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)

 

  Yes he is one.
He is like a married man who says he loves his wife, but the one he loves is the image in his brain, not the woman in reality who is mother of his kids. He makes love with the imaginary wife, while the real one is neglected and despised. It is the analogy I saw on a trad website and I love it.
  You don't love the church, you love your dreamy image of Her. Can't you simply love something with both it's positive and negative points? Unconditional love means nothing to you?

It has always been a recognized tradition in the Church that the bishop of Rome is he who settles disputes.  Hence, the words of Pius IX are correct.  As the pope, he is an embodiment of tradition and moreover to him alone, as pope, does it belong to define the true meaning of Scripture and tradition.

"Pius IX, in an edict of 1856, sanctioned 'secret execution'."

SOURCE?

This is the kind of guy you give unqualified support ?  Unqualified support is akin to  the My Lai massacre.

Are you the kind of guy we should trust unsubstantiated assertions from?

Unsubstantiated assertions are akin to blowing smoke up Balaam's donkey.

the intrusiveness of Pius’s interventions and the emotional pressures he directly and indirectly applied to the bishops, as when he threatened, “If they won’t define it, I will do it myself.” Cardinal Guidi, an ardent infallibilist, proposed to the council that it was the papal magisterium, not the person of the pope, that was infallible and that this magisterium was infallible only when exercised in accord with the episcopacy. Pius, angry, dressed him down that evening with the famous words, “I am the church! I am the tradition!”

In other words he was opposing the anti-Scriptural error of the day, which was that the pope (irrespective of his accord with the bishops) is not capable of speaking in an infallible and decisive manner to which the faithful must give the assent of faith if they want to retain the Faith.

Classiccom has failed to recognize and apply the truth that when a man claiming to be pope contradicts such an infallible and decisive decree, he is a heretic, outside the Church, and incapable of holding office therein.

Question for the heretic:  Do you accuse the Blessed Virgin Mary of self aggrandizement?

for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed

To be consistent you would have to, but that would be a sacrilege that would merit you terrible torments in hell, since you would be attacking the Divinely inspired words she spoke.

Spouse, that was a very good opening post.

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, of course YOU would have a problem with the just punishment and deterring of the crime of heresy.  That part makes only too much sense.

Time for breakfast and off to work.

I know that Edgardo Mortara became a priest and a missionary who converted Jєωs to Catholicism. He was certainly glad to be raised a Catholic. He may be in Heaven now and if he is, I am sure he is infinitely grateful to be raised Catholic after his baptism and given a chance to save his soul. I understand that Jєωs get angry about this, but so do the devils get angry whenever a soul escapes their clutches and goes to Heaven instead of Hell.

I can't believe I am seeing an article from the ADL posted on this forum. Why don't you go ask the ADL what they have to say about Saint Simon of Trent? Then you can tell us all that Jєωs don't need to convert because the laws of God do not apply to them because they are a special people, and they go to Heaven no matter what they do.