Former Catholics question?

Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Former Catholics question?

For all those former Catholics on the boards, what is your current body of knowledge on the Catholic church?

As in have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any of the early Church Father's writings, papal encyclicals, or the Bible (completely).

I would like to qualify reading to mean actually attempting to understand what is written, as one would do so with an article in a science journal or precious document. Or have you just read the materials as you would read a comic strip, with no effort to understand the meaning, contents, and background.

 

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Response on the Bad Popes

 

PJTS wrote:

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

So you acknowledge it was forged and used to manipulate the Emperors in the East and then the monarchies in the West. It was more intervention by the Church into the affairs of the state, somehow not supported by Jesus as written in the Gospels.

John XII- Since you know of his corruptions I won’t bother going into much detail. He turned the Lateran into a brothel and was more like Caligula than St Peter. He had armed gangs rob the pilgrims and they raped them even in St Peter’s.

 Urban II- I have gone into great detail above in what I think of Urban II, he’s the responsible party for murder and mayhem. The Crusades were not justified at all, no one in Europe had a right to invade. The Emperor Alexius I had a right to try, but it had been over 400 years since the Muslims took it from the Byzantine Empire. Alexius also had right to all of Europe as it had been part of the Empire. Murder and violence to take back dirt and cities in the name of Jesus sponsored by the Church and called by Urban II. He should have been executed for war crimes. Today he would be tried and convicted of just that.

Benedict IX- 14 years old when he became pope he used it to his own ends, sex, power and riches. In the end he sold the office which eventually results in 3 men claiming to be pope at once.

Innocent III- His greatest crime was the calling of the 4th Crusade which besieged and overpowered Christian Constantinople, all for loot and booty. The crimes committed there are on him just as with Urban II, he should have been executed for war crimes. He did not intend this to happen, and lambasted the Crusaders for their actions, so perhaps he just deserved life in prison in isolation. He did however launch Crusades in Spain against Muslims, against renegade Catholics and pagans as well. S no, I don’t see him as good at all. Religious persecution is a crime against mankind, he had no right to force the Church’s beliefs on anyone. As before, Jesus told his disciples to knock the dust off their feet as the left a town that wouldn’t receive their message. This is not  the policy followed by Innocent III.

Boniface VIII – Benedict Gaetani  forced through manipulation the abdication of Celestine V then became pope. After he hunts him down and has him imprisoned, though Celestine may have been grateful for the solitude. He dies 10 months later. Boniface is heavily involved in other deceit and manipulation, for his family the Gaetani one of several warring groups that manipulate the Church for their own gain. In 1297, war between the Church, Boniface and his family’s enemies, the Colonna began. They were excommunicated leaving them and their property open to anyone. Later it’s increased to a Crusade against the Colonna. By the Summer of 1298 all but one of the Colonna cities had been taken by the Crusaders. In the end, Boniface has Palestrina destroyed.

 Urban VI – Bartolomeo Pignano – involved in the Great Schism. He eventually ordered the death of several cardinals who opposed him. He raised an army to seize Naples for one of his nephews.
See - http://www.nndb.com/people/285/000095000/

Alexander VI – Alexander Borgia, do I need to say any more than that? I guess so since you don’t see what he did was in contrast to the church’s high ideals. I could tell you to just watch the upcoming series the Borgias on Showtime next year and so you get the idea.
First off he bought the votes that elected him pope.  Alexander had at least 7 illegitimate children if not 10. He used his daughter  Lucrezia to make deals with others through marriage. Several times. Alexander was manipulative involved in intrigue for power and money for his family. Well at least he was loyal to them. His most upstanding virtue was greed though he did act a patron for the arts and instigated much  Alexander parceled out the spoils of Naples between France and Spain for political gain as well. Another good thing he did was to welcome the Jewish refugees to Rome and allow them to lead their lives free from Christian oppression.

His son Cesare was involved in many of the intrigues and was likely poisoned along with his father, though he recovered.

 I refer you to Niccolo Machivelli  book The Prince, written about Cesare Borgia - http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/machiavelli.html
See also ER Chambelain “The Bad Popes” pp 160-205

 Leo X – Giovanni de Medici another of the great families of Italy. His primary interest was of course his family and wealth. As with others during this period he was a major patron of the arts. As with other popes he was engaged in warfare, though it was for family gain such as deposing the Duke of Urbino  della Rovere. As the feudal lord yes he had that right and he made his nephew Lorenzo the duke. The duke Francesco della Rovere however did not go quietly and the pope called on help of the French. The pope excommunicated him and did not lift it even after he was  driven out.  The pope even violated safe conduct for an envoy from della Rovere, torturing him in Rome to get information. All of these wars cost money and the pope had methods to raise it, though it also raised Luther as well.

