In the mid-16th century, after the exclusion of girls from the choirs, the Vatican decided to castrate little boys to replace falsetto soprano voices.
Historians estimate that every year, during the 17th and the 18th centuries, around 5000 Italian little boys aged between 7 and 9 were castrated by the Church to sing in the choirs.
Pope St. Pius X prohibited the practice in 1903.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
lists.freebsd.org
dl114.zlibcdn.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
theguardian.com
youtube.com
els.org
youtube.com
myredditnudes.com
twitter.com
>furious protestant cherry-picking ensues
a Portugal man did an evil thing, therefore all Portuguese are evil
>B-but we were the ones who compiled the Bible! Who cares if we literally killed people for translating the Bible into vernacular so the average person could read it?! So what if we dug up the bones of John Wycliffe 40 years after his death to burn them because he dared translate the Bible into English?! That's not fair! We're the good guys!!
>1 million little boys castrated over the period of 2 centuries
>cherry-picking
>oy vey the 6 million
Probably because of degenerate Rome and their latin/satanic connection.
>I don't care about the torture and mutilation of little boys as long as the abuse is carried out by my masters
One of the best arguments desu.
>Italian
They probably did not have balls in the first place.
>my masters
Instead of going back hundreds of years stick to current atrocities that are relevant.
lists.freebsd.org
I haven't read the whole thing yet but it looks interesting.
Protestants are just as bad as Catholics.
>Why are Catholics so evil?
Pedo Ring from the dawn of time, the church needs to burn
Organized religion will always lead to evil.
Worship Jesus in private with friends and family and skip commercial spirituality.
Most of those were transexuals who expressed a desire to be girls. This has been covered up because it is not in agreement with the church's current theology of the body, but it's just how they dealt with them back then.
5,000 boys versus how many dozens of millions of Protestant boys who had their genitals irrevocably mutilated after birth? And why? To please the Jews. There are Christians, and then there are Protestants. The two will never meet
No, it was parents who did that to boys they couldn't support. Castratos were among the richest people in Italian society, especially for common born folk. Most even owned land and had families
Sola Scriptura is idolatry
the eternal jew has been finding excuses to sterilize white men for literal centuries
Both catholic and protestant churches are fake and gay. Worship privately. Nobody needs to buy God at Walmart, he's already inside you.
>the practice of castration vastly predates the Church
>castrati were employed by various European courts
>they sang Psalms and Gregorian chants
>OMG THE CHURCH DID DIS GUISE
>the Church eventually calls out the bullshit and bans the practice
>ignore the fact that there were castrati up until the XIX century in regardless
It's all so tiresome. I miss /christian/.
You can actually hear the suffering in his voice. Poor boys, castrated for the sake of entertaining decrepit old perverts.
Pure sadism.
And for those people who think sexual abuse of boys by priests is a recent phenomena, read what St. Damien wrote in 1049 in a letter to the Pope, talking about the epidemic of priests sexually abusing boys and nuns:
>Any cleric or monk who seduces young men or boys, or who is apprehended inkissing a woman shall be publicly flogged...he shall be disgraced by spitting in hisface, bound in iron chains, wasted by six months of close confinement, and forthree days each week put on barley bread given him toward evening. Following thisperiod, he shall...[live] in a small segregated courtyard in custody of a spiritualelder, kept busy with manual labor, subjected to vigils and prayers, forced to walkat all times in the company of two spiritual brothers, never again allowed toassociate with young men.
- The Book of Gomorrah
The Pope admonished him for bringing those issues to light.
Did Jesus fucking stutter when he told Peter that he was the rock that He was going to build His Church on? A temporal authority is absolutely necessary to keep things from devolving into chaos. Look at all of the ancient heresies revived by modern Protestants. Lost sheep who need a shepherd
So glad you brought this up.
ACTUAL QUOTE "You are a pebble (petras) and on this boulder I will build my church"
Jesus is the boulder, Peter is the pebble. This whole doctrine is based on misreading the text thinking Jesus used the same word for Peter and the rock in on this rock verse.
I'm against circumcision but to equate circumcision with castration and joke about it only reveals the levels of depravity and sadism a Catholic is willing to go to defend the Church.
What next? Galileo brought it upon himself?
I've seen Catholics laughing at jokes of Bruno and other "heretics" burning alive at the stake. The level of psychopathy coming from Catholics doesn't shock me, but the hypocrisy when you then play pious is beyond astounding.
