Were the Popes right to call fellow Popes "Antichrist"?

[BobRyan]

Around the time of the 15th and 16th century we find the historic detail of Popes calling fellow Popes "Antichrist".

The question is - should they have done that? OR should they have said instead "oh well that guy is nice enough, and he means well enough, I say he is a good-ol-boy and should be accepted like the rest of us - can't we all just get along?".

Recall that during that time you had not 1 , not 2, but 3 papal LINES - having Popes with successors in each line and armies to go with each line of Popes.

What say you?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Around the time of the 15th and 16th century we find the historic detail of Popes calling fellow Popes "Antichrist".

The question is - should they have done that? OR should they have said instead "oh well that guy is nice enough, and he means well enough, I say he is a good-ol-boy and should be accepted like the rest of us - can't we all just get along?".

Recall that during that time you had not 1 , not 2, but 3 papal LINES - having Popes with successors in each line and armies to go with each line of Popes.

What say you?

in Christ,

Bob

Knowing a bit of history comes in handy with things like this. I think what you are referring to the Papal Schism. In 1292 Pope Nicholas IV died. Which left the see empty and for 27 months the cardinals could not come to a two third Majority but finally Celestine V was elected but resented the position and didn't want it. So he got some advise from a Bishop Lawyer who misled the Pope who resign his position. This Lawyer took the seat and took the name Boniface VIII. He was an arrogant man and he imprisoned Celestine V. The Next Pope Benedict XI was only in office for 9 months before dying and the Cardinals elected Clement V who was a Frenchman who moved the Papacy to Avignon because of uprisings and violence in Rome. There were several problems with this as the Pope is responsible for his diocese which was Rome, He was seen as the puppet of the French King, and the Papal court in France was immoral. Catherine of Sienna scolded the pope and shamed him in moving him back to Rome. However, the permanent move back to Rome didn't occur until 1377 under Pope Gregory XI. However, he died only a year after his return. This caused a problem. Italians wanted to see a Roman Pope rather than another Frenchman as Pope moving the papacy back to Avignon. French Cardinals began to fear for their lives from the Roman crowds. And to escape from the crowds in Rome they dressed up an elderly Roman Cardinal with the Popes Miter to pacify the crowds while they left Rome. The next day they announce the appointment of Urban VI to the Papacy. Everyone thought he was pro french but he decided to keep the Papacy in Rome. The French Cardinals said he was invalidly elected so they Elected Clement VIII and seated him in Avignon. Then the fighting really began there were two Popes and each started excommunicating the followers of the other. The Cardinals thought they should try again deposed both Popes and elected another Named Alexander V. The other two refused to step down and so Alexander was place in PIsa. It wasn't until 1429 at the election of Martin V with the abdication of Clement the VIII and the death of John XXIII that the schism ended.

 

[Melanie]

Bob.....check out the Cadaver Synod.....a pretty gruesome period of the church where politics seemed to gain ascendance over piety.:thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Knowing a bit of history comes in handy with things like this. I think what you are referring to the Papal Schism. In 1292 Pope Nicholas IV died. ... The next day they announce the appointment of Urban VI to the Papacy. Everyone thought he was pro french but he decided to keep the Papacy in Rome. The French Cardinals said he was invalidly elected so they Elected Clement VIII and seated him in Avignon. Then the fighting really began there were two Popes and each started excommunicating the followers of the other. The Cardinals thought they should try again deposed both Popes and elected another Named Alexander V. The other two refused to step down and so Alexander was place in PIsa. It wasn't until 1429 at the election of Martin V with the abdication of Clement the VIII and the death of John XXIII that the schism ended.

The question is whether the various popes of history were correct in calling other Popes antichrist - or should they have just been more ecumenical? Isn't that strong language??

As for the schism. -

=================================

According to Bokenkotters "A Concise History of the Catholic church" the same cardinals that elect Urban claim that the "mob" altered the elections and so they elected another Pope - free of the mob. And thus began the great schism pg 166-168.

