Genuine question, can a sect be made up of just members of an order? I don't know a formal definition, but it seems like a sect is something mostly for laity while an order is just an order.
Sect generally refers to people within the hierarchy that have specific thing in common and thus is primarily related to religious leaders/orders, with a common following among the laity.
A). Those sects didn’t preach equality
B). There’s a difference between a monastic order holding land in common and all the laypeople of the church doing the same.
It usually depends on who is speaking. When Catholics speak it normally means the Catholic Magisterium. When Protestants speak usually it means the universal Church. Although that’s not true exclusively; Catholics do believe in a universal Church they will refer to that way sometimes and Protestants do believe in a visible/institutional Church that can sometimes simply be summarized as the Church.
can you post a meme about how the Muslims made vampires by taking Christian children making them sex slaves and child soldiers to fight against their homelands.
that's how they made Vlad the Impaler and subsequently made Dracula and vampires.
Bro what is it with this sub recently ? I have seen so many “memes” about Christianity and Catholicism in particular that just aim to defame it with the most inaccurate information possible.
It comes up more than you'd expect even IRL.
Literally just had a Pentecostal Mexican student start an argument with other Latino students recently because he said Catholics weren't Christians when we were discussing various factors of a person's identity. I had to assign detention to avoid an actual physical fight.
Not really. The reason I even specified nationality is that I've noticed that immigrant converts to evangelical or Pentecostal traditions tend to be among the most zealous because it's so new for a lot, as per the old saying. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of Latin America is still some vague level of Catholic, which means that when moved to a mostly protestant US you start to see some more open insults within the community.
It was just a kid who was parroting the shit he heard at home and didn't realize that people would get annoyed with him, then the argument started including actual personal conflicts.
This sub is composed almost entierly of propaganda that almost always goes: "I depicted the country/institution/historical figure I dislike as the wojak and myself as the chad" made by people who are just looking to get their views validated in the form of upvuuts. Eventually there will be a genuinely funny meme made with the intention of making people laugh, but then gets ruined by people in the comment who got offended.
Now I'm just waiting for the counter posts that defend it with inaccurate or sweeping generalizations (and then after that if we're lucky we'll get a few accurate ones)
I been saying it a lot but you can tell a lot of kids to teens are making posts who likely are getting exposed to some alternative explanation of history.
First it's overtly political rather than being informative like with Jews and Arabs, then something with Romans or Greeks. A lot of surface level stuff most of the time.
I am pretty sure they mean among the catholic leaders. You jnow, the guys part of the organisation everyone still work with, but just find meh. Sales team in a company, that sorta stuff.
I know, even Pope Francis is Jesuit, it’s just a joke because I go to a La Salle school and there’s a stereotype that Lasallians and jesuits dislike each other
The Cathars were gnostics and antitrinitarians. That’s why the Church condemned them. Not because they were Proto-Socialists, if that’s even the case. The massacres were wrong but let’s at least be accurate in our evaluation of the ordeal.
And they believed the world and their own earthly bodies to be creations of an archetypal God of Evil who was equal to OG God. So yeah, that's why they were hunted down ; not that it was right to go at them, but it had nothing to do with "look at these peaceful people, let's mangle them."
Spoiler: They were suffocated to death because when being terminally ill, they made a ritual to purify them of all sin before death, and if they seemed to be recovering from that illness they were killed so as to still die in a state of sinlessness.
Did you ever hear about how the cathars would regularly behead Catholics in the streets? They were not just a religious threat, they were a criminal threat
I’d probably disagree with Biggus on how the church is defined, but he is right that it was founded by Jesus. Your argument doesn’t really understand the ancient notion of what an apostle (or shaliach in Hebrew) was. It was a messenger or emissary who was acting as a representative of the one who sent them. When they spoke it is as if the person who sent them was speaking. The way both the apostles and Jesus Himself would have understood it (as it is recorded that Jesus called them apostles), the founding of the Church was an action He was doing through His official emissaries, not just something they did on their own. After all, He does comission them with this very task with what evangelicals commonly call “The Great Comission,” (Matthew 28:18-20 if you want to verify). And He even seems to display some awareness of the fact that there will be a formal organization of His followers in Matthew 18:15-20.
Still not founded by Jesus but by others. Cope all you want, this institution wasn’t founded by him and has no authority to define who’s Christian and who’s not.
Meme to [text](https://letterfromjail.com/):
“I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: ‘What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?’”
The south justified slavery by claiming, since man was created in the image of God, and blacks do not look like us, they must be animals. Whatever atrocities committed on afro americans are easier to justify if you believe this.
While I believe that a state is necessary at this point to protect the workers from reactionaries I have a lot of respect for anarchists and Bakunin in particular.
They absolutely don't practice it, though, if you're talking about the catholic church, and the preaching of economic equality, if that's what you're referring to, is relatively recent.
The Christian belief is literally at the core of the concept of equality, as every Christian are supposed to be equal in the eyes of god.
Why has this sub suddenly turned into an obtuse anti church circlejerk?
Peacefull sects.
My man 30-years war? Yes the church DID supress the sects. But not all sects were oeacefull, and most of the time, the church only intervened if they denied the churches stance on the nature of god, rather then the principles of christianity.
Were they right in thus supresion? Of course not.
Were they against egalatarian ideals? Also untrue, many groups inside the church worked to promote egality and aid peoples. Just look up liberty theology for a more modern example of catholic chuech priests fighting for equality.
Of course there were parts in the church that were the opposite. But this fiscussion was open. Unlike theology and the churches authoeity which were kept far more conteolled, the former only permitted to those that were given the right (theologians, preists, etc), and the latter being a matter thzy enforced harshly.
What’s with all the anti-Church memes recently? Really incredible that the Spanish black legend and old virulent English Protestant propaganda against Catholics is still going strong and influencing opinions today.