>Most of those 7 year old boys were transexuals who expressed a desire to be girls.
I know you're trolling. 3/10 for making me reply.
Wrong
As stated before, the castrati were the product of purely secular forces. Mass circumcision is a direct plot by the Jews to "recapture" Christendom. Same as they did with Martin Luther.
Galileo did "bring it on himself", he was executed for repeated, unrepentant libel against the church and was given *numerous" opportunities to stop. His scientific discoveries have nothing to do with his trial
Wrong in the sense that you didn't look it up? Because look it up. Jesus uses two different words /thread
Catholic boys with Jewish heredity were not castrated. They would be need to sire an upcoming hirsute generation.
The first Church was built in Antioch, not in Rome.
>Christian tradition considers the apostle Peter to be the founder of the church of Antioch and the first priest of the Christian population established there; the Church of St. Peter is traditionally considered to be at the place where he first preached the Gospel in Antioch.
en.wikipedia.org
Also:
>Sola Scriptura is idolatry
So, reading and putting the Word of God above all is idolatry... but praying to statues, praying to Mary and to Saints is not.
I know Catholics hate the Bible but:
>"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all"
- 1 Timothy 2:5-6
Petros and Petra. It's the same word, just in a different declension. You can read Greek right?
>So, reading and putting the Word of God above *all* is idolatry...
If you are putting it over *all* that necessarily means putting it over God.
>but praying to statues, praying to Mary and to Saints is not.
Asking for intercession is not worship
I scrolled down and saw the bullshit """Jesuit oath""" that has been proven to be a forgery. The title was already pretty spicy, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was more BS mixed in. Why are you people still promoting reformation memes? If you call yourself a Christian, Truth should be something you love.
The Church literally introduced and sponsored the practice of castrating little boys for "art"... and you're accusing me of being mean to the Church? How dishonest can a person be? Good on Pope Pius X for banning the practice 4 centuries after the practice was introduced but you can't just look at these 4 centuries of genital mutilation committed by the Church and go "Oops xD".
It's so fucking obvious you don't care about the lives that were ruined, not even one bit. But at least pretend.
>ignore the fact that there were castrati up until the XIX century in regardless
Nope, there are recorded testimonies of the practice being sponsored by private households in the Vatican until the end of the 1950s, which is when the Last Castati died.
universalism in general is a pathology.
they continue these practices though transgenderism.
>I miss /christian/.
I miss /christianity/, where you weren't banned for not being a Catholic. You pathetic losers are worse than leftists when it comes to censorship. There's a reason why "Error Has No Rights" was Catholic dogma until Vatican II.
>Catholics so evil?
Because jews are dirty smelly fags
Yeah but jews are worse
I detect a lot of closet fedoras in this thread.
The name Peter (from Greek Petros) literally means Rock. Jesus was saying "You are the Rock on which My Church is built", not "on this place, this rock right here, you will build a physical Church that will be a haven for pederasts and murderers who kill people who try to follow My teachings instead of the pederasts' teachings".
No wonder the Church fought tooth and nail to keep the Bible from people's hands.
jesus is the king of the jews
>According to Socrates Scholasticus, during the Christian season of Lent in March 415, a mob of Christians under the leadership of a lector named Peter, raided Hypatia's carriage as she was travelling home.[98][99][100] They dragged her into a building known as the Kaisarion, a former pagan temple and center of the Roman imperial cult in Alexandria that had been converted into a Christian church.[100][98][90][100] There, the mob stripped Hypatia naked and murdered her using ostraka,[98][101][102][103] which can either be translated as "roof tiles" or "oyster shells".[98] Damascius adds that they also cut out her eyeballs.[104] They tore her body into pieces[98][104][103] and dragged her mangled limbs through the town to a place called Cinarion, where they set them on fire.[98][104][103] According to Watts, this was in line with the traditional manner in which Alexandrians carried the bodies of the "vilest criminals" outside the city limits to cremate them as a way of symbolically purifying the city.[104][105] Although Socrates Scholasticus never explicitly identifies Hypatia's murderers, they are commonly assumed to have been members of the parabalani.[106] Christopher Haas disputes this identification, arguing that the murderers were more likely "a crowd of Alexandrian laymen".[107]
Christians, the shabbos goyim that are effective at killing their kin.
