"More Catholic Than the Pope" — New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists

Envoy Encore Weblog ^ | 07-30-04 | Patrick Madrid

[ninenot]

It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” ... Cardinal Oddi

Yup. SSPX.

[pascendi]

"Goes to show that the Church has enemies to the left AND the right, which makes sense."

Actually, it goes to show that you're playing into the modernist's hands by allowing yourself to believe that the truth is merely an estimated mean between two falsely posited extremes. Synthesis.

Just two cents from a someone who doesn't even assist at the SSPX Masses.

[Land of the Irish]

The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” ... Cardinal Oddi

Yup. SSPX.

Have you forgotten? You and the Pope have long declared the SSPX to be outside the Church.

[dsc]

“Well, if they were HONESTLY mistaken, the excommunication would have HONESTLY brought them around. That's the precise purpose of excom's: they are a warning. They can't claim to be "mistaken" and ignore the excommunication. Logically impossible.”

Not impossible at all. If their premise is that that the Holy Father created a condition of necessity by acting wrongly, then his assertion that an automatic excommunication had occurred would be meaningless.

“which neatly avoids certain paragraphs, or sentences, or context.”

“The irony of all this is that the SSPX and I are in general and very close agreement about the NO Mass (thus, about the Old Rite Mass.)”

Well, then, it seems like you ought to be able to hammer out a modus vivendi.

“They've talked themselves into a corner and are not about to capitulate, unlike the Campos group.”

If you believe that the “smoke of Satan” still occupies positions of authority and is still trying to stomp out Tradition, then capitulation is unthinkable.

“Goes to show that the Church has enemies to the left AND the right, which makes sense.”

I don’t want this to take a turn for the rancorous, but I have to assert that there are a couple of misconceptions underlying that opinion.

If you posit a theological “left right” spectrum, God is not in the middle of it. He is all the way over to the right, and Satan is all the way over to the left. The further to the right you move, the closer to God you get.

Actually, that allows a pretty good view of “moderates” of all persuasions. They think they are being sensible and open-minded by taking up a position halfway between Heaven and Hell, which merely serves to place them as close to Satan as to God.

Whatever you may say about SSPX, they are not enemies of the Church. They are honestly trying to do what they think is best for the Church. You may think they’re wrong, but right reason does not allow the assertion that they are trying to harm the Church.

[Dominick]

Did altar girls come from Rome? Did Communion in the Hard come from Rome?
Were they approved by Rome? Yes

Wrong, but the opposite is too convienent for you.

Has the Pope condemned the sacrilege at Fatima? No

Wrong again, the hysteria was that this odd-shaped new Church was a multi-religeon facility. This was denied, and Rome said specifically the plan will not permit this.

In addition, there will be no more Hindu events at Fatima. At all approved ecumenical events, prayer by different groups are done only with those groups, not with Catholic Priests or Bishops.

Like I said, you will deny it, spout out some childish one liner, and next week you will use the same one liner that you know is untrue.

[pascendi]

That's a whole lot of denial.

[Dominick]

What's you point? The Pope has also ruled that the Muslims, who deny the Holy Trinity, worship the same "God" as Catholics. He has even kissed their Koran.

Ask a Muslim, they will answer the Worship the God of Abraham, which is the God of Moses, who is the first person of the Trinity. You have spouted the opinion Allah is a demon, the name being originally used by a pagan moon goddess. Well they consider Allah the God of Abraham, and all the errors aside, they attempt worship of God.

Kissing a Koran does not constitute approval, and he did not admit Muslims to communion with the Church, obviously. The SSPX is out of Communion for what reason? They know the truth about the Pope, and not only reject that truth, but by their words and actions disobey his lawful authority.

You have held the ill informed opinion the Muslims are devil worshipers, and that just isn't true.

[Land of the Irish]

Communion in the Hand has not been approved by Rome?

If not, why does John Paul II give Communion in the paw?

Put up, or shut-up with you denials of facts.

[Land of the Irish]

You have held the ill informed opinion the Muslims are devil worshipers, and that just isn't true.

All false gods are devils.

