• FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    9 months ago

    The Pope didn’t even say anything incorrect at all in the video. He didn’t explicitly say the boy’s dad went to heaven, just said that God smiles upon the dad’s act of baptizing his children. What, was the Pope supposed to tell the kid that his baptism didn’t count and God looks down at him with scorn like some kind of illegitimate child?

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Christ’s vicar on earth is wrong!” is one of my favorite American catholic takes.

    Like bruh. bruv. bro. Stop and think about what you just said.

  • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    Dogmatic ritualized gibberish clearly states that my fantasy of your dead father involves him being boiled in a big pot for eternity, and if you can’t tell a dead man’s kids that you’re not doing them any favors.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s not fucking heresy ffs this guy has less theological knowledge than a 13th century peseant.

      It may very well be Warhammer 40k brain, the kind that cryptofascist dipshits get when they get excited about Exterminatus and want to say “heresy/xeno/witch” a lot to justify their genocide fantasies.

    • StalinForTime [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Honestly when you look at the medieval peasant religious movements in the 13th and 14th centuries the presence of visionary women is really striking, of which Joan of Arc is only the most obvious. Many of the most important mystic writers were women. Probably were also the best. So I expect many of them would have known far more about Christianity that this fuckhead.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Don’t forget that the catholic propaganda back then worked exactly like the current imperialist one does. Most of the people killed for heresy were not for speaking nonorthodox but for the political and economical resistance to the church.

          Most succint take on this had XVI century polish bishop of Kraków, Andrzej Zebrzydowski, while commenting mass conversions of polish nobility to calvinism: “Let them believe even in the goat, provided they pay tithes”. And indeed they only rebelled over century later after decades of counterreformation.

          • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            It didn’t even have to be to the Church, as Joan of Arc illustrates. And of course what happened to Jan Hus was fucked, he had some odd ideas but none were actively heretical, and betraying a guest is the ur-example of how you get cursed by the gods (admittedly the Reformation and Wars of Religion was one hell of a curse)

      • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        Broadly, the sacraments are “required” for salvation but in the sense that a) engaging in them sincerely is a pretty good way to ensure salvation and b) Catholicism insists both faith and works are needed for salvation and confession etc are required for that.

        You can be saved via private prayer or divine intervention, because stop telling god what to do.

        Tradcaths disagree with this because of the doctrine of “no salvation outside the church”. This is due to a very limiting view of what the church is (and of what Jesus is, but that’s another post).

        Firstly the above sentence is a tautology, since the church is by definition the community of saints on earth. Secondly it’s the universal church, and calls to all peoples through god’s grace regardless of how much water was sprinkled on their head.

        Finally a person who honestly seeks gods truth and salvation and fails to find it has what is called invincible ignorance (a much broader concept than “never saw a bible” and in fact a state some tradcaths are probably in.) and will be saved regardless. And there is always direct personal revelation right up to death, of course.

        This is not apologetics and I am not a theologian, just an attempt to explain church doctrine as actually given to people who don’t think the only valid council was Vatican I

        • MerryChristmas [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Do you know how many years of religious trauma you’ve just undone by teaching my apostate ass about the concept of invincible ignorance?

          • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            There are good reasons they don’t teach it, since it generally quickly leads to universalism without some other theology backing it up, and certain (rather than hopeful) universalism is a heresy.

            But most of the time they’re just trying to instill the sad grimdark Irish Catholic thing where you must be sad and guilty all the time because the British spent 200 years preventing you from going to mass.

            I also want to add that I have any number of issues with “normal” catholic doctrine. Church is fucked and needs a full clean out and reset. I’m just trying to give the centrist doctrine a fair shake.

  • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It does seem inconsistent with a loving God that he would damn people eternally for not saying the right things.

    Luther’s theory of people being given a chance to convert after death seems much more reasonable than this for example

    Calvinists will say with a straight face that God is Just and Merciful while believing that God arbitrarily selects some people for salvation and damnation based on nothing they have done and will just torture most people forever despite that being definitionally arbitrary and cruel

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Calvinists will say with a straight face that God is Just and Merciful while believing that God arbitrarily selects some people for salvation and damnation based on nothing they have done and will just torture most people forever despite that being definitionally arbitrary and cruel

      Calvinism is terminal stage rules lawyering and powergaming all for the sake of making the rich and powerful feel righteous by default and leaving no room for good deeds, good works, or love in their calculations.

    • mathemachristian [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      The thing is, and my fellow Christians gasp when they hear this: Jews don’t believe in Hell. Jesus was a Jew. A rabbi even. Jesus Christ did not have a concept of hell and you will not find a verse where he talks about people suffering for eternity.

      • JamesConeZone [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Jesus did have a concept of hell. His ideas like other Jewish teachers developed post-Hellenism and merged ideas from Greco-Roman ideas of afterlife with Jewish theories of sheol. His parable on Lazarus and the rich man shows some intersection there.

        But yes, the theory of eternal conscious torment,at least how moderns understand it, was not a thing as I understand it.

      • CatoPosting [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ehh… I’m sure Bible scholars could say this has been mistranslated or something but here is what I was taught by Southern Baptists while growing up:

        Mark 9:42-48, Jesus is speaking "42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] [b] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where

        “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’[d]"

        • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It’s mostly just an afterlife that isn’t heaven. And heaven sounds pretty crap if you go by the Bible. We’re talking being a servant to, and glorifying god in name and deed, forever. In exchange for permanent satisfaction of any material need. Pretty good if you’re an Iron Age farmer that’s already subservient to some feudal lord regardless.

    • JamesConeZone [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      1 Peter 3:18 and following are clear that post-death, Jesus preaches to souls who did not accept him during their earthly life. Whether this is a metaphor, I have no idea (Peter talks about Noah’s ark here, just a really weird passage), but it seems like there is mercy offered for all

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        There’s lots of textual evidence that can be taken in support of infernalism, annilationism, and universalism. Much of the latter in Paul’s letters

        ultimately which you accept is dependent on the way you interpret the text. And the Calvinist infernalist interpretation is to my mind heretical and sinful as they aren’t loving their neighbour. I find that universalism best fits the fact of God being both all powerful and all loving.

        If you accept that there is none of His children God does not love, that God would never give up on one He loves (God is faithful after all), and that the saved are saved by grace and not through works (Paul again often used to support Calvinism) therefore God through persistence will eventually reach everyone He wants to the universalist position is consistent

        Ironically the universalist argument is similar to the Calvinist one but a universalist interprets the elect as everyone

        Also a lot of our modern biblical ideas come from James the 1st writing his own Bible (Constantine too but James the 1st did to protestantism what Constantine did to Catholicism) James the 1st was also a madman believing in goblins and having people tortured also he popularised the sport of golf outside of Scotland