Possibly, but look
Catholics are slaves to jews, the most disgusting faggots in the world. They're basically crypto-jews, they will do anything the jew wants, but they also hate themselves, they hate the world, they hate everyone, these people will not be satisfied unless everyone lives in misery, and the best thing is that they are still hated by jews. A catholic bows down and licks a jew's fungus infested toe, and the jew looks down with contempt.
>Constantine, though he made his allegiance clear, did not outlaw paganism; in the words of an early edict, he decreed that polytheists could "celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion," so long as they did not force Christians to join them.[20][21] In a letter to the King of Persia, Constantine wrote how he shunned the "abominable blood and hateful odors" of pagan sacrifices, and instead worshiped the High God "on bended knee",[17][22] and in the new capital city he built, Constantine made sure that there were no pagan temples built.[16]
>He destroyed the Temple of Aphrodite in the Lebanon.[34] He ordered the execution of eunuch priests in Egypt[1] because they transgressed his moral norms. According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, Constantine desired to obliterate non-Christians but lacking the means he had to be content with robbing their temples towards the end of his reign.[35] He resorted to derogatory and contemptuous comments relating to the old religion; writing of the "true obstinacy" of the pagans, of their "misguided rites and ceremonial", and of their "temples of lying" contrasted with "the splendours of the home of truth".[2]
>The anti-paganism policy of Constantius II lasted from 337 till 361. It was marked by laws and edicts that punished pagan practices.[4][5] Laws dating from the 350s prescribed the death penalty for those who performed or attended pagan sacrifices, and for the worshipping of idols;[4][36][37] temples were shut down,[2][5] and the Altar of Victory was removed from the Senate meeting house.[6] There were also frequent episodes of ordinary Christians destroying, pillaging, desecrating, vandalizing many of the ancient pagan temples, tombs and monuments.[7][8][9][10]
>Some Christians encouraged the emperor to take even more extreme measures in their zeal to stamp out paganism, e.g. in the aftermath of the abolition of sacrifices.[2] Firmicus Maternus, a convert to Christianity, urged: "Paganism, most holy emperors, must be utterly destroyed and blotted out, and disciplined by the severest enactments of your edicts, lest the deadly delusion of the presumption continue to stain the Roman world" and "How fortunate you are that God, whose agents you are, has reserved for you the destruction of idolatry and the ruin of profane temples."[4]
>Gratian took steps to repress pagan worship; this policy may have been influenced by his chief advisor, Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan.[1][65][66][67] In 382, Gratian appropriated the income of pagan priests and the Vestal Virgins, confiscated the possessions of the priestly colleges and ordered the Altar of Victory removed again.[68][69] The colleges of pagan priests also lost all their privileges and immunities. Gratian declared that all of the pagan temples and shrines were to be confiscated by the government and that their revenues were to be joined to the property of the royal treasury.[70]
>In 388 Valentinian II assumed the office of Emperor in the Western Roman Empire. He refused to grant the request from pagans to restore the Altar of Victory to the Senate House. He also refused to overturn the policies of his predecessor by restoring the income of the temple priests and Vestal Virgins. These policies may have been influenced by Ambrose.[71] In the year 391, Valentinian II issued a law that prohibited sacrifices and that forbade anyone from visiting the temples.[72] A later law of Valentinian declared that pagan temples were to be closed; this was viewed as practically outlawing paganism.[73]
>>Any cleric or monk who seduces young men or boys, or who is apprehended in kissing a woman shall be publicly flogged...he shall be disgraced by spitting in hisface, bound in iron chains, wasted by six months of close confinement, and forthree days each week put on barley bread given him toward evening. Following this period, he shall...[live] in a small segregated courtyard in custody of a spiritualelder, kept busy with manual labor, subjected to vigils and prayers, forced to walkat all times in the company of two spiritual brothers, never again allowed to associate with young men.
>- The Book of Gomorrah
>the castrati were the product of purely secular forces.
You mean the secular forces who prohibited girls from singing in the Church because that was an affront to God?
Look, we both know you will never, ever, admit to being wrong but... deep inside... I know you realize that what you're doing is totally immoral. The ease with which you lie is something I will never understand.
> His scientific discoveries have nothing to do with his trial
Oh boy.... first, Galileo was not executed, which lets me know upfront I'm dealing with someone who never looked into the case and is just regurgitating talking points he read somewhere else.
