The Lies and Prejudices of ANTI-Catholics

[weedmeister2]

---

The Myth of Papal Infallibility

Papal infallibility is the idea that the pope is infallible, that is, he is unable to err in teaching revealed truth. Many lay Catholics are under the impression that this is an old doctrine of the church which must be pretty well proven for their church to use as one of the main tenets of their faith. They are wrong on both counts:


- Papal infallibility is a very recent doctrine.
- Historical evidence clearly speaks against papal infallibility.

Papal Infallibility: A Recent Doctrine

It is, however, a very recent development in the history of the Roman Church. It was formally affirmed only in 1870, at the First Vatican Council. In that council, the doctrine was not immediately accepted by the delegates; it was not immediately obvious to these bishops, even after eighteen centuries, that the pope should be infallible. The "papal infallibalist" were in the majority however, and the final statement was passed. There were some modifications done to the initial proposal before it was passed. This limited the pope's infallibility on doctrines regarding faith and morals. [1] The mistakes of the papal pronouncements on matters scientific were too well known for the doctrine to include this. (One needs only to be reminded of Pope Urban VIII's sentence on Galileo for providing proofs of the heliocentric theory.) This doctrine was pronounced in 1870 but predated to St. Peter himself. [2]
There are two things to note regarding the 1870 Vatican Council that issued the pronouncement on papal infallibility. The first thing is that it was not immediately accepted by all the bishops; it was not a unanimous pronouncement that was simply formulated in clearer terms what all Roman Catholics had believed till then. The second thing is that the initial pronouncement was actually modified during the council; proof that the pronouncement (which was more restrictive in its scope that originally suggested) was not simply an elucidation of an ancient tradition. This two facts make a mockery of the following claim of the Catholic catechism book Our Faith (1980):

The truth that the Pope teaches infallibly when he defines "a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" was always accepted by the Church but was explicitly defined by the First Vatican Council (1870). [3]Â* Â*


It should be clear to the reader that this doctrine was not based on a careful scientific study of papal pronouncements throughout history. It was a bull headed assertion by an ecclesiastical body that was being threatened on all sides by the rise of rationalism, science and humanistic philosophies. As J.M. Robertson observed:

Thus the age which saw the promulgation of the formal decree of papal infallibility (1870) has seen the most vital decline that has ever taken place in the total life and power of the church. [4]Â*

Proof of Papal Fallibility

Even the limited definition of papal infallibility to ex-cathedra pronouncements on faith and morals can be shown to be inconsistent with the historical evidence. Let us look at a few examples.


Pope Liberius and the Arian Controversy
Our first example is Pope Liberius (who was pope from 352 to 366). Elected pope during the height of the Arian controversy, he was sent into exile by Emperor Constantius II (337-361) for refusing to condemn Athanasius. While in exile his morale collapsed. He then condemned Athanasius and accepted an alternative creed to the Nicene Creed. This alternative creed rejected the Nicene formula for the Son being "one in being with the Father" and suggested that the Son is lower than the Father. This is clearly a non-orthodox formula. It was only after the declaration that Liberius was allowed to return to Rome. After the death of Constantius II in 361, Liberius reverted back to Nicene orthodoxy. However the point has been made. Here is one pope who made a pronouncement of faith which is today looked upon as heretical.[5]


Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters Controversy
Next on our list is Pope Vigilius (in office, 537-555). We will have more to say about his character later. Our interest here is in his position with respect to the "Three Chapters Controversy". The Emperor Justinian (483-565), in his effort to win over the monophysites, condemned as heretical the "Three Chapters": which stands for the Christological speculations and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d.42, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. c45 and Ibas of Edessa (d.457). The three chapters wrote on the "two natures" of Jesus: a concept not condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon (451). As emperor, he ordered all the bishops throughout Christendom to endorse his condemnation.
Vigilius, at first, refused to give his approval to Justinian's edict. He was forcibly brought to Constantinople, and, seeing the emperor's determination on the matter, agreed to condemn the Three Chapters. This met with disfavor by the western church. A synod of African Bishops excommunicate him for his condemnation. In an effort to placate the western church, Vigilius withdrew his condemnation. This, again, met with imperial disfavor. The pope was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Seeing that recalcitrant bishops were either jailed, deposed or exiled by the emperor, Vigilius decided to safe his own hide. He informed the emperor that he had been misled by the devil to withdraw his condemnation of the Three Chapters! In other words he said, the devil made him do it; sounds familiar? He was then allowed by the emperor to return to Rome to resume office. The Three Chapters Controversy was one of the historical evidence brought forward by some bishops in the First Vatican Council to oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility. .[6]



Pope Honorius and Monothelitism
The case of Pope Honorius I who was pope from the year 625 to 638 is enough to prove this point. Honorius I agreed with the bishop of Constantinople that Jesus had only one will. This doctrine, called monothelitism was later declared heretical by the Council of Constantinople in the year 681. Here then, is a case where a pope made a pronouncement on a matter of faith (concerning the nature of Jesus) which was subsequently condemned as heretical. In fact the newly appointed pope, Leo II (pope from 682 to 683), publicly condemned Honorius II for undermining the faith of the Church. [7]
The Catholic Church today is still as dogmatic as ever in holding on to this doctrine. In 1970 the Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Kung (b.192, generally regarded as one of the most brilliant Catholic thinkers of the modern era, published a book entitled Infallible?. In the book, Kung argued that the doctrine of papal infallibility was disproved by both biblical and historical evidence. It was a book that did not win him any friends in the Vatican. And when he summoned to Rome for a formal interrogation of his views, Kung, perhaps wisely, refused to go.

On December 18th 1979, Pope John Paul II announced that Kung is no longer qualified to teach Roman Catholic doctrine. Kung was sacked as the head of the Department of Theology at the University of Tubingen. He was told that he was no longer a Catholic theologian and was forbidden to write and publish again. [8]

By such means does the pope today maintain the doctrine of his own infallibility.



References
1. Strauss, The Catholic Church: p136-138
2. Ward, A Dictionary of Common Fallacies I: p129
3. Gaffney & Trenchard, Our Faith: p23
4. Robertson, History of Christianity: p228
5. de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p288-289
Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p30-31
6. de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p288-289
Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p60-61
7. Livingstone, Dictionary of the Church: p246
de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p292
8. Strauss, The Catholic Church: p181,190
Baigent and Leigh, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception: p122-123Â*

[weedmeister2]

Many here believe that the pope is INFALLIBLE when it comes to (as manny pointed out) these:

--> The Pope must be speaking on a matter of faith and morals, not on science or archaeology
--> The Pope must EXPLICITLY state he is defining doctrine and making an ex cathedra statement. This is not a casual statement.
--> The ex cathedra nature of the statement must be CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE.
--> It must be clear and unmistakable that the statement is meant for the assent or belief of the ENTIRE Church.

Also, the pope steers the Roman Catholic Church as its Pontiff and Vicar of Christ... The pope holds great sway on the beliefs of the flock, and is the final authority in interpreting scripture.

He is allegedly appointed by Christ, as were his successors, down to St. Peter, to lead the faithful...

Anyway, here is a historical rundown of the capabilities of the VICAR OF CHRIST, heir to ST. PETER, leader of the FAITHFUL as told by historians:

ST. DAMASUS (366-84). He was the first to assume the title of Pontiff. His election was opposed by Ursicinus, whose partisans accused Damasus of adultery. After some deadly conflicts between the followers of the two rivals, Ursicinus was banished from the city; and a similar sentence was about to be carried into effect against seven presbyters of his party, when the people interfered, and lodged them for safety in one of the churches. But even here they found no shelter from the fury of their opponents. Armed with fire and sword, Damasus, with some of his adherents, both of the clergy and of the laity, proceeded to the place of refuge, and left no less than a hundred and sixty of their adversaries dead within the sacred precincts.



