Men Of God ?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1837109' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:54 AM']This might very well be the last straw for me. I'm going to post what I just found on this website and it makes me sick to my stomach. Mabey God is really calling me out of the catholic church. I never even imagined I would learn stuff like this and it honestly makes me sad and really has crippled my faith. (at least tonight)
[blah, blah, anti-Catholic cut-and-paste, blah, blah . . . ][/quote]
Pizza Boy,

I honestly don't have the time to refute bit-by-bit that heaping pile of anti-Catholic lies and horse manure you've cut-and-pasted.

But seriously, do you believe every single thing you read on the internet? You pasted from an anti-Catholic website which has the sole purpose of spreading lies and bigoted propaganda against the Catholic Church.

Would you go to some neo-Nazi website and believe whatever they say about the Jews?
Really, this is no different.

Note that the author of that garbage cannot give any citation for most of his anti-Catholic claims, and most of the sources he gives are simply books of more anti-Catholic propaganda.

You "didn't know this kind of stuff was true" because it's not. Ninety percent of it is pure lies and fabrication, and the remaining 10% is grotesque distortions of the truth.

To give just a few examples, "Popess Joan" is just a silly myth, and no such person ever existed. No serious historians believe she was real and there exists no historical record of her existence. (Of course, the anti-Catholic buffoons just claim this, as well as lack of real evidence for their other outrageous claims, just proves the effectiveness of the "cover-up").
Pope Pius XII most certainly did [i]not[/i] help Hitler rise to power, but did more to save Jews from the Nazis than any other person at the time. In fact, Nazism was thoroughly condemned by the Pope in the 1930s, and the Nazis violently persecuted Catholics in Poland and the Czech Republic, and many were martyred for their Faith.
And Pope John Paul II being a "cyanide salesman" to the Nazis? Pure bs.

I'm not going to do all your homework for you, but to get you started, here's the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/260"]Defense Directory's list of links to articles refuting anti-Catholic myths and lies regarding the Papacy.[/url]

Here's a list of links to articles concerning the truth about [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/344"]The Church and the Holocaust[/url].

Here's some links on [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/30"]Anti-Catholicism[/url] in general.

There's also a lot of other great stuff in the Defense Directory rite here on Phatmass.
You might also want to run a search on [url="http://www.catholic.com/search.asp"]Catholic Answers[/url] for anything you might have a question about. They have lots of great resources.

Honestly, why are you so quick believe anything spouted on a croutons anti-Catholic website, when there's lots of good material right in front of you here on Phatmass?

But really, read some good Catholic material before getting yourself tied up in knots over anti-Catholic poo on the internet.

And the time you wasted reading internet garbage would be much better spent reading the Bible or the encyclicals of the Popes themselves (so you can read what they really teach, rather than what some bigoted anti-Catholic moron says about them).

God bless.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Socrates

[saintwannabe 777]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1837835' date='Apr 16 2009, 08:39 PM']Pizza Boy,

I honestly don't have the time to refute bit-by-bit that heaping pile of anti-Catholics lies and horse manure you've cut-and-pasted.

But seriously, do you believe every single thing you read on the internet? You pasted from an anti-Catholic website which has the sole purpose of spreading lies and bigoted propaganda against the Catholic Church.

Would you go to some neo-Nazi website and believe whatever they say about the Jews?
Really, this is no different.

Note that the author of that garbage cannot give any citation for most of his anti-Catholic claims, and most of the sources he gives are simply books of more anti-Catholic propaganda.

You "didn't know this kind of stuff was true" because it's not. Ninety percent of it is pure lies and fabrication, and the remaining 10% is grotesque distortions of the truth.

To give just a few examples, "Popess Joan" is just a silly myth, and no such person ever existed. No serious historians believe she was real and there exists no historical record of her existence. (Of course, the anti-Catholic buffoons just claim this, as well as lack of real evidence for their other outrageous claims, just proves the effectiveness of the "cover-up").
Pope Pius XII most certainly did [i]not[/i] help Hitler rise to power, but did more to save Jews from the Nazis than any other person at the time. In fact, Nazism was thoroughly condemned by the Pope in the 1930s, and the Nazis violently persecuted Catholics in Poland and the Czech Republic, and many were martyred for their Faith.
And Pope John Paul II being a "cyanide salesman" to the Nazis? Pure bs.

I'm not going to do all your homework for you, but to get you started, here's the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/260"]Defense Directory's list of links to articles refuting anti-Catholic myths and lies regarding the Papacy.[/url]

Here's a list of links to articles concerning the truth about [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/344"]The Church and the Holocaust[/url].