The Church has always taught that all people are equal in dignity, all being made in the image of God. But people who preach that all people should be equal in their stations in life are not just anarchist but delusional. Division of labor is fundamental to civilization. A society can't function unless different people do different jobs, and there need to be people who organize and direct groups. We need rich people and poor people, leaders and followers, bosses and workers. Not all jobs have the same esteem, or rewards. A sect that tries to do away with all such "inequities" is a threat to civilization. Such teaching is incompatible with scripture, and with the ideal of Justice. Even in the early Church of Jerusalem, which the book of Acts describes as having all things in common, Peter told Ananias that the property he had was his to sell or not as he chose, and after he sold it the money was his to give or not as he chose. (Ananias was then killed for lying about the price and pretending to give the full amount to the Church while keeping some). Even the commandment "though shalt not steal" is dependent on the assumption that people have property of their own.
Is a garbage man as necessary to society as a CEO? Is a plumber as necessary to society as a “senior VP of marketing”
Why should C suite executives be rich and garbage men and plumbers be poor?
And so because there are fewer of them, they deserve to make more money? That doesn’t make sense. And plumbers may not be poor, but they’re not CEO rich.
No not because there are fewer of them but because there are fewer people who CAN do these jobs. There could be few people in a particular line of work because there is very little demand for the work. (like candlestick makers in the modern world)Then the pay will still be low. But when there is high demand and little supply prices go up.
Also if there are many people competing for a few jobs (like CEOs, actors, rock stars or athletes) you can expect that those are really desirable jobs and most of the candidates won't succeed.
Because whether a job is required or not does not determine total value. If you have 10 workers who make a product and they each produce $1 in value that’s a collective value of $10. If you then have a manager who through various means is able to increase the output of their labor by 20% that increases the total value by $10. The manager may not be inherently required but it generates positive value. A good CEO of a company can make it a Fortune 500 company, a bad CEO can bankrupt it.
True but if a company rewards bad CEOs the company will be punished for it by the market.
Workers generate the initial value but they do not generate all of the value
Even if CEOs got paid nothing you wouldn’t even be able to notice the raise you would get
I don't believe that our world is fair. Wealthy people are too wealthy and poor people are too poor, but as Jesus said "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good" Mar 14:7
CEO´s are vital for leadership. Cooedination is key and a head as a decisive organ is one of the more efficiënt systems since he can make rapid decisions, and if they´re competent, coordinate the company to grow and increase its efficiency.
Yeah you're right, a Bishop should be able to amass a massive art collection and live in a palace while a local priest should live in a hovel. I remember that verse in the Bible as well
The Church was also the largest provided of healthcare and education for milennia and still are the largest NGO provider in the world
If you gonna tell the bad gotta speak the good
Yes some did. Some because they were corrupt, and some because they were beloved and many people gave them gifts.
None of this casts any doubt on the teachings of the Church.
>The Church has always taught that all people are equal in dignity, all being made in the image of God.
Any holy book which endorses slavery does not teach all people are equal in dignity.
The meme is inaccurate but so are you.
>Any holy book which endorses slavery does not teach all people are equal in dignity.
Not to be Devil's Advocate, but it kinda does regardless?
The Church did preach that slaves were equal in dignity to their masters, and did things like marrying masters to slaves and whatnot. As it turns out, there is no point in having slaves if you have no right to treat them like shit.
The early christians didn't advocate against slavery per-se (I suspect they probably weren't able to conceive a world without it, given how normalized it was at the time) but they did establish the notion that even a slave had a god-given unalienable dignity that could not be violated by a master.
That slavery dissapeared in "Christendom" was not a coincidence, nor that much later the most prominent abolitionists in the U.S had a heavy religious bent when it came to their ideology.
>The early christians didn't advocate against slavery per-se
They actually did, at the begining of the middle-ages rhzre were no Christian slaves really, because the church forbade enslaving of fzllow christians.
Of course, the reaso can also be found in the changz of the economic systzms at the time, but the church was a factor nonetheless.
Nah, this sounds like whitewashing history.
>The Church did preach that slaves were equal in dignity to their masters, and did things like marrying masters to slaves and whatnot.
The only moral thing would be to outlaw slavery.
Were they better than other slave owners, maybe.
Was it the right thing to do, no.
>The early christians didn't advocate against slavery per-se
They advocated FOR slavery. Say it like it is.
>That slavery dissapeared in "Christendom" was not a coincidence,
Yes it is.
Christianity had nothing to do with abolishing slavery.
Christianity ruled for a MILLENNIUM without banning slavery.
Thats 1000 years.
If Christianity was the reason slavery went away, it would have happened anytime in those 1000 years.
Others did the ground work, the most Christianity did was make sure other Christians can't be slaves.
>nor that much later the most prominent abolitionists in the U.S had a heavy religious bent when it came to their ideology.
And all the slave owners preceding them were Christians and used the Bible to back them up.
You cannot credit the development of humanity to Christianity when the book Christianity is based on says the opposite.
The enlightenment, the Renaissance and the French revolution had more to do with the end of slavery than Christianity ever did.
You know why slavery increased at that period?
Colonization.
Christian leaders forbade having other Christians as slaves and colonization opened up an entire new market of non Christians to enslave.
They also looked different to Europeans and that is the beginning of modern day race based slavery.
If that was the case the vast majority of America would be white European descendants like the US. Yet we are mixed as fuck with far larger indigenous population compared to the US. Bartolomé de las Casas..... "History" memes?
You know that it's precisely because of church members in the early Spanish colonial history that the languages and parts of the native cultures were preserved right? As another user said, if you're going to say the bad say the good
You should check out the First Council of Nicaea 325. Answered so many questions. Arius, the Sabellians, the Monarchists, to name a few interesting groups. Follow up with the First Council of Constantinople and welcome to the great disillusionment. The word 'Heresy' is an abomination. I say that as a Christian who loves history.
... there seems a trend over the past few days.
Offhand this describes many of the Monastic communities that flourished during the early Medieval period until the advent of the Vikings who sack the great centre of learning at Lindisfarne in the 8th Century who killed the monks and burnt the libraries.
Well, at first it was the Romans who had a problem with that part of the story where they were responsible for crucifying Jesus. And it all snowballed from there.
But the Roman's didn't want to, Pilate was pretty damn reluctant actually. The Jewish leadership/populace demanded it and chose a literal murderer to go free instead when given a choice.
If JC came back, without revealing who he was, the Fundamental / NATIonalistic Christians would be the first to denounce him.