But even if that were the case, that he was persecuted for slandering the Pope (he satirized the Pope with the character Simplicius, but remained a faithful Catholic until his dying breath), was the Church right in persecuting a man for satirizing the Pope?
Wrong, Jesus was pointing at himself. He was the foundation. Peter was a petra, a loose stone blown about with every wind of doctrine.
>private houses
>GUISE GUISE! ITS ZE CATHOLICS!
>still ignoring the fact that it was a widespread practice that was mainly sponsored by various European courts
You clearly don't understand the Catholic Church. But you're obviously just here to troll and to feign indignation. You're probably not even a Christian, this is just twisted entertainment for you. Try to use your time more constructively.
The words "petros" and "petra" are used in the original Greek grammatical construction of Matthew 16:18. In other words, the passage reads, "You are Peter ("petros") and upon this rock ("petra") I will build my church." While "petros" means a piece of rock (masculine), "petra" means a mass of rock (feminine). Thus there exists a distinction between both words occupied in Matthew 16:18. But if the Apostle Peter was meant to serve as the foundation upon which the Christian church stands, then we should not be seeing two different Greek words with two different meanings in the passage from the Gospel.
Jesus is the rock, the foundation of the Church.
1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV
>And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Any time a rock or large stone is mentioned it’s referring to Jesus
Matthew 21:42 KJV
>Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Jesus was rejected but then he became the “head of the corner”(cornerstone/foundation) of the church
Again the whole RCC is based off a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18-19
>totally ignores the stated evidence that the first church was in Antioch, not in Rome
>deliberately misrepresents the view presented, as if anyone anywhere ever defended putting Word of God before God
>totally ignores the quoted Scripture that says Jesus is the only intermediary between man and God
My friend, I can only hope one day you'll wake up and realize what you're doing to yourself.
>Vatican
>not Catholic
Dude....
>still ignoring the fact that it was a widespread practice that was mainly sponsored by various European courts
Present evidence to back up that claim. Don't ignore this. Present evidence!
>you're obviously just here to troll and to feign indignation. You're probably not even a Christian
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Petra is actually a huge rock, a big immovable kind. But I agree that Christ is the cornerstone.
Peter's original name was Simeon, meaning "to hear" or "to listen." I feel that Jesus was saying something like Those who listen to Him have a solid foundation.
>You mean the secular forces who prohibited girls from singing in the Church because that was an affront to God?
What exactly is your contention here? The answer is yes. Women did not take part in the liturgy, they did not read the Scriptures, they did not minister the Eucharist and they did not sing. Women are also denied the sacrament of holy orders too. What exactly is the problem here? Was the Mother Church (oh my, a matriarchy?!) insufficiently progressive for your taste?
>Present evidence to back up that claim. Don't ignore this. Present evidence!
Like your evidence about the Vatican sponsoring the systematic castration of children up until the 1950s in spite of Her prohibition to do so? I like your double standards.
Because they've been infiltrated and changed by satanic hebrew wannabes that want to destroy the faith that nearly annihilated them. If you want to get some type or Christianity that isn't pure poz and demonic preaching, join the orthodox faith.
My contention is that the castrati were not mainly, to use your words, "the product of purely secular forces".
I'm glad you now admit that's not true, that it was the church forbidding, in the 16th century, girls singing in the choirs that upstarted the practice of castrating boys to replace a role that for over 1100 years was performed by women.
>Like your evidence about the Vatican sponsoring the systematic castration of children up until the 1950s in spite of Her prohibition to do so?
>New research suggests that the employment of castrati was tolerated by the Vatican as late as 1959, long after other states had banned it as barbaric.
>According to Angels Against their Will, a new book by the German historian Hubert Ortkemper, the castrato Alessandro Moreschi performed in the Sistine chapel until 1913. Other historians suspect that Domenico Mancini, another private pontifical singer who performed from 1939 to 1959, was a castrato, too.
theguardian.com
Now... present evidence.
>sola scriptura
>get rid of seven books of the Bible
Imagine thinking prods are even remotely right about anything. Protestantism isn't "true" Christianity, it's just Catholicism with all the stuff Luther didn't like taken out.
ALL Christians are evil, because it's a book dedicated to rationalizing away bad behavior.
