Featured Were the Popes right to call fellow Popes "Antichrist"?

1. Is it your claim that history cannot be told "or known" by anyone but a Catholic that believes as you do - such that even other Catholic historians cannot be trusted if they do not hold to certain Catholic doctrines the way you do?

2. Ok - fine -then how could you ever have come to this conclusion as a Baptist - thinking about looking into joining the Catholic Church?? Were you really saying to yourself "not only do I reject all Baptist historians as neutral objective sources - as I contemplate moving to the RCC - I also reject all CATHOLIC historians if they mention unfavorable events in history about the RCC or hold to any point of doctrine not approved of by the Pope - for such historians cannot possibly be neutral and unbiased in their report of history?"

That is pretty hard to believe that a Baptist would be going that far as he/she contemplates the possibility of joining the Catholic Church and takes the first step by looking into history for the facts.

You are losing me on this one. How did you do it??

Indeed - but you are saying you rejected the Baptist historians AND the Catholic historians if they did not hide certain facts in history unfavorable to the Catholic church --- "as a Baptist"???

Which would certainly be a problem for a cradle-catholic. But normally Baptists don't insist on an "imprimatur" as as the sign and seal of neutrality and objectivity.

Have you ever met a baptist that insisted that historians he/she accepts must first get Papal Imprimatur to be deemed truly neutral, objective and unbiased?

I mean ---... ever??

Again the claim that a Baptist would insist on a Papal Imprimatur before accepting an account of Catholic history... ?? Really?

This exceeds my ability to imagine such a thing - quite frankly.

What I see is both Catholic and non-Catholic historians describing the Papacy as 'in its golden age" in the dark ages - running the whole of Europe to a much greater extent than the Roman Caesars. What I see is that in the Year 2000 the RCC itself claimed it had to drop the facade of pretending the the civil powers were the true actors and masterminds in the dark ages - and fully admit that it was the Papacy pure and simple.

Which is how Catholic historians and analysts portray it -- and it is how protestant historians describe it and it is how the conference held by the Vatican in the year 2000 described it.

How much objectivity would need to be tossed out to ignore the broad spectrum of agreement on this point?

Certainly the Catholic church does admit to what it calls "wicked popes". And there is apparently a long list of them.

Let us say for the sake of argument that all three papal lines fully active - with their own armies at war with each other - and plenary indulgences promised to all that should die in battle - is the norm for that time.

The question is about their calling each other by the term "antichrist'.

Wouldn't you agree that instead of having loyal devoted catholics killing each other across the whole of Europe - as Bokenkotter points out - it would have been better to simply say to each other 'well my brother we apparently do not see eye to eye on all points - so go your way in peace and may God be with you and your followers"??

Or was every Pope and every council of Cardinals in error in that they chose the path of "hey all you other Popes - are antichrist" and also war?

Again - not a surprising bias for a cradle catholic - I just find it hard to be believe that a Baptist would have insisted on Papal imprimatures before accepting the report of Catholic historians. It is one stretch to claim that a Baptist would start by rejecting Baptist historians - but it is a far bigger stretch to argue that a Baptist would insist on reject Catholic historians of they lacked Papal imprimatur declaring acceptance by the Pope.

Indeed it is hard to believe that the litmus test for a historian must be "do you agree with the Pope on doctrine - if not that you are not allowed or trusted in reporting historic events that might not be approved of by the Pope".

I think you can see how this is pretty difficult to swallow given that we are having this discussion on a Baptist board.

By every measure Bokenkotter is pro-Catholic, is practicing Catholic - is not a Baptist. He begins his book with the self-criticism that he is burying much of the cruelty and brutality and complicity in the history he is reporting in service to his bias in favor of the Catholic Church.

Not something a Baptist historian would be tempted to do.

in Christ,

Bob

 

So the three Papal lines were anathamatizing their own armies - but the civil government was going ahead with it anyway?

Is this what you were thinking as a Baptist about these historic events - prior to choosing to be Catholic? Do you realize how far that goes against the historic record - even of the RCC itself on that history??

Bokenkotter goes on to describe - Popes AND their "warships" in the book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church".

ibid pg 167. Pope Urban VI "turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his OWN Cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture and five of them died shortly afterward, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship!"

The inhumanity torture of the inquisition, the papal warships, the papal armies, the respective papal indulgences promised to each of the followers of each of the Papal lines that died in battle for their respective pope -- is it possible that you simply turned from this history - when studying the history of the church to decide whether or not to not remain as a Baptist??


