How accurate is all of this?

[havemercy]

After having replied to a silly comment which was made on a Catholic video on youtube.com, I was emailed. Then I replied the email, finishing with:

Now, we may have to agree to disagree. It is not my intention to convert you or change your mind, but merely to show you how you have been disrespectful and dishonest in commenting on a video of a man many respected and still do. My rebuking you is a call to seek further wisdom in discipleship to Jesus Christ, and a better and more true understanding of the Catholic Church and Her earthly representatives.

To which the anti-Catholic replied:

• The office of pope was one that many thought to be the office of Anti-Christ. The Medici popes, the Borgias, Alexander VI, Innocent VIII, and many others pointed that this office was not of the Holy Spirit.
• The Medicis popes were perverted, sexual incestous evil men. they ordered murder, payed for offices etc.
• Alexander VI had his own son killed since Alexander didn’t want to share incestous sex with his daugher Lucrictia with the son Lorenzo.
• The Popes were the first to order book burnings, ordered Jews People to wear Yellow Pointed Hats and the Star of David as a sign that they are of anti-christ.
• Pius signed the Lateran concordant with the Facist Mussolini that unbanned the Catholic c hurch in Italy in 1929. The church did not regain the papal states but they were freed to preach and were given the vatican State.
• Pius states" God has given us the church and the Church has given us Mussolini"
• Pius also signed a concordant with Hitler in 1933. This document stated that the Vactican would not condemn the actions of Germany in return of Church freedom in Germany.
• In 1941, when the Nazis attacted the Russia, Pius states: “This is glorious attack on the forces that would destory the very foundations of Christian civilizations”
• Since the Nazis were anti communist, and communisim is athethist, The vatican gave tacit support and approval to the Facists and nazis.
• In 1941, w hen Germany had was already exterminating Jews and declared war on the USA, pius was not able to grasp the nature of what was happening in the world.
• The popes generally were monarchists and did not support the Revolutions in Europe that the average man was seeking to gain political, personal and economic freedom. This goes back to the 16th century, to the French Revolution and Revolutions of 1848.
• The Syllabus of Errors, was a document written by pope in 1870’s that condemned Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to unionize, freedom of assembly etc. The popes thought that the disruption of the social order was always going to destroy the church in Europe.
• Pope John Paul has stated several times, first after the Vatican Banking scandal in 1979 and many times after
• “we apologize to the world for all the sins we have committed by OMission and Comission”
• He asked forgivenes for the churches anti semitic teaches, support and blessings of slavery, support of facism, suppression of the comman man and democracy.
• The church can be thought of as a precursure to the Anti-christ, just as many movement were, but the current church seems to have shifted from politics and moved to preaching the Gospels , which is their first duty.

I know how people argue that the moral character of a pope more or less invalidates his office, but to consider the Holy See as false is another question. How accurate is this guy when it comes to, for example, what is contained in the Syllabus of Errors (Pius X)? I’m well aware of Alexander VI and his family history though. I’d ask him to cite his sources, but for now I’m keeping my distance, checking to see apart from him if what he is saying adds up to fact, or if any of it is fabricated anti-Church nonsense.

Pax

 

[heisenburg]

The first thing I would ask for is sources… If he says this is just something he has heard many times before, that isn’t proof. I’ve heard for years eating pop rocks and soda will cause your tummy to explode… Hearing it 100 times however doesn’t make it so…

Ask for sources… if he can’t provide, he must recant. If he does provide, read context, there is probably something he is missing. Also, request that the source not be from anti-catholics, but an independent source. Otherwise, its like asking the KKK to give a fair description of Non-Whites.

Above all, remain charitable. If he continues to insist, just mention that this conversation is over politely, but recommend he come here (or somewhere like hear, to express his concerns…

In Christ

 

[elvisman]

It’s garbage.
I agree with Heisenburg - ask for proof.
They will usually shut up when you call them on a false or unsubstantiated accusation.

 

[Della]

The The Syllabus of Errors deals with: “sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith” not political systems of any kind.

It is obvious your correspondant has never read it for himself, but has swallowed whole and unquestioning whatever source for this so-called list of sins of the Church he came across.

Makes you wonder how reliable his other information is. At the best his list is skewed and at the worst it is downright lies.

