sword-meets-rose:

agentsama:

whatsoeverpleasesme:

Sell The Vatican, feed the world!

I saw this tagged with “vow of poverty my balls.”

Except the Pope does not take a vow of poverty. Pope Benedict XVI was ordained as a secular priest, not a member of any of the mendicant orders. As such, he took no such vow of poverty and is allowed to take on possessions.

Even more so, the garments that the Pope wears are marks of his office, a sign of his high office as Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter. And his vestments are, more importantly, required for the proper worship of God.

This is the same useless diatribe, that the Church apparently does not do anything for the poor. Well look around you. The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world, the alms given in collection and other times are used to support the poor. She has run hospitals, schools, and poor shelters. Caritas Internationalis and Catholic Relief Services help hundreds of thousands of people each day.

We as Catholics know that you will never help the poor just by throwing money at them. You must subsidize your resources and help the poor not just on the macroeconomic scale, but on the microeconomic scale as well, the whole “give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish” mindset. And that is what the Church does: She teaches men to fish.

Catholic Relief Services is a prime example of this.

This organization runs schools which feed children in need in areas where they have no other opportunity to become educated.

And wouldn’t everyone agree that education is the key to survival and to success?

Catholic schools also often run gender-specific schools, so that, for example, women and girls can be safe from men and boys who might otherwise harm them. While this is symptomatic of a larger problem, it’s a place to start.

As someone who’s in a specialized program for Social Justice and human service work for University, it is insulting to me and all others training to understand the political, social, and economic intricacies of poverty, that people would think, like the OP apparently does, that we can just throw money at the poor. 

Also, have you read Caritas in Veritate, an encyclical by the current Pope?  Show some respect.

ginnyjake:

cleavagelovers:

ginnyjake:

cleavagelovers:

badwolfcomplex:

cleavagelovers:

badwolfcomplex:

agentsama:

cleavagelovers:

This should Really tell us Something about the Catholic Church!

Oh yes. Yes it does.

Tradition tells us that St. Peter, of whom the popes are his successors, was crucified upside-down, for he deemed himself unworthy to die in the same manner as the Lord. Thus the inverted cross, commonly called St. Peter’s Cross, is a symbol of humility before the Lord.

Kyle Is a Broken Record 2K12.

…This is still a thing?

I can’t believe this is still a thing.

People will believe anything as long as it lets them think badly of Catholics. *eyeroll*

Show Historical EVIDENCE this Peter Even Existed!

There is NO EVIDENCE of Jesus!

DO YOU REALLY THINK A FIRST CENTURY JEW WOULD’VE BEEN NAMED PETER?

PROVE YOUR CLAIMS OR THEY MEAN NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trololololol…

Hell, it’s 4:30 a.m. and I’m still awake, so why not: let’s feed the troll. Just this once.

Fun Facts:

In the original Aramaic, Peter’s name is Kepha. Which means rock. Which in Latin is Petra. Which in English is Peter. Ta-da! The power of language.

His bones are in Vatican City. I’ve seen them.

And there is more physical and textual evidence of the reliability of the Bible as a historical document than for most classic literary and philosophical works combined. Which means if you accept, for example, that there was this guy named Aristotle who actually lived, then you have even more reason to believe that Jesus and Peter actually lived. 

But don’t let a little thing like the truth spoil your fun!

And anyway all of that is tangential to the original point: the symbol of the “upside down cross” exists and has existed, whether St. Peter really lived or not, and the oldest meaning ascribed to it is, in fact, “cross of St. Peter,” as attested by numerous historical extant texts and artworks. So that’s a big fat argumental fail all around for the “omg catholics are satantists!!!1!1ONE!!1!” camp. 

Hm. I should stay up all night more often. It makes me snarky.

GOD BLESS YOU!

You may have seen bones that were Labeled such but where is the DNA evidence!

Where is the HISTORICAL record of this?

Why did NO Historian see fit to write a Single word about it?

Why is Challenging your BULLSHIT a TROLL?

A TROLL is NOT someone that CHALLENGES YOUR STORY!

You must provide EVIDENCE not Bullshit!