Here's some links on [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/30"]Anti-Catholicism[/url] in general.

There's also a lot of other great stuff in the Defense Directory rite here on Phatmass.
You might also want to run a search on [url="http://www.catholic.com/search.asp"]Catholic Answers[/url] for anything you might have a question about. They have lots of great resources.

Honestly, why are you so quick believe anything spouted on a croutons anti-Catholic website, when there's lots of good material right in front of you here on Phatmass?

But really, read some good Catholic material before getting yourself tied up in knots over anti-Catholic poo on the internet.

And the time you wasted reading internet garbage would be much better spent reading Bible or the encyclicals of the Popes themselves (so you can read what they really teach, rather than what some bigoted anti-Catholic moron says about them).

God bless.[/quote]

Socrates awesome post my dude. But just remember, we all go through crises in our faith because the evil one is a crafty liar and can fool many. Be a litter gentler with Josh and understand that no one is immune to lies. We all fall every once in a while.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1837835' date='Apr 16 2009, 08:39 PM']Pizza Boy,

I honestly don't have the time to refute bit-by-bit that heaping pile of anti-Catholics lies and horse manure you've cut-and-pasted.[/quote]

I started... it is so much it would take so much time to continue...

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1837109' date='Apr 16 2009, 04:54 AM']This is the same " supreme authority" that tells me im going to go to hell for missing mass or masturbating yet they have done these sickening things?[/quote]

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

[quote]1. Pope Sergius III (904 - 911) obtained his office by murder. He fathered several illegitimate children by Marozia, who assassinated Pope Leo VI (928 - 929), and put her own teenage son (John XI) as Pope.

When I researched this pope on Vatican approved websites to verify further, they had hardly anything to say. Where most popes had huge dissertations about them listed online, this particular Pope had a single paragraph that would cover all but a 1/4 page. Their excuse for this vague data was that the only history they had of him was from negative reports of his opponents. So of course it was considered fictitious and thereby omitted. Sadly, this is a common reaction from within this church. As long as I have been sharing with Catholics, the grand majority that hate the truth always seem to dismiss it as easy as these do. They figure that ANY negative reports no matter how well verified must be a lie. And by the way, I know of this “faith” first hand. I was Catholic 29 years and I do was “taught” to have a blind trust as well by the priests and nuns.

So yes, the Catholic websites will omit any info on this pope. However, they did seem to mention the fact he was allowed the sacred burial of a pope regardless. In other words, he has been buried in St Peter's Basicilla in a place of honor and high respect like all the other popes before him. Including the overwhelmingly evil ones I am mentioning here.[/quote]

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.

[quote]2. Pope John XII (955 - 964) is described in the Catholic encyclopedia as “a coarse, immoral man.” The Catholic collection of the lives of the Popes, the "Liber Pontificalis" said: "He spent his entire life in adultery." Catholic bishop Luitprand states that "he had no respect for single girls, married woman or widows - they were sure to be defiled by him."

In researching this Pope on Vatican approved sites, I found the following...

"On 6 November (964) a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication (ferendæ sententia) against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope." –Catholic Encyclopedia- [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm[/url]

Then on February 26 of 964AD, Pope John XII held a synod of his own in St. Peter's in which the decrees of the synod of November 6 were repealed! How convenient! If you’re a Pope, and someone that has evidence against you steps up, even if it's 50 men, just excommunicate them and move on to have what they brought forward annulled and struck from existence.

By the way, the Vatican still holds this pope in high standing to this day. Thing is, his evil ways did eventually catch up with him. He died on May 14, 964AD, eight days after he had been, according to rumor, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery.[/quote]

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.

[quote]One more thing on this pope... Cardinal Bellarmine of the 17th century was a great defender of the papacy but he considered John XII and all the others to be abominable. Nevertheless, he wrote in his book De Romano Pontifice:

“The Pope is the supreme judge of faith of morals…If the Pope were to err by imposing sins and forbidding virtues, the church would still have to consider sins as virtues and virtues as vices… "[/quote]

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.

[quote]Does this not bring to mind a quote I shared before in these Newsletters? The Vatican openly declares that if they choose to define something holy, even though you know it to be evil, you must agree it’s holy if the Magistrate defines it as such. Case in point is the statement by the founder of the infamous Jesuit order himself..[/quote]

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.

[quote]3.Pope Boniface VII (984 - 985), John XII and Leo VIII were described by the Bishop of Orleans as "monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth."

