The papacy 1,000 years ago

History is the great debunker of pre-conceived ideas that are rooted in ideology and false piety rather than in reality.

Without a grasp of history, and of the history of the papacy in particular, many Catholics are led to believe that the papacy must always have been as they have known it, and most popes have been just like the popes of the 20th and 21st centuries: Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

The pontificates of a thousand years ago, however, were very different from any that we have experienced in our lifetimes.

First of all, we do not even know how the pontificate of John XVIII ended in 1009. Did the pope abdicate before his death and, if so, was it under duress?

If he did abdicate, what did he do after he left the papacy? No living Catholic has ever seen that happen. Indeed, for those who tend to look upon popes as quasi-divine figures, papal resignation is simply unthinkable. Once a pope, always a pope -- until death. No?

According to some historical sources, Pope John XVIII most likely did abdicate, or resign, the papacy shortly before his death, and then became a monk at the basilica of St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome, where he is buried.

Otherwise, little is known of his pontificate. We do know that during this period of church history, from 1003 to 1012, one of the powerful Roman families, the Crescentiis, ruled the city and dominated the papacy itself.

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.

Otto died the following year, before he could reestablish his authority in Rome. The new head of the Crescentii family, John Crescentius II, allowed the French pope to return, but only on condition that he limit himself to spiritual functions. The pope died less than a year later.

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.

The pope's only notable recorded papal act was his authorizing of Polish missionaries to work among the Slavs. It is not even known how he died or how old he was at the time of death.

Although John XVII was pope for less than six months, his pontificate was not among the shortest in history. For purposes of comparison, Pope John Paul I was in office for just 33 days in 1978, yet his was only the 11th briefest pontificate in history.

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.

Thus, he restored the diocese of Merseburg in Germany, which Pope Benedict VII had sup-pressed and divided at the request of Emperor Otto II, and John XVIII also approved the establishment of the diocese of Bamberg in Bavaria.

He summoned the bishops of Sens and Orleans to Rome under pain of excommunication because of their threats to the papal privileges granted to the abbey of Fleury.

There is some evidence that relations between Rome and Constantinople improved during John XVIII's pontificate, probably because of the pro-Byzantine sympathies of the Crescentii family. The pope's name was restored to the list of those to be prayed for at Mass in Constantinople.

However, the thaw was relatively brief. Less than 50 years later, the formal schism between East and West began, and remains in effect to this day.

John XVIII was probably forced to resign in late June or early July, 1009 -- almost exactly one thousand years ago.

His successor was Sergius IV who, because his baptismal name was Peter, changed it upon election. Taking a new papal name was still not the custom.

of course not, because catholics have always believed in the inspired inerrant word of God, in fact, the very Church you are in a friendly manner making light of, put the Bible together divine guidance. (stated the canon about 325 or so, was it)And for about 1500 years all accepted the fact the Church alone had the power to authoritatively interpret Scripture, because the Bible was her book.

Some malcontents far removed from the orginal facts of history self-proclaimed their own infallible or quasi-infallibe interpretations and now we have the sad divsions and its logical aftermath: a society whose majority is “Christian” but who have very serious moral differences and who can now be exploited by unbelievers on account of the differences

the Bible is not argued about because we all agree that it is inspired, effective for teaching and reproof, etc.

Want a biblical argument: how many books are there 66? 72?
68 (didn’t the infallible St. Martin Luther want to ditch Revelation and other 3 other books, inclding the letter of St. James?) the fur will fly on that one

In your cavalier dismissal of the writings of learned and holy men, too numerous to mention, do you ever entertain the possibility that it might be you that is in error? Is there ever the germ of an idea that your own understanding of Scripture might not be complete? Might not be of a measure with Aquinas, Augustine, Dominic, Jerome or Basil?

There's a very long line of learned and holy men since the group you mention who disagree with your heroes...

God did not write the scriptures so that learned men could understand them and translate to us what He had in mind...

The scriptures were written so the the average 14 year old can read them...

The only hard part about the scriptures is BELIEVING what they say, as you guys can surely attest to...

Would you so easily dismiss the accumulated wisdom of centuries on scientific or historical issues?

When you guys claim that God didn't mean what he says or you add and take away words from a scripture to prove what you say is true, I throw that out with the dirty bathwater...

Your ignorance of Scripture is frightening.

Did not Jesus take Peter, James and John with him up Tabor and converse with Moses and Elijah? The three Apostles saw both Moses and Elijah for Peter said to Jesus, "Let us make three tents......" Or was that "Tarot card" stuff as well?

You said these saints confirmed that Mary never had more children...Then you use Moses and Elijah to confirm this??? Really, what saints told you guys that Mary had no other children???

How can the sinful give rise to the sinless? How can sinful flesh give rise to sinless flesh? That's your belief, right? Out of sinful human flesh came the Sinless One.

Of course...Jesus endured temptation...You think you can tempt God??? God has told you otherwise...

Jesus did not just have the appearance of a human...Jesus became human...

There are many incidents in the OT where the Angel of the Lord, which is Jesus, took on the appearance of a man...In that case, what you claim about Jesus is accurate...But when Jesus actually became flesh and blood, he got all the things that come with it...

Yes, Irenaeus is talking about the Church of Rome. Yet within the context of 1st & 2nd century Christianity, one cannot understand “the Church of Rome” without the overseer/episcopos at its head. “Do nothing without the bishop”...”do not assemble in unauthorized meetings”...”do not reject those place in authority above you” these are common refrains in Ignatius, in Clement, and in Irenaeus. Metropolitan John Zizioulas has done great work on this from the Orthodox side...arguing that synodality does not exist without primacy and vice versa. If such a thing was granted to the Church of Rome, it must have been granted to its head as well.

Now, was it granted to the Church of Rome in the first place? Scripture, you say, doesn’t claim it. And you’d be right, the way you formulated it—Rome the city got no special privilege in the NT (in fact quite the opposite in Revelation). That’s why we hold the Petrine connection so important. Rome is important only insofar as it was the premier Apostolic See. And I’m hinging this not only on a particular exegesis of Matt 16 but on the historical fact of Peter’s life, leadership, and martyrdom there. That’s after all, what the Fathers thought so important—as Irenaeus points out.

Second, I think the the possibility of apostasy and heresy existing for *every* Christian body, even majority ones, destroys any possibility of creedal definition and defining heterodoxy at all. If Rome was wrong at Trent, then why not wrong at Chalcedon or Nicaea? Why Athanasius, and not Arius? Why Luther and not Joseph Smith? There is no court of last resort. There is no objective yardstick.

Third, you say if the church is unblemished...then we submit to her authority. That carries with it a huge assumption—namely, that you and I are capable of distinguishing the blemishes. The Real Presence to you may well look like a ecclesiastical blemish...to me its absence looks like a gaping wound. Why is Alex’s discernment right on this and Claud’s wrong? We can dismiss and anathematize each other, we can pound the tables with competing exegeses. And who is right? Who is wrong? Who is the devoted follower of Our Lord supposed to believe?

I think the answer lies in what was believed always, everywhere, and by all—with an ecclesiastical entity that is empowered to know the difference. For all time. Because an infallibility that changes its locus every few centuries, is, I’d argue, no infallibility at all and no satisfactory provision of a loving God to his followers.

"...we can know that Jesus had at least four brothers and at least two sisters. The brothers names were, James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and one of the sister's names was Salome. We are unaware of the name of the other."

Ah, but "brothers and sisters" still doesn't necessarily mean Mary had other children. There is an old, old tradition dating to the second century that Joseph was an old man who had children prior to his marriage to Mary:

And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received thee from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave thee in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to thee. The Lord will protect thee.

The brothers and sisters could well have been half-brothers and half-sisters. That's why most of the Reformers still defended this doctrine.

***No. I just need a bit of reason and education to recognize Elim for what it is.***

http://www.it-is-easy.org/contact/friends/blue.php gives the story of Apostles Patricia Blue.

Patricia Blue is the founder and executive director of Abundant Lifestyle Ministries (ALM), a Spirit-led Christian organisation, affiliated with many ministries around the world.

...

She is an ordained minister with Elim Fellowship of Lima, New York. Patricia has traveled in over 55 nations of the world, planting churches, impacting leadership, bringing the Gospel in campaigns, revivals, evangelistic outreaches, seminars and conferences. She has been on television many times . In Siberia her teaching was broadcast to a viewing audience of over 25 million people. She has also appeared on “The God Channel” in the UK., and on the National St. Petersberg, Russia network.

