The Immaculate Conception Error!

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
The Barrd said:
What does Mary's purity or lack thereof have to do with the purity of our Lord? If she did, as I believe, go on to have a normal married life with her husband, including having sex with him, and bearing more children, how would that somehow make Jesus a sinner? It wouldn't even make Mary a sinner, fapeetsakes! There is no sin at all in a woman having sex with her husband.

No, there is no scriptural evidence whatsoever about "the immaculate conception" of Mary. Honestly, it means so much more to see Mary as a normal baby, conceived in the normal way, who became a normal little girl, who grew up to be a normal woman. For a normal woman to have a child by the Holy Spirit Who is perfect, without sin, is truly a miracle.

Mary does not have to be "immaculate" in order to be full of virtue. She does not have to be "immaculate" for her husband to praise her. She does not have to be "immaculate" for her children to rise and call her blessed. She can certainly be "blessed among women without being "immaculate". There was never any need to make up a bunch of stuff about the Mother of God...as if God somehow needed help with the woman He chose to bring forth Jesus. Couldn't you just trust Him to make the right choice, without "writing in" stuff about Mary that the Bible does not say?


The church could not have been content to have Mary be virtuous...nothing would do but she had to be "immaculate".
Sorry, but there has only ever been ONE who was born without sin...and that came through His Father, not His mother.
You and StanJ are adding to the RCC teaching on the Immaculate Conception. It is THEIR teaching so they can teach/preach/believe whatever they want about it. Just like you and StanJ teach/preach/believe what you want from scripture even though what you say may not be factual. There is no "proof" you are right and there is no "proof" they (RCC) are right.

Mary being born without original sin has NOTHING to do with 'her husband praising her' or this ridicules notion that 'she had other children'. Scripture says she was blessed among woman and all generations shall call her blessed. ONCE AGAIN I ask you: What does that mean? It sure seems to me (and any logical thinking person) that she was MUCH MORE than just your average woman. Without HER we wouldn't have HIM!! So what is that MUCH MORE?? If we can figure that out then we can better understand who/what she should mean to US! She was held in very high regard by God, Jesus, in scripture and Christian history so she should be held in high regard today (hint: all generations).

If you have said it before I missed it so I will ask: What do you think BLESSED means and VIRTIOUS means when talking about Mary? (if you define those two words maybe I will better understand what you are trying to say) <_<
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
The Barrd said:
Actually, Iakov, it is my opinion that none of the denominations "have it right".

My main objection to the "KATHlick" church is the pope. There have been too many totally corrupt popes who have done untold damage.

Then there is that insistence on the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. There are other kids listed in the Bible, so what does the RC do, but write a back story for Joseph, making him an old man with kids from a former marriage. So where were these youngsters when the family had to go to Bethlehem to register for the tax? Oops...

Now, I'm sure Mary was a terrific lady. Blessed among women, yes. Without sin? No. No human being has ever been without sin, save the Lord, Jesus Christ. Otherwise the entire Bible is a lie...

How is it that you cite all these Protestant faiths, but do not see the error in your own? Is there a log in your eye, my brother?
I truly don't understand how WE can say that "none of the denominations have it right". You seem to think that YOU have it right. Everyone that post their "opinions" on scripture on this website seem to think THEY have it right. I think I am the one who has it right. Why do you think YOU are right about the RCC being wrong?

The bible also says that Joseph was Jesus father but we know he wasn't his father. The word brother is used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, however, we know they were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew. Why did Jesus have to tell John "behold your mother" and tell Mary "behold your son"? Did she not know who her sons were or John know who his mother was? Within 120 years of Jesus death this issue was very defended and defined in The Protoevangelium of James. We also know the true translation of cousin/brother does not support the "Mary had children" theory.

Therefor scripture, Christian history and translating the bible correctly does not support the 'Mary had children theory'. I believe scripture and early Christian historical writings from 2000 years ago.
You think Mary was a "terrific lady". I am willing to bet if you said that to God's or Jesus face they would sit you down and have a LONG talk with you about what THEY thought of Mary. :)
 

iakov

Member
Jan 17, 2016
117
12
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
tom55 said:
Also, the genesis of my disagreement with StanJ is that he falsely stated what the RCC teaches about the Immaculate Conception when he wrote this: The Immaculate Conception means Mary was a virgin when she conceived. Simple and nothing more. Sadly the RCC has tried to attach much more to it, including her sinless nature and her perpetual virginity". I then informed him that he was wrong and quoted what the RCC teaches about the issue. He then accused me of believing what the RCC teaches even though he couldn't provide any evidence of that accusation; such as a quote from me. I am not defending the RCC doctrine, just quoting it! It's real easy to quote something when you cut and paste from the source. :D

Respectfully.....Tom55
That is a common misconception about the Immaculate Conception and, when stated in voice or print, identifies the speaker or writer as someone who has willfully chosen to be ignorant on the topic upon which (s)he has chosen to pontificate since factual information is easily and quickly accessible on the internet he/she is currently using to display his/her ignorance to the world.

Many Catholics and Orthodox Christians have a special devotion to Mary.
That devotion is supported by the teachings of their churches.

Many Protestant Christians have a devotion to denigrating the RCC and Mary.
That devotion is also supported by the teachings of their churches.

They are both religious devotions but appear to be inspired by different spirits. :unsure:


iakov.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another;
as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 14:15 If you love Me, keep My commandments.
(NKJV)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom55

iakov

Member
Jan 17, 2016
117
12
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Barrd said:
Actually, Iakov, it is my opinion that none of the denominations "have it right".

My main objection to the "KATHlick" church is the pope. There have been too many totally corrupt popes who have done untold damage.

Then there is that insistence on the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. There are other kids listed in the Bible, so what does the RC do, but write a back story for Joseph, making him an old man with kids from a former marriage. So where were these youngsters when the family had to go to Bethlehem to register for the tax? Oops...

Now, I'm sure Mary was a terrific lady. Blessed among women, yes. Without sin? No. No human being has ever been without sin, save the Lord, Jesus Christ. Otherwise the entire Bible is a lie...

How is it that you cite all these Protestant faiths, but do not see the error in your own? Is there a log in your eye, my brother?
Concerning the "too many totally corrupt popes who have done untold damage.", name three and describe the untold damage they have done.

The "kids" are easily dismissed as close relatives since that was the common meaning of the word in the ancient, middle eastern Aramaic dialects as it is today. Your insistence on inflicting scripture with a modern, western, English language meaning displays a lack of understanding of the limitations of translations.

<<How is it that you cite all these Protestant faiths, but do not see the error in your own?>>

What error is that? ( And BTW, I'm not a Roman Catholic and I do not accept the Immaculate Conception teaching.)

iakov

[SIZE=10pt]John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]as I have loved you, that you also love one another.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]John 14:15 If you love Me, keep My commandments.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](NKJV)[/SIZE]
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66

Pope Liberius is the first Pope not to be canonised a saint. He reigned during the height of the Arian crisis during which a large majority of the Church believed that Jesus was not God, but merely a man. The Arian heresy was fought against by the Patriarch of Alexandria Saint Athanasius who consecrated Bishops without permission.
Pope Liberius, rather than defending Athanasius, signed a document that supported those against him and condemned Athanasius. Nearing the end of his pontificate he recanted his signature and reinstated Athanasius. While the Pope did not embrace the heresy himself, he did not use his power fully to put an end to it. His reign did nothing to stop the confusion spreading throughout the Church.


2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638
Like Liberius, Honorius I was condemned and excommunicated for heresy by the sixth general council in 680. The heresy in question was Montheism in which Jesus is seen as a divine-human, rather than the orthodox belief of physeis that he is both fully God and fully man. Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople wrote to Honorius asking him to decide the question that was causing much division at the time. Instead of clarifying the view of the Church, Honorius did nothing. His lack of action was so scandalous that for 3 centuries, each new Pope had to state at his coronation that he:
The Roman Breviary contained the condemnation of Honorius on the Feast of St Leo II right up until the 18th century.
“smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.”


3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89
Pope Stephen VI was consecrated (possibly against his will) by Pope Formosus who, during his reign, was excommunicated for leaving the Papal seat and “conspiring to destroy the papal see”. He was eventually forgiven and returned to Rome. When Stephen VI came the Papal Throne, he had the body of formosus exhumed and put on trial (this is the famous Cadaver Synod). Formosus was accused of transmigrating sees in violation of canon law, of perjury, and of serving as a bishop while actually a layman. Stephen had Formosus’ papal vestments removed and two fingers from his right hand cut off. Formosus’ body was thrown in to the Tiber. After the Synod, public opinion turned against Stephen. He was deposed in an uprising and strangled to death.


4. John XII, reigned 955-964
Through his mother Alda of Vienne, John XII was a seventh generation descendant of Charlemagne. John was the temporal and spiritual ruler of Rome and during his pontificate he virtually turned it into a whorehouse. Moral corruption in Rome became a major problem. After crowning Otto I Emporer of Germany in order to secure his support in a war against Berengar II of Itlay, he changed his mind and began communicating with Berengar. Otto learnt of John’s treachery and returned to Rome after defeating Berengar. He called a council which deposed John who was hiding in the mountains, and elected Leo VIII in his place. John, with a large group of supporters, returned to Rome to depose Leo VIII before Otto had even left. Otto pledged to assist Leo against John but before the matter went any further, John died. It is rumoured that he was killed by the husband of one of his mistresses.
An account of the charges against him in the Patrologia Latina states:


They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse. They said that he had gone hunting publicly; that he had blinded his confessor Benedict, and thereafter Benedict had died; that he had killed John, cardinal subdeacon, after castrating him; and that he had set fires, girded on a sword, and put on a helmet and cuirass.



5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048
Benedict IX was Pope from 1032 to 1044, again in 1045, and finally from 1047 to 1048, the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods. He was also one of the youngest Popes (reigning from around age 18-20). He reportedly led an extremely dissolute life, and also allegedly had few qualifications for the papacy other than connections with a socially powerful family, although in terms of theology and the ordinary activities of the Church he was entirely orthodox. St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus, a treatise on papal corruption and sex that accused Benedict IX of routine homosexuality and bestiality.
He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders.” Pope Victor III referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”
Benedict gave up his papacy for the first time in exchange for a large sum of money in 1044. He returned in 1045 to depose his replacement and reigned for one month, after which he left again, possibly to marry, and sold the papacy for a second time, to his Godfather (possibly for over 650 kg /1450 lb of gold). Two years later, Benedict retook Rome and reigned for an additional one year, until 1048. Poppo of Brixen (later to become Pope Damascus II) eventually forced him out of Rome. Benedict’s place and date of death are unknown, but some speculate that he made further attempts to regain the Papal Throne.