Clement VII – Giulio de Medici – The main problem with him was his indecisiveness, his ineptness, and political involvements. pope when Henry 8th wanted a divorce. He couldn’t make up his mind and waffled on his decision back and forth. Made ill advised treaties with France. Then with Spain. Then he is involved in the war of liberation for Italy. Then the Colonna family attack Rome. Then back to his Italian liberation war. Rome is sacked by Spanish Catholics & Lutheran Germans.
See - http://www.nndb.com/people/202/000094917/

Julius II aka Papa Terrible, the Warrior Pope – In that Jesus said to turn the other cheek I really shouldn’t need to explain what was wrong  with this pope. That he personally dispatched persons from this world with a sword is all I need to consider him evil. He fought to regain and increase the Papal States which is clearly a worldly possession and not in line with leave everything and follow me attributed to Jesus.  Even he was not exempt from putting family in power as discussed in regard to the Duke of Urbino and 4 family members made into cardinals. Julius was one of the first cracks in my beliefs as a Catholic while I was in college. I never could understand or justify the warfare he began. He was influential and a major patron of the arts.
There are many sources you can utilize in regard to his actions, see these as a start  -
http://www.nndb.com/people/520/000097229/
http://www.wga.hu/database/glossary/popes/julius2.html

Pius IX – His anti-American attitude was really all I needed to label him evil. I realize God as envisioned in scripture is an autocratic dictator, so why would I expect a representative to be any different. He is listed as one of the 25 most evil people of the 19th century. See here - http://one-evil.org/people/people_19c_Pius_IX.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_IX_and_the_United_States
http://www.theologytable.com/Hist%20Chap%2025.pdf
On the 80 errors - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

One of the crimes is related to the seizure of a Jewish Child by the Papal police and did not allow his return to the parents.
He supported the South and dissension which contributed to the Civil War as well as prolonged it.

Pius XII – Eugenio Pacelli
As Cardinal Pacelli and the Secretary of State of the Vatican he concluded the Concordant with NAZI Germany whereby the Church stood by and made no complaints of the actions of Hitler to insure that Catholic Church would be left alone. It is the 1st treaty Hitler made with another country and this gave legitimacy to the NAZIS and sold out the Jews as well. Pacelli made the excuse he had a gun to his head and Hitler would violate the concordat anyway. Regardless, it insured that the RCC would be quieted in regards to actions in Germany.

On his relationship and handling of the Jews - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

NAZI corroborator or not –

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2017
http://www.st-louis.org/pdf/pius.pdf

In the end, he remains for me either an evil pope or inept at understanding of the damage that was caused by his actions and non-actions.

Cliff Jumper wrote:


My Response:


Again a concise set of statements

On my statement of the Donation of Constantine you obviously didn’t read what I wrote. I never said it was used to manipulate the governments in Europe. Yes, it was forged, but no one knew that until well after the events had taken place.

I did read your position. You claim that no one knew it was a fraud until the 15th century. Facts however show otherwise. The creator of the forged document of course knew it was fake, that was most likely under Pope Stephen II who did utilize it. Also the Vatican insiders would know it was faked and it gave them justification and power which the Church did utilize until it was discredited as fake in the 15th century. This was of course after the remains of the Roman Empire (Byzantine at this point) were decimated by the Turks.

see - http://www.mgrfoundation.org/VaticanForgery2.html

and even from Newadvent - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

And the document translation - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Your list of bad popes and what they did that was “evil” are one of three things:  historically inaccurate, distortions or misunderstandings of the truth, or you blame people for actions contrary to the teachings of the church.

Please detail the inaccuracies, distortions and misunderstandings of the truth.

And yes I hold people responsible for the actions they take, whether they are a pope, or a CEO. And I many times hold their organizations responsible as well, in this case the RCC.

Cliff Jumper wrote:


John XII- did immoral things absolutely, but as I mentioned before this was and still is not condoned by the Church or her teachings. He also did not change the teachings to fit his lifestyle either. An example of the Church’s incorruptible teachings.

It was while he was the pope. Are you sure? If it was OK for John to have a brothel in the Vatican what about other recent misadventures that have occurred. Perhaps the RCC does not advocate the behavior but they should have tried to hide it.

Nixon had to resign because of the cover up more than any other reason. Popes and bishops have been doing the same recently and did so in the past. Cover ups are deception, lies and are against your Church's teaching.