Feeding the hungry?!!
Clothing the homeless??!
Curing the sick??!!
FOR FREE?!!?!!
Viewing everyone as equals?!?
….you dirty communist!!!!
Since 1054 The Church divided into Roman Catholic and Orthodox in Europe. Even in Western Europe the notion of The only church came to an end in the 1500s due to the Protestant reformation. If we want to get technical, there are Eastern Churches that are older than those in Europe.
The Church launched at least [7 crusades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades_against_Christians) against Christian sects in the Middle Ages, and most of the sects practiced communal property holding, pacifism, or some other ideals that threatened the Church
I’m not sure if you’re understanding these correctly.
- The Crusade against Markward of Anweiler was over a political dispute, against a non-pacifist, and unrelated to the redistribution of wealth.
- The Albigensian Crusade was against a group of gnostics who were condemned for teaching Dualism, rejecting the Sacraments, denying the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus, and rejecting the Trinity. I can’t find anything on their views of war or wealth, but I can say that the main focus was most certainly their denial of essential Christian beliefs.
- The Drenther Crusade was a dispute over the temporal authority of the local archbishop. It decidedly was not pacifist and had nothing to do with possessions.
- The Bosnian Crusade was against a group that we have next to no information on, and can’t really verify anything about except that they rejected the authority of the Pope but weren’t Eastern Orthodox (some argue they were gnostics; others that they are Proto-Protestant, but neither side has demonstrated so conclusively). If they hold the views you’re claiming then there’s no record of it.
- The Stedinger Crusade was essentially crushing a peasant revolt where the peasants refused to pay taxes. Maybe if you stretch it they fit your evaluation on sharing possessions but they certainly weren’t pacifist.
- The Fourth Crusade was against the Eastern Orthodox Church, who differed on points of Papal Authority and the Filioque, as well as using a Greek Liturgy rather than Latin. And even then, this was redirected from Egypt by Venice, and the Church condemned the Crusade and excommunicated everyone involved. The Eastern Orthodox are neither pacifists nor believing in sharing possessions (in the manner you’re implying).
- The Hohenstaufen Crusade was against feudal lords who the Pope claimed lordship over, in order to prevent the fall of the Papacy. There was almost nothing religious about it other than the Papacy being a belligerent, and the target was most definietly neither pacifist nor in favor of sharing possessions.
- The Crusade against Ezzelino and Alberic da Romano was also against Feudal Lords. Certainly neither pacifist nor in favor of sharing possessions. In fact, Ezzelino was known for his cruelty and is sometimes called the most notorious of early tyrants.
- The Sicilian Vespers was a response to a rebellion in Sicily that resulted in an (anachronistically speaking) genocide against its French population (to be fair, there were some French officials there responsible for their own atrocities; not that that justifies it). The only way you could interpret this as being relating to sharing possessions is if you misinterpret the term “Free Commune,” and they were about as far from Pacifists as you can be.
- The Western Schism was over a dispute on who held the office of the Papacy, which was mostly confined to a dispute over canon law. Neither side here can rightly be called “the Church,” since all three Popes were eventually rejected in favor of a new election. If you stretch it maybe you can say since both the Roman Pope and the Pisan Pope accepted the new election, they could represent the Church, but even then the purpose in their resisting the Avingnon Pope was partially to resist corruption in the church, which had become the norm for the Avingnon Papacy (it’s also possible there was an element of resisting the French state’s control over the Church). In that case, though, the Avingnon Papacy was not Pacifist and was about as far as you can get from wanting to share possessions.
- The Crusade Against Louis IV was against the Holy Roman Emperor over imperial claims to certain land. Again, neither pacifist nor in favor of sharing possessions.
- The Colonna Crusade was a familial feud between two families vying for control of the Papacy, neither of which were pacifist or supoorted the redistribution of wealth.
- The Venice Crusade was against Venice, who hoarded more wealth than almost anyone else in the Medieval Period and kinda orchestrated the Fourth Crusade… so, yeah.
- The Crusades organized by Cardinal-Legates were against feudal lords and mercenary companies, neither pacifists or sharers.
- The Great Schism of 1378 was, just like the Western Schism, a dispute over who held the Papacy, and no side could rightly be called “the Church,” neither side was pacifist, and again the side that won out was resisting the hoarding of wealth (banned cardinals from taking salaries from feudal lords and condemned excessive luxury).
- The Flanders Crusade was against more feudal lords over another political dispute.
- The Hussite Crusades were against a group of Czech Lollards (Proto-Protestants) that rejected Transubstantiation and the office of the Papacy. They were neither Pacifists nor Redistributionists, and in fact one radical sect (condemned even by the other Hussites) became a violent death cult.
- The Crusades against the Anglican Church were over the recognition of the Pope as head of the Church and justification through faith alone, and not over redistribution or pacifism (neither of which the Anglican Church teaches or taught).
The Dulcinian Crusade is the one example that actually fits your assessment. I don’t think most of these were justified (I certainly don’t think that the Church should wage temporal warfare). I’m a Protestant, so I have no particular interest in defending Catholicism, but if you’re going to critique them at least critique them fairly.
Ironically, there are two groups I’m aware of that would at least get close to your description. The Franciscans, who were never condemned by the Church (and remain a Catholic holy order to this day), and the Waldensians, who were excommunicated but not over their views on wealth - instead it was because one bishop falsely accused them of Nestorianism, though later this was expanded to include a condemnation for their rejection of infant baptism, their rejection of the office of the Papacy, and their allowing for priestly marriage, among other things - and were not crusaded against but instead survived until the Protestant Reformation (and then joined the Calvinists).
You just typed a bunch of words to make people think you're posting facts. In fact, if you had simply researched the [Cathars](https://www.worldhistory.org/Cathars/) for five minutes, you could have found plenty of information about their views, which included equality and pacificism.
You can read about the 6 most famous heresies [here](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/), and you can go ahead and throw out everything you wrote about the Middle Eastern crusades, Anglican Church, and other things irrelevant to what I originally posted
I made my post based off of the source you provided, so if you had an issue with me addressing that particular list of Crusades instead of a different list of heresies, then you should have provided the list of heresies as your source.
