/lit/ - Literature

>>22525800
it was taxes; england was giving 100% of their church land rents to rome, for no absolutely no reason, along with the rest of western europe.

>ignoring
quite the opposite though, on theological and political grounds; the protestants with national sovereignty over their churches resembled far more the original church model.

>>22259175
Oh yeah I know right, "because (out-group) is the focus," you stupid cunts don't want to understand that (in-group) is only abused by (out-group) due to cultural idiocy; when you oppose correction of the in-group, you're the one making it impossible to deal with the problems faced by the in-group, so you're the impediment in the way of solving those problems.

But more than this, you're english language and defending catholicism, which we english were the first to recognize and drive from the land at knife point. You're a traitor and an enemy agent, serving the synagogue of satan; just on general principle there can be no mercy for this.

>>22147463
>The burning of translators didn't happen. They were protected by nobility driven by greed.
I'm sorry that you began with this. By rights I should disregard everything you say after this as your premise is demonstrably false and you even confirm what I said without seeming to realize it:

> another ignorant mistake on your side: the first Catholic translation in Italian came out in 1769, the Martini Bible, that came out 247 years after the translation from Martin Luther. Almost half your supposed "500 years"
then it was 750yrs of ignorance for mainland Western Europe, we English banned these people from our country in the 1500s and only suffered for 500yrs. As you seem to be aware very shortly after we did translate these things and killed the Catholics (More) who had orchestrated the suppression 'of' the translators we discovered that the bible contained a lot of total nonsense. This foreknowledge on the part of the clergy was evidently the reason for the suppression in the first place, since the character of their religious dogma proposes a demented ethnic jewish god with highly immoral lessons who curses humans to hell for desiring to know right from wrong, etc.

> The Bible is meant for learned people, not your ignorant peasant.
This is moreso the topic as relating to "unknowable (absurd) doctrines held by a self-proclaimed elite," it enables them, when discussion cannot occur, to make-up what they like and this informs their character - inculcating a habit of deception for presupposed yet erroneous 'greater good' of which they would be unable to explain. But before you go on, Cardinal, I am talking about modern day contemporary Leftists.


>So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543
Irrelevant: all subsequent English language bibles are verbatim copies of Tyndales; the difference or point of contention (or reason the Catholics were angry) was of the word Ecclesia which is translated erroneously into 'Church' but meant, to the Greeks and Romans, simply a 'public forum'. The main points (the Tudors) agreed with Tyndale on, of the usurpation and invention of papal primacy - a fraudulent claim (which the native speaking Greeks would have always been aware of, see: post-schism).

My point in this text is that the position and operation that the papacy were guilty of then is the same position and operation that propagandists (for want of a better word) are guilty of today; this is way you find persecution for erring from dogma, it is the same pseudo-elitist mentality of propaganda fides.

>>22086702
>the Keys of St. Peter
also and fundamentally: "the early church knew nothing (of these claims)"

>>22011092
>There is certainly a theological disagreement over dogma to be had between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism,
The only disagreement is that once upon a time, during a relative Golden Age under Emperor Alexios, one bishop in the ecumenical council was corrupt and sick-in-the-mind enough to declare himself superior to all other bishops and began to withhold taxes and levies from his liege lord, the Emperor of the Roman Empire.

>Protestants are generally the most anti-intellectual
Six centuries of violent repression occurred due to this ingrained heresy until Men began to recognize, albeit too late to take action to save the Roman Empire, that the Papal claims of authority possessed no legal basis.


but with all that said,
stop worshiping a foreign death cult and get a job.

>>21993234
>That's complete nonsense and you know it.
Unrefuted though.

There are really two eras where this applied, but the only one really infential was the years following the schism to the ascension of Henry Tudor when the censorship and abuse of the Catholic Church began to be scrutinized. It was at that time that a non-latin or non-greek speaking population could no longer understand the words of the holy book and gave cause to the church to dictate to them in a language they could not unerstand (beofre this, t least, the roman church could be understood by the latin or the greek), the inent to deceive (and the absurdism of the papal claim of authority) on the pa of the heetical church then gave excuse to censor and prohibit the intelctual faculty of the mind; since none would read the holy book and recognize a papal claim of authority in that holy book (which was otherwise the domain of the roman emperor), for instance.

But, to the point of the question: my argument was that men were going out of their way to avoid rational inquiry into these things which are obvious to us, as a violent punishment would be given to them for doing so.

e.g.
misguided religiots who refuse to recognize this will be unable to learn from history and understand how the censorship of the modern day operates; it is as if to, four hundred years into the future, go back and read the words of political actors and those bullied into uttering proclamations about (the local ideology) and to not recognize the threat of violence which those proclamations had been caused by - they would be punished if they said anything else, for example.

>>21841897
>>21841773
>>21841702
>>21841462
Not sure what the Imperial Church of the Roman Empire has to do with your Catholicism, anons, as I'm sure none of you are Roman Orthodox yet quoting men who were subservient to the Emperor in Constantinople.

Verily, see attached. This should save you from a decade of misdirection, Opie, >>21841408 for 'tis plain enough which way the wily wat had walked all that while.

>>21739181
you ought read more, inmate no. 21739181, it's always extra disgusting to me that english speaking persons have forgotten their own history w/ regards to the filthy european heretics who are at least ignorant. Yours is not ignorance but willful treason, in my opinion.

>>21697726
>If it was from the Catholic church why do the most Catholic nations today have the littlest censorship? Your grasping at straws anon.
lol because they were militarily broken. Witch trials were still going on in North America until the Revolutionary Army physically stopped them and charged the perpetrators.

>grasping
see, you've conflated europeans with the foreign religion. You might want to review the origin of the actual ecclessia and its purpose under the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, then you'll see catholics for what they are and those who follow that religion as the impediments that they are.

>doubt
I don't 'doubt' that people will be stupid and get themselves put in prison for ridiculous reasons, but I 'doubt' that anything will come of it. The idiocy is too deeply ingrained in people to be remedied, I think.

>Your empty slurs about a weak culture
No I think we agree on this as well; but you (your position rather) is to ignore the actual cause in the psyche of the human in the first place that has him leveraged by petty criminals and demagogues (religion, politics, fantasists) whereas these influences, which have surely always existed in every society, would be reduced to beggars and galley oarsmen in a sane and sober society. But my point is that nobody will be able to 'refute' the errors of the current ideology if they shy away to refute the errors in the previous ideology; as to refute one is to refute the other (and all others) whilst you cannot refute one (i.e. understand howt operates) if you refute to ... say, understand the commonality between the fantasy ideology of the priest to the rabble and the fantasy ideology of the leftist to the rabble also (the pulpit, the news desk, etc.).

I mean, I see no reason to comprise on any of these issues if compromising means a weakened end result which'll just flip back to 2020 society after 10 or 20 years. You can' even, hypothetically, get a Man to train himself and take orders and form a unit if he still has these foolish notions in his head, whereas if you remove those notions then that Man is worth a thousand lesser Men.

When you get around to studying the "wily wat", you might want to study what Pathos is as to discover how our better ancestors eradicated these weaknesses in their societies.

>>21503110
>sedevacantist tradcath
You won't, it's a contradiction in terms - although a cultural catholic who is thinking along these lines is at least starting to see the light. I doubt they'd take it to its real conclusion, given how much of their identity is based upon opposition to the protestants which.. is.. essentially anyway 'closer' to the truth than that heresy of the bishop of rome against the emperor in constantinople.