....From 999 to 1003 the first French pope, Sylvester II, was seated on the Chair of Peter. A dedicated reformer, he denounced simony (the buying and selling of spiritual goods and church offices), nepotism (favoring members of one's own family for appointment to church offices), and violations of clerical celibacy. He also insisted on the free election of abbots by monks. But in February of 1001 the Roman citizenry revolted against foreign domination. The French pope and his German friend and ally, Emperor Otto III, were forced to leave the city....
....A relative of the dominant Crescentii family succeeded Sylvester II in an election that was undoubtedly engineered by the family's leader. What was also remarkable, besides the decisive influence of a layman on a papal election, is the fact that the new pope, John XVII, had been married before ordination to the priesthood and was the father of three sons....John XVIII was cardinal-priest of St. Peter's Basilica when elected to the papacy on Christmas Day 1003 (the Vatican's official list begins his pontificate in January 1004). None of his accomplishments as pope have had any lasting historical significance beyond certain locales....John XVIII was probably forced to resign in late June or early July, 1009 -- almost exactly one thousand years ago.
Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
THANKS.
FASCINATING.
Shall we count the minutes until this thread is declared off limits to Roman Catholics?
I wouldn't believe a word this man says. He may still sport "father" before his name, but he's a heretic who is not worthy of the collar. No Catholic in their right mind has any use for him.
Fr. McBrien lives openly with a concubine just off campus at Notre Dame. It is a fact that cannot possibly be unknown to the local bishop.
Since well-informed Catholics DON’T think of the Pope as a “quasi-divine” figure, the purpose of Fr. McBrien’s column is clear: Not to inform and enlighten, but only to vent his poisonous hatred of the Catholic Church, by dredging up some of the worse Popes in history, and perhaps upset some pious people.
Fr. Richard McBrien
Claims that a future Pope must overturn the infallible document disallowing women "priests" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).
Fr. Richard McBrien
Says, among other things, that Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church, and calls into question the virginal conception of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, and promotes dissent.
Murph,
McBrien would not approve of being on FreeRepublic. Let’s allow the LIBS to monopolize his writings.
A lot of the comments in this article are to the effect that we don’t have a lot of details about history which occurred over 1000 years ago! What a shock!
It's as asinine as dating the Presidency only as far back as the introduction of Air Force One.
The details of the appointment/election/resignation of the Bishop of Rome have varied considerably. Big deal. The point is does the Bishop of Rome teach with infallible Apostolic Authority?
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
That's the Papacy in a nutshell, as described in the mid-second century. All else flows from this.
And a notorious liberal and modernist, but we won't talk about that.
Perhaps someone can explain to me what Fr. McBrien from the Univ. of Notre Apostasy is de-bunking here. That the Popes are not God-Kings? Is that really news to anyone?
Thanks for the post, I found it quite interesting. I find all Church history interesting, even the “dark” portions, as it shows how the Church *must* be protected by God or else would have failed long ago.
IOW, I don’t think it’s in dispute by any serious historian, that there have been many Popes throughout history that have not acted with the appropriate dignity afforded the office. This shows the Hand of God on the Church, despite the failings of men in Her Magisterium.
Father McBrien may have a theological axe to grind here, but the history cannot be denied. Nor should it, for the reason stated above.
For this reason, and perhaps also given the nature of some posts on this thread, I think it’s important to point out the salient point for all on this thread to read: Simply because a person has some personal faults, in no way diminishes any theological truth they may enjoy.
“Guilt” via character assassination is for the liberal. Let’s all remember that.