west west bad big bad very bad stalin good lenin good ignore starvation ignore deaths ignore everything just read state and revolution bro
west west bad big bad very bad stalin good lenin good ignore starvation ignore deaths ignore everything just read state and revolution bro
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. one of his other titles is ‘sovereign of the vatican city state’ which literally means king of rome.
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, something ‘catholics’ were more than happy to continue.
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