Men Of God ?

[Guest]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1837117' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:42 AM']One of Jesus's hand-picked Apostles betrayed Him for thirty pieces of silver. I reckon you better not follow Him in the first place, then. Certainly turning God over to be killed is worse than these other things you mentioned.[/quote]

Thank you for this bro. It's dead on.



[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1837258' date='Apr 16 2009, 10:32 AM']Basically every religion has its closet full of skeletons and maybe the Catholic Church has a couple of closets, but it is also a pretty big church.[/quote]


Ya sometimes I cannot stand religion.


[quote name='CatherineM' post='1837307' date='Apr 16 2009, 11:34 AM']You have to understand there is a difference between the Church and the people who hold positions of authority within it. It's a shame that Jesus had to entrust his perfect Church to imperfect humans, but he didn't have a choice. He left Peter in charge, a man that he knew had denied him 3 times, and fell asleep during a time when Jesus needed him the most.

It is our failures, not our successes, that make us stronger. Some of the "history" that you are reading on that website, are a person's perspective from centuries removed from the things that happened. How will George Bush be viewed 1000 years from now when society and culture have evolved into a totally different place? 1000+ years ago, life was much shorter and harder than it is today. Rules change, and our ideas about rules change. I have a bishop in my family tree. Not because he was an adulterer or had violated his vows, but because it was okay for priests to marry at that time in history.

If you take any historical occurrence and pull it out of context, you can make it look any way that you want to. In 1000 years if we base our history on just the reporting of Fox News or MSNBC, how will our descendants view and judge us? Don't base your faith on what a human Pope may or may not have done centuries ago in a different time and place, base your faith on Christ, the 7 sacraments he left to help us, and the community of faithful that surround you in our Church.[/quote]


msnbc is whack.


[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1837309' date='Apr 16 2009, 11:43 AM']Case closed.[/quote]


cannot wait till it is

[quote name='LivingStone' post='1837421' date='Apr 16 2009, 01:58 PM']Delivery Boy, hope that you're doing well. I understand your frustration with the corruption that can be and is found in the Catholic Church. I want to refer you to Scripture for a second: Matthew 13, where our Lord is giving a series of parables comparing the Kingdom to various things. When Jesus was speaking in parables in this chapter, it is really important to note that Jesus is NOT talking about the world as we see it; rather, Jesus is speaking about His Kingdom, or as we understand it, His Church. (If you need evidence for the Kingdom being the Church, refer to the prophecies in Daniel).

Here are two of the parables:

[b][u]Matthew 13:24-30, 36-42[/u][/b]
24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and [b]sowed weeds among the wheat[/b], and went away.
26 So [b]when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also[/b].
27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?'
28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'
29 But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
30 [b]Let both grow together until the harvest[/b]; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field."
37 He answered, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of man;
38 the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one,
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.
40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.
41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers,
42 and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.
[b][u]
Second Parable: Matthew 13:47-51[/u][/b]
47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and [b]gathered fish of every kind[/b];
48 when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad.
49 So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous,
50 and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.
51 "Have you understood all this?" They said to him, "Yes."





It is real important to understood that the Catholic Church is not perfect and will not be until the close of the ages. If you are looking for a corrupt-free, scandalous-free, sin-free Church, good like finding one, for as soon as you or anyone joins it, it becomes imperfect. So when you hear the news of the scandals in the Catholic Church or hear Bishops/priests praise Obama's pro-choice outlook or even learn about the popes that were blatantly haughty sinners, remember these words from Christ Himself. Jesus knew that the weeds were going to grow with the wheat in the Church. He knew it was going to be.

When you hear all these things happening, Jesus is pretty much telling us, "[i]Everything is going according to plan. Continue to trust in Me, the Way, the Truth, and the Life[/i]".[/quote]


Godbless


[quote name='tinytherese' post='1837580' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:30 PM']Have you ever read the book "Triumph?" It's a highly respected and orthodox church history book. I haven't read it myself, but it's been recommended to me before.[/quote]


No I never read it. If I would of read all the stuff recomended to me here i'd be a geniuse.


[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1837584' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:34 PM']The Church is a hospital for sinners.[/quote]

im checked in.

[TotusTuusMaria]

Glad to hear you're feeling better and doing better.

[Guest]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1837855' date='Apr 16 2009, 08:07 PM']I started... it is so much it would take so much time to continue...



Actually the Bible, the words of [u]God Himself[/u], condemn impurity and dishonor of the sabbath and it is God Himself who speaks through the Church and tells you that sins of impurity and dishonor to God are grave, but....

