@FredSimonTLM@NiwaLimbu1988 Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I guess he rejects Fourth Lateran Council, Council of Florence, Council of Trent and even Vatican 1 & 2
There is a difference between ethnic groups and administrative regions. I wrote this a few days ago. The concept of Palestinian did not exist until around WW1 It is not like how Croatians and Serbs existed in Yugoslavia or Croations and Hungarians in the Austrian Empire.
1 Ancient control sequence The region had ancient Israelite/Judahite kingdoms, followed by successive conquerors (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic/Greek, Roman). After the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE), the Romans renamed the area Syria Palaestina as an administrative region. Byzantine (Eastern Roman) rule followed, then the Arab Muslim conquest in the 630s–640s. Subsequent rulers included various Islamic dynasties, Crusaders, Mamluks, and the Ottomans until World War I.
2 Post-WWI to 1948–49 After WWI the Ottoman territories were divided under League of Nations mandates. Britain received the Palestine Mandate (initially including what became Transjordan). The British separated the Emirate of Transjordan (east of the Jordan River) from Mandate Palestine (west of the Jordan River) in 1921. While it is true that Jordan (Transjordan) had a large Palestinian population with deep historical, tribal, and cultural ties to Palestine, giving the Palestine land west of the Jordan river directly to Jordan was politically impossible due to three major factors.
#1 By the 1940s, the Arab population west of the Jordan River had spent nearly three decades developing a distinct Palestinian national identity. They did not view themselves as subjects of the Hashemite monarchy in Amman.
#2 The broader Arab world was deeply distrustful of Jordan’s ruler, King Abdullah I. Abdullah openly harbored a "Greater Syria" plan, aiming to expand his kingdom to absorb Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon under his crown. Rival Arab powers—particularly Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia—strenuously opposed any outcome that would make Jordan the dominant superpower in the Levant.
#3 When British rule ended in May 1948, the Arab states rejected the UN Partition Plan and launched a war against the newly declared State of Israel. However, behind the scenes, King Abdullah I had already engaged in secret talks and tacit agreements to ensure that his army (the British-trained Arab Legion) would only occupy the Arab-designated areas (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) rather than trying to destroy Israel entirely.
The West Bank: Jordan successfully captured this territory during the 1948 war. In 1950, despite fierce protests from the Arab League and many Palestinians, King Abdullah I officially annexed the West Bank, dissolving the name "Palestine" locally and making its residents Jordanian citizens. The Gaza Strip: Egypt captured and administered this sliver of land, preventing it from ever falling under Jordanian control
The 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed Jewish and Arab states (plus internationalized Jerusalem). Jewish leaders accepted it; Arab leaders and states rejected it. Civil conflict escalated into the 1948 war after Israel declared independence. Arab armies (Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon) invaded. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled amid the fighting (the Nakba from the Palestinian perspective).
Arabs who remained in the areas that became Israel generally received citizenship in Israel. Jordan later granted citizenship to many West Bank Palestinians and absorbed large numbers of refugees. After the West Bank annexation, people of Palestinian origin formed a large share (often described as a majority) of the expanded kingdom’s population. Pre-1948 Transjordan itself was not already a Palestinian-majority entity; its population also included Bedouin/tribal Arabs.
@TheFigen_ When I was 9 or so, I got called on stage in las vegas for a magic show, and they did the saw you in half trick. Not sure how it was done, I literally just stayed in the box
@FernandoPi30541@MattGaspers Also St. Thomas Aquinas who said "mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution " he also talks about Justice without mercy, but the Vatican has a problem justifying evil and will not acknowledge the virtue of Justice.
I think Leo lacks the Virtue of Justice and only favors mercy. Which Thomas Aquinas famously stated “Mercy without Justice is the mother of dissolution". Or St. Catherine of Sienna "Were justice without mercy, it would abide in the shadows of cruelty, and would turn into injustice. And mercy without justice toward one's subordinate would be like ointment on a wound that ought to be cauterized: if ointment is applied without cauterizing it rots more than it heals."
I don't think I qualify as a traditionalist, but I am very much so in how I feel about the Church, I have major issues with how the Church is run and I think Vatican 2 was a mistake and Vatican 1 had unintended negative consequences that are not logically reconcilable with Church history, like Pope Stephen VI's Cadaver Synod. I put much more stock into what Doctors of the Church, Saints and the general collective of Popes beliefs than the average Catholic.
@umFidalgo@Catholic_Astro@kessler_ulrich I think you are right. Unfortunately there are only vague clues for his statements, but that was roughly my conclusion. I also got a sense that there were people in the Vatican bureaucracy that were undermining him.
Your general argument is correct but Augusto Cury is actually more left wing aligned and his party works with Lula's alot. Ronaldo Caiado's party is very slightly right wing and would slightly prefer to work with the right but is fine working with the left. Renan Santos's party is likly more right wing than Bolsonaro's
@Loca1_Geek@BiggestKusalol I think Pippa for a long time was likely similar to Asmongold politics wise but had an attitude shift towards corporate HR beliefs in the last 2 or 3 years, but she mostly does not care a whole ton.
JP2 was a light liberal to me, and was overly hostile to traditionalists. Benedict to me was a moderate when he became Pope and Summorum Pontificum was a good move to heal the division of Vatican 2. But Francis and Leo are on a whole different level of liberal. I dont think there has been a fantastic of Great Pope in my lifetime, but I think Benedict was pretty good but just wasn't able to deal with the weight of the position .
@BobbyFisherman8@Krystian2002_pl@kessler_ulrich I think that is a fair and understandable conclusion and I used to think that, but I have grown more conservative with time and now think Vatican 2 and parts of Vatican 1 have been net negatives and introduced confusion and erosion in the faith that was completely avoidable.
He was kinda liberal with his involvement in Vatican 2 but he really expected the changes to coexist not be hostile to the traditional. By the time he became Pope he felt the attacks on the traditional went to far and attempted to roll it back. He also had Francis as his main opponent in the Papal conclave that he won, which blocked Francis a couple years.
That would largely be my list. I'm not sure where I would place Confucianism or Taoism, which are pseudo religious and more codes of conduct. C.S. Lewis even wrote the don't necessarily conflict with Christianity. I think I would put them between 4 and 5.
5, 6 and 7 i would potentially re arrange