Daily reminder that John Wycliffe did nothing wrong

I’ll take that papal pronouncement and wipe my ass with it

How edgy of you.

Attached: cd368760ebbcaed017d643a173fce4fe79557995a7bb8249c36dfceeaef0c036.png (1276x717, 309.15K)

He is right to own land if it benefits the people.

What is the Peasant’s Revolt?

A bunch of ungrateful people.

So people should be grateful for scraps?? You’re a horrible person. Oppressing the poor is a serious sin, user.

Are we Indians from the west?

This isn’t about owning land, you dishonest Winnie. The issue was that while the church was in extravagance, the common people are starving and suffering. God doesn’t give people money just to hoard it. That’s why the Archbishop of Canterbury was beheaded during the Peasants Revolt.

Why would the Papacy ever need more land than Vatican City?

Attached: 9764b17a1f10a249586b56c41c56ed65da2e03fb74e00380bfce55677db33f7a.jpg (360x374, 18.39K)

Well you just said it was about property and land is property, you can't dispute this.

Because it's Church land and not king land.

You mean when like Innocent III jumped at the chance to be the vassal overlord of England when King John offered it to him? Got to get that Peter's Pence!

Yeah. I'm not going to play the "oh well some of the stuff the Church did" was bad game because that's dumb. The Church did nothing wrong.

Daily reminder that based Pope Innocent III did literally nothing wrong.

Attached: PP Innocent III.jpg (538x677, 292.04K)

Attached: daf75f6f4e4251bd5f36a3b07a8e165595e422549988d9bded985425349ab1b0.png (498x462, 288.03K)

It's true.

AGAIN, if the Church lives in extravagance, but the poor is starving and suffering, that is injustice. I thought that was pretty clear.

YOU said that the Pope can own land if it benefits the people. Obviously it didn’t because the peasants wouldn’t have revolted. Why couldn’t the church provide alms and food to the peasants???

What the fu¢k

Attached: B9752F55-F4D6-4F0C-8324-CA218820F678.png (2048x1536, 6.34M)

It benefits the people if he's alive.

Are you a baptist by chance?

...

???

Nah. I just have a heart. Heretic or not, it is wicked to exterminate women and children indiscriminately based on false accusations.

They don’t have to be a race to qualify for genocide, you retard tigger.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

You heard me, if the Pope is safe then all is good, friend.
No. Anyone that was a Cathar is evil.

>

Who the hell cares, user? Indiscriminate killing of an entire group of people is insanely cruel. I bet you want to kill all Protestants, atheists, Jews, pagans, etc. I don’t care what you call it.

THE POPE IS IN THE winnie the pooh VATICAN, FOR GOD’S SAKE!

Why does he need to own all of that land just to be “safe?”

Because it wasn't like the nobles were going to use it right.

Nobility shouldn’t even exist, so that’s a moot point. People should own land, and other property, based on merits, not hereditary status.

Yes, noblemen are people.

Of course it's cruel. Do you think we relish the death of sinners? Do you think God does?
These weren't peaceful hippies that got the Medieval National Guard set on them, they were dangerous and clearly violent heretics whom reason and appeal failed to reach, and who responded with barbarism. Many repented when we spoke to them on their level and a good deal of souls were saved for it.

Based on what? I agree that they were heretics, but what evidence do you have that they were dangerous and violent? And please don’t quote a Catholic historian; quote an unbiased historian who states that. The Cathars were beloved by the Languedoc people; part of that was due to their pacificism.

Until you post some solid historical evidence, I’m not buying this bull$hit that the cathars were violent savages.

Don't be dumb, please.

Prove it, or fu¢k right off. Seriously, post some evidence, or stop wasting my fu¢king time.

How about you stop getting upset over heretics that turned their backs against God. Are you a woman?

How about you stop justifying the killing of women and children?

I’m upset over the act of genocide (or hereticide; whatever, call, it what you want). And that makes me a woman because I have compassion and an adversion to mass genocide??

I would rather be a woman than a monster like you.

