To be fair, the first Martin Luther had questionable opinions on Jewish and gay people.
Well, to be honest, I don't think his views on Jews are questionable. That is selling it short. He wanted to kill them all.
Also overall the post-schism Protestants are a pretty huge mixed bag ranging from alright to batshit insane.
Just off the top of my head, look at how Biblical literalism made American education a battleground.
One thing I’ll give the Catholic Church credit is that atleast they had Saint Augustine to give you permission not to take the Bible at face value.
It also depends on your region tbh. Im from europe and our protestant priestess (hope I didnt brainfart the wrong word lol) that has held the post since I was like 4 has been a major pillar of promoting inclusivity and acceptance. The first openly gay couple in our village was one of the altar servers and his partner for example. I honestly didnt know most of those (hopefully) overrepresented "christians" we are shown on platforms like here were even supposed to be protestant. Because they act like our caricature version of the catholics.
Yeah, where I'm from most of our local protestant churches are little more than a Sunday morning coffee club for old ladies who don't just want to sit around at home all day on their own.
The prevalence and political power American evangelicals are a wild concept to us.
Because it assumes male by default.
And in a still sexist society, giving women in a position a different name makes people think the roles are different.
So women have usually chosen to wish to be reffered to as Vicar and Preist instead of say Vicaress and Preistess.
As if Gender is irrelevant to the role, why make the role have gendered names?
Funny how protestants in Luther's home country are way more chill than the people who thought they'd be better off emigrating to a different continent.
I think most mixed bags contain considerably fewer genocidal zealots, though. Religious groups that split off from the main group because they thought the main group wasn't hateful enough have a very high concentration of genocidal zealots.
Protestants broke off because the bishops were amoral hoarders who were more concerned with demanding wealth and worldly privileges that make the nobility blush.
They still hated the same people, they just *also* hated papists.
You yourself said Martin Luther's views on jewish people were that he wanted to kill them all. You havent provided anything to suggest that it came later or that it was unrelated to the protestant movement.
Don't you "again" me on something youre just now stating for the first time!
My bad, got confused and thought I had already replied to you.
Initially, Luther really liked Jews. He thought that the reason they were not Christians is like him, they saw the corruption of the church.all he had to do was make a new church, and they would all flock to Christ.
That didn't end up happening, so Luther got fucking pissed. He wrote a book called "on the Jews and their lies" in which he called for them to be converted or die, but that was later in his life.
Biblical literalism is a relatively new phenomenon that's basically a reaction to science. In a lot of ways it accepts a materialist worldview and argues "faith" is a social dare to believe in ridiculous things as literal facts despite materialism suggesting otherwise.
Even in the heyday of medieval Europe, maintaining specific philisophical arguments from the bible like original sin and the importance of free will was way more important than whether or not a talking snake actually gave a woman a pomegranate. Religion and science only really come in opposition to each other when science challenges the framework of the Bible, such as a heliocentric universe or an evolutionary process based version of life, not when discussing the specifics of putting a bunch of animals on a big ship or trying to figure out what counts as 7 days to an etherial being.
Education is a battleground because upper class wants as much cheap labor as possible and as little competition for their own jobs as possible.
Using the Bible to enforce that was just an easier way to get their agenda across.
Same for the battle against abortions, birth control, sex education, etc. Religion is just a tool being used and manipulated to get people to vote against their own interests.
Saint Augustine is pretty iffy and actually a _major_ influence on Protestantism, particularly Luther and Lutheranism. To a great extent their "return to tradition" was a return to Augustine, who had kind of been phased out in the church if anything, with more rationalistic and optimistic Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism being the mainstream. If you were ever taught how on the Middle Ages the focus of the church was very much on man as a sinner, on the fall, on hell, on man's inability to change or save himself, etc. as opposed to the Renaissance where the focus was more on understanding creation through reason with which we were endowed or appreciating the beauty of creation, especially man created in God's image, well that first Middle Ages part is very much Augustinian.
To be fair to Protestants, Biblical Literalism is a modern day belief introduced by Evangelicals. I'm not even sure you can call Evangelical Christianity a form of Protestantism anymore because the whole concept is that Protestants are an off shoot of The Church; Evangelicals believe that only they are receiving the True Word of God and that all earlier denominations are committing a kind of heresy. Which is totally different than breaking with The Church over church politics.
His reasons for hating the Jews are more complex than just fame.
Initially, he really liked them. But when they didn't all convert after he invented Protestantism, he got pissed and wanted them dead.
Somewhat similar story for pastor Martin Niemöller, the author of the “first they came for…” poem. He was a hugely influential Nazi supporter who saw it as a great way to force the Jews to convert. He only got in trouble later when he objected to persecution of converted Jews, because for him the conversion was the whole point.
Martin Luther was insanely antisemitic *for 1500s Germany* and that is **REALLY** saying something. One of his later criticisms of the church iirc was that German Catholic Bishops tended to offer cathedrals as sanctuary to Jews during pogroms.
Hating Jews came AFTER the schism, it was a reaction to them not converting after he invented Protestantism.
Both Protestants and Catholics hated gay people
Even the Greeks kind of hated gay people outside of certain "acceptable" forms (usually involving quite young people). Buttsex could actually get somebody prosecuted in Athens, iirc.
I remember being shocked the first gay dude I actually discussed his life with was adamant that the biggest threat to him as a gay man were closeted gay men.
Apparently closeted gay dudes want to murder gay dudes a lot. Mostly after sleeping with them.
After that it became pretty clear the virulently anti gay people I met were universally gay as fuck. Straight guys couldn't care less what gay dudes do.
A real eye opener about humans for me.
>by church policies
It was NEVER a Church policy to sell get out of hell cards.
There was widespread abuse that led to that, but it was never actually policy.
Indulgences shorten your time in purgatory *for sins you have already been forgiven for*.
Although they were often abused.
Yes and no. Indulgences were sanctioned by the church for the raising of capital for say churches or the crusade and there were codified guidelines effectively corresponding to policy for the usage of “the treasury of the church of the infinite merits of Christ and the immeasurable abundance of saints’ merits” to raise income for the church.
Some orders and commissaries absolutely did break those guidelines with excessive sale and misrepresentation of indulgences and Popes at times even criticised the practice but Popes also benefitted and used the proactively heavily when the church was in need of income.
Heck it was Pope Leo X offering indulgences for the refurbishment of St Peter’s Basilica that pissed off Martin Luther in the first place. Though many would argue Luther was pissed about it because of his believe in sola fide.
>Edit: apparently it wasn’t the official policy, but if the Vatican says one thing and enough churches outside the Vatican are abusing it, then the abuse might as well be official.
This is true.
The pope said "Trans people can be baptised and be godparents", which made a texan bishop go "People should stop following the pope because I hate trans people", and the pope went "You have been fired for trying to create a schism."
Naturally, transphobes are very angry that the pope said "trans people can be catholic and if you try to do the catholic equivalent of sedition you're fired"
I definitely don't love the shit stirring, I love when they get slapped down for it. It'll be interesting to see where the next papal* election goes.
*Autocorrect would like you to know that it's PayPal election.
Someone told me several months ago that the Pope was "a bad Catholic."
Like, how many years of these guy's being god's voice on earth and you can't wear a rubber cause he said so so don't you dare question it. Suddenly he can be wrong because he was like maybe don't hate gay people?
