![](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
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.