"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them". Matthew 23:1-4

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone..." John 8:7



1. The history of this time is very sketchy and it is just a matter of which source you want to believe, all of them having critics. It was the dark ages. If the author of this anti-Catholic website expects essays on these men from the dark ages then she is expecting too much.

2. [u]There is not solid proof that Pope Sergius III obtained his office by murder.[/u] Here are the facts:

The contemporary lists of popes list Leo V and then Sergius III and acknowledge Christopher as an anti-pope. This can be seen on New Advent.

However, apparently Liber Pontificalis (don't read Latin, so I wouldn't know) and another French list of Popes mentioned on the Catholic Answers "Original Catholic Encylopedia" report that the supposed Anti-Pope, Christopher, did in fact reign as Pope for a very short time.

Whichever he succeeded, here is how the many sources are saying the two of them died:

[u]Leo V[/u]
* 9th edition of the Encylopedia Britannica reports that Leo V was stranged by Anti-Pope Christopher
* The Catholic Encylopedia says that Leo V likely died a natural death in prison or in a monastery
* Vulgarius says he was strangled in prison along with Christopher by Sergius III

[u]Christopher[/u]
* Hermannus Contractus says that since he was driven from Rome by Sergius that he was compelled to end his days as a monk.
* Vulgarius, of course, says he was strangled in prison by Sergius III.

There is no way to really say how Christopher or Leo V died. Too many sources contradict each other. You just have to study the sources and hypothesize yourself. [b]Anyway it goes the author is presenting information as conclusive fact which certainly is not. [/b]

3. There is evidence that John XI was the son of Sergius III, but it isn't conclusive and I haven't seen anything claiming that Sergius III "fathered [i]several [/i]illegitimate children by Marozia."

The Catholic Encyclopedia & Ludovico Antonio Muratori, and Flodoard say that he was the son of Marozia by her first marriage with Alberic.

The Liber Pontificalis & Liutprand of Cremona claim that it is Sergius' illegitimate son.

[u]The point is though: the author once again presents information that is not conclusive fact, saying that it is. Then, more outrageous, the author says that he had "several" illegitimate children by her." From what I am reading, Marozia only had two boys and the other is claimed by another man while little future Pope John XI is said to have possibly been the other man's as well. [/u]

Good things that Pope Sergius XIII did: "He protected Archbishop John of Ravenna against the Count of Istria, and confirmed the establishment of a number of new sees in England. Because he opposed the errors of the Greeks, they struck his name from the diptychs, but he showed his good sense in declaring valid the fourth marriage of the Greek emperor, Leo VI. Sergius completely restored the Lateran Basilica..." (Original Catholic Encyclopedia)

And John XI, while he lived through supposedly the worst time of the papacy, he is the one who granted great privileges to the Congregation of Cluny, which brought about great reforms in the papacy and throughout the Church.



John XII was a moral scandal, no doubt about it and at the time Church offices were bought and sold, bishops took orders and bribes from noblemen, monasteries were taken over by greedy men who wanted the wealth their lands could produce. It appeared that Christianity was dying and that it would soon go the way of all earthly institutions, however...

John, despite his immoral lifestyle and scandal, reportedly never said anything "infallibly" which goes against what we know to be true. Even the worst of men cannot go against the power of the Holy Spirit which protects and rules over the office of the Vicar of Christ. And, the Church survived this persecution and a reform movement began. While his lifestyle was sad, unfortunate, and a scandal to the Church... God has used it to glorify Himself and show the beauty of His Church, proving in a fantastic way that "the gates of hell shall never prevail."

John XII even managed to do something good: crown Otto Holy Roman Emperor, re-establishing the Holy Roman Empire. Otto went on to offer protection to the Pope, restore order to Italy and encourage missionary activity among the barbarians.



John XII never imposed sins though and forbid virtue....

Cardinal Bellarmine isn't acknowledging the infallibility of the Holy Father. It says, "If the Pope were to err..." From Scripture though we know that when the Pope is speaking ex-cathedra it will not be the case... and history proves this.



Cardinal Bellarmine hardly speaks for "The Vatican." And, as a matter of fact, "New Advent" doesn't speak for the Vatican as the author continues to insinuate either.



"From certain Vatican websites..."

1.[u] Boniface VII was an anti-pope[/u] (which is the reason why it skips. What Pope is going to take the name of someone who was an anti-pope? His entire pontificate was not remitted. It simply never existed. Benedict VII was the Pope at the time and he was imprisoned by the Romans when Crescentius stirred up a rebellion. They (the Romans) then said that this man (Cardinal-Deacon Franco) was to be Pope, Boniface VII. The true Pope was still alive. After they named above Cardinal "Pope" they killed the true Pope. Boniface then robbed the Vatican and split. John XIV was then rightfully declared Pope. There never was a "Boniface VII" as Pope. It was invalid.