Before the schism - when Gregory XI died the Romans feared a French Pope "might" be elected. As Bokenkotter states (pg 166)

"dismay soon gave way to panic as the sixteen cardinals assembled on April 7 1378. Some of them were assaulted in the street and warned by the bullies to elect (Urban vi) an Italian... The cardinals quickly elected an Italian, the archbishop of Bari, Bartholomew Prignano, who was not even of their number. In the meantime, a mob in ugly mood had seized the papal wine cellars and invaded the Vatican; while waiting for Prignano to arrive, the cardinals dressed up one of their colleagues and presented him in papal robes to pacify the crowd.

Whether the cardinals were really overpowered by fear and hence unfree when they elected Prignano - as they later charged - will, it seems, remain forever one of the tantalizing but insoluble questions of RC history...


The schism began when the cardinals - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough. Abandoning Rome, they took refuge at Fondi, and then elaborated an encyclical in which they declared Prignano's election invalid and denounced him has antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant...on September 20 1378 they unanimously elected a new Pope, Rober of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII.

..both Popes received support from civil governments - splitting western Christendom into two camps. The holy Roman emperor, England, the Netherlands, Castille, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stood behind Urban, while France rallied to Clement VII, who returned to Avignon in 1379 and was soon joined by Scottland, Luxembourg and Austria...(Italy itself was too confused for either side to count on)...

Urban proclaimed a crusade against clement and hired the sanguinary Charles of Durazzo to oust the renegade queen Joan from Naples. The English invaded France in order to break it's allegiance with Clement
.
Both Popes found military operations to be expensive, and the papal tax collectors where forced to use ever harsher methods to squeeze every penny out of the constituents...Urban turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his own cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture, and five of them died shortly thereafter, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship … Urban returned to Rome where he died in 1389. His fourteen cardinals immediately elected a successor..Boniface ix...

This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics."

finally they came across the solution "the resignation of both Popes". A solution they would try when opportunity was present.

"hopes were stirred when the Avignon Pope, clement vii, died in 1394 and each of the candidates to succeed him swore an oath that if elected he would resign his office. But the one elected Benedict XIII...soon showed that he had no intention of honoring his pre-election oath"

at this point war breaks out between France and the French Pope!! "they even laid siege to his palace, but all in vain...France totally capitulated and returned to his (the French Pope benedict) obedience"...

Hopes were once again renewed in 1406 with the election of a new Roman Pope, Gregory XIi who had sworn to resign if "his rival at Avignon would do the same...so finally realistic negotiations seemed about to begin; both Popes agreed to meet to discuss their joint resignations. But then the insincerity of both men surfaced".

At this point a concilar solution was sought whereby a council would meet without approval of either Pope to solve the problem. March 25 1409 ".

.after a brief pause, the Popes were then declared contumacious and schismatical, notorious heretics, guilty of scandalizing the universal church and therefore deposed. The townspeople reacted with wild joy... A new Pope was elected Alexander v.


The miracle was premature. By their haste in electing a Pope the cardinals only aggravated the sickness.. The new Pope Alexandar V, did not even manage to reach his see of Rome before dying at bologna may 3 1410. His successor took the name John XXIII."

eventually Sigismund of Luxembourg was elected holy Roman emperor and called a council that pronounced itself in superiority to all Popes.

"great indeed now was the humiliation of the papacy in all three of it's claimants."

all three successors to the three Pope system were deposed.



At this time they also burned John Huss at the stake!!

How instructive.



On November 11, 1417 they used a new system - the cardinals were joined by six delegates of each RC nation - thirty in all - . That group then selected the next Pope - a complete break from all three papal lines !!

 

[BobRyan]

Bob.....check out the Cadaver Synod.....a pretty gruesome period of the church where politics seemed to gain ascendance over piety.:thumbs:

Cleary problematic - but what about the propriety of the language as "antichrist"?

Should they have used that term for fellow Popes?

Or was it wrong of the Popes and various college of Cardinals to do it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The question is whether the various popes of history were correct in calling other Popes antichrist - or should they have just been more ecumenical? Isn't that strong language??