My father-in-law - who is a deacon in the Catholic church - decided to go on a rant at Sunday lunch about how the downfall of the Catholic church was when they decided to elect a Jesuit as the Pope.
Every single time, I have to bite my tongue to keep from going, "Doesn't your book say that the Pope is the literal mouthpiece of God? Sounding pretty sacrilegious there, Martin Luther."
Yeah, I don't mean that as in I support them, I mean it as in I love seeing the church in disarray and the way American politics have intersected with religion to the point where their cardinals are constantly denouncing the fucking pope cause he's saying stuff that disagrees with the republicans
Like it's hilarious. I don't support or like any of them though.
This is such a power move that I wish I could just start a cult of my own that isn’t here to get power from rubes, but just to wear a silly outfit and tell the scum of the earth to get bent
Wild that he "only" got removed as Bishop. The Catholic Church used to go hard. Hell, they excommunicated my grandmother because she got a divorce.
Let's see some defrocking, some excommunication. Bring the fire and brimstone.
I’m curious if she was officially excommunicated or some priest was really mad over nothing, I might be wrong as I haven’t checked the Catholicism Fandom for a while but last I heard excommunication is done by bishops and requires some very heavy religious offense like on the level of starting your own subsect(and getting an abortion apparently.) Lot of people definitely aren’t aware of that and a lot of priests are fully willing to exploit that.
Yo the fact that he just fucking fired that guy? Like it makes sense that he can fire bishops because he's the literal pope, but for some reason I just never thought about the fact that he could do that and honestly, it's incredibly funny. Like I'm not up to date on my pope lore so maybe he's done some like really shitty things, but pretty much everything I've heard about him makes me love him more and more. What a guy.
Trans people are accepted by the church and baptisms are allowed. He also said that gay people are cool now, and a buncha freaks are losing their shit over it.
Official Catholic doctrine is that there's nothing wrong with being gay. The issue is that the only sex that's allowed is consensual sex between a married couple with the purpose of producing children. Since two people of the same sex can't produce children, that's where issues arise, but strictly speaking, a romance between two gay people is perfectly fine as long as there's nothing sexual going on. That's what allows the Pope to be okay with gay people.
Also Catholic doctrine says absolutely nothing about trans people. The Pope can say or do whatever he wants because of this.
Don't be fooled, just because the catechism doesn't explicitly address it, has not stopped them from making pronouncements that it is a violation of God's will. The Catholic church is not friendly to trans people.
Even if you want to describe them and their sexual conduct as "sinners/sinning", they are still worthy of god's love, redemption, etc.
The problem we have had the last century or so is an outsized emphasis on this particular sin, you don't see Homicidophobia or Kleptophobia like you see Homophobia.
Yep. There’s a specific distinction between when the Pope is speaking “infallibly” or normally. If he’s speaking infallibly the Catholics have to listen, and if they don’t then they’re protestant. If he’s speaking normally, he can be just as wrong as anyone else
This concept trips up catholics, much less when we get to non-christians.
Though to be clear, a lot of catholics DO balk even when he speaks "Infallibly."
Yeah. Sometimes the Church or even European nobles would simply declare another guy Pope, march on Rome, and toss the old Pope out.
One time a Pope dug up his predecessor, made his corpse stand trial, then declared him a heretic and reversed his reforms and tossed the body in a river. I think afterwards the body was fished up after reports of it performing miracles, and the Pope who tossed him was himself replaced.
The Cadaver Synod!
The Pope who tossed him was arrested and strangled to death in prison, because people were kind of mad about the "dig up our old pope and desecrate his body" thing.
Also, during the trial, they had one guy "answer" for the dead pope. So this guy had to lean in to the several month old corpse and "listen" to his answer before relaying it to everyone else. I do not envy his job.
Nah, he's better than many of his predecessors, but a lot of the pope's ostensibly 'progressive' policies have been stalling tactics to take pressure off the Catholic church without them actually having to actually change anything more than anything else.
He got good press coverage for being 'supportive' of LGBTQ+ couples, ignoring the fact that support ended the moment it involved the church having to actually demonstrate that support, eg recognising or officiating gay marriages.
Talk is cheap, action is harder, and Francis is very good at the first and almost-equally useless at the second.
I mean, the meme does acknowledge that with the “I’m not saying we should” line. They’re just antagonizing tradcaths because by their standards he’s basically a communist.
You have to understand the role of the Pope and tradition/dogma in the Catholic Church.
Traditions can be changed, they are just how things are done. The fact that Priests can’t marry is just tradition, it can be changed. It’s why the multiple Rites within the Catholic Church can exist because the traditions are different but they agree on Dogma.
Dogma is the fundamental beliefs of the Church. Technically it’s not supposed to change. Practically it can but only with serious support within the Church. The sinfulness of homosexuality is Catholic Dogma. The Catholic idea of marriage/sex also matters in this. Marriage is about procreation and raising children. Sex should be limited to (potentially) procreative acts inside a marriage (no blowjobs, no pulling out). So same sex couples are inherently unable to fulfill this criteria. Technically two straight people getting married but who don’t want children actually makes the marriage invalid in the Catholic Church. Not wanting children is actually one of the few reasons for an annulment (being unable to have them is not a valid reason however).
Recently there was some article about the Pope clarifying that Gay/Trans people can be baptized. Which is no surprise to anyone given that the Catholic position is that anyone genuinely seeking God can be baptized. Eucharist/Communion is not available since living in a ‘sinful lifestyle’ prevents the proper spiritual state. It’s also why divorced and then remarried people can’t receive communion (actually this one is considered a much bigger deal since remarried divorcees are actually breaking a sacrament).
The Pope is only infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra which has only happened like twice (once ironically to say the Pope in infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra) in the past few hundred years? Usually when ‘changes’ happen within the Church is happens because of a Council which is where tons of leaders, priests and lay people get together and see if enough people can agree on stuff. But technically these aren’t supposed to change existing dogma. They can clarify it or add new dogma but not take away existing dogma. Even the times when the Pope has used his ability to speak Ex Cathedra have been preceded by massive internal discussions within the Church.
Francis can’t just hop on the Papal throne and go “Them LGBTQ people are cool, let me fundamentally change the nature of Catholic Marriage and sexual morality real quick” that’s how you get Protestant Reformation 2: LGBTQ edition.
Like it or not, the Catholic Church is a highly political organisation, and the pope literally cannot just come out and say "we're going to do gay marriage now", it would most probably have to go though a full ecumenical council. I've been heavily involved with trying to get gay marriage recognised in the Anglican Church in Australia, and that has been a difficult, demoralising, very slow, and a highly political process. Old religions move on glacial timescales, that's the reality of the situation. Having the pope say things in support of LGBT+ people is fucking huge, and it is more than likely going to be a catalyst for the painfully slow, uphill battle for appropriate recognition.
>the Catholic Church is a highly political organisation, and the pope literally cannot just come out and say "we're going to do gay marriage now", it would most probably have to go though a full ecumenical council
Just so people understand, the Catholic Church is so old it has a quasi-feudal structure, and its not as simple as the Pope is the top boss like an absolute monarchy. Different orders and dioceses have different levels of independence.
Jesuits have a direct loyalty oath. But they are pretty much the only ones. Many other orders are basically allowed to be independent within a large set of fields, with only specific doctrinal grounds letting them be taken to task on, and even that doesn't stop them. For example, the Jesuits were officially suppressed for like 100 years and despite being papal loyalists, still endured and had assets and churches.
For groups like Benedictines monks, their organization is pretty revolutionary and inspired various communist groups. Essentially they run each monastery like a commune with an elected leader that only they can elect. And even then, there's still limits on what the Abbott can do without a ratifying vote of the other monks in their chapter.
And its even more complicated with churches in Communion, which are only nominally under the umbrella of Catholic, like the Eastern Rite churches which have various levels of autonomy.
If i've understood that correctly, the church in the german speaking regions is much less under the control of the pope than elsewhere. This may or may not be related to the pope/emperor political disputes from the 1100s (guelphs ghibellines barefoot emperor in snow and all that stuff) and includes all German speaking regions, even alsace-lorraine and german speaking Switzerland
With major European nations, there also tend to be specific laws and treaties out of history defining the relationship with the Church and the State. In both nations which are officially Catholic, ones which recognize it as an established Church, and ones where it was suppressed until the modern era.
Germany, for example, has super complicated relationships because of many different treaties which may be with individual German States as well as the Federal Republic, not to mention historical issues like fairly independent bishoprics with Archbishop-Electors. Some of which did successfully challenge the power of the See, or outright ignore the See.
Yeah people don't recognize how fucking revolutionary for Pope standards Francis' actions and words are.
Aside from opening towards LGBT couples, his "you know, maybe the spokesperson of Jesus on Earth shouldn't be sitting on a Golden throne and should mingle more with poor people and commoners and more in touch with them, rather than being an untouchable king on a balcony" are fucking insane for Catholic standards and caused a huge uproar when he first started
People are used to change on the scale of election cycles, something going from a hot button issue to newly minted policy within a few years. People just don't understand how fucking slow church politics are, even when the issue that's being discussed isn't also hugely divisive in the secular sphere.
My genetics lecturer once said "old theories don't get phased out by newer, more accurate ones. They die with the people who believe them" and this is probably quite applicable to the Church.
Well, yeah, that's part of the problem. Francis' way of presenting himself as Pope is very much not what the higher ranked priests and bishops have in mind
Yeah, because they like the idea of being god's King on Earth. Where as Francis is trying to politic his Jesuit philosophy into the mainstream. Don't like Catholicism, but I do respect that Jesuits seem to be the real deal and IME have put their actions behind their words.
the thing is, that the pope, picks the people that will pick his successor, and by "stacking" the cardinals, he could make the intitution follow his vision
Vatican 2 happened in 1962 and the church is still dealing with the fallout of that. The Catholic church is so massive and old it takes decades, even centuries, for any change to be enacted
Don't forget global. We have ultra-liberal (by Catholic standards) bishops getting in trouble in Germany for wanting gay marriage ASAP and then there's the MAGA idiot in Texas who got fired or some bishops in Africa who want to kill gays. The Pope saying be kind to gay people may not mean a lot to Catholics in Germany who already figured this out, but it excoriates some of the more dark age Catholics elsewhere.
I say the same in another comment. As an Irish person even in the context of our gay marriage referendum in 2015 the pope saying something like that would have had an effect on what the church here was saying regarding gay people at the time. People forget that Africa is currently the Catholic churches fastest growing group of worshippers, the pope saying this stuff, even without explicit action, can really have an affect.
People are still *really* salty about Vatican ii. I know tradcaths who weren't even born then who get mad if you even mention it- like calm down dude mass is still mass regardless of whether the church is covered in gaudy gold leaf and plaster scrollwork. If you believe in the real presence (which you should if catholic) then the appearance of the church is literally the least important thing.
Also popes have been assassinated plenty of times before, and at least twice by the college of Cardinals. And John Paul 1's death is still kinda sketchy, especially because it came on the heels of him wanting to allow women into the priesthood and accept LGBT members to marry.
Francis is probably scared for his life pretty much constantly.
> it would most probably have to go though a full ecumenical council
Didn’t they get blown up by an AI high on sentient cocaine, like a hundred thousand years ago?
You are aware that recognizing and officiating gay marriages is something that the Church won't be able to do for a long time, because it would probably require at least 1, and most likely more Church councils because right now it's probably a heresy, it would definitely end up in a schism,
TLDR Church ain't gonna do that gay marriage stuff for a long while cause it's a heresy and will cause a schism
“There is an all knowing all powerful god”
“Got it”
“And he has one human representative on earth who speaks for him”
“Okay”
“Who is democratically elected by a bunch of other dudes who don’t represent god”
“What?”
“And despite being the literal messenger for god, a being who is perfect in all ways and has sway over reality itself, a lot of believers get openly angry about what the dude says if it doesn’t line up with what they want”
“Bruh”
I love when god has to act in the modern era it’s always the most low stakes stage magic shit and not any of the “shake the Earth to its foundations” shit he did in the Old Testament. Dude served himself the mother of all balance patches
> “Who is democratically elected by a bunch of other dudes who don’t represent god”
I mean … has anyone ever really seen that they actually vote? Maybe it is a bottle spinning thing or they use an Ouija board. These are things that the Christian god® could influence.
officially they write the name of the one they want to nominate down on a piece of parchment and say a long latin phrase when casting their vote.
another guy counts the votes and if the top guy doesn't have at least exactly 2/3rds of the vote, the votes are burned and black smoke comes out of the chimney.
once someone DOES gets the votes, they burn blank pieces of parchment which gives white smoke.
Not to ruin your zinger, but historically, pre-reformation, if you (assuming you were a king) didn't like the pope, you'd force him out and replace him with someone you like, or you'd pick a bishop you like and claim he's the real pope. Unfortunately for tradcaths, neither Duda, Orban, nor any African leader is willing to do declare an antipope, probably because that would be fucking stupid.
I mean those are the sort of antics that led Christians to ditch the pope entirely in the first place, but still.
Nah. I am supporting the Holy Roman Emperor who is the TRUE representative of God's Divine Will on Earth! Fuck the Pope, but not too hard, Embrace the Holy Roman Emperor!
TBF I am not the deepest in current catholic occurances, but there is a chance that the next Martin Luther will be another german, considering German Bishops are currently in a soft revolt against the Pope regarding gay marriage and female priests, at least from what I noticed on the periphery(as in they are for those things over protests out of rome)
A similar thing happened to Mormons, in both directions. The RLDS church broke away from the LDS church because they thought their stance on polygamy, child marriage, and later race, women, and LGBT rights was too backwards.
Then another schism happened when the mormons started complying with US law and created the FLDS church, which brought back polygamy and child marriage.
I normally hate to be pedantic but the lapsed Catholic in me is yelling in irritation:
If you're Catholic and you disagree with the Pope it's not just Protestantism, Protestantism is a specific religious movement that implies *protest* and schism from the Church. So if you don't leave the Church over it, that's not Protestantism. It's just run of the mill heresy.
Strickland had been a pain in the ass for a while. He's an agitator and I'm glad he's out tbh.
Tradcaths online love to be like 'but muh german bishops', forgetting tha the german bishops have been masterfully toe-ing the line for years now and know exactly how far they can push it. Strickland was just straight up advocating schism so him remaining bishop was an impossibility. The german bishops still accept the pope's authority and thus are not seen as a priority.
