Around the time of the 15th and 16th century we find the historic detail of Popes calling fellow Popes "Antichrist".
The question is - should they have done that? OR should they have said instead "oh well that guy is nice enough, and he means well enough, I say he is a good-ol-boy and should be accepted like the rest of us - can't we all just get along?".
Recall that during that time you had not 1 , not 2, but 3 papal LINES - having Popes with successors in each line and armies to go with each line of Popes.
What say you?
in Christ,
Bob
Were the Popes right to call fellow Popes "Antichrist"?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by BobRyan, May 15, 2013.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Bob.....check out the Cadaver Synod.....a pretty gruesome period of the church where politics seemed to gain ascendance over piety.:thumbs:
-
As for the schism. -
=================================
According to Bokenkotters "A Concise History of the Catholic church" the same cardinals that elect Urban claim that the "mob" altered the elections and so they elected another Pope - free of the mob. And thus began the great schism pg 166-168.
Before the schism - when Gregory XI died the Romans feared a French Pope "might" be elected. As Bokenkotter states (pg 166)
At this time they also burned John Huss at the stake!!
How instructive.
On November 11, 1417 they used a new system - the cardinals were joined by six delegates of each RC nation - thirty in all - . That group then selected the next Pope - a complete break from all three papal lines !! -
Should they have used that term for fellow Popes?
Or was it wrong of the Popes and various college of Cardinals to do it? -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
-
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
-
is this also just like Paul correcting Peter on that point about where he sits during dinner and who he sit with at dinner?
in Christ,
Bob -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
Roman Catholic Church is not meaningless. They not only preserved the Bible intact throughout the centuries long before Baptist came into existence. But they defined what was orthodox at Nicaea. The fact that you use the term Trinity is because of the Catholic Church. The reason you have a bible is because of the Catholic Church. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
Your biased historical source fails to mention Catherine of Sienna because he has an agenda. However, this woman a nun faced down a Pope and shamed him into proper action. Yes we can Challenge our Popes just like Peter was Challenged by Paul. It just depends on what you are talking about.
This dear lady I mentioned before, when I was young took me to an SDA Church. Clearly they had their infighting as well. They may not have killed each other but it could happen after all wasn't David Koresh SDA? Should I point to him as example for all SDA? Every denomination has their issues. SDA is no more righteous than any other denomination. Maybe a bit more legalistic. And lets not forget their sister organization who had the same birth parents Pastor Miller who falsely predicted the Second Advent of Jesus Christ and many people lost their shirts over it. Who is their sister organization born out of the same movement? JW. Just saying. However, Unlike the JW I actually consider SDA Christian because they hold to orthodox Christian teaching of the trinity, virgin birth, death, resurrection, and second advent of Jesus Christ. Where as the JW go way off into left field. -
I got news for you. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit centuries before the Catholic Chruch was founded and started spreading evil. Preserve the Bible indeed, what a load of crap. When you did try to put a canon together, you could not even add or take out the correct books.
No, there are no Baptist cults. We do not have a multi thousand year history of murder, torture and false doctrine. We do not equate salvation with works. We do not pray to created beings. We do not treat the Lords Supper like a magic act.
The Baptist church, which as never been a denomination, was in existence at the Book of Acts, and has existed in the form of local autonomous churches ever since. Who do you think preserved the church from 400 to the Reformation. Not the RCC, basically a Satanic tool, and cult. It was the local autonomous churches that the RCC was persecuting, the very entity they claimed to be.
From murder, to torture, to the Crusades, to preaching false doctrine and a false gospel, the fifty million murders the RCC caused causes Hitler's crimes to look like a picnic. For thousands of years the RCC has melded evil church and state entities.
Catholic history, dogma, documents, decrees of Popes are all ideals born in the pits of hell. -
From our perspective....not a politcally good move, but the pope is just a man and therefore can be deceived by man.
Then again, there are many people who claim that the pope is an anti-Christ in our times...which is inappropriate as well. -
But I have yet to find any Catholic document saying that the Popes should not have done that.
Out of curiosity - have you found anything like that?
in Christ,
Bob -
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="]
This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics." [/FONT]
This is your own Catholic Historian reporting this history. As a Baptist you would not have had to go to a fellow Baptist historian to find this - you could have found it even from Catholic Historians themselves.
in Christ,
Bob -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
Every thing I have said is true. Also let me tell you something about Bokenkotter. Those liberal priest I spoke about that don't properly adhere to Church teaching, well he's one of them. He has an agenda to promote his heretical views and make the church accept them so, I don't trust his historical analysis. The fact is when I was Baptist I wanted to find out the truth about things I read history books and researched historical documents just to verify them. I came across a lot of historical summaries and perspectives that certainly were biased. Like that Bible series that the history channel came up with which many people who don't actually read the bible will invariably pick up some fiction from it and make some nonsense comment about the actual bible. Note the book you read this history from doesn't have an imprimatur on it. Therefore this priest wanted to published without having his book properly reviewed or scrutinized for accuracy.
So we have groups of people all vying for power using the Papacy as an office to promote themselves. Cardinals, French, Italians, Romans, etc. Look at how once source describes the events surrounding the Papal states at this time and its military
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
Page 1 of 2