User Controls
“Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like that and loves you like this and I don’t care. The pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are,” Francis reportedly told Mr Cruz.
-
2020-10-22 at 6:32 PM UTCcreepizoids
-
2020-10-22 at 7:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Actually, I found one source that actually does refer to them as "indulgences":
https://www.historyhit.com/how-the-church-dominated-life-in-the-middle-ages/
I can't find the original source that I learned about this from since it was from a college class I took like 10 years ago.
Yeah, indulgences were corrupted into a monetary transaction at certain points throughout history. It was a just a blip on the radar relative to the ~2000 year lifespan of the church though. -
2020-10-22 at 7:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Yeah, indulgences were corrupted into a monetary transaction at certain points throughout history. It was a just a blip on the radar relative to the ~2000 year lifespan of the church though.
Okay, jeez, maybe I exaggerated a bit when I said "since the dawn of Christianity".
But the middle ages aren't exactly a small blip. -
2020-10-22 at 7:59 PM UTCLike Pope Leo X sold indulgences fund the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica. This kind of kicked off the protestant reformation, but in the eyes of the church you can see how contributing money to the reconstruction of such a sacred holy site could be considered an extenuating circumstance that alleviates some aspects of one's sins.
It's not like the Pope was saying "buy me a 20 bag of crack and I'll make sure you're good with god" or something. Hell, it's not even like he was asking for money. He was asking for pledges to the construction of a church, the kind of thing we still see as charitable to this day.
Indulgences got a bad name because filthy protties are disgusting savages with no respect for god or tradition. -
2020-10-22 at 8 PM UTCIn fact, it could be argued that the Catholic Church didn't really rise to power until close to the early middle ages.
Yes, Catholicism existed as early as the first century AD, but as an empire unto itself, the entire span of the middle ages (like 500AD to 1500AD - approx.).
And when I'm referring to "the Church", I'm pretty much talking about it in terms of a political entity and not so much a religion. -
2020-10-22 at 8:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Like Pope Leo X sold indulgences fund the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica. This kind of kicked off the protestant reformation, but in the eyes of the church you can see how contributing money to the reconstruction of such a sacred holy site could be considered an extenuating circumstance that alleviates some aspects of one's sins.
It's not like the Pope was saying "buy me a 20 bag of crack and I'll make sure you're good with god" or something. Hell, it's not even like he was asking for money. He was asking for pledges to the construction of a church, the kind of thing we still see as charitable to this day.
Indulgences got a bad name because filthy protties are disgusting savages with no respect for god or tradition.
I think that what you're talking about isn't the only example of this happening.
And you're kind of overestimating the religious side to Catholicism over the political side.
I liked the part about the "filthy protties" though, lol. -
2020-10-22 at 8:16 PM UTC
But the granting of indulgences in connection with almsgiving also led to deplorable abuses.
After an indulgence was announced for making a contribution to a certain project, quaestores were sent to collect the related alms. Unfortunately, in many cases the preaching of these quaestores, out of ignorance or shrewdness, went far beyond dogmatic truth; some of them even dared to promise that the damned would be released from hell.
But another aspect of indulgences was connected with almsgiving. Permission began to be granted to Catholic kings and princes, particularly on the occasion of Crusades, to retain for themselves a rather considerable part of the alms collected for the gaining of indulgences. Later on, similar permission was frequently granted for many other projects, and princes were not always too scrupulous. The most well-known and debated question is the indulgence granted for building the new St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
No one can deny the existence of abuses, some very serious. However, it must be acknowledged that ecclesiastical authority tried — perhaps not always with the necessary zeal —to curb evil practices. Unfortunately, only the Council of Trent, after the sad Lutheran schism, suppressed for ever the collecting of money for indulgences. But in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council had already suppressed some abuses connected with indulgences: in this regard, the extent of the grants was spelled out and it was determined, for example, that only a one-year indulgence would be granted for the consecration of churches and no more than a 40-days indulgence for other occasions. But very soon these limits were widely exceeded. In fact, false documents were circulated with indulgences surpassing all bounds: indulgences of hundreds or even thousands of years.
This shows that abuses became fairly common place for a period.
Apparantly the church eventually started making efforts to curb these abuses, but we at least know that factions within the church have always tried to engage in such acts. -
2020-10-22 at 9:22 PM UTC
-
2020-10-22 at 9:23 PM UTC
-
2020-10-22 at 10:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Splam You know that red headed Norwegians are descendants of Irish slaves, basically the niggers of Norway?
lolwut
that's racist, dawg
also.. they were the vikings. the Norwegians. and they tried to overthrow most of Ireland. one of the tribes that tride and failed.
Romans tried, Norway, I guess Spanish just fucked their way in and made "Black Irish" and some other I forget.. probably Slavics/ Prussia. -
2020-10-22 at 11:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Bugz lolwut
that's racist, dawg
also.. they were the vikings. the Norwegians. and they tried to overthrow most of Ireland. one of the tribes that tride and failed.
Romans tried, Norway, I guess Spanish just fucked their way in and made "Black Irish" and some other I forget.. probably Slavics/ Prussia.
No, the Norwegians were not vikings. The word Viking is old norse or something I think. Vikings were multi cultural, from all over the world
They didnt wear the horns either -
2020-10-22 at 11:29 PM UTCLiberal history 101 folks^^
-
2020-10-22 at 11:40 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-10-22 at 11:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Splam Liberal history 101 folks^^
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny
liberal history X
Bigots.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41567391The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-10-23 at 4:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Bigots.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41567391
Yep. These idiots only believe the history they see on TV. Viking was a job, not a culture. -
2020-10-23 at 4:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Yep. These idiots only believe the history they see on TV. Viking was a job, not a culture.
Pirate was a job. Viking referred specifically to Scandinavian pirates during the viking period. They had period items from all over the known world, as that's where they sailed.
Get fucked with your history channel level understanding of history. -
2020-10-23 at 4:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Splam Pirate was a job. Viking referred specifically to Scandinavian pirates during the viking period. They had period items from all over the known world, as that's where they sailed.
Get fucked with your history channel level understanding of history.
Nope. Viking referred to pirates. It was the norse word for it. It's so fucking stupid that people think VIKINGS didn't go around picking up crewmen but PIRATES did. Just because 'Vikings' are pirates from a certain country? What, Scandanavians didn't pick up anyone from Western Europe? No Slavs? Nobody from the Mediterranean? No Arabs? Come the fuck on. You only believe they were Scandinavian because movies and TV have led you to believe that. Vikings were no different from pirates. There were never "British pirates" or "French pirates". Pirates have always been multicultural.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-09/sjcu-wld091120.php -
2020-10-23 at 4:32 PM UTCI guess universities in Denmark are rewriting their own history?!?!?!?!?
Oh pray tell where is the evidence to support your claims?! -
2020-10-23 at 5:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Nope. Viking referred to pirates. It was the norse word for it. It's so fucking stupid that people think VIKINGS didn't go around picking up crewmen but PIRATES did. Just because 'Vikings' are pirates from a certain country? What, Scandanavians didn't pick up anyone from Western Europe? No Slavs? Nobody from the Mediterranean? No Arabs? Come the fuck on. You only believe they were Scandinavian because movies and TV have led you to believe that. Vikings were no different from pirates. There were never "British pirates" or "French pirates". Pirates have always been multicultural.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-09/sjcu-wld091120.php
thats as retarded as arguing jihardists refers to the level a persons religious adherence and doesnt refers to devotee of any specific religion.
jihardists are no more different from crusaders than crusaders are different from jihardists,
or you from retards for that matter.
