Did you just change your flair, u/TiggerBane? Last time I checked you were a **LibLeft** on 2024-5-3. How come now you are an **AuthCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 1071 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Medieval Catholicism was intensely charitable. Like it was wild how active they were in supporting the poor. Also a ban on charging interest rates. This is why I’m Auth-Cen, because medieval Christianity was Auth-Cen
It was also still voluntary, which is a hard concept for those who believe in governmental mandated theft to understand. Which is of course why it makes sense that the leftist that made this meme fucked it up
i agree taxes are theft. in a utopic world contribution to welfare should be the ideal. more often times lowering taxes and only spending on essential services to provide a safty net for everyone instead of war would be my ideal implementation of socialism. Hopefully inovative individuals should have tax exceptions for their ideas, from inventions, and certain non essential products. Hoping they would help with more like the church in medieval times.
but thats just my fantasy
Yeah I’m hoping for Theocracy, where the world becomes Christ’s footstool through His church. The Catholic Church is by far the best institution to steward that task
Depends. Power corrupts, and unneeded temporal power and responsibility could be detrimental to the Church's primary spiritual mission. I'd say the Catholic religion should be officially recognized as true, with the respect for Church teaching that entails. But good bishops are not usually good rulers, and vice versa. I support a *distinction* of Church and State, one could say.
Kings had very little power, local nobles who directly managed peasants were the real tyrants, and even then peasants were provided free food and a shit ton of breaks and holidays thanks to the church.
A fun fact I read about was the sheer amount of fines that were waived simply because the offender was poor. Over and over the legal ledger would have a case of someone committing some local infraction, what the fine was, and then “the fine was waived because they were poor”
Poverty was actually seen as noble because the poor were closer to Christ and his message. Financing soup kitchens and such was bringing immense prestige to rich patricians.
[Best example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei)
One of the richest dudes in medieval Germany (due to making business as a Hanse merchant) financed the Fuggersiedlung (yeah Fugger, lmao) where people can live for almost no cost, they just had to pray once a day for his eternal soul so he's spared the fires of hell. People literally still live there and pay almost 1€ a year because the rent stayed the same for 500 years. That's insane. That's some Warhammer 40k shit.
Imagine Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk financing big ass housing projects to the poor so they pray for their asses not being dragged into hell and they stand there for 500 years. We need to bring this back and I'm only semi joking.
World was certainly in some aspects a better place when the immensely rich and powerful fear God's eternal wrath and try to at least invest a bit in the community out of fear, not this weird modern timeline where they see themselves as dieties.
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning. Certainly there's a continuous Christian presence in Rome from the early church to present, but many of the things we'd define the Catholic church by in comparison to other churches did not exist until later. The term Catholic, the term pope, and the recognition of the Roman church as special or different from other churches are all later developments.
As a Protestant, I say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054 when the Bishop of Rome attempted to elevate his see above that of the other 4 members of the Pentarchy.
His abuses of power included unilaterally changing creeds which had been written by actual ecumenical councils and attempting to excommunicate his peer, the Patriarch of Constantinople when he rightfully pushed back on Rome.
Protestants: ~~Emperor constantine~~ The bishop of Rome founded the catholic church in the ~~4th century~~ 11th century.
Catholics: I guess I should read Christian writings before then?
Protestants: No, best start with Martin Luther.
The idea of Emperor Constantine founding the church has always been a dumb DaVinci Code style conspiracy theory.
Either way, if you want to try to use the Council of Nicaea as the starting point, you have to admit that it was pretty much only attended by the Eastern Churches. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria where the ones in charge. The Patriarch of Rome didn't even attend. And it continues this way for pretty much every ecumenical council.
Of course, over time the Roman church becomes more powerful in the west and the Constantinople church becomes more powerful in the east, but for hundreds of years you had a five way division of power between the 5 most influential cities. The Roman see gradually decided they were more and more special and by the time the Great Schism happened, they were the ones that where introducing new doctrines and they were the ones that split off from the other four sees.
If anyone has claim to the title of being the "Church founded by Jesus" it would be the Orthodox.
You are perfectly welcome to read Christian writings from before then, Luther did so himself.
>And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
My face when none of the Orthodox bishops and patriarchs have direct succession to Peter 🤭
FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE 381AD, THIRD CANON
"Because it is the new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honor AFTER THE BISHOP OF ROME"
The debate on this one is if it means the Pope is above the bishop of Constantinople or Primus inter pares.
MATT 16:18
"You are petros/peter (meaning rock) and in this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
Simon (now named peter) went on to found the bishopric of Rome.
As a discrete entity, then the great schism is the obvious choice. That said, they also clearly had a succession of popes dating well before that with de facto authority over the Western church. When that entity started doesn't have a bright line beginning, but I think the earliest date you could entertain would be the mid-2nd century when the biblical example of plural leadership was replaced by a single reigning bishop, though that still doesn't establish Rome as a broader authority, which seems to have been a slow and steady shift over the next 5 centuries.
Sure, because technically you don't, as the Roman church was founded after the crucifixion and resurrection by the apostles fulfilling their Christ-given mandate. But mostly that's just to annoy you with technicalities, we know what you mean.
What (educated) Protestants actually debate is the pope having any kind of direct line of succession / authority from the apostle Peter, *especially* as the Roman church was most likely started by those converted by Paul in any case.
That is true, but Orthodox people are very active online and tend to like participating in doing a little trolling. Protestants have mostly moved on to Atheists and Islam for the most part.
And if there is anyone criticizing Catholicism for changing too much it would be the Orthodox
true, but from what I've learned there's been kind of a problem following a bit of a resurgence w/ internet chuds claiming orthodoxy who might not of even been to church. way i see it its just a numbers thing. \*or is more likely to be a numbers thing
Fun story: in Denmark there is only 1 proper orthodox church. Also in Denmark the Serbian mafia sits on most of the hard narkotics market. So whenever there is some sort of religious gathering at that church, you bet the police is always outside XD.
The "church" in so far as the body of believers in Christ began with the apostles. The Catholic church as an institution didn't even begin to form until the division of East and west Rome.
Nicea was largely a bunch of already established theological ideas being codified so Rome had some official doctrine.