6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303
Due to the King of France (Philip IV) taxing the clergy of the Church to help finance his wars, Boniface VIII released one of the most important papal bulls of Catholic History: Unam Sanctum. It declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope’s jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Church.
This is considered to be an infallible declaration of the Catholic Church. Philip retaliated against the bull by denying the exportation of money from France to Rome, funds that the Church required to operate. Boniface had no choice but to quickly meet the demands of Philip by allowing taxation only “during an emergency.” Philip’s chief minister declared that Boniface was a heretic, and in return, Boniface excommunicated the King. On September 7, 1303 an army led by Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna of the Colonna family surprised Boniface at his retreat in Anagni. The King and the Colonnas demanded that he resign, to which Boniface VIII responded that he would ‘sooner die’. Boniface was beaten badly and nearly executed but was released from captivity after three days. He died a month later, on October 11, 1303.
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff” (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).



7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389
Urban VI was the first Pope of the Western Schism (which ultimately lead to three people claiming the Papal throne at the same time). Urban VI was the last Pope to be selected from outside of the College of Cardinals. Once elected, he was prone to outbursts of rage. The cardinals who elected him decided that they had made the wrong decision and they elected a new Pope in his place (he took the name of Clement VII and started a second Papal court in Avignon, France).
The second election threw the Church into turmoil. There had been antipopes, rival claimants to the papacy, before, but most of them had been appointed by various rival factions; in this case, the legitimate leaders of the Church themselves had created both popes. The conflict quickly escalated from a church problem to a diplomatic crisis that divided Europe. Secular leaders had to choose which pope they would recognize.
The schism was repaired forty years later when all three of the (then) reigning Popes abdicated together and a successor elected in the person of Pope martin V.



8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503
Born Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI is so famous for his debased reign that his surname has become synonymous with the debased standards of the papacy in his era. Alexander’s elevation did not at the time excite much alarm, and at first his reign was marked by a strict administration of justice and an orderly method of government. But it was not long before his passion for endowing his relatives at the church’s and his neighbours’ expense became manifest. To that end he was ready to commit any crime and to plunge all Italy into war.
Alexander VI had three sons in addition to his famous daughter Lucrezia. During his pontificate virtually everything he did was to further the position of his children and family in the world. In order to dominate the Sacred College of Cardinals more completely, Alexander, in a move that created much scandal, created twelve new cardinals, among them his own son Cesare, then only eighteen years old, and Alessandro Farnese (later Pope Paul III), the brother of one of the Pope’s mistresses, the beautiful Giulia Farnese.
The death of the Pope is well recorded by Burchard: Alexander VI’s stomach became swollen and turned to liquid, while his face became wine-coloured and his skin began to peel off. Finally his stomach and bowels bled profusely. After more than a week of intestinal bleeding and convulsive fevers, and after accepting last rites and making a confession, the despairing Alexander VI expired on 18 August 1503 at the age of 72. It is highly likely that he was poisoned, though others speculate that he may have died of malaria.



9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521
Pope Leo X is known primarily for his papal bull against Martin Luther and subsequent failure to stem the Protestant Reformation, which began during his reign when Martin Luther (1483–1546) published the 95 Theses and nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. When he became Pope, Leo X is reported to have said to his brother Giuliano: “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.”
His extravagance offended not only people like Martin Luther, but also some cardinals, who, led by Alfonso Petrucci of Siena, plotted an assassination attempt. Eventually, Pope Leo found out who these people were, and had them followed. The conspirators died of “food poisoning.” Some people argue that Leo X and his followers simply concocted the assassination charges in a moneymaking scheme to collect fines from the various wealthy cardinals Leo X detested.
Under his pontificate, Christianity assumed a pagan character, which, passing from art into manners, gives to this epoch a strange complexion. Crimes for the moment disappeared, to give place to vices; but to charming vices, vices in good taste, such as those indulged in by Alcibiades and sung by Catullus.” Alexandre Dumas
Not every aspect of his pontificate was bad; he raised the church to a high rank as the friend of whatever seemed to extend knowledge or to refine and embellish life. He made the capital of Christendom the center of culture.
The Venetian ambassador (Marino Giorgi) had this to say of the Pope:
Having fallen ill of malaria, Leo X died on 1 December 1521, so suddenly that the last sacraments could not be administered; but the contemporary suspicions of poison were unfounded.
The pope is a good-natured and extremely free-hearted man, who avoids every difficult situation and above all wants peace; he would not undertake a war himself unless his own personal interests were involved; he loves learning; of canon law and literature he possesses remarkable knowledge; he is, moreover, a very excellent musician.



9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521
Clement VII (Giulio di Giuliano de’ Medici) brought to the Papal throne a high reputation for political ability, and possessed in fact all the accomplishments of a wily diplomat. However, he was considered worldly and indifferent to what went on around him, including the ongoing Protestant reformation.
The Pope’s wavering politics also caused the rise of the Imperial party inside the Curia: Pompeo Cardinal Colonna’s soldiers pillaged the Vatican City and gained control of the whole of Rome in his name. The humiliated Pope promised therefore to bring the Papal States to the Imperial side again. Soon he found himself alone in Italy too, as the duke of Ferrara had sided with the Imperial army, permitting to the horde of Landsknechts led by Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, and Georg von Frundsberg, to reach Rome without harm.
Charles of Bourbon died during the long siege, and his troops, unpaid and left without a guide, felt free to ravage Rome from May 6, 1527. The innumerable series of murders, rapes and vandalism that followed ended forever the splendours of the Renaissance Rome. Clement was kept as a prisoner in Castel Sant’Angelo for six months. After having bought some Imperial officers, he escaped disguised as a peddler, and took shelter in Orvieto, and then in Viterbo. He came back to a depopulated and devastated Rome only in October 1528. Subsequently the Pope followed a policy of subservience to the Emperor, endeavouring on the one hand to induce him to act with severity against the Lutherans in Germany, and on the other to elude his demands for a general council.
Pope Clement VII is remembered for having ordered, just a few days before his death, Michelangelo’s painting of The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.

I got these from the internet and saved them in a document on my computer. Interesting bunch, aren't they?
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

This doesn't sound a whole lot as if these folks were talking about Jesus' cousins, or any other "near kinsmen". They definitely do seem to be talking about the family of "the carpenter" and his wife, Mary. Um...their "immediate family'.

And again:

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Mark is a bit less formal...or do I mean informal?...but still, he does seem to be indicating a close, family relationship, as in "immediate family". The idea that these are "near kinsmen" just doesn't seem to get it for me.

And again, near kinsmen or older kids of Joseph's from an earlier marriage...where were these kids when the family had to go to Bethlehem to register for the tax? Why weren't they traveling, as most people did at that time, as a family group? They should have been there, with Mary and Joseph.

Unless they hadn't been born yet....

Mary having a normal relationship with her husband, including sex and other children, in no way takes away from Jesus.
He could have been the son of a harlot, and He still would have been without sin...but God, knowing that we foolish humans would never accept such a thing, chose Mary to be His mother.

