Cadaver Synod - Is this for real?

[malachi_a_serva]

This kinda makes you look like someone with an agenda who isn’t honestly seeking to discuss or dialog about the Catholic faith.

Thanks for being always concerned with how I look.

Honest discussions are two way.

Some guy digs up dead guy - seats him in a chair … and no one thinks this is disgusting? Pope could do what he wanted? What about the sanctity of the body? For the relatives?

Just absurd. Since this is fact - historical fact none the less - what am I doing so wrong in bringing it up?

Off to church…

 

[mtr01]

I guess not. This hit me like a ton of bricks and it bothered/s me. I guess it doesn’t to you and others that is fine. I just never heard of such a thing. What next?

Oh, I don’t know, maybe spend the Lord’s Day honoring him, rather than trying to malign part of His family?

 

[Jennifer_G]

In 800 the world was different than it is now. But God isn’t.

They tried - put on trail - a dead guy. Dug him up, put him on the stand…

That is weird.

I know of some lawyers who would like to do that if given the chance…

If you think that’s wierd, they had something on the History Channel about a senator who was “preserved” after death, sitting in a chair. They have him on display in the senate (not sure if it was a state senate, or US Senate), so they always have 1 person “present, but not voting”.

 

[Church_Militant]

I guess not. This hit me like a ton of bricks and it bothered/s me. I guess it doesn’t to you and others that is fine. I just never heard of such a thing. What next?

Hopefully something worthy of serious discussion.

I mean, honest to God man, when are you going to stop trying to find any little thing to attempt to disparage the Catholic Church?

Personally I’d say that anyone who is so “out of ammo” as to throw this up needs to stop and consider entering RCIA to see if there are any real reasons that he can’t become Catholic.

Thanks for being always concerned with how I look.

Hey, no problem. Here, lemme get a towel to help wipe off some of that egg there…

Honest discussions are two way.

Indeed they are, and you know that I have always sought to give you that when you have posted here, but just lately I just shake my head and wonder about you…

Some guy digs up dead guy - seats him in a chair … and no one thinks this is disgusting? Pope could do what he wanted? What about the sanctity of the body? For the relatives?

Never said I didn’t agree about all that. In fact I do, but frankly just what the heck would you have us do? Fold up the whole Church over some stupid stuff like this? That’s not gonna happen and this is a singular and trivial event that dates back to some pretty barbarous times in history.

Just absurd. Since this is fact - historical fact none the less - what am I doing so wrong in bringing it up?

It’s a “so what?” fact. It bears no relation whatever to Catholic faith and morals or even any doctrinal belief and aside from being weird in the extreme, is not worth the wasted space to discuss it.

Like I said…[SIGN]Who cares?[/SIGN]
There’s nothing to refute or apologize for and it really is a historical irrelevancy.

Like I said earlier. It makes you look petty and grossly anti-Catholic. Seeking just anything to try to somehow indict the Catholic Church. Aren’t you ? I would be if I offered something like this against any n-C group, and I’m sure I can find something equally idiotic on the internet.

 

[Beachcomber]

Having read this topic with interest, here’s my 2c.

I read about this when I was in college. Being a dtizy blonde 20-something, I actually thought it was kind of cool.

Now, I think it’s weird. It happened a long time ago when people viewed things differently.

Time to move on.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Makes you kind of wonder…submit to him?

“…We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff [pope].”

–POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

Ah, the plot thickens. Since the last time we spoke, Mr a serva, have you bothered to read the link I gave you on infallibility? Gosh that must have been a couple of weeks ago. Your persistent threads are pretty persistent evidence of non-interest in the facts, imho.

It seems to me that you keep on coming up with bright ideas about evidence that the Church has changed its Magisterial teaching. But you don’t say what Her Magisterial teaching is.

It’s like saying my cat fetched my slipper; dogs fetch slippers; therefore my cat is a dog. Good luck with that one!

:ehh: :dts:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

[sign]
Who cares?

[/sign]

[sign]Not me! :nope:[/sign]
Church Militant:

I’m sure I can find something equally idiotic on the internet.

This is so tempting.

