Posted on 10/15/2008 11:17:09 AM PDT by Gamecock
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognise them…" Matthew 7:15-16
CORRUPTION
STEPHEN VII (896-897AD) "He dug up a Corsican predecessor, Pope Formosus (891-896), when he had been dead for over nine months…. He dressed the stinking corpse in full pontificals, placed him on the throne in the Lateran and proceeded to interrogate him personally….After being found guilty, the corpse was condemned as an anti-pope, stripped and minus the two fingers with which he had given his fake apostolic blessing, was thrown into the Tiber…." (Vicars of Christ - the Dark Side of the Papacy by Father Peter de Rosa).
SERGIUS III (904-911) Standing in his way to the throne had been Leo V, who reigned for one month before he was imprisoned by an usurper, Cardinal Christopher. Sergius had both killed. Then he exhumed his predecessor and had him beheaded, three fingers chopped off and thrown into the Tiber.
JOHN XII (955 - 963) He invented sins, it was said, that had not been known since the beginning of the world - including sleeping with his mother. John XII ran a harem in the Lateran Palace, he gambled with the offerings of pilgrims and he even toasted the devil at the high altar during the mass.
BENEDICT V (964) Described by a church historian as "the most iniquitous of all the monsters of ungodliness."
BENEDICT IX (1032-44, 1045, 1047-8) Elected pope at age eleven, he was twice driven from his position due to his participation in plunder, immorality, oppression and murder. Church historians described him as "That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate to the end of his life, feasted on immorality," and "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest has occupied the chair of Peter."
SIXTUS IV (1471 - 1484) This is the pope who built the Sistine Chapel in which all popes are now elected. Sixtus IV had several illegitimate sons, licensed the brothels of Rome and received a large amount of revenue for the papacy from these houses of iniquity, introduced the novel idea of selling indulgences for the dead to raise more revenue, and sanctioned the Inquisition in Castile (Spain) by issuing a bull in 1478 (in just one year - 1482 - in one city of Andalusia, 2000 "heretics" were burned as a result).
ALEXANDER VI (1492 - 1503) He was a murderer by age 12, he had 10 known illegitimate children, he was infamous for his drunken and immoral parties, he was known to have cardinals who had purchased their positions to be poisoned so that he could sell their positions again and increase his turnover. He spent a fortune in bribes to secure his own election as pope and he caused the Reformer Savonarola to be burned at the stake.
CRUELTY
The Romans papacy has been characterised by extreme cruelty in its persecution of those it deemed as heretics. In particular the Waldensians, Lollards and Albigensians were slaughtered by the forces of Rome.
In 1208 Pope Innocent III declared: "Death to the heretics!" Great privileges and rewards were promised to those who would annihilate the "heretics" and to every man who killed one of them, the assurance was given that he would attain the highest place in Heaven!
The first target of this crusade against the Albigensians was the town of Begiers. All it's inhabitants were killed and all the buildings burned. The monk leading this slaughter, Arnold, reported back to Innocent III "Today, Your Holiness, twenty thousand citizens were put to the sword, regardless of age or sex."
In Bram the papal soldiers cut off the noses and gouged out the eyes of the Albigensian "heretics".
In Minerve, 140 Albigensians were burned alive.
In Lavaure 400 "heretics" were burned at the stake.
In response, Innocent III praised the papal soldiers who had destroyed the heretics.
The successor of Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition in 1232. For over 600 years, spanning the reigns of over 80 popes, the Inquisition tortured and killed tens of thousands of Protestants including the Waldensians, Hussites, Lollards and Huguenots.
CONTRADICTION
Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) declared that "The Pope cannot make a mistake".
The First Vatican Council (1869-70) under Pope Pius IX raised the Dogma of Papal infallibility to become the official teaching of Roman Catholicism adding the usual anathema upon all who dared to disagree:
"But if anyone ….presume to contradict this assertion, let him be accused."
Yet between 1378 to 1408 there were first two popes and then three! Gregory XII reigned from Rome, Benedict XIII from Avignon and John XXIII from Pisa.
John XXIII was described in Vicars of Christ: "He was noted as a former pirate, pope-poisoner, mass-murderer, mass-fornicator…, adulterer on a scale unknown outside fables, simoniac par excellence, blackmailer, pimp, master of dirty tricks."
Yet John XXIII accused his rival pope Benedict XIII of being "a Fake" and Gregory XII he nicknamed "Mistake"!