Fuck ALL of you cultists, and fuck your perversions of divinity.
The Catholic church isn't Christ like because they failed the third temptation of the devil which Jesus had to overcome. Jesus was presented with the opportunity to establish an empire over all nations over all time if he would just worship Satan, and he refused this, but the Catholic church feels it must have authority above kings all over the world.
Many (((catholics))) are actually jews loyal to Judaism. In catholic faith it is allowed for a Jew to become a Christian. Thus many Jews daily inflitrated and diddled kids in an effort to destroy the reputation of the church (and please their god moloch) as the catholic church in modern times had become a bastion of white community that harboured many nuclear family units. Isn’t funny how all pedophiles always seem to be catholic and not evangelical? It’s almost as if the evangelicals don’t piss off jews and Catholics do.
I'm a staunch Catholic and even I think that was horrific
The last Castrato youtube.com
Can we talk about how religion is shit, and true European heritage is science?
There is no "true" Christianity. Never was.
It was a Jewish psyop from the start, and has done nothing but empower terrible people to do terrible things.
Sure. Just don't be surprised when a bunch of retarded zealots try to shout you down.
SHUT THE FUCK UP LABCOAT
cause the priests who raped these boys are Jews
The Evangelicals were bought off that's why. Every pastor in the Evangelical movement that has any sort of profile or importance takes Jewish shekels.
I wonder why too..
Martin Luther, the founder of Sola Scripture, didn't get rid of the Apocrypha.
Martin Luther died in 1546.
The original King James Bible, published in 1611, contained the 7 books that comprise The Apocrypha.
The Apocrypha was removed from the King James Bible in 1885:
3 centuries after the death of Martin Luther.
I don't read the King James Bible, nor do most protestants I know. King James-Only position is a fringe position held by less than 0,1% of protestants.
Next slander, please.
The sin of the church today is its massive contribution to atheism. Whereas the church used to dominate the lives of its members and control them, now the Catholic church is so lenient with discipline and requirements that most of the children brought up catholic since the 2nd Vatican council have viewed religion as something of little value and thus don't follow any religion. If it takes nothing to be catholic, no one will value it. Being catholic today means little more than attending church once a year. The Catholic church doesn't keep children within the church, as the church does little to nothing to teach children about the relativity of religion. It is all too common to see groups of kids partaking in their "first communion" and not knowing what to do. Polls conclude that the median age of youth choosing to leave Catholicism is 13, meaning half choose to do so before then. Keep in mind that 90 percent of youth raised Catholic currently choose to leave the church and to become atheist.
The answer is
(gasp)
That religion and 'the power of god'
does nothing to prevent this shit happening,
but does put power into the hands of
the people that do it
and gives them an institutional backing to hide their crimes.
>the ones who fight the jews are the jews
>LOOK AT MY BIG BRAIN
It's called orthodoxy my dude. Literally true opinion/faith. Catholics are just power hungry degenerates that wanted the center of religion to be focused on one point instead of it being everywhere there are Christians.
got a Joe Rogan listener here I see lol
The number of books in the Catholic Bible wasn't settled until the counter-reformation. Up until then it was merely a matter of Tradition which books were used in services and readings. This Tradition was established by which books Jerome decided to translate in the 400s. It's just as appropriate to say that the Catholics removed books from the Bible (from an Orthodox perspective). But really, a book can't be 'removed' if it wasn't officially and dogmatically affirmed as 'included'.
Thats because all religion (more or less) describe a belief in magic and spirits and nonsense woo.
We have little reason to accept the existence of goblins anymore, unless you're in a backwater hellhole like the Congo, or central America.
? No, i can't stand that drugged up libshit
It's funny how you manage to condemn the Catholic Church and in the same breath say "Go Orthodox!" despite our shared traditions and our mostly compatible doctrines. It doesn't matter if they're protestants or schismatics or any other flavour of special snowflake Christianity, the prime target is always the Catholic Church. I just wonder how comfortable you are with actual heretics, user, or if they are, as usual, just Rome's problem.
>My contention is that the castrati were not mainly, to use your words, "the product of purely secular forces".
But that is not what I'm quoting and you're not answering what I asked: what is the problem with women not singing exactly?
>I'm glad you now admit that's not true, that it was the church forbidding, in the 16th century, girls singing in the choirs that upstarted the practice of castrating boys
>to replace a role that for over 1100 years was performed by women.
