Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: spouse of Jesus on August 01, 2010, 10:17:50 PM
-
For one moment forget about us and "club infallible" and just see it for yourself. Is it right in your opinion for realness of a religion to depend on justice of men? I mean you need an "ism" a "mindset" or a way of life that is built on the stone, not something as transistory and changable as justice or injustice of men (be they Popes or not)
You are acting like this: if john is a tidy man then Christ is Son of God, if jimmy is untidy then Christ is not Divine." So your creed changes every minute, as people change every minute.
People like you end in deism, so that they can have a God who has finished his words 1400 or 2000 or 3500 or (put the number) years ago, with no religious authority. Because for them, as soon as these men make a mistake God ceases to exist, and The Bible gets invalidated. And men always make mistakes.
So and so were masons? and masons are bad? right, but who told you that there were bad? was it not The Church whom you despise? You hate masons because of the church, then you hate the church because of masons!
Maybe if you leave the church and the faith you get fond of masons, then as you believe Pius (number?) to be one, you get fond of him too, so you return because of this, and then feel mad the church for condemning such nice men that masons are!
-
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)
-
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)
Saying I am tradition is not is a blasphemous statement implying Godhood. It is not the same as saying "I am Who am" which is how God described himself.
From what I have seen you may have something similar to an Old Catholic mentality. Is that correct?
-
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?
-
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)
==================
Saying I am tradition is not is a blasphemous statement implying Godhood. It is not the same as saying "I am Who am" which is how God described himself.
From what I have seen you may have something similar to an Old Catholic mentality. Is that correct?
==================
They call me all kinds of names around here.
I just wish we had at least a handful of heavy hitters like Bishop Williamson who could deal with controversial subjects like this. Must be genetic manipulation where all the people who have guts to stand up for the words of Christ over a pope's opinion have been weeded out. Williamson was a convert.
Did you realise this ? :
"Pius IX, in an edict of 1856, sanctioned 'secret execution'."
This is the kind of guy you give unqualified support ? Unqualified support is akin to the My Lai massacre.
-
Saying I am tradition is not is a blasphemous statement implying Godhood. It is not the same as saying "I am Who am" which is how God described himself.
quote]
Clcom,
Do you concede?
-
They call me all kinds of names around here.
What do you call yourself; do you consider yourself a Roman Catholic?
-
It has always been a recognized tradition in the Church that the bishop of Rome is he who settles disputes (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/11/biblical-origin-of-papacy.html). 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.
-
quote
"Are you the kind of guy we should trust unsubstantiated assertions from? "
====================================
Yes trust but verify. That is why they call this a forum.
Pope Pius IX is the kind of guy that makes the ADL look like a responsible and good natured organisation.
http://www.adl.org/presrele/vaticanJєωιѕн_96/3630_96.asp
======================
ADL Statement on Beatification of Pope Pius IX
New York, N.Y., September 3, 2000 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed concern at the Vatican’s beatification of Pope Pius IX, who was responsible for the 1858 abduction of a six-year old Jєωιѕн child.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
"The beatification of Pius IX is troubling for the Jєωιѕн community. Pius was responsible for the case of Edgardo Mortara, who at the age of six was abducted from his family in Bologna and taken to the Vatican by Papal police after it was reported that the Jєωιѕн child has been secretly baptized. Many European heads of state protested the 1858 kidnapping, as did Jєωιѕн leadership. As a result, Pius blamed Rome’s Jews for what he believed was a widespread Protestant conspiracy to defeat the papacy and levied medieval restrictions on the community.
While ADL respects the beatification process as a matter for the Catholic Church alone, we find the selection of Pius IX as inappropriate based on policies he pursued as the head of the Church. It is in the context of the many years of positive progress in Catholic-Jєωιѕн relations, including the historic visit of Pope John Paul II to Israel and his asking for the forgiveness of the Jєωιѕн people, that the beatification of Pius IX, whose role in denying Edgardo Mortara his family and his right to be who he was, is most unfortunate."
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html
Pope 1846-78) (and here) was beatified in 2000.
* Pius IX refused to support a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. He said that: "such an association could not be sanctioned by the Holy See, being founded on a theological error, to wit, that Christians owed any duties to animals."
* Pius IX was the last Pope to have temporal power, and to be able to abuse those unlucky enough to live in the Papal States.
* In 1858, Pius IX's police brutally removed a 6 year old Jєωιѕн boy, Edgardo Mortara, from his parents and forcibly raised him as a Catholic. The pleas of Edgardo's distraught parents counted for nothing. They never got their little boy back. This is minor compared with the brutality of the church throughout history, but the sheer cruelty of it makes Pius IX a disgusting figure that no decent person should respect.