A sidebar: I’ve seen many anti-Catholics refer to the Syllabus of Errors as if it was a “Syllabus of Church Teaching” instead. Once again, they either got this idea from someone with an agenda or they have never read it for themselves. Truly sad, isn’t it?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

What You Didn’t Know About The Popes Of Rome
By Mark Owen
redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/04apr/popesofrome.html
rense.com/general63/popo.htm

Peter de Rosa Vicars of Christ

Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

European Sexualities, 1400–1800
Series: New Approaches to European History (No. 38)
Katherine Crawford
Vanderbilt University, Tennessee

These above appear to be some of his sources. Ask him for PRIMARY sources for his proof and not third hand sources like these above.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Also check to see if he is referring to an Anti-Pope.

List of Anti-Popes

217-235 St. Hippolytus. One of the Fathers of the Church and the only anti-pope to be venerated as a saint. Elected “Pope” in opposition to St. Callistus I (r. 217-222) whom he accused of being a Monarchian heretic. Continued the schism in opposition to Urban I (r. 222-230) and St. Pontian (r. 230-235). The Imperial gov’t, during the persecution of Emp. Maximin Thrax, exiled both Hippolytus and Pontian to Sardinia, where they were reconciled. Apparently, to end the schism they both abdicated.

251-258 Novatian. Consecrated bishop in opposition to St. Cornelius (r. 251-253). The major point in dispute (besides disappointed ambition on Novatian’s part) was his opposition to the policy St. Cornelius pursued as regarded those Christians who lapsed during the persecution of Emperor Decius. The Pope insisted on restoring the “lapsi” to communion after doing suitable penance. Novatian demanded permanent excommunication from the Church.

309 Heraclius
355-365 Felix II
366-367 Ursinus
418-419 Eulalius
498-505 Laurentius
687 Theodore
687 Paschal
767-769 Constantine
768 Philip
844 John

855 Anastasius the Librarian. One of the more interesting anti-popes. A scholar learned in both Greek and Latin. After the death of St. Leo IV in 855, Anastasius, with Frankish support, tried to make himself Pope in rivalry to the lawful Pope Benedict III (r. 855-858). The violent hostility of the Romans thwarted him. Anastasius was treated leniently by Benedict and rehabilitated by Nicholas I (r. 858-867), whom he served faithfully.

903-904 Christopher

984-985 Boniface VII. One of the more disgusting anti-popes. Actually, twice anti-pope. In 974, supported by the Roman clan of the Crescentii, Boniface was “elected” Pope. He soon had the lawful Pope Benedict VI (r. 973-974) murdered. The outraged Romans expelled Boniface, who fled to the Eastern Roman Empire. In 980, while Benedict VII (r. 974-983) was absent, the usurper briefly seized Rome. Again expelled. In 984, with Byzantine support, Boniface again seized Rome, had John XIV (r. 983-984) murdered, and installed himself as “pope” until he died in 985.

997-998 John XVI
1012 Gregory
1045 Sylvester III. Scholars debate over whether or not he was truly an anti-pope.
1058-1059 Benedict X
1061-1072 Honorius II
1084-1100 Clement III
1100 Theodoric
1102 Albert
1105-1111 Sylvester IV
1118-1121 Gregory VIII
1124 Celestine II
1130-1138 Anacletus II
1138 Victor IV

1159-1164 Victor IV. The anti-popes of the years 1159-1180 were the creatures of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I during his long quarrel with Pope Alexander III (r. 1159-1181).

1164-1168 Paschal III
1168-1178 Callistus III
1179-1180 Innocent III

1328-1330 Nicholas V. Set up as anti-pope by the Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV during the latter’s quarrel with Pope John XXII (r. 1316-1334).

1378-1394 Clement VII. The “election” of this anti-pope in opposition to the lawful Pope Urban VI (r. 1378-1389) precipitated the Western Schism of 1378-1415.

1394-1423 Benedict XIII
1049-1410 Alexander V
1410-1415 John XXIII
1423-1429 Clement VIII
1425-1430 Benedict XIV

1439-1449 Felix V. After “deposing” Eugene IV (r. 1431-1447) in 1439, the schismatic Council of Basle “elected” as “Pope” Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy (r. 1391-1440. Largely because the “council” desired as Pope a man of piety, wealth, and international standing. Amadeus accepted “election” only with hesitation and was soon disillusioned. In 1449, with Charles VII of France acting as mediator, Felix V submitted to the lawful Pope Nicholas V. Appointed cardinal bishop of St. Sabina, he died in 1451.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a13.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know how people argue that the moral character of a pope more or less invalidates his office, but to consider the Holy See as false is another question.

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.

In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)

Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.