[Land of the Irish]

Did altar girls come from Rome? Did Communion in the Hard come from Rome?

Land of the Irish:Were they approved by Rome? Yes

Dominick: "Wrong, but the opposite is too convienent for you."

[pro Athanasius]

Yah apostasy at the TOP not the bottom of the power block.
Don't bury your head in the sand.

Do you think the Pope's nonsense at Assisi was a good thing??- Well that led to the Fatima Shrine apostasy with the Hindus dancing and worshiping in our Catholic Shrine. IT led to what is happening all over the world with all of the religious syncretism going on in Catholic Churches because we want to let these people know that there religion is also “good and praiseworthy”.

Is that a good thing? Are you going to the follow the pope into this false ecumenism??


Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10):
“So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”
Old Code of Canon Law said about Communicatio in Sacris

Do you go along with this Pope on Assisi and what he is allowing at Fatima?? Is this a good idea in your view??

The SSPX were the only ones protesting the garbage at Fatima?? Lets bring on the dancing girls and pray to Shiva? Yup Church of the Council. This is what a conciliar “progressivist” who was a friend of JP II had to say he said that there was to be but one flock and one shepherd, and He appointed St. Peter to be head of that flock.

Fr. Henri De Lubac S.J. stated at the Institute of Renewal in the Church at Toronto in 1967, “It is clear that the Church is facing a grave crisis. Under the name of ‘the new Church,’ ‘the post-concolor Church,’ a different Church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself; an anthropocentric society threatened with immanentist apostasy which is allowing itself to be swept along in a movement of general abdication under the pretext of renewal, ecumenism or adaptation,” This is rather odd given that he was himself the chief proponent of the false “new theology” and its prophet Teilhard de Chardin. He was under censure under Pius XII.

Then Pope Paul VI address to the Last General Meeting of Vat. II on Dec. 7, 1965 sec 11 see-
https://www.greatestbooks.org/visitorlibrary/gbooks/papalecyclicals/mainpapalencyclicals.htm then just scroll down to

Paul VI’s area to see “ The Church of the Council (Conciliar in the dictionary states of or from a Council.) Has also, it is true, been much concerned with man, with man as he really is today, with living man.......we also more than anyone else, have the cult of man.” What about the cult of God??
My friend, there are not two ways of serving Our Lord; there is only one good way, and it is to serve Him as He wishes to be served. (St. John Mary Vianney) John Mary: SPIRIT OF THE CURE D'ARS, Bowden, 1864 Does God want the Buddhists and Hindues to desecrate a Catholic Shrine with pagan worship??? How many roads lead to hell? There is only one narrow road that leads to heaven said Jesus and the path to perdition is wide and many travel it.

[pro Athanasius]

Well you really got him there didn't you- apostasy "inside" the Church apostasy at the "top"- you let the cat out of the bag. Don't let anyone know that the third secret makes the Conciliar authorities which God is using to chastize us look bad because it is about them and what they are doing NOT traditional Catholics who fight for the truth and resist all of this garbage and denial of our Lord. WE will keep it our little secret even though the whole Conciliar Church really knows what the third secret is in their guts- they are just to cowardly to face the music. Just look at all of these week kneed bishops with no backbone! And the guys in charge of them are a pile of contradictions- this is why our Lady said pray for the Holy Father- pray much for him. The truth is what is important and following it no matter what reality it points to or how much we will have to suffer for it.

[pro Athanasius]

Anyone who doesn't follow Christ is in the devils camp Jesus said you are either for me or against me.

Jesus said this to everyone including the Muslims-
Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be condemned."

This is what our Catholic tradition teaches us about Islam. I think Pope JP II should apologize the Pope Gregory and us for contradicting him by his actions of kissing the Koran and praying with the Muslims.

"We can no more pray for a deceased infidel than we can for the devil, since they are condemned to the same eternal and irrevocable damnation."
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Gregory the Great: "Moralia," 34:19, PL 75:509; SKL p.61

"Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was Mohammed."
St. Peter Mavimenus, Peter: THE ROMAN MARTYROLOGY, ed. J. B. O'Connell, 4th typical edition, approved by Pope Benedict XV, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1962, p.37

"Mohammed was a disciple of the devil, and his followers are in a state of perdition."
St. George of San Saba, George: VOM p.239

"O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, and thus deny them all.
Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an imposter and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jews who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their Redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of heretics who, separating themselves our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition!"
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Alphonsus Maria: TRE, IBI p.407 ff.

In Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas describes Islam as a false and dangerous religion, which combines truths with "fables," twists the Old and New Testaments into a "fabrication" of Mohammed's own, and seduces "people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us."
Aquinas said Mohammed's claim as God's prophet rested on the "powers of his killings" -- not a very convincing sign of holiness since it is a sign not "lacking even to robbers and tyrants."
Nor was Aquinas impressed by Mohammed's followers: "Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower's by the violence of his arms."

ON MUSLIMS OR ISLAM
Mohammed - Is his Testimony Credible?
By St. Thomas Aquanis
"He (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.
He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the Contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms - which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning (1). Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower's by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly"
- Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4.
Footnote:1. Sura 21:5, Sura 44:14; Sura 16:103, Sura 37:36

In Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas describes Islam as a false and dangerous religion, which combines truths with "fables," twists the Old and New Testaments into a "fabrication" of Mohammed's own, and seduces "people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us."
Aquinas said Mohammed's claim as God's prophet rested on the "powers of his killings" -- not a very convincing sign of holiness since it is a sign not "lacking even to robbers and tyrants."
Nor was Aquinas impressed by Mohammed's followers: "Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower's by the violence of his arms."
see http://www.voy.com/27358/1/3515.html.

[dsc]

"You have held the ill informed opinion the Muslims are devil worshipers, and that just isn't true."

IMO, Satan wanted to attack Christianity, so he started whispering in Mohammed's ear. He took some of the Old Testament and some of the New Testament for credibility and to confuse, and then added enough of himself to ensure that Islam would always be a bleeding wound on humanity.

How many conflicts are there in the world in which mooselimbs are not involved?

[saradippity]

Popes were often not as clear and strong as many Cathollics in this religious forum would like to think they were. Popes have issued official proclamations that had to be reworded by subsequent Popes,bishops were often disobedient and paid more attention to the prevailing politics than the Holy Fathers and history often is subject to revision. Satan and his evil,able allies on earth are always prowling and sometimes making gains,only to be defeated to rise up again and again and again.

I say this because I think that most of us care very much to do what God would have us to do,using our free will. Although I do not have a pipeline,I would guess he would want those of us who love Him to work together with Christ for His Spouse. To that end,would you all do a Google on Sublimis Deus?

It was a Papal Bull issued in 1537 by Paul III,that will link to several other Bulls and pronouncements by Popes and Magisteria as well as court cases,historical notes and supplementary papers. Basically it is contained in few enough documents for you all to get clear idea that while things are probably worse now than they were then,had the average bishop,priest or layperson had access to information back then,it would likely have resulted in what is occurring right now. In other words,lots of anger, confusion and splitting.

Please take a look at it,I really hope that our bickering will make us all more knowledgeable,more focused and ready to work together to push out the vermin and fungus within the Spouse of Christ. It won't take more than 20-25 minutes to get a pretty good idea.

[Dominick]

Popes were often not as clear and strong as many Cathollics in this religious forum would like to think they were. Popes have issued official proclamations that had to be reworded by subsequent Popes,bishops were often disobedient and paid more attention to the prevailing politics than the Holy Fathers and history often is subject to revision. Satan and his evil,able allies on earth are always prowling and sometimes making gains,only to be defeated to rise up again and again and again.

That is why Christ gave us a Church with a living hierarchy. It isn't a dead hierarchy, of a lifeless tradition, but it builds on those gifts.

During the time of Arianism it was bad, during the middle ages, there were all kinds of conflicts, while theologians argued about angels on the head of a pin, grifters were selling fraudulent saint's relics, and Priests were poorly trained. Just before the modern era people were still shooting about religion from the 30 years war to about 1900. When was it ever good?

It was never easy, and that is God's will, We are to struggle against the forces of darkness, like the terrorist threat and the forces of hatred like you see on the posts in this thread about Muslims.

