papal history

[that1dude]

Get out your thinking caps apologists. Thesis: the Popes have such a history of human falability, that the apologists’ explanations are going to sound thin indeed. Mainly, I just want Catholics to be aware of these facts.

Evidence:

“To enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one’s hands together.”-- Pope Boniface

Bishop Liberius signed the Arian Sirmium Creed which denied the Deity of Christ. Pope Honorius contradicted so many Popes that he was accursed by Councils and Popes for centuries. According to the Catholic Bishop Luitprand of Cremona who lived at the time of Pope John XII 955 A.D., “No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John … (would) defile (them)…” Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) lived in public incest with his two sister and his own daughter, Lucretia, from whom, it is said, he had a child. In 1501 he conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican.
In the ninth century Pope Stephen VI brought former Pope Formosus to trial by digging up his corpse from the grave and placing the body upon a throne. Pope Formosus was judged guilty of heresy, his bright robes were ripped from his rotting flesh, his fingers were hacked off, and his body was dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber River.

The second successor of Pope Stephen had the body of Formosus, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber River, reinterred with full honors. Formosus’ official orders were then declared valid. Then a future Pope, Sergius III turned around and declared that Pope Stephen was correct and Pope Formosus was wrong.

Pope Eugene IV condemned Joan of Arc to be burned alive as a witch. Then a future Pope turned around and declared her to be a saint. Pope Sixtus V had a version of the Bible prepared which he declared to be accurate. Just two years later, Pope Clement VIII declared that this version was full of errors. The Popes of Rome condemned the astronomer Galileo for his correct view of the Solar System and Universe.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Get out your thinking caps apologists. Thesis: the Popes have such a history of human falability, that the apologists’ explanations are going to sound thin indeed. Mainly, I just want Catholics to be aware of these facts.

Evidence:

“To enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one’s hands together.”-- Pope Boniface

Bishop Liberius signed the Arian Sirmium Creed which denied the Deity of Christ. Pope Honorius contradicted so many Popes that he was accursed by Councils and Popes for centuries. According to the Catholic Bishop Luitprand of Cremona who lived at the time of Pope John XII 955 A.D., “No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John … (would) defile (them)…” Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) lived in public incest with his two sister and his own daughter, Lucretia, from whom, it is said, he had a child. In 1501 he conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican.
In the ninth century Pope Stephen VI brought former Pope Formosus to trial by digging up his corpse from the grave and placing the body upon a throne. Pope Formosus was judged guilty of heresy, his bright robes were ripped from his rotting flesh, his fingers were hacked off, and his body was dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber River.

The second successor of Pope Stephen had the body of Formosus, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber River, reinterred with full honors. Formosus’ official orders were then declared valid. Then a future Pope, Sergius III turned around and declared that Pope Stephen was correct and Pope Formosus was wrong.

Pope Eugene IV condemned Joan of Arc to be burned alive as a witch. Then a future Pope turned around and declared her to be a saint. Pope Sixtus V had a version of the Bible prepared which he declared to be accurate. Just two years later, Pope Clement VIII declared that this version was full of errors. The Popes of Rome condemned the astronomer Galileo for his correct view of the Solar System and Universe.

Popes are fallible humans and sinners in their private actions, just like enyone else.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…I just want Catholics to be aware of these facts…

I agree Catholics should know their Church history. They need to understand the difference between a Pope having lived a sinful life (act of fallibility) and a Pope binding the universal Church (act of infallibility).

 

[mlchance]

The Popes of Rome condemned the astronomer Galileo for his correct view of the Solar System and Universe.

Since we’re splitting hairs, Galileo’s cosmology was not correct except in the broad picture. The mechanics by which he explained planetary motion, et cetera, were wrong. Galileo was warned to not teach as true that which he had not demonstrated to be true. He chose to ignore this rather sound advice (and, in the process, publicly insulted the Pope, who had previously been somewhat sympathetic to him).

As for your “thesis” and the supporting details (which you seem to think are somehow new and shocking): Learn the difference between infallibility and impeccability, and then understand why nothing your original post amounts to much more than some awful behavior.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[that1dude]

Since we’re splitting hairs, Galileo’s cosmology was not correct except in the broad picture. The mechanics by which he explained planetary motion, et cetera, were wrong. Galileo was warned to not teach as true that which he had not demonstrated to be true. He chose to ignore this rather sound advice (and, in the process, publicly insulted the Pope, who had previously been somewhat sympathetic to him).

As for your “thesis” and the supporting details (which you seem to think are somehow new and shocking): Learn the difference between infallibility and impeccability, and then understand why nothing your original post amounts to much more than some awful behavior.

– Mark L. Chance.

No, these facts are not new. That is why it is called “history”. And if one was not aware of this history, then yes it would most likely be shocking. It exposes the sham. You try to reduce the popes’ inconsistencies, infighting, and immorality as just “some awful behavior”. When in fact, it shows they are fallible. If you have some new definition of this word “infallible”, then please share it. On the moral and cosmic and supernatural question of someone being a “witch” or a “saint”, the popes disagreed. On the moral question of lying with woman or boys, the popes disagreed. When the Nazi French puppet government introduced “Jewish statutes,” the Vatican did not consider the legislation in conflict with Catholic teachings, as long as they were carried out with “charity” and “justice.” Some would disagree with that stance.

