Howdy all.

I’ve been hanging around on this subreddit for a couple years (I think) now, and lately I’ve noticed an uptick in hostile responses to any mention of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope, or related topics.

To be clear, I’m not concerned here with criticism or discussion of the past and continued faults of the Church in Rome, harms it has committed and continued to commit, discussions of the merits of its theology, etc. Instead, I mean a kind of low-engagement, reactive response to the very mention of, say, the pope, or a news article about the Roman Church, usually citing the institution as immoral beyond being worth discussing.

The specifics we can discuss in this thread, if folks desire it, but specifically I’m wondering something specific: am Iwelcome here? I’ve never before felt cause to question this, but lately I find myself wondering.

For my part, I have no desire to convince anyone of anything, or to litigate any specific points made about the Church and its many galling unconscionable actions over the millennia. I do, however, happen to believe sincerely that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth and the prime bishop of the holy, apostolic church.

Happy to accept whatever the community thinks is best, but I’d rather not be on a subreddit that’s uncomfortable with my presence. Alternatively, if there’s a clear community preference that we not post things about the pope or Roman Catholicism, maybe that could be made clear?

Update: thanks for the responses, y’all. Bit of a reply all here.

Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying, "Repent ye, etc.," intended that the whole life of his believers on earth should be a constant penance.

2. And the word "penance" neither can, nor may, be understood as referring to the Sacrament of Penance, that is, to confession and atonement as exercised under the priest's ministry.

3. Nevertheless He does not think of inward penance only: rather is inward penance worthless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.

4. Therefore mortification continues as long as hatred of oneself continues, that is to say, true inward penance lasts until entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

5. The Pope will not, and cannot, remit other punishments than those which he has imposed by his own decree or according to the canons.

6. The Pope can forgive sins only in the sense, that he declares and confirms what may be forgiven of God; or that he doth it in those cases which he hath reserved to himself; be this contemned, the sin remains unremitted.

7. God forgives none his sin without at the same time casting him penitent and humbled before the priest His vicar.

8. The canons concerning penance are imposed only on the living; they ought not by any means, following the same canons, to be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, acting in the Pope, does well for us, when the latter in his decrees entirely removes the article of death and extreme necessity.

10. Those priests act unreasonably and ill who reserve for Purgatory the penance imposed on the dying.

11. This abuse of changing canonical penalty into the penalty of Purgatory seems to have arisen when the bishops were asleep.

12. In times of yore, canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before, absolution, as tests of true repentance and affliction.

13. The dying pay all penalties by their death, are already dead to the canons, and rightly have exemption from them.

14. Imperfect spiritual health or love in the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the less this love is, the greater the fea

Periodically a Catholic will post an AMA in the religious subs. I can never remember my questions so I’m posting them here to copy/paste when I’m on my cell. Please feel free to comment and suggest edits.

Disclaimer: I am not attacking Catholicism. I do not say Catholics aren’t Christians. I’m Lutheran and Lutherans consider Catholics to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Lutherans and Catholics actually agree on much and personally I’d love nothing more than reconciliation. Until that time we’re left to discuss our points of contention while not being unfairly contentious.

Potential Catholic AMA questions:

1. Andrew is was the first of the apostles to be called to follow Jesus aka Protoclete or “the first called”. Andrew was with John the Baptist when John called Jesus “the Lamb of God.” Andrew was the first disciple to point out that Jesus was the Messiah, “We have found the Messiah” e.g. anointed one aka Christ. (John 1:40-43)

Q: If Jesus wanted Peter to start from day one having a special precedence among the apostles – then why orchestrate these events for Andrew to have precedence at these somewhat important points?

2. Roman Catholicism claims it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Q: Why did Saul ask Jewish priests for letters to be sent to Jewish synagogues to find followers of the Way? Why would Jewish priests care about an entirely new religion? For that matter why would Saul go to Jewish synagogues – to find Roman Catholics?

3. On the road to Damascus this Saul (later Paul) is converted. He hears Jesus’ voice instructing him to go to the house of Judas in Damascus. (Ananias was instructed by Jesus in a vision to restore Saul’s sight there.) Ananias laid hands on Saul, restored his sight and Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17.)

Q: Why didn’t Jesus send Saul to Peter? Why have Ananias lay hands on Paul to be filled with the Holy Spirit? Why didn’t Jesus set a clear precedent for Catholicism’s strict view of apostolic succession and command Saul to go to Peter in these matters?

4. Paul, writing to his new church plants, is adamant to record that the influence of the apostles made no difference to him. Paul writes, “I didn’t go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me …” In fact Paul waits 3 years after his conversion to even go to Jerusalem to visit what he deemed the pillars and esteemed leaders.

