The Popes of the Dark Ages

BobRyan · Mar 6, 2004

Here is a pro-RC view on Popes that were not "very good" throughout history.

Catholic Digest Feb 1994 page 126
– Fr Ken Ryan

“And before attempting to explain why such delightful characters should be considered to be in the line of St. Peter, we should know what political life in Rome was like in the early tenth century.

The Pope was the King of the Papal States. Money and temporal power came with the office of Pope. The corrupt practice of giving benefices (income-producing positions such as pastor, bishop, or abbot) to laymen was a part of the influence-buying system of the Evil Times. The papal office itself was not immune to purchase and seizure, which would account for more than one claimant to the papal office at one time.

Election to the papacy was by the clergy of Rome, not the cardinals of the whole world as now, and rioting mobs could control the local decision. Historians have pretty well sorted out the true popes from the anti-popes but that does not mean that all the true popes were good popes. Why the Holy Spirit allowed sinners to assume a holy office we don’t know, any more than we know why God allowed Adam or Judas to sin.

The Church’s assertion of Papal infallibility had not yet been put forward in those times, but as a matter of fact those popes who sought money, power, and murderous revenge on rivals seem never to have bothered with theology Very Much and never to have decreed anything that would disprove infallibility of the Church as defined IN 1870.

The Church accepts that there were evil men in the line of successors of Peter because it believes that Christ founded a visible organization of men. Some of its leaders were sinner who brought on such surreal troubles that in surviving them the Church proved it divine mission and at least partly fulfilled Christ’s prophecy that it would last until the end of time.”
Click to expand...

Clearly there is a "reason" for the dark ages.

My question is this: if infallibility was in fact "defined in the 1870's" - how were the Popes of previous centuries "clearly identifying statements" spoken infallibly? Did they know to preface them with "now here is one coming to you ExCathedra"?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Mar 6, 2004

"Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside. The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility, and election to the chair of
Peter, as we have seen, was frequently a commodity for sale or barter.
The Ottonian era had led to a temporary improvement in the characters of the popes, but by the second quarter of the eleventh century standards had crumbled once more. Benedict IX (1032-48), whose election was the result of a systematic campaign of bribery by his father, the Tusculan grandee Count Alberic III, was as bad as any of the popes of the preceding 'dark century'. Like his uncle and immediate predecessor John XIX, Benedict was a layman, and was still in his twenties at the time of his election. He was both violent and debauched, and even the Roman populace, hardened as they were to unedifying papal behaviour, could not stomach him. He was eventually deposed in favour of Silvester III (1045). With the help of his family's private army, he was briefly restored in 1045 amid bloody hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Rome. He was evidently tired of the struggle, however, for he accepted a bribe to abdicate in favor of his godfather, the archpriest John Gratian." - Eamon Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (Yale University Press, 1997)
Click to expand...

BobRyan · Mar 6, 2004

During the last two years of his pontificate, Sixtus V (1585-90) rewrote the entire Latin Bible, adding phrases and sentences at whim, leaving out entire verses, changing the titles of the Psalms, and inventing his own system of chapters and verses.

In a Papal Bull Aeternus Ille (an allegedly infallible declaration on faith and morals to the entire Church), he declared by 'the fullness of Apostolical power' that this new 'translation' of the Bible must be 'received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.' Anyone who disobeyed was to be excommunicated.

(One of several copies of these "Bibles" is preserved in the Bodleian Library in Oxford).

In Christ,

Bob

Dr. Bob · Mar 7, 2004

Might this arrogant mishandling of the precious Word of God have prompted the English world's translations of the Douay/Reims (Catholic) in 1610 and Authorized Version (Anglican) in 1611?

BobRyan · Mar 7, 2004

It is interesting that they are so close together.

Of course the printing press and the popular movement to get the Bible into the hands of the people in their own language had to play the biggest part.

In Christ,

Bob

crossbarer · Mar 8, 2004

None of the "bad" Popes spoke Ex Cathedra. For something to qualify as Ex Cathedra, it cannot contradict anything all the way back to Christ.

We have to admit, that Jesus uses the bad for good. Jesus hand picked Judas for a purpose.

Jesus and the Apostles did warn that wolves would reach places of authority.

I know a little about the Catholic Church, I've been studying it from the "horses mouth" sort of say.

In Christ,
crossbarer

Ray Berrian · Mar 8, 2004

Crossbearer,

You said, 'We have to admit, that Jesus uses the bad for good. Jesus hand picked Judas for a purpose.'

I agree with your first sentence above but not with the last one. Neither God no man forced Judas to end up in Hell. Even hearing the Kingdom message and seeing the miracles he still remained in rebellion toward the King, greedily desiring to take care of the financial funds for the Apostolate. If he did not have a free will to believe neither do any of us.'

You said, 'Jesus and the Apostles did warn that wolves would reach places of authority.'

Four statements are made about wolves. Matt. 8:15:

Jesus said, 'Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' In this case they were unsaved because they were wolves and not sheep, and were in no way held membership in a Christian church.'

Matt. 1016: Our Lord said, 'Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.' In this case, He is saying that His people would have to confront sinners.'

Luke 10:3: 'Go your ways; behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.' Jesus, again sends His disciples to a lost world.'

Acts 20:29: 'For I know this, that after My departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.' Yes, sinners enter into Christian churches as though they were saved but in fact are not part of the true Christian church.'

Some may reach places of alleged authority; but the true Christian recognizeds they are in reality not genuine Christians.

The Popes of the Dark Ages

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

BobRyan Well-Known Member

crossbarer Guest

Ray Berrian New Member

Useful Searches

The Popes of the Dark Ages

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

BobRyan Well-Known Member

crossbarer Guest

Ray Berrian New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator