Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: but Classiccom....  (Read 4662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

but Classiccom....
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2010, 07:51:19 AM »
Quote from: Emerentiana
Quote from: Classiccom
Quote

"was it not The Church whom you despise?"

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

  Not true. I believe in the "Chair of Moses" but even the Chair of Moses has commandments of God that it has to follow. What I despise is when people know things are wrong and yet imagine there is honor in supporting the current church in apostasy.  I just believe that Pius IX is the most responsible for today's apostasy.  He severed the link of scriptures and tradition and said " I am tradition". "I am" is a blasphemous statement implying Godhood. (like Satan)

 


Well, we got rid of Mr Landry who thought that all the popes back to Pius IX were antipopes.  NOW we have  Mr Classic CON, who believes that Pius IX is also a bad pope.  When will this nonsense end on this forum? :heretic:


will it end? my answer-NOT!

until he leaves or is banned...

but Classiccom....
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2010, 07:55:37 AM »
Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: Classiccom


They call me all kinds of names around here.



What do you call yourself; do you consider yourself a Roman Catholic?


his sorta primascriptura and quoting extensively is an Old Catholic type of thing, they are drifting mort Prot...also, his lingo about Vatican I, the "infallible" statements,etc is clear indication, whether he likes the term or not, he is by and large Old Catholic.....actual or functional....


but Classiccom....
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2010, 10:27:14 AM »
Quote from: Classiccom
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,912037,00.html

Religion: Was Vatican I Rigged?

How the Pope became infallible

As a violent thunderstorm raged above St. Peter's Basilica in Rome on July 18, 1870, the bishops of the First Vatican Council adopted a decree that would alter Christian history. A Pope, they declared, is infallible when he defines doctrines of faith or morals ex cathedra (from his throne) and such dicta are "irreformable" and require no "consent of the church." The bishops' lopsided 533-to-2 vote that day masked a deep division in the council and throughout the church. The immediate repercussions included the schism of "Old Catholics" and a wave of antichurch laws in Germany. Though scholars differ over where infallibility applies, the power has been invoked explicitly only once: in the 1950 declaration that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. Even so, infallibility remains a fundamental obstacle to the reunion of Christianity.

Could infallibility ever be repealed?

The teaching was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). But Father August B. Hasler, a Swiss-German scholar at the German Historical Institute in Rome, thinks it could be set aside.

As Hasler sees it, Pope Pius IX and his allies so rigged Vatican I that its actions may not have been valid. If so judged by a future council, the dogma could theoretically be bypassed.

Pursuing the story of what went on behind the closed doors of Vatican I, Hasler mined dusty archives across Europe for nearly eight years. His findings have now been published in German as Pius IX: Papal Infallibility and the First Vatican Council (Anton Hiersemann; $130).

Hasler disputes the contention that most Vatican I bishops went to Rome seeking the infallibility decree. Instead, he asserts, Pius and the bishops supporting him outmaneuvered opponents of infallibility —without ever answering their historical arguments against it—so effectively that the council "degenerated into a ritual, mock discussion." Hasler provides new details on just how the outwardly jovial, accommodating "Pio Nono" plotted to get his infallibility decree.

Ostensibly, the Vatican council was supposed to be like the 1545-63 Council of Trent—a meeting of bishops that would exercise its own powers. But as Hasler tells it, Pius IX, then 78 and determined to complete his struggle to centralize church control in his office, dominated the council from the start. He decided that the less anyone knew about Trent, the better; so when the director of the Vatican Archives ordered a review of the Trent rules, Pius fired him in a "raving scene."

The Pope's nuncios to various countries, Hasler reports, were told to cast aspersions on anti-infallibility churchmen.

The Vatican suppressed opposition periodicals. Alessandro Cardinal Barnabo, the tyrannical head of the Propaganda Fide—the Vatican mission office, which then ran church affairs in Asia, Africa and much of the Western Hemisphere as well as the Eastern Rite Uniates—summoned missionary bishops one by one to remind them that they were employed and paid by the papacy.

The head of the Armenian Antonian order, Archbishop Placidus Casangian, came under especially heavy pressure.

The Pope personally threatened him with dismissal if he did not back infallibility, had Vatican police search his quarters, and ordered him confined. The archbishop fled instead.

Pius, meanwhile, was putting strong pressure on other church leaders in private audiences. In one remarkable council speech, he compared opposition bishops to Pontius Pilate condemning Jesus, and pleaded, "My children, do not leave me. Cleave to me and follow me. Unite with the representative of Christ."

A number of contemporaries of Pius, including the French bishop who was dean of the Sorbonne, wrote that the Pope was mad. Hasler deals with the subject more delicately: "Many aspects of his personality suggest that he was no longer sane." Hasler discovered reports that Pius denounced opponents of infallibility variously as "donkeys," "betrayers" and "sick in the head." Once, in a screaming fit of anger, he put his foot on the head of a kneeling Cardinal, then lifted the man by his ears. Other papal outbursts supposedly caused four churchmen to die of heart failure. Hasler believes that epilepsy might have been part of the problem. Though most historians think Pius outgrew this youthful malady, Hasler found indications that his illness was lifelong.