Cliff Jumper wrote:


 Urban II- Your problem here lies with the actions of the soldiers and horrible things they did, not what Urban II said. You obviously don’t like the Crusades, its merits/ atrocities can be discussed in another thread.

No, my problem lies with Urban II not turning the other cheek. Jesus indicated this, early Christians supposedly died doing it, now murder is justified.

What Urban said as he preached the Crusade was he was speaking on God's behalf. He said the crusaders were God's inspired agents who would be engaged in God's service out of love for him. He told them they were knights of Christ. Perhaps it was meant not to be taken literally, but they did. In the end, all the violence and murders were on him.



Cliff Jumper wrote:

Alexander VI- Showtime really, historically accurate for sure? First of all there is no evidence that he bought the votes to get him the papal office. At the time of his election it was also considered a fair election. Again did morally bad things, but they were not are not in accord with Church teachings. Yet another example of the Church’s incorruptible teachings.

Yeah Showtime, you don't seem to have the time to spend to actually investigate so why not. It comes out in April. You need to learn more about him.

Really no evidence? Where on Newadvent? Probably not. Many historians see this otherwise, but his other actions made him a bad pope anyway. He did help out with the displaced Jews from Spain, a good thing.


Cliff Jumper wrote:


 Leo X- Again bad things done, not in line with Church teaching, but Church teaching not changed to fit his needs.

Do not the examples of the leader of the RCC set church teachings in some way? He used the indulgences to raise cash and ultimately Luther which caused the reformation to some extent. People paid cash to buy their way out of sins, this was not a change in church teachings. Can you still pay your way past sins today?


Cliff Jumper wrote:


Clement VII- Your complaints about this pope are just personal complaints. He could have dealt with the Francis I and Charles V conflict better, but he was caught in the middle of it. Once he did not side with his friend Charles V attacked and locked him up. This seems more like a case of politics and government trying to use the church to get what they want, then when they don’t they go to war or protest.

Perhaps his example is why popes should just stick with pushing Jesus and still out of politics and secular activities. Isn't that what Jesus taught and especially Paul?


Cliff Jumper wrote:


Julius II aka Papa Terrible, the Warrior Pope- Why is fighting to take back what is yours bad? From what I’ve read about Julius II he simply took back what had previously belonged to the church. He arrested Cesare Borgia after asking him to surrender the territory. Then a temporary agreement was reached between Venice and Julius II and most of the territory was returned. He took Perugia peacefully, and the Bentivogli at Bologna were ruling the lands as dictators who claimed to be Catholic. Julius II excommunicated Giovanni Bentivoglio and took the city. After that the Venetians, Catholics elected their own bishops and cardinals and tried and deposed the current ones. Aside from that he fought to free Italy, and ensured that church teachings were followed properly within the church. I’ve never seen or read any evidence that he was guilty of nepotism. All accounts seem to indicate the opposite. Overall he could have made some better choices when dealing with the Venetians, but again none of the Church’s teachings were altered to fit his will.

If Jesus said raise the other sword not turn the other cheek you'd have a point. He didn't.

What happened to give all away and follow me?


Cliff Jumper wrote:


Pius IX- Are we talking about the same person here? From the historical books he’s described as a good, selfless, man, who stood against corruption, evil, and many heresies. As a result he was attacked relentlessly. What is your problem in particular with him? He didn’t hate America, he did not tolerate liberal Catholics (I don’t either and there is no such thing), and he stood for the faith. I cannot find anything about him being pro-slavery. I find evidence to the contrary like Pius IX branding “the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders.”

He was anti-democracy and  was considered as one of the worst evil men of the 19th century.

The Jewish child conversion showed how immoral the church and this pope was.


Cliff Jumper wrote:


Pius XII- You’re history here is way off. Start with this: http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp

Any compromise with evil only evil wins - Ayn Rand.

Eugenio Pacelli obviously took another name to help hide his sellout to protect the Catholics with the concordant. It didn't work, the Jews know who he was.


Cliff Jumper wrote:


Are you familiar with Monsignor O'Flaherty? Pope Pius IX spoke out against the NAZIS before their rise to power. He helped to save POWs, Jews, and many many others. The history of this Pope has really been twisted.
 

Pius IX died in the 19th century, I think you mean Pius XII or Pius XI?