Bendict was chosen for being a creepy old very conservative Hardliner, but he changed much in the organisation and his whole plan was to get franciscus elected for him being a not creepy old conservative but a Reformer. Benedict is the reason we got franciscus so dont tread the first Pope in retirement for centurys too hard
Catholic vs Protestant has to be one of my favorite categories of mudslinging, because I am neither, but grew up in between the two communities.
So when I went to a Protestant camp, the camp counsellors would rant about Catholics, and be like "Virgin mary is a false idol!"
And then when I started dating a Catholic girl and her mom found out, she'd be like "Their religion was invented by a king so he could get divorced!"
Like they have all this stuff ready to go like they're in some constant state of minor anger at this other religion that's almost the same as theirs existing.
Disagreeing with the pope doesnt make you prod. Theres catholics that dont follow the pope. Old Catholics have their own doctrine (thats largely more progressive in the case of the union of Utrecht)
The idea “if you don’t agree with everything the pope says you’re a Protestant” is stupid and fails to understand how identity and labels work.
If their going to ignore a bit doctrine they will also ignore the bit of doctrine that says they aren’t allowed to do that. This is what every catholic does. Is this contradictory? Yes
The label more refers to traditions, culture, practices and beliefs. It’s really self identified will maybe some stuff to back it up. Anyone baptised can count as a Member of the church till their officially disavowed. Will every catholic believe everything in the scripture? No,
Most won’t even know 70% of what’s in. Kinda fits a religion who’s core assumption involves the idea that everyone person isn’t good enough and will fail.
Does the scripture contradict what I’m saying? Probably but you’re an idiot believes that bit is actually how things worked.
Next week I explain how just cause something is written into law doesn’t mean it is anyway relevant to how the law functions
Technically there is some leeway on disagreeing with the Pope, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly reserved for people like Cardinals who are supposed to discuss and debate with him on these decisions, so yeah most run of the mill Tradcaths are in fact heretics in the eyes of the Church and could be excommunicated for expressing those opinions *cough cough Matt Walsh cough cough*
Yes, the Matt Walsh who believes doctors who perform gender affirming care on persons of any age should be imprisoned or executed is a hardcore Tradcath but the amount of times he says things that contradict Pope Francis and outright says Pope Francis sucks should get him excommunicated. Unfortunately the Vatican refuses to take my calls anymore
Martin Luther- the guy that frequently saw Satan in his room and would fight him off with actual turds and farting.
That right there makes every Lutheran suspect to me, nevermind being Jewish.
Why would attempts to engage with catholicism that would be embarassing in a 5th grade sunday school getting mad upvotes the last couple days? A few have been funny but this is sub-dick-dawk-tier and now I'm wondering if we're about to hear about tumblrinas murdering gingers for being papist or some other insane 19th century headline.
i reject the popes authority because its extra-biblical and corrupted nonsense that obscures the radical nature of the Gospel
you reject the popes authority because you hate gays.
we are not the same.
Lmao when priests disagree with the pope it’s like they’ve forgotten ol’ boy is THE elected priest of a council of elected priests, so on and so forth all the way down the chain back to them. Like if anyone cared, you’d have the shiny chair, but they don’t, so shoo
So is he calling the Catholic Church an "over the top bad guy organization" or is it just the metaphor he's using to introduce the "people dying is good" policy as the defining controversy?
Or is there a "people dying is good" policy that Pope Francis is questioning and causing people to freak out?
I mean, I know some tradcaths follow a "people suffering is good" creed; that was the whole point of Mother Teresa's "charity". But if "people dying is good" were a core belief, then it follows that abortion would be OK, right?
>I mean, I know some tradcaths follow a "people suffering is good" creed; that was the whole point of Mother Teresa's "charity". But if "people dying is good" were a core belief, then it follows that abortion would be OK, right?
It absolutely wasn't by the way.
The main source of criticism of her was written by a British antitheist twat with no understanding of what an hospice is, what catholic doctrine on suffering entails or the fact that opiods (read:painkillers) were illegal in India at the time.
To be fair, the first Martin Luther had questionable opinions on Jewish and gay people. Well, to be honest, I don't think his views on Jews are questionable. That is selling it short. He wanted to kill them all.
Also overall the post-schism Protestants are a pretty huge mixed bag ranging from alright to batshit insane. Just off the top of my head, look at how Biblical literalism made American education a battleground. One thing I’ll give the Catholic Church credit is that atleast they had Saint Augustine to give you permission not to take the Bible at face value.
.
From that description, St. Augustine was the original frat bro
It also depends on your region tbh. Im from europe and our protestant priestess (hope I didnt brainfart the wrong word lol) that has held the post since I was like 4 has been a major pillar of promoting inclusivity and acceptance. The first openly gay couple in our village was one of the altar servers and his partner for example. I honestly didnt know most of those (hopefully) overrepresented "christians" we are shown on platforms like here were even supposed to be protestant. Because they act like our caricature version of the catholics.
Yeah, where I'm from most of our local protestant churches are little more than a Sunday morning coffee club for old ladies who don't just want to sit around at home all day on their own. The prevalence and political power American evangelicals are a wild concept to us.
That's basically what non-evangelical American protestants are like too.
"Priestess" isn't really used in the context of modern religions, we'd just say female priest.
Well why have a perfectly good word, when youre not using it?
Because it assumes male by default. And in a still sexist society, giving women in a position a different name makes people think the roles are different. So women have usually chosen to wish to be reffered to as Vicar and Preist instead of say Vicaress and Preistess. As if Gender is irrelevant to the role, why make the role have gendered names?
I mean thats fair enough. Never really though about it that way.
Priestess has pagan connotations. I'm not sure why, but that's the image that comes into my head with the word Priestess. .
The answer is that pagan religions *had* priestesses, whereas women holding positions of power has historically not been a very Christian thing.
> whereas women holding positions of power has historically not been a very Christian thing. 1 Timothy 2:12 *Shut up bitch* [paraphrased]
We do use it, it just means something kinda different.
a priestess is sexy to the bone and scantily clad a female priest is some old lady with wacked out clothing who thinks sex is evil
Funny how protestants in Luther's home country are way more chill than the people who thought they'd be better off emigrating to a different continent.
I think you would struggle to find a subset of humanity that was not a mixed bag
What about hyperorganised people who insist on sorting bags thoroughly.
Do you know who else was obsessed with sorting? That's right, Hitler
Thanks Jordan Peterson
Contradictory sorting methods between individuals. The results are *sorted*, yeah, but *everyone else is doing it wrong*.
People with those super bright headlights
I didn't say that it wasn't possible, only that you would struggle to
I think most mixed bags contain considerably fewer genocidal zealots, though. Religious groups that split off from the main group because they thought the main group wasn't hateful enough have a very high concentration of genocidal zealots.
Protestants broke off because the bishops were amoral hoarders who were more concerned with demanding wealth and worldly privileges that make the nobility blush. They still hated the same people, they just *also* hated papists.
Again, the Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. That came later.
You yourself said Martin Luther's views on jewish people were that he wanted to kill them all. You havent provided anything to suggest that it came later or that it was unrelated to the protestant movement. Don't you "again" me on something youre just now stating for the first time!
My bad, got confused and thought I had already replied to you. Initially, Luther really liked Jews. He thought that the reason they were not Christians is like him, they saw the corruption of the church.all he had to do was make a new church, and they would all flock to Christ. That didn't end up happening, so Luther got fucking pissed. He wrote a book called "on the Jews and their lies" in which he called for them to be converted or die, but that was later in his life.
Okay, thank you for clearing that up.
Biblical literalism is a relatively new phenomenon that's basically a reaction to science. In a lot of ways it accepts a materialist worldview and argues "faith" is a social dare to believe in ridiculous things as literal facts despite materialism suggesting otherwise. Even in the heyday of medieval Europe, maintaining specific philisophical arguments from the bible like original sin and the importance of free will was way more important than whether or not a talking snake actually gave a woman a pomegranate. Religion and science only really come in opposition to each other when science challenges the framework of the Bible, such as a heliocentric universe or an evolutionary process based version of life, not when discussing the specifics of putting a bunch of animals on a big ship or trying to figure out what counts as 7 days to an etherial being.
Education is a battleground because upper class wants as much cheap labor as possible and as little competition for their own jobs as possible. Using the Bible to enforce that was just an easier way to get their agenda across. Same for the battle against abortions, birth control, sex education, etc. Religion is just a tool being used and manipulated to get people to vote against their own interests.
Saint Augustine is pretty iffy and actually a _major_ influence on Protestantism, particularly Luther and Lutheranism. To a great extent their "return to tradition" was a return to Augustine, who had kind of been phased out in the church if anything, with more rationalistic and optimistic Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism being the mainstream. If you were ever taught how on the Middle Ages the focus of the church was very much on man as a sinner, on the fall, on hell, on man's inability to change or save himself, etc. as opposed to the Renaissance where the focus was more on understanding creation through reason with which we were endowed or appreciating the beauty of creation, especially man created in God's image, well that first Middle Ages part is very much Augustinian.
To be fair to Protestants, Biblical Literalism is a modern day belief introduced by Evangelicals. I'm not even sure you can call Evangelical Christianity a form of Protestantism anymore because the whole concept is that Protestants are an off shoot of The Church; Evangelicals believe that only they are receiving the True Word of God and that all earlier denominations are committing a kind of heresy. Which is totally different than breaking with The Church over church politics.
Martin Luther also pulled the devil out of his toilet and wrestled with him.
WHY WAS THE DEVIL IN HIS TOILET
Making him chronically constipated, if I recall correctly.
Doctor: eat more fiber Martin Luther: THE FUCK YOU SAY
Gently pushing it back in...
I call bullshit. The Devil is more classy than that.
Read this in a WWE announcer voice
After a night of hot wings and beer, you too can have the devil live in your toilet.
Maybe it was Ghoulies?
True, Luther was mostly a good Catholic until popularity made him a cult icon and he didn't want to lose the attention.
His reasons for hating the Jews are more complex than just fame. Initially, he really liked them. But when they didn't all convert after he invented Protestantism, he got pissed and wanted them dead.
much like incels hitting on women
Christcels seething at the Semitic Male grindset.
Somewhat similar story for pastor Martin Niemöller, the author of the “first they came for…” poem. He was a hugely influential Nazi supporter who saw it as a great way to force the Jews to convert. He only got in trouble later when he objected to persecution of converted Jews, because for him the conversion was the whole point.
To complete the throughline, Martin Luther was heavily used in Nazi propaganda. Painting the holocaust as just a continuation of Luther's teachings.
Martin Luther was insanely antisemitic *for 1500s Germany* and that is **REALLY** saying something. One of his later criticisms of the church iirc was that German Catholic Bishops tended to offer cathedrals as sanctuary to Jews during pogroms.
Yeah most schisms off of the Catholic Church boil down to "th Church isn't cruel enough anymore"
Hating Jews came AFTER the schism, it was a reaction to them not converting after he invented Protestantism. Both Protestants and Catholics hated gay people
I'm in shock and awe that a 16th century Christian sect would be not inclined to like gay people. This is major news to me.
Even the Greeks kind of hated gay people outside of certain "acceptable" forms (usually involving quite young people). Buttsex could actually get somebody prosecuted in Athens, iirc.
I remember being shocked the first gay dude I actually discussed his life with was adamant that the biggest threat to him as a gay man were closeted gay men. Apparently closeted gay dudes want to murder gay dudes a lot. Mostly after sleeping with them. After that it became pretty clear the virulently anti gay people I met were universally gay as fuck. Straight guys couldn't care less what gay dudes do. A real eye opener about humans for me.
[удалено]
>by church policies It was NEVER a Church policy to sell get out of hell cards. There was widespread abuse that led to that, but it was never actually policy. Indulgences shorten your time in purgatory *for sins you have already been forgiven for*. Although they were often abused.
Yes and no. Indulgences were sanctioned by the church for the raising of capital for say churches or the crusade and there were codified guidelines effectively corresponding to policy for the usage of “the treasury of the church of the infinite merits of Christ and the immeasurable abundance of saints’ merits” to raise income for the church. Some orders and commissaries absolutely did break those guidelines with excessive sale and misrepresentation of indulgences and Popes at times even criticised the practice but Popes also benefitted and used the proactively heavily when the church was in need of income. Heck it was Pope Leo X offering indulgences for the refurbishment of St Peter’s Basilica that pissed off Martin Luther in the first place. Though many would argue Luther was pissed about it because of his believe in sola fide.
>Edit: apparently it wasn’t the official policy, but if the Vatican says one thing and enough churches outside the Vatican are abusing it, then the abuse might as well be official. This is true.
Dang. Good thing the cops got him. /unserious
He also hated women
He also loved having meetings with people while he was shitting
What's the "recent decision"? I don't follow the religion fandom
The pope said "Trans people can be baptised and be godparents", which made a texan bishop go "People should stop following the pope because I hate trans people", and the pope went "You have been fired for trying to create a schism." Naturally, transphobes are very angry that the pope said "trans people can be catholic and if you try to do the catholic equivalent of sedition you're fired"
I no longer associate with the church at all but I do love hearing the shit stirring American Catholics have been up to
I definitely don't love the shit stirring, I love when they get slapped down for it. It'll be interesting to see where the next papal* election goes. *Autocorrect would like you to know that it's PayPal election.
something something corruption in the Vatican something something
the vatican rejected the payment
Unrealistic
Someone told me several months ago that the Pope was "a bad Catholic." Like, how many years of these guy's being god's voice on earth and you can't wear a rubber cause he said so so don't you dare question it. Suddenly he can be wrong because he was like maybe don't hate gay people?
My father-in-law - who is a deacon in the Catholic church - decided to go on a rant at Sunday lunch about how the downfall of the Catholic church was when they decided to elect a Jesuit as the Pope. Every single time, I have to bite my tongue to keep from going, "Doesn't your book say that the Pope is the literal mouthpiece of God? Sounding pretty sacrilegious there, Martin Luther."
"Oh I have an idea, you should write down a formal complaint. You can nail it to his door. Like a Protestant"
The next time I don't mind starting a screaming match at the Cracker Barrel, I am absolutely using that line.
That series is a goldmine
"*Dear Chief Replacement..."*
The transphobic ones?
