541–550 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but... the Spanish reached present-day New Mexico before the English reached present-day New England.
Sure, but the Spanish colonization had virtually no impact on the ethnic, political, or religious development of the United States other than some water and land rights in the Southwest.
I'm not a catholic but I decided to watch the new Conclave movie as well as a Tasting History by Max Miller to learn a little bit about it. Very interesting but I'd love a historical movie on some of the past conclaves when the pope managed a standing army. Edit: The Max Miller video was about the baby back ribs cooked in proto-bbq sauce made from grapes that was eaten by a conclave.
> when the pope managed a standing army. In the past wasn't the church basically a political entity, there was even a period when some kingdoms didn't recognize the Vatican pope... (I suppose it's still is very much a political organization)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious, do you think he's wrong that it's at odds with what was taught by the apostles? It's obviously unpopular, but I have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the teachings of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages. If I were in his position, and part of my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures," then I would probably want to be as accurate as possible.
It would be hard to argue that the bible actively promotes same-sex marriage, but I think you could reasonably argue that it says nothing on the subject and so leaves it for the church/community to decide. There are places where the bible gives guidance for heterosexual marriages, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all other marriages are prohibited. Most people are heterosexual, so it makes sense that the bible…
This is where I've yet to see convincing evidence. The whole meta-story of the first few chapters of Genesis was about creation. Not just creation of the universe as we know it, but the pro-creation between a man and a woman in the sanctimony of marriage.
Whether you have an overly-religious view of Genesis or not doesn't really change the fact that the original authors were clearly "sanctifying" this act of pro-creation (the "meme" if you want to use Dawkins' terms). Other cultures and tribes obviously had their own ways of sanctifying it, but in a large, almost universal majority of cases, it was always between a man and a woman.
Changing the gender to same-sex more or less destroy's the original intention of the meme. I mean, you can do it, but I don't think you're walking away with the authentic thought that was being communicated by the authors.
I'm purely speaking from an academic sense here (the art of understanding what someone wrote a long time ago). Sure, we can choose to ignore and/or change it because it's "out of date" but that leads back to a point I made elsewhere about how it's not usually within the Catholic tradition to so blatantly alter scripture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not Catholic and priests should be permitted to marry. The zeitgeist is inaccurate. Sexual abuse and subsequent cover ups were a massive problem that has largely been addressed, but the numbers of offenders are proportionally lower than those in public schools. From wikipedia: "Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft, the author of a 2002 report on sexual offenses in schools, said sexual violence is much…
> I am not Catholic and priests should be permitted to marry Doesn't seem likely since none of the Churches that existed prior to the Protestant Reformation allow it. All of the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, do allow men who are already married to become priests. The rules are more strict for Catholics than the others.
Certainly not in general. You either have to be Eastern or Greek Catholic, Anglican/Episcopal convert etc. Overwhelming majority don't have that option.
“ That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvelous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between m…
Btw how do you know this?! Have you memorized stuff of all the passed popes?
Is he a Cubs or White Sox fan though?
He's a Cubs fan, according to ABC News. (Interesting given he's a south sider).
https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/05/08/pope-leo-xiv-is-a-cu...
> But later in the day, an ABC7 reporter caught up with one of the pope’s older brothers, John Prevost, and asked him to confirm the report.
> He said it wasn’t true.
> “He’s a Sox fan,” John Prevost told ABC7.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you're embraced by its grace, all of the aesthetic takes on a very bright and uplifting inspirational tone and becomes symbolic of a lifetime of guidance and empowerment. Source: raised by an extremely loving Catholic mother.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also more baggage associated with choosing the name of a very recent predecessor. Choosing Francis II would alienate certain factions in the Church, choosing Benedict XVII or John Paul III would alienate others. Reaching further back in time is more of a signal of unity.
John-Paul II chose his immediate predecessor’s name, and he had combined those of his two most recent predecessors. The three most recent popes are the longest run of Popes with none choosing the name (counting JPI as choosing both of two recent predecessos) of a recent (one, two, or three back) predecessor since the 1500s.
(John Paul II is also something of an anomaly, because John Paul I died barely a month into his papacy and so didn't have time to put in place any real agenda. John Paul II was more commemorating John Paul I the man.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know many American evangelicals who believe Catholics are not true Christians, and as such, when they're talking about Christians they are not including Catholics in that discussion.
What makes someone an evangelical? Protestant faith?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is true, but doctrine does need to not violate scripture. So if the Bible prohibits something (which IMO it pretty clearly does prohibit gay relationships), the church can't say "well actually it's ok now". If that did happen it would cause quite a crisis for the church, since it is a Catholic article of faith that God guides the official dogma of the church as he guided the humans who wrote the books in the Bib…
The Old Testament said to not eat pork. The church today says it's okay. It also says not to keep the festivals of the pagans specifically one where you cut down a tree and adorn it with ornaments, yet it is now top two "holy" holidays