The triumphant "infallibilists" destroyed much Vatican I docuмentation long ago, and most of what remains was secret until Pope Paul opened the archives on Pius IX in 1970. Even so, Hasler says he had to become a "detective." Though his is the first book based on the long-sealed archives, the church denied him access to much Pius material.

So far, Vatican spokesmen have not commented on Hasler's book. The German bishops, however, swiftly publicized a scathing review by a conservative historian who dismissed it as old stuff, biased and either "simply bad or slyly perfidious." A more friendly opinion, not surprisingly, comes from Father Hans Küng of the University of Tubingen, who wrote a celebrated attack on infallibility seven years ago. Hasler's book, he says, "only confirms that the inquiry into infallibility is not yet closed." The church, Küng asserts, "cannot avoid the issue."


This is a joke. What is this heretic garbage you spew in our faces? Do you honestly believe Vatican II was better than Vatican I? Condemning Vatican I excludes you from the Catholic Church. Your viewpoints are so over the top and heretic that they are hardly worth addressing anymore.

but Classiccom....
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2010, 11:10:56 AM »
when you here anything Swiss-German in relation to religion, makes me   :furtive:

but Classiccom....
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2010, 10:17:07 PM »
Quote from: Classiccom
http://www.cathar.info/1209_inquisition.htm

The Roman Inquisition The Roman Inquisition, more correctly the Congregation of the Inquisition, was set up in 1542 by Pope Paul III to help eradicate Protestantism from Italy. It was composed of cardinals, one of whom had proposed its establishment in the first place. He later became Pope himself, taking the name Paul IV. A keen opponent of the free exchange of ideas, he enjoys the distinction of having put even his own writings on the Index.

Procedures of the Roman Inquisition were no more just than those of earlier inquisitions, and executions became more common than in Spain. Freethinkers and scientists were added to the existing categories of victim for torture and execution. It was this inquisition that was responsible for burning the foremost philosopher of the Italian Renaissance, Giordano Bruno, in 1600; and for inducing the foremost scientist, Galileo, to recant under the threat of torture .

Book burning was as popular as elsewhere, but political repression added a new dimension. This persecution too continued for centuries, until the papacy became too far out of step with the rest of Western Christendom. Eventually the Church decided to change its ways, or at least give the appearance of changing them. Pope Pius VII purported to forbid the use of torture in 1816, although in practice it continued to be used for decades to come. Public burnings became something of an embarrassment too. The answer was not to abandon executions but to carry them out more discreetly. Pius IX, in an edict of 1856, sanctioned ‘secret execution’. In the Papal States things had changed little since the Middle Ages – it was for example still a crime to eat meat on a feast day. Political trials were conducted by priests, whose power was absolute. Again, the accused were not permitted legal representation, nor were they allowed to face their accusers. All this came to an end only in 1870, when the Papal States were seized. The last prisoners of the Inquisition were released , and the Pope became a self-confined prisoner in his own palace.

In 1908 the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Inquisition changed its name to the Holy Office. In 1967 it changed it again, this time to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It still functions from a large building near the sacristy of St Peter’s in Rome. Since 1870 its dungeons have been converted into offices. Despite the name change, there is no apparent embarrassment about its history. On the contrary it still conducts heresy trials according to rules that breach what are elsewhere regarded as elementary rules of natural justice .

Despite the methodical destruction of Church torture chambers in modern times there is still evidence of their existence – not only medieval records but the testimony of early penal reformers like John Howard (1726–1790). Museums throughout Europe display instruments of torture carefully designed to inflict the maximum of pain over prolonged periods without shedding blood (a Papal requirement).

Because so many records have been lost, no one knows how many men, women and children were tortured or burned to death over the centuries by the various inquisitions. Similarly undetermined is the number of families dispossessed, children orphaned, communities destroyed. All we can say with certainty is that the pain and suffering that was caused is incalculable. Even sources sympathetic to the Roman Church have accepted estimates in excess of nine million.

One irony is that the Medieval, Spanish and Roman Inquisitions would all have burned Jesus as a persistent heretic if he had appeared before them. They might each have done so on different grounds: for example for advocating absolute poverty, for practicing Judaism, and for criticising St Peter.




Classiccom habitually spews much of the same venom I have had to endure since childhood growing up and living my entire life in a predominantly fundamentalist-protestant anti-Catholic region!  I recognize Classiccom for what he is.  He is an enemy of the true Church; he is an enemy of our Catholic traditions (see his comments about the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Rosary in his thread Pope Pius IX - Mason around pages 7 - 9 of that thread); and he is even an enemy to the entire concept of the Papacy going back, in his quote, to before the days of the Protestant Reformation!!!!!!!

He serves no good on here!  I had not previously kicked up much because I am new here and am just now fully realizing how far outside the realm of any stretched definition of Catholicism he is!  I was starting to think perhaps it may be good that he be allowed to stay that he may be converted.  But he will not be.  He has been on here since 2007!  Has he been spreading his non-Catholic doctrine all this time?  He is head-strong and set on leading souls into something akin to protestantism or worse.  He is hurling insults to the faith and expressing doubts, the nature of which I have only heard (but have frequently heard) from the mouths of anti-Catholic protestants!

Begone with him from this forum for the preservation of the souls of others and may our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon his soul!