Back when the Catholic Church was a serious social institutions it decreed that women were soulless. The logic was basically that since homo is restricted to the genus vir, (humanitas almost entirely referred to men in Latin thought) woman were animata, meaning they possessed vitality, but don't have the pneuma, the immortal rational soul granted by the Holy Spirit. And that, because the Apostles were all-male, the ontological capacity for spiritual authority is genetically exclusive to the masculine line thus woman being the secondary creation from the rib of Adam, are only able to participate in salvation through her attachment to a man.
Genesis 9:3 says:
The Hebrew word used in this line is foo le-ochlah, which means food or flesh to be ravished. Since women are soulless, they're just flesh by definition. Following a simple logical line, since it's biblically permissible for man to ravish flesh, this would also grant him permission to ravish women since there is no real distinction between soulless homo and flesh/meat.
This line here now makes it patently clear that the numen/God denies the idea of women having the ability to reject a man and common law relationships. And that since women now are no longer tied to a sovereign patriarch, it is up to the man if he wants to plow women, not women.
To top this off, I will cite the 10th commandment, in a conceit, the numen declares women property to the patriarch, if there is no owner of the property, the property of course goes to the next dominant power, which as established is of course the vir hoi polloi or the male masses.
All this means that women can't refuse men sex and simultaneously be Christian. FLDS got this right but got perverted by inbreds.
If only the Catholic Church hadn't succumb to modernism to appeal to the rabble masses, as with their significant social power, we would have probably never saw the rise of inceldom.
Agh, yes.
Catholicism ruled most of the world until Great Apostasy, some say, 1000AD, others says around the 16th century, when Freemasons and crypto-Jew neophytes infiltrated after the Blood purity laws.
Yes, Catholicism was 100% based, and now we have Jews larping as Nazis and white nationalists telling everyone that modern 'Catholicism' is Catholic and should be destroyed.
Tertullian can be seen as an early Christocel, as he wrote very much against female hypergamy and was celibate himself. Augustine, similarly.
The first Christian, Jesus Christ, arguably a volcel, understood blackpill.
His Mystical Body, the Church, divinely inspired, knew that if the secret of evolution was ever allowed to spread, the masses would act in a similar fashion as women act today, accepting the idea of evolution for 'eugenics' purposes, thwarting the family and depriving men of the opposite sex.
So in a counter-intuitive way, the Church — then the ruler of the world —understood that if you want humans to “evolve” away from their animal nature into a civilized form, you must keep the secret of evolution... a secret.
Christian groups in Texas want schools to teach Creationism along with Evolution. Perhaps the Church is trying to turn back the damage caused by letting masses study “evolution”.
There might, likewise, be a similar reason why the Church opposed Heliocentrism.
Humans will act more civilized if we think we are special and the center of the universe. Tinder and other modern-day ills happen because people think we are simply evolved apes who are on a tiny rock orbiting a small star which is among billions of other similar stars.
Therefore, the church knew about evolution but opposed faggot Charles Darwin because they understood that if the masses were given this knowledge it would lead to disaster.
Tinder proved them right.
We can learn a similar secret in Jesus, who stood at 4’6 short.
The official physical description of Jesus from Bishops to Emperor Theodosius in the 4th Century, which is the official Catholic Church's description of Jesus' physical appearance, as quoted by Eisler, ([26]:393–394,414–415), describes Him, here "quoting Hierosolymitanus and John of Damascus, [...] as having had connate eyebrows with goodly eyes and being [...] long-faced, crooked and well-grown. In a letter of certain bishops to the Emperor Theophilus, Jesus's height is described as 3 cubits (four foot six), which was also the opinion of Ephrem Syrus (320–379 AD): "God took human form and appeared in the form of three human ells (cubits); he came down to us small of stature."
Theodore of Mopsuestia likewise claimed that the appearance of Christ was smaller than that of the children of Jacob (Israel).
Jesus's prediction that he would be taunted "Physician, heal yourself" may suggest that Jesus was indeed physically deformed ("crooked" or hunch-backed), as claimed in the early Christian texts.
And here's the most interesting part: "Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Ambrose considered lack of physical attractiveness in Jesus as fulfilling the messianic prophecy Suffering Servant narrative of Isaiah 53."
Ancients weren’t stupid, they knew the truth.
They knew that tall, chads get respected and short incels get mocked. They knew that if the messiah came down, he won’t come as chad, that would be too easy. He would instead come in the form of a short man.
Jesus came to suffer and sacrifice himself for short and ugly men, the fact that he is short already shows that God knows that short, ugly men came to suffer. It seems that ties into a greater pattern of Jesus’s external circumstances (such as his background and physical appearance).
Let’s face it, He wasn’t tall, handsome and well built with blue eyes (contrary to the way he’s been regularly illustrated over the course of history, since many simply cannot comprehend such a divine figure looking like an average guy, or 'worse' — lookism at work).
For the Son of God, he was quite unremarkable when it comes to physical appearance.
But I am fairly certain that’s the whole point; why would Jesus need to be a good looking guy born into luxury and greatness? What lesson would be learnt? What suffering would he need to go through?
Our Jesus Christ was a short, ugly man. He didn’t come down as a chad, instead he came in the form of a short man.
"For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. – Book of Isaiah, Chapter 53, Verse 2."