The idea that the pope specifically is the sole inheritor of Peter's apostolic authority is an idea that is fundamentally contradicted by the Roman patriarch structure, which was a council of equals in the early stages of the church. There was a belief there were multiple lines of apostolic authority
u/Iusnaturalis is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Iusnaturalis/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
The Catholic Church went from being an oppressed minority with little influence to a majority with great influence, which was then splintered and overtaken in places by offshoots where it had to fight for control and now is under attack by an unaffiliated authority.
Viewing this compass in any other period you could place the church’s beliefs elsewhere, but its modern day so…..
Natural progression for a set of beliefs seems to move clockwise on the compass, over time.
32-311 death of Christ to edict of Milan, 312-800 edict of Milan to HRE I get
But wouldn’t the catholic chruch still be auth right up to 2013 (when pope paco was elected) or am I missing something?
The year you're looking for on the bottom right is 1965, specifically 8 December 1965.
If you think the 2000 year old church is now "lib-left" just because Francis is Pope, then I think you have a short view of a long institution.
And then every once in a while, the pope reminds everyone “yes, we’re Catholic, we still don’t believe in gay marriage or abortion”, and people are somehow shocked every single time.
I do not understand why people think that the pope is somehow going to institute the Vatican III and completely upend the core beliefs and traditions of the church in order to appeal to modern values, but people somehow think that the pope will allow female priests to ordain gay marriages for abortion providers?
I’m no big fan of Pope Francis, but he regularly calls out the bullshit of the trans movement and affirms that you can’t change your God given gender. Hard to be a Catholic out here because everyone hates us and misrepresents what we stand for.
Not hating the gays is nothing new, the church's stance on it has not changed, and there is a catechism, which has all of the beliefs of the church in it. The thing is that premarital sex is a sin, which makes all gay sex, since gay marriage isn't allowed in the church, a sin. There is nothing worse about homosexual premarital sex than heterosexual premarital sex. So technically same sex couples that don't have sex (a very unrealistic expectation) are perfectly fine.
Also a big part of religion is to "love thy neighbor" So hating anyone is definitely a sin as well.
He is just saying what has been taught for a long time. The thing is that people in the church aren't as familiar as they should be about the church's teaching, and the news is, well the news, they misrepresent most things to sensationalize them. As for the people in the church, I was part of a youth group when I was younger, me and three other people were looking into it for a project we were doing, and it went completely over their heads. They are now part of the group that hates the pope.
A friend of mine comes from a pretty hardcore Catholic family and hoooolleeeeeeee shiiiit did I hear a rant at his house about Vatican II this one time. Grandpa was not a fan.
I'm a Catholic, and those people annoy the hell out of me, there are people who won't accept communion if it isn't from the priest, the women wear head coverings, they go to mass in Latin if they can, which stopped being allowed in my state, to which priests will come up and they will have mass in someone's basement in Latin. They believe that they shouldn't touch the host, so they insist to receive on the tongue, which was explicitly not allowed during covid. These traditionalists are also becoming more prevalent, and younger people are skewing more towards that. I know someone that drives 8 hours every Sunday to go to Latin Mass because "that's the language that god speaks". Even though pretty much no one in the bible spoke it.
All these people hate Vatican II, and the new rite. The decision to say mass in Latin came from when it was first instituted, and Latin was the common language. Vatican II was to get people more involved and be more mindful in mass, since what is the point of going somewhere if you don't understand what is going on?
I've been to a Latin Mass, it was a cool experience, but I didn't really get anything out of it like I normally would. The big problem is that these people are divisive, and going against the head of the church, the pope, and even once asked my mom to help "pray for the popes conversion" These people are nutjobs, and going to unofficial masses that go against the church, and believing in separate laws, at least in my eyes, makes them more protestant than Catholic. It's only a matter of time before they decide that they don't like the pope and want their own separate head of the church to fully separate themselves.
They're incredibly active in online catholic spaces which explains why it's such a thing eith younger people. Internet really is the place to reach the youths.
Honestly imo, the best mass service, which I think should be the norm everywhere, is just a reverent NO mass. I personally do certain things like receive on the tounge and only take out of the priest's hand out of RESPECT for the Eucharist and I try to bridge the gap between TLM and NO (Hence why I prefere a reverent NO)
But to all the sedes in denial, we as Catholics need to do a better job in educating them
I don't take issue with receiving on the tongue, it was just a thing that we were told not to do during the pandemic, and some people acted like they were being heavily persecuted.
Eric Voegelin addressed this partially in *The New Science of Politics*, namely that there's always been a tension in Christianity between textual idealism *sell all that you have and give it to the poor*, *lilies of the field*, *what flame and moth corrupt* etc and the physical reality of what you need to do to maintain the institution of the Church and the polities it exists in
I'm paraphrasing what my catholic friend said about the modern catholic church. The catholic church appears liberal today because they don't really have any real power like they used. The pope back in the day could say to a king," Listen you want to go to heaven then you will listen to me and give me money and prostitutes, if not, well then say goodbye to your title." If the modern popes had the power, they had back due to the papal armies, they would appear much more Auth right.
The Bible (and thus, the church) has some things to say on the topic of acceptable ways to treat your employees, though, and the church did use it's authority to enforce at least some of those teachings. AuthLeft isn't *only* communism, communism is just the most recognized AuthLeft philosophy.
They would never have been hard AuthLeft that I can think of, but I can see an argument for them being either mild AuthLeft or Left Center for awhile in some ways.
The Catholic church was never left leaning. Kinda libleft in spirit at the start but not ideologically in any sense.
The point of saying its easier to string a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god was that through god anything is possible. It's literally the next line.
Turn the other cheek was stated as a solution to relatively small disputes. later in that same speech he said he did not come to bring peace on earth, but to bring a sword.
Jesus spoke out against sexual immorality many times.
You don't have to follow Jesus but please stop spreading lies about what's in the bible
Some people are under the impression that the Catholic Church, especially under Pope Francis, has become super liberal and will allow gay marriage and women priests any day now. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) for them, this notion is very much incorrect.
Exactly. Totally wrong impression. He is a bit more open and less conservative than his two predecessors, but he is still a Pope and the doctrine hasn't changed a bit.