Let us, then, love and honor her for the lady that she is, and not try to make her out to be something the poor kid isn't...
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
The Barrd said:
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66
Pope Liberius is the first Pope not to be canonised a saint. He reigned during the height of the Arian crisis during which a large majority of the Church believed that Jesus was not God, but merely a man. The Arian heresy was fought against by the Patriarch of Alexandria Saint Athanasius who consecrated Bishops without permission.
Pope Liberius, rather than defending Athanasius, signed a document that supported those against him and condemned Athanasius. Nearing the end of his pontificate he recanted his signature and reinstated Athanasius. While the Pope did not embrace the heresy himself, he did not use his power fully to put an end to it. His reign did nothing to stop the confusion spreading throughout the Church
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638
Like Liberius, Honorius I was condemned and excommunicated for heresy by the sixth general council in 680. The heresy in question was Montheism in which Jesus is seen as a divine-human, rather than the orthodox belief of physeis that he is both fully God and fully man. Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople wrote to Honorius asking him to decide the question that was causing much division at the time. Instead of clarifying the view of the Church, Honorius did nothing. His lack of action was so scandalous that for 3 centuries, each new Pope had to state at his coronation that he:
The Roman Breviary contained the condemnation of Honorius on the Feast of St Leo II right up until the 18th century.
“smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.”
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89
Pope Stephen VI was consecrated (possibly against his will) by Pope Formosus who, during his reign, was excommunicated for leaving the Papal seat and “conspiring to destroy the papal see”. He was eventually forgiven and returned to Rome. When Stephen VI came the Papal Throne, he had the body of formosus exhumed and put on trial (this is the famous Cadaver Synod). Formosus was accused of transmigrating sees in violation of canon law, of perjury, and of serving as a bishop while actually a layman. Stephen had Formosus’ papal vestments removed and two fingers from his right hand cut off. Formosus’ body was thrown in to the Tiber. After the Synod, public opinion turned against Stephen. He was deposed in an uprising and strangled to death.
4. John XII, reigned 955-964
Through his mother Alda of Vienne, John XII was a seventh generation descendant of Charlemagne. John was the temporal and spiritual ruler of Rome and during his pontificate he virtually turned it into a whorehouse. Moral corruption in Rome became a major problem. After crowning Otto I Emporer of Germany in order to secure his support in a war against Berengar II of Itlay, he changed his mind and began communicating with Berengar. Otto learnt of John’s treachery and returned to Rome after defeating Berengar. He called a council which deposed John who was hiding in the mountains, and elected Leo VIII in his place. John, with a large group of supporters, returned to Rome to depose Leo VIII before Otto had even left. Otto pledged to assist Leo against John but before the matter went any further, John died. It is rumoured that he was killed by the husband of one of his mistresses.
An account of the charges against him in the Patrologia Latina states
They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse. They said that he had gone hunting publicly; that he had blinded his confessor Benedict, and thereafter Benedict had died; that he had killed John, cardinal subdeacon, after castrating him; and that he had set fires, girded on a sword, and put on a helmet and cuirass.
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048
Benedict IX was Pope from 1032 to 1044, again in 1045, and finally from 1047 to 1048, the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods. He was also one of the youngest Popes (reigning from around age 18-20). He reportedly led an extremely dissolute life, and also allegedly had few qualifications for the papacy other than connections with a socially powerful family, although in terms of theology and the ordinary activities of the Church he was entirely orthodox. St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus, a treatise on papal corruption and sex that accused Benedict IX of routine homosexuality and bestiality.
He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders.” Pope Victor III referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”
Benedict gave up his papacy for the first time in exchange for a large sum of money in 1044. He returned in 1045 to depose his replacement and reigned for one month, after which he left again, possibly to marry, and sold the papacy for a second time, to his Godfather (possibly for over 650 kg /1450 lb of gold). Two years later, Benedict retook Rome and reigned for an additional one year, until 1048. Poppo of Brixen (later to become Pope Damascus II) eventually forced him out of Rome. Benedict’s place and date of death are unknown, but some speculate that he made further attempts to regain the Papal Throne.
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303
Due to the King of France (Philip IV) taxing the clergy of the Church to help finance his wars, Boniface VIII released one of the most important papal bulls of Catholic History: Unam Sanctum. It declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope’s jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Church.
This is considered to be an infallible declaration of the Catholic Church. Philip retaliated against the bull by denying the exportation of money from France to Rome, funds that the Church required to operate. Boniface had no choice but to quickly meet the demands of Philip by allowing taxation only “during an emergency.” Philip’s chief minister declared that Boniface was a heretic, and in return, Boniface excommunicated the King. On September 7, 1303 an army led by Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna of the Colonna family surprised Boniface at his retreat in Anagni. The King and the Colonnas demanded that he resign, to which Boniface VIII responded that he would ‘sooner die’. Boniface was beaten badly and nearly executed but was released from captivity after three days. He died a month later, on October 11, 1303.
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff” (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389
Urban VI was the first Pope of the Western Schism (which ultimately lead to three people claiming the Papal throne at the same time). Urban VI was the last Pope to be selected from outside of the College of Cardinals. Once elected, he was prone to outbursts of rage. The cardinals who elected him decided that they had made the wrong decision and they elected a new Pope in his place (he took the name of Clement VII and started a second Papal court in Avignon, France).
The second election threw the Church into turmoil. There had been antipopes, rival claimants to the papacy, before, but most of them had been appointed by various rival factions; in this case, the legitimate leaders of the Church themselves had created both popes. The conflict quickly escalated from a church problem to a diplomatic crisis that divided Europe. Secular leaders had to choose which pope they would recognize.
The schism was repaired forty years later when all three of the (then) reigning Popes abdicated together and a successor elected in the person of Pope martin V.
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503
Born Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI is so famous for his debased reign that his surname has become synonymous with the debased standards of the papacy in his era. Alexander’s elevation did not at the time excite much alarm, and at first his reign was marked by a strict administration of justice and an orderly method of government. But it was not long before his passion for endowing his relatives at the church’s and his neighbours’ expense became manifest. To that end he was ready to commit any crime and to plunge all Italy into war.
Alexander VI had three sons in addition to his famous daughter Lucrezia. During his pontificate virtually everything he did was to further the position of his children and family in the world. In order to dominate the Sacred College of Cardinals more completely, Alexander, in a move that created much scandal, created twelve new cardinals, among them his own son Cesare, then only eighteen years old, and Alessandro Farnese (later Pope Paul III), the brother of one of the Pope’s mistresses, the beautiful Giulia Farnese.
The death of the Pope is well recorded by Burchard: Alexander VI’s stomach became swollen and turned to liquid, while his face became wine-coloured and his skin began to peel off. Finally his stomach and bowels bled profusely. After more than a week of intestinal bleeding and convulsive fevers, and after accepting last rites and making a confession, the despairing Alexander VI expired on 18 August 1503 at the age of 72. It is highly likely that he was poisoned, though others speculate that he may have died of malaria.
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521
Pope Leo X is known primarily for his papal bull against Martin Luther and subsequent failure to stem the Protestant Reformation, which began during his reign when Martin Luther (1483–1546) published the 95 Theses and nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. When he became Pope, Leo X is reported to have said to his brother Giuliano: “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.”
His extravagance offended not only people like Martin Luther, but also some cardinals, who, led by Alfonso Petrucci of Siena, plotted an assassination attempt. Eventually, Pope Leo found out who these people were, and had them followed. The conspirators died of “food poisoning.” Some people argue that Leo X and his followers simply concocted the assassination charges in a moneymaking scheme to collect fines from the various wealthy cardinals Leo X detested.
Under his pontificate, Christianity assumed a pagan character, which, passing from art into manners, gives to this epoch a strange complexion. Crimes for the moment disappeared, to give place to vices; but to charming vices, vices in good taste, such as those indulged in by Alcibiades and sung by Catullus.” Alexandre Dumas
Not every aspect of his pontificate was bad; he raised the church to a high rank as the friend of whatever seemed to extend knowledge or to refine and embellish life. He made the capital of Christendom the center of culture.
The Venetian ambassador (Marino Giorgi) had this to say of the Pope:
Having fallen ill of malaria, Leo X died on 1 December 1521, so suddenly that the last sacraments could not be administered; but the contemporary suspicions of poison were unfounded.
The pope is a good-natured and extremely free-hearted man, who avoids every difficult situation and above all wants peace; he would not undertake a war himself unless his own personal interests were involved; he loves learning; of canon law and literature he possesses remarkable knowledge; he is, moreover, a very excellent musician.
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521
Clement VII (Giulio di Giuliano de’ Medici) brought to the Papal throne a high reputation for political ability, and possessed in fact all the accomplishments of a wily diplomat. However, he was considered worldly and indifferent to what went on around him, including the ongoing Protestant reformation.
The Pope’s wavering politics also caused the rise of the Imperial party inside the Curia: Pompeo Cardinal Colonna’s soldiers pillaged the Vatican City and gained control of the whole of Rome in his name. The humiliated Pope promised therefore to bring the Papal States to the Imperial side again. Soon he found himself alone in Italy too, as the duke of Ferrara had sided with the Imperial army, permitting to the horde of Landsknechts led by Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, and Georg von Frundsberg, to reach Rome without harm.
Charles of Bourbon died during the long siege, and his troops, unpaid and left without a guide, felt free to ravage Rome from May 6, 1527. The innumerable series of murders, rapes and vandalism that followed ended forever the splendours of the Renaissance Rome. Clement was kept as a prisoner in Castel Sant’Angelo for six months. After having bought some Imperial officers, he escaped disguised as a peddler, and took shelter in Orvieto, and then in Viterbo. He came back to a depopulated and devastated Rome only in October 1528. Subsequently the Pope followed a policy of subservience to the Emperor, endeavouring on the one hand to induce him to act with severity against the Lutherans in Germany, and on the other to elude his demands for a general council.
Pope Clement VII is remembered for having ordered, just a few days before his death, Michelangelo’s painting of The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.
I got these from the internet and saved them in a document on my computer. Interesting bunch, aren't they?
So you, TheBarrd, has made Jamie Frater your authority on the ten worst Popes? Did you research anything he wrote or just accept what he wrote as fact? Is HE your authority on wicked Popes?

