In the beginning of the post you are already doing two of the things I said you've been consistently doing in your arguments. 1) Conflating church teachings and secular law and 2). confusing the two
This is a false dichotomy. Are you familiar with the simple concepts of "Union of Church and State" versus "Separation of Church and State"? One is Christendom, the other is post-"enlightenment" judeo-masonic devilry. All of your opinions are under the framework of the latter, and your arguments in this discussion are wrong from the beginning because you assume a separation of church and state in Europe pre-enlightenment.
Europe was a Christian civilization. The Church and secular authorities were not separate entities in medieval Europe but worked in concert. You keep looking through a modern lens. As a schism of a schism, and a non-European, it is not going to be easy for you to internalize these historical realities. The very concept of Christendom meant that kings and rulers upheld Church doctrines and canon law influenced secular legislation. The Limpieza de Sangre laws were enacted in a society shaped by Catholic doctrine, the Inquisition, and ecclesiastical decrees about blood purity. The Church didn't need to issue a separate "racial mixing ban" when its teachings already ensured that such laws would emerge naturally through state enforcement.
so you can somehow squeeze out the notion that being there was some sort of church ban on mixed-ethnic marriages. You can't produce any sort of ban since it doesn't exist so instead you have to do your usual tactic of throwing together a bunch of facts that have some slight relation to the subject and hope a reader gets overwhelmed and doesn't notice that you aren't actually producing the needed argument for proving your point.
This is a cop-out avoid addressing the argument. My sources directly show that Church enforcement of policies shaped racial realities in Europe. If your rebuttal is that I "overwhelm" with facts then that’s an admission that you cannot refute them. You rely on a modern, artificial separation between race and religion, one that did not exist when these laws were enforced.
"Well I can't say that there is explicit church teaching forbidding mixed-ethnic marriages (since there isn't one) BUT since church and secular authorities often worked closely together and because a lot of people in society disapproved of mixed-ethnic marriages AND people were more religious back then it must mean that somehow the church was against mixed-ethnic marriages too".
The Church didn’t function like a modern bureaucracy issuing racial purity laws in 20th-century legalese. It enforced a religious framework that made ethnic separation inevitable. The prohibition on marrying indigenous, jews, and Muslims ensured that interethnic unions were nearly nonexistent. If a society’s entire religious structure bans marriage between groups, the result is ethnic separation. That’s the reality of medieval Christendom.
The medieval Church didn't just "work closely" with secular rulers it defined the moral and legal structures of Europe. Popes had the power to excommunicate kings, launch Crusades, dictate marriage laws, etc. The idea that secular rulers just "happened" to enforce racial separation without religious influence is absurd. Laws against interfaith marriage were racial barriers because religion and race in Medieval Europe were inseparable. The Church’s role in shaping these laws is undeniable.
That is basically your argument but you are making it seem more impressive then it is by stretching out the number of words needed to express it and by using sources but sources that don't even prove your point ie. here is a secular law about purity of blood and here is a church teaching about not marrying a non-Christian.
This is classic deflection to attack the form, not the content. The length of an argument does not determine its validity. The reality is my argument is sourced and detailed because history is not some simplistic modern hor d'oeuvres. If you finds it overwhelming that’s your own intellectual failing not an indictment of the argument itself.
This is another attempt to create artificial separation. The Church’s laws on marriage were absolute moral dictates. All rulers who enacted purity laws did so within the framework of Christian ethics. If the Church did not approve of it, it was not a law. This is not mere coincidence because the Church’s laws provided the foundation, and this was on top of acknowledging that blood identity and faith identity were inseparable in pre-modern Europe. To pretend otherwise is to impose modern secular thinking onto a religious civilization.
We do not live in a religious civilization anymore. If you think Europeans were not cognizant of their blood and the sacredness of it, in a civilization built upon glorifying the blood and sacrifice of God, then you don't know Europe. What you see when you go to the little wretch of Europe now is a maggot-infested corpse morality, with few holdouts of Christendom preventing total darkness.
WAIT this must mean the church must also disapprove of mixed-ethnic marriage because these laws are both about not mixing and because church and state had a closer relationship back so ergo the church must have had somehow been trying to prohibit mixed-ethnic marriages.