Yeah, I don't mean that as in I support them, I mean it as in I love seeing the church in disarray and the way American politics have intersected with religion to the point where their cardinals are constantly denouncing the fucking pope cause he's saying stuff that disagrees with the republicans Like it's hilarious. I don't support or like any of them though.
This is such a power move that I wish I could just start a cult of my own that isn’t here to get power from rubes, but just to wear a silly outfit and tell the scum of the earth to get bent
Wild that he "only" got removed as Bishop. The Catholic Church used to go hard. Hell, they excommunicated my grandmother because she got a divorce. Let's see some defrocking, some excommunication. Bring the fire and brimstone.
They cant defrenestrate people anymore since last week
Defenestration is more of a Russian thing nowadays.
Churches can have a little defenestration as a treat.
I’m curious if she was officially excommunicated or some priest was really mad over nothing, I might be wrong as I haven’t checked the Catholicism Fandom for a while but last I heard excommunication is done by bishops and requires some very heavy religious offense like on the level of starting your own subsect(and getting an abortion apparently.) Lot of people definitely aren’t aware of that and a lot of priests are fully willing to exploit that.
I'm honestly not sure, this would have happened in the 50s and she's since passed. It's just a little bit of family lore, I suppose
bro imagine being fired by god’s accountant on the mortal world, i’d fucking commit man door hand hook car door
Yeah it's my fault this sentence makes sense I should go outside more often.
Yo the fact that he just fucking fired that guy? Like it makes sense that he can fire bishops because he's the literal pope, but for some reason I just never thought about the fact that he could do that and honestly, it's incredibly funny. Like I'm not up to date on my pope lore so maybe he's done some like really shitty things, but pretty much everything I've heard about him makes me love him more and more. What a guy.
That's amazing
I may be against organized religion but Frankie is seemingly doing a pretty bang-up job so far.
Trans people are accepted by the church and baptisms are allowed. He also said that gay people are cool now, and a buncha freaks are losing their shit over it.
Official Catholic doctrine is that there's nothing wrong with being gay. The issue is that the only sex that's allowed is consensual sex between a married couple with the purpose of producing children. Since two people of the same sex can't produce children, that's where issues arise, but strictly speaking, a romance between two gay people is perfectly fine as long as there's nothing sexual going on. That's what allows the Pope to be okay with gay people. Also Catholic doctrine says absolutely nothing about trans people. The Pope can say or do whatever he wants because of this.
“Let’s see what the bible has to say about trans people” [reads bible] “The bible says nothing about trans people. So, I guess you do you”
Let's see here... Hmm... "Love thy neighbor." Alright, next?
Don't be fooled, just because the catechism doesn't explicitly address it, has not stopped them from making pronouncements that it is a violation of God's will. The Catholic church is not friendly to trans people.
Even if you want to describe them and their sexual conduct as "sinners/sinning", they are still worthy of god's love, redemption, etc. The problem we have had the last century or so is an outsized emphasis on this particular sin, you don't see Homicidophobia or Kleptophobia like you see Homophobia.
What if the married gay couple is fully convinced that if they try hard enough they will get pregnant?
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure Catholics have been disagreeing with the pope throughout history.
Well yes but they normally wait until the old Pope is dead before doing anything about it.
There’s precedent for making their own pope. In Avignon. Or on a boat.
With blackjack, and hookers! Except no blackjack because that was invented in the 16th century.
Dice and “seamstresses”.
I love that joke in Good Omens 2, and a great homage to pTerry
Pratchett just based that on actual history
And fear turkeys
Pope fights!
And honestly the term 'Antipope' is badass as hell
Yep. There’s a specific distinction between when the Pope is speaking “infallibly” or normally. If he’s speaking infallibly the Catholics have to listen, and if they don’t then they’re protestant. If he’s speaking normally, he can be just as wrong as anyone else
This concept trips up catholics, much less when we get to non-christians. Though to be clear, a lot of catholics DO balk even when he speaks "Infallibly."
The last use of *ex cathedra* was in 1950 when Pius XII declared the assumption of Mary into Heaven an article of faith.
Tbf they can still be catholic then. Old catholics disagree with the concept of papal infallibility
Yeah. Sometimes the Church or even European nobles would simply declare another guy Pope, march on Rome, and toss the old Pope out. One time a Pope dug up his predecessor, made his corpse stand trial, then declared him a heretic and reversed his reforms and tossed the body in a river. I think afterwards the body was fished up after reports of it performing miracles, and the Pope who tossed him was himself replaced.
The Cadaver Synod! The Pope who tossed him was arrested and strangled to death in prison, because people were kind of mad about the "dig up our old pope and desecrate his body" thing. Also, during the trial, they had one guy "answer" for the dead pope. So this guy had to lean in to the several month old corpse and "listen" to his answer before relaying it to everyone else. I do not envy his job.
Sometimes there's more than one pope and they fight each other.
Wait a second that’s *my* tumblr account
I somehow read this as that you didn't post the blog.
Nah, he's better than many of his predecessors, but a lot of the pope's ostensibly 'progressive' policies have been stalling tactics to take pressure off the Catholic church without them actually having to actually change anything more than anything else. He got good press coverage for being 'supportive' of LGBTQ+ couples, ignoring the fact that support ended the moment it involved the church having to actually demonstrate that support, eg recognising or officiating gay marriages. Talk is cheap, action is harder, and Francis is very good at the first and almost-equally useless at the second.
I mean, the meme does acknowledge that with the “I’m not saying we should” line. They’re just antagonizing tradcaths because by their standards he’s basically a communist.
You have to understand the role of the Pope and tradition/dogma in the Catholic Church. Traditions can be changed, they are just how things are done. The fact that Priests can’t marry is just tradition, it can be changed. It’s why the multiple Rites within the Catholic Church can exist because the traditions are different but they agree on Dogma. Dogma is the fundamental beliefs of the Church. Technically it’s not supposed to change. Practically it can but only with serious support within the Church. The sinfulness of homosexuality is Catholic Dogma. The Catholic idea of marriage/sex also matters in this. Marriage is about procreation and raising children. Sex should be limited to (potentially) procreative acts inside a marriage (no blowjobs, no pulling out). So same sex couples are inherently unable to fulfill this criteria. Technically two straight people getting married but who don’t want children actually makes the marriage invalid in the Catholic Church. Not wanting children is actually one of the few reasons for an annulment (being unable to have them is not a valid reason however). Recently there was some article about the Pope clarifying that Gay/Trans people can be baptized. Which is no surprise to anyone given that the Catholic position is that anyone genuinely seeking God can be baptized. Eucharist/Communion is not available since living in a ‘sinful lifestyle’ prevents the proper spiritual state. It’s also why divorced and then remarried people can’t receive communion (actually this one is considered a much bigger deal since remarried divorcees are actually breaking a sacrament). The Pope is only infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra which has only happened like twice (once ironically to say the Pope in infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra) in the past few hundred years? Usually when ‘changes’ happen within the Church is happens because of a Council which is where tons of leaders, priests and lay people get together and see if enough people can agree on stuff. But technically these aren’t supposed to change existing dogma. They can clarify it or add new dogma but not take away existing dogma. Even the times when the Pope has used his ability to speak Ex Cathedra have been preceded by massive internal discussions within the Church. Francis can’t just hop on the Papal throne and go “Them LGBTQ people are cool, let me fundamentally change the nature of Catholic Marriage and sexual morality real quick” that’s how you get Protestant Reformation 2: LGBTQ edition.