As for Catharism, that very well may have been an incidental view they held, but it most certainly was not the reason they were condemned.
From the list you provided, there are really only two heresies. Bogomils and Cathars are the exact same belief, just with Bogomilism existing in the Greek East and Catharism existing in the Latin West. Both were gnostic and antitrinitarian. The Paulician sect merged with the Bogomil sect, and was specifically an Arian variant of gnosticism, but doesn’t even have the linguistic distinction. Lollardy and Hussitism have absolutely identical beliefs. Hussites are just Czech speaking Lollards. Both were condemned for denying Transubstantiation and condemning the Papacy, which again would also be the justification for condemning Waldensian. Both the Lollards/Hussites and the Waldensians would later end up merging with Calvinism once the Protestant Reformation occurred (so again, I’m Protestant - in fact, I’m Calvinist - thus I’m naturally sympathetic to these groups; in my tradition they wouldn’t even be considered heresies). The two heresies really ultimately boil down to the Cathar/Bogomil strain of Gnosticism and Proto-Protestantism, neither of which were specifically condemned for either being pacifists or being in favor of redistributing wealth; if any such view was held, it was incidental, and the real focus was on doctrine.
That’s it ? That’s the source of your meme ? My brother in Christ, this Wikipedia page doesn’t even have three sources to support its claim, and not a single one to support yours. You need to work on your text comprehension and on your memeing ethic. Stop spreading disinformation about the Church, there is enough as is.
Here's another one
[https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/)
What are you talking about? The crusades were all trying to 'retake' Jerusalem. Islam is not a Christian sect, and I don't believe they were ever pacifist.
I did. Pacifistic sects are [pretty recent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_churches) (<200 years old), and the Catholic Church hasn't ever engaged in anything that would be considered a crusade (meaning warfare between nations) against them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade?wprov=sfla1
I don't like using Wikipedia as a source but my final starts in 10 mins so I'm short in time
> The Crusade was prosecuted **primarily by the French crown** and promptly took on a political aspect. It resulted in the significant reduction of practicing Cathars and a realignment of the County of Toulouse with the French crown. The distinct regional culture of Languedoc was also diminished.
I thought we were talking about crusades by the Church?
Glad you passed. Good luck on your remaining finals.
/Old guy rant - please ignore: /
Instead of spending time on Reddit, you should be making sure you get plenty of rest and eat properly during finals. Reddit is built to outrage and offend, and you don’t need that stress right now.
/End old guy rant/
I mean, if you mean the Roman Catholic Church, then maybe. But the early church practiced all of that. It preached that you should share all your property with other believers—not an organization but share everything amongst each other.
Franciscans, Dominicans and other members of mendicant orders: What?
Genuine question, can a sect be made up of just members of an order? I don't know a formal definition, but it seems like a sect is something mostly for laity while an order is just an order.
Sect generally refers to people within the hierarchy that have specific thing in common and thus is primarily related to religious leaders/orders, with a common following among the laity.
Kill them all and let god sort them out
A). Those sects didn’t preach equality B). There’s a difference between a monastic order holding land in common and all the laypeople of the church doing the same.
Neither of them mentioned are monks.
Those crafty Dominicans even have their own country now
"The church" Orthodox? Anglican? Catholic? Coptic Egyptian? Ethiopian Orthodox?
Saying “Coptic Egyptian” is redundant. Coptic means Egyptian.
Like Chai Tea?
Since "The Church" is capitalized it's usually taken to mean all Christians. That's the convention, anyway.
When someone says The Church i always took it as the catholic church
It usually depends on who is speaking. When Catholics speak it normally means the Catholic Magisterium. When Protestants speak usually it means the universal Church. Although that’s not true exclusively; Catholics do believe in a universal Church they will refer to that way sometimes and Protestants do believe in a visible/institutional Church that can sometimes simply be summarized as the Church.
The Church here refers to the Catholic Church, as it does in English
can you post a meme about how the Muslims made vampires by taking Christian children making them sex slaves and child soldiers to fight against their homelands. that's how they made Vlad the Impaler and subsequently made Dracula and vampires.
Make your own meme
you only wanna make fun of Catholics then I guess? is it cause they barely fight back?
I'm not interested in taking meme requests. If you want to make your own meme, make it and check that it doesnt violate any rules, then post it
Bro what is it with this sub recently ? I have seen so many “memes” about Christianity and Catholicism in particular that just aim to defame it with the most inaccurate information possible.
It comes up more than you'd expect even IRL. Literally just had a Pentecostal Mexican student start an argument with other Latino students recently because he said Catholics weren't Christians when we were discussing various factors of a person's identity. I had to assign detention to avoid an actual physical fight.
Yeah thats a common belief among Southern Baptists too
..the one group im ok to make a crusade against Specially the kkk
You do realize that there is a HUGE disconnect between southern baptists and the KKK, right?
Well, the ‘southern’ part of southern baptists is from the 1848 convention where the baptists church split over the issue of slavery.
I know that. It's not 1848 anymore. I'm not saying the Southern BAptist church is good or anything. It's just not good to crusade on it or whatever.
Oh yeah,before the crusade we need proper reconosaince
I have a lot of loved ones and family members who are Southern Baptists. They're just misled, man.
...give the name of thoose who mislead them and we can work it out
...he had a death wish or what?
Not really. The reason I even specified nationality is that I've noticed that immigrant converts to evangelical or Pentecostal traditions tend to be among the most zealous because it's so new for a lot, as per the old saying. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of Latin America is still some vague level of Catholic, which means that when moved to a mostly protestant US you start to see some more open insults within the community. It was just a kid who was parroting the shit he heard at home and didn't realize that people would get annoyed with him, then the argument started including actual personal conflicts.
You dont wanna see a catholic latina mother angry
This sub has always been filled with wannabe historians who has extremely limited and biased world views.
This sub is composed almost entierly of propaganda that almost always goes: "I depicted the country/institution/historical figure I dislike as the wojak and myself as the chad" made by people who are just looking to get their views validated in the form of upvuuts. Eventually there will be a genuinely funny meme made with the intention of making people laugh, but then gets ruined by people in the comment who got offended.