The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Jesus clearly taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Some of it is certainly true - for the Pope’s apologies, read When a Pope Asks Forgiveness: The Mea Culpa’s of John Paul II​

**"**Author: Luigi Accattoli
Trans.: Jordan Aumann, OP
ISBN: 0-8189-0808-4
Paperback: xxiv + 257 pp.
Price: $16.95 + shipping

Luigi Accattoli carefully outlines one of the most important themes of John Paul II’s pontificate, repentance for the sins of the Church. He reveals that John Paul II has publicly admitted Church culpability 94 times, on topics ranging from the inquisition to the treatment of women. He invites the individual reader and the people of God as a whole to take to heart the Pope’s ecclesial examination of conscience and humbly prepare for a new millennium where the Catholic faith can be the chief catalyst for reconciliation and peace.

• Luigi Accattoli has been Vatican correspondent for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera for sixteen years.
• Jordan Aumann, OP, is an American Dominican based in Washington, D.C. He has authored and translated several books published by Alba House including Pathways to Holiness (1998)."
  There was also that day in March 2000: “The study of the topic “The Church and the Faults of the Past” was proposed to the International Theological Commission by its President, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in view of the celebration of the Jubilee Year 2000.”

The document is here - The Church and the Faults of the Past

&, in a larger font, here: [ Church and the Faults of the PastMemory And Renconciliation:The (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html)

 

[LilyM]

Just one point - Alexander VI didn’t have a son named Lorenzo for starters. His sons were Pedro, Cesare, Juan and Jofre (Geoffrey). No Lorenzo.

And yes, the Borgias were accused of incest, so were a fair few secular rulers of the time as well - King Francis I of France for one, if memory serves.

Were they really all guilty, or was it a convenient rumour for their enemies to spread, since it would be difficult to disprove certainly?

 

[porthos11]

The popes generally were monarchists and did not support the Revolutions in Europe that the average man was seeking to gain political, personal and economic freedom. This goes back to the 16th century, to the French Revolution and Revolutions of 1848.

I have a vague memory of James and Joanna Bogle, historians discussing on EWTN how evil those Revolutions actually were and how they were more than just “liberte, egalite, fraternite.”

 

[Alda]

Just one point - Alexander VI didn’t have a son named Lorenzo for starters. His sons were Pedro, Cesare, Juan and Jofre (Geoffrey). No Lorenzo.

And yes, the Borgias were accused of incest, so were a fair few secular rulers of the time as well - King Francis I of France for one, if memory serves.

Were they really all guilty, or was it a convenient rumour for their enemies to spread, since it would be difficult to disprove certainly?

I wanted to comment on this inaccuracy too and also state that historically the rumour of incest between Alexander VI and his daughter Lucrezia is held to be just that…rumour. He was proud of her and they were often together. Lucrezia was frequently present at the Vatican court and this angered a great many people and led to vicious rumours.

Just as an aside, Pope Julius II was so eager to discourage the same rumours that had dogged Alexander VI about himself and his daughter Felice, that he held her at arms length for most of the period of his papacy.

 

[cor]

The The Syllabus of Errors deals with: “sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith” not political systems of any kind.

You have there in your link a different document, given the same title in the link, but not The Syllabus of Errors referred to in the OP.

The Syllabus of Errors that is referred to in the OP was issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1864 (and not in 1907 when Pius X was pope which is the date of your linked document; nor was it in in the 1870’s as the OP stated).

You can read about The Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX, 1864) here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_errors

And you can read the actual text in its entirety here:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

It’s subject matter is varied and differs from the Syllabus, you linked to.

 

[havemercy]

Alexander the vi and many sons and daughters. He had his son Lorenzo killed due to the son and daughter incestous relationship. Alexander was a sex pervert, rapist and theiving evil man. The Medicis and Borgias were about the same.

I asked him to support his claims here.

To access anti semtic teachings of the church, just look up any source to learn of the Jewish folks being forced to wear yellow pointed hats and the star of David by popes. you can look up this yourself.

I can look this up on google? I can look up ANYTHING on google. I asked for a respectable source here. I never learned this in history class, but I suppose even anti-catholic history textbooks have some compassion on the Church.

Pope John Paul first apoligized to the world community during the vatican banking scandle he had to deal with. The vatican did a poor job, having to pay 250 million in fines. Cardinal Bivoloque (spelling) spent time in USA jail and there was somone in London killed due to vatican interige.

What?

He made several apologizes to the world for the church preaching race hatred, anti semtic hatred, supporting slavery, oppressing woman and native peoples around the world, for supporting dictatorships, wars, fasicts, anti democracy, etc etc etc.

That’s a lot of stuff. I don’t remember John Paul II doing all of that. Some of it certainly, but not all of it. Since when has the church ever been anti-democracy, or supported fascists?