I would rather talk for a year, argue incessantly and convert a wayward person, rather than shoot them. If talking was only enough to stop OBL, but it isn't and that is reality.

Looking back to the altar girl issue and the communion in the hand, I find that the See didn't originate the practice. They have driven the decision to the Bishops, and then if the Bishops allow it, the decision is then to the Priest saying Mass. (note).

The Communion issue I was wrong on, but it is an old practice. It in no way removed a person's right to take communion on the tongue. (note) In both cases, the See has sent the issues to the Bishops to decide. The issue isn't sent to the USCCB.

I refuse to dignify those who think that Muslims are less than human. I think all men are in God's image, and should be judged on actions. I don't like Muslims who behead women for adultery, but let men go scot free. I will not tolerate the lack of freedom for Churches to operate in Muslim lands. I can't see where taking more than one wife is anything but a penance. I will not think that somehow that makes them ready for us to murder them outright.

[pascendi]

I'm not sure, but I think I might know what you're getting at.

Look carefully at the way in which Sublimis Deus is constructed; look at the body of the document, and then especially at the last paragraph, taking note of the Pope directly invoking the authority of the Chair and using the intent to declare and define something umambigously.

We have no documents of the classic construction you see in Sublimis Deus in the post conciliar Church; none of these novel ideas we see which one might call a new twist on things, theologically speaking, have been constructed in the manner in which this document has been. That's why the new ones are branded as pastoral instead of dogmatic. All of what's novel and deviant could never have been packaged and presented to the Faithful in terms of what is defined and declared because then it would be dogmatic. The Holy Ghost, however, won't allow that which is deviant to be declared as binding and defined as absolute truth; that's the passive protection of the Holy Ghost, to prevent such things from happening. It is one way in which the evil will not be allowed to prevail.

If, then, we are lacking such declaration and definition supporting all novel theological ideas, then it isn't the pope decieving us, as the Holy Ghost would prevent this. We as members of the Church are allowing ourselves to be deceived instead. We won't be able to blame him because he never bound us to anything novel. I wish this pope would declare and define something, anything, for crying out loud... lol! But he never does. There's a lot of people out there, though, that swear the Holy Ghost acts upon him like a realtime muse. Nope; the Holy Ghost works through the declaration and definition of very clear and unambiguous pronouncements.

We are sorely lacking documents of the classic construction of Sublimis Deus. If only the pontiff would speak the truth, speak it clearly and bind the faithful to his authority concerning all the issues of our day. People would be amazed at what the Holy Ghost would prevent the pope from declaring and binding... most of the ideas that are uniquely post-conciliar can never be made binding, because we are all actually bound to the old rules of reality.

Let me know if the above came across clear and seems to make any sense.

[pro Athanasius]

I'll check it out. You don't have to convince me that times have been very bad before. Pope Honorius was excommunicated for allowing heresy to spread.

Here is a few more bits of information of papal excommunication.

Two Popes condemned as Heretics
Case 1: Pope Vigilius (537-55) was unpopular for his part in deposing the previous pope. He also lost favour with the Empress and Emperor Justinian summoned him to Constantinople. We are told that as the ship carrying Vigilius set sail, the people threw “stones, branches and cooking pots after him (and shouted):’You treated the Romans badly, may you meet evil where you are going’ “ (Ref 1).

In Constantinople, the Emperor found Vigilius not quite decided about the two natures of Christ and called the Fifth General Council in 553. 165 bishops were present but Vigilius sent his apologies, saying he was sick. The Council declared him a heretic and excommunicated him. The pope in turn condemned the Council decision. The Emperor then exiled to a remote ‘rocky inlet’. By the end of the year, Vigilius gave notice that he had been misled by the ‘wiles of the devil’ and was prepared to retract. He accepted all the decrees of the Council.



The Emperor then set him free to return home. The people were not all pleased to see him and were preparing to punish him. Vigilius died before that in 555 and was refused burial at St Peters.