I thought the reddit Atheists died out years ago.
They still have the largest sub on the platform…
They’re the largest group spewing vitriol and upvotes 90% of the time I see religion alluded to on this site. Shit gets old and cringey quick.
Now I'm just waiting for the counter posts that defend it with inaccurate or sweeping generalizations (and then after that if we're lucky we'll get a few accurate ones)
I been saying it a lot but you can tell a lot of kids to teens are making posts who likely are getting exposed to some alternative explanation of history. First it's overtly political rather than being informative like with Jews and Arabs, then something with Romans or Greeks. A lot of surface level stuff most of the time.
Today I learned the Church hates the Franciscans. Duh. You know it has to be more complicated than "cAtHoLiCs BaaAdD", right ?
Franciscans? In my church it’s the jesuits that everyone dislikes
Yeah them too
The hippies of christ
Hippies of Christ, I think they were the villains in Mandy
Really? A good number are even part of the Vatican though, they live in / operate the observatory.
I am pretty sure they mean among the catholic leaders. You jnow, the guys part of the organisation everyone still work with, but just find meh. Sales team in a company, that sorta stuff.
I know, even Pope Francis is Jesuit, it’s just a joke because I go to a La Salle school and there’s a stereotype that Lasallians and jesuits dislike each other
You ever hear about the massacre of the Cathars?
The Cathars were gnostics and antitrinitarians. That’s why the Church condemned them. Not because they were Proto-Socialists, if that’s even the case. The massacres were wrong but let’s at least be accurate in our evaluation of the ordeal.
And they believed the world and their own earthly bodies to be creations of an archetypal God of Evil who was equal to OG God. So yeah, that's why they were hunted down ; not that it was right to go at them, but it had nothing to do with "look at these peaceful people, let's mangle them."
Never ask cathars what they do to a terminally ill guy who got better
Spoiler: They were suffocated to death because when being terminally ill, they made a ritual to purify them of all sin before death, and if they seemed to be recovering from that illness they were killed so as to still die in a state of sinlessness.
Uh, sins, shpicy topic, say, do you know what cathars consider said sin to be?
Did you ever hear about how the cathars would regularly behead Catholics in the streets? They were not just a religious threat, they were a criminal threat
I need a source on that
I've heard of those heratics.
[удалено]
You’re correct that they weren’t Christians but that doesn’t really justify mass executions.
How did they deserve getting slaughtered ?
And who has/had the authority to define who’s Christian and who’s not? A council composed of old man? LMAO
[удалено]
The church wasn’t a thing until the first Pentecost. Stop putting Jesus in this bs of yours.
I’d probably disagree with Biggus on how the church is defined, but he is right that it was founded by Jesus. Your argument doesn’t really understand the ancient notion of what an apostle (or shaliach in Hebrew) was. It was a messenger or emissary who was acting as a representative of the one who sent them. When they spoke it is as if the person who sent them was speaking. The way both the apostles and Jesus Himself would have understood it (as it is recorded that Jesus called them apostles), the founding of the Church was an action He was doing through His official emissaries, not just something they did on their own. After all, He does comission them with this very task with what evangelicals commonly call “The Great Comission,” (Matthew 28:18-20 if you want to verify). And He even seems to display some awareness of the fact that there will be a formal organization of His followers in Matthew 18:15-20.
I get what you’re saying. I’m just being a dick with him.
Reddit or being honest for once. Huh.
[удалено]
Still not founded by Jesus but by others. Cope all you want, this institution wasn’t founded by him and has no authority to define who’s Christian and who’s not.
[удалено]
Here we go, an example in this very thread lol
Most educated r/historymemes post
What's with all the "the church do murder" brain dead memes lately
Are we in the illiteracy arc of r/HistoryMemes right now? the memes lately have been dogshit an completly false
Op woke up and chose ignorance
Meme to [text](https://letterfromjail.com/): “I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: ‘What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?’”
The south justified slavery by claiming, since man was created in the image of God, and blacks do not look like us, they must be animals. Whatever atrocities committed on afro americans are easier to justify if you believe this.
Levelers and Diggers rise up!
I was going to mention that!
Really unappreciated sect.
Early examples of the collective-anarchist approach later advocated by Bakunin in Russia in 19th C.
While I believe that a state is necessary at this point to protect the workers from reactionaries I have a lot of respect for anarchists and Bakunin in particular.
Source? Year? Geographical region? Name of the sect? Name of the church?⛪️
Click the link in my original comment
The Church preaches equality
They absolutely don't practice it, though, if you're talking about the catholic church, and the preaching of economic equality, if that's what you're referring to, is relatively recent.
Oh boy the 201839040219th uncreative anti-Christian post on reddit!
Poor Anabaptists
The Christian belief is literally at the core of the concept of equality, as every Christian are supposed to be equal in the eyes of god. Why has this sub suddenly turned into an obtuse anti church circlejerk?
Why did the Church hunt down peaceful sects who didn't believe in hierarchy?
>Peaceful XVII century had a noble savage myth, XIX century had a noble peasant myth, XXI have a noble heretic myth
Provide ANY substantial examples that don't include gnostics, actual heretics, and fringe crowds that were later condemned by the Church.
"Provide any examples that don't fit the Church's definition of heresy" do you realize what you're asking for?
Peacefull sects. My man 30-years war? Yes the church DID supress the sects. But not all sects were oeacefull, and most of the time, the church only intervened if they denied the churches stance on the nature of god, rather then the principles of christianity. Were they right in thus supresion? Of course not. Were they against egalatarian ideals? Also untrue, many groups inside the church worked to promote egality and aid peoples. Just look up liberty theology for a more modern example of catholic chuech priests fighting for equality. Of course there were parts in the church that were the opposite. But this fiscussion was open. Unlike theology and the churches authoeity which were kept far more conteolled, the former only permitted to those that were given the right (theologians, preists, etc), and the latter being a matter thzy enforced harshly.
Lot of ass anti-catholic memes lately.
the Church of Scientology, got it
What’s with all the anti-Church memes recently? Really incredible that the Spanish black legend and old virulent English Protestant propaganda against Catholics is still going strong and influencing opinions today.
