Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: roscoe on July 23, 2009, 12:05:14 AM
-
If I am wrong, and Boniface 8 (VIII?) is a real Pope then he has to be the worst Pope of all times: far surpassing Leo and Clement and also Urban 6(VI?) if he was a real Pope. Even Alex VI( whose character I have been able to rehabilitate to some extent thanks to a study of the heretic Savanarola) is not a bad Pope compared to them.
-
Fr Sturzo is much mistaken when he refers to Clem V as follows-- ' no Pope has sunk lower than....'
It is not accurate at all to refer to Clem V as a vassel of Philip.
-
Consider this post retracted-- Boniface is an anti-pope!!!!
-
If there is presently no pope, many would likely be thrilled to have ANY pope at this point.
If there is a pope (BXVI), he is on a short list contending for the worst ever.
Either way, Boniface is DEAD. May he rest in peace. We are ALIVE. May God send us help. Godspeed.
-
Consider this post retracted-- Boniface is an anti-pope!!!!
Then why do all the popes throughout history since Boniface VIII recognize him as POPE Boniface VIII?????????
-
They say he was a pope. You say he was not. You reject their authority. You are in schism.
-
O Chadwick-- History Of The Popes pg 404
'... and in 1913 Pius had to get rid of four popes from the past-- Boniface 6, who in 896 was illegally pushed into the see; Boniface 7, who in 974 strangled the Emperor's ambassador;.... John 16 and Benedict 10.'
I guess 3 at one time was to much for the Pope but some day Boniface 8 along with Ben 15 and maybe Urban 6 will be declared anti-popes also.
-
Roscoe, your facts are unreliable.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
Boniface VI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02661b.htm) is listed as a true pope, despite some apparent controversy;
Boniface VII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02661c.htm) was already known to be an antipope in 1907;
John XVI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08428a.htm) was already known to be an antipope in 1910;
Benedict X (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429b.htm) was already known to be an antipope in 1907;
Would you care to revise your assertion, or is "...in 1913 Pius had to get rid of four popes from the past," your final statement?
-
Chadwick said it not me.
-
Well I guess you don't trust him anymore.
-
Why sweat the small stuff?-- the action was taken by Pius X.
-
Are we gong to have to endure another rant re: BoD?
-
Why sweat the small stuff?-- the action was taken by Pius X.
??? How could that possibly be so, if these men were already recognized before he was pope?
BoD? Heresy! No excuse, if you've read all the decrees you have to deny infallibility to believe BoD.
-
recognised as what?
-
Antipopes
-
That is the point-- they WERE NOT recognised as anti-popes b4 Pius was Pope otherwise he would not have had to take the action!!! Ciao
-
Roscoe, look at the dates that those articles were written. Those articles from Catholic Encyclopedia call those men antipopes before Pius X was pope. So your assertion cannot be true.
-
Your own post says 1907 and I believe Pius X was Pope at that time.
-
You're completely right about that, but your post said 1913, so this is why I contended with you.
Can you please tell me the premise upon which Pope Pius X declared each of these men antipopes, and the date in which he did it?
-
And better still, the names of the docuмents he did so in?
-
The source is O Chadwick-- History of Popes 1830-1914. If you have a problem, take it up with him.