My point is YOU have accepted Frater's list of 10 as your own. YOU have accepted someone else's writings/authority to refute iakov.

We all have certain beliefs about what scripture says. Some of those beliefs we come to on our own by reading the bible and some of those beliefs we come to by reading what other people say and accept it because it makes sense. So what makes YOU right and the RCC or the Baptist or the Lutheran's etc. etc. wrong? I have asked you and others on this website this question many times and ALL have failed to answer. I suspect it is because one would realize the fallacy of their beliefs if they honestly answer.

If people who were being taught by the apostles to accept Jesus as their savior had taken to heart that Peter denied Jesus three times and Jesus called him Satan then I suspect a lot of those people would not be so inclined to join this new movement called Christianity based on Peter's word. After all, how can one believe anything that Peter said since Jesus called him Satan and he denied Him THREE TIMES? Judas betrayed Jesus. I suspect a lot of people back then ran from Christianity since one of Jesus most trusted Apostles betrayed him. Even Paul was a bad person towards Christians. Why trust him. Who can trust Paul after switching sides? He doesn't sound reliable to me!

Now some people run from Christianity because some Christians do some bad things. Does that make ALL of Christianity bad/wrong?

Just because there were some bad Popes that make what the Catholic Church (or any church that has bad people in it) teaches wrong? That is not logical!!

I suspect there are some bad people in your church!! But I could be wrong!
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
tom55 said:
So you, TheBarrd, has made Jamie Frater your authority on the ten worst Popes? Did you research anything he wrote or just accept what he wrote as fact? Is HE your authority on wicked Popes?

My point is YOU have accepted Frater's list of 10 as your own. YOU have accepted someone else's writings/authority to refute iakov.

We all have certain beliefs about what scripture says. Some of those beliefs we come to on our own by reading the bible and some of those beliefs we come to by reading what other people say and accept it because it makes sense. So what makes YOU right and the RCC or the Baptist or the Lutheran's etc. etc. wrong?

Just because there were some bad Popes that makes what the Catholic Church (or any church that has bad people in it) teaches wrong? That is not logical!!

I suspect there are some bad people in your church!! But I could be wrong!
I have no idea who Frater is, nor do I care. The thing is, the notion that the pope is "infallible" is patently ridiculous. And it has been long known that power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sure, there have been lots of rotten leaders in all of Christianity...that's one reason the body of Christ has been torn into so many pieces. For a close look at corrupt leaders in the church, one need only turn on their television and tune it to whatever their Christian network is called.

However, no other church declares that it's leader is the voice of Christ on earth. No other church has ever wielded the kind of power that the RCC once had. Princes, Kings, Queens....even Emperors bowed to his throne.

It's bad enough, when some charismatic televangelist goes wacko and insists that his followers buy him a new jet plane...and there are idiots out there who think that they will be blessed if they give this jerk their last dime.
But for the pope to live in wealth and splendor, while people are dying of starvation, when he is supposed to be Christ's vicar on earth is unforgivable. For the Vatican to hoard treasures that ought to belong to all of Christendom...nay, to the entire world...is unforgivable.