The Church did not "somehow" prohibit mixed-race marriages. It did so explicitly. The Church banned marriage between Christians and non-Christians. In an era where religious identity was nearly synonymous with ethnic identity, this was a de facto racial separation. The results speak for themselves. European ethnic groups remained overwhelmingly completely intact for over a thousand years. If the Church had wanted racial mixing we would see a far different historical and racial reality.
However the early church did exist in an empire that was mixed. Why was there no bans between a Germanic marrying say a Syrian or Assyrian or Berber or Ethiopian? Once again this is another example of you not being able to give a clear definitive argument for your position so instead have to try and guess at what the church was trying to do and make an assumption on what the real goals of the church was by having the sort of prohibitions it did on marriage."
You weren’t around in the 1st Century. Do you honestly believe the hodgepodge of ethnic scabs and vagabonds living under Roman rule were intermarrying and copulating freely like a modern-day cosmopolitan fantasy? The vast majority of people lived and married within their own ethnic enclaves, even when under the same empire. The idea that a Syrian merchant’s daughter would just go off and marry a Germanic tribesman without social repercussions is absurd. Do you think Roman fathers, Greek fathers, or even Germanic fathers let their daughters walk around like open invitations for foreign men? You are applying modern assumptions to a society with strict traditions, honor codes, and ethnic boundaries.
You keep demanding some explicit decree banning 'Germanic-Syrian marriages' or 'Berber-Ethiop unions' as if that's how ancient laws worked. But the reality is that ethnic separation was the
default. The Church didn’t need to constantly create new prohibitions when cultural norms already ensured that ethnic groups married among their own. Just because the Roman Empire housed many ethnicities does not mean they all mixed freely. Conquest and hierarchy made it less likely that a ruling ethnicity would allow dilution of its lineage.
You act as if Rome was a giant racial melting pot where all groups freely intermixed. The reality was that Rome was hierarchical and segregated. Ethnic Roman aristocracy did not marry common provincial subjects. Germanic mercenaries may have served the empire but did not become Roman elites. Even within conquered territories local populations married within their own, especially in the upper classes where lineage was everything. Rome ruled diverse peoples but diversity did not equal integration.
You still have not provided any sort of church teaching about racial mixing. You've even already admitted there isn't any sort of explicit banning so you instead have to assume there was a secret meaning behind the prohibition on interfaith marriage. If you are referring to the Limpieza de Sangre laws then that's another example of you conflating church and secular law. Those laws were enacted by the secular authorities. Having some church men approve of these laws is NOT the same as it being church teaching in the same that having priests like James Martin make statements approving of LGBT relationships does not mean the church approves of LGBT relationships.
How do you not understand Limpieza de Sangre? It wasn't some loose secular half-hearted system with the Church idly standing by. The Catholic Church was literally the enforcer of these laws. The monastic orders, the cathedral chapters, the seminaries, the inquisitors, the clergy, these institutions didn’t just approve of the system they implemented it zealously and rigorously. When a family was accused of impure blood it was the Church that carried out the investigation not secular authorities.
The Jerónimos (Hieronymites) were among the first religious orders to adopt
limpieza de sangre statutes. In 1496 they sought and received approval from Pope Alexander VI to implement these measures, barring individuals of jewish or Muslim ancestry from joining their ranks, even the conversos.
The Cathedrals of Badajoz (1511) and Seville (1516) mandated proof of pure European Christian ancestry for appointments thereby excluding those of converso or morisco heritage from ecclesiastical positions.
Major educational institutions like the Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé in Salamanca adopted
limpieza de sangre statutes in 1482 preventing individuals of non-Christian lineage from accessing educational and clerical opportunities.
The Spanish Inquisition's activities directed societal suspicions toward "New Christians," supporting the enforcement of limpieza de sangre statutes. Most of their efforts were directed against those who converted but because of their impure blood they continued to practice demonic religions.
More examples of church laws that are prohibiting INTERFAITH marriages that don't support your argument that the church prohibiting of inter-ethnic marriages
You seem to be unable to escape the 21st century separation of Church and State mindset. You focus on "interfaith" as if that is the core issue while neglecting the racial and ethnic realities tied to these laws.
As for why the church uphold strict prohibitions of interfaith marriage - the answer is pretty obvious. It's because the church is a FAITH institution and is concerned on preserving the faith in it's members and the members to be born. Having either father or mother in the family be a non-Christian is going to decrease the probability the faith will be transmitted properly. There is no need to introduce a secret implied motive behind these prohibitions on how it's really about also preserving race.