* Anti-Defamation League Statement on Beatification of Pope Pius IX
-
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.
-
Thanks and wellcome back!
-
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.
-
Wow Classicom, now you're accusing Pius IX of abducting children? I bet you wrote that article yourself.
-
I know that Edgardo Mortara became a priest and a missionary who converted Jews 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 Jews 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 Jews 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.
-
Spiritus, it is not an empty accusation. It is docuмented history. Pope Pius IX did the right thing by removing the child from his home. Baptized children cannot be raised by non-Christians, (especially Jews!), according to the canon law Pius IX enforced in the Papal States.
-
Spiritus, it is not an empty accusation. It is docuмented history. Pope Pius IX did the right thing by removing the child from his home. Baptized children cannot be raised by non-Christians, (especially Jews!), according to the canon law Pius IX enforced in the Papal States.
Oh. I thought it was another one of those fraud articles.
-
More info on Pius IX
http://www.population-security.org/19-CH11.html#1
PIUS IX, THE MAN - Index
To understand what really brought about proclamation of the dogmas of papal primacy and infallibility, we must take a close look at the man himself. Hans Küng describes Pius IX as follows: "Pius IX had a sense of divine mission which he carried to extremes; he engaged in double-dealing; he was mentally disturbed; and he misused his office."118
Hasler describes Pius IX in detail. In 1850, Pius IX branded freedom of the press and freedom of association as intrinsically evil. He determined that liberalism (out of which American democracy grew) was the mortal enemy of the Papacy and the Church. His rule was reactionary and dictatorial. His followers' practices bordered on papolatry. The most eminent bishops of the time viewed him as a great disaster for the Catholic Church.119 He struck "many people as dangerous above all because he wished to dogmatize a teaching which, from a historical standpoint, was worse than dubious and which overturned the Church's basic organization."120 In their eyes, these dogmas "would deprive the Catholic Church of the last shred of credibility."121 In the end, it looks as if this assessment of these bishops is proving to be correct. (More on credibility later.)
According to Hasler, Pius IX had surrounded himself with mediocre, unbalanced, sometimes even psychologically disturbed people.122 His fury in private audiences would become so violent that older prelates might suffer heart attacks. He was described as having a heart of stone and at times normal feelings of affection, gratitude, and appreciation would be totally absent -- heartless indifference.123
Hasler describes a series of bizarre incidents: "In all these episodes Pius IX showed quite clearly how out of touch he was with reality.124 Many bishops had the impression that the pope was insincere, that he was striving to get infallibility approved by the use of trickery and cunning. In the presence of many witnesses, one bishop called him false and a liar.125
The historian Ferdinand Gregorovius noted in his diary, "The pope recently got the urge to try out his infallibility....While out on a walk he called to a paralytic: `Get up and walk.' The poor devil gave it a try and collapsed, which put God's vicegerent very much out of sorts. The anecdote has already been mentioned in the newspapers. I really believe that he's insane." 126
Hasler states, "Some, even bishops, thought he was mad or talked about pathological symptoms. The Catholic Church historian Franz Xavar Kraus noted in his diary: `Apropos of Pius IX, Du Camp agrees with my view that ever since 1848 the pope has been both mentally ill and malicious.'"127
The most distinguished bishops viewed Pius IX as "the greatest danger facing the Church...." They felt powerless struggling with a pope who was possessed by his monomania and not accessible to rational arguments. "'Oh, this unfortunate pope,' wrote Felix Dupanloup in his diary. `How much evil he has done!...I mean, he has delivered the Church into the hands of these three or four Jesuit professors who now want to inflict their lessons on him!...This is one of the greatest dangers the Church has ever known.'"128
Hasler asked the question: Was the pope mentally competent during Vatican Council I? "Many of his personality traits suggest that this was not the case. The unhealthy mysticism, the childish tantrums, the shallow sensibility, the intermittent mental absences, the strangely inappropriate language...and the senile obstinacy all indicate the loss of a solid grip on reality. These features suggest paranoia."129
THE LEGACY OF PIUS IX - Index
The leadership entrusted the future of the Church to this man. But as we continue to permit papal influence in public policy-making to spread worldwide, we are allowing Pius IX's legacy -- the legacy of an unbalanced man -- to determine the future of our planet even as we approach the end of the 20th century. In significant ways, our behavior today is being determined by the actions of Pius IX of 125 years ago.
Furthermore, the dogmas of infallibility and papal primacy ended any semblance of democracy in the church, and no self correction can be expected, no matter how insane the Church policy on overpopulation has become.
