Posted on 10/15/2008 11:17:09 AM PDT by Gamecock
“Did Gregory VII say that Popes “cannot make a mistake”? No - that's a lie as well.”
Might this be a bit closer?:
“In 1075 Pope Gregory VII in his Dictatus Papae (The Pope's Memorandum) put it more bluntly. He set out 27 propositions about the powers of the office of Bishop of Rome. These included the statement that the papacy “never will err to all eternity according to the testimony of Holy Scripture”.
I haven't looked at the other examples you remarked upon yet yet but the paraphrasing was somewhat justified in this particular case.
No, we define it one way. It is you who deliberately mix up infallibility and impeccability - which are two completely different concepts.
It almost seems like Roman Catholics are threatened by the fact that their Popes are sinful, and that some were especially evil men, as though somehow that fact diminishes the sacred seat of Peter and the legitimacy of Papal procession.
Nice psychobabble.
First, all Popes are by definition sinners, and can never be anything else but sinners.
Second, no Pope can credibly be described as an "especially evil" man - the entire point of this propaganda exercise is to take the actual transgressions of medieval Popes (susceptibility to bribes, having had girlfriends in their younger days, encouraging rather than defusing confrontations for their own gain) and transform them into mind-blowing transgressions like maternal incest, graverobbing, pandering, murder, forcible rape, devil worship, etc.
Third, while there have been Popes who have dishonored their office, Catholics know that the office is distinct from its holders. Popes like Gregory VII are admired precisely for their reforming zeal.
And if one protests these slanders, they're labeled discontented Romanists.
That kind of sneering hatred is worthy of the Obama movement.
Uh, sir, there is not one Catholic denying that Catholics are men subject to sin like the rest of us. We're defensive because there seems to be a certain "Reformist" M.O. of pointing to examples of wicked Popes and scream "See! See!This is the Whore of Babylon!"
Sometimes I wonder
how much of the wailing is because of the idolatry of an INSTITUTION
and how much of it is pride.
If it’s reformation month, maybe we should focus on the atrocities of the reformation rather than the mother church. How many did Cranmer have burned, hmmm? Who burned the heretics at the stake, the inquisition? Nay, it was the civil authorities. How did the good brother Luther view his Jewish brothers and sisters, eh?
Let's see.
“In 1075 Pope Gregory VII in his Dictatus Papae (The Pope's Memorandum) put it more bluntly. He set out 27 propositions about the powers of the office of Bishop of Rome. These included the statement that the papacy “never will err to all eternity according to the testimony of Holy Scripture”.
(1) Gregory VII never wrote a work entitled "Dictatus Papae". Its title itself suggests its true origin: that it was written by some papal secretary.
(2) No source even mentions the existence of this document until 1087, two years after Gregory VII's death. His actual letters that he personally wrote in 1075 were well-known and a matter of public record during his lifetime. Not only did Gregory VII definitely not write it himself, there is no evidence he was even aware of the document's existence.
(3) The actual text reads: "That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness."
This is precisely the Catholic doctrine that the Church is prevented from any error in its dogmatioc teaching, as guaranteed by Matthew 16:18.
So your source does not give the full quote - it substitutes "papacy" for the "Roman Church" of the original. Moreover it insinuates that "the papacy" means individual Popes.
The Church is the institution. The Papacy is an office within that institution. And the individual Popes are all just officeholders.
Conflating the three doesn't work.
Catholics define “infallible” in one way only. Once again your misunderstanding leads you astray. It would seem you rail against not what the Catholic Church truly believes but instead what you “think” it believes. I know of no Catholic that is threatened by the fact that some Popes were sinful, we all know that, but that does not diminish the Church. If you think it does then you have a truly shallow understanding of my faith.
Not just a pirate:
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."
He has been dead for 45 years, why are we just now hearing about this? Which pope is he accused of poisoning? Who are the women he pimped and had sex with?
Looking further in the Catholic Encyclopedia on John XII as regards:
“Did John XII sleep with his own mother? No.”
“On November 6 a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter’s; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication (ferendae sententiae) against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope.”
No, his mother isn’t mentioned but the incest charge is just one of many. And by a synod not anti-Catholic bigots.
Hmmm.....As they say, two out of three IS bad, but I’ll give you John 23, unless he lived a very long time.
Do you ever concede that perhaps some of it is because of a desire that the truth be told?
Lie #1: The "Bishop Strossmayer speech" is a forgery by an Argentinian anti-Catholic. Google "Strossmayer speech forgery" for many, many proofs.
Lie #2: The "John XXIII" they refer to was not a real "Pope of Rome" but an anti-Pope.
Do you want me to go looking for more?
It's sort of like talking about how wrong Al Gore is about global warming, and how that proves what fools Presidents of the US are.
STEPHEN VII (896-897AD) "He dug up a Corsican predecessor, Pope Formosus (891-896), when he had been dead for over nine months….
First, the Pope accused of this was Stephen VI, not Stephen VII.
Second, Formosus was not a Corsican, but a Roman.
Third Formosus had been dead for months, but no one knows exactly how long or exactly when this "corpse trial" was held.
Why even lie about these details in the first place? Why fabricate stuff that is unnecessary to fabricate.
And, of course, the "corpse trial" was not held at the request of, or organized by, the elderly and infirm Pope Stephen VI but by Guido IV - the would-be dictator of Rome who hated Formosus for opposing his attempts to seize Italy.
Guido IV was a maniac who did all kinds of disturbed things like this. He was assassinated by rivals a few months after this.
The "corpse trial" was the work of an angry civil dictator, not the Pope.
Misrepresentations folded in completely gratuitous lies.
It's sort of like talking about how wrong Al Gore is about global warming, and how that proves what fools Presidents of the US are.
Excellent point!
I have NEVER had a problem acknowledging that some popes (Alexander VI come immediately to mind) were corrupt and even evil. The fact that NOBODY has EVER been able to find a false ex cathedra statement regarding faith or morals only REINFORCES the doctrine of infallibility.
Anti-Catholics are just like other liberals, an accusation against someone they hate is far more important than the truth.
I don’t understand the reason behind the hate. These attacks seem to come out of no where.
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.