Yes the Church was a faith institution but it was also deeply intertwined with racial and cultural identity in Europe. It’s a historical fact that the Church's efforts to convert Germanics, Gauls, Celts, Slavs, and Nordics were not purely about saving souls but about incorporating these people into a racial and religious European identity. The conversion of European tribes was racialized and it was about preserving European bloodlines just as much as it was about faith. Gathering the lost sheep back unto the fold. The Church sought to preserve the ethnic cohesion of Europe and Christianity became a central part of that racial unity. That’s why the Church aggressively converted the European “heathens” and sought to preserve their ethnic purity. They didn’t do the same for jews, Arabs, or Africans because their racial and cultural identity was alien. Simply forcing the heebs to convert showed their true colors as we have in actual history from Iberia.
There is a consistent effort from non-Whites who call themselves Christian to attempt to erase the distinction between faith and race.
The Canon from the Council of Elvira is from the multiethnic Roman empire days and one of it's prohibitions was on marrying a heathen. This was NOT a time when Christian automatically meant white. A Christian woman wouldn't be able to marry a pagan Germanic no matter how much of a Chad Barbarian Aryan he was. Sounds like the church was more concerned about faith than preserving pure, elite blood.
Everyone knows Roman territories were multiethnic but it’s a distortion of historical reality to claim that Christians had no racial or ethnic awareness. Christianity in its early days was rooted in Aryan peoples not just "white" in the modern sense but in terms of Mediterranean peoples, who were ethnically cohesive with shared Aryan bloodlines. This was the Greeks, the Romans, and the non-mixed tribal Israelites (not the edomite "jews")). You might look at people of that region today and not see them as white, but that is because of the results of Islam spreading, the Moors and Ottomans raping many Aryan women in antiquity causing mass Arabization.
The people of the Roman Empire were Aryan by blood, barring Nubians, Edomites, Canaanites, Hindus, and other obvious non-Whites. Therefore, it was not race as we understand it in the modern, oversimplified sense but ethno-cultural cohesion that defined Christian identity.
If you don't believe the Church used "Aryan" language, I once again cite the Catholic encyclopedia from
1913 on Europe where the term is specifically mentioned:
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cathopedia/vol5/volfive474.shtml
The concept of Aryanity was something that developed in parallel with the Church becoming more influential throughout Europe. The racial homogeneity of the Christian community as it expanded through Europe was of paramount importance. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, Europe’s population was primarily composed of Aryan races (Teutonic, Romanic, and Slavonic), and this unity persisted throughout the rise of Christianity until the present.
That's why despite Elvira seemingly applying to European tribes in the 300s, we have the Church overseeing massive
conversions of the Germanic tribes and later
Northern Europeans not long after. It was done with the understanding that these peoples were already
ethnically similar to the larger European Christian family. This was not a matter of simply
accepting anyone into Christianity but
recognizing these tribes as part of the same racial and cultural lineage.
The
Church did not make similar concessions for
non-European peoples like Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Africans, or j
ews, who were treated with much more caution because they were racial and spiritual aliens.
An ad hominem would be if my argument was just based on something about you that had nothing to do with the argument such as if I was saying your arguments don't work because you smelled bad or because you married a woman that smelled bad. Instead what I was doing was calling into question your reasoning abilities and how I think it's affecting your ability to make logically coherent argument and provided some examples from your past debates where you exhibited similar mental patterns. So yes, a purpose of this attack is to make it clear to readers on the sidelines that you aren't fully reliable.
When you can’t counter logic, the next best step is to undermine the messenger.
It’s interesting that you have to rely on questioning my 'reasoning abilities' rather than responding to the substance of the arguments I've laid out. Is it because you cannot refute them, or is it that you find the implications of those arguments uncomfortable? It would be far more compelling to address the evidence and logic rather than dive into personal attacks. Attacking my ability to reason doesn’t add weight to your position it just shows you’re unable to counter my arguments directly.
I would argue that my reasoning is rather strong because unlike your approach I focus on facts and historical evidence to construct my arguments not on trying to discredit the person making them. You seem to think that if you can discredit me, my points somehow lose their validity. That’s a fallacy that ultimately only harms your own credibility.