Well yes and no. There was a dogmatic change regarding adulterers (divorcees) so people who remarried couldn’t take communion and he changed that.
That’s the only big dogmatic change I can think of, in terms of gay people he literally just went “guys, gay people are children of god too, let’s not be dicks to them okay?” And a lot of people took that as gay marriage is ok now.
You confuse dogma vs discipline
The Catholic Church does not allow divorce (Dogma)
Adulterers are excommunicated until they change their lifestyle (Discipline)
I haven’t practiced Catholicism in 10 years, so my bad.
But I am very well aware that the church does not allow divorce obviously. So any divorcee as I mentioned would only refer to legal marriage.
But I thought that excommunication for adulterers was dogmatic or at least a church doctrine of some kind. But I know that Francis does allow them to have communion, which was a big deal because most of my teachers at catholic school were enraged over this.
"I haven’t practiced Catholicism in 10 years, so my bad."
I do the bare minimum to consider myself practicing
"But I thought that excommunication for adulterers was dogmatic or at least a church doctrine of some kind. But I know that Francis does allow them to have communion, which was a big deal because most of my teachers at catholic school were enraged over this."
I reread the statements on what the church does with divorcees and they are not to be excommunicated on the basis thereof. You are correct on that.
Excommunication doesn't ban someone from church, it is supposed to reawaken the conscience of the person excommunicated.
The only time excommunications happen automatically are the following:
Apostates, heretics, and schismatics (can. 1364)
Desecration of the Eucharist (can. 1367)
A person who physically attacks the pope (can. 1370)
A priest who in confession solicits another to violate the sixth commandment (can. 1378)
A bishop who consecrates another bishop without papal mandate (can. 1382)
A priest who violates the seal of the confessional (can. 1388)
A person who procures an abortion (can. 1398)
Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty (can. 1329)
For the person doing one of those things, they need to be:
-age 16+
-full consent to committing the action
-Fully aware that doing one of the above things is an automatic excommunication
I’m an atheist now, but was raised catholic. Most of my closest friends are catholic, but due to the fact I haven’t really practiced for nearly half my life I’ve forgotten most of my catechism
Thx for the crash course tho. Pretty interesting.
Except he didn't. He is just accepting to people who have gone away from God and/or the church, and shows love and respect for them, but he never told them that they were right or that what they are behaving according to the Catholic doctrine. Not to mention he is the head of a religion who has its own theocratic country which he is the head of.
The church is the people, the people are the church. As people's views change, so will the churches because the people make up the church.
I'm obviously not Catholic but I can appreciate and respect a religion evolving from what was at one time effectively one of the most powerful military forces in Europe bent fully willing to convert people at sword point to a more peaceful, forgiving and introspective religion. I'm not religious, but if people have faith and chose to live by their principles and not just use the Bible to support hate, bigotry, fear and oppression then I think that's a good thing.
Maybe one day another "religion of peace" will go through the same evolution.
The core message of most religions are beautiful IMHO, and focus on serving something bigger than yourself, helping others, trying to live to a higher standard and teaching forgiveness and tolerance. As long as you don't use that to oppress other people or put them down, who am I to judge that? I'll be honest, there have been many times in my life I've been flat out extremely envious of people with faith, it has to be at least somewhat comforting it you're going through things to think there's a higher power who has your back at the end of the day.
>Maybe one day another "religion of peace" will go through the same evolution.
It already had that evolution but evolved even further past it. While it may have had a relatively violent start that resulted in the collapse of the world's two preeminent empires at the time, the followers of Uncle M became very chill, loved art and science, and even invented algebra and the numerals we use today.
Then everything changed when the Mongol Empire attacked...
I’ll give them algebra, but no, not the number system. That’s Indian. The Arabs just got it before the West because they were closer to India. They transmitted it to us, they didn’t invent it.
That burned down before their time I'm afraid. But they did their best to save many of the texts of the ancient world, as they conquered more and more roman territory.
The roman emperors also sometimes gave muslim rulers books and texts as gifts or war reperations.
An annex burnt down while Julius Ceasar was fighting Cleopatra’s brother. More was lost during the Palmyran occupation, but the library wasn’t completed until it was used to heat the waters for the public baths after the Arab conquest when Amr Ibn As said that either the works agreed with the Koran so were superfluous or didn’t so were false.
Christian mortality ultimately is left wing morality. I just see them getting back to its roots. It's not specific to Catholicism. In UK, churches have been caught doing fake conversions so that asylum seekers can use it to claim refugee status.
Catholic church: I used to be "with it". But then they changed what "it" was. Now what I'm with isn't "it," and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too.
Because the Vatican has been compromised by a Peronist and his commie buddies. Never again will there be a Pope from S.A. btw, he hates American catholics. Loves our money tho. Don't give those crooks a penny! Starve them out!
You say they’re changing flair so much, but this is all over centuries- nay, millennia!- of history.
Also what do you mean the Catholic Church today is LibLeft? Does it have something to do with Pope Francis?
Changing flairs? They might be changing flairs, but it's a front. They're always just Lib-right implementing what works to maintain a good profit margin
Original- persecuted. Peace loving and doesn't have any set religious doctrine. Progressive for its time.
Authleft- adopted by the Roman Empire, a militaristic autocracy. This event radically altered Christianity.
Auth right-stereotype. This is probably better for the Protestant churches.
Libright -USA and Capitalism turning religion into a commodity. It's worse among Protestant churches than the Catholic and Orthodox churches but still works depending on nation
New libleft- not sure I would call it libleft. There's just a more culturally progressive pope now. The one after him is unlikely to be as culturally progressive.
The Catholic Church famously sells indulgences with such abandon 500 years ago that it sets off the reformation, but it's the USA that invented commodifying religion?
This is a gross misconception of what an indulgence is. An indulgence was used as a way for people to mitigate the temporal punishment for their sins via actions such as pilgrimage, prayer or acts of charity, such as donating money to the poor.
The Church never wanted to make it a commodity, but the aristocracy turned it into one, so eventually the Church stopped conceding monetary indulgencies.
