Name me one married couple with a Jew where the non-Jew didn’t convert to Judaism on marriage??
Yet JD Vance, supposedly a bastion of Catholic conservativism, couldn’t even bother to marry someone who was Catholic or willing to convert to Catholicism. This after thousands of years of Catholicism successfully infiltrating the entire WORLD through conversion. WTF??
EDIT: Apparently he was raised Protestant, then converted to Catholicism himself. Makes a bit more sense, as we already know how cucked modern Western Protestants are.
If you marry a pajeet, frankly you are not a Catholic. Being a party to blatant paganism is incompatible with the faith.
I'm convinced he's a planted Manchurian VP candidate who will follow the globohomo plan to a T as soon as they off Trump for good right after the election.
He was a vocal never Trumper 3 or 4 years ago, went to a notoriously gay college, had a bunch of gay and trans liberal friends, married a pajeet, made pajeet babies, named them pajeet names...
Trump surrounds himself with infiltrators. He did it last time, over and over. He's already done it again this time.
Yes, probably. I've said it myself many times. The man's biggest weakness is that he is a genuinely magnanimous person.
Are Indian Catholics allowed to marry other Indian Catholics?
Is that what Vance did, or is this just a red herring to distract from a constructive discussion?
If it is what he did, why not just say it instead of starting an evasive, combative argument?
I don't even necessarily have a problem with him marrying a non-Catholic. Just curious what your angle is here.
Is the Tooth Fairy allowed to bring quarters or dollar bills?
OK, so you clearly don't even know about the existence of Indian Catholics... in India, who have been Catholic for centuries... or where St. Thomas reportedly evangelized.
Hardly, I just don't think it's worth basing general rules on extreme, miniscule outliers.
You seem to though. Like, all the time even. Why might that be?
I asked for a specific rule, not for a 'general' one.
You said that if you marry an Indian, you're not a Catholic. Do Indian Catholics cease to be that when they marry another Indian Catholic?
And I told you that tiny outliers don't matter to anyone here except apparently you.
Wait, so you'll say outright that no one should marry an Indian, but you refuse to answer whether this includes Indian Catholics marrying other Indian Catholics?
Should they simply not marry?
Catholicism has been infiltrated from the top down. Look at the scummy Pope.
Pope Francis and his appointed Cardinals see the writing on the wall for their Boomer "Just Be Good" semetic bs. Young Catholics naturally crave the beauty and tradition of the Fathers, not this new age limp wristed watered down lip service. God guide the souls of those in the next papal conclave that they can reject the insistence on subservience to the material world and listen to the Divine teachings for what the souls of Catholics and converts need to hear rather than what their enemies want them to say.
Excommunicating Vigano might've been the death knell.
Can you say more about this?
He was basically the #1 voice calling for Catholics to return to tradition. Globalist "Pope" had him excommunicated (last straw apparently was calling for Biden's excommunication, as the latter chose to observe "Trans Visibility Day" instead of Easter Sunday)
Kamala Harris.
You actually believe that. Interesting
It isn't just Catholics. Large swaths of Christianity is cucked.
Is there Christianity left that isn't utterly and completely cucked out to one worldly trend or another?
Eastern/Greek/Russian Orthodox, Coptics.
Catholics, literal funny hat false idol worshiping clowns, calling protestants cucked will never stop being funny.
You worship a communist. Your globalist government and stack of fanfiction written by manipulative pharisees is not christianity.
Seems to me christianity/catholicism and all their derivatives have been a detriment for europeans and whites since at least post ww2. Its too weak and too "compassionate" to resist anything.
Life is more complicated than this goofball situation you've imagined
"Cucked western protestants are" didn't you worthless catholics give your fucking cathedrals to Muslims to use to praise their false god
Yeah i wonder why Christians are cucked.
Someone argue against this guy or explain what the passage is supposed to mean please.
This is one of the boring ones that people always quote without understanding the context.
It's about roman occupation and customs, and assertive resistance against the occupier in two of them. In this part of the sermon, Jesus offers 3 examples.
Romans slapped. Backhanded slaps for slaves and inferiors. Notice how Jesus did not say 'on one cheek', that verse specifically notes the right has been struck first. Which for a right handed person to do, is a backhanded slap OR a left-handed open palm one (and in the middle east, the left hand is used for unclean stuff). If that happens no, you assert your rights, assert your equality, and insist on the other cheek, a slap between equals. It's non-violent resistance.
This one is social and legal shaming. You can't leave someone naked, it brings shame on you but also on them for having caused it. It's non-violent resistance. This one is more about your peers who would try to use the courts than the occupier as such. But your brother can seek to oppress you all the same, resist and shame him.
The expression go the extra mile is one of the most twisted examples. The verse doesn't mean anything like that. During roman occupation they had rules and practices (impressment) that allowed soldiers to make you carry their stuff 1 mile, but no further. This was a compromise so as to not cause too much resentment and foment rebellion. 1 mile is manageable, but if you take someone's whole day, then they and their family might starve that day... and you start getting rebellion (or 'resistance' as it were). It was regulation to keep the soldiers from conscripting you too hard, not a law to force you into permanent servitude, they were trying to keep their soldiers from getting too out of hand. And so when you got impressed you'd be looking like you are doing the 'right' thing by offering to go the 2nd mile, but you've actually put the soldier in a bit of a bind if he accepts. That could cause him to get in some trouble if his higherups were to hear of it.
They're all about assertive and clever resistance to oppression and injustice, remember that legal cleverness was also highly valued at the time. Like the verses about rendering unto Caesar, these verses have been removed from their context by the sola scriptura crowds, who don't bother to look at the context surrounding what was being said and why, the cultural context and the hyperbole used just a few verses earlier, and how some interpretations simply do not make sense when compared to other comments from Jesus.
The word resist is also debated, is it violent retaliation that is being prohibited, or any and all attempts at maintaining your honour and seeking justice. I would argue only the former, and early greek from what I am told bears this meaning.
Thanks.
Context doesn't make it much better. It was basically the bronze age version of pointing out the other side's hypocrisy. It was just as effective back then as it is now.
If our winning strategy is to wait it out until the empire collapses under its own corruption so that we can rule over the ashes through the dark ages, why not just go full accelerationist?
You're not following through with the interpretation. Look at as an allegorical lesson, a parable. Ignore the examples given, and look at what Jesus is basically saying at it's core.
If you have an opponent, force him to respect you.
If they seek to ruin you, force them to be shamed by society.
If they seek to enslave you, force them to break the law.
There's nothing passive about that. It's the very essence of being proactive, of pushing back against those that would hurt you.
So, he should have done the bronze age version of fed-posting in large public fed-infested places, before it was time?
That's another big bit of context, a running theme, the pharasies trying to get Jesus to say something and put him into rhetorical traps as with 'render unto Caeser' coin thing. The Romans know this too, and they question specifics who exactly he is claiming to be king of and in what way it is meant. All while there are these groups insisting on violent resistance and rebellions, much of the population is clamouring for and insisting on it, and some believe the messiah is supposed to lead it.
He didn't even do that much and the still executed him. If you are gonna do the time you might as well do the crime.
He had a few years before that to teach his disciples and spread his teachings
And seeing how it then spread and made the west, I'd say it all worked out reasonably well the way he did it actually.