Anonymous OP 9w

I think they were more referring to the promethean desire of having enough people on the moon to justify having a Catholic bishop there, but sure, go with the worst possible interpretation.

1

Anonymous #1 9w

nobody said conquering. it's very telling that that's how you interpreted this can't tell if you're joking about orlando. if you're being serious i have a bridge on the moon to sell you

7

Anonymous OP 9w

I am serious, newly discovered territory is claimed by the dioces where the expedition departed That would be cape Canaveral, Orlando. I don’t think anyone has seriously tried to enforce that, and the Catholic Church hasn’t officially approved either

-1

Anonymous #1 9w

the moon is not owned, governed, or subject to the jurisdiction of any nation or government. the treaty signed by hundreds of nations and all major space-faring nations including the US (the governance of which orlando is subject to) affirms this $500,000 for the moon bridge. pay cash and i'll do it for $410k

10

Anonymous #1 9w

"newly discovered territory is ours!" is such a greedy, colonialist, parasitic notion

5

Anonymous OP 9w

I don’t have that much money, but I would take you up on it. where does the moon need a bridge? Like across a crater?

0

Anonymous #1 9w

oh... sweet summer child

10

Anonymous OP 9w

The moon treaty was never signed by the US. Only 17 countries are signatories. The rest can call dibs

-2

Anonymous #1 9w

It’s a really long bridge to the moon.

0

Anonymous #3 9w

Is the Vatican one of the signatories? If so then yeah that’s just a. Funny weird interpretation Otherwise then we have a theocratic city-state who hasn’t laid claim but maybe could. I bet they didn’t sign since the Vatican is usually politically neutral.

1

Anonymous #1 9w

Edit: the Holy See did sign it, but the Vatican never ratified it so it’s not legally binding. Anyways, I just don’t think that’s something to worry about

1

Anonymous #3 9w

nobody said anything about the moo treaty. i'm talking about the Outer Space Treaty, which draws heavily from the Antarctic Accords, applies to the moon, and was in fact signed by the US

7

Anonymous OP 9w

*moon

3

Anonymous OP 9w

Vatican did sign the outer space treaty

1

Anonymous #1 9w

if the vatican signed it then even the catholic church agrees that the moon is not owned by an entity; especially not orlando 😂

3

Anonymous #1 9w

just shot yourself in the foot there

4

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous OP 9w

The kids call it “calling dibs”. As long as nobody else has called dibs it’s free for the taking

0

i have no clue what you drank or smoked this morning but you're not making any sense. glad you learned orlando and the church have no authority over the moon tho!

8

Anonymous OP 9w

The screenshot on your post literally starts with “The moon agreement”

-2

Anonymous #3 9w

You literally directly quote The Moon Agreement in your post

1

Anonymous OP 9w

A diocese doesn’t own an area it just oversees Catholic Churches in an area which there are none

-1

Anonymous OP 9w

“Under a 1917 Code of Canon Law—which stated that newly discovered territory falls under the jurisdiction of the diocese where the discovering expedition originated—the moon falls under Orlando's purview”

-1

Anonymous #3 9w

So if you’re going to the moon pack your crucifix I guess

-1

Anonymous #3 9w

the screenshot starts with the Moon Agreement (MA) because it explains that is an elaboration of the Outer Space Treaty (OST). i am talking about the OST since the US has signed when i quoted those, they were on a page talking about both the MA and OST, so i couldn't really distinguish, but the MA is little more than an elaboration of the OST i welcome you to read the provisions of the OST so you can learn that everything quoted there is just a reaffirmation of what the OST states

3

Anonymous #3 9w

idk what you want me to say man. the vatican signed the agreement that says the moon isn't anybody's jurisdiction 🤷 you can point to the past but as of today the church agrees with me

5

Anonymous #3 9w

but like... if you know the US didn't sign the MA, and you can see clearly in the post that it talks about the OST, and you see me talking about a treaty that the US *did* sign, why would you assume that i'm focused on the MA and not the OST? that seems a bit silly

10

Anonymous #3 9w

i think you were being lazy and failed to actually read the post or my comments. you should know it was about the OST based on what was said

8

Anonymous OP 9w

then they made an entire new post focused on the bill America didn’t sign despite you not talking about that one. people are silly

10

Anonymous #4 9w

Did you purposefully forget about the entire history of Christian colonies and settlements?

1

Anonymous #6 9w

Is the moon inhabited? How does that apply

0

Anonymous #5 9w

They're touched in the head 😅

4

Anonymous OP 9w

It’s more of a fun little anecdote to tell at parties not something serious. Like “hey did you know the church once had a claim to the entire moon”? And then You tell the fun story. Of course it’s only on paper, you think the church would even want a lifeless ball of rock? You can’t convert anyone on it

1

Anonymous OP 9w

My brother in christ I simply stated “The moon treaty was never signed by the US”. You claim “Nobody said anything about the moo[n] treaty” despite your entire original post discussing the matter, regardless of its relationship to the OST. If you wanted to have a conversation about the OST instead of the Moon Treaty, why post a screenshot and quote an article discussing the latter?

0

Anonymous #3 9w

can’t exactly claim it to be a misunderstanding once you arrogantly double (or triple) down. OP already addressed this, so the issue is entirely on you.

6