N
nickybr38
Guest
Has anybody read this book?
What is your take on the claims it makes?
What is your take on the claims it makes?
- Status
T
Trebor135
Guest
I haven’t heard of the book till now, but the title caught my eye. What are some of these notable claims made by the author?
N
nickybr38
Guest
This is taken from the description of the book:
� The Vatican officially recognized dictators Benito Mussolini and Juan Peron, and Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen as Knights of the Roman Catholic Church. Also, two CIA directors, William Casey and John McCone were given the same honor for providing US intelligence secrets to the Vatican during the Cold War.
� During the last two and a half centuries only seven names have been adopted by popes: John, Benedict, Pius, Gregory, Paul, Leo, and John Paul.
� At least 12 popes were sexually active, and at least four were actually married, beginning with St. Peter.
� Two popes, John XI, Paul III, were the illegitimate sons of popes.
� Forty different antipopes (today considered imposters) claimed to rule over the church for a total of 170 years between 251 and 1449. One of these antipopes was later made a saint.
� At his coronation Pope Benedict I decreed: “To those who are well, and especially to the young, bathing shall seldom be permitted.”
� Pope John XIX (1024-1032) predicted the world would end and Jesus would return in the year 1030. Apparently, he was fallible.
� From the second through the fourth centuries baptisms were performed only on Easter and Pentecost. . Prior to the immersion or affusion, the candidates removed all their clothing and while stark naked, the bishop exocised them of their sins.
� The sacrament of confirmation (Confirmatio) first appeared in Gaul in the fifth century at the Councils of Riez and of Orange two years later. Unlike baptism, confirmation is a Catholic invention.
� Six centuries before Christ Confucius taught: “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” In the fifth century BCE Buddha taught: “Hurt not others with that which pains thyself.”
� Bernard of Clairvaux, considered the most influential Catholic during the 12th century wrote: “The pursuit of knowledge, unless sanctified by a holy mission, is a pagan act and therefore vile.”
� Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) completed Summa Theologica, a manual for beginners, as a compilation of all the main theological teachings of that time. He wrote:"Homosexuality is a greater sin than rape.
You can read an overview of some of it’s claims here: ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/imma-penn/dogma-evolution-papal-fallacies/_/R-400000000000000263103
I was tempted to buy the book but much of this seems blatantly anti-Catholic so I hesitate now. Anyway, just curious to know if anyone HAS read it and what they thought.
P
pablope
Guest
I would not waste my money on it. I looked at your link, and looks like alot of fact spinning, taking out of context, etc.
I would suggest Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid is a more worthy buy… ewtn.com/library/answers/popeapol.htm
And really…the Catholic Church had this…Knights of the Roman Catholic Church? There is the Knights of Columbus…but totally different matter.
And so what…“� During the last two and a half centuries only seven names have been adopted by popes: John, Benedict, Pius, Gregory, Paul, Leo, and John Paul.”
And it is a well known fact that St. Pete was married, he was married when Christ called him…again, so what of it?
N
nickybr38
Guest
Awesome! Thanks for the book suggestion.
That was my question too when I read that line. So? I think he was probably leading up to railing against unmarried clergy…? Who knows.
P
pablope
Guest
You are welcome…sorry, i forgot to give the book link…amazon.com/Pope-Fiction-Answers-Misconceptions-Papacy/dp/0964261006Awesome! Thanks for the book suggestion.
I did not realize Patrick Madrid also had a series on EWTN about this…ewtn.com/series/fiction/show.htm
L
Legal_Eagle
Guest
I think without some supporting documents from the Church we shouldn’t assume that each of these points is true. If they are true we need to know the historical and political context before we can really assess them. Disclaimers aside, I would answer as follows.
Peace,
We need the historical and political context. Why were these men given such an honor? Was it merited by some service to the Church? Even a man history judges to be a scoundrel can do good on occasion. Alternatively, the Church may have been politically strong armed into bestowing an unmerited honor. Or, the Pope, or whatever official who made the decision may have made a bad decision. Just because a man is made Pope doesn’t mean he always makes good decisions for good reasons.
So?
Yes. St. Peter and others were married. So? The discipline of celibacy came along later. As for the other 8? Popes sin. No one disputes that. But, taken in context, 8 fornicating Popes out of 265 ain’t so bad. That means 97% of the Popes were chaste. I’ll take that.
See the above.
And? I could claim to be the President of the United States. If I got enough people to follow me maybe I would be called the anti-president. Does that make the office of the Presidency itself illegitimate? No. It just makes me a dope. As far as they one later declared to be a saint? Who was he? What are the facts of his life? Maybe after his stint as antipope he repented and led a holy life. Context is everything.
That’s just funny. Someone is really using 6th Century hygienic advice to discredit the Papacy?
Apparently, the author misunderstands the doctrine of infallibility. Making predictions are not the Pope’s job description. Infallibility is only implicated if the Pope speaks on matters of faith or morals with the intention to bind the whole Church and intending to invoke infallibility. Even assuming the Pope actually made such a claim (and that’s assuming a lot), so what? He was wrong, and foolish to say such a thing. It has no bearing on infallibility. A person writing a book on the Papacy should know such things. Either the author is ignorant or deliberately misleading his readers.
So? Even assuming this is true, so what? Baptism not only confers the Grace of forgiveness of sins it symbolizes death and rebirth. I’m sure that being stripped (literally) of all that one possess makes that point dramatically. Read my comments above on the whole bathing thing. 2000 year old attitudes toward the body are surely different from ours.
Baloney. How many times throught the Acts of the Apostles do we see them lay hands on a person who is already baptized for the reception of the Holy Spirit. The author understands neither infallibility nor Confirmation. His credibility is seriously slipping.
Jesus has a monopoly on good advice?
St. Bernard is absolutely right. Stripped of a holy purpose the pursuit of knowledge can quickly go wrong. See e.g. nuclear weapons, abortion, cloning, eugenics, etc, etc. In any event, so what? 900 years ago a Saint made a statement that today we might wish he had expressed differently. Saints are not Saints because they pick their words like politicians. They are Saints by virtue of the fact that they cooperated with God’s Grace, lived a holy life and are now determined to be in heaven. If the author believes that science in pursuit of an unholy purpose is a good thing, why are we paying him any attention at all?
One final time let me ask…So? Thomas Aquinas is not “Saint” Thomas Aquinas because of his opinions on which sin is greater or lesser than which other sin.
Peace,
- Status