Did he or not? There are stories on both sides. There is the treaty with Hitler. The link to the Jewish Virtual library was fairly clear on him:

"Historians point out that any support the Pope did give the Jews came after 1942, once U.S. officials told him that the allies wanted total victory, and it became likely that they would get it. Furthering the notion that any intervention by Pius XII was based on practical advantage rather than moral inclination is the fact that in late 1942, Pius XII began to advise the German and Hungarian bishops that it would be to their ultimate political advantage to go on record as speaking out against the massacre of the Jews."

So when he knew Hitler was likely to lose, he realized the Church might be held accountable, then he cooperated.

Think what you'd like.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TO A FAIR DEGREE . . ?


 TO A FAIR DEGREE . . ( early to mid 60s ) ?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Re :: Hearing IS Believing :)

 

 

Re ::  Hearing IS Believing  (smile)

  In honor of this year's last Mother's Day



Antipatris wrote:

 

Gospel of Saint John Chapter 20 :: ''So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I WILL NOT BELIEVE."


  So   you  are  believing  ( and  so you are believing  -- double meaning ) ::

She says
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from here
She says

I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from you.

Once a child and now I've grown within. Yes, grown within
So I'm packing all these years,
I let them go without many more tears."
I let them go and this is what she said.

She says to me:

I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from here
She says
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from you.


Circle round this fire-light.
I guess this pack of wolves will pass for friends.
Dragged by two nanny-goats, Tanngnjóstur and Tanngrisnir.

Who's that coming up to me?
Hope and opportunity. You better grab it fast, grab it fast, and
hope it never ends.


I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from here
She says
I, I, I believe that everyone can fly away from you.

 

  View Image Upload . . .

 

  Phenomena / manifestation  Image of false teach(-ers, -ing) See/View Image (here or just above) ::

(inaudible)

Other  recent  conversation,  for   0ff  site

1 Samuel 15:23

New King James Version (NKJV)

   For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
..  Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,

  I havent seen anything as of yet coming close to the following; nor anything approaching what the New Testament calls : 'liberty in Christ', for that matter::

Book of Proverbs

New King James Version (NKJV)

 

"The eye that mocks a father, that scorns an aged mother, will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley, will be eaten by the ravens and young eagles''

 


   0ff-site  :: Hey,  Always pays to review passages FOR YOURSELF the true ''Sweetness''. Try to look at a/any 'Scriptural' passage (or sacred writ), by yourself, and for yourself, THAT IS : FOR YOURSELF 

 

   As long as you don't speak the Devil or the Devils gets all the wiggle room necessary, oh then people get to falsely characterize you at will (apparently). Everybody wants to avoid the most obvious of questions like : 'why' ?,

  What about the Uploaded  Image ?  Well  it's just a thought. The Marian Vaishno Devi, also known as Mata Rani and Vaishnavi

 

 

 

 








   0 f f  s i t e

  STOP STUMBLING OVER THE PICTURES, you do not understand their meaning !!

 p.s.  --  STOP STUMBLING OVER THE PICTURES, you do not understand their meaning !!

   In honor of this year's last Mother's Day, the group has many far long and expected ones, for such a intimate/tiny group. Here's something that shouldn’t be vilified, but shouldn’t always be glorified either, as by various circles.  Name those verses in which Gospel do you find them ??  0 f f - s i t e

   (*Sigh*) I'm just used to people having a sense of a person; I'm just used to people remembering a person's position from other things they've written. If I make a statement that is completely isolated and only seen in one place, do not fail to look to other statements. Nuance seems to be beyond most. I assume someone who has already indicated I was highly willing to help pregnant women (whoever they are), SO now I'm supposed to be anti-mother ? What ?!??? Once she would bear bare the child into the world? Off-site, appreciate you'd extend the kindness to me not judging me by a single instance or something I said one time (especially type-'A's)!!

     ''In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, ..'' ''..But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. For, Behold lo, as soon as the sound of thy salutation and greeting came in mine ears . .  ''[Being asked the baby's name] And his mother spoke up and answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John''

 

 







 

 

 Aaaahh..Yeah,  The worst insensitivities, done in poor taste, and/or overly plain offensive imagery  amounts to what  you see at this cell. And one other I recall of a overweight Christ Jesus on the cross. And nothing much worse I've seen personally ever myself. If this was not the internet, I can assure you there would  be no knocking  the holy bible  out of one's hand and grabbing — having it thrown, the holy bible, out of one's hand and proceeding to have it outrageously stepped on, or something. 

 

 

   EDIT  :: Minor edit ::  Strike out bear (well, maybe);  and it’s ‘A’s  and not the word ‘As'  

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've looked at this topic

I've looked at this topic far too many times and found no updates. Sorry but the editing must end.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.