???
There were a plurality of interpretations prior to Rome settling the question. Women singing was not uncontroversial and eunuchs were already a thing long before the institution of the Church by Our Lord. This was not arcane knowledge developed by the evil Catholics, this was a well-known practice well before the Church was instituted.
>theguardian.com
You haven't read your link, have you? This is quite embarrassing, even for troll such as yourself.
>Martin Luther, the founder of Sola Scripture, didn't get rid of the Apocrypha.
els.org
He declared them non-canonical. The books being there or not is irrelevant, he stripped them of the canon.
The books weren't officially canon until after the reformation. It was merely Tradition until that point.
>castrato
>having a family
I don't think you understand how it works.
You mean homosexuals.. you're talking about the LGBT "community"
They're the evil ones who are guilty. They're the ones who committed those perverse acts.
Stating FACTS here.. you stupid libs/journos/lurkers/glows
>t's funny how you manage to condemn the Catholic Church and in the same breath say "Go Orthodox!" despite our shared traditions and our mostly compatible doctrines.
Idk if you're just retarded or arguing in bad faith, but there's a lot of differences. From changes on the most fundamental level like removing books and changing contents like the holiness of theotokos(mary) up to the fact that you can have a wife and children WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT of the issue. Forcing celibacy on someone will make them deranged. Just look at incels.
Catholicuckery is for brown man.
Protestantism is for white man.
It's funny how Catholics always ask help from the "schismatics" ( ) when being called out on their bullshit. The Orthodox Christians broke with Rome because Rome changed doctrine, while the Orthodox Christians stayed true to Tradition. Don't fall for for their tricks, Austria user. You may hate me but it's nothing compared to hatred Roman Catholics feel towards you.
>what is the problem with women not singing exactly?
Given that women sing in the Catholic Chuch choirs today, you don't have a problem with women singing in churches as well. Or are you against the Church's position on the subject?
Personally I don't have a problem with women singing in churches as well, though the Bible says that "women should keep silent in Church". If there were a church that said "Women are allowed to sing in our choirs" I'd think nothing of it. But if they castrated 1 million boys for 2 centuries then I'd realize I'm dealing with a Satanic cult.
>Women singing was not uncontroversial
Despite the controversy, it was not forbidden by the Vatican until the 16th century.
>eunuchs were already a thing long before the institution of the Church by Our Lord
Straw man argument. I'm not arguing that.
Deflection. Eunuchs were either acts committed by barbarians, acts of emasculating slaves or self-castration for religious purposes. Notice the word "self". Boys being castrated was done against their will.
>You haven't read your link, have you?
I did. Did you? Explain why it's wrong instead of being vague.
Tradition is a valid source in both the Orthodox and Catholic churches, so I'm confused by you appending "merely" to "tradition". And if I'm not mistaken, and I do open myself to correction, the Orthodox Churches themselves still do not have settled on a canon, their Bibles go from 73 to 77 books. Tradition is perfectly valid.
>From changes on the most fundamental level like removing books
We have the same books.
>changing contents like the holiness of theotokos
The Orthodox deny the immaculate conception of Our Blessed Mother. But you believe She was sinless, She is the greatest of all the Saints and her Assumption. I'm not sure what your problem is here.
>the fact that you can have a wife and children WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT of the issue
Orthodox monks are celibate, only your priesthood is lax on those matters. But then again, there is leaven on your bread.
>Forcing celibacy on someone will make them deranged.
Yes, it's the same old argument that "the moral law is just too hard". It's not too hard for the monasteries apparently. Or just how deranged are your monks?
>It's funny how Catholics
You mean homosexuals who sought solace within the ranks of the Catholic church, took advantage of it and their flocks. They corrupted a religious institution from within.
>The Catholic church doesn't keep children within the church
Mostly for safety measures.
>Keep in mind that 90 percent of youth raised Catholic currently choose to leave the church and to become atheist.
It's because Catholicism presents the picture of a Christ so meek and so docile that only literal cuckolds would feel any reverence towards it. I became an atheist after losing my Catholic faith at 13 and became a Christian after reading the Bible at 28. I was amazed by Christ's vigor and steadfastness. Always stern and never compromising in the face of adversity.
Pic related.
>Orthodox monks are celibate, only your priesthood is lax on those matters. But then again, there is leaven on your bread.
>Yes, it's the same old argument that "the moral law is just too hard". It's not too hard for the monasteries apparently. Or just how deranged are your monks?
Corinthians 7:2 my dude. That's not an argument.
My appeal is to common sense. I do believe it is a unifying characteristic of the followers of Christ despite our divergences, be them of the Catholic faith, schismatics or, may the Lord have mercy on us all, protestant. But I'm very sure an atheist such as yourself has no idea of what this entails.
>Or are you against the Church's position on the subject?
Why would I be? I'm in communion with my parish and with our Pope. I don't think it is heretical but I also understand the previous proclamations of the Bishop of Rome in regards to this issue. The FSSPX still maintains this tradition and they're not chopping off balls; the impracticality of it given the dwindling mass attendance is perhaps a most reverent sacrifice to Our Lord, but I do not believe they're avoiding a heresy by doing so.
>But if they castrated 1 million boys for 2 centuries then I'd realize I'm dealing with a Satanic cult.
You still have to provide evidence of this. You've already presented an article who said that the Vatican issued excommunications to castrati and that they were forbidden to sing in church as evidence of the supposed systematic abuse of children. Also, we know of the habits of castrati, singers like Farinelli toured the courts of Europe, they were not the exclusive property of churches and made bank serving many patrons. The Church certainly was not the first to discover eunuchs, and even if She did embrace the practice for a time, you're still failing to acknowledge that it was She who forbade it and ultimately drove it to extinction. Your welcome?
>Despite the controversy, it was not forbidden by the Vatican until the 16th century.
There was not a universal interpretation and, again, it was not uncontroversial. The matter was generally settled within each episcopate.
Are you quoting random verses now? What does espousal faithfulness have to do with this? And also, just how deranged are your monks over there? I personally blame the leaven.
its still sandnigger shit just twice removed. kill yourself, slave
Don't forget 1 Timothy 3:2-12.
>2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
>3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
>4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
>5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
>6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
>7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
>8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
>9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
>10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
>11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
>12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
>Are you quoting random verses now? What does espousal faithfulness have to do with this?
Yeah, because a verse in the bible saying, that every man should have a wife is a random verse. I'm certain now, that you're arguing in bad faith. Shame on you.
>unifying characteristic of the followers of Christ
Ecumenical nonsense. I know you mean well so I'm not gonna bust your balls over that.
>an atheist such as yourself
Read the sticky and learn about logical fallacies. I'm saying this as a friend.
>The FSSPX still maintains this tradition
What is that I hear at the 10:05 mark?
youtube.com
>the church didn't do nuffin, castrati loved not being able to have children and being forced by the Vatican to perform like circus freaks to tyrants, etc.
You are definitely arguing in mala fides.
But that is not what the chapter says at all. St. Paul starts the chapter by praising celibacy and then proceeds to talk about matrimony and how the Christian man should face this sacrament. So what you're doing here is some kind of esoteric exegesis by stripping the verse entirely out of context. And again, celibacy is an honoured tradition within your very Church, so why are you attacking the Catholic priesthood for not slouching off?
I'm not arguing in bad faith, user. I'm just annoyed. It irks me to see that my Orthodox brothers, people whom I hold in the highest regard, are quicker to bandwagon against their Catholic brothers than they are to fight actual heresies. I genuinely don't understand what compels you to do so, out of all denominations you're the ones who syncretise the most with us. Yet it's this virulent, vile hatred for some reason. Take your initial objections: you start off by saying that our Mariology differs completely when in fact our only substantial doctrinal divergence is Her immaculate conception; of course this is not a small thing but in everything else our Churches are in complete agreement. And then you make this blind charge against celibacy as if it wasn't a thing in your very Church. So please, understand that I am not in bad faith here, I'm just extremely annoyed. You're an Orthodox Christian, your Church has preserved the doctrine almost as well as the CC, so please ask yourself: am I really your enemy ITT? I don't know where your irrational hatred comes from but you should confront it.
I have dedicated enough of my time on you. I don't expect any gratitude, you're simply the type of person who makes a plaything out of people's time and out of their sincere convictions and earnestness. It quite the unfortunate pastime. I hope one day you (re?)discover your faith, I don't know who or what wounded you but I hope one day you'll open your eyes to just how utterly repulsive your insincere, trolish demeanour is.