I’m not 100% sure how much of this I’m supposed to take seriously. I don’t see how DNA would help? DNA evidence works in say, a criminal trial, because we have something to compare it to. Even if we did take DNA from the bones of St. Peter, what would we compare it to? We don’t have DNA evidence that Plato or Caesar existed either. 

Plenty of secular historians wrote about Jesus and the early Christians. The existence of a man who went around teaching parables is not that shocking. Multiple men went around teaching. If Jesus was just a man, why would his existence be anything spectacular? For example, Cornelius Tacitus mentioned the death of Jesus in his Annals. Tacitus was a pagan Roman historian. 

An examination of the bones could tell us How old they are!  Christian’s are known to Lie and make up crap to try and make their Jesus real.  Scientific tests on the bones could establish if this was even from a person at that time or if Christian’s simply put the bones of someone around the 1st - 2nd century in and called them the bones of Simon Peter.

There are MASSIVE Problems with the claim of Tacitus.  

the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of “Christus” (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, “was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a “vast multitude at Rome,” were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a “vast multitude” of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no “vast multitude” of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely “nothing but the product of a Christian’s imagination in the fifth century.” Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius’s discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as “Christ.” Also, Pilate was not a “procurator” but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus “was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians.”

http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

FRAUD IS NOT EVIDENCE!
Nice Try!

Christian’s LIE like normal people Breathe! 

I’d list off more sources, but I’m sure you’ll find more biased sites to copy and paste from. I’ll admit my degree isn’t in history, but I did have a minor in Latin, so I know a bit about classical historians. 

But I’ll say I’m glad that I live in a country with freedom of religion. And that I don’t feel the need to attack other people’s beliefs in order to support my own. 

But the troll forgets, the Pope’s hat is the fish head of Dagon, so he can’t be a Satanist, because he believes in an Assyro-Babylonian fertility God.  (In case you don’t see the below picture, and have no eye for sarcasm, let me inform you that my reblog is dripping with sarcasm, for which I apologize.)

nelsonortiz:

mushfromnewsies:

theartofdisputatio:

mariaishismiddlename:

heartallonfire:

Please excuse the language…but I’ve posted about this before: http://heartallonfire.tumblr.com/post/7808872664/ok-this-is-wrong-1-the-pope-does-not-own

However, I will say it again.

 The Catholic Church is the LARGEST CHARITY IN THE WORLD. We do more for the poor, the desolate, the homeless, the infirm, the orphan, the AIDs victim and the war victim than any other organization or country in the world.

Judas also rebukes the woman who used expensive oil to annoint Christ’s feet. When Judas says it would have been better to sell the oil and give the money to the poor, Christ says “the poor will be with you always”. The Church knows this and so yes, we could sell all the artwork and historical artifacts we have and give all the money to the poor, but once it runs out…there will still be the poor and now no money. Revenue is created because people come to see these artifacts, which allows the Catholic Church to keep taking care of the poor.

ignorance these days.

“ Harvard has 691 acres in three campuses. The Vatican has 110 acres. So Harvard is 6 times larger than the Vatican. The Vatican employs about 3,500 people, Harvard has about 21,000 students and about 11,000 employees… And now here’s the kicker: the Vatican, at least in 2007, had a surplus of $10 million dollars. ($10,000,000) Harvard has an endowment of $27.4 Billion ($27,400,000,000) so in a certain sense, Harvard is 2,740 times richer than the pope. Next time someone says to you why doesn’t the pope do more to help the poor, just say, ‘Maybe Harvard could kick in a little.’ ”-Rev. Richard T. Simon

Wow, thanks, Sarah Silverman. You sure showed them!

The idea that anyone would listen to anyone in the entertainment industry talk about religious organizations having excess wealth is farcical. The vast majority of the Catholic Church’s “wealth” is dollar signs slapped on the invaluable — the Western world’s immense patrimony of architecture and real estate (read: churches), art and other artifacts, universities and schools, monasteries and convents, hospitals and charity organizations. In most countries of the world (not the US), most parish priests do not even get paid a regular salary by their diocese; they live off what is given to them. But that doesn’t make Sarah Silverman feel as good about herself, so we’ll let it go.

Damn talk about getting your ass chewed out lol

Reblogged for the glorious commentary.

(Source: alittlebitbrown)