Leo VIII probably was a monster of guilt and reeking of blood, but I don't know of anything he actually did as Pope that displays that. Before Pope, yes. But as Pope... not so much.

"No extant records inform us of any deeds which Leo performed during the period when he may be safely regarded as a true pope. He is said, indeed, to have given Otho the right of nominating any one he chose to be pope or bishop, and to have restored to Otho all the lands which his predecessors had bestowed upon the papacy. [i]It is generally allowed, however, that the documents which make these statements are imperial productions forged during the investiture quarrel."[/i] - Original Catholic Encyclopedia





"A few later chroniclers (Marianus Scotus, Godfrey of Viterbo) and some papal catalogues give as the immediate successor of Boniface another John, son of Robert, who is supposed to have reigned four months, and is placed by a few historians in the list of popes as John XV. [u]Although this alleged Pope John never existed[/u], still the fact that he has been catalogued by these historians has thrown into disorder the numeration of the popes named John, the true John XV being often called John." - New Advent





This man lived a sinful life, yes. Very bad. However.... once again... no heresy. Just an immoral, sick life. God brings good out of it though because in the end he finally resigned from his papacy and turned from his sin and came to the abbot at Grottaferrata asking for a remedy for his disorders. The abbot, considered a saint, gave his advice and Benedict died in penitence at Grottaferrata. He is buried there.

No one is secretly trying to hide anything.



Insane. Absolutely insane. The author has no idea what she is talking about. *sigh*

Innocent III did not promote the "Inquisition." He called a Crusade. There is a difference there.

He re-established papal authority in Rome and extended political power over the peninsula, he stood up for the faith and protected it against the Albigensian heresy. He didn't back down in the conflict with King John of England and thus helped to guarentee the right of noblemen against their king for those in England. He prepared a crusade against the Muslims in Spain which led to the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa which was a huge success, protected the people of Norway against a tyrannical king, mediated between the king of Hungary and his rebel brother, sent the royal crown to the king of Bulgaria, arbitrated the crown of Sweden, and restored ecclesiastical discipline in Poland. He was a very good Pope and he is [i]responsible[/i] for not one death.

He was a great Pope...

**********************

I have started on it and I might finish it just to prove to you how ridiculous this author is. Some of these men (and women, Joan) have not ever even existed. Every single person the author has pointed out has had [i]something[/i] misrepresented about them, despite that a handful of them truly were bad apples. The author has a very poor knowledge of what she is talking about and she is very biased, not willing to present the truth which is that for half of these there are so many sources saying so many things that contradict each other that the truth of their behavior cannot be determined.

Don't leave the Church over this. It would be really silly.

The Church is always going to have scandal, but what gets me is that this author has not reported said scandal truthfully.[/quote]


Just read through everything you wrote and it's crazy how these people can twist the facts so much. Why are they doing this ? I can't even imagine with the way technology is now'a days what they have planned next. The way they present it if you're not grounded in the faith its almost to overwhelming. I'm scared for how bad it is going to get if they keep this up.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Guest

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1838316' date='Apr 17 2009, 05:03 AM']Just read through everything you wrote and it's crazy how these people can twist the facts so much. Why are they doing this ?[/quote]

I think the author is convinced that what she is writing is true. She hasn't studied very well and what she does study is probably second-hand anti-Catholic books, which she constantly quotes.

And then too she use to be Catholic. Ex-Catholics are usually very bitter toward the Church and from my experience will believe anything you throw at them without requiring any evidence. A lot have left the Church because they have been hurt by the people in the Church. It is all very sad...

She isn't doing it intentionally I don't think. She is just ... "lost." If everything she wrote was true then it is understandable why she would make a website to make it known and try to get Catholics out of the Church... and she believes it is true.

There is an obvious lack of study on her part though probably complemented by bitterness and hurt which gives her a bias for the other side of the argument.

[quote]I can't even imagine with the way technology is now'a days what they have planned next. The way they present it if you're not grounded in the faith its almost to overwhelming. I'm scared for how bad it is going to get if they keep this up.[/quote]

Yeah... people really need to be prepared... it is so important for us to study our faith.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1837580' date='Apr 16 2009, 03:30 PM']Have you ever read the book "Triumph?" It's a highly respected and orthodox church history book. I haven't read it myself, but it's been recommended to me before.[/quote]

If you are looking for a very pro-Catholic gloss, that is definitely the book to get.

Bottom line though, for as many clerics and popes that you can try to rehabilitate, there are only that many more that are beyond such attempts. At some point you have to accept the fact that the church is filled with sinners from top to bottom (like just about everywhere else), or pretend otherwise.