English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The church is governed by the pope in Rome and claims that each pope is a successor of the apostle Peter. Following are some published facts about these so-called successors:

Formosus (891-96): “Nine months after his death, Formosus’ body was disinterred from the papal crypt and arraigned for trial before a ‘cadaveric’ council, at which Stephen [the new pope] presided. The deceased pope was accused of inordinate ambition for the papal office and all his acts were declared invalid. . . . The corpse was stripped of pontifical robes; the fingers of the right hand were amputated.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Stephen VI (896-97): “Within a few months [of the trial of Formosus’ corpse] a violent reaction ended the pontificate of Pope Stephen; he was deprived of the pontifical insignia, imprisoned, and strangled.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Sergius III (904-11): “His two immediate predecessors . . . were strangled in prison. . . . In Rome he was supported by the Theophylactus family, by one of whose daughters, Marozia, he is supposed to have had a son (later Pope John XI).”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Stephen VII (928-31): “In the last years of his pontificate, Pope John X . . . had incurred the wrath of Marozia, the Donna Senatrix of Rome, and had been imprisoned and assassinated. Marozia then conferred the papacy on Pope Leo VI, who died after 6 1/2 months in office. Stephen VII succeeded him, probably through the influence of Marozia. . . . During his 2 years as Pope, he was powerless under the domination of Marozia.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

John XI (931-35): “Upon the death of Stephen VII . . . , Marozia, of the House of Theophylactus, obtained the papacy for her son John, a youth in his early 20s. . . . As pope, John was dominated by his mother.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

John XII (955-64): “He was hardly eighteen, and contemporary reports agree about his disinterest in spiritual things, addiction to boorish pleasures, and uninhibitedly debauched life.”—The Oxford Dictionary of Popes.

Benedict IX (1032-44; 1045; 1047-48): “He was notorious for selling the papacy to his godfather and then subsequently reclaiming the office twice.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica.

2007-06-28 14:18:31 · 9 answers · asked by Keith 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Jesuit’s Appraisal of Papacy
Interesting too is what sixty-one-year-old Jesuit John L. McKenzie, professor of theology at Notre Dame, says about his church. He begins by confessing that “Roman Catholicism stands at what may be the most critical point of its entire history,” and that it “is passing into a crisis of authority and a crisis of faith.”

Contrary to official Church doctrine, Jesuit McKenzie states that Roman Catholicism began in the fourth century “with the conversion of Constantine.” He states that “in the strict sense, the apostles left no successor,” and that “historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.” He notes that the authority of the pope cannot be defended by any reference to Peter’s position in the Bible.

Coming down to the tenth century of Roman Catholic history, McKenzie states that the Roman See experienced one of the most severe moral collapses of its history. He states: “The corruption of the papal court und

2007-06-28 15:16:56 · update #1

9 answers

Peter was never a pope, the papacy started by the 6th century. The actual first Christian church was founded by the original true apostles (except Judas) and their leader was James, brother of Jesus, not Peter. In the "Antiquities of Josephus" says that Peter was murder in Jerusalem, so he was never in Rome.

2007-06-28 14:55:55 · answer #1 · answered by Millie 7 · 0 3

Yes, do you?

What is the question or questions about the Popes that you want answered?

If you are asking if there have been bad Popes the answer is yes.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Abel,

You have made good points. The fact that the Church has survived both attacks from inside and without points to the veracity of Christ's promise to His Church that it would endure for all times. If there was ever anyones doubts about the Church being the true Church established by Christ such accounts of the attacks of evil should should reveal that the Church is the Church led and protected by the Holy Spirit and remains the ark that contains and embodies the description of the Church as the bulwark and ground of the truth and that the veracity of the Church is derived from the righteousness of Christ and not of man. Praise God!

2007-06-28 14:41:20 · answer #2 · answered by cristoiglesia 7 · 4 1

Yes and what is your point. There were bad popes, good popes, evil popes, holy popes. Champions of the faith and antipopes. One year there were even three at once and the validly elected pope surrendered the papacy to an imposter for the unity of the church. Popes have been anathematized and canonized and even paid no regard whatsoever. This I know already without your vain efforts. And again I ask what is your point. All of what you say is public knowledge.

2007-06-28 14:31:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

Anti-Catholics suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only saints. For them sinners should always be outside its doors. What must be grasped is that the Catholic Church or any Church for that matter contains within itself knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20,29; Matthew 1,15).

Jesus didn't choose Judas to betray him. But Judas was always free, and he used his freedom to allow Satan to enter into him, and by his betrayal Jesus was crucified and executed. But God foresaw this evil and used it to accomplish the ultimate good: the redemption of the world.

The point is, sometimes God's chosen ones betray him. That is a fact that we have to confront. If the early Christians had focused only on the scandal caused by Judas, the Church would have been finished before it even started to grow. Instead they recognized that you don't judge a movement by those who don't live it but by those who do. Rather than focusing on the betrayer, they focused on the other eleven on account of whose work, preaching, miracles, and love for Christ we are here today. It is on account of the other eleven that Christianity is alive and well today!

For the same reason, it is on account of the good popes, priests and lay people that the Catholic Church is what it is today. Christ has indeed kept his promise to be with his Church till the end of the age.

Brother, please provide links to your source.

May the Lord's peace be with you!

2007-06-28 14:32:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

Answer to what? i do not see a question here. I see you found some unsavory history about the catholic church... kudos?

Just proves one thing. That men no matter who they are, are not perfect and given to a darker side of themselves like greed, power mongering, and deceit

2007-06-28 14:30:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Been reading those Jack Chick tracts again, eh? Those things are to the mind what 15 pounds of sugar are to the teeth. And the rot is definitely starting to show in this post.

2007-06-28 14:25:58 · answer #6 · answered by Wolfeblayde 7 · 6 2

did you know that the eastern orthodox catholic church doesn't believe that peter was the first pope? sorry i didn't see a question.

2007-06-28 14:26:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

So what's your question? Popes are human too, susceptable to corrupting influence.

2007-06-28 14:25:43 · answer #8 · answered by Worzel Gummidge 3 · 3 1

Soooooo... don't mix politics and religion?

2007-06-28 14:27:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers