Posted on 10/15/2008 11:17:09 AM PDT by Gamecock
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.