As for the schism. -

=================================

According to Bokenkotters "A Concise History of the Catholic church" the same cardinals that elect Urban claim that the "mob" altered the elections and so they elected another Pope - free of the mob. And thus began the great schism pg 166-168.

Before the schism - when Gregory XI died the Romans feared a French Pope "might" be elected. As Bokenkotter states (pg 166)


finally they came across the solution "the resignation of both Popes". A solution they would try when opportunity was present.




all three successors to the three Pope system were deposed.



At this time they also burned John Huss at the stake!!

How instructive.



On November 11, 1417 they used a new system - the cardinals were joined by six delegates of each RC nation - thirty in all - . That group then selected the next Pope - a complete break from all three papal lines !!

If you are asking whether these Popes were out of line during the Papal Schism. I would have to say to a certain degree, yes. Peter was also out of line trying to Judaize the gentiles. but Paul put him straight. As I showed in one case Catherine of Sienna put a Pope in his place.

 

[saturneptune]

Knowing a bit of history comes in handy with things like this. I think what you are referring to the Papal Schism. In 1292 Pope Nicholas IV died. Which left the see empty and for 27 months the cardinals could not come to a two third Majority but finally Celestine V was elected but resented the position and didn't want it. So he got some advise from a Bishop Lawyer who misled the Pope who resign his position. This Lawyer took the seat and took the name Boniface VIII. He was an arrogant man and he imprisoned Celestine V. The Next Pope Benedict XI was only in office for 9 months before dying and the Cardinals elected Clement V who was a Frenchman who moved the Papacy to Avignon because of uprisings and violence in Rome. There were several problems with this as the Pope is responsible for his diocese which was Rome, He was seen as the puppet of the French King, and the Papal court in France was immoral. Catherine of Sienna scolded the pope and shamed him in moving him back to Rome. However, the permanent move back to Rome didn't occur until 1377 under Pope Gregory XI. However, he died only a year after his return. This caused a problem. Italians wanted to see a Roman Pope rather than another Frenchman as Pope moving the papacy back to Avignon. French Cardinals began to fear for their lives from the Roman crowds. And to escape from the crowds in Rome they dressed up an elderly Roman Cardinal with the Popes Miter to pacify the crowds while they left Rome. The next day they announce the appointment of Urban VI to the Papacy. Everyone thought he was pro french but he decided to keep the Papacy in Rome. The French Cardinals said he was invalidly elected so they Elected Clement VIII and seated him in Avignon. Then the fighting really began there were two Popes and each started excommunicating the followers of the other. The Cardinals thought they should try again deposed both Popes and elected another Named Alexander V. The other two refused to step down and so Alexander was place in PIsa. It wasn't until 1429 at the election of Martin V with the abdication of Clement the VIII and the death of John XXIII that the schism ended.

And they all lived happily ever after........So is the picture painted at one point in time in the evolution of a cult. A whole bunch of political activity that produced nothing towards preserving the New Testement Church.

 

[saturneptune]

If you are asking whether these Popes were out of line during the Papal Schism. I would have to say to a certain degree, yes. Peter was also out of line trying to Judaize the gentiles. but Paul put him straight. As I showed in one case Catherine of Sienna put a Pope in his place.

Don't you think that borders on heresey, comparing a squabble between Popes to the Apostle Peter. Pope vs. Pope, an interesting concept. Well, one thing for sure, this is not the classic, good vs evil conflict.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Don't you think that borders on heresey, comparing a squabble between Popes to the Apostle Peter. Pope vs. Pope, an interesting concept. Well, one thing for sure, this is not the classic, good vs evil conflict.

Nope. As Peter and Paul "squabbled" over what to do with gentile believers. But your question is actually invalid because I wasn't comparing the reasons of the squabble. Rather I was pointing out that a Pope could be challenged just as Peter was challenged. There is nothing "heretical" about that! After all isn't it your contention that there is no special deference to Peter? However, Popes can be wrong about certain things.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And they all lived happily ever after........So is the picture painted at one point in time in the evolution of a cult. A whole bunch of political activity that produced nothing towards preserving the New Testement Church.