THE DOGMAS' IMPORTANCE TO SOME CATHOLICS - Index
Infallibility made Roman Catholicism even more attractive to many. People often seek religion because of their fear of uncertainty and the unknown in their lives and in death. It provides emotional relief. According to Hans Küng, "Infallibility performed the function of a metadogma, shielding and insuring all the other dogmas (and the innumerable doctrines and practices bound up in them). With infallibility -- and the infallible aura of the `ordinary,' day-to-day magisterium is often more important than the relatively rare infallible definitions -- the faithful seemed to have been given a superhuman protection and security, which made them forget all fear of human uncertainty...In this sense the dogma of infallibility has undoubtedly integrated the lives of believers and unburdened their minds..."130 So now the Church offers a final, unsurpassable guarantee of security to believers. This is a powerful attraction to all who fear insecurity -- which includes most of us. Infallibility provided many believers with a great sense of religious security all through life, imparting stability and freedom from anxiety, relieving emotional pressure and softening the cruel blows of reality.131
On the other hand, the dogma of infallibility is binding on the conscience of the entire Catholic world. According to Hasler, "For the Roman Catholic Church, the dogmas defined by the Council are strictly obligatory. Anyone who doesn't accept them is threatened with excommunication, that is, with exclusion from the Catholic community."132
=====================
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=776
-
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."
-
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:
-
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:
Clearly this particular nonsense will only end on this forum if or when Classicon is no longer here!
Because as long as he is here, he will keep pushing it.
In fact it is obvious that his very reason for being here is to push his "Club Infallible" garbage along with all the Anti-Catholic attacks that it entails.
That is his self-created mission. Possibly he thinks he is on a mission from God -- to attack the Catholic Church and Catholics.
Deluded and dangerous.
-
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...
-
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....
-
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.
-
when you here anything Swiss-German in relation to religion, makes me :furtive:
-
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!
-
Quote
"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!!!!!!! "
===============================
You use the expression Protestant Reformation . I call it the Protestant Revolt. The other part of your statement is not true. Produce the quote you are talking about because you have a problem with the truth, just like your spiritual mentor Pope Pius IX.
Because you can't , I submit this as evidence that CI leads to insanity. I am not against the Catholic Church. I just want it to be true and sane. Giving a blank check for any pope to say or do anything he wants never was correct. You share a common delusion.
-
Classiccom,
You apparently share the views or support the piece from the website you quote, and that piece sheds Popes in a most unfavorable light back to 1542. That is the reason I think you are an enemy of the Papacy going back at least to before the protestant reformation (I agree REVOLT is more accurate).
Now I'm not entirely sure what you meant by quoting that website because you talk in circles and deny me straight answers. I've asked the following 2 or 3 times in the Crisis section in your Pope Pius IX - Mason thread:
What are your views on praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the saints? Please give a bold straight answer in your own words to my question, as I did, despite my "problem with the truth," in response to your query as to why I consider you an enemy of the Papacy, rather than referring me to Bayside, etc., and leaving me to surmise your intricate position without full clarity.
I reviewed the cathar.info website you quoted from. Though quite scholarly (it appears to be a travel guide trying to sensationalize an area to attract tourists), is clearly sympathetic to the non-Christian or heretical Cathars, and portrays the Roman Catholic Church in a bad light generally, and several Popes specifically, back at least to the middle of the 13th century.
Check out the references to Catholics devotion to the "wrong God," the "Bad God," "Roman Catholics were voluntarily worshipping Satan," at http://www.cathar.info/120111_catharviews.htm
Granted, this section supposes the Cathar point of view. But the entire section is against the Church. However, the section purported to be the Catholic point of view (http://www.cathar.info/120112_catholicviews.htm) also contains criticism of the Church and puts the Church in a bad light.
Your bringing up the inquisition is more of the same stuff I heard from fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestants upon leaving Catholic elementary school and entering high school! All of the comments about Catholics drawing and quartering protestants and the steel mummies.
If I'm fortunate enough to get a straight answer about your position regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, I expect you will be so worked up you won't be able to refrain from hurling another insult commonplace among anti-Catholics by calling us "Mary-worshippers!"
-
Quote
"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!!!!!!! "
===============================
You use the expression Protestant Reformation . I call it the Protestant Revolt. The other part of your statement is not true. Produce the quote you are talking about because you have a problem with the truth, just like your spiritual mentor Pope Pius IX.
Because you can't , I submit this as evidence that CI leads to insanity. I am not against the Catholic Church. I just want it to be true and sane. Giving a blank check for any pope to say or do anything he wants never was correct. You share a common delusion.
Why are you so obssessed with talking about what Pius IX did wrong? The only other member here that I have seen speak bad about a Pope in nearly every one of his posts was Anticlimax. If you want the Church to be "true and sane", you certainly aren't going to achieve that goal by constantly bashing good Popes.