Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
correct, and then they became it
survived roman persecution to become the thing that burned 'heretics' for opposing the king of rome
i wouldn't even call it the same religion either, more like an inversion of it
BINGO
Psssh here's a fun read or two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/roman-catholic-church/executive-summary.html
https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/7085101
pssst
https://www.vatican.va/resources/index_en.htm
Ok I tried to read some of those but have a hard time finding anything of substance tbh
you will never find what you do not want to find
yes, the 'church' that was burning heretics opposed to worshiping the king of rome then produced a schism that also burned heretics
proof
plenty of christians did not have interest in swearing fealty to the king of rome, and were killed for it, long before there was the protestant schism. you ask for proof, i point to your own 'church''s history
articles, links, etc
this is your religions history, you really need links??
pre-schism imperial church violence:
donatists: north african christians who refused communion with bishops who had collaborated with roman persecution. augustine developed the theological justification for using imperial force against them. precursor to the inquisition
arians: christians who held that christ was subordinate to the father. it was a position enforced by some emperors and violently suppressed by others depending on who was in power. the nicene settlement was imposed by imperial authority, not theological consensus
paul of constantinople: patriarch of constantinople, exiled multiple times for refusing to accept the arian settlement imposed by emperor constantius. eventually strangled on imperial orders
eusebius of samosata: bishop who refused the imperial arian settlement, stoned to death by an arian woman while in exile
martin of tours: refused communion with bishops who supported the imperial execution of priscillian, arguing the state had no business executing heretics
bogomils: balkan christian movement rejecting church hierarchy, sacraments and material wealth. persecuted by both byzantine and later catholic authorities, their suppression in bosnia was a direct precursor to the albigensian crusade
violence against christian heretics and orthodox:
waldensians
albigensian crusade/cathars
sack of constantinople
the inquisition
spiritual franciscans
jan hus/hussites
violence against muslims and jews:
the crusades
rhineland massacres
spanish inquisition
reconquista
colonial and indigenous violence:
inter caetera/colonial americas
california missions
residential schools
violence against women and the poor:
witch trials
magdalene laundries
nazi collaboration:
ustaše
reichskonkordat
ratlines
pius xii and the holocaust
Andmost of these are misguided priests or single Individuals perpetuating Violence.
However, some of the actions in these documents are extremely disturbing, but this is why the Catholic Church is constantly improving and learning from its past
Do not let Judas guide you away from Jesus.
most of the Arian Controversy deaths were because of Arianists, who are not Catholics
Arianism is not a belief of the church, what re you trying to convey?
in support of the point i made here
the conflation of imperial and spiritual authority that became catholic doctrine was already killing christians who resisted it prior to being established
they then continued that practice once they secured imperial power, as well as exterminating plenty of other people who got in their way
hence why i said calling other people genocidal is an interesting accusation from a worshiper of the king of rome
the king of rome?
The Vatican is not an empire, nor does it plan to expand anytime in the future as far as I know.
Arianism was a heresy indeed, and it is no longer being practiced today
and it was the Arians that were persecuting the non-arians
the pope holds the title pontifex maximus, inherited directly from roman imperial religion.
the vatican was a temporal kingdom for a thousand years.
unam sanctam declared total papal supremacy over all earthly rulers, and it wasn't abandoned on theological grounds, it was abandoned because they no longer had the armies to enforce it
yes, arian emperors persecuted christians that's the point, conflation of imperial power and spiritual authority results in tremendous abuses
the Vatican is not a temporal kingdom anymore, and the Pope is technically the ruler of the Vatican, thats why he is referred to as that, not the King, just a Ruler.
And Unam Sanctam declares papal supremacy over all earthly rulers because in the Catholic Faith, you should listen to the Pope way more than your earthly ruler and Jesus told us not to worry about what we will eat, wear, drink, etc and the nations of the world, and to focus your desires onto the kingdom of God
The Vatican is again, NOT CURRENTLY, an empire, so it does not have imperial power
so you concede that it was a temporal kingdom, for over a thousand years. the pope still holds all the kingly titles, he just lost the armies to enforce them
this completely confirms my argument- this is exactly the kind of conflation of spiritual authority and temporal authority which the catholic church has used to exterminate its enemies. it just lacks the power to do it these days.
'not currently an empire': you are arguing against a point i didn't make
i accept your concession
when I realize some people will never change their minds when they have become stiff necked but if I sigh and stop, their soul is my burden.
you mistake your own pride for grace, that is prelest
Not until they lost their armies, but until they realized "Hey, unchecked power is intoxicating and war only leads to more war" and spit it out
God does not bless any conflict
this is intense historical revisionism, they did not graciously hand over power, the risorgimento forcibly stripped it.
pius ix called himself a prisoner of the vatican when italian troops took rome in 1870 and the papacy refused to recognize the italian state for sixty years.
the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini was their reconciliation with losing
If the Church suddenly gained an army today, they would disband it.
The Church has gone through a LOT of theological reformations and more findings since 1870. The Capture of Rome was forced, but most civillians
and most of the members of the Church did not want to keep power.
Bruh it's the catholics who raped the kids, and you really think catholics didn't burn protestants? They were a lot more keen on it so just stfu already.
Generalization fallacy here and an Ad Hominem there.
and PROOF for your statements please.
and Catholicism advocates the love of ALL humans, bbqing them is not love.
honestly I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here because who did you think killed those protestant martyrs of the church of england?
Henry VIII (1509–1547) and Mary I (1553–1558)
Yeah the protestant and the catholic.
all the monarchs are apart of the Church of England which is not catholic
You might wanna read up on that history there.. Henry VIII created the church of england, yes. Mary very much was a catholic my friend.
In case you want to read a really good story set in exactly that time with exactly this situation at heart is Column Of Fire by Ken Follet, a novel in a series about a fictional English town throughout different times.
even if she was, you cant blame the entire church for the actions of a SINGLE catholic
Nope. Highly recommend that book again because it puts it in perfect perspective.
Now go back and read your own comments and see how you're basically contradicting yourself here and we'll see each other never again.