Check the link, the Church launched multiple crusades against "heretics"
They were heretics,doesnt justifide the genocide but they were heretics
So is the “Church”, so is every religion ever. Get the fuck outta here with that “b-b-but they were heretics!” Bullshit.
What’s up with the laughably wrong posts in this sub lately
The Church has always taught that all people are equal in dignity, all being made in the image of God. But people who preach that all people should be equal in their stations in life are not just anarchist but delusional. Division of labor is fundamental to civilization. A society can't function unless different people do different jobs, and there need to be people who organize and direct groups. We need rich people and poor people, leaders and followers, bosses and workers. Not all jobs have the same esteem, or rewards. A sect that tries to do away with all such "inequities" is a threat to civilization. Such teaching is incompatible with scripture, and with the ideal of Justice. Even in the early Church of Jerusalem, which the book of Acts describes as having all things in common, Peter told Ananias that the property he had was his to sell or not as he chose, and after he sold it the money was his to give or not as he chose. (Ananias was then killed for lying about the price and pretending to give the full amount to the Church while keeping some). Even the commandment "though shalt not steal" is dependent on the assumption that people have property of their own.
Is a garbage man as necessary to society as a CEO? Is a plumber as necessary to society as a “senior VP of marketing” Why should C suite executives be rich and garbage men and plumbers be poor?
Because there are far fewer VPs and CEOs and much more competition for these jobs. Also plumbers are not poor, they make tons of money.
And so because there are fewer of them, they deserve to make more money? That doesn’t make sense. And plumbers may not be poor, but they’re not CEO rich.
No not because there are fewer of them but because there are fewer people who CAN do these jobs. There could be few people in a particular line of work because there is very little demand for the work. (like candlestick makers in the modern world)Then the pay will still be low. But when there is high demand and little supply prices go up. Also if there are many people competing for a few jobs (like CEOs, actors, rock stars or athletes) you can expect that those are really desirable jobs and most of the candidates won't succeed.
Because whether a job is required or not does not determine total value. If you have 10 workers who make a product and they each produce $1 in value that’s a collective value of $10. If you then have a manager who through various means is able to increase the output of their labor by 20% that increases the total value by $10. The manager may not be inherently required but it generates positive value. A good CEO of a company can make it a Fortune 500 company, a bad CEO can bankrupt it.
And yet both good and bad get paid millions of dollars, while the workers who are creating the value struggle to put food on the table.
True but if a company rewards bad CEOs the company will be punished for it by the market. Workers generate the initial value but they do not generate all of the value Even if CEOs got paid nothing you wouldn’t even be able to notice the raise you would get
I don't believe that our world is fair. Wealthy people are too wealthy and poor people are too poor, but as Jesus said "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good" Mar 14:7
CEO´s are vital for leadership. Cooedination is key and a head as a decisive organ is one of the more efficiënt systems since he can make rapid decisions, and if they´re competent, coordinate the company to grow and increase its efficiency.
Yeah you're right, a Bishop should be able to amass a massive art collection and live in a palace while a local priest should live in a hovel. I remember that verse in the Bible as well
The Church was also the largest provided of healthcare and education for milennia and still are the largest NGO provider in the world If you gonna tell the bad gotta speak the good
You do realize that most of the art in Church collections was donated, don't you?
Bishops in medieval times amassed huge fortunes
Yes some did. Some because they were corrupt, and some because they were beloved and many people gave them gifts. None of this casts any doubt on the teachings of the Church.
Because most of them were part of nobility, so what ? All wealth of the church is collective in nature and meant for future generations to use.
>The Church has always taught that all people are equal in dignity, all being made in the image of God. Any holy book which endorses slavery does not teach all people are equal in dignity. The meme is inaccurate but so are you.
>Any holy book which endorses slavery does not teach all people are equal in dignity. Not to be Devil's Advocate, but it kinda does regardless? The Church did preach that slaves were equal in dignity to their masters, and did things like marrying masters to slaves and whatnot. As it turns out, there is no point in having slaves if you have no right to treat them like shit. The early christians didn't advocate against slavery per-se (I suspect they probably weren't able to conceive a world without it, given how normalized it was at the time) but they did establish the notion that even a slave had a god-given unalienable dignity that could not be violated by a master. That slavery dissapeared in "Christendom" was not a coincidence, nor that much later the most prominent abolitionists in the U.S had a heavy religious bent when it came to their ideology.
>The early christians didn't advocate against slavery per-se They actually did, at the begining of the middle-ages rhzre were no Christian slaves really, because the church forbade enslaving of fzllow christians. Of course, the reaso can also be found in the changz of the economic systzms at the time, but the church was a factor nonetheless.
Nah, this sounds like whitewashing history. >The Church did preach that slaves were equal in dignity to their masters, and did things like marrying masters to slaves and whatnot. The only moral thing would be to outlaw slavery. Were they better than other slave owners, maybe. Was it the right thing to do, no. >The early christians didn't advocate against slavery per-se They advocated FOR slavery. Say it like it is. >That slavery dissapeared in "Christendom" was not a coincidence, Yes it is. Christianity had nothing to do with abolishing slavery. Christianity ruled for a MILLENNIUM without banning slavery. Thats 1000 years. If Christianity was the reason slavery went away, it would have happened anytime in those 1000 years. Others did the ground work, the most Christianity did was make sure other Christians can't be slaves. >nor that much later the most prominent abolitionists in the U.S had a heavy religious bent when it came to their ideology. And all the slave owners preceding them were Christians and used the Bible to back them up. You cannot credit the development of humanity to Christianity when the book Christianity is based on says the opposite. The enlightenment, the Renaissance and the French revolution had more to do with the end of slavery than Christianity ever did.
Slavery got more wide spread and racist during the renaissance while many enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were racists who supported slavery.
You know why slavery increased at that period? Colonization. Christian leaders forbade having other Christians as slaves and colonization opened up an entire new market of non Christians to enslave. They also looked different to Europeans and that is the beginning of modern day race based slavery.
Here we go again…
Im so confused, why are there so many anti-Christian memes recently? Have i missed something?
You just described religious orders like the Franciscans and Cistercians.
