencyclicals.net is not "the official site" and "is not a Vatican site". It is however, a handy resource. Manannan67 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The picture is NOT Sublimis Deus

The picture shows Pope Paul III's bull, Altitudo Divini Consilii. It does not show, Sublimis Deus. Please, remove it or find a picture of the correct document.Mwidunn (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)mwidunn

Rational Beings With souls

I Realise it is Popular today to Imagine Christians Think Animals do not have Souls. This is taken to extend to non-White races historically. Such as claiming The Slavery of Africans was justified by claiming they had no Souls. But, Historically Christians Viewed All living Things as possessed of a Soul. Without a Soul You would not be Alive. The Myth seems to have originated by People slurring the distinction between a Rational Soul and a soul. Theologians like Aquinas said Humans differed from Animals in that Animals had a Material Soul Whilst man had a Rational Soul.

In This article, it said, until I edited it, The Bull says The Indians are Rational Beings with Souls. It does not say This. It instead says They are rational, and not Animals, and that They can Understand and Receive the faith.

No One doubted that they had Souls in the 1500's.

The Question was, are they Truly Men, with a Rational Soul, or were they mere beasts with a Material Soul. Not if they were both Rational and had a Soul.

SKWills (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone undid My Revision, claiming what I changed was a Direct Quote from "Sublimis Deus". It was not. below is from The Translation found both on New Advent and on papalEncyclicals Dot Net

It does not say rational beings with Souls.

"The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith."

It would be absurd to say Rational beings with Souls. All Living Things have Souls. Catholic Theology is Clear on That.

What was argued is, The Natives were not Fully men, and lacked the Capacity to understand and Receive the faith and were like Animals.

This Bull is saying the belief that they were mere animals is Wrong. (Brutes is the term and means Animal in this)

Before reverting again, Please at least consider looking at the Text, and look into what I am saying here. SKWills (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@SKWills: First, please write normally, as it is difficult for me to read you when you put capital letters randomly. Second, I do not care about "Catholic Theology", i.e. applying today's consensus of what is Catholic faith to past situations. Lastly, I was wrong and you were closer to what the encyclical says, while the previous version was an interpretation and not a direct quote; I changed what you wrote to a direct quote. Veverve (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

My Capitalisation is not Random. Also, I am not projecting Modern catholic Belief onto the past, I am Quoting The Source Document and Contrasting it to Others, such as Aquinas, Who lived in the 1200's.

No Catholic Text Exists that says Animals have No Souls. No One Argued The Natives had No Souls.

The Idea that Animals have No Souls is Mainly a Protestant idea that began in the Late 19th to Early 20th Century, at Least in terms of Formal Theology.

It has Never been The Catholic View. SKWills (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@SKWills: Please write normally, and not as if each of your sentence was a title in MLA style, and please format your messages; this helps a lot when reading you. As I said, you were closer to what the text said; I replaced what you wrote with a direct quote to avoid the kind of disagreements we have right now. Also, again, I do not care abour Catholic theology when it comes to History.

As for Aquina, this issue is on your talk page, not on this talk page. Veverve (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

and all others

It is important to mention that it only refers to those yet to be discovered. It isn't a universal abolition of slavery. in latin: et omnes alias gentes ad noticiam Christianorum imposterum deventuras, translation: the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, S Panzer: that the same Indians and all other peoples—even though they are outside the faith who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been deprived or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:605D:9768:70D1:4B99 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)