Like there isn't political in fighting at Baptist churches. I've experienced political infighting in Baptist churches. I know they happen.

 

[saturneptune]

Like there isn't political in fighting at Baptist churches. I've experienced political infighting in Baptist churches. I know they happen.

Yes, there is infighting. That is not the point. It makes no difference in a cult whether there is fighting or not, as the whole organization is meaningless.

 

[BobRyan]

If you are asking whether these Popes were out of line during the Papal Schism. I would have to say to a certain degree, yes. Peter was also out of line trying to Judaize the gentiles. but Paul put him straight. As I showed in one case Catherine of Sienna put a Pope in his place.

in the 3 papal lines setup during the Schism - not only do they refer to one another as "antichrist" but they raise papal armies and go to war against each other - loyal Catholics killing fellow loyal Catholics.

is this also just like Paul correcting Peter on that point about where he sits during dinner and who he sit with at dinner?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, there is infighting. That is not the point. It makes no difference in a cult whether there is fighting or not, as the whole organization is meaningless.

Are you suggesting that being Baptist is meaningless because it has infighting? Or maybe you're suggesting Baptist are cults?

Roman Catholic Church is not meaningless. They not only preserved the Bible intact throughout the centuries long before Baptist came into existence. But they defined what was orthodox at Nicaea. The fact that you use the term Trinity is because of the Catholic Church. The reason you have a bible is because of the Catholic Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

in the 3 papal lines setup during the Schism - not only do they refer to one another as "antichrist" but they raise papal armies and go to war against each other - loyal Catholics killing fellow loyal Catholics.

is this also just like Paul correcting Peter on that point about where he sits during dinner and who he sit with at dinner?

in Christ,

Bob

Well, point in fact France and Rome and Italy raised the armies not the Papacy. All of them wanted to influence the Papacy. However, these government groups and mob of people were no more loyal Catholics than the many Lobbyist or Politicians in the US today are loyal Constitutionalist. They were people trying to control the Church. Just like the society of Homosexual activist are trying to gain control of the Church and US Politics today.
Your biased historical source fails to mention Catherine of Sienna because he has an agenda. However, this woman a nun faced down a Pope and shamed him into proper action. Yes we can Challenge our Popes just like Peter was Challenged by Paul. It just depends on what you are talking about.

This dear lady I mentioned before, when I was young took me to an SDA Church. Clearly they had their infighting as well. They may not have killed each other but it could happen after all wasn't David Koresh SDA? Should I point to him as example for all SDA? Every denomination has their issues. SDA is no more righteous than any other denomination. Maybe a bit more legalistic. And lets not forget their sister organization who had the same birth parents Pastor Miller who falsely predicted the Second Advent of Jesus Christ and many people lost their shirts over it. Who is their sister organization born out of the same movement? JW. Just saying. However, Unlike the JW I actually consider SDA Christian because they hold to orthodox Christian teaching of the trinity, virgin birth, death, resurrection, and second advent of Jesus Christ. Where as the JW go way off into left field.

 

[saturneptune]

Are you suggesting that being Baptist is meaningless because it has infighting? Or maybe you're suggesting Baptist are cults?

Roman Catholic Church is not meaningless. They not only preserved the Bible intact throughout the centuries long before Baptist came into existence. But they defined what was orthodox at Nicaea. The fact that you use the term Trinity is because of the Catholic Church. The reason you have a bible is because of the Catholic Church.

Thinking?stuff,
I got news for you. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit centuries before the Catholic Chruch was founded and started spreading evil. Preserve the Bible indeed, what a load of crap. When you did try to put a canon together, you could not even add or take out the correct books.

No, there are no Baptist cults. We do not have a multi thousand year history of murder, torture and false doctrine. We do not equate salvation with works. We do not pray to created beings. We do not treat the Lords Supper like a magic act.

The Baptist church, which as never been a denomination, was in existence at the Book of Acts, and has existed in the form of local autonomous churches ever since. Who do you think preserved the church from 400 to the Reformation. Not the RCC, basically a Satanic tool, and cult. It was the local autonomous churches that the RCC was persecuting, the very entity they claimed to be.