Pope Pius IX, who at the First Vatican Council (1869 - 1870) caused the dogma of Papal Infallibility to become the official teaching of Roman Catholicism, also issued an edict permitting "excommunication, confiscation, banishment, imprisonment for life, as well as secret execution in heinous cases."
At the First Vatican Council, Bishop Strossmayer (himself a papist) gave a speech arguing against papal infallibility. He pointed out: "Gregory I calls anyone anti-Christ who takes the name of Universal Bishop; and contrawise Boniface III made Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. Paschal II and Eugenius III authorised duelling; Julius II and Pins IV forbad it. Hadrian II declared civil magistrates to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of the Bible."
It could also be noted that while one (supposedly infallible) pope, Eugene IV (1431 - 1447), condemned Joan of Arc as a heretic to be burned alive, another pope, Benedict XV, in 1920, declared her to be a saint and her burning a mistake.
Yet the Dogma of Papal Infallibility declares that when a pope speaks ex cathedra his words are "as infallible as if it had been uttered by Christ Himself!"
In plain contradiction to this "papal infallibility" is the Bible. The apostle Peter (from whom all popes claim their succession) never suggested that he was infallible. Indeed in his first general epistle Peter described himself simply as "an elder" and he exhorted his "fellow elders" not to act as "lords over those entrusted to you" (1 Peter 5:1-3).
Paul records in Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter had come to Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed…" Plainly Paul did not see Peter as infallible. Also Peter was married (Mark 1:30; 1 Corinthians 9:5). Indeed a requirement of a church leader is that he is married and bring up his children in the faith (1 Timothy 3:4-5).
The Lord Jesus taught: "You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve…" Matthew 20:25-28
Jesus taught that no one is good - except God alone (Mark 10:18) and we are to call no-one on earth Father - God alone is our spiritual Father. How then can any pope be called "his Holiness" or "Holy Father"! The term Holy Father is only used once in the Bible and it is clearly addressed to God the Father in Christ's prayer (John 17:11).
It is no wonder that when Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was about to be burned at the stake, on 21 March 1556, he declared: "As for the pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy, and Anti-Christ, with all his false doctrines."
In the words of Martin Luther: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture or clear reasoning that I am in error - for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves - I cannot recant for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one's conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me God. Amen."
Sources: Vicars of Christ - the Dark Side of the Papacy by Father Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1989
Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boetner, Banner of Truth, London, 1966
The Pope by Ian Brown, Londonderry, 1991
YOUR false witness is in your quote about the popes. You did not specify some, you just lumped them all together as "bad apples."
Do you dispute the accuracy of the article? If so, can we have some specifics?
Read the thread. Pay close attention to the posts by wideawake.
You’re bending over backwards when you try to put words in someones mouth, “So it isn’t about facts, but about the severity of the charges?” I gave you the facts.
“It was pure politics designed to force John XII from the papal seat so he could be replaced with one of the Emperor’s cronies.”
If this be true, then you may be getting closer to the truth, that if the charges were untrue the bishops were just as corrupt as the accused. In other words, just a bunch of crooked politicians fighting over the spoils?
“There was no Pope John XXIII in the 14th century.”
Actually there was a previous John XXIII but wasn’t he considered an anti-pope?
So again, where are the lies in anything I’ve presented here?
Thank you for your posts on this thread. I’d say more, but I’ve never been banned and would rather not start now . . . :(
In other words a man that the Church has NEVER considered to be a pope.
“If you’re going to claim that “Gregory VII said”, then you need to have hard evidence, or you’re lying.”
Then by that standard,
If you’re going to claim, “ All the evidence we have points to the secretary’s authorship.”and “,.... then you need to have hard evidence, or you’re lying.”
You’ve made numerous broad statements but in not one reply
have you offered a source or anything beyond your opinions, certainly no, “hard evidence”, so by your statement above, whose lying? A little louder, please.
I’m up for give and take but I won’t be called a liar!
End of discussion.
And?
The article refers to this evil person as a pope of the Church. Just curious, what are your standards for hate mongering?
Seems to me they are responses to unmitigated hogwash posted against Proddys
Like the one posted about the Reformation?
Tsk, tsk. I would suggest comparing at least one of Boettner's statement:
With New Advent:
LOL
Are accusations enough for you, or do you require proof?
Hostile posts toward Proddys
are merely intellectual presentations.