...

Patricia is an anointed, prophetic speaker, flowing freely in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Lives are changed and impacted by the powerful, simple Word, spoken with the direct truth that she brings. Her background is one of pain, drug addiction, alcoholism, sexual abuse, rape, and criminal activities. She finds many avenues to speak to the hearts of hurting people in every nation.

How much of her background is in Elim, I wonder.

There's a very long line of learned and holy men since the group you mention who disagree with your heroes... God did not write the scriptures so that learned men could understand them and translate to us what He had in mind... The scriptures were written so the the average 14 year old can read them...

Which is no doubt why there is such widespread division and lack of unity on what critical passages in Scripture actually mean amongst those who espouse the "personal interpretation" of Scripture viewpoint. I guess they're just too easy to understand. Or maybe it's because we're not 14?

FWIW, you may be interested to know that Scripture itself disagrees with you. Read 2Peter. Speaking of the letters of St. Paul, St. Peter apparently didn't get your memo. For he states;

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Peter3:15-16

So according to St. Peter, there are certain things in Paul's letters which are hard to understand. Where does your assertion about "14 year olds" find its Scriptural basis?

The only hard part about the scriptures is BELIEVING what they say, as you guys can surely attest to...

You're funny.

Why have thousands of Scripture scholars toiled through the centuries up until this very day in order to deepen our understanding of Scripture? What fools! What a waste of time! It's all so easy. Just ask your average 14 year old.

You mean like the creation story in Genesis??? I immediately dismiss your religion's unbelief in the creation story and your religion's connection with Darwin...I believe what God said...And no doubt, so did many of your 'early' church fathers... When you guys claim that God didn't mean what he says or you add and take away words from a scripture to prove what you say is true, I throw that out with the dirty bathwater...

No, that's not what I'm referring to. You blithely dismiss the opinions of doctors of the Church and the accumulated wisdom of scholars down through the centuries.

My question asked whether you were equally quick to dismiss the accumulated wisdom in other areas of the human endeavor, such as science or philosophy for instance. Have you come to accept Newton's Laws yet, or are they baloney, too?

You said these saints confirmed that Mary never had more children...Then you use Moses and Elijah to confirm this???

Please. Don't be deliberately dense.

I stated that one of the pieces of evidence that Mary never had more children was the writings of mystics and saints.

You scoffed about talking with the dead and made references to crystal balls and tarot cards. I replied that the scriptural example of Jesus and the three apostles conversing with Moses and Elijah indicated that there was nothing novel about the living conversing with holy men who had departed this life.

I shouldn't have to say this but the encounter of Jesus, Peter, James and John with Moses and Elijah is not evidence that Mary had no more children but that mystical experiences with saints and holy men is not without precedent in Scripture.

Really, what saints told you guys that Mary had no other children???

There's a list of some of the more well known mystics right here. It's by no means extensive but many of those listed have written on the Blessed Virgin.

Of course...Jesus endured temptation...You think you can tempt God??? God has told you otherwise...

Jesus was tempted in the desert by Satan. Temptation is not synonymous with sin. What does that have to do with sinful flesh giving rise to sinless flesh?

Including sinfulness?

BTW, a couple of "minor" points. Jesus is the incarnate son of God born of Mary. The OT predates that.

Also, an angel of the Lord is not Jesus. An angel is an angel. Don't confuse the two.

Also, an angel of the Lord is not Jesus. An angel is an angel. Don't confuse the two.

I didn't say AN Angel of the Lord...I said THE Angel of the Lord...And yes, a 14 year old kid knows the difference between an and the...How did your church fathers/scholars/mystics miss it??

Not novel??? May not be very novel in you religion but it's very novel in the word of God...

Weird...You apparently are trying to correct me with scripture but the second time now you have to 'change' the scripture to get it to mean what you want it to mean...

John and Peter and James did NOT converse with Moses and Elias...No one but the 'glorified' Jesus conversed with the Prophets...There goes your wild theory...

FWIW, you may be interested to know that Scripture itself disagrees with you. Read 2Peter. Speaking of the letters of St. Paul, St. Peter apparently didn't get your memo. For he states;

So according to St. Peter, there are certain things in Paul's letters which are hard to understand. Where does your assertion about "14 year olds" find its Scriptural basis?