Case 2: In the following century, another pope was also condemned for heresy. This was Pope Honorius (625-38), believed to be a holy man who served the people and a good leader. But he did not care for academic debates and controversies. The matter of Christ’s two natures had been resolved but a new question now surfaced: Did Christ have two wills or one? In a well known letter, Honorius indicated that he was opposed to the idea of two wills and ridiculed those ‘pompous and time-wasting philosophers who croak at us like frogs’. He died before he could give a fuller explanation.


"History & Philosophy of the Ancient and Modern World "
The Popes see http://users.bigpond.net.au/bstone/popes.htm
Benedict IX 1032 - 1048 Rome, Pope at 12 but two Antipopes reigned at the same time
Silvester III 1045 Rome Excommunicated by Benedict but recognised as a legitimate Pope.




See Popes at http://roma.katolsk.no/popes.htm
537 - 555 Vigilius -From Rome. His election was forced through by Empress Theodora, and his policies created a schism in the Western Church. Arrested by Emperor Justinian in 545 for refusing to support the Three Chapters condemnation. He condemned the Three Chapters in 548, and was labelled a traitor in the West and excommunicated by the African bishops. Restored churches and catacombs that had been damaged by the Goths. Died at Syracuse, Sicily while on his way from Constantinople to Rome. Buried in S Marcello on Via Salaria.

891 - 896 Formosus- From Ostia or Corsica. Created cardinal by Pope St Nicholas I in 864. He was excommunicated by Pope John VIII in 876, and exiled in France. Pope Marinus I recalled and reinstated him in 883. Built or rebuilt S Lorenzo in Panisperna. Buried in S Pietro in Vaticano . His body was exhumed by Pope Stephen VI (896-987) and put on a mock trial. He was convicted of perjury and excommunicated, and the body was desecrated and thrown in the Tiber from where it was probably rescued by a fisherman and reburied at an unknown location. He was rehabilitated by Pope John IX in the Roman Synod of April 898.

904 - 911 Sergius III -Sergio dei Conti di Tuscolo, from Rome. Created cardinal by Pope Stephen V between 885 and 891. His titular church is not known. Subscribed the decree against Pope Formosus in 897, and was excommunicated by Pope John IX at the Roman Synod in 898. Rehabilitated at some point before his election in 904. Deposed the antipope Cristoforus and may have murdered Leo V. Rebuilt S Giovanni in Laterano , which had been damaged in an earthquake in 897. Buried in S Giovanni in Laterano .

1045 Sylvester III -Giovanni, from Rome. Created cardinal by Pope Benedict IX between 1032 and 1044. Cardinal bishop of Sabina. Deposed from the papacy by Benedict IX, who himself was never formally deposed. Although he was excommunicated and sentenced to live the rest of his life in a monastery, he continued as Bishop of Sabina. Probably buried in Sabina.
Sylvester deposed by 1045 Benedict IX For the second time; see 1032 - 1044. This time, he was deposed by Emperor Henry III.

Silvester III, Jan. 20, 1045 -- Feb. 10, 1045

I'll check it out. YOu don't have to convince me that times have been very bad before. Pope Honorius was excommunicated for allowing heresy to spread.

Here is a few more bits of information of papal excommunication.

Two Popes condemned as Heretics
Case 1: Pope Vigilius (537-55) was unpopular for his part in deposing the previous pope. He also lost favour with the Empress and Emperor Justinian summoned him to Constantinople. We are told that as the ship carrying Vigilius set sail, the people threw “stones, branches and cooking pots after him (and shouted):’You treated the Romans badly, may you meet evil where you are going’ “ (Ref 1).

In Constantinople, the Emperor found Vigilius not quite decided about the two natures of Christ and called the Fifth General Council in 553. 165 bishops were present but Vigilius sent his apologies, saying he was sick. The Council declared him a heretic and excommunicated him. The pope in turn condemned the Council decision. The Emperor then exiled to a remote ‘rocky inlet’. By the end of the year, Vigilius gave notice that he had been misled by the ‘wiles of the devil’ and was prepared to retract. He accepted all the decrees of the Council.

The Emperor then set him free to return home. The people were not all pleased to see him and were preparing to punish him. Vigilius died before that in 555 and was refused burial at St Peters.