Bokenkotter p. 166-168

Whether the cardinals were really overpowered by fear and hence unfree when they elected Prignano - as they later charged - will, it seems, remain forever one of the tantalizing but insoluble questions of RC history...


The schism began when the cardinals - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough. Abandoning Rome, they took refuge at Fondi, and then elaborated an encyclical in which they declared Prignano's election invalid and denounced him has antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant...on September 20 1378 they unanimously elected a new Pope, Rober of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII.

..both Popes received support from civil governments - splitting western Christendom into two camps. The holy Roman emperor, England, the Netherlands, Castille, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stood behind Urban, while France rallied to Clement VII, who returned to Avignon in 1379 and was soon joined by Scottland, Luxembourg and Austria...(Italy itself was too confused for either side to count on)...

Urban proclaimed a crusade against clement and hired the sanguinary Charles of Durazzo to oust the renegade queen Joan from Naples. The English invaded France in order to break it's allegiance with Clement
.
Both Popes found military operations to be expensive, and the papal tax collectors where forced to use ever harsher methods to squeeze every penny out of the constituents...Urban turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his own cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture, and five of them died shortly thereafter, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship … Urban returned to Rome where he died in 1389. His fourteen cardinals immediately elected a successor..Boniface ix...
[FONT=&quot]
This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics."

========================================
QUOTE=BobRyan;1984255
1. Is it your claim that history cannot be told "or known" by anyone but a Catholic that believes as you do - such that even other Catholic historians cannot be trusted if they do not hold to certain Catholic doctrines the way you do?

2. Ok - fine -then how could you ever have come to this conclusion as a Baptist - thinking about looking into joining the Catholic Church?? Were you really saying to yourself "not only do I reject all Baptist historians as neutral objective sources - as I contemplate moving to the RCC - I also reject all CATHOLIC historians if they mention unfavorable events in history about the RCC or hold to any point of doctrine not approved of by the Pope - for such historians cannot possibly be neutral and unbiased in their report of history?"

That is pretty hard to believe that a Baptist would be going that far as he/she contemplates the possibility of joining the Catholic Church and takes the first step by looking into history for the facts.

You are losing me on this one. How did you do it??

=====================

1. I raise the question because we are having this discussion on a Baptist board - not a Catholic board. So an answer from a former Baptist should have some sort of link or common-ground with an existing Baptist - rather than a totally disconnected cradle-catholic view where nothing but the Papal imprimatur is to be accepted as objective, unbiased and accurate.

Cradle catholics might frequently resort to such biased solutions - but a former baptist might be expected to use a bit more objectivity in that regard.

Not saying you have to do it - just leaving the door open for that.

2. you say - "Generally Protestants and interestingly enough many media secular groups hold that Papal authority was the supreme authority in Europe. That just wasn't the case."

That "Catholic Papacy in charge" view of the dark ages IS THE view of Catholic historians themselves - such as Bokenkotter tells us.

It IS THE view of Catholic authors and insider whistle blowers like Malachi Martin.

It is THE view of the Vatican's own study group formed in 1998 to look into this not-so-subtle detail for the year 2000 festivities and apologize to the world.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[FONT=&quot]Other councils, such as Vienna, issued anti-Semitic decrees that ordered the persecution of Jews. The persecution of other groups, such as the Waldensians, was also ordered by the RCC. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example, Pope Innocent VIII issued a bull in 1487 ordering that people "rise up in arms against" and "tread under foot" the Waldensians. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Roman Catholic and former Jesuit Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988), [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Catholic historian Peter de Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ (Crown Publishers, 1988), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine[/FONT][FONT=&quot]."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]================================================================[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Catholic historian von Dollinger writes in The Pope and the Council, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]=============================================================================[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]High level catholic sources quoted in the public press -[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]============================================================[/FONT]

 

Debunking the claim that civil authorities being to blame for what happened under the iron fisted rule of the RCC

[FONT=&quot]=========================================================[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thomas Bokenkotter is a Catholic and a historian of the Catholic church. His book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" reveals some non-flattering details of history for which many Catholics choose to attack their own historian for daring to admit to certain details of history.

In his own preface he says that if he is guilty of anything - it is in not admitting to enough non-flattering details to fit the actual history of the church.

