This is a prime example of the fruits of the R&R position.

I quite agree with your dismissive replies to the jumped-up ignoramuses who are sneering at a better and more saintly man than they themselves are ever likely to be. Yet do you truly think that the statement quoted above embodies a necessary or even an appropriate conclusion from the available evidence? I suggest that it doesn't.

The commenters you rebuked indeed spoke stupidly, arrogantly, and rashly, but as stupidity, arrogance, and rash judgment are no respecters of theological positions—especially at the present time, when sound catechesis doesn't precisely lie thick on the ground—I hope that you will reconsider your words and either retract the statement or at least modify it.

OK, let me clarify.  I had no intention whatsoever of attacking Pius IX.  I was merely quoting what someone else said, and made the observation --- apparently too oblique --- that these personal traits are also attributed by some to Donald Trump.  With the mess our country is in, especially with regard to abortion, I really don't care about the president's deportment or etiquette, as long as he gets the job done, as he is largely doing. Americans, though, being the dainty and sensitive types that they are (many of them, anyway), are suckers for the gentle demeanor and avuncular delivery of "Uncle Joe" Biden.  This may not end well.  Remember what a nice, gentlemanly, soft-spoken man that Jimmy Carter was.  Kind man, good man, but not the type of man who would deal harshly with our enemies (both foreign and domestic).

Sorry, by the way your post was written, I didn’t realize you were quoting someone else.

Pax tecuм!

Et cuм spiritu tuo!

The varnished descriptions of Pius IX by his sycophants give quite a distorted version of him. One must dig deeper if one must find truth. I have found much worse than what has been quoted.

When this is sorted out Pius IX will by no means come out looking good. This Pope created the ammunition for the far left of the Church to destroy the Church via Vatican II. The papacy has now digressed down into a game of thrones. Who can get the throne? If you do, you win! The conclave of 2013 proved this to be absolutely true.

Not one peep from anyone in the Church questioning or denouncing "Pacem in Terris" when it was published in April 1963. Silence. Why? Well he is the Pope! No one questions the Pope becauseeeeeeee. Because of Vatican I.

Compare that with John XXII and his looney ideas about the blessed. The Church members rose up against him, resisted him and made him back down. Otherwise the Church would have ended up as we are today. That type of reaction can't happen today because the Pope snores infallibly in his sleep as John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI, and Francis did and do. Why? Vatican I of course.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Frankly, you disgust me. Dig deeper? LOL. Why don’t you read an approved book like the one in the link above? I know, you prefer heretical sources, which is to be expected, since you’re not a Catholic.

Pius IX's abduction of the Jєωιѕн boy can no where be justified in any sane Catholic thinking.

For degenerate heretics, such as yourself, the body is more important than the soul. 

The member "King Wenceslaus" has been banned for heresy.

Vatican I was a legitimate ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church. It DID define new dogmas, and those dogmas are binding upon all Catholics, including the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

CathInfo is not a "catch all" for all critics of the Catholic Church. Only those who object to Vatican II (which happened in the 1960s, on to the present day) are welcome here.

Vatican II was a robber council. It was taken over by Freemasons at the outset. It defined no new dogmas. Its fruits are completely diabolical, and Our Lord gave us the sage advice to "judge a tree by its fruits". 

We are NOT permitted to go backwards and part company with the official Church structures, the hierarchy, the Pope, etc. a single day before Vatican II.

If anyone woke up and found himself in 1960, he would be OBLIGED under pain of sin to fully recognize AND obey the current Pope, as well as attend Sunday Mass at his local parish (approved by the Church authorities). Anything less than this, and he would be objectively in Mortal Sin and in danger of hell fire.

The OP of this thread (Classiccom) started this thread 10 years ago. He was banned for being against Vatican I -- a.k.a. heresy or being an "Old Catholic". Old Catholics are NOT welcome here. This forum is for Traditional Catholics (Catholics reacting against and resisting Vatican II) only.