Case 2: In the following century, another pope was also condemned for heresy. This was Pope Honorius (625-38), believed to be a holy man who served the people and a good leader. But he did not care for academic debates and controversies. The matter of Christ’s two natures had been resolved but a new question now surfaced: Did Christ have two wills or one? In a well known letter, Honorius indicated that he was opposed to the idea of two wills and ridiculed those ‘pompous and time-wasting philosophers who croak at us like frogs’. He died before he could give a fuller explanation.


"History & Philosophy of the Ancient and Modern World "
The Popes see http://users.bigpond.net.au/bstone/popes.htm
Benedict IX 1032 - 1048 Rome, Pope at 12 but two Antipopes reigned at the same time
Silvester III 1045 Rome Excommunicated by Benedict but recognised as a legitimate Pope.

CAtholic Encylopedia contradicts itself here they say Silvester was an antipope
Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm
This article by HORACE K. MANN Transcribed by Kryspin J. Turczynski The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company

This contradicts the article here that lists Silvester III as Pope on the Catholic Encyclopedia site see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

POPES, LIST OF see http://www.trosch.org/for/popesnce.htm
In 1947 A. Mercati published a completely revised list of the popes in the Annuario Pontificio for that year. The present list, taken from Annuario Pontificio for 1964, reproduces Mercati's list with the minor changes that have been made necessary by subsequent scholarly investigation. The names in square brackets are those of antipopes. Roman numerals in parentheses indicate differences in numbering caused by the conflicting evidence of the sources. In the case of precise dates, the first month and day given is the date of the pope's election, the second date, that of his coronation, and the last date, that of his death, deposition, or resignation. In the New Catholic Encyclopedia there is a separate article on each pope and on each of the more important antipopes)especially those who were popes in the period of the Great Schism and who were only subsequently classified as antipopes. Antipopes who have not been given separate articles are treated under the legitimate popes with whom they were in conflict. Biographical data, family name, and nationality, problems of dates of election and coronation, and all other pertinent questions are covered in the articles on the individual popes. For a critical evaluation of the ancient and early medieval lists of popes, see bibliog., especially Duchesne and Leclercq. This list says that Silvester was a Pope. “Silvester III, Jan. 20, 1045 -- Feb. 10, 1045" It would be interesting to see what the 2004 version said- I couldn’t find it on the internet although the Catholic Encyclopedia may have used this.

Now this same site see http://www.trosch.org/for/popes-ca.htm said this “Sylvester III (John): Rome; Jan. 20, 1045, to Feb. 10, 1045. Perhaps this was the updated one.The same two statements are on the www.osv.com/catholicalmanac/08a.asp Catholic Almanac 2004 edition


Sylvester III was an antipope if the forcible removal of Benedict IX in 1044 was not legitimate.”


see http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp120.htm from a Catholic site for the below
SERGIUS III Excommunicated before he became Pope by Pope John IX and had been excommunicated and exiled by that vigorous pontiff and at some point was then rehabilitated
904 - 911 AD

Poor Formosus was now buried in peace, but his grave must have trembled when Sergius marched into Rome to complete the overthrow of the usurping Christopher and take over the papacy, for Sergius was a bitter enemy of Formosus. It is said that Formosus had consecrated Sergius bishop of Caere to prevent him from becoming pope. Whether this was true or not, Sergius certainly hated the memory of Formosus. Though Sergius indulged in no resurrection-man tactics himself, he heartily approved of Stephen VII's corpse-synod. He had an epitaph placed on Stephen's tomb which honored that pontiff and insulted Formosus.

Not content with assailing the memory of his hated predecessor, Sergius now reversed the policy of Theodore II and John IX. He held a synod and declared that the ordinations performed by Formosus were invalid. This caused a tempest in the holy-water fonts throughout Italy. Bishops and priests, who were given the choice of submitting to reordination or losing their positions, protested angrily. Sergius threatened to imprison any stubborn followers of Formosus. He was a thoroughgoing party man, whose narrow policy inspired intense bitterness.

