Diva

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

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

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 'not currently an empire': you are arguing against a point i didn't make

i accept your concession

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

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

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

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

yes, the 'church' that was burning heretics opposed to worshiping the king of rome then produced a schism that also burned heretics

why thank you, it's pretty awesome. i have almost completely cut out other social media at this point.

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

calling other people genocidal is an interesting accusation from a worshiper of the king of rome

the 'catholic' church even invented a theological doctrine to legitimate hierarchy and imperial power, exactly what anticommunists always accuse communists of doing

правда глаза колет

the truth always seems to find me though

it's like clockwork, check the modlog of fervent anti-communists, find a bigot!