Q: Wouldn’t ne

August 18, 1503

Pope Alexander VI, Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church, Bishop of Rome, has died. The Pope's last days had been spent preoccupied with the ongoing war and he has been receiving frequent updates on the campaign of the Duke of Valentinois. On August 7, the Pontiff met with the Venetian ambassador who wrote on the seriousness of the Pope's outlook toward the ongoing crisis.

The Pope began to notice symptoms of illness on Saturday, August 12. The Badia of Florence, however, wrote to their ambassador to Louis XII on August 18 that the Pope had shown signs of a fever on the 10th. The Pope was supposed to have held a meeting for the signing of documents, but it was cancelled on the 12th. In the evening Alexander showed symptoms of a continuous fever and he vomited yellow bile. On the morning of the 13th, the Pope had doctors summoned, one of whom (the Bishop of Venosa, Bernardino Bongiovanni) was ill himself; they were not allowed to leave the Apostolic Palace.

It was clear that things were getting serious and riders were quickly dispatched on August 14th to inform Il Valentino that the Pope was gravely ill. The summers of Rome were harsh and the malaria epidemic this year would prove to be one of the deadliest on record.

On the 16th news had reached Florence, and specifically the ear of the powerful Cardinal Guiliano Della Rovere, that the Pope was on his deathbed and his machinations began immediately. Della Rovere quickly raised 100 mounted crossbowmen to escort him to Rome for fear of the agents of Cesare Borgia.

On Thursday the 17th Cardinal Francisco Borja mentioned to the Ambassador of Modena that the Pope was feeling better but that he had a tertian fever, and there were fears that it would develop into a quartan fever. Both a typical progression of malarial fever.

On the next morning, the Ambassador of Modena was told by Cardinal Borja that the pope had had a bad night and that the fever had gripped him even more strongly than before. The Venetian Ambassador, Antonio Giustinian, reported to the Doge of Venice on August 18, before the death of Pope Alexander, that the Pope was suffering from apoplexy, or so he heard from a reliable physician

On Friday the 18th, Pope Alexander had confession, heard Mass, and received Holy Communion, seated on his bed, from the hand of Bishop Peter Gamboa of Carinola, the assistant Master of the Apostolic Palace and Vicar of Rome. Five Cardinals were present: Arborensis [Jaime S

February 1482

I awoke this morning to shouts. Outside my window I discovered a back-alley fight in the streets. I had heard of the brutality of the Romans but never would have guessed that only my third day in the city would I witness a murder. After the scene calmed down, I descended to the street to investigate. The body of the man smelled wretched, and stabbed into his eye was a red flower, the ensign of the Orsini. Undoubtedly, the skirmish must have been a brawl gone wrong. Rest in peace to the Colonna man. Nothing like this would have happened on the streets of Tuscany. I wonder how my father is doing, he was not so well last I saw him. May God protect him.

I look forward to today, this morning has not dampened my spirits! Rapidly does my heart beat as I anticipate my meeting today. Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia is a busy man and I only have one chance to prove myself. My studies at home in Florence have led to this moment and I pray to Saint Joseph of Cupertino that I may perform my best for his eminence.

Agapito Geraldini

August 1492

This week I have met Cesare Borgia, nephew of Rodrigo His Holiness Alexander VI (that will take some getting used to). I would have added an entry upon my arrival to Spoleto, but I have been toiling from sunrise to the next sunrise since my arrival. Working for this Borgia will be a long and arduous task, but the new Pope has sent me to aid Bishop Borgia with his figures. I cannot fathom his behavior. He is a wastrel on drink and women, and yet argues scripture with the deacons like the bull sewn into his curiasses. The boy spends days straight sleepless, only to rest for what feels like a fortnight. Managing his schedule will be a challenge.

That said, the young man is very bright, and definitely takes after his uncle. The two are alike in many ways. He is quite well travelled for a seventeen-year-old and his laughter is infectious. I anticipate him going places. Well, he is already Bishop of Pamplona and the new Holy Father has mentioned Cesare becoming Archbishop of Valencia. I do believe seventeen is quite young for such a prestigious diocese but I would never confess that to either of the Borgia’s faces. I have seen the way Cesare is competitive with the memories of other Sons of Borgia. Not only does he contend with the world, but to earn his uncle’s approval the boy fights against his brothers and the immutable memory of the Duke of Gandia.