[sign]:blushing: [/sign]

 

[Mirdath]

Ah yes, the Cadaver Synod… you guys were pretty wild a thousand and some years ago!

But for the love of Bob, stop jumping on him for just bringing it up. It’s an historical curiosity and a bizarre episode of the Vatican’s past. Why shouldn’t it be brought up as just that? It’s not particularly ammunition against the Church for its foibles and faults – if one wants that, there’s better to be found in the Renaissance or even the present day – this is just ‘hey, Stephen was a stark raving looney, wasn’t he?’. No biggie, so was Urban VI. Maybe it’s something in the number six, who knows?

So there’s probably a note on Formosus’ trial in Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. So what? It’s neat! Why shouldn’t it be talked about? It’s way more interesting than discussing lay eucharistic ministers and why they’re either the best thing since sliced bread or little fingers of the Antichrist. Lighten up!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well now, let’s move to England in 1660 for an interesting update on what happened to the corpse of Oliver Cromwell.

Cromwell, the “Lord Protector” of the realm after the execution of King Charles 1 until his (Cromwell’s) death by natural causes, had a magnificent state funeral and his son took over the kingdom --for a brief time, until the restoration of King Charles II in May of 1660.

But then. . .The decision to remove Cromwell’s remains from Westminster Abbey, along with those of two others implicated in the execution of the King, was taken by Parliament in December 1660. After a macabre hanging their heads were placed on poles on Westminster Hall as a warning to others.

So. . .here is at least state proceeding. . .800 years later than the one referenced in the O.P. undertaken by the government of the Kingdom, which involved the disinterment of a corpse, legal procedings against the corpse, desecration of the corpse.

And all less than 350 years ago in a ‘modern’ country.

 

[freudmacher]

If you have nothing better to do than wander the net looking for weird junk to ask “Do most catholic apologists know about this?”, then you need to check your motivations and find a better use for your time.

 

[freudmacher]

If you have nothing better to do than wander the net looking for weird junk to ask “Do most catholic apologists know about this?”, then you need to check your motivations and find a better use for your time.

Sorry, wasn’t paying attention (above)

Thank you C.M. for saying this. Last night, I was thinking, is this guy just looking for things to validate his own reason for leaving the church. I mean, he is the one that left the church and is now on this site talking to all of us.

But anyway, I can see someone calling this weird. But him saying that he has to ‘refute’ something that was at a time when people thought completely different then we do now, I just don’t get. It’s really sad to see people act like this to the church. But at the same time, I realize that it helps me to love the Church God established even more. I can see more and more, as I get older, why all those saints died for this faith. It wasn’t just for the Body and Blood of Christ, but the love for the His church.

Whatever, sorry to ramble.

 

[JaneFrances]

The more research I do, the more stuff I need to refute. Is this for real or is this a joke?

Ya know, I’m not so concerned about mentioning a highly scandelous episode in Church history as I am confused as to what the heck you feel like you need to refute!

What is it exactly that you need to refute? The word “refute,” of course, meaning “to prove wrong or false or to deny the accuracy of something.”

With that said, again, what are you trying to prove wrong or deny?

Let me assure you, you need not refute history.

Now, if it is the Church that you are trying to prove false, surely you can do better than an isolated event which titillates an anti-Catholic bias . . . or maybe you can’t.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Last night, I was thinking, is this guy just looking for things to validate his own reason for leaving the church. I mean, he is the one that left the church and is now on this site talking to all of us.

I thought I knew everything I could that bothered me with the RCC - I guess not.

If everyone is fine with it - OK.

He was your Vicar of Christ -
The same guy we must submit too -

I am at peace submitting to The Lord Jesus Christ.

I do see how when one thinks the RCC is Jesus’ church that anything and everything that comes from it must be valid - but it is that which blinds the truth.

Just like speaking with a JW IMHO.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Well now, let’s move to England in 1660 for an interesting update on what happened to the corpse of Oliver Cromwell.

Cromwell, the “Lord Protector” of the realm after the execution of King Charles 1 until his (Cromwell’s) death by natural causes, had a magnificent state funeral and his son took over the kingdom --for a brief time, until the restoration of King Charles II in May of 1660.

