Catholic history is disturbing

[itsjustdave1988]

So the other citations are correct?

Not necessarily. It becomes very exhausting to research obscure quotes to find out if they are real or not. Most of the time, they are not real, but when I have found they are authentica, they are ripped out of the context they were presented in.

I’ve gone through this drill before with other such “lists” of “authentic” quotes, and found so many fabrications its incredible.

I figure, if one of the sources proves bogus, perhaps it the accuser who needs to have better scholastic integrity and or scholastic rigor to support his claims. The accuser is not likely to have actually set eyes upon any source material, but lifted the “hearsay” from some anti-Catholic web page. When you do the work to discount such sources, they simply shrug their shoulders and find another anti-Catholic web page to “cut and paste” other hearsay as though it were trustworthy. The exercise is ratehr exhausting.

Instead, we know what the Church teaches, as it is plain for all to see in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When someone tells us what we believe, I normally reply that I am the expert about my own beliefs, and if they would like to educated me, a Catholic, about Catholicism, perhaps they should quote from something more easily verifiable.

 

[rad]

Not necessarily. It becomes very exhausting to research obscure quotes to find out if they are real or not. Most of the time, they are not real, but when I have found they are authentica, they are ripped out of the context they were presented in.

I’ve gone through this drill before with other such “lists” of “authentic” quotes, and found so many fabrications its incredible.

I figure, if one of the sources proves bogus, perhaps it the accuser who needs to have better scholastic integrity and or scholastic rigor to support his claims. The accuser is not likely to have actually set eyes upon any source material, but lifted the “hearsay” from some anti-Catholic web page. When you do the work to discount such sources, they simply shrug their shoulders and find another anti-Catholic web page to “cut and paste” other hearsay as though it were trustworthy. The exercise is ratehr exhausting.

Instead, we know what the Church teaches, as it is plain for all to see in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When someone tells us what we believe, I normally reply that I am the expert about my own beliefs, and if they would like to educated me, a Catholic, about Catholicism, perhaps they should quote from something more easily verifiable.

Actully this was discussed on the deceased eastern christianity sub-forum here on caf…i was at that time just a lurker here…i remember Father Ambrose bringing to light these documents…Him being a Orthodox clergy and a monk ,i would believe him,before anyone else here that denies them…
t

 

[Chancellare]

So the other citations are true and you have no answer.

Apparently this is your best logic. So here’s another proof that the other citations are false, even lies:
It’s not rue that Pope Nicholas I said that the Pope is God. The correct text was:
“Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none.”

That’s the fact based on universally available verification materials. Look it up for yourself if you believe in truth.
And here’s the analysis:

Civil laws in the past hold that, the king is “above the law,” and not subject to his own laws. Hence they had this legal axiom, “The king can do no wrong.” In Europe it was accepted that the justice of the Pope’s claim to be independent of all civil jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.

I can cite the others to prove that your ilk use false citations from available verifications but that would be too condemning on my part. I hate to prove other people wrong but you seem to like it.

 

[Methodi]

I tried all kinds of searches, and never found anything save from anti-Catholic sites.

I would say nope.

well,the catholics aren`t gonna tell you

 

[Peter_J]

I tried all kinds of searches, and never found anything save from anti-Catholic sites.

I would say nope.

Well the world isn’t just made up of Catholics and anti-Catholics.

 

[ralphinal]

well,the catholics aren`t gonna tell you

I would point out that if these were authentic Church documents, we could not hide them. And would not.

 

[suupah]

There are so many misinformed people on this thread it isn’t funny. Suupah, stop insulting YOUR faith and start thinking of the good the church does. I am tired of hearing about the priest scandal when I told you and everybody else here about WWW.REFORMATION.COM. Why don’t you say something about that website? IT UNFORTUNATELY IS IN EVERY CHURCH WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. MORE SO IN OTHERS! Furthermore why don’t you put yourself in his (Cardinal Law’s) position? You don’t know what you would do if you were he.
I spoke to him in Rome and although I won’t disclose what was said between us as it is no one’s business, he is a kind and gentle man. He is a man of God whether you want to hear it or not. God will punish not you, not I, not others, but God will give final judgement. Take the plank out of your own eye, least you take it out of your neighbor’s.

i am glad you spoke to him and discovered that he was a gentle man. why in the world would he not subject his priests, rehabbed or not, to civil authorities to pay for the crimes he committed. Why is a priest any different in that regard? the simple answer is NO a priest must answer to civil authorities for crimes committed just like anyone else. The church harbored, hid and covered up clergy that they KNEW committed crimes. For this the gentle cardinal is implicated in it and should be in JAIL!!! Not promoted and sent to Rome. JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD COMMIT A SIMILAR ACT. ie a school principal or whomever.

if your kids teacher molested your kids and then went and sought therapy and the principal was promised that he was rehabilitated and therefore shuffled to another school where he did it again would not the teacher and the principal be guilty of breaking the law? If you found out about it years later, would you be as lenient on the principal as you seem to be on this cardinal?