Sergius was a Roman of noble family. He had tried for the papacy in the election which had produced John IX and had been excommunicated and exiled by that vigorous pontiff. He had returned in triumph, at the request of the Romans, and had succeeded the antipope Christopher. He associated himself closely with the most powerful noble in Rome, the Duke, Commander of the Army, and Master of the Wardrobe, Theophylactus. The family of this man will control the papacy for decades. Sergius is even accused of having a son by Marozia, the daughter of Theophylactus, a son who became Pope John XI.

On the other hand, there are glowing accounts of Sergius which make such shameful goings on quite improbable. With the manuscripts available, the just historian can scarcely convict Sergius of such misconduct. But neither can he acquit him.

Sergius seems to have been a hard-working pope, and except for his unfortunate policy against the party of Formosus, a fairly wise one. He showed great solicitude for the welfare of the Church by getting a number of synods held. He defended the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. He brought peace to Constantinople by declaring valid Emperor Leo's fourth marriage. The other three wives were dead, but some Greeks refused to consider a fourth marriage valid no matter how free the prospective bridegroom.

In a material way he took steps to get help for John, archbishop of Ravenna, against the depredations of the Count of Istria. He rebuilt the Lateran Basilica which had crashed in ruins in 896. Sergius III died either in April or June, 911.” This was on the above site.

" But Pope Sergius III (904-911) reapproved the decisions against Formosus. Sergius demanded the re-ordination of the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, causing great confusion. Later the validity of Formosus's work was re-reinstated." http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/p/po/pope_formosus.html

This is not to mention the great Western Schism (1378- 1417) when no one really knew who the pope was for 40 years and there were 3 papal claimants. See www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
St. Vincent of Ferrara followed an anit-pope.

Even saints were caught up in the dispute; St Catherine of Siena defended Urban's papacy, while St Vincent Ferrar was in Clement's camp.

Later a council at Pisa was held in 1409 to try to solve the dispute, but it only resulted in the election of a third Pope, Pope Alexander V by the council, soon to be followed by Pope John XXIII.

Finally, the Council of Constance in 1417 deposed John XXIII and the Avignon Pope Benedict XIII, received the resignation of the Roman Pope Gregory XII, and elected Pope Martin V, thereby ending the schism.
See http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Western-Schism

[saradippity]

Please go to www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm. I apologise for not being able to link you directly. If you read the "Bull" on that site,I think you will find less than you found on another "copy" of Sublimis Deus,note especially the last paragraph ---or last two or three.

Although my purpose in my original post on this subject was not to discuss the rewriting and replacement of documents taking place as we speak,but to point out to all that the original Bull was not promulgated and obeyed,by a significant number Bishops. Furthermore,over the next three hundred years other "Bulls" were issued on the same subject that also were ignored. And,maybe even more important,he had to issue that to overcome one that had been issued by a previous Pope in the late 1400's.

On the other hand it also points out how the Pope's have often discerned the Faith,way in advance of the rest of the worldlings.

Incidently,whether the ending be stronger,as I think the copy you were using is,or weaker as the one I pulled up quickly is,the fact is very few Catholics paid heed to it or at least not enough to stop others,including some Catholics to enslave people for another 300 years. And granted the scriptures did play into a more accepting attitude about slavery than abortion does in this day and age,nonetheless there are some parallels about which we should be cognizant.

The altering of the document that I think we may have accidentally happened across is another factor that many men of good need to consider.

That is why I frequently just turn off to some of these very old documents and accounts of events posters use to prove their points. These times call for us to listen to Peter and compare what He is saying to what Christ has said,what Tradition holds and what the Popes and the Magisteria have pronounced and pray always and know that clever adversaries have been at work (WITHIN THE CHURCH ITSELF) since Christ, to twist His,who is Truth,teachings. Hope I have made myself clearer,hope to discuss this further.

[saradippity]

That is why Christ gave us the Church with a living hierarchy. It isn't a dead hierarchy,of a lifeless tradition,but it builds on those gifts.

I think that statement is simple,clear and true. If Catholics could understand that I think we could go forward.

Actually,I think that's why it is imperative to get these sex scandals and the perpetrators and protectors dealt with,that is a real stumbling block on the road the to the Way,the TRUTH and the Life these days.(IMHO)