From murder, to torture, to the Crusades, to preaching false doctrine and a false gospel, the fifty million murders the RCC caused causes Hitler's crimes to look like a picnic. For thousands of years the RCC has melded evil church and state entities.

Catholic history, dogma, documents, decrees of Popes are all ideals born in the pits of hell.

 

[Melanie]

Cleary problematic - but what about the propriety of the language as "antichrist"?

Should they have used that term for fellow Popes?

Or was it wrong of the Popes and various college of Cardinals to do it?

From our perspective....not a politcally good move, but the pope is just a man and therefore can be deceived by man.

Then again, there are many people who claim that the pope is an anti-Christ in our times...which is inappropriate as well.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Cleary problematic - but what about the propriety of the language as "antichrist"?

Should they have used that term for fellow Popes?

Or was it wrong of the Popes and various college of Cardinals to do it?

From our perspective....not a politcally good move, but the pope is just a man and therefore can be deceived by man.

Then again, there are many people who claim that the pope is an anti-Christ in our times...which is inappropriate as well.

It should be noted that Martin Luther was not the first one to claim that the Pope is antichrist. Prior to Luther there was the examples of Popes themselves referring to each other as Antichrist.

But I have yet to find any Catholic document saying that the Popes should not have done that.

Out of curiosity - have you found anything like that?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well, point in fact France and Rome and Italy raised the armies not the Papacy. All of them wanted to influence the Papacy. However, these government groups and mob of people were no more loyal Catholics...

So the three Papal lines were anathamatizing their own armies - but the civil government was going ahead with it anyway?

Is this what you were thinking as a Baptist about these historic events - prior to choosing to be Catholic? Do you realize how far that goes against the historic record - even of the RCC itself on that history??

Bokenkotter goes on to describe - Popes AND their "warships" in the book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church".

ibid pg 167. Pope Urban VI "turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his OWN Cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture and five of them died shortly afterward, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship!"

The inhumanity torture of the inquisition, the papal warships, the papal armies, the respective papal indulgences promised to each of the followers of each of the Papal lines that died in battle for their respective pope -- is it possible that you simply turned from this history - when studying the history of the church to decide whether or not to not remain as a Baptist??


Bokenkotter p. 166-168

Whether the cardinals were really overpowered by fear and hence unfree when they elected Prignano - as they later charged - will, it seems, remain forever one of the tantalizing but insoluble questions of RC history...


The schism began when the cardinals - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough. Abandoning Rome, they took refuge at Fondi, and then elaborated an encyclical in which they declared Prignano's election invalid and denounced him has antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant...on September 20 1378 they unanimously elected a new Pope, Rober of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII.

..both Popes received support from civil governments - splitting western Christendom into two camps. The holy Roman emperor, England, the Netherlands, Castille, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stood behind Urban, while France rallied to Clement VII, who returned to Avignon in 1379 and was soon joined by Scottland, Luxembourg and Austria...(Italy itself was too confused for either side to count on)...

Urban proclaimed a crusade against clement and hired the sanguinary Charles of Durazzo to oust the renegade queen Joan from Naples. The English invaded France in order to break it's allegiance with Clement
.
Both Popes found military operations to be expensive, and the papal tax collectors where forced to use ever harsher methods to squeeze every penny out of the constituents...Urban turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his own cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture, and five of them died shortly thereafter, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship … Urban returned to Rome where he died in 1389. His fourteen cardinals immediately elected a successor..Boniface ix...
[FONT=&quot]
This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics." [/FONT]

This is your own Catholic Historian reporting this history. As a Baptist you would not have had to go to a fellow Baptist historian to find this - you could have found it even from Catholic Historians themselves.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So the three Papal lines were anathamatizing their own armies - but the civil government was going ahead with it anyway?

Is this what you were thinking as a Baptist about these historic events - prior to choosing to be Catholic? Do you realize how far that goes against the historic record - even of the RCC itself on that history??