 

[suupah]

I asked for a source.

seriously? it isn’t hard to find. try a few key strokes on google

 

[raumzeitmc2]

POPE NICHOLAS I: “I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do . . . Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God. WHAT CAN YOU MAKE ME BUT GOD? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine for gods, I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ.” Decret. Par Distinct 96 Ch. 7 Edit Lugd. 1661.

POPE GREGORY IX: “Wherefore, if those things that I do, be said to be done not of man, but of God; what can you make me but God?”

POPE ST PIUS V: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”. Cardinal Cusa supports this statement.

FAMOUS BENEDICTINE CANONIST: “The pope can do all things God can do.” - Nicolaus de Tudeschis [1386-1445], “Commentaria” (lvi, 34)

Pretty damning if you ask me

Well, even assuming (for the sake of argument) that some or all of the above statements are accurate (though they strike me as very dubious), what about the following comments by the father of the reformation, Martin Luther? Would not these also be considered, if not “damning,” at the very least, extremely pompous? (note also that these statements of Luther’s are very well documented!).

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven- to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [1 Pet. 3:15]. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel.

For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved.

• Martin Luther, Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, July 1522. Luther’s Works, 39:248-249, ISBN 0800603397 9780800603397

Or again, in his book against Henry VIII, Luther says:

My teachings will stand, and the Pope will fall… (Dogmata mea stabunt, et Papa cadet…)

But I against the sayings of the Fathers, of men, of angels, of devils place not ancient usage, not multitudes of men, but the word of the one Eternal Majesty, the Gospel, which they are forced to approve, and in which the Mass is clearly said to be a sign and testament of God, wherein He promises us His grace, confirming it with a sign. This is God’s word and work, not ours.

Here I stand, here I sit, here I remain, here I glory, here I triumph, here I laugh at the Papists, Thomists, Henrys, Sophists and all the gates of hell, nay, at the sayings of men, however saintly, and at their fallacious customs.

The word of God is above all. The divine Majesty makes me care not at all though a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, or a thousand of Henry’s Churches should stand against me. God cannot err, or be deceived. Augustine and Cyprian and all the elect could err, and have erred. Answer me now, Lord Henry. Be a man now, Defender. Write books now. Thy curses are nothing. Thine accusations have no effect.

If therefore King Henry, I in conjunction with all the might and learning of Thomists, papists, devils and men, can show that the observance of human words is necessary, then is Luther overthrown, and this by his own verdict and confession. For then, after all I have said, I must take as articles of faith whatever even the Thomists choose o order. But if Henry cannot show this, then Luther is victorious. For what do they want? Not if they were to write a thousand books against me, will they ever be able with me to make any other issue.

For I do not ask what Ambrose, Augustine, or the Councils, and use of the centuries say; nor was there any need for King Henry to teach me these things; for I knew them so well that I once before even attacked them, whence the folly of Satan is to be wondered at, which attacks me with the very things which once before attacked; and constantly begs the question.

Etc, etc…

Martin Luther against Henry King of England.
Martinus Lutherus contra Henricum Regem Angliæ

Full documentation here.

 

[benedictus2]

Has anyone else delved into Catholic history and found the utter corruption and moral depravity shocking? I find it hard to really be proud of my Catholic roots when there is sooooooo much corruption in it. I wish it was one or two isolated incidences but corruption and lust for power seem to pervade every second of the Church’s history. And it continues to this day.

Read a few of the posts and I thought I’d jump in and share my two bits.

Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all Truth. He did not say into all Goodness.

And as far as I know, even in the most corrupt stages of the Church, she still proclaimed Christ’s truth.

And this is why He left us the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist. Because through them, we will be regenerated. We get dirty, we get washed in the sacraments.

If the Church was perfect, what need have we then of Christ?

Here’s a little story.
There was a priest who was a total scoundrel and every parishioner knew it. One time, one of the men stood up and heckled the priest as he was giving the homily.
The man yelled " You don’t practice what you preach!

The priest paused, then quietly asked " Would you rather I preached what I practiced?"

 

[LDNCatholic]

seriously? it isn’t hard to find. try a few key strokes on google

You still haven’t given me a source, I don’t take anyone seriously unless they can provide a source for their information. Luckily someone else decided to provide a source.

I would presume though that it isn’t hard to copy and paste the source here, about the same difficulty as a few keystrokes on google.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi raumzeitmc2,

I do quite agree with you, that it would have been better if Luther had taken a more ecumenical approach.

But what I hope you will come to realize is that even a non-ecumenical approach, like the one Luther took, isn’t as bad as the false-ecumenical approach taken by many in our own day.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Has anyone else delved into Catholic history and found the utter corruption and moral depravity shocking? I find it hard to really be proud of my Catholic roots when there is sooooooo much corruption in it. I wish it was one or two isolated incidences but corruption and lust for power seem to pervade every second of the Church’s history. And it continues to this day.

The Catholic Church history has its ups and downs. However, its teachings have remain consistent with the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

 

[why_me]

This thread is about Catholic History. You seem to think Joseph Smith is relevant to that discussion. What a bore.

The real kicker here is this: if the lds church had history like catholic history, the catholics on this board would be attacking the lds church without mercy. But as you can see, many are apologists for their own history. But it is true, that we are all sinners and history is made by human beings and human beings are certainly not perfect. The best catholic response would be: yes, it happened but the catholic church is still true.

