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?
The allegation was incest. No facts were presented. What you gave me was allegation, not fact.
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?
As I pointed out, the bishops in question were a tiny minority of the episcopate - a "synod" of fifty to supposedly sit in judgment over a Pope is a joke.
As it turns out, the bishops in question were all from lands controlled by the Emperor or his vassals - these men were likely in danger of their lives - their skins were the "spoils" of the Emperor's coercion.
Even then, he could only get fifty out of the hundreds of bishops living in his realms and not one Frenchman, Spaniard, Swiss, Briton or Pole.
Actually there was a previous John XXIII but wasn’t he considered an anti-pope?
Is the thread about Popes, or antipopes?
So again, where are the lies in anything I’ve presented here?
The lies are in the original article. What you're presenting is your willingness to bend over backwards until your chin touches your soles to try and explain away the lies the author told.