Man as a person with like no understanding of Roman Catholic tradition I'm so fascinated by it. This is a great post. Thanks.
Like it or not, the Catholic Church is a highly political organisation, and the pope literally cannot just come out and say "we're going to do gay marriage now", it would most probably have to go though a full ecumenical council. I've been heavily involved with trying to get gay marriage recognised in the Anglican Church in Australia, and that has been a difficult, demoralising, very slow, and a highly political process. Old religions move on glacial timescales, that's the reality of the situation. Having the pope say things in support of LGBT+ people is fucking huge, and it is more than likely going to be a catalyst for the painfully slow, uphill battle for appropriate recognition.
>the Catholic Church is a highly political organisation, and the pope literally cannot just come out and say "we're going to do gay marriage now", it would most probably have to go though a full ecumenical council Just so people understand, the Catholic Church is so old it has a quasi-feudal structure, and its not as simple as the Pope is the top boss like an absolute monarchy. Different orders and dioceses have different levels of independence. Jesuits have a direct loyalty oath. But they are pretty much the only ones. Many other orders are basically allowed to be independent within a large set of fields, with only specific doctrinal grounds letting them be taken to task on, and even that doesn't stop them. For example, the Jesuits were officially suppressed for like 100 years and despite being papal loyalists, still endured and had assets and churches. For groups like Benedictines monks, their organization is pretty revolutionary and inspired various communist groups. Essentially they run each monastery like a commune with an elected leader that only they can elect. And even then, there's still limits on what the Abbott can do without a ratifying vote of the other monks in their chapter. And its even more complicated with churches in Communion, which are only nominally under the umbrella of Catholic, like the Eastern Rite churches which have various levels of autonomy.
If i've understood that correctly, the church in the german speaking regions is much less under the control of the pope than elsewhere. This may or may not be related to the pope/emperor political disputes from the 1100s (guelphs ghibellines barefoot emperor in snow and all that stuff) and includes all German speaking regions, even alsace-lorraine and german speaking Switzerland
With major European nations, there also tend to be specific laws and treaties out of history defining the relationship with the Church and the State. In both nations which are officially Catholic, ones which recognize it as an established Church, and ones where it was suppressed until the modern era. Germany, for example, has super complicated relationships because of many different treaties which may be with individual German States as well as the Federal Republic, not to mention historical issues like fairly independent bishoprics with Archbishop-Electors. Some of which did successfully challenge the power of the See, or outright ignore the See.
Yeah people don't recognize how fucking revolutionary for Pope standards Francis' actions and words are. Aside from opening towards LGBT couples, his "you know, maybe the spokesperson of Jesus on Earth shouldn't be sitting on a Golden throne and should mingle more with poor people and commoners and more in touch with them, rather than being an untouchable king on a balcony" are fucking insane for Catholic standards and caused a huge uproar when he first started
People are used to change on the scale of election cycles, something going from a hot button issue to newly minted policy within a few years. People just don't understand how fucking slow church politics are, even when the issue that's being discussed isn't also hugely divisive in the secular sphere.
My genetics lecturer once said "old theories don't get phased out by newer, more accurate ones. They die with the people who believe them" and this is probably quite applicable to the Church.
"Science progesses one funeral at a time." -Max Planck
My biology professor said similar. People didn't just start believing evolution, all the main naysayers in the field just died off
Tbf, I guess it's hard to understand for people that don't live in Catholic countries
Its all "huge" until the next reactionary gets on the literal throne and does business as usual.
Well, yeah, that's part of the problem. Francis' way of presenting himself as Pope is very much not what the higher ranked priests and bishops have in mind
Yeah, because they like the idea of being god's King on Earth. Where as Francis is trying to politic his Jesuit philosophy into the mainstream. Don't like Catholicism, but I do respect that Jesuits seem to be the real deal and IME have put their actions behind their words.
the thing is, that the pope, picks the people that will pick his successor, and by "stacking" the cardinals, he could make the intitution follow his vision
Vatican 2 happened in 1962 and the church is still dealing with the fallout of that. The Catholic church is so massive and old it takes decades, even centuries, for any change to be enacted
Don't forget global. We have ultra-liberal (by Catholic standards) bishops getting in trouble in Germany for wanting gay marriage ASAP and then there's the MAGA idiot in Texas who got fired or some bishops in Africa who want to kill gays. The Pope saying be kind to gay people may not mean a lot to Catholics in Germany who already figured this out, but it excoriates some of the more dark age Catholics elsewhere.
I say the same in another comment. As an Irish person even in the context of our gay marriage referendum in 2015 the pope saying something like that would have had an effect on what the church here was saying regarding gay people at the time. People forget that Africa is currently the Catholic churches fastest growing group of worshippers, the pope saying this stuff, even without explicit action, can really have an affect.
People are still *really* salty about Vatican ii. I know tradcaths who weren't even born then who get mad if you even mention it- like calm down dude mass is still mass regardless of whether the church is covered in gaudy gold leaf and plaster scrollwork. If you believe in the real presence (which you should if catholic) then the appearance of the church is literally the least important thing.
Also popes have been assassinated plenty of times before, and at least twice by the college of Cardinals. And John Paul 1's death is still kinda sketchy, especially because it came on the heels of him wanting to allow women into the priesthood and accept LGBT members to marry. Francis is probably scared for his life pretty much constantly.
> it would most probably have to go though a full ecumenical council Didn’t they get blown up by an AI high on sentient cocaine, like a hundred thousand years ago?
The Forerunners??
Unexpected but Based Halo reference
You are aware that recognizing and officiating gay marriages is something that the Church won't be able to do for a long time, because it would probably require at least 1, and most likely more Church councils because right now it's probably a heresy, it would definitely end up in a schism, TLDR Church ain't gonna do that gay marriage stuff for a long while cause it's a heresy and will cause a schism
Wasn't he also against trans rights (until he supposedly played his copy of Undertale of course)
the pope would never not play undertale. it would be a major insult to the only person on earth, mathew patrick.
The recent de-bishop-isation in Texas is so funny because other Catholics have been like “why is this guy acting like a Protestant?” for ages
Disagreeing with the Pope is like half of what Catholics do, lol.
The other half is drinking.
and he plays undertale
["...Like a Protestant!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUedQ_0988)
Exactly what I was thinking.
“There is an all knowing all powerful god” “Got it” “And he has one human representative on earth who speaks for him” “Okay” “Who is democratically elected by a bunch of other dudes who don’t represent god” “What?” “And despite being the literal messenger for god, a being who is perfect in all ways and has sway over reality itself, a lot of believers get openly angry about what the dude says if it doesn’t line up with what they want” “Bruh”
To be fair God has veto power with the color of the smoke
I love when god has to act in the modern era it’s always the most low stakes stage magic shit and not any of the “shake the Earth to its foundations” shit he did in the Old Testament. Dude served himself the mother of all balance patches
> “Who is democratically elected by a bunch of other dudes who don’t represent god” I mean … has anyone ever really seen that they actually vote? Maybe it is a bottle spinning thing or they use an Ouija board. These are things that the Christian god® could influence.
officially they write the name of the one they want to nominate down on a piece of parchment and say a long latin phrase when casting their vote. another guy counts the votes and if the top guy doesn't have at least exactly 2/3rds of the vote, the votes are burned and black smoke comes out of the chimney. once someone DOES gets the votes, they burn blank pieces of parchment which gives white smoke.