Hostile posts about horrific historical Vatican outrages
are hate mongering????
Rahhhhhhhggggghhhhhtttt.
LOL.
ROTFLOL.
Now now . . . learning too much from . . .
poor examples can be hazardous to spiritual health.
But the purpose of the quote was that if Catholic Bishops accuse(that word again) a sitting Pope of the most vile crimes, accusations not beyond the realm of possibility, why is someone an anti-Catholic bigot or similar, if they list those same accusations? Or if I do from a Catholic source?
Were those Bishops liars, perjurers, bearing false witness?
All serious sins, or was it simply calling the kettle, etc.?
But as the other poster demanded sources and hard evidence or I be deemed a liar, yet offered not one, not one source or evidence what does that tell you? I'm still waiting for proof of the statements made, some source beyond opinion.
Here's an example:
“First, the Pope accused of this was Stephen VI, not Stephen VII.”
But they are listed as one and the same in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
So which one has proof? Who's lying? The poster or the ‘pedia?
Yeah, I want proof, but in all the replies so far to me I've not seen any, just opinions, name calling, and unsourced statements.
The encyclopedia mentions accusations. It does not mention proof. Were those accusations listed in this vicious thread as accusations or as facts?
Ahh.....it amuses this Italian to no end that our Anglo-American Protestant friends find such giddy, quasi-pornographic delight in uncovering the Secret Lives of the Popes! OOOH....looky here....this one put a dead guy on trial....this one had a mistress!!!
Listen up and listen good. Ain’t no one. And I mean NO ONE on this earth who knows the shenanigans and the intrigues and the sordid details of the Papacy better than us Italians. You folks read it in the history books, put your hands to your mouth and utter a demure little “oh my!”. We had to actually put up with this crap for a thousand years. Ain’t no scandal you can uncover, ain’t no bastard you can unmask, ain’t no mistress or sordid affair you can blow the lid off that we didn’t know about 200 years before it squirreled its way into your little books there.
You wanna talk papal shenanigans, then get off the podium, take a seat at the back of the classroom and we’ll take you to school.
But let’s not stop there though. Let’s tell the whole story—the parts of the story that Luther, that Calvin, that Boettner conveniently ignore. Because we Italians also know darn well that some of the most saintly men and women who have ever walked this earth loved this institution of the Papacy, protected it, defended it, honored it, and humbly obeyed it. Some of them even served in it. Why is that? Why did a man like St. Francis, who had more divine humility in his little fingernail than the insufferably proud Luther and Calvin could ever dream of, kneel at the foot of Innocent III and pledge his obedience? If the Pope is the Antichrist, then that makes St. Francis his faithful servant, and that, my friends, is the moment we veer off into complete insanity. Because if your conception of Christianity can’t include St. Francis, then I don’t know what religion you are in but it’s not the one that Christ Jesus founded.
Finally, let none of us be so ignorant of human nature to imagine that a reprobate who holds the office invalidates the office itself. If Alexander VI is our reason for rejecting the Papacy, then very well, let Bill Clinton or a President Obama be our rationale for rejecting the Presidency. Let’s stop voting. Declare ourselves in secession. Go off and write our own Constitution, and do in the secular sphere what some seem to advocate in the religious.
The analogy is that flawed. It’s that dumb. If the Roman See was set up by Divine Right, then by Divine Right it endures till the end of time I don’t care what miserable wretch holds the post and what he does to abuse it. Because what God has created man has not the power to destroy.
But the purpose of the quote was that if Catholic Bishops accuse(that word again) a sitting Pope of the most vile crimes, accusations not beyond the realm of possibility, why is someone an anti-Catholic bigot or similar, if they list those same accusations? Or if I do from a Catholic source?
Were those Bishops liars, perjurers, bearing false witness?
All serious sins, or was it simply calling the kettle, etc.?
But as the other poster demanded sources and hard evidence or I be deemed a liar, yet offered not one, not one source or evidence what does that tell you? I'm still waiting for proof of the statements made, some source beyond opinion.
Here's an example:
“First, the Pope accused of this was Stephen VI, not Stephen VII.”
But they are listed as one and the same in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
So which one has proof? Who's lying? The poster or the ‘pedia?
Yeah, I want proof, but in all the replies so far to me I've not seen any, just opinions, name calling, and unsourced statements.
You must be kidding. You can't prove any historical event without video?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.