For centuries, the Catholic and Orthodox churches engaged in hypocrisy by officially proclaiming the obligation to observe God's commandments, while in reality condoning such depraved and utterly immoral monarchs as Peter I, Louis XV, Louis XIV, Catherine II, and many others. How can one place trust in churches that are so openly hypocritical?
>This Pope went against the Bible, therefore this isn't the Church>This President went against the Constitution, therefore this isn't AmericaProtestantism is gateway into atheism. At its core, its them admitting "lets be honest, I don't have to treat Jesus's Keys to the Kingdom as a real kingdom!"Also, you do not understand the relation between the monarchs and the Church. King John and Henry II were Catholics that had to bow to the Bishop. Because the Church acts like a checks and balance to secular rule, even if the secular ruler is Catholic.
>>18589252>Also, you do not understand the relation between the monarchs and the Church. King John and Henry II were Catholics that had to bow to the Bishop. Because the Church acts like a checks and balance to secular rule, even if the secular ruler is Catholic.Same way pharaoh was just a face who had to enable the priestly class that controlled and taxed the masses for him.This isn't really about Catholicism specifically, its how social organization works towards power control ever since we adopted sedentarism.
>>18589230Where is the Orthodox hypocrisy again
>>18589252>Because the Church acts like a checks and balance to secular rule, even if the secular ruler is Catholic.Literally the exact opposite retard. The church has always been a den of corruption which bribed secular leaders to act in favor of the church’s interests. It’s always been the state that regulates the corruption of the church, never the other way around
>>18589263wow, really!? I didn't realize that the peasant class could get King John and Henry II to bow before them!
>>18589261The fact that they blessed depraved and utterly immoral rulers like Peter I, who organized orgies where religion was openly mocked.
>>18589230Hypocrisy is how you win. Why do you think jews rule over you?
>>18589230but they didn't, they were forced to support absolutism (mainly France) because the alternative was loosing an important catholic bastion. The Church opposed the divine mandate of monarchs, during the renaissance and the rediscovering of Roman Law the church adhered to the notion of the power resting in the people (the republic) by that logic only the Church could claim Divine Rule, not the kings which were mortal rulers, and by Roman Law representatives of the People. That's how the spanish empire function, for example, before Bourbon absolutism, the king was restricted by the law of the spanish people
>>18589230Luther supported the Monarchy, not your political freedom. Divine Mandate ordains that secular leaders are ordained to protect the good and punish the wicked, and resisting politically is tantamount to stepping on God's will.So the American Revolution can be posited as a sin because your doing something that is not in God's will. Evading the King's lawful taxes is bad. The King is only ever in wrong when he instructs you by law to commit blasphemy.>>18589263Just like your tax free, AIPAC, Judeo Christian, charismatic, yacht owning, megachurch embezzlement scheme business that presents tithes to child diddling politicians in the Caribbean?
>>18589311People genuinely do not know that absolute monarchism is the result of the decline in the temporal power of the Catholic church.It's a modern phenomenon, absolute monarchy would have been seen as an aberration in the medieval period and the church time and again had to struggle against secular powers encroaching on their sphere. They still do, even if they're mostly asleep at the wheel or willingly looking the other way when it comes to China in particular.Incidental examples, like Richelieu, are the exception which prove the rule.