I im

Cited in ex-Italian Catholic Priest, Luigi A. Giustiniani; “Intrigues of Jesuitism in the United States of America,” Ed. 7, Ch. 2: “General Assembly of the Order,” p. 12-19, Ch. 5: “Missionary Plan for the United States,” p. 30-39, Ch. 8: “Instructions of the Father General of the Jesuits to the Provincial of America,” p. 47-51, (New York: 1846), [Emphasis Mine]

Chiesa del Gesù, Rome: the Gesuit Mother Church

>“A palace of a mixed, but gorgeous architecture situated in the central, and at the same time the most retired part of the city of Rome; a palace distinguished not only by its chaste architecture and the riches it contains, but the splendid situation which it occupies, is the residence of the General of the Order of the Jesuits. This palace which is called ‘La Gesu’ is situated on a square of the same name, evidently after the name of the Order; […]
>
>In that convent all the Provincials from all parts of the world have been assembled. A Province among the Jesuits comprehends a kingdom, and even a whole empire.
>
>So the United States is only a Missionary Province, directed by one [four now] Provincial, who is obliged to give every three months, to the General of the order residing at Rome, an account of all important events in his Province, Ecclesiastical as well as Political.
>
>One evening when the Tramontana (north-wind) blew in its height, and the streets of the city of Rome were as empty as if the malarea had swept away the whole population. An evening, when all the inhabitants of the eternal city creep into their dwellings, and crawl round their Scaldone as if the day of judgment had approached, or as if by some fatal accident, the north pole had broken loose, and offered its icy hand to the lovely mistress of the world. The streets were not only depopulated, but as dark almost as a grave; […] *The night was so unusually cold, that Saints and sinners would have frozen had they exposed themselves to the rigor of the Tramontana. In that night the convent of Jesuits presented a scene of intrigues, the theatre of

Jesus said, I will build my Church (Mat. 16:18)

So, Let’s see which is the true and original Church of Lord Jesus Christ in earth.

When people hear the word ‘Church’, suddenly an image of a huge building attached to Altar, Parish Hall, Bell and all kinds of amenities with a cross on the top of the building is coming to their mind. On the other hand, the image or understanding of non-Christians regarding a ‘Church’ is either Catholic or Protestant.

If we take the history of the world, we can see that a countless number of churches built in different visions, fashions and dimensions all over the world according to that country’s culture, like Church of Rome, St. Peter’s Church, Church of England, St. Thomas Church and so on.

However, truly, our Lord Jesus Christ meant the ‘Church’ in the earth according to a one mentioned above, built by stones, cement and other building materials? Surely, the answer is NO. Because, according to the Holy Bible, God had given always a pattern of the Church right from the beginning of man.

Pattern in Hebrew is ‘TABNIYTH’, which means, a model, figure, form or likeness. In Greek, it is ‘TUPOS’, which means, a model, shape, type or die. The other word for pattern in the Bible is ‘Fashion’. Fashion in Hebrew is ‘MISHPAT’, which means form, manner, measure or order. Hence, the pattern of the Church (‘Ecclesia’ Called out or Separated for God) is started from the time of Noah (Ark Gen. 6:14-16), Moses (Tabernacle Exd. 25:9, 40), David/Solomon (Temple 1 Chr. 28:11) and Peter (Church Acts. 2 : 36-47)

David received the pattern by the Holy Spirit (1 Chr. 28:12). Hence, we believe that Noah, Moses and Peter also received the pattern by the Holy Spirit. David says, the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me even all the works of this pattern (1 Chr. 28:19).

Peter was an illiterate Fisherman, while David was a Shepherd. The Holy Spirit made Peter to understand the pattern of the Church. Paul says to the Corinthian Church, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereon. But let every man, (any Elder/ Evangelist/ Priest/ Preacher/ Pastor/Bishops/Presbyter/Vicar/Pope) take heed how he buildeth thereon (1 Cor. 3:10).

The Lord spoke to Moses and said, make me a sanctuary (Exd. 25:9). The Sanctuary was not for Moses, but for the Lord. In another instance, the Lord spoke to David and said, Solomon shall build My House (1 Chr. 28:6). This house was not for David or Solomon, but for t

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

Buenosdillas

They’re on standbi

Pilot on me!!

Dr. Daniel Imperato is a worldly diplomat achiever and a well learned Global Businessman and Independent Political Constitutionalist and professional speaker.

Dr. Imperato has leadership advanced knowledge of artificial intelligent cyber security applications and solutions for global applications.

A pro se litigator for humanity (amicus), expert world-wide experience, Humanitarian.

A U.S. Presidential candidate 2008.

A Papal Knight.

Mr. Imperato knows and understands the world like the back of his hand.

He has training with a certain set of particular skills that separate him from most others.

A Master negotiator, investigator as a special agent advisor and doer.