Well, you are being rather reactionary aren't you? I expressed what happened during the Papal Schism. It was political maneuvering all the way. If you took a deep breath and read what I wrote you would have noticed several things. 1) I said Pope Urban was arrogant. 2) That the Cardinals whom had allegiances tied to political interest from their country of origin like the French. 3) You would have also noted that I said certain popes had become the puppets of certain governments especially that of the King of France.
Every thing I have said is true. Also let me tell you something about Bokenkotter. Those liberal priest I spoke about that don't properly adhere to Church teaching, well he's one of them. He has an agenda to promote his heretical views and make the church accept them so, I don't trust his historical analysis. The fact is when I was Baptist I wanted to find out the truth about things I read history books and researched historical documents just to verify them. I came across a lot of historical summaries and perspectives that certainly were biased. Like that Bible series that the history channel came up with which many people who don't actually read the bible will invariably pick up some fiction from it and make some nonsense comment about the actual bible. Note the book you read this history from doesn't have an imprimatur on it. Therefore this priest wanted to published without having his book properly reviewed or scrutinized for accuracy.

So we have groups of people all vying for power using the Papacy as an office to promote themselves. Cardinals, French, Italians, Romans, etc. Look at how once source describes the events surrounding the Papal states at this time and its military

, local despots took advantage of the absence of the popes to establish themselves in nominally papal cities: the Pepoli in Bologna, the Ordelaffi in Forlì, the Manfredi in Faenza, the Malatesta in Rimini all gave nominal acknowledgement to their papal overlords and were declared vicars of the Church..The Rienzo episode engendered renewed attempts from the absentee papacy to re-establish order in the dissolving Papal States, resulting in the military progress of Cardinal Egidio Albornoz, who was appointed papal legate, and his condottieri heading a small mercenary army.

So you can see a clear connection between civil groups, men who wanted power, and governments all trying to get their "Pope" to support their goals into office. You are coming from the very wrong idea that the Pope was supreme in all things in Europe. An actual study of how things operated in Europe you will find that Kings, Popes, Bishops all were involved in a complicated political dance with sometimes the Pope taking the lead and sometimes the civil governments. And Urban got to the Papacy by deceiving another Pope! And each of these groups were fighting to take over the other groups.

Bokenkotter goes on to describe - Popes AND their "warships" in the book "A Concise History of the Catholic Church".

ibid pg 167. Pope Urban VI "turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his OWN Cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture and five of them died shortly afterward, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship!"

The inhumanity torture of the inquisition, the papal warships, the papal armies, the respective papal indulgences promised to each of the followers of each of the Papal lines that died in battle for their respective pope -- is it possible that you simply turned from this history - when studying the history of the church to decide whether or not to not remain as a Baptist??

Bokenkotter p. 166-168

Whether the cardinals were really overpowered by fear and hence unfree when they elected Prignano - as they later charged - will, it seems, remain forever one of the tantalizing but insoluble questions of RC history...


The schism began when the cardinals - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough. Abandoning Rome, they took refuge at Fondi, and then elaborated an encyclical in which they declared Prignano's election invalid and denounced him has antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant...on September 20 1378 they unanimously elected a new Pope, Rober of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII.

..both Popes received support from civil governments - splitting western Christendom into two camps. The holy Roman emperor, England, the Netherlands, Castille, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stood behind Urban, while France rallied to Clement VII, who returned to Avignon in 1379 and was soon joined by Scottland, Luxembourg and Austria...(Italy itself was too confused for either side to count on)...

Urban proclaimed a crusade against clement and hired the sanguinary Charles of Durazzo to oust the renegade queen Joan from Naples. The English invaded France in order to break it's allegiance with Clement
.
Both Popes found military operations to be expensive, and the papal tax collectors where forced to use ever harsher methods to squeeze every penny out of the constituents...Urban turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his own cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture, and five of them died shortly thereafter, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship … Urban returned to Rome where he died in 1389. His fourteen cardinals immediately elected a successor..Boniface ix...
[FONT=&quot]
This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics." [/FONT]

Yes people fighting to ensure the assent to power of what ever Pope the wanted certainly did fight and kill the others who wanted a different Pope. And certain Popes wanted Power for themselves as well which is why each pope excommunicated the followers of the other Popes. And Urban did do these horrible things. But Nothing I've said suggests otherwise. There were bad popes and there were good popes. Just like there are good preachers and bad preachers. However, I think this author gives the cardinals too little leeway when he says

The schism began when the cardinals - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough.

