That poor pope Formosus

What heresies did he teach?

 

Curtis,

Something got to you didn't it?

This kind of vile doesn't just come from no where.

Especially three in a row.

Feeling bad for you.

Ron

 

Curtis,

Something got to you didn't it?

This kind of vile doesn't just come from no where.

Especially three in a row.

Feeling bad for you.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]But he said he doesn't care. If he did care it would probably be 30, or 300!

 

Obviously he cares.

You don't go searching on the internet for garbage to post about others for no reason.

I understand the temptation to put out something like that once in a while.

To dive into it with such glee takes something special.

I don't know what it is, but giving into the temptation just feeds the negative feelings that are behind it.

I think that it got the better of him and now he's just digging the hole deeper.

He deserves our sympathy.

 

Just for the record, Formosus became pope in 891, not 1891.

But what's a millennium, more or less, among friends?

Mark

 

Very surprising to see catholics avoid answering.

 

What's the question? Why aren't Catholics perfect? Answer: because.

Back to my question. What heresies did any of these people teach?

 

Question so obviously being avoided:

The election of a pope has nothing to do with the actual teaching s of the church. It is a procedural issue not a doctrinal issue. No doctrine was established by the election of this guy as pope.
It's sort of like saying: How is the constitution of the U.S. viewed as being legit and correct when Bill Clinton could have been elected president.
Fortunately, today if we wanted to put Clinton on trial post mortem, no one would go dig him up
...like they did his wife.....oops I'm kidding.... really

 

That wailing and moaning you hear is me fighing the temptation to take your bait! I think I'm going to win, but it'll be close!

Indeed, we must even pray for the Clintons. Nobody said being a Christian was easy.

 

Good for you Mike, but I'm not that noble (yet)

It took a lot of nerve for the people of Arkansas to send us outhouse scrapin's to sit in the White House.

But I guess folk who have more holes in the outhouse than teeth in their craniums are not exactly paradigms of intelligent thought, are they?


Kinda like the Catholics from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh who keep voting for pro-death Jews in Pennsylvania. WHAT is with that? Arlen Spectre-of-death-for-babies owes his political life to these folks.

Oh yeah, I'm on a roll tonight. I could really get going if I wanted to.....

But more to the point, I agree...what is with our friend Bro. Curtis? He is usually more irenic than this.

You okay Brother Curtis?

 

So, one pope overrules and disgraces another pope and todays catholics, desperate to cling onto a pagan system, will defend them both. Nice.

 

D-D, is there any particular reason you're so cranky with the Catholic Church today? You do sound like you're in a real lather.

 

I do think it is sad that people defend such a corrupt system that is rooted in paganism.

 

Don't know any people like that, but I agree it would be sad if they existed.

 

Daniel David,

You said, 'I do think it is sad that people defend such a corrupt system that is rooted in
paganism.'

The Dark Ages from 476 B.C. to about 1,000 B.C. were years of spiritual and intellectual darkness. Thank God we did not live in that era of time; we might have died without Christ in our lives. God has been good to us.

 

Curtis,

Something got to you didn't it?

This kind of vile doesn't just come from no where.

Especially three in a row.

Feeling bad for you.

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]I agree Curtis! You made the mistake of quoting the RCC when it does not want to be quoted - and so RC members must call RC documents "vile" if quoted in a way that reveals truths not complimentary to the RCC.

So - indeed -- "how vile" to quote the RC sources Curtis!!

If you continue to refuse to revise history in favor of the RCC by surpressing RC documents that do not reflect favorably for the RCC - then - "how vile the quote".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Another oddity I find in Curtis's threads is that when we bring up issues of Peter and succesion and point to historical documents that support it, the response is usually, NO EVIDENCE THE BIBLE DOESN'T say it. "Peter was never in Rome". "No successors"? Yet when he finds a historically anomally he posts it as if it were right out of the Bible. Odd.

 

I don't think we are far off from paganism today. There is more interest in paganism and the occult along with Mithraism. But there is very significant interst in pronography with over one million websites on the internet. There is also significant interest in abortion with so many babies having their brains sucked out and the bodies dismembered. And to add to that the psychic hotlines.

That is not the God I know.

Just notice how much the typical church parallels the world in its approach.