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
That’s good news.
I believe it did. At the Council of Trent. :)
And if you think that loose ecclesiastical model you have drawn up was the norm for the 300 years before Constantine, you might want to review the Christian literature of the time period. From Ignatius of Antioch to Irenaeus of Lyons, the divine authority of the bishop comes across quite clear.
cue laughing dog gif
Better than some other options.
Though I’m still asking for a ticket on the first elevator UP.
‘Tis all in HIS hands.
Notice that the sentence above contains a quote.
That quote is not from you, the poster known as "count-your-change", the quote is from the original article.
Perhaps I should have said: "If one is going to claim 'Gregory VII said', then one needs to have hard evidence, or one is lying" in order to be crystal clear.
I apologize for offending you with my clumsy locution.
I’ll say the Rosary for you too.
How can they possibly defend this article on substance?
This article attacks certain popes (and a few non-popes) on matters of character, not theology. However, huge portions of this article are demonstrably FALSE (i.e. that John XXIII was a pimp, murderer, adulterer and pirate was "defended" by saying that it referred to an anti-pope; however, the article never states this, so the average uninformed anti-Catholic bigot will conclude that it refers to a mid-20th Century pope AND the writers, probably deliberately, OMITTED dates for this non-pope presumably to push this lie).
As do I for being too easily offended. mea culpa. done and done.
Since I stll have lots of white space on the screen, what do you make of this comment from Crowdrey’s book?
“Since the dictatus papae has a place in what is almost certainly the original register of the papal chancery, its authnticity as a document emanating from, and almost certainly drafted by, Gregory himself cannot be seriously questioned”.
This is from the introduction to Cowdrey’s book, Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085, page 502.
This very much, in a common sense way, flies in the face the claim that Rome's primates are the sole "vicars of Christ" or that "ex Cathedra" (however you might define that...) they speak for God.
It also, again in a common sense way, throws a monkey wrench in the idea of "uninterrupted" apostolic succession if the "see of St. Peter"....even if only 5% of Boetner's alleged histories are true.
VERY WELL PUT.
Though I’ve long thought that basic summary was
obvious
to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
I don't have a grudge from events of 700+ years ago (the popes listed here) the problem I have is that much of MODERN Roman Catholic theology is based on a supposed history of uninterrupted aposotlic (godly) authority...which at the top, anyhow, in Medieval times, is demonstrably false. Surely there were many godly popes...but also more than a few stinkers.
I believe in miracles though--and I trust in God's providence, whoever is elected. Perhaps a liberal now, with the horrible long-term repercussions politically, would be enough to shock America to wake up and repent.
the problem I have is that much of MODERN Roman Catholic theology is based on a supposed history of uninterrupted aposotlic (godly) authority...which at the top, anyhow, in Medieval times, is demonstrably false.
= = =
Which, basically, is a huge stinking tip of a very stinky false iceberg.
This is exactly why history needs to be examined rationally.
Pretty much every contemporary who bothered to write nasty things about a medieval Pope was related to or working for that Pope's political enemies.
And, as is expected, these authors - who saw the Popes they were criticizing as personal threats to their fortunes and ambitions - did not hesitate to spread the most outrageous rumors they could.
What is incontrovertibly true is that every powerful man in Europe did his best to get his favored candidate on the papal throne, and a large number of Popes were - as a result of this struggle - politicians first and pastors second. Sometimes a very distant second.
However, these political popes probably lived lives like those of other petty medieval noblemen - which were not quite the same as the lives of the Roman Emperors. Most of the outrageous accusations leveled against these Popes by their enemies are cribbed from Suetonius' Lives Of The Caesars and are probably not actual descriptions of contemporary events.
This very much, in a common sense way, flies in the face the claim that Rome's primates are the sole "vicars of Christ" or that "ex Cathedra" (however you might define that...) they speak for God.
No Pope claims to "speak for God" - they claim to teach authoritatively what the Church, informed by Christ, believes.
And yes, the Popes are the only men who hold the stewardship given to Peter in its entirety.
It also, again in a common sense way, throws a monkey wrench in the idea of "uninterrupted" apostolic succession if the "see of St. Peter"....even if only 5% of Boetner's alleged histories are true.
Not at all.
An office does not cease to exist because its holder is a bad guy. George W. Bush is still a legitimate holder of the office of the presidency regardless of the way his predecessor disgraced the office.
Bill Clinton couldn't erase the legitimacy and continuity of the presidency. No more could an utterly useless prelate like Benedict IX erase the legitimacy and continuity of the papacy.
We are a Church of God's laws, not of men.
I don't have a grudge from events of 700+ years ago (the popes listed here) the problem I have is that much of MODERN Roman Catholic theology is based on a supposed history of uninterrupted apostolic (godly) authority...which at the top, anyhow, in Medieval times, is demonstrably false. Surely there were many godly popes...but also more than a few stinkers.
YHvH will always maintain and protect His remnant without the help of the Roman church. Clinging to apostolic succession as authority impugns YHvH as not being All-powerful.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
Granted I read the book more than 5 years ago, but I'm pretty sure that the introduction of the 750 page book did not run on to page 502.
Regardless, this is removed from its context, where Cowdrey goes on to express his puzzlement that Gregory VII and his contemporaries never used this text or commented on it publicly - that no traces of it are perceptible in Gregory's concurrent letters or later writings, that it was not mentioned at the Lenten Synod, that his sworn enemies never used it against him. That no one even mentioned it until after he died, etc.
The text itself is written in two different hands, neither of which is identifiable as Gregory's.
So what is Cowdrey's conclusion? That Gregorian authorship only makes sense if he had it drawn up as a list of topics for further research in the Vatican records.
Then again, it was His Church which protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity against those, like you, who deny the Trinity.
XS>YHvH will always maintain and protect His remnant without the help of the Roman church.
Then again, it was His Church which protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity against those, like you, who deny the Trinity.
176 posted on October 16, 2008 10:31:08 AM MDT by wagglebee
Peter reports that Yah'shua says there is only ONE YHvH ! The LORD an Abundant Helper. Praise the LORD! Yah'shua did not incorporate a man made organization.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
Psalm 146
1 Praise the LORD, O my soul!
2 I will praise the LORD while I live;
I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.
5 How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Whose hope is in YHvH his God,
I agree the office of presidency doesn’t cease to exist, even if we have a whole slew of evil, unconstitutional dictators (maybe starting with yOu knOw whO) but that is because the authority of our government, based on the will of the people, is rooted in a written document, the Constitution.
And that documentary, or covenantal root was a very familiar form to the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers—as Protestant Christianity is rooted in a single document (named the Old and New Covenants), namely the Bible.
On the other hand, Dual Authority—namely in a document AND a “living” authoritative interpreter of it, as defined by Trent...is much more like the vision of liberal Democrats and their current far left head (or could I call him a secular pOpe?), very possibly our next president.
I believe that the “dual authority” (i.e. the Constitution AND what Courts (and Congress/Presidency) tell you it is...) idea is the reason why an overwelming majority of Roman Catholics will vote Democrat again this year, as they have in virtually every election in the past. They are used to broad authority (to the Church, the papacy, Tradition, etc.) in their religion...hence it makes them comfortable with it in their government.
It is well known Roman Catholic politicians, like Biden, Kennedy and Pelosi, who have led the way in propagating and funding abortion and vast expansions of government authority. Of course moderate Republican protestants (like our current president) have done more than their share of spreading the evils of socialism too...
The Founding Fathers authored a document and they created a continuous interpretative authority - the Supreme Court.
If you would like to argue that the Founding fathers were "liberal Democrats" for creating the Supreme Court, I'm happy to debate the point.
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.