Because they literally murdered men who were sent to try to avoid what eventually befell them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_of_Verona
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Castelnau
Holy men murdered by Cathars and their supporters.

Can you post a source for this? And please, not a pro-Cathar, secular, postmodern, non-Catholic source, please.
Frankly I am not interested if you believe me and the Church or not. They were sodomite murderers who hated God.

No because you act like a hysteric and I want to be your friend.

What is a cathar? Why does it matter if the person is one or not?

Retard tigger stop wasting my time.

goodreads.com/book/show/399533.The_Cathars

There were adherents of a gnostic sect which took root in southern France, which believed in dualism, practised sodomy and called creation evil, and drew on popular anticlericalism for support, to the point that they even managed to hoodwink local notables to support them. They also like all gnostics believes that the Christian God is actually Satan, and that Satan is the good god.

But you said a non-Catholic source lel. Still mad you're wrong?

goodreads.com/book/show/399533.The_Cathars
Sorry, your source doesn't meet my stringent requirements. I think you need to post something else.

One of the most interesting faucets of western culture (and I will make a Spenglarian distinction between Western and Classical culture is that Western culture has a separation between church and state. In Roman times the Emperor was the head of the Church. The Eastern Roman empire also maintained this, with the only councils recognized by them being presided over or sanctioned by the Emperor. In Chinese culture the emperor was the "Son of Heaven". Most Islamic Caliphs derived their authority from the territory they controlled. The only times when the Caliph was not a powerful ruler were when he was the client of a powerful ruler (e.g. Seljuk and Mameluke times) and today.

Western culture's separation was only possible because the Pope himself had his own territory from which he could defend his independence. He wasn't simply a courtier of a king who could force him to do his bidding. Though the Pope held little territory, it was enough to hold off against a King who would attack him long enough for other Kings (not wishing for the Pope to be dominated by a rival) to come to his defense. When this did happen, the Pope was no longer recognized as a spiritual father. The French kidnanpped the Pope and set him up in Avignon, but the Germans and the English no longer recognized him and the new Pope in Rome was instead recognized. Thus the Pope's temporal power ensured that all Western Christians could appeal to an outside authority for spiritual guidance.

This is demonstrated further by the Protestant reformation. What did states and rulers do when they became Protestant? They confiscated all of the monasteries and churches, and set up their own national church with themselves as the head. In the case of the Church of England, theology was bent to suit the needs of the ruler. And these days, the national "churches" of Scandinavia are removing crosses and electing lesbian bishops to please the state.

So when governments today demand that the separation of church and state requires the church to submit to state authority, you know that they are absolute bollocks. What they want is a cucked church that represents "modern" "values" and is useless at attracting new converts because it is both of this world and a part of it.

This is not true. The Cathars were Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, and they were attacked by the papacy because they used the King James Bible.

If we go by your logic, then the Papacy would have to own all of the land on the planet. For maximum security, the Pope would be the grand leader of all human societies. Didn’t Jesus himself say that his kingdom was not of this world?

If you don’t believe that the Pope should be the grand emperor of the world, then please tell me how much land is the Pope entitled to? Should he own one third of the land of England, a country that is far from the Papal seat??

lol

No, he should own the five cities of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem.

Are you on drugs? I was speaking of a separation of Church and State, you cannot have that if the Church controls all temporal matters everywhere.

The current arrangement is enough because the Italians cannot simply invade the Papal States and be respected as a nation. There would be a counterattack, probably a rebellion by the pious Italians and Italy may lose more land. There is a reason why Italy did not take control of the Papacy - they initially offered them more land, the Papacy would have all of Rome on one side of the Tiber River.

The land that the Pope had in the days of the Papal states was a gift from the Frankish Emperor. Prior to that the Pope was mostly confined to Rome. The Papal States were not large and were sufficient to maintain the independence of the Church. Can you please explain where this "one third of England" has come from? A review of wikipedia brings nothing. Given Wikipedia's known anti-traditional stance, they would likely have included this fact if it were credible.