One look at JD Vance and his willingness to pollute his lineage is instinctively troubling because it reveals something inherently wrong about his choices, no words are necessary. It's a primal, inherent recognition that betraying one’s own people, spiritually and racially, is a profound transgression. As someone who is part of this lineage, I see Vance's actions as an abandonment of the very essence of his heritage for the sake of a racial alien and spiritual heathen.
I doubt you understand this as someone who isn't Aryan and doesn't have to contend with the daily reality of having one’s identity actively targeted from every direction. In this current system, you are allowed to thrive and are encouraged to do so precisely because you are used as a tool for their agenda. You will never fully understand the existential struggle that Aryans face because you are not Aryan. The ability to recognize a betrayer like Vance, someone who is aiding in the destruction of his own people, is critical for the survival of lineage. You can relax and know that there are billion more Wutang's out there because your lineage is not under siege.
The other White Christians on the sidelines here can clearly see how a non-White has to view Christian history from a simplistic spiritual-only perspective and constantly put down anyone who brings up heritage because it offends his stolen and altered worldview.
There's people here that might look at your posts and think there's something to them merely because they are long and because they are supported by quotes and links to articles or Bitchute videos or 4ch memes. Since your posts are so lengthy people might not actually look into your sources and quotes and think that just because you have a lot of them that your post must have some of weight behind them just because there's so much content. What I'm doing here is illustrating to other forum posters is that you have a marked tendency to make use a lot of quotes and sources that don't even support your main point and you hope to overwhelm a reader by sheer quantity rather than quality.
You claim that the length of my posts along with the volume of quotes and sources somehow undermines their credibility. How is Bitchute unreliable when it is not censored like YouTube is? How is Gab unreliable when it is the only true place for free speech when jew-owned twitter/X isn't? Where are these 4chan memes at? You are leveling the same insults at me that the rest of the philosemites here do.
In any serious intellectual discussion evidence is the foundation of valid arguments. The more detailed and substantiated an argument is the stronger it becomes. What you mistake for “overwhelm” is a thorough and disciplined approach to constructing a logical framework supported by factual data and primary sources.
Then you claim that my sources "don’t even support my main point" which is an accusation that is not only unsubstantiated but completely evasive. You are simply making a blanket statement hoping it sticks. It’s easy to throw out an accusation but far harder to provide a coherent rebuttal grounded in facts.
The reality is that when one is faced with logical rigor and historical truth, those who cannot respond directly are often left to attack the presentation rather than the content. You’re doing exactly this. You want to argue about the structure of the argument, but you can’t refute the argument itself. You mistake thoroughness for overwhelming.
I'm aware of the church canons on purity of faith. Once again, please post the church canons on purity of bloodline. And no I'm not saying a canon that from your personal interpretation was really about preserving bloodlines. If you are going to make a strong claim about how the church was concerned about preserving bloodline then you should be able to provide a strong and definite clear statement from the church on this. If you look at institutions like the Nazis that actually had very clear and strong stances on this issue, it's simple to find plenty of rulings from them on it. If the church had a clear and strong stance on this issue then it should be equally simple for you to reproduce the materials on them.
You’re asking for explicit Church canons on racial purity yet you fail to recognize that the very existence of a racially cohesive Europe for over a thousand years under Christendom is proof enough that the Church didn’t need explicit rules to maintain racial integrity. While you demand a "canon" explicitly forbidding racial mixing you ignore the historical fact that the Church’s enforcement of policies like Limpieza de Sangre, the active separation of racial groups, and the political and social structures built around these principles led to a racially unified European identity that survived for centuries. This is not some coincidence, it was actively enforced through the Church's influence and its role in governance, and anyone with basic historical awareness can see that.
How is it possible that European Christendom, without such explicit canons, maintained such remarkable racial cohesion when today, in the so-called enlightened 21st century, the same Church now compromised by modern ideologies has become complicit in the destruction of that very cohesion? What changed? In the past the Church held a moral, spiritual, and even genetic role in preserving the racial identity of its people, enforcing the necessary social and cultural laws to ensure Europe remained European.
The reality is in modernity the Church has failed miserably. Too many homosexuals, infiltrators, pedophiles, and actual heretics using their clerical office to betray God's laws. The racial purity that was preserved across Europe for over a thousand years under Christian rule is now rapidly disappearing because the very same institutions that once upheld racial cohesion are now actively encouraging racial dilution through mass immigration, "multiculturalism," and a soft, passive endorsement of racial mixing courtesy of political agendas and globalist forces that are accelerating the racial extinction of Europeans.