He is fearless, no mission or challenge is to big.

Mr. Daniel J.P. Imperato is a Paraclete to society and humanities.

He has been taught by street smarts, luntzman, and strictest of organizations.

Mr. Imperato has spent time in Rome, in Vatican City office of archbishop of the military and vicar of Rome.

He has direct hands on experience and knowledge inside the Holy See and Italian politician and business affairs.

He worked in Israel and also has strong relation with the strategic studies of the Arab league.

Mr. Imperato relations ships in Asia pacific and India are at top notch, as well as Africa and most south America and Opus day, with the apostolic world and the nuncio Apostolic.

I posit that the correct understanding of Sacred Tradition must include not only the proper interpretation of Scripture, but also the sacred liturgy and the permanent constitution of the Church in dioceses. If Sacred Tradition only refers to matters of doctrine and morals, then we just have a really big canon of non-inerrant quasi-scriptures, and we are just Protestants+. No, Sacred Tradition must include all of the permanent fixtures of the Church which existed since the closing of the new revelation, such as the diocesan structure of the Church, and the liturgy. As such these do not fall under the category of "discipline," which is at the discretion of the hierarchy and the pope.

It is beyond the authority of the pope, or an angel, or God himself, to blot out the ordinary jurisdiction of the episcopacy. It would be an invalid act for the pope to attempt to dissolve all dioceses and govern the entire Church directly by way of vicars apostolic. The diocesan constitution of the Church is of apostolic and divine origin, and though in some ways it has disciplinary elements, it cannot be considered fungible.

The work of the Church, which is the liturgy, was once begun by the Apostles and lovingly augmented by the laity and clergy in each region under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The liturgy is, more than all the commentaries of the doctors and Fathers, the Sacred Tradition. Likewise, it is beyond the authority of a pope, or a bishop, of God himself, to blot out it out. Some elements of the liturgy are disciplinary, but historically it has been understood that discipline can only augment, not diminish, the essence of the rite. Liturgy is peculiar in this way, among the "disciplines" of the Church, since it is only disciplinary in a metaphorical way. The traditional rites of the Church, Roman, Alexandrian, Antiochene, and their derivatives, are works of the Holy Spirit. Popes have overstepped their liturgical authority in past ages, and I think we ought to honestly concede this. But the traditional rites cannot be actually abrogated by a pope.

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

When I got home, they were still there.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

I won't be doing that today!

TLDR: I'm starting to learn about Eastern Orthodoxy and this is my first post of this kind here. Questions will be bolded, in case you don't want to read my whole story and thoughts and just answer my questions.

As I start to write this I have no idea how long this post will be. Maybe the best preface is to say that religion as a whole is extremely important to me, in the sense that if any of this is true, this is the most important and urgent thing in life. So all my stakes in this are personal. There was a time in which it was just fun to treat theological research as an intellectual exercise, but now it's a matter of yes or no, life or death. I started questioning my upbringing by looking into Roman Catholicism, but after some time of discernment there doesn't seem to be an easy answer.

I was raised as an evangelical protestant with some reformed influences in my early teenagehood. Once I left a reformed/calvinist cult group (long story) I knew I couldn't return to the evangelicalism of my parents, which was heavily criticized by the reformeds, but reformed theology already looked too unsound for me, so I traded it for basically nothing. I stumbled upon Catholicism sort of by accident, by reading some non-religious literature with Catholic themes. Particularly I remember coming across the concept of real presence for the first time reading James Joyce's Portrait of the artist as a young man (a semi-biographical story about a young man who comes close to priesthood but ends up leaving the Church and his country).

So beginning in 2019 I started reading about church history and theology, and pretty much just asking questions at the Catholic sub. I guess I followed the normal route of going from pop apologetics to in depth theology, and I really fell in love with the writings of both John Henry Newman and pope Benedict XVI (and I still feel deeply connected to them, though I'm not so sure about Rome anymore). This alone caused great pain and anger in my parents, which at first I took for silly fundamentalism (and it was, to a point), but I can see their point better now: the Church I talked about wasn't the Catholic Church that they knew, and that I'd eventually know by getting out of my room and actually seeing what Catholicism looks like on the ground. It's the all too common "trad" dilemma.

I was basically sure about converting to the RCC, until a fight I had with my evagelical parents earlier this year acted as a sort of "wake up call"

[Removed]

You take away their little brooms

This morning, my 4 year old daughter.

Daughter: I'm hungry

Me: nerves building, smile widening

Me: Hi hungry, I'm dad.

She had no idea what was going on but I finally did it.

Thank you all for listening.

Why

It’s pronounced “Noel.”

There hasn't been a post all year!