![](http://www.arxpub.com/bursts/saint-paul.jpg")
Saint Paul pray for those who hate the Church.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
The background: John XII was a Frenchman, a descendant of Charlemagne no less, and despised by the Italian and German episcopates because of his political sympathy for the King of France. Who organized this "synod" of Germans and Italians? Why the German emperor, Otto I - John XII's sworn enemy. Why was it a "synod of fifty" when there were several hundred Italian bishops? Because most of the Italian bishops, whether they were pro-French or not, refused to have anything to do with the Emperor's show trial/kangaroo court.
No, his mother isn’t mentioned but the incest charge is just one of many. And by a synod not anti-Catholic bigots.
So it isn't about facts, but about the severity of the charges?
This "synod" was no different than the "investigative committee" put together by the Alaskan state Democratic caucus to "investigate" Sarah Palin.
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.
As they say, two out of three IS bad, but I’ll give you John 23
No, I was right about all three. There is zero evidence that John XII committed maternal incest. There was no Pope John XXIII in the 14th century. And Gregory VII did not write what he was alleged to have written.
If it had referred to the latter, I would have pulled the article as hate mongering.
This article is "open" by default and therefore subject to robust debate. Have at it, tear down the premise of the article or the author - or argue for both - but do NOT make it personal.
If you are easily offended, if you "take things personally," then this article is not for you, you should leave the thread to avoid provoking a flame war. There are plenty of Religion Forum threads labeled "devotional" "ecumenical" "caucus" or "prayer" to find safe harbor from hostile criticism of your faith.
The article does not describe him as an "antipope" but as "one of three" Popes.
One of about one hundred misrepresentations or outright lies in this excerpt from the Protocols.
That’s fine - tear the article down, highlight the misrepresentations, show why it should be ignored. Villify it or the author. That’s what “open” threads are for - just do not make it personal with another Freeper.
I didn't, unlike those who are using epithets like "Vaticons" etc.
Saint Paul pray for those who hate the Church. No citation from this "Protocols" document was named or listed in the article posted. Please provide proof of your accusation, or have the post pulled.
I'm supposed to justify the words you put in my mouth in the above misquotation of my post?
That's rich.
Are you actually unfamiliar with the concept of "allusion", AM?
Another falsehood, invented from whole cloth.
Nothing about this claim is remotely true.
He did not say Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He said Protocols.
A novena or two might be more appropriate to drive this one out.
Don’t let facts get in the way of a good hate-mongering thread.
I include him (and others here who post hatefilled bigotry) in my daily Rosary.
From The Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Dictatus Papae:
” Sackur (see below) has made it probable that the so-called “Dictatus Papæ” (see GREGORY VII) were composed by Deusdedit. These are twenty-seven short theses concerning the privileges of the Roman Church and the pope [ed. Jaffé, Bibl. Rer. Germ., (Berlin, 1864-) II, 174]. Until quite recently Gregory VII himself was generally regarded as the author; Löwenfeld (see below) continued to maintain the authorship of Gregory, but Sackur, however, has shown that the “Indices capitulorum” in the “Collectio canonum” of Deusdedit are closely related to the brief theses known as “Dictatus Papæ” both in respect of sense and verbal text. Most probably, therefore, the latter are taken from the collection of Deusdedit, who put them together from the “Registrum Epistolarum” or letterbook of Gregory. Possibly also Deusdedit was the editor of this famous and important collection of Gregory’s correspondence. In this case, the cardinal appears in a new light as intimate counsellor and intellectual heir”
So as authorship nothing positive but possibly compiled from Gregory’s letters which would explain its being known after his death.
The quote containing “papacy” was from a BBC writer, Peter Stafford. He should have said Roman Church but then again the teaching is Papal Infallibilty as well as church infallibility. Says The Catholic Encyclopedia under “Papal Infallibility”: “the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.”
It says “pope”, the individual not the office, so who’s conflating?
So you really can’t say Gregory didn’t or did write this Dictatus Papae and you certainly can’t say a secretary wrote it.
So where are the “lies”?
About 70 Million people worldwide, are not exactly a "disappearance."
The Catholic Encyclopaedia was written at the turn of the 20th century.
More work has been done on Gregory in the past 100 years - vastly more - and there is still not one shred of evidence to suggest that he wrote it.
If you're going to claim that "Gregory VII said", then you need to have hard evidence, or you're lying.
you certainly can’t say a secretary wrote it.
The secretary was its publisher. It first came to light in a book that he wrote, and no one had ever seen the document before - even though plenty of other writings of Gregory VII were publicly known.
Moreover, the language is identical to other things that the secretary wrote under his own name. All the evidence we have points to the secretary's authorship.
The only thing linking Gregory VII to its authorship is the claim made by secretary after Gregory VII was conveniently dead and could not disclaim authorship.
Commonsense applies.
I’ll pray to the Mother of Christ and all the saints of heaven for you. I will also do mortification that God may give you abundant grace and may help you in your need!
God bless you!
Deus in adjutorium nostrum intende!
It is very sad, and revealing, when a person can only defend his “faith” by tearing down the church Christ founded.
Cranmer himself was burned at the stake, with about 400 other protestant leaders during just 5 years of Bloody Mary's reign in England. Do you have a record, from a reliable source, as to Cranmer causing any executions at all?
As to CIVIL AUTHORITIES burning heritics, OF COURSE they did, as they alone were allowed to execute anyone. All Roman Catholic principalities throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance period had laws against heresy--however only Church authorities could prove heresy. Hence the Inquistion "proved" someone a heretic, then, knowing (and endorsing) exactly what would happen, turned the convict over the Roman Catholic civil authority to be burned. It is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy to claim "the Inquisition never killed anyone..." when you know very well--using the local authorities as its executioners--it did, burning them by the thousands.To say this is the same logic that claims Pharisee and Temple authorities had nothing to do with the execution of Jesus--since the Romans did the deed.
In the mid 1500s many thousands of Protestants were executed this way all over Europe, especially on the Continent, where in France the numbers topped tens of thousands.
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.