Well, I got news for ya...Bad news...The verse doesn't say the scripture is so difficult it's hard for the younger and less educated to understand...It says there are 'certain things' which are hard, not impossible to understand and since you guys always jump to that verse to prove something that isn't true, I'd say it applies to your crew...

There's a list of some of the more well known mystics right here. It's by no means extensive but many of those listed have written on the Blessed Virgin.

I didn't see Joseph Smith's name in there...He's every bit a mystic that your guys are...Lotsa mystics out there...One famous one was Edgar Cayce...Is he on the list???

In the scriptures, your mystics are called prophets, or Doctors of Devination...

Deu 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
Deu 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
Deu 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

You can keep 'em...I don't want anything to do with them...

I didn't say AN Angel of the Lord...I said THE Angel of the Lord...And yes, a 14 year old kid knows the difference between an and the...How did your church fathers/scholars/mystics miss it??

LOL......"The Angel of the Lord" = Jesus??

Jesus is not an angel, He is not "the" angel of the Lord. He is not any type of angel. Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin.

Aside from theological confusion about the distinction between angels and Jesus the God-man, there is also chronological confusion. The OT predates Jesus.

Where do you get the idea that "The Angel of the Lord" is Jesus? Not novel??? May not be very novel in you religion but it's very novel in the word of God...Weird...You apparently are trying to correct me with scripture but the second time now you have to 'change' the scripture to get it to mean what you want it to mean... John and Peter and James did NOT converse with Moses and Elias...No one but the 'glorified' Jesus conversed with the Prophets...There goes your wild theory...

You wish.

Peter, James and John were present for the conversation with Moses and Elijah and witnessed it and irrespective of whether they conversed with the aforementioned two they were a part of the mystical experience for Peter said..."let us build three tents....".

Perhaps you think that is the only reference in the NT to the apostles having mystical experiences. Allow me to give you a few more. When Peter was in prison an angel appeared to him and led him out of prison. Paul speaks of encounters with the devil when he refers to "an angel of Satan to beat me" to keep him humble after he had undergone sublime mystical experiences. Finally, the entire last book of the Bible is a narrative of a mystical vision which John received on the island of Patmos.

Such visions didn't stop with John or the other apostles. Mysticism has been alive in the Church throughout her history to this very day.

What makes you think he's talking to me, and not you...So you apparently take that to mean that the scriptures are difficult and hard to understand so a person must be an intellectual, highly educated scholar to understand the 8th grade language, eh??? Well, I got news for ya...Bad news...The verse doesn't say the scripture is so difficult it's hard for the younger and less educated to understand...It says there are 'certain things' which are hard, not impossible to understand and since you guys always jump to that verse to prove something that isn't true, I'd say it applies to your crew...

So to summarize, Peter's caution about interpreting certain passages in Paul's letters was not addressed to you. It was addressed to my "crew" (i.e. the Catholic Church)?

You know that's just plain silly, right? It's a total stretch. A flimsy and tortured attempt to explain away Peter's admonition. When you shot off your mouth about "a 14 year old can understand it", you completely forgot about that passage in Peter. BTW, you still haven't explained the Scriptural basis for your "14 year old" idea.

We want to keep this Scriptural, right? We wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that you're just pulling this stuff out of the air, would we?

I didn't see Joseph Smith's name in there...He's every bit a mystic that your guys are...Lotsa mystics out there...One famous one was Edgar Cayce...Is he on the list??? In the scriptures, your mystics are called prophets, or Doctors of Devination...

Scripture actually tells us to "test the Spirit". That's the Church's job. That's why the Book of Revelation is in the Bible. The Fathers of the early Church decided that John's writings concerning what he saw in the cave on Patmos were truly mystical and authentically of God, rather than Satanic or the result of a bad hangover.

Over the centuries there have been false mystics who were either fakes or who were relaying messages from Satan. Then there have been true mystics who were, like John, receiving visions which conveyed authentic truth. Another reason why we need the Church to guard us against the wiles of Satan.

Naturally, if you dismiss the Church then you're left on your own to sort the wheat from the chaff. The result is that you, unable to discern true mysticism from false, dismiss all of it.

Have you figured out the difference between temptation and sin yet? I'm still waiting for you to explain how what is sinful can give rise to what is sinless.

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.