Based on your examples and the laws you quoted, it seems like it was the secular authorities that kept whites white. If you had just kept your statement to this from the start, no one would be arguing against you. Seems like this would the most straight forward "Ockham's Razor". What is the simpler and more straight forward statement: "The secular authorities kept whites white" or "Well it was the secular authorities that kept whites but back then the church was also intertwined with the secular authorities and here is some canons that prohibited inter-faith marriages and since whites were Christians -
Based on my own family which has been Catholic since before the Norman expansion, I would say that the procreation of an untainted European lineage is because of the Church more so than any temporary secular effort. The Church was the primary moral and cultural authority that guided secular governance. The very concept of “secular authority” as we know it today didn’t even exist until the Enlightenment. You don't need a Canon to see Church enforcement, far beyond mere Church "complicity" in European endogamy.
This is what you fail to see because you are not European, and on top of merely being European one has to be awakened to their history. Your cheap dismissal of the Church’s historical involvement by reducing it to mere "interfaith marriage prohibitions" is exactly why your argument falls apart. The idea that these prohibitions were solely about "faith" and had nothing to do with the cultural and racial integrity of Europe is laughable. Faith was part of the larger cultural identity, and that identity, the European identity, was inseparable from racial and ethnic cohesion.
When you say "the secular authorities kept whites white" you conveniently sidestep the massive role the Church played in defining who could marry, who could inherit land, and who could be integrated into the social order. The Church was central to all these decisions.
The historical reality is brutal for race-mixers. Racially-mixed unions were virtually non-existent in history. Over 99% of mixed-race individuals were not born from Church-approved marriages but from conquest, rape, and generational violence. These were not unions blessed by the Church but the direct result of subjugation either by foreign soldiers violating local women, slave masters exploiting their chattel, and the brutal realities of one race's expansionism ceding territories inhabited by another race. This generational trauma is deeply ingrained, manifesting in identity crises, resentment, and psychological scars that we see in virtually all mixed-race individuals of the present. If the Church had ever truly promoted racial mixing, we would see clear, widespread evidence of stable, Church-sanctioned mixed-race lineages. Instead what we see is chaos, fatherlessness, and the consequences of violent miscegenation not the fruit of any ecclesiastical decree.
Don't mistake my tone for hating these people. I truly do feel sorry for them and wish they would never be tormented by their identities, but they were born as the selfish decisions of their foolhardy parents who chose to ignore God's laws. Vance is implicit in the suffering his children will have in the future. He should be a lesson for all American and European men on what not to do when you marry.
well except for those vikings and unconverted Germans but you have to understand these Germans were actually lost tribes of -"
Yes if you actually study migratory patterns, genetics, and the Biblical Marks of Israel, you would see that not only the Anglo-Saxons but the Germanics of the Jutland Peninsula and the other tribes around Denmark (Dan's Mark) do have a deep connection to the post-captivity Israelites. Keep mocking it, but more White and European Christian men are coming to these conclusions and exploring these claims, much more outside of this shrinking brown echo-chamber.
The vested interest of your biological ambition would find it rather difficult and uncomfortable if there were strict modern theological proscriptions on racial mixing, would it not? That is the litmus test of who endorses this separation of faith and race ideology. From the perspective of the non-White, who is bombarded with layers of jewish propaganda that galvanizes Whiteness into something that is both heavenly desirable but also abysmally detestable, it creates a natural inferiority complex in all non-Whites that extends into altering European history to achieve their own assimilation with the people who created the greatest civilization to ever graced the Earth, even if it means defiling those people further. To the European who has not been deracinated by New World Order brainwashing nor has been spiritually castrated by hollow creeds, this soul understands the realities and duties of the here and now and the preparation for the hereafter are not separate but intertwined. That is why those who obey God's laws and stick to their own are not confused and don't try to adopt another race's religion, nor marry into another race, nor blend some falsified ideal of the two actions as a positive phenomena that is made permissible by an interpretation of a power not of this Earth, when it is quite the opposite.
I don't doubt your intelligence, nor your commitment to the Almighty, but there have been disagreements in matters of faith from the beginning and there will be disagreements in matters of faith until the end. To understand the perspective of historical European Christendom is impossible for an outsider. That is why it is always best for each bird to fly with their own, just like they do in nature.