But then. . .The decision to remove Cromwell’s remains from Westminster Abbey, along with those of two others implicated in the execution of the King, was taken by Parliament in December 1660. After a macabre hanging their heads were placed on poles on Westminster Hall as a warning to others.

So. . .here is at least state proceeding. . .800 years later than the one referenced in the O.P. undertaken by the government of the Kingdom, which involved the disinterment of a corpse, legal procedings against the corpse, desecration of the corpse.

And all less than 350 years ago in a ‘modern’ country.

Yes but this piece of history wasn’t perputrated by the supposed “Holy Father”, the Vicar of Christ. That makes the world of difference.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Ya know, I’m not so concerned about mentioning a highly scandelous episode in Church history as I am confused as to what the heck you feel like you need to refute!

What is it exactly that you need to refute? The word “refute,” of course, meaning “to prove wrong or false or to deny the accuracy of something.”

With that said, again, what are you trying to prove wrong or deny?

Let me assure you, you need not refute history.

Now, if it is the Church that you are trying to prove false, surely you can do better than an isolated event which titillates an anti-Catholic bias . . . or maybe you can’t.

I figured being inaccurate it would need refuting.

Apparently it is a fact and accurate and there is nothing to refute.

Truly, what would Jesus say? If he walked in and this “trial” was going on. What would he say?

 

[athair_ambrois]

What’s the fuss?

Pope Stephen did a dreadful thing with the corpse of Pope Formosus.

But the People of God had the last word. The citizens of Rome strangled the Supreme Pontiff Pope Stephen. Justice was seen to be done. Case closed.

 

[freudmacher]

Truly, what would Jesus say? If he walked in and this “trial” was going on. What would he say?

That’s nothing but a cop-out. When people have to use the types of cop-outs, we know the conversation is done.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It makes no difference at all.

The synod was not adjudicating on faith and morals.

The English parliament was not adjudicating on faith and morals.

Both procedings were done as part of the ‘government’, if you will, of the entities.

It appears to me, MAS, that you are arguing that any given Pope must be ‘impeccable’ in all aspects of his life in order to be perceived as ‘the Vicar of Christ’.

And that is not the teaching of the Catholic faith and never was.

 

[porthos11]

The Cadaver Synod (also called the Cadaver Trial or, in Latin, the Synodus Horrenda) is the name commonly given to the posthumous ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, held in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January of 897.[1]

Before the proceedings the body of Formosus was exhumed and, according to some sources, seated on a throne while his successor, Pope Stephen VI, read the charges against him (to which Formosus was found guilty) and conducted the trial. The Cadaver Synod is remembered as one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of the medieval papacy.

January of 897, Stephen VI ordered that the body of his predecessor Formosus be removed from its tomb and brought to the papal court for judgement.

Formosus was accused of transmigrating sees in violation of canon law, of perjury, and of serving as a bishop while actually a layman. Liutprand and other sources say that Stephen had the body stripped of its papal vestments, cut off the three fingers of his right hand used for benedictions, and declared all of his acts and ordinations (including his ordination of Stephen VI as bishop of Anagni) invalid. The body was finally interred in a graveyard for foreigners, only to be dug up once again, tied to weights, and cast into the Tiber.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

The more research I do, the more stuff I need to refute. Is this for real or is this a joke?

Yes, it was real, and yes, it was bizzare, and yes, it was a horrible thing to do, and no, we do not need to cover it up or refute it. It was a shameful episode in the history of the Papacy.

It only goes to show what while we had weird popes like Stephen, the Church and the office of Peter has remained, despite all these kinds of characters.

 

[porthos11]

I figured being inaccurate it would need refuting.

Apparently it is a fact and accurate and there is nothing to refute.

Truly, what would Jesus say? If he walked in and this “trial” was going on. What would he say?

He would probably do much the same thing with the money changers: disrupt the travesty, order Formosus’ body reburied, and demand that Stephen step down.

Don’t be bothered. The Church is holy, the Papacy is holy, but Popes are not always holy. It’s not a blight on the Church or Papacy; it’s a blight on these members do did not live up to the high standards Christ imposed on them.