Yet the ridiculous stance of the Catholic hierarchy is that sometimes god installed immoral men into his highest office whose thinking was infallible in some areas which are vaguely defined and apparently do not include being able to discern a witch from a saint. It is even more telling that the parameters within which some dude can be infallible was decided upon by a bunch of other dudes. Make no mistake, the parameters were changed and narrowed because science and reason and information availability started to become more widespread.

And lastly, say goodbye to your credibility when you defend the inquisitors. Do you think that a person should be imprisoned for speaking about ideas, whether they be correct or not? Imprisoning Galileo was an immoral act. Why in the world would you defend this action. Is it because you have lost your ability to reason and instead will say anything to defend your organization? Probably the most depraved thing you said was that Galileo deserved to be forcefully detained because he “insulted” the pope. Either take this back, or be forever marked as the worst person I have ever talked to. If I refuse to stop publishing when the pope tells me to, I should go to jail? Insane!!

 

[Church_Militant]

No, these facts are not new. That is why it is called “history”. And if one was not aware of this history, then yes it would most likely be shocking. It exposes the sham. You try to reduce the popes’ inconsistencies, infighting, and immorality as just “some awful behavior”. When in fact, it shows they are fallible.

Since none of this was in a matter of faith and morals that was taught as a doctrine of the church it’s about the same as you making crazy remarks of some kind and us worrying about whether you are fallible.

You and the popes you mention have about the same fallibility, but thankfully, you are not Catholic,and you are not in charge.

If you have some new definition of this word “infallible”, then please share it. On the moral and cosmic and supernatural question of someone being a “witch” or a “saint”, the popes disagreed.

Documentation please?

Moreover, every human being is to some degree the result of the society of his or her time. What is simple science today would have been magic or supernatural just 500 years ago. So what?

On the moral question of lying with woman or boys, the popes disagreed.

Did they? Documentation?

When the Nazi French puppet government introduced “Jewish statutes,” the Vatican did not consider the legislation in conflict with Catholic teachings, as long as they were carried out with “charity” and “justice.” Some would disagree with that stance.

Again… you offer no documentation. Such a-C trash has been alleged against Pius XII and been refuted by Jews and Catholic alike.

Yet the ridiculous stance of the Catholic hierarchy is that sometimes god installed immoral men into his highest office whose thinking was infallible in some areas which are vaguely defined and apparently do not include being able to discern a witch from a saint.

I’d revamp my rhetoric if I was you. You are a guest here and calling any aspect of the Catholic faith “ridiculous” violates the rules. Look for yourself.

I suspect that the fact is that at those times men installed immoral men in their positions and the result was bad. Nothing in the doctrines of the church changed and the doctrines are the infallible teachings, not the trash you have coughed up.

It is even more telling that the parameters within which some dude can be infallible was decided upon by a bunch of other dudes. Make no mistake, the parameters were changed and narrowed because science and reason and information availability started to become more widespread.

right … whatever… you have it all figured out. :juggle:

And lastly, say goodbye to your credibility when you defend the inquisitors. Do you think that a person should be imprisoned for speaking about ideas, whether they be correct or not? Imprisoning Galileo was an immoral act. Why in the world would you defend this action. Is it because you have lost your ability to reason and instead will say anything to defend your organization? Probably the most depraved thing you said was that Galileo deserved to be forcefully detained because he “insulted” the pope. Either take this back, or be forever marked as the worst person I have ever talked to. If I refuse to stop publishing when the pope tells me to, I should go to jail? Insane!!

Oh get off it! It’s history, and like I said history does add a perspective…but your a-C rant is just that…a rhetorical rant. :yawn:

 

[LilyM]

No Pope condemned Joan of Arc at all - not a bit of it. She was condemned by the Bishop of Rheims, Cauchon, and the judges at her trial (of whom the Pope was not one) and even the University of Paris, but Boniface had precisely zip to do with her case. I’ve read her trial transcripts so I know whereof I speak. Neither did he declare her to be a saint - that didn’t happen until the 1920s, well after Boniface’s time.

I only know of one anathema against Honorius, made in dubious circumstances to say the least - who made the others of which you speak?

As for Formosus - an illegal and disgraceful trial doesn’t mean the bedrock teaching (that heresy is wrong) isn’t truth - although there was probably false accusation and miscarriage of justice in the case.

Sixtus? Didn’t live to declare his Bible officially ANYTHING, he died before it happened (perhaps in view of the errors this is proof for, rather than against, the Holy Spirit protecting against false teaching?)

As for the rest, all private behaviour not impacting on the teaching authority of the Popes one iota. If Boniface had put into a catechism or an official dogmatic pronouncement (say a public encyclical, a Papal Bull or some such) that fornication and sodomy were no longer sins then you might have a case.

Likewise with John or Alexander officially pronouncing that rape and incest or what have you were OK. I’d make a substantial bet that they didn’t.

See the Popes are like doctors - your doctor can smoke, drink, be overweight, unfit and all the rest of it and STILL give YOU the correct advice - tell you not to smoke, drink, keep a healthy weight and maintain fitness. Is his advice any less good for the fact that he doesn’t follow it himself?

 

[exoflare]

that1dude, you sound just like my roommate that I have had to put up with recently. Yeah, I know you were banned, but oh well.

I wish people would actually bother to research this stuff before they go on such clueless but passionate rants about it. It’s pretty messed up how all the most vehement protestors of Papal Infallibility don’t even know what that doctrine even MEANS.