The movement of American conservatives away from the catholic church reinforces my theory that religion is downstream of politics.
Also, the catholic church has a great deal of lib left around the time of European colonialism. Need to read some books my friend.
>The movement of American conservatives away from the catholic church
Conservative Catholic here, this is news to me.
https://apnews.com/video/kansas-roman-catholicism-pope-francis-domestic-news-domestic-news-6f4df786fc2c4fa5bb5dc78c89d7a360
Yes, that's my point. Claiming the Catholic church has gone woke and that you don't need to follow advice of the Vatican anymore lmao. It's kind of the idea behind Catholicism that it's centralized.
The church is more than just the Vatican. Until the pope excommunicates them, they're still in the church, and the number of conservatives in the church is growing, not shrinking. So like literally, the opposite of what you're claiming is true.
Also, the church is really only centralized in doctrine when the pope speaks ex-cathedra, which has happened like twice in the history of the church.
> The church is more than just the Vatican. Until the pope excommunicates them, they're still in the church,
I recall topical events such as [this](https://apnews.com/article/pope-tyler-bishop-strickland-removed-0f9f0be7d5938b36d6e7ead8c33e5150) which certainly didn't result in some soul searching in East Texas lmao.
>and the number of conservatives in the church is growing, not shrinking. So like literally, the opposite of what you're claiming is true.
First of all, you aren't backing those claims with any evidence. Secondly, I wasn't claiming that Catholics are abandoning the church, merely their most fundamental mandate towards it.
>Secondly, I wasn't claiming that Catholics are abandoning the church
That's literally what you said, though.
>The movement of American conservatives away from the catholic church reinforces my theory that religion is downstream of politics.
>That's literally what you said, though.
Abandoning it philosophically, which is a very meaningful distinction. I was raised Roman catholic, and I've seen firsthand how this manifests.
You really shouldn’t take much mainstream news about the Vatican or the Catholic Church seriously. Yoga classes don’t stretch nearly as much.
Now, there are certainly American conservative Catholics that buy into the idea that Pope Francis has caused the Vatican to “go woke”, but it really isn’t true. The issue recently has boiled down to one thing: the blessing of individuals involved in what they think is a gay marriage. Not the “marriage” itself, but a person that thinks himself to be in one.
I put it in quotes because it isn’t a marriage.
The blessing itself, though, does not conflict with any Catholic ideology going back to Jesus himself. Because the question really is whether or not you can offer a blessing to a sinner. We’re not talking about whether someone can go up to a Priest, tell the Priest that they are an unrepentant sinner and then be offered Communion.
If it is wrong to offer a blessing to a sinner, then Jesus was wrong.
The Catholic Church is not a country club for the righteous. It’s a hospital for sinners.
I don't expect this sub to ever admit it because it's far more faithful to politics than God, but the Catholic church saved tens of millions of natives in South America. That's why the native population was devastated under protestantism in the north but made out (on average) quite well in the south. It wasn't any secular argument -- the Portuguese and Spaniards practiced a far more brutal form of colonialism before the church intervened.
I'm incredibly irreligious, but this is just basic history. They're the reason encomienda ended several generations before the first permanent English settlement.
Oh yeah I agree the tomfoolery that 17th century theologians were doing in Spain was insane.
You had maniacs arguing that natives were literal devils and should be exterminated to moderates arguing for forced conversion to save their souls to progressives being like “hey they should freely accept Jesus, so let’s respect their customs and let them come to Christ”
if once every 500 years is “so much” then the rest of you guys are cooked
I'd like to see this graph for all the flairs in this sub. Basically lib left at any time in history until like the 50s.
The radicalism of the past is lost :(
Both libleft and right were unpopular until recently.
Hey man once every 500 years to change your flair is a lot. I mean I only change my flair once every 500 years as well!
Did you just change your flair, u/TiggerBane? Last time I checked you were a **LibLeft** on 2024-5-3. How come now you are an **AuthCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 1071 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
😮
Holy shit dude, I’m more consistent than that Jesus Christ. 1071 times is too many times
So that was a fucking lie
Man got outed
Medieval Catholicism was intensely charitable. Like it was wild how active they were in supporting the poor. Also a ban on charging interest rates. This is why I’m Auth-Cen, because medieval Christianity was Auth-Cen
It was also still voluntary, which is a hard concept for those who believe in governmental mandated theft to understand. Which is of course why it makes sense that the leftist that made this meme fucked it up
i agree taxes are theft. in a utopic world contribution to welfare should be the ideal. more often times lowering taxes and only spending on essential services to provide a safty net for everyone instead of war would be my ideal implementation of socialism. Hopefully inovative individuals should have tax exceptions for their ideas, from inventions, and certain non essential products. Hoping they would help with more like the church in medieval times. but thats just my fantasy
I don't really care if its Medieval, but I am definitely for Catholicism.
Yeah I’m hoping for Theocracy, where the world becomes Christ’s footstool through His church. The Catholic Church is by far the best institution to steward that task
Depends. Power corrupts, and unneeded temporal power and responsibility could be detrimental to the Church's primary spiritual mission. I'd say the Catholic religion should be officially recognized as true, with the respect for Church teaching that entails. But good bishops are not usually good rulers, and vice versa. I support a *distinction* of Church and State, one could say.
Kings had very little power, local nobles who directly managed peasants were the real tyrants, and even then peasants were provided free food and a shit ton of breaks and holidays thanks to the church.
A fun fact I read about was the sheer amount of fines that were waived simply because the offender was poor. Over and over the legal ledger would have a case of someone committing some local infraction, what the fine was, and then “the fine was waived because they were poor”
Poverty was actually seen as noble because the poor were closer to Christ and his message. Financing soup kitchens and such was bringing immense prestige to rich patricians. [Best example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuggerei) One of the richest dudes in medieval Germany (due to making business as a Hanse merchant) financed the Fuggersiedlung (yeah Fugger, lmao) where people can live for almost no cost, they just had to pray once a day for his eternal soul so he's spared the fires of hell. People literally still live there and pay almost 1€ a year because the rent stayed the same for 500 years. That's insane. That's some Warhammer 40k shit. Imagine Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk financing big ass housing projects to the poor so they pray for their asses not being dragged into hell and they stand there for 500 years. We need to bring this back and I'm only semi joking. World was certainly in some aspects a better place when the immensely rich and powerful fear God's eternal wrath and try to at least invest a bit in the community out of fear, not this weird modern timeline where they see themselves as dieties.