For some reason this Pope's records are missing all together from certain Vatican web sites. I could find nothing that would agree or disagree with his reign of terror. In fact, the list goes from Boniface VI to Boniface VIII without any explanation for the missing Pope at all! Perhaps he was far too much an embarrassment to retain? So… they omitted his entire pontificate?[/quote]

"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

[quote]4. Pope John XV (985 - 996) split the churches finances among his relatives and was described as "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."

Researching further, this is yet another pope who’s evil past seems to have been erased from certain Vatican approved websites. There is record of his existence, however no mention of his evil lusts are recorded in any form that I can find. All you I was able to find was nothing but well thought out positive reports about him.[/quote]



"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

[quote]5. Pope Benedict IX (1033 - 1045) committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims, and was regarded as a hideous criminal by all. The people drove him out of Rome: The Catholic encyclopedia says, "He was a disgrace to the chair of Peter."

Now I will admit I am a bit surprised at the research I dug up on this pope. The Vatican sites were a bit truthful in regards to this one. They did repeat that he was a disgrace to the papacy, but they stopped short there. Not a single mention of his evil reign as a pope, or his crazed activities were mentioned in the slightest. However, they did manage to speak of him in the same light they would any other pope. So, why did they admit him evil and then praise him anyway? It has to do with the true nature of the beast. Were you aware the word, “Babylon” means “to mix.”? They mix truth with error just as much as they mix curses with blessings. As many years as I have been doing this research I have come to expect this of Rome.[/quote]



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.

[quote]6. Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) promoted the Inquisition, surpassing all his predecessors in killing over one million people.

Here we have one of the most evil popes in the history of mankind. A man that surpassed all his predecessors in killing over 1 million Christians in his short 18 year reign of terror, and the Roman Catholic Vatican approved websites start off their historic dissertations regarding this madman by saying he was, and I quote... "One of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages" –Catholic Encyclopedia

Historic fact remains he was a murderous and highly satanic man. Yet modern day Roman Catholic leaders herald him as a leader worthy of emulating to this day! Is it any wonder the Roman Church is dealing with a lawsuit at this time for their part in the holocaust? It seems Pope Innocent's followers are trying to live up to his wonderful leadership! And they have the audacity to name him Pope INNOCENT!?[/quote]

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.

[Guest]

Socrates TotusTuusMaria thanks for taking time for all the info. Im going to get to reading it soon and those links look awesome. Last night when I went to bed the last thing God said to me was you're not so perfect either and reminded me of...............I wont say but I just went to confesson for it and if you knew what it was someone could paint me in a picture of a really **********. (I dont know what that is supposed to spell but its really bad) So i'm glad I wont be judged since I don't judge people either. Godbless the popes and for the bad ones hopefully the blood of Christ washes their sins away as with my sins also.

So I got to bed around 5 am or so and I sleep till 3pm or so and turn on the dish network. I flip to ewtn and then I flip over to 225 and to shephards chappel with Pastor Arnold Murray. I dont know if you guys know who he is but he prides himself on " teaching chapter by chapter verse by verse" and honestly I've enjoyed listening to him the last few years. He teaches against the rapture and he's always talking abuot that. He's funny but it always seems theres an underlying tone against the church and it's authority. He never comes out and says it but it seems there and he's from arkansaw. So ya mabey I shouldnt watch him or put so much stock into what he says. Although I do feel he is a good teacher of God. Anways,

I go back to sleep and wake up and the end of Hanity is on. Great performance by rascal flats I must say. ( good job boys) So then I go to ewtn a litte later and see this awesome program about the present Pope and his humble upbringing and how good of a man he is. God gave me the grace to see this tonight and I do see how the pope is put their by God. Then to come to find out it's his birthday. So anyhow after watching that I take ride to jam out to hope hiphop and go by the church near by. I talk with God and realise how wrong I was and he lets me know starting this thread the way I did was really some **** ****. But we talked it out and I think it's good. And he reminded me about the scripture that said if you even hate in your heart you are a murderer. He did this after I spoke back to him defending starting this thread. He reminded me even if a pope murdered somebody I have hated in my heart before so I could be found just as guilty. God got me again.

Peace

Edited April 17, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

[quote name='saintwannabe 777' post='1837850' date='Apr 16 2009, 07:58 PM']Socrates awesome post my dude. But just remember, we all go through crises in our faith because the evil one is a crafty liar and can fool many. Be a litter gentler with Josh and understand that no one is immune to lies. We all fall every once in a while.[/quote]

na socrates could have me burned by now if he wanted.

i've been here awhile

[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.