"In spite of all my efforts I realize the book has its share of shortcomings and omissions which are perhaps inevitable in a book of this scope. Some critics, for instance, have noted, with a certain amount of justice perhaps, a tendency to glide over the negative and dark aspects of the Church's history... Bokenkotter p.IX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Bokenkotter's book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" we find this candid remark concerning the inquisition in the "Historical Catholic Church" - p117[/FONT]

 

This is why I keep pointing to "the evidence" and why I do not limit the evidence to "only that which a cradle catholic would accept" but rather point to things that a Baptist might find helpful.

We are on a Baptist discussion board after all - so it seems logical for you and others in your position to discuss the sort of sources and evidence that Baptists would find helpful and which surely you found helpful.

Circling back to "nothing but the papal imprimatur is helpful" is the sort of thing we might expect on a Catholic board of cradle catholics - "We are right because we all agree - and we always say we are right" sort of logic.

But given that your own model is one of looking at the evidence as a Baptist - well then - objectivity is the reward.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Which is A. Why I present Baptist sources on a Baptist board

and B - why I expect that Catholic historians, and insiders showing agreement with those Baptist sources on various points of history - will play well in a Baptist context such as we have here. It is entirely suited to a Baptist such as the one you describe above.

At no point could you have gone to your Pastor or to your class members and said "no historian can be trusted unless he has the Papal imprimatur on his book because as we all know - that is the sign and seal of least bias and most objectivity". They would have laughed you out of the pulpit and if truth were to be told - you could not have said it to them with a straight face then or possibly even now.

I think we both know that.

Some data in history is so blatantly obvious that BOTH protestant AND Catholic sources can be found in agreement on certain things.

Hence my list of sources.

I am not saying that cradle catholics will always agree with those common-ground areas - but then on this Baptist board - not all baptists will agree with the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (as we have seen here demonstrated a zillion times by now).

Sometimes good and sometimes bad. When both are in agreement about the acts of history - we are getting closer to accuracy.

But when they show some forms of agreement they are showing less objectivity and more the epidemiology of their thought coming out of the errors of the dark ages from the same source - and having to reform and rediscover the truths of the first century again.

Catholic historians themselves admit to a few of the atrocities - and so that is helpful. But more interestingly - the Bible predicts that period - quite well.

And what is really interesting is that with the admitted crimes against humanity, the RCCs own admitted list of what it calls "Wicked popes" and its own statements on 3 papal LINES all functioning at once and all forced to end by the Emperor --- all hope of tracing something back to Peter - ends. And with that kind of bloodshed and error filling in their past - it would be a "huge red flag" if they were to then claim that those calls for "extermination" were in fact "infallible" still to this day.

I fail to see how a Baptist could possibly miss the point.

I think that if you were to review that point objectively - you would find that the evidence, the subject, the material you were using at that time would be most interesting to a Baptist today.

Far more interesting than "don't believe anything a historian says if they do not have the Papal imprimatur".

I am hoping for a return to that former level of objectivity in your discourse on this board - since this is after all a "Baptist board".

You and I are both outsiders to the Baptist board - notice how seldom ever - do I quote an SDA source NOR do I insist that those who debate me resort to SDA sources.

Then maybe that is the strongest subject - in common agreement for discussion here since as a Baptist you say you found that subject was the most compelling.

Let's do a thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

From a Baptist POV - which you claim to have had when you were considering the Catholic church as a option - you would not only have accepted Baptist historians - but also Catholic historians if they were accurate - regardless of their papal imprimatur - so long as they themselves were either members of the Baptist church or members of a Catholic church and in favor of Baptists - in favor of fellow Catholics. Regardless of how liberal or conservative the doctrine of the historian - the question would have been - do they report history accurately.

After - even atheists have the ability to report history, report the news etc.

When talking about history we are not talking about "beliefs about history" we are talking about mathematics. An event either happened or it did not. The Lateran IV document either provides penalties against Civil authorities that fail to carry out the extermination order - or it does not. A simple quote will do.

What one "thinks" of it - is up to the reader.

here again you treat history and mathematics as if it is a function of doctrine and thus without pure doctrine, without the imprimatur no accurate mathematics, no accurate history.

This is a foreign concept.

What we are looking for is "bias" by one who is in favor of the Baptists and one who is favor of the Catholic church - but hopefully objective enough NOT to let the bias color their reporting of history.

You seem to insist that if they do not yield their objectivity they cannot be trusted.

Most Baptist would argue the opposite.

I have started that thread and defined the "size" of the subject I think. You are certainly right that it is huge and it is either-or. It cannot be both ways.

But I have only started that topic - not provided any evidence yet that the doctrine is right or wrong. Just showing what it is on that new thread.

in Christ,

Bob