They weren't good players either. Many of them were Vying for Power and many of them were allied to the King of France. It wasn't primarily about Urban being suspicious. And the Cardinals weren't entirely innocent of his accusations either. But then what can I expect from an author who doesn't have an imprimatur on his book?

This is your own Catholic Historian reporting this history. As a Baptist you would not have had to go to a fellow Baptist historian to find this - you could have found it even from Catholic Historians themselves

I've read lots of history books from all sorts of sources Catholic, secular, protestant and I'm pretty confident I have a good handle on it. However, this "Catholic" isn't really a reliable "Catholic" source as I have already explained. He falls into the category of Hans Kung and other dissenting Catholics lay and clergy. But that doesn't mean everything he says is false. I'll give him some credit but like the very issue I pointed out he's faulted with his own bias against the Catholic Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinking?stuff,
I got news for you. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit centuries before the Catholic Chruch was founded and started spreading evil

Oh so the Holy Spirit took pen to parchment and wrote the scripture and didnt' have lets say Paul, Matthew, Luke, Peter, etc.. participate in writing the scriptures? Pray tell where are these gold tablets? The fact is the apostles and writers of the scriptures (I'm thinking of the NT now) were inspired by the Holy Spirit so the scriptures is a work of God but it is equally the work of these men who were inspired. But Note they wrote these documents for the Church. And the Church kept the documents in perpetuity. But here is really where you are mistaken. Not every church agreed with every document every church had as to which was scriptures. They fought over whether James or Revelation, or Jude would be included into the listing of books considered canon. Which is why if you study history you will find different lists of canon until all the Churches got together formed a Litmus test for determining what was to be scripture and applied to all the documents they had settling with the books of the bible as we have it today. These Churches and leaders which did this were Catholic. Baptist did not exist and even if you buy into the trail of blood nonsense of Landmarkist Baptist you will quickly see it wasn't the Montenist, Docetist, Apollinarians, Donatist, Cathars, Waldaseans, or Jansinist, which meticulously copied scripture text and maintained scripture down through the ages. It was Catholics. Because Catholics believe these documents were given to them to promote their faith.

Preserve the Bible indeed, what a load of crap

So my historically challenged friend they did indeed preserve the bible and it isn't that vulgar word you used.

When you did try to put a canon together, you could not even add or take out the correct books

And I didn't put canon together. The Church Fathers did. And you certainly agree with them about the NT.

No, there are no Baptist cults

Really? You don't consider Westboro baptist Church a cult? Ok. They represent Baptist believe world wide. I believe that if that what you want me to believe. Though I'm sure other baptist would have an issue with that.

We do not have a multi thousand year history of murder, torture and false doctrine.

You could have ended your sentence with " We do not have a multi thousand year history" This is true you don't. You are a product of the reformation a conglomeration as you were of differing reformed influences.

The Baptist church, which as never been a denomination

You might have autonomous churches but that doesn't mean you are not a denomination. Let me give you an example can an autonomous Baptist church claim Satan is Jesus Christ and still be considered Baptist? Of course not. You aren't that autonomous.

(BaptistS) was in existence at the Book of Acts, and has existed in the form of local autonomous churches ever since. Who do you think preserved the church from 400 to the Reformation. Not the RCC, basically a Satanic tool, and cult. It was the local autonomous churches that the RCC was persecuting, the very entity they claimed to be.

Funny, why aren't you guys mentioned in history? Certainly, you guys are nothing like John the Baptist followers who followed Jewish traditions. However, show me which Ancient Baptist church had a scriptorium? Which Baptist Monks in Ireland preserved the scriptures for the Western World? Maybe it was the Baptist monks at Ireland's Cistercian Abbeys?