It's bad enough for the church to insist that Mary must be a perpetual virgin, and sinless. Not content with that, they also named Mary Magdalene a prostitute...for which, by the way, there is no scriptural evidence...and paints her as the perpetual "bad girl"...even though Jesus cast seven demons out of her. You'd think she'd be clean after that, but...no dice, Mary!

And yet it was this "dirty girl" who was the first to see Jesus after His resurrection. It was this former hooker who ran to the disciples to tell them that their Master was not dead, but had risen.

Oh, and btw....I do not belong to a regular church. I and a few other families have opted out, choosing instead to meet regularly in our homes for worship. It's been working for us for several years now. We don't worry too much about corrupt leaders, because we have no leader. We take turns conducting the service, and no one is being paid to do anything.
It's all about love...
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Actually, Iakov, it is my opinion that none of the denominations "have it right".
My main objection to the "KATHlick" church is the pope. There have been too many totally corrupt popes who have done untold damage.
I agree Barrd, but some are much closer than others, and even they are not immune to bad leadership.
Do you think Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart were perfect?

Can we just try to focus on the OP and not make this another thread on tearing down the RCC?
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
StanJ said:
I agree Barrd, but some are much closer than others, and even they are not immune to bad leadership.
Do you think Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart were perfect?

Can we just try to focus on the OP and not make this another thread on tearing down the RCC?
I think you already know what I think of the Pentecostal pork pie, Falwell...and I don't need to tell you what Swaggart is all about...$$$$$$$$$$$$$...
And there will always be gullible idiots that will keep men like this in designer clothes and fancy cars...

But the day is coming when we all...me, you, Falwell, Swaggert...every one of us, will answer to God.
Yes, even the pope...

And you do know that, to whom much is given...much will also be required...

*shivers*
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
iakov said:
That is a common misconception about the Immaculate Conception and, when stated in voice or print, identifies the speaker or writer as someone who has willfully chosen to be ignorant on the topic upon which (s)he has chosen to pontificate since factual information is easily and quickly accessible on the internet he/she is currently using to display his/her ignorance to the world.

Many Catholics and Orthodox Christians have a special devotion to Mary.
That devotion is supported by the teachings of their churches.

Many Protestant Christians have a devotion to denigrating the RCC and Mary.
That devotion is also supported by the teachings of their churches.

They are both religious devotions but appear to be inspired by different spirits. :unsure:


iakov.


John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another;
as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
John 14:15 If you love Me, keep My commandments.
(NKJV)
I have to agree. Neither one is out of understanding God's written Word by the Holy Soirit, but what they themselves have been biasly taught. I think you'll find more people here who are not as concemnatory as you may have encountered previously......I hope anyway. :)
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Barrd said:
I think you already know what I think of the Pentecostal pork pie, Falwell...and I don't need to tell you what Swaggart is all about...$$$$$$$$$$$$$...
And there will always be gullible idiots that will keep men like this in designer clothes and fancy cars...

But the day is coming when we all...me, you, Falwell, Swaggert...every one of us, will answer to God.
Yes, even the pope...

And you do know that, to whom much is given...much will also be required...

*shivers*
Falwell was NOT Pentecostal Barrd, he was Baptist, and no you don't have to tell me about Swaggart. I was the one who brought him up.
The POINT, which you so typically ignore, was they badly repped their denoms.
Yes we will all answer to God, so why bring up all the dead popes that we also all know screwed up?
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
StanJ said:
Falwell was NOT Pentecostal Barrd, he was Baptist, and no you don't have to tell me about Swaggart. I was the one who brought him up.
The POINT, which you so typically ignore, was they badly repped their denoms.
Yes we will all answer to God, so why bring up all the dead popes that we also all know screwed up?
Oops, got 'em backwards. Sorry. Anyhow, they both worship the same god...$$$$$$$$$$$$...

And yes, they both badly repped themselves and the church they represent.

Why bring up those popes? To make the POINT, Stan, that they are mere men, and NOT infallible. Just like Swaggart and Falwell, they gave their church a bad rep...
Which is exactly the POINT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingJ

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Barrd said:
Oops, got 'em backwards. Sorry. Anyhow, they both worship the same god...$$$$$$$$$$$$...

And yes, they both badly repped themselves and the church they represent.

Why bring up those popes? To make the POINT, Stan, that they are mere men, and NOT infallible. Just like Swaggart and Falwell, they gave their church a bad rep...
Which is exactly the POINT.
The POINT is that human failure to do it right does not negate Christianity, regardless of WHO fails.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
StanJ said:
The POINT is that human failure to do it right does not negate Christianity, regardless of WHO fails.
Ahh, yes...but then, that brings us back full circle, doesn't it?

Just what is Christianity? What do Christians believe?

Do any of the denominations actually "get it right"? Which one should I choose for myself and my family?
This is probably the most important decision a person could ever make...
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Barrd said:
Ahh, yes...but then, that brings us back full circle, doesn't it?

Just what is Christianity? What do Christians believe?

Do any of the denominations actually "get it right"? Which one should I choose for myself and my family?
This is probably the most important decision a person could ever make...
THAT is why we are under a NEW covenant, that requires a PERSONAL saviour, and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with power. The rest we figure out as we walk the walk of FAITH.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
The Barrd said:
I have no idea who Frater is, nor do I care. The thing is, the notion that the pope is "infallible" is patently ridiculous. And it has been long known that power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You quoted Jamie Frater from his website http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/ Sooooo I assumed you knew who he was. Guess I got that one wrong??!!