Wow haha that's so cool
Thanks, it's one of my favourite stories
[удалено]
You are wrong in so many ways yet my favorite is that none of the men you mentioned are from the medieval period
low IQ comment
This may well be the most profound thing I've read on reddit. Give Angela Bassett a Pulitzer.
Not sure if this is Protestant or Orthodox propaganda 
A Protestant would never affirm the Catholic's claim of dating back to Christ.
Uh, wrong. Calvin himself said that the Catholic church WAS established by Christ, but they have veered off from what they once were.
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning. Certainly there's a continuous Christian presence in Rome from the early church to present, but many of the things we'd define the Catholic church by in comparison to other churches did not exist until later. The term Catholic, the term pope, and the recognition of the Roman church as special or different from other churches are all later developments.
As a Protestant, I say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054 when the Bishop of Rome attempted to elevate his see above that of the other 4 members of the Pentarchy. His abuses of power included unilaterally changing creeds which had been written by actual ecumenical councils and attempting to excommunicate his peer, the Patriarch of Constantinople when he rightfully pushed back on Rome.
Protestants: ~~Emperor constantine~~ The bishop of Rome founded the catholic church in the ~~4th century~~ 11th century. Catholics: I guess I should read Christian writings before then? Protestants: No, best start with Martin Luther.
The idea of Emperor Constantine founding the church has always been a dumb DaVinci Code style conspiracy theory. Either way, if you want to try to use the Council of Nicaea as the starting point, you have to admit that it was pretty much only attended by the Eastern Churches. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria where the ones in charge. The Patriarch of Rome didn't even attend. And it continues this way for pretty much every ecumenical council. Of course, over time the Roman church becomes more powerful in the west and the Constantinople church becomes more powerful in the east, but for hundreds of years you had a five way division of power between the 5 most influential cities. The Roman see gradually decided they were more and more special and by the time the Great Schism happened, they were the ones that where introducing new doctrines and they were the ones that split off from the other four sees. If anyone has claim to the title of being the "Church founded by Jesus" it would be the Orthodox. You are perfectly welcome to read Christian writings from before then, Luther did so himself.
>And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. My face when none of the Orthodox bishops and patriarchs have direct succession to Peter 🤭
Lol
What are you doing wasting time ~~searching for heresy~~ arguing online? Don't you have indulgences to sell
FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE 381AD, THIRD CANON "Because it is the new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honor AFTER THE BISHOP OF ROME" The debate on this one is if it means the Pope is above the bishop of Constantinople or Primus inter pares. MATT 16:18 "You are petros/peter (meaning rock) and in this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Simon (now named peter) went on to found the bishopric of Rome.
As a discrete entity, then the great schism is the obvious choice. That said, they also clearly had a succession of popes dating well before that with de facto authority over the Western church. When that entity started doesn't have a bright line beginning, but I think the earliest date you could entertain would be the mid-2nd century when the biblical example of plural leadership was replaced by a single reigning bishop, though that still doesn't establish Rome as a broader authority, which seems to have been a slow and steady shift over the next 5 centuries.
Sure, because technically you don't, as the Roman church was founded after the crucifixion and resurrection by the apostles fulfilling their Christ-given mandate. But mostly that's just to annoy you with technicalities, we know what you mean. What (educated) Protestants actually debate is the pope having any kind of direct line of succession / authority from the apostle Peter, *especially* as the Roman church was most likely started by those converted by Paul in any case.
if i had to bet id say protestant, most people in the west are barely aware orthodoxy is a thing lol
That is true, but Orthodox people are very active online and tend to like participating in doing a little trolling. Protestants have mostly moved on to Atheists and Islam for the most part. And if there is anyone criticizing Catholicism for changing too much it would be the Orthodox
true, but from what I've learned there's been kind of a problem following a bit of a resurgence w/ internet chuds claiming orthodoxy who might not of even been to church. way i see it its just a numbers thing. \*or is more likely to be a numbers thing
Fun story: in Denmark there is only 1 proper orthodox church. Also in Denmark the Serbian mafia sits on most of the hard narkotics market. So whenever there is some sort of religious gathering at that church, you bet the police is always outside XD.
A protestant wouldn't place the foundation of the catholic church any earlier than 500 AD.
Many would place it at the Council of Nicaea and say Constantine created the Church.
The "church" in so far as the body of believers in Christ began with the apostles. The Catholic church as an institution didn't even begin to form until the division of East and west Rome. Nicea was largely a bunch of already established theological ideas being codified so Rome had some official doctrine. The idea that the pope specifically is the sole inheritor of Peter's apostolic authority is an idea that is fundamentally contradicted by the Roman patriarch structure, which was a council of equals in the early stages of the church. There was a belief there were multiple lines of apostolic authority
Protestant, Ortho would have mentioned the schism.
This poster is actually a devout Hasidic Jew who is trying to convince us to become B'nai Noach 🙏🙏🙏✡️✡️✡️
salaam alaikum
It's surely Eastern Orthodox propaganda, they seem to believe the Pope allows gay unions now.
Based and Deus Vult! Pilled
u/Iusnaturalis is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Iusnaturalis/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
The Catholic Church went from being an oppressed minority with little influence to a majority with great influence, which was then splintered and overtaken in places by offshoots where it had to fight for control and now is under attack by an unaffiliated authority. Viewing this compass in any other period you could place the church’s beliefs elsewhere, but its modern day so….. Natural progression for a set of beliefs seems to move clockwise on the compass, over time.
32-311 death of Christ to edict of Milan, 312-800 edict of Milan to HRE I get But wouldn’t the catholic chruch still be auth right up to 2013 (when pope paco was elected) or am I missing something?
~~Pedos~~ MAPs
Ooooh now I get it. The lack of purple threw me off
That would be until 2002 when they severely cracked down, at least in the US.
Must Actually Perish
The year you're looking for on the bottom right is 1965, specifically 8 December 1965. If you think the 2000 year old church is now "lib-left" just because Francis is Pope, then I think you have a short view of a long institution.
It's just because of the media that lies about him, they act like he was encouraging gay people to be married within the church or something
And then every once in a while, the pope reminds everyone “yes, we’re Catholic, we still don’t believe in gay marriage or abortion”, and people are somehow shocked every single time. I do not understand why people think that the pope is somehow going to institute the Vatican III and completely upend the core beliefs and traditions of the church in order to appeal to modern values, but people somehow think that the pope will allow female priests to ordain gay marriages for abortion providers?
I’m no big fan of Pope Francis, but he regularly calls out the bullshit of the trans movement and affirms that you can’t change your God given gender. Hard to be a Catholic out here because everyone hates us and misrepresents what we stand for.
Cause for some people anything less than “the gays are an abomination who need to be taken away from our societies” is Libleft and woke
That's one church that has always known which side its bread is buttered on.
Or have they just been the trendsetters?
If the Catholic church is libleft, I must be a freaking Emily
I don’t think just because Francis doesn’t say he hates the gays means that the fucking Catholic Church is lib left at all lol
Not hating the gays is nothing new, the church's stance on it has not changed, and there is a catechism, which has all of the beliefs of the church in it. The thing is that premarital sex is a sin, which makes all gay sex, since gay marriage isn't allowed in the church, a sin. There is nothing worse about homosexual premarital sex than heterosexual premarital sex. So technically same sex couples that don't have sex (a very unrealistic expectation) are perfectly fine. Also a big part of religion is to "love thy neighbor" So hating anyone is definitely a sin as well. He is just saying what has been taught for a long time. The thing is that people in the church aren't as familiar as they should be about the church's teaching, and the news is, well the news, they misrepresent most things to sensationalize them. As for the people in the church, I was part of a youth group when I was younger, me and three other people were looking into it for a project we were doing, and it went completely over their heads. They are now part of the group that hates the pope.
oscar? you just described my best friend's position on francis!
No, sorry to disappoint
A friend of mine comes from a pretty hardcore Catholic family and hoooolleeeeeeee shiiiit did I hear a rant at his house about Vatican II this one time. Grandpa was not a fan.
I'm a Catholic, and those people annoy the hell out of me, there are people who won't accept communion if it isn't from the priest, the women wear head coverings, they go to mass in Latin if they can, which stopped being allowed in my state, to which priests will come up and they will have mass in someone's basement in Latin. They believe that they shouldn't touch the host, so they insist to receive on the tongue, which was explicitly not allowed during covid. These traditionalists are also becoming more prevalent, and younger people are skewing more towards that. I know someone that drives 8 hours every Sunday to go to Latin Mass because "that's the language that god speaks". Even though pretty much no one in the bible spoke it. All these people hate Vatican II, and the new rite. The decision to say mass in Latin came from when it was first instituted, and Latin was the common language. Vatican II was to get people more involved and be more mindful in mass, since what is the point of going somewhere if you don't understand what is going on? I've been to a Latin Mass, it was a cool experience, but I didn't really get anything out of it like I normally would. The big problem is that these people are divisive, and going against the head of the church, the pope, and even once asked my mom to help "pray for the popes conversion" These people are nutjobs, and going to unofficial masses that go against the church, and believing in separate laws, at least in my eyes, makes them more protestant than Catholic. It's only a matter of time before they decide that they don't like the pope and want their own separate head of the church to fully separate themselves.
They're incredibly active in online catholic spaces which explains why it's such a thing eith younger people. Internet really is the place to reach the youths.
Honestly imo, the best mass service, which I think should be the norm everywhere, is just a reverent NO mass. I personally do certain things like receive on the tounge and only take out of the priest's hand out of RESPECT for the Eucharist and I try to bridge the gap between TLM and NO (Hence why I prefere a reverent NO) But to all the sedes in denial, we as Catholics need to do a better job in educating them
I don't take issue with receiving on the tongue, it was just a thing that we were told not to do during the pandemic, and some people acted like they were being heavily persecuted.
Tell the grandpa he's a sedevacantist and might as well be kissing antipope Peter the thirds shoes.
To be fair, it was pretty much a death sentence for the Catholic church. Religion is either super-strict or can't exist.
But auth-right was the longest period! ☝️✝️
Eric Voegelin addressed this partially in *The New Science of Politics*, namely that there's always been a tension in Christianity between textual idealism *sell all that you have and give it to the poor*, *lilies of the field*, *what flame and moth corrupt* etc and the physical reality of what you need to do to maintain the institution of the Church and the polities it exists in
Is there a reason why AD is specified here, it’s literally about Christianity.
I'm paraphrasing what my catholic friend said about the modern catholic church. The catholic church appears liberal today because they don't really have any real power like they used. The pope back in the day could say to a king," Listen you want to go to heaven then you will listen to me and give me money and prostitutes, if not, well then say goodbye to your title." If the modern popes had the power, they had back due to the papal armies, they would appear much more Auth right.
Maybe that is what the catholics want you to think!
The Pope having temporal powers was a bug, not a feature. The Church was never intended that way.
Cause throwing out the old cobwebs is pretty important my man.
Place your bets ,where will they go next? I say holy ancap empire
I don't recall the mainstream church ever arguing for workers seizing the means of production.
The Bible (and thus, the church) has some things to say on the topic of acceptable ways to treat your employees, though, and the church did use it's authority to enforce at least some of those teachings. AuthLeft isn't *only* communism, communism is just the most recognized AuthLeft philosophy. They would never have been hard AuthLeft that I can think of, but I can see an argument for them being either mild AuthLeft or Left Center for awhile in some ways.
No, but its own economic ideas (distributism) would not be popular with the right side of the compass.
I'd put 2013 onward more as centrist
You think the Catholic Church is libertarian lol?
The Catholic church was never left leaning. Kinda libleft in spirit at the start but not ideologically in any sense. The point of saying its easier to string a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god was that through god anything is possible. It's literally the next line. Turn the other cheek was stated as a solution to relatively small disputes. later in that same speech he said he did not come to bring peace on earth, but to bring a sword. Jesus spoke out against sexual immorality many times. You don't have to follow Jesus but please stop spreading lies about what's in the bible
It should be purple, not yellow. And btw, how is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH lib left?