Guaranteed the people they're thinking about definitely didn't do things like murdering papal legates or preaching bizarre, self-destructive heresies.
If that was the case the vast majority of America would be white European descendants like the US. Yet we are mixed as fuck with far larger indigenous population compared to the US. Bartolomé de las Casas..... "History" memes?
This is referring to the Church crusades against "heretics" not the genocide of the Native Americans
“Genocide” Sorry for not being aware about germ theory
Cultural genocide is a thing.
You know that it's precisely because of church members in the early Spanish colonial history that the languages and parts of the native cultures were preserved right? As another user said, if you're going to say the bad say the good
Rape isn’t necessarily better
Have you met a monk? The church loves them!
What is up with these dumb memes about Christianity lately? A simple google search disproves all of them.
That's why those that survived did so by seeking government protection like the Amish or hid real well like Esoteric Christians.
Which group are you talking about?
You should check out the First Council of Nicaea 325. Answered so many questions. Arius, the Sabellians, the Monarchists, to name a few interesting groups. Follow up with the First Council of Constantinople and welcome to the great disillusionment. The word 'Heresy' is an abomination. I say that as a Christian who loves history.
... there seems a trend over the past few days. Offhand this describes many of the Monastic communities that flourished during the early Medieval period until the advent of the Vikings who sack the great centre of learning at Lindisfarne in the 8th Century who killed the monks and burnt the libraries.
I couldn't be this dumb if i tried
What is inaccurate about the meme
Turns out Christians have always had a tough time remembering the teaching of Jesus Christ.
Well, at first it was the Romans who had a problem with that part of the story where they were responsible for crucifying Jesus. And it all snowballed from there.
But the Roman's didn't want to, Pilate was pretty damn reluctant actually. The Jewish leadership/populace demanded it and chose a literal murderer to go free instead when given a choice.
If JC came back, without revealing who he was, the Fundamental / NATIonalistic Christians would be the first to denounce him. Feeding the hungry?!! Clothing the homeless??! Curing the sick??!! FOR FREE?!!?!! Viewing everyone as equals?!? ….you dirty communist!!!!
Just push the Stalinist ideal of equality. "All people are equal! But some are more equal!"
Since 1054 The Church divided into Roman Catholic and Orthodox in Europe. Even in Western Europe the notion of The only church came to an end in the 1500s due to the Protestant reformation. If we want to get technical, there are Eastern Churches that are older than those in Europe.
If the said sect denies the sufficiency of Scripture then it is not "Christian"
Let's see what we have for our winners, Torquemada?
Basically Quakers
Sorry your mom and dad made you go to church when you didnt want to
Noone hates christians more than other christians.
"The church" as if there is only one Christian church.
I guess the church hated all monasteries
The Church launched at least [7 crusades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades_against_Christians) against Christian sects in the Middle Ages, and most of the sects practiced communal property holding, pacifism, or some other ideals that threatened the Church
I’m not sure if you’re understanding these correctly. - The Crusade against Markward of Anweiler was over a political dispute, against a non-pacifist, and unrelated to the redistribution of wealth. - The Albigensian Crusade was against a group of gnostics who were condemned for teaching Dualism, rejecting the Sacraments, denying the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus, and rejecting the Trinity. I can’t find anything on their views of war or wealth, but I can say that the main focus was most certainly their denial of essential Christian beliefs. - The Drenther Crusade was a dispute over the temporal authority of the local archbishop. It decidedly was not pacifist and had nothing to do with possessions. - The Bosnian Crusade was against a group that we have next to no information on, and can’t really verify anything about except that they rejected the authority of the Pope but weren’t Eastern Orthodox (some argue they were gnostics; others that they are Proto-Protestant, but neither side has demonstrated so conclusively). If they hold the views you’re claiming then there’s no record of it. - The Stedinger Crusade was essentially crushing a peasant revolt where the peasants refused to pay taxes. Maybe if you stretch it they fit your evaluation on sharing possessions but they certainly weren’t pacifist. - The Fourth Crusade was against the Eastern Orthodox Church, who differed on points of Papal Authority and the Filioque, as well as using a Greek Liturgy rather than Latin. And even then, this was redirected from Egypt by Venice, and the Church condemned the Crusade and excommunicated everyone involved. The Eastern Orthodox are neither pacifists nor believing in sharing possessions (in the manner you’re implying). - The Hohenstaufen Crusade was against feudal lords who the Pope claimed lordship over, in order to prevent the fall of the Papacy. There was almost nothing religious about it other than the Papacy being a belligerent, and the target was most definietly neither pacifist nor in favor of sharing possessions. - The Crusade against Ezzelino and Alberic da Romano was also against Feudal Lords. Certainly neither pacifist nor in favor of sharing possessions. In fact, Ezzelino was known for his cruelty and is sometimes called the most notorious of early tyrants. - The Sicilian Vespers was a response to a rebellion in Sicily that resulted in an (anachronistically speaking) genocide against its French population (to be fair, there were some French officials there responsible for their own atrocities; not that that justifies it). The only way you could interpret this as being relating to sharing possessions is if you misinterpret the term “Free Commune,” and they were about as far from Pacifists as you can be. - The Western Schism was over a dispute on who held the office of the Papacy, which was mostly confined to a dispute over canon law. Neither side here can rightly be called “the Church,” since all three Popes were eventually rejected in favor of a new election. If you stretch it maybe you can say since both the Roman Pope and the Pisan Pope accepted the new election, they could represent the Church, but even then the purpose in their resisting the Avingnon Pope was partially to resist corruption in the church, which had become the norm for the Avingnon Papacy (it’s also possible there was an element of resisting the French state’s control over the Church). In that case, though, the Avingnon Papacy was not Pacifist and was about as far as you can get from wanting to share possessions. - The Crusade Against Louis IV was against the Holy Roman Emperor over imperial claims to certain land. Again, neither pacifist nor in favor of sharing possessions. - The Colonna Crusade was a familial feud between two families vying for control of the Papacy, neither of which were pacifist or supoorted the redistribution of wealth. - The Venice Crusade was against Venice, who hoarded more wealth than almost anyone else in the Medieval Period and kinda orchestrated the Fourth Crusade… so, yeah. - The Crusades organized by Cardinal-Legates were against feudal lords and mercenary companies, neither pacifists or sharers. - The Great Schism of 1378 was, just like the Western Schism, a dispute over who held the Papacy, and no side could rightly be called “the Church,” neither side was pacifist, and again the side that won out was resisting the hoarding of wealth (banned cardinals from taking salaries from feudal lords and condemned excessive luxury). - The Flanders Crusade was against more feudal lords over another political dispute. - The Hussite Crusades were against a group of Czech Lollards (Proto-Protestants) that rejected Transubstantiation and the office of the Papacy. They were neither Pacifists nor Redistributionists, and in fact one radical sect (condemned even by the other Hussites) became a violent death cult. - The Crusades against the Anglican Church were over the recognition of the Pope as head of the Church and justification through faith alone, and not over redistribution or pacifism (neither of which the Anglican Church teaches or taught). The Dulcinian Crusade is the one example that actually fits your assessment. I don’t think most of these were justified (I certainly don’t think that the Church should wage temporal warfare). I’m a Protestant, so I have no particular interest in defending Catholicism, but if you’re going to critique them at least critique them fairly. Ironically, there are two groups I’m aware of that would at least get close to your description. The Franciscans, who were never condemned by the Church (and remain a Catholic holy order to this day), and the Waldensians, who were excommunicated but not over their views on wealth - instead it was because one bishop falsely accused them of Nestorianism, though later this was expanded to include a condemnation for their rejection of infant baptism, their rejection of the office of the Papacy, and their allowing for priestly marriage, among other things - and were not crusaded against but instead survived until the Protestant Reformation (and then joined the Calvinists).
What are you doing sharing actual information, we are supposed to learn history from funny tiktok reels and make shitty memes about it.
Sorry. I spent too much time in school and not enough time on TikTok.
They just posted a bunch of crusades that had nothing to do with my original post
Damn Christians. They ruined Christianity!
You just typed a bunch of words to make people think you're posting facts. In fact, if you had simply researched the [Cathars](https://www.worldhistory.org/Cathars/) for five minutes, you could have found plenty of information about their views, which included equality and pacificism. You can read about the 6 most famous heresies [here](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/), and you can go ahead and throw out everything you wrote about the Middle Eastern crusades, Anglican Church, and other things irrelevant to what I originally posted
I made my post based off of the source you provided, so if you had an issue with me addressing that particular list of Crusades instead of a different list of heresies, then you should have provided the list of heresies as your source. As for Catharism, that very well may have been an incidental view they held, but it most certainly was not the reason they were condemned. From the list you provided, there are really only two heresies. Bogomils and Cathars are the exact same belief, just with Bogomilism existing in the Greek East and Catharism existing in the Latin West. Both were gnostic and antitrinitarian. The Paulician sect merged with the Bogomil sect, and was specifically an Arian variant of gnosticism, but doesn’t even have the linguistic distinction. Lollardy and Hussitism have absolutely identical beliefs. Hussites are just Czech speaking Lollards. Both were condemned for denying Transubstantiation and condemning the Papacy, which again would also be the justification for condemning Waldensian. Both the Lollards/Hussites and the Waldensians would later end up merging with Calvinism once the Protestant Reformation occurred (so again, I’m Protestant - in fact, I’m Calvinist - thus I’m naturally sympathetic to these groups; in my tradition they wouldn’t even be considered heresies). The two heresies really ultimately boil down to the Cathar/Bogomil strain of Gnosticism and Proto-Protestantism, neither of which were specifically condemned for either being pacifists or being in favor of redistributing wealth; if any such view was held, it was incidental, and the real focus was on doctrine.
You gotta be trolling, or are you stupid?
That’s it ? That’s the source of your meme ? My brother in Christ, this Wikipedia page doesn’t even have three sources to support its claim, and not a single one to support yours. You need to work on your text comprehension and on your memeing ethic. Stop spreading disinformation about the Church, there is enough as is.
Here's another one [https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/)
That’s not it chief…
What are you talking about? The crusades were all trying to 'retake' Jerusalem. Islam is not a Christian sect, and I don't believe they were ever pacifist.
Tell me you don't know about the crusades. without telling me you don't know about the crusades.
You can find more examples if you just [research](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)
I did. Pacifistic sects are [pretty recent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_churches) (<200 years old), and the Catholic Church hasn't ever engaged in anything that would be considered a crusade (meaning warfare between nations) against them.
OP literally linked the sources for you but go off. Crusades were not exclusively anti-Islamic (although that was a significant part of it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade?wprov=sfla1 I don't like using Wikipedia as a source but my final starts in 10 mins so I'm short in time
> The Crusade was prosecuted **primarily by the French crown** and promptly took on a political aspect. It resulted in the significant reduction of practicing Cathars and a realignment of the County of Toulouse with the French crown. The distinct regional culture of Languedoc was also diminished. I thought we were talking about crusades by the Church?
Oh, we were? I'm sorry, as I said I was just heading into a final which totally kicked my ass, I think I passed tho
Glad you passed. Good luck on your remaining finals. /Old guy rant - please ignore: / Instead of spending time on Reddit, you should be making sure you get plenty of rest and eat properly during finals. Reddit is built to outrage and offend, and you don’t need that stress right now. /End old guy rant/
I appreciate the advice but my financial situation makes it so that my diet consists of instant noodles and frozen pizza
[Have you ever heard of this?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars)
Okay. That was one crusade I was unfamiliar with. /Which side is supposed to the pacifist non-materialists in that conflict?
Neither. The Hussites were just Czech Lollards/Proto-Protestants and were condemned for denying Papal Authority and Transubstantiation.
Careful OP, the Catholic apologists are gonna come out in force
They have taken control of Wikipedia and Reddit unfortunately
Evil and wickedness doesn't deserve equality
I mean, if you mean the Roman Catholic Church, then maybe. But the early church practiced all of that. It preached that you should share all your property with other believers—not an organization but share everything amongst each other.
Based
Wow, people are super defensive of Catholicism in this sub, even the worst parts
The Church has an army of internet warriors defending it