Also, many catholics need to eat more humble pie when being critical of the lds church.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

i am glad you spoke to him and discovered that he was a gentle man. why in the world would he not subject his priests, rehabbed or not, to civil authorities to pay for the crimes he committed. Why is a priest any different in that regard? the simple answer is NO a priest must answer to civil authorities for crimes committed just like anyone else. The church harbored, hid and covered up clergy that they KNEW committed crimes. For this the gentle cardinal is implicated in it and should be in JAIL!!! Not promoted and sent to Rome. JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD COMMIT A SIMILAR ACT. ie a school principal or whomever.

if your kids teacher molested your kids and then went and sought therapy and the principal was promised that he was rehabilitated and therefore shuffled to another school where he did it again would not the teacher and the principal be guilty of breaking the law? If you found out about it years later, would you be as lenient on the principal as you seem to be on this cardinal?

Are you going to comment on www.reformation.com or not? I do not agree with what happened but this Cardinal had no choice. Do you see what has happened since it has been revealed? I am from Boston and the guy that accused two priests here of molesting him turned out to be not true and the guy killed himself because he lied. There were a lot of witch hunts around and accusing priests who were innocent.
Many attorneys who were non-Catholic made tons of money off these cases, even when one was innocent.
Priests are the umbilical cord to God. I have much respect for them. Can you do their job of perserverance and sacrifice? Can you be a priest in third world countries with constant threats behind your back? I don’t think so. Leave the priests alone.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The real kicker here is this: if the lds church had history like catholic history, the catholics on this board would be attacking the lds church without mercy. But as you can see, many are apologists for their own history. But it is true, that we are all sinners and history is made by human beings and human beings are certainly not perfect. The best catholic response would be: yes, it happened but the catholic church is still true.

Also, many catholics need to eat more humble pie when being critical of the lds church.

No Catholic need to eat any humble pie when it comes to a denomination which is man made and not from Christ.

 

[ralphinal]

The real kicker here is this: if the lds church had history like catholic history, the catholics on this board would be attacking the lds church without mercy. But as you can see, many are apologists for their own history. But it is true, that we are all sinners and history is made by human beings and human beings are certainly not perfect. The best catholic response would be: yes, it happened but the catholic church is still true.

Also, many catholics need to eat more humble pie when being critical of the lds church.

There is something to be said here. If the LDS could trace its roots to Jesus, the Catholic Church would be the man-made late addition to the world and we would attack the LDS without mercy.

However, WE are the True Church founded by Christ. WE were not founded by some guy in the United States 1800 years later.

Yes, CAtholics are sinners. The Church was not made to keep saints holy, it was made to help sinners become saints.

 

[Peter_J]

The real kicker here is this: if the lds church had history like catholic history, the catholics on this board would be attacking the lds church without mercy. But as you can see, many are apologists for their own history.

I think you are exaggerating, but yes I’ll admit that a certain amount of hypocrisy does exist in the RCC (just as it does in every denomination). In particular, I have noticed that some Catholics will point out problems that exist in non-Catholic denominations and say “See! That’s what happens when you put your trust in a man-made religion!” but when problems in the RCC are pointed out they’ll say things like … well, take a look at the statement from one Fr. Philip Neri Powell, which I quote in my signature.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Hi raumzeitmc2,

I do quite agree with you, that it would have been better if Luther had taken a more ecumenical approach.

But what I hope you will come to realize is that even a non-ecumenical approach, like the one Luther took, isn’t as bad as the false-ecumenical approach taken by many in our own day.

Peter, specifically, how do you define a “false ecumenical approach?”

Peace.

---

In our own times, you see, an emperor came to the city of Rome, where there’s the temple of an emperor, where there’s a fisherman’s tomb. {15}

And so that pious and Christian emperor, wishing to beg for health, for salvation from the Lord, did not proceed to the temple of a proud emperor, but to the tomb of a fisherman, where he could imitate that fisherman in humility, so that he, being thus approached, might then obtain something from the Lord, which a haughty emperor would be quite unable to earn. – St. Augustine, Sermon 341:4:5, Works (III/11), p. 286.

Note 15: The allusion is most probably to the visit of Honorius to Rome in the winter of 403-404. The temple of an emperor is the mausoleum of Hadrian, specifically mentioned in Expositions of the Psalms, 86, 8. It is now the Castel Sant’Angelo, and the tomb of the fisherman is of course Peter’s tomb where Saint Peter’s basilica now stands, the approach to it guarded by the Castel Sant’Angelo. See Sermons 335C, 11 ((III/9) and 381 (III/10).

The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons, Pt. III, v. 11 (Newly Discovered Sermons) 1997, Edmund Hill, O.P., tr., John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., New City Press, Hyde Park, New York, ISBN 1565481038

 

[Peter_J]

Peter, specifically, how do you define a “false ecumenical approach?”

Peace.

That’s not easy to define precisely, although Vatican II warns us against a “false irenicism” (Unitatis Redintegratio #11). If I think of anything more helpful, I’ll post it after diner.