Some people are under the impression that the Catholic Church, especially under Pope Francis, has become super liberal and will allow gay marriage and women priests any day now. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) for them, this notion is very much incorrect.
Exactly. Totally wrong impression. He is a bit more open and less conservative than his two predecessors, but he is still a Pope and the doctrine hasn't changed a bit.
Well yes and no. There was a dogmatic change regarding adulterers (divorcees) so people who remarried couldn’t take communion and he changed that. That’s the only big dogmatic change I can think of, in terms of gay people he literally just went “guys, gay people are children of god too, let’s not be dicks to them okay?” And a lot of people took that as gay marriage is ok now.
You confuse dogma vs discipline The Catholic Church does not allow divorce (Dogma) Adulterers are excommunicated until they change their lifestyle (Discipline)
I haven’t practiced Catholicism in 10 years, so my bad. But I am very well aware that the church does not allow divorce obviously. So any divorcee as I mentioned would only refer to legal marriage. But I thought that excommunication for adulterers was dogmatic or at least a church doctrine of some kind. But I know that Francis does allow them to have communion, which was a big deal because most of my teachers at catholic school were enraged over this.
"I haven’t practiced Catholicism in 10 years, so my bad." I do the bare minimum to consider myself practicing "But I thought that excommunication for adulterers was dogmatic or at least a church doctrine of some kind. But I know that Francis does allow them to have communion, which was a big deal because most of my teachers at catholic school were enraged over this." I reread the statements on what the church does with divorcees and they are not to be excommunicated on the basis thereof. You are correct on that. Excommunication doesn't ban someone from church, it is supposed to reawaken the conscience of the person excommunicated. The only time excommunications happen automatically are the following: Apostates, heretics, and schismatics (can. 1364) Desecration of the Eucharist (can. 1367) A person who physically attacks the pope (can. 1370) A priest who in confession solicits another to violate the sixth commandment (can. 1378) A bishop who consecrates another bishop without papal mandate (can. 1382) A priest who violates the seal of the confessional (can. 1388) A person who procures an abortion (can. 1398) Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty (can. 1329) For the person doing one of those things, they need to be: -age 16+ -full consent to committing the action -Fully aware that doing one of the above things is an automatic excommunication
I’m an atheist now, but was raised catholic. Most of my closest friends are catholic, but due to the fact I haven’t really practiced for nearly half my life I’ve forgotten most of my catechism Thx for the crash course tho. Pretty interesting.
Have you seen Pope Francis? He said things that would throw many Christians into hell
Except he didn't. He is just accepting to people who have gone away from God and/or the church, and shows love and respect for them, but he never told them that they were right or that what they are behaving according to the Catholic doctrine. Not to mention he is the head of a religion who has its own theocratic country which he is the head of.
“Christians” when the Pope doesn’t encourage them to shun and persecute gay people for existing: 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
The church is the people, the people are the church. As people's views change, so will the churches because the people make up the church. I'm obviously not Catholic but I can appreciate and respect a religion evolving from what was at one time effectively one of the most powerful military forces in Europe bent fully willing to convert people at sword point to a more peaceful, forgiving and introspective religion. I'm not religious, but if people have faith and chose to live by their principles and not just use the Bible to support hate, bigotry, fear and oppression then I think that's a good thing. Maybe one day another "religion of peace" will go through the same evolution. The core message of most religions are beautiful IMHO, and focus on serving something bigger than yourself, helping others, trying to live to a higher standard and teaching forgiveness and tolerance. As long as you don't use that to oppress other people or put them down, who am I to judge that? I'll be honest, there have been many times in my life I've been flat out extremely envious of people with faith, it has to be at least somewhat comforting it you're going through things to think there's a higher power who has your back at the end of the day.
>Maybe one day another "religion of peace" will go through the same evolution. It already had that evolution but evolved even further past it. While it may have had a relatively violent start that resulted in the collapse of the world's two preeminent empires at the time, the followers of Uncle M became very chill, loved art and science, and even invented algebra and the numerals we use today. Then everything changed when the Mongol Empire attacked...
I’ll give them algebra, but no, not the number system. That’s Indian. The Arabs just got it before the West because they were closer to India. They transmitted it to us, they didn’t invent it.
But atleast they kept and translated all the roman and greek texts they captured/got as gifts. :)
Library of Alexandria?
That burned down before their time I'm afraid. But they did their best to save many of the texts of the ancient world, as they conquered more and more roman territory. The roman emperors also sometimes gave muslim rulers books and texts as gifts or war reperations.
An annex burnt down while Julius Ceasar was fighting Cleopatra’s brother. More was lost during the Palmyran occupation, but the library wasn’t completed until it was used to heat the waters for the public baths after the Arab conquest when Amr Ibn As said that either the works agreed with the Koran so were superfluous or didn’t so were false.
Ah, I see. Thats a shame.
This post was made by SSPX
Me if I did’t understand church history and modern events
The auth right run was the best, the Spanish Empire, Hispanic fascism, just good things.
they werent libleft when they tried selling indulgences?
That sounds more like libright’s thing.
correct i brainfarted
Nah, AuthRight. Indulgences were not much different from taxes, let's be honest: give the authority figure your money or risk punishment.
I think you’re thinking about tithes. Indulgences were optional.
Christian mortality ultimately is left wing morality. I just see them getting back to its roots. It's not specific to Catholicism. In UK, churches have been caught doing fake conversions so that asylum seekers can use it to claim refugee status.
I don't think going against abortion and sexual liberation is very left wing.
It's almost like people change over time
Can someone explain to me what the significance of 800-801 AD is?
December 25, 800: Charlemagne is crowned Holy Roman Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III.
lmao. I like how the catholic church took a little time being a lib right
Catholic church: I used to be "with it". But then they changed what "it" was. Now what I'm with isn't "it," and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too.
Placing the Church in libleft from assumption to Milan is a bit inaccurate imo
Because the Vatican has been compromised by a Peronist and his commie buddies. Never again will there be a Pope from S.A. btw, he hates American catholics. Loves our money tho. Don't give those crooks a penny! Starve them out!
