Posted on 06/22/2009 7:28:34 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
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.
Alas, Sergius IV was murdered.
I won’t put anyone’s name here where they can be ridiculed and mocked. Sorry.
She’s a sinner, saved by grace and delivered from satan by the hand of God. She’s no better or worse than any of the rest of us. We’re all sinners. I thank God she came to know our Saviour and her life was turned around.
And what's this I hear about your pope???
He was having a theological discussion with a cardinal and decided he had to go into the Vatican basement to check out some old archives...
Turns out the Cardinal heard this screaming, bawling and crying and ran down the stairs to come to the aid of the pope...
He got there and the pope had a book open and the tears were running down his face and the cardinal ask 'what is it'???
The pope says, 'it says CELEBRATE, not celebate...
Ahh, that's life in Rome...
God is outside of time but man is not.
Now Jesus is not only true God, He is also true man. Thus, when the Second Person of the Trinity took upon Himself our humanity, He was born into time. He was born "at the fullness of time", as Scripture says.
Jesus is not outside of time by virtue of His human nature. He did not exist from all eternity for it required Mary's "yes" to bring about that union of God and man. Without Mary's "yes", there is no Jesus.
Thus OT times "predate" Jesus. They do not predate the second person of the Holy Trinity who is one with the Father.
I aver that Jesus lives timelessly, He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Even enfleshed, He had life in Himself.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. - John 1:1-5
Or to put it another way, the Name which was announced to Mary who was “in” time came from “beyond” time, just like the Name which was announced to Moses who was “in” time came from “beyond” time.
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
Thus we shall not agree on the point – in your understanding, the Name Jesus had a beginning "in" time – in mine, His Names are not time bound because He is timeless.
Though I hasten to add, that Jesus' being enfleshed was how He chose to create and sacrifice His own Blood - timelessly, as God - for our redemption. The blood of a mere created being - whether ox or man - would not do.
Nevertheless, thank you for this opportunity to enter my testimony!
God’s Name is I AM.
No traditions of man, just traditions of God, like the scriptures are — we don’t come up with our own flawed interpretations like those outside The Church do. When you have sola scriptura you have Jehovah’s witnesses, Gene Robinson and Mormons as the ultimate end — oh, and also Unitarian-universalists.
Thanks for the post, I found it quite interesting. I find all Church history interesting, even the “dark” portions, as it shows how the Church *must* be protected by God or else would have failed long ago.
IOW, I don’t think it’s in dispute by any serious historian, that there have been many Popes throughout history that have not acted with the appropriate dignity afforded the office. This shows the Hand of God on the Church, despite the failings of men in Her Magisterium.
Father McBrien may have a theological axe to grind here, but the history cannot be denied. Nor should it, for the reason stated above.
For this reason, and perhaps also given the nature of some posts on this thread, I think it’s important to point out the salient point for all on this thread to read: Simply because a person has some personal faults, in no way diminishes any theological truth they may enjoy.
“Guilt” via character assassination is for the liberal. Let’s all remember that.
That's a odd statememt...Morman aren't sola scripture...They created their own bible just as you guys created your catechism and tradition...They are more like you than anyone...And just as relavant...
great posts as usual...thanks...
So without Mary, there'd be no Jesus, eh??? The fact that this was prophesied a few years in advance shows that it was a done deal...
Mary's permission wasn't needed at at...In fact, her knowledge of the operation wasn't even necessary for it to happen...
If Jesus' only role was to be the head of the body, the church, it could have been any girl and she wouldn't have to know she was carrying God's child...Some young fella coming up claiming to be God and performing miracles like Jesus did would probably be enough for the church to believe in...
But Jesus came as the Messiah to the Jews, something they had been promised for years...And for that role, certain things had to happen and some rules had to be followed, ie, the lineage thing...
You guys got it wrong...Mary wasn't blessed because she said 'I do'...She was blessed because she was born and chosen for the role well ahead of time...
Well said, Iscool.
He doesn’t seem to belong to an order; he is a secular priest (no pun intended). But he is not incardinated in South Bend; he is a priest of the archdiocese of Hartford.
So you keep insisting.
That would be me....and Aquinas.....and numerous Church councils in every age.....and Bernard.....and Bede....and Basil.......and.....well you get the picture!
Duffers one and all!!
BTW, I find posts like your last one hugely entertaining.
The complete lack of self-second guessing with which you dispense your half-baked theology is truly appealing....:-)
Yep, I found that out and posted that in a later post. :)
***Well, we are not an esoteric secret gnostic meeting of folks.***
Not to hear the opposition. Except of course, when they find out that the Church is not secret, they simply blow it off and claim that it was formerly secret and that the Vatican vaults contain all the proofs that their little cults have always claimed.
***Don’t want to upset those who do belong to such groups (and they are inevitably OUTSIDE The Church)***
When you are your own Pope, you create your own church. And therefore everyone else is outside your church. Neat, eh?
They may be outside the Catholic church but not outside the universal catholic church, the body of Christ, which HE founded, not mere man. I thank God they ARE outside the Catholic church.
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.