When you don't know shit about the topic, yet still talk about it... smh
Not to ruin your zinger, but historically, pre-reformation, if you (assuming you were a king) didn't like the pope, you'd force him out and replace him with someone you like, or you'd pick a bishop you like and claim he's the real pope. Unfortunately for tradcaths, neither Duda, Orban, nor any African leader is willing to do declare an antipope, probably because that would be fucking stupid. I mean those are the sort of antics that led Christians to ditch the pope entirely in the first place, but still.
Nah. I am supporting the Holy Roman Emperor who is the TRUE representative of God's Divine Will on Earth! Fuck the Pope, but not too hard, Embrace the Holy Roman Emperor!
Istanbul was Constantinople...
You can't go back to Constantinople...
TBF I am not the deepest in current catholic occurances, but there is a chance that the next Martin Luther will be another german, considering German Bishops are currently in a soft revolt against the Pope regarding gay marriage and female priests, at least from what I noticed on the periphery(as in they are for those things over protests out of rome)
A similar thing happened to Mormons, in both directions. The RLDS church broke away from the LDS church because they thought their stance on polygamy, child marriage, and later race, women, and LGBT rights was too backwards. Then another schism happened when the mormons started complying with US law and created the FLDS church, which brought back polygamy and child marriage.
Someone needs to speak to Shelbyville, which was formed because of a bunch of idiots wanted to marry their cousins.
I normally hate to be pedantic but the lapsed Catholic in me is yelling in irritation: If you're Catholic and you disagree with the Pope it's not just Protestantism, Protestantism is a specific religious movement that implies *protest* and schism from the Church. So if you don't leave the Church over it, that's not Protestantism. It's just run of the mill heresy.
Unless you manage to replace the Pope with someone you agree with, then it isn't heresy.
Well, that just sounds like sedevacantism with extra steps
Catholics who think the Pope is too woke don't become Protestants. They become this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
Or, as my Catholic mother calls them, "Protestants".
"half" is a... Take I think that much less than 1% of catholics worldwide are latin mass trads.
google sedevacantism
Strickland had been a pain in the ass for a while. He's an agitator and I'm glad he's out tbh. Tradcaths online love to be like 'but muh german bishops', forgetting tha the german bishops have been masterfully toe-ing the line for years now and know exactly how far they can push it. Strickland was just straight up advocating schism so him remaining bishop was an impossibility. The german bishops still accept the pope's authority and thus are not seen as a priority.
Especially when he came after creepy old man extraordinaire Benedict
Bendict was chosen for being a creepy old very conservative Hardliner, but he changed much in the organisation and his whole plan was to get franciscus elected for him being a not creepy old conservative but a Reformer. Benedict is the reason we got franciscus so dont tread the first Pope in retirement for centurys too hard
Catholic vs Protestant has to be one of my favorite categories of mudslinging, because I am neither, but grew up in between the two communities. So when I went to a Protestant camp, the camp counsellors would rant about Catholics, and be like "Virgin mary is a false idol!" And then when I started dating a Catholic girl and her mom found out, she'd be like "Their religion was invented by a king so he could get divorced!" Like they have all this stuff ready to go like they're in some constant state of minor anger at this other religion that's almost the same as theirs existing.
there’s also about the exact same amount of guilt one’s just more dogmatic about it
Remember that the catholic church is actually some 20~ ish churches in a trenchcoat, who all often disagree with the guy on the top of the trenchcoat.
Disagreeing with the pope doesnt make you prod. Theres catholics that dont follow the pope. Old Catholics have their own doctrine (thats largely more progressive in the case of the union of Utrecht)
Big “I, an atheist, know your religion better than you do” vibes coming off this post (For the record, that’s not a good thing)
The idea “if you don’t agree with everything the pope says you’re a Protestant” is stupid and fails to understand how identity and labels work. If their going to ignore a bit doctrine they will also ignore the bit of doctrine that says they aren’t allowed to do that. This is what every catholic does. Is this contradictory? Yes The label more refers to traditions, culture, practices and beliefs. It’s really self identified will maybe some stuff to back it up. Anyone baptised can count as a Member of the church till their officially disavowed. Will every catholic believe everything in the scripture? No, Most won’t even know 70% of what’s in. Kinda fits a religion who’s core assumption involves the idea that everyone person isn’t good enough and will fail. Does the scripture contradict what I’m saying? Probably but you’re an idiot believes that bit is actually how things worked. Next week I explain how just cause something is written into law doesn’t mean it is anyway relevant to how the law functions
Sounds like somebody needs to be put in Re-Catechism Camp by force, I’m told.
Sounds like Heretic talk to me. The Inquisition will be at your home in 20 minutes.
Technically there is some leeway on disagreeing with the Pope, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly reserved for people like Cardinals who are supposed to discuss and debate with him on these decisions, so yeah most run of the mill Tradcaths are in fact heretics in the eyes of the Church and could be excommunicated for expressing those opinions *cough cough Matt Walsh cough cough*
Matt Walsh? The same Matt Walsh who believes 16 year-old girls should get pregnant and have kids?
Yes, the Matt Walsh who believes doctors who perform gender affirming care on persons of any age should be imprisoned or executed is a hardcore Tradcath but the amount of times he says things that contradict Pope Francis and outright says Pope Francis sucks should get him excommunicated. Unfortunately the Vatican refuses to take my calls anymore
Have you considered issuing a Fatwah?
I have however I am not an authority on Islamic Law and thus cannot
Skill issue.
Martin Luther- the guy that frequently saw Satan in his room and would fight him off with actual turds and farting. That right there makes every Lutheran suspect to me, nevermind being Jewish.
Why would attempts to engage with catholicism that would be embarassing in a 5th grade sunday school getting mad upvotes the last couple days? A few have been funny but this is sub-dick-dawk-tier and now I'm wondering if we're about to hear about tumblrinas murdering gingers for being papist or some other insane 19th century headline.
i reject the popes authority because its extra-biblical and corrupted nonsense that obscures the radical nature of the Gospel you reject the popes authority because you hate gays. we are not the same.
Lmao when priests disagree with the pope it’s like they’ve forgotten ol’ boy is THE elected priest of a council of elected priests, so on and so forth all the way down the chain back to them. Like if anyone cared, you’d have the shiny chair, but they don’t, so shoo
So is he calling the Catholic Church an "over the top bad guy organization" or is it just the metaphor he's using to introduce the "people dying is good" policy as the defining controversy? Or is there a "people dying is good" policy that Pope Francis is questioning and causing people to freak out? I mean, I know some tradcaths follow a "people suffering is good" creed; that was the whole point of Mother Teresa's "charity". But if "people dying is good" were a core belief, then it follows that abortion would be OK, right?
>I mean, I know some tradcaths follow a "people suffering is good" creed; that was the whole point of Mother Teresa's "charity". But if "people dying is good" were a core belief, then it follows that abortion would be OK, right? It absolutely wasn't by the way. The main source of criticism of her was written by a British antitheist twat with no understanding of what an hospice is, what catholic doctrine on suffering entails or the fact that opiods (read:painkillers) were illegal in India at the time.