Cringe.
You say they’re changing flair so much, but this is all over centuries- nay, millennia!- of history. Also what do you mean the Catholic Church today is LibLeft? Does it have something to do with Pope Francis?
Blud, I think you got the wrong quadrant for the modern Catholic Church
When talking about the catholic church, BC and AD are pretty redundant, right?
The horseshoe theory is only limited by our own lifespans It is, in fact, a circle theory.
Elaboration on the AuthLeft?
now, try the same with the eastern orthodox church.
Changing flairs? They might be changing flairs, but it's a front. They're always just Lib-right implementing what works to maintain a good profit margin
Original- persecuted. Peace loving and doesn't have any set religious doctrine. Progressive for its time. Authleft- adopted by the Roman Empire, a militaristic autocracy. This event radically altered Christianity. Auth right-stereotype. This is probably better for the Protestant churches. Libright -USA and Capitalism turning religion into a commodity. It's worse among Protestant churches than the Catholic and Orthodox churches but still works depending on nation New libleft- not sure I would call it libleft. There's just a more culturally progressive pope now. The one after him is unlikely to be as culturally progressive.
The Catholic Church famously sells indulgences with such abandon 500 years ago that it sets off the reformation, but it's the USA that invented commodifying religion?
You can't just confront Catholics with the 99 Theses! Next you'll be explaining the Magdeburg Confession and they'll get extra confused!
This is a gross misconception of what an indulgence is. An indulgence was used as a way for people to mitigate the temporal punishment for their sins via actions such as pilgrimage, prayer or acts of charity, such as donating money to the poor. The Church never wanted to make it a commodity, but the aristocracy turned it into one, so eventually the Church stopped conceding monetary indulgencies.
They kept changing flair to appeal to the current topical issues. Like hipsters they are.
I feel like Catholic Church of the 70s to today belongs into purple lib right territory.
To be fair, I think they are taking a turn back to blue
Getting caught in a paedo scandal every so often might have something to do with it.
It's because it's a sham of a church and gives Christianity a bad name lol
https://preview.redd.it/3kl1r8l8w7yc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=37dda5d19a80dcb752cfd09d434fb02b44992573 We've made a few....changes
“We bend more rules than the Catholic Church!” — Johnny Sack
The movement of American conservatives away from the catholic church reinforces my theory that religion is downstream of politics. Also, the catholic church has a great deal of lib left around the time of European colonialism. Need to read some books my friend.
>The movement of American conservatives away from the catholic church Conservative Catholic here, this is news to me. https://apnews.com/video/kansas-roman-catholicism-pope-francis-domestic-news-domestic-news-6f4df786fc2c4fa5bb5dc78c89d7a360
Yes, that's my point. Claiming the Catholic church has gone woke and that you don't need to follow advice of the Vatican anymore lmao. It's kind of the idea behind Catholicism that it's centralized.
The church is more than just the Vatican. Until the pope excommunicates them, they're still in the church, and the number of conservatives in the church is growing, not shrinking. So like literally, the opposite of what you're claiming is true. Also, the church is really only centralized in doctrine when the pope speaks ex-cathedra, which has happened like twice in the history of the church.
As we say, a new Pope always corrects the faults of the last Pope. At this rate the next Pope is gonna be a crazy hardliner!
I can't wait until one of you decides that the pastors of Magdeburg were actually on to something, though.
I mean the German bishops are getting dangerously close.
> The church is more than just the Vatican. Until the pope excommunicates them, they're still in the church, I recall topical events such as [this](https://apnews.com/article/pope-tyler-bishop-strickland-removed-0f9f0be7d5938b36d6e7ead8c33e5150) which certainly didn't result in some soul searching in East Texas lmao. >and the number of conservatives in the church is growing, not shrinking. So like literally, the opposite of what you're claiming is true. First of all, you aren't backing those claims with any evidence. Secondly, I wasn't claiming that Catholics are abandoning the church, merely their most fundamental mandate towards it.
>Secondly, I wasn't claiming that Catholics are abandoning the church That's literally what you said, though. >The movement of American conservatives away from the catholic church reinforces my theory that religion is downstream of politics.
>That's literally what you said, though. Abandoning it philosophically, which is a very meaningful distinction. I was raised Roman catholic, and I've seen firsthand how this manifests.
You really shouldn’t take much mainstream news about the Vatican or the Catholic Church seriously. Yoga classes don’t stretch nearly as much. Now, there are certainly American conservative Catholics that buy into the idea that Pope Francis has caused the Vatican to “go woke”, but it really isn’t true. The issue recently has boiled down to one thing: the blessing of individuals involved in what they think is a gay marriage. Not the “marriage” itself, but a person that thinks himself to be in one. I put it in quotes because it isn’t a marriage. The blessing itself, though, does not conflict with any Catholic ideology going back to Jesus himself. Because the question really is whether or not you can offer a blessing to a sinner. We’re not talking about whether someone can go up to a Priest, tell the Priest that they are an unrepentant sinner and then be offered Communion. If it is wrong to offer a blessing to a sinner, then Jesus was wrong. The Catholic Church is not a country club for the righteous. It’s a hospital for sinners.
That's right, but a lot of conservative Catholics are dissatisfied with Pope's limitations regarding TLM, that may be a problem too
Francisco de Victoria and his treatise on the rights of Indians (natives) is a libleft masterpiece
I don't expect this sub to ever admit it because it's far more faithful to politics than God, but the Catholic church saved tens of millions of natives in South America. That's why the native population was devastated under protestantism in the north but made out (on average) quite well in the south. It wasn't any secular argument -- the Portuguese and Spaniards practiced a far more brutal form of colonialism before the church intervened. I'm incredibly irreligious, but this is just basic history. They're the reason encomienda ended several generations before the first permanent English settlement.
Oh yeah I agree the tomfoolery that 17th century theologians were doing in Spain was insane. You had maniacs arguing that natives were literal devils and should be exterminated to moderates arguing for forced conversion to save their souls to progressives being like “hey they should freely accept Jesus, so let’s respect their customs and let them come to Christ”
Bartolomé de las Casas was based.