Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would say that the Catholics who are ill informed don't much care what the pope says anyway.The question is are all Catholics as informed as you? Most certainly not. There is going to be certain number of Catholics who go with the Pope no matter what he says or on the topic. Just at there are going to be Protestants who go with the "Wealth & Health" preachers that inundate the airwaves. Way back then, without the modern tech, people followed what their priests told them....most certainly when it concerned the Pope...the priest represented the Pope who represented Jesus....and not many had the courage to question the church.
I would say that the Catholics who are ill informed don't much care what the pope says anyway.
I don't think it would be that extreme....but things would be different....You should thank God for the crusades or we would be typing Arabic right now talking about how many wives we can have.
Paul gives standards for who qualifies to "take care of the church of God" > in 1 Timothy 3:1-10. So, if this is done right, it will work well. But ones have done the married pastor thing the wrong way so it has not worked, then they have blamed marriage!!would you say that it is preferable to have a celibate church leader?
Paul our Apostle says he worked with his own hands to take care of himself plus he made enough to take care of those who were with him. This he did by means of God's grace, so this worked . . . as is possible with God. But people who do things the wrong way will have problems; and humans can invent thought-up problems to make a good thing seem bad or impossible to do . . . "instead of learning to do it right." And by God's grace, while he worked, he also was able to do all the ministering he did.But priests take a vow of poverty, and most priests do not make even minimum wage for their hours worked. Trying to support a family on such a wage would be next to impossible, practically.
And about the 4th crusade where the Roman Catholic pope slaughtered thousands of orthodox christians at constantinople?You should thank God for the crusades or we would be typing Arabic right now talking about how many wives we can have.
Do you have a reliable source for that statement?...my history classes were 45 years ago.....And about the 4th crusade where the Roman Catholic pope slaughtered thousands of orthodox christians at constantinople?
Here is a quick Google result. I honestly have not read it entirely but it has the main info about the sack of constantinople.Do you have a reliable source for that statement?...my history classes were 45 years ago.....
I must warn you that it is a long read.
And about the 4th crusade where the Roman Catholic pope slaughtered thousands of orthodox christians at constantinople?
And here is a perfect example of history revisionism. The pope did not authorize the sack of Constantinople. In fact the pope at that time excommunicated every single crusader involved in the sack. The very last thing the pope wanted was for what had happened. The emperor promised unity between the Eastern and Western Churches, and the folly of the leadership of those crusaders destroyed that recent unity. So get your facts straight.And about the 4th crusade where the Roman Catholic pope slaughtered thousands of orthodox christians at constantinople?
Well not much better; but it seems to be attributed to Arnaud Amalric who was speaking about the Albingensian Crusades, not the fourth Crusade.I think it was just before that massacre that a warrior bishop was asked by his troops how to tell the difference between a Christian and a Muslim. His reply? "Kill them all and let God sort them out."
Well not much better; but it seems to be attributed to Arnaud Amalric who was speaking about the Albingensian Crusades, not the fourth Crusade.
The only place in that whole essay that mentions the Pope was in saying that he excommunicated the Venetians after they suborned the intent of the Crusade to have the Crusaders capture Zara. This doesn't sound like support for what happened.Here is a quick Google result. I honestly have not read it entirely but it has the main info about the sack of constantinople.
http://www.historynet.com/fourth-crusade.htm
The Catholic Pope slaughtered nobody. Soldiers over-ran Constantinople. Rampant soldiering was not what the Crusades were about. They were promulgated by the Pope with lots of conditions on those who served, in order for the Pope's blessing to be valid. Slaughtering friendlies and overtaking European cities was not one of the conditions. To be honest, slaughtering Muslims wasn't the purpose either. Protecting the Christians visiting and living in the Holy Land was. I grant you that, past the first Crusade, they went awry and didn't accomplish much of anything except to give soldiers target practice. But the popes' purpose was almost never given much attention.And about the 4th crusade where the Roman Catholic pope slaughtered thousands of orthodox christians at constantinople?
Sarcasm alert: So...after the murder of thousands of innocent people, people were so upset at the pope because nobody wanted to marry him. Filled with anger, he decreed that no priest or nun will ever marry if he couldn't. And that my friends is how you get a thread back on rails.The Catholic Pope slaughtered nobody. Soldiers over-ran Constantinople. Rampant soldiering was not what the Crusades were about. They were promulgated by the Pope with lots of conditions on those who served, in order for the Pope's blessing to be valid. Slaughtering friendlies and overtaking European cities was not one of the conditions. To be honest, slaughtering Muslims wasn't the purpose either. Protecting the Christians visiting and living in the Holy Land was. I grant you that, past the first Crusade, they went awry and didn't accomplish much of anything except to give soldiers target practice. But the popes' purpose was almost never given much attention.
Why should anyone be upset at the pope? Because he sent an army to Jerusalem? Their anger was obviously misplaced. By the way, where did you get the idea I wasbyour friend??? I may be cordial but that's only civility.Sarcasm alert: So...after the murder of thousands of innocent people, people were so upset at the pope because nobody wanted to marry him. Filled with anger, he decreed that no priest or nun will ever marry if he couldn't. And that my friends is how you get a thread back on rails.
It was a joke not to be taken seriously. Hence the "sarcasm alert". My point was that we are getting off topic and I am trying to get it back on topic.Why should anyone be upset at the pope? Because he sent an army to Jerusalem? Their anger was obviously misplaced. By the way, where did you get the idea I wasbyour friend??? I may be cordial but that's only civility.
Your supposed married popes shot flopped but you were able to score on the rebound. Nice touch.But which is worse being married or having children out of wedlock?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?