Sure, there have been lots of rotten leaders in all of Christianity...that's one reason the body of Christ has been torn into so many pieces.

Christianity is torn into 30,000 churches (as you have previously pointed out) because no one wants to accept authority. You don't think anyone has the authority to properly interpret the bible so you interpret it the way you want too and think you are right. (when I say "you" I mean anyone that believes in sola Scriptura) And whatever church you go to you make the leader of that church your Pope. (I know, you go to the church of LoveInc.)

However, no other church declares that it's leader is the voice of Christ on earth. No other church has ever wielded the kind of power that the RCC once had. Princes, Kings, Queens....even Emperors bowed to his throne.

That is what I have read also. You are right and we agree!

It's bad enough, when some charismatic televangelist goes wacko and insists that his followers buy him a new jet plane...and there are idiots out there who think that they will be blessed if they give this jerk their last dime.
But for the pope to live in wealth and splendor, while people are dying of starvation, when he is supposed to be Christ's vicar on earth is unforgivable. For the Vatican to hoard treasures that ought to belong to all of Christendom...nay, to the entire world...is unforgivable.

I am willing to bet you live in "wealth and splendor" also and eat better or more food than the average poor person. When are you going to give up all your /food to help them? You demand someone else to do it but I bet your not doing it yourself, are you?

It's bad enough for the church to insist that Mary must be a perpetual virgin, and sinless. Not content with that, they also named Mary Magdalene a prostitute...for which, by the way, there is no scriptural evidence...and paints her as the perpetual "bad girl"...even though Jesus cast seven demons out of her. You'd think she'd be clean after that, but...no dice, Mary!
And yet it was this "dirty girl" who was the first to see Jesus after His resurrection. It was this former hooker who ran to the disciples to tell them that their Master was not dead, but had risen.

Not sure where you are getting your info on the RCC. I just went to both of the most reliable RCC websites and they say she is a saint. They say she was an adultery (not a prostitute) and she is considered a Saint by the RCC! Whatever authoritive source you are getting your info from you may want to re-consider your authority figure!

Oh, and btw....I do not belong to a regular church. I and a few other families have opted out, choosing instead to meet regularly in our homes for worship. It's been working for us for several years now. We don't worry too much about corrupt leaders, because we have no leader. We take turns conducting the service, and no one is being paid to do anything.
It's all about love...

WHO has the authority to interpret the infallible word of God in your meetings? It would have to be someone with infallibility. Wouldn't it? So who in your "church" interprets scripture? Sounds like no one has authority in your meetings (church). Everyone can believe what they want? That makes everyone in your meeting their own Pope. Doesn't it?
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
Tom55 said:
Christianity is torn into 30,000 churches (as you have previously pointed out) because no one wants to accept authority. You don't think anyone has the authority to properly interpret the bible so you interpret it the way you want too and think you are right. (when I say "you" I mean anyone that believes in sola Scriptura) And whatever church you go to you make the leader of that church your Pope. (I know, you go to the church of LoveInc.)
I don't understand why we cannot accept the authority of Jesus Christ?

Tom55 said:
That is what I have read also. You are right and we agree!
No, we do not agree. I don't think that giving a man the authority that belongs to Christ alone is a very good idea.


I am willing to bet you live in "wealth and splendor" also and eat better or more food than the average poor person. When are you going to give up all your /food to help them? You demand someone else to do it but I bet your not doing it yourself, are you?
You would lose that bet, Tom.
I am a disabled old lady living on SSI...that is a little over $700 a month here in Alabama. I'm lucky if I have as much as that famous poor widow, once the bill collectors are done with me every month. I don't know if I could scrape up two pennies to toss into the collection plate...
In other words, I am "the average poor person".
The computer I am typing on was bought for me my someone who had read my book, "The First Sinner" and loved it. He saw that bit on the back cover about my "dilapidated old laptop" and, to my great suprise, he sent me a new one. He also bought me an air conditioner, because this old, tumble down shack I live in didn't have one.
Yet my house is always full of people, and I am kept busy cooking every day.
You know nothing at all about me, yet you make these assumptions. Why is that?
Me ol' Gran' once tol' me that mos' folks tend ta judge by their own standards. When ye see a man a-pointin' 'is finger an' talkin' bout 'ow some other lad isna' doin' 'is bit to 'elp the poor, ye kin bet that man is a greedy 'un 'isself. Shame on ye, then, me bucko...ye not only judge one that ye know not, but ye gives yerself away a-doin' it.
(Me ol' Gran', she were Welsh, doan ye know.)
Yet my house is always full of people, and, yes, I do give food away, all the time. There is a lot of love in this house, Tom, so in a sense, I am rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
The Barrd said:
Tom55 said:


You don't like that site? Okay, here is another one, with a more comprehensive list:

http://www.gracegems.org/D/evil_popes.htm

Or this one, with pictures and everything:

http://www.oddee.com/item_96537.aspx
I never said I didn't like that site. I clearly said you You quoted Jamie Frater from his website so I assumed you knew who he was. You act like you don't know who he is but quote him word for word.
When you quote someone, word for word, one would naturally assume you know who they are. But I digress.