SIXTUS III (432-40). This pope, according to both Baronius and Platina, was accused of debauching a virgin, but was acquitted by a Council under the Emperor Valentina, who is said to have referred the pronouncing of the sentence to the Pope himself, "because the judge of all ought to be judged by none." It was without doubt to establish this maxim that the "acts" of the Council were forged.



ST. LEO THE GREAT (440-61). Jortin calls him "the insolent and persecuting Pope Leo, who applauded the massacre of the Priscillianists, and grossly misrepresented them."



SYMMACHUS (498-514) Recognized by the church as a Saint, partly due to his strong defense of orthodoxy. But this pope was a promiscuous fornicator, although he did have a regular lover, named Conditria. He regularly misused church funds. A synod of Italian bishops was held in the year 502 to discuss charges of fornication and cheating. The verdict of the synod was ludicrous in the extreme; they did not clear Symmachus of any of the charges against him, but ruled that as pope, no human court could try him; the judgment of pope Symmachus, according to the synod, must be left to God alone.



ST. HORMISDAS (514-23). He was a married man, and had a son, who was raised to the popedom. He was full of ambition, and insolent in his demands to the emperor, whom he exhorted to the persecution of heretics.



BONIFACE II (530-32). His election was disputed by the antipope Dioscorus. Each accused the other of simony, but Dioscorus opportunely died. Boniface "began his pontificate with wreaking his vengeance on the memory of his deceased competitor, whom he solemnly excommunicated, as guilty of simony, when he could not clear himself from the charge, nor retort it on him, as perhaps he otherwise might." This sentence was removed by Pope Agapetus.



SILVERIUS (536-3. He was accused of betraying the city of Rome to the Goths, and was in consequence expelled from his see.



VIGILUS (537-55). He was a deacon elected by bribery. He engaged himself to obey the Empress Theodora, who gave him money to gain the suffrages of the clergy. Anastasius tells us that he killed his own secretary in a transport of passion, and caused his own sister's son to be whipped to death. He is considered to have been accessory to the banishment and death of Silverius. When banished himself by the emperor, he speedily repented, in order to save his seat.



PELAGIUS (555-60). He was accused of poisoning his predecessor. This is uncertain; but it is certain that, like most of his predecessors and successors, he incited the civil powers to the persecution of heretics.



ST. GREGORY THE GREAT (590-604). Gregory does not appear to have been fond of women and wine, like so many other popes; but he possessed the darker vices of bigotry and ambition. His congratulations on the usurpation of the cruel, drunken and lascivious Phocas, after a wholesale massacre of the emperor's family, simply because the successful villain favored the pretensions of Rome, are a sufficient proof that Gregory would scruple at nothing to advance the glory of his see.



SABINIAN (604-6). Bower says he rendered himself so odious to the Roman people by his avarice and cruelty to the poor, that they could not forbear abusing him whenever he appeared. In a dreadful famine he raised the price of corn to exorbitant rates. He accused St. Gregory of simony; but according to Baronius, that departed saint having vainly reproved him in three different apparitions for his covetousness, gave him in a fourth apparition so dreadful a blow on the head, that he died soon after.



BONIFACE III (607). By flattering Phocas as Gregory had done, he induced him to take the title of universal bishop from the bishop of Constantinople, and confer it upon himself and his successors.



THEODORUS (642-49). He commenced the custom of dipping his pen in consecrated wine when signing the condemnation of heretics, thus sanctifying murder with the blood of Christ.



ST. SERGIUS I (687-701). He had to purchase his seat from the exarch of Ravenna by pawning the ornaments of the tomb of St. Peter. He was accused of adultery, but his innocence was strikingly proved; for, upon the child of whose parentage he was accused being baptised when but eight days old, he cried out, "The pontiff Sergius is not my father." Bruys, the French historian of the Papacy, says, "What I find most marvellous in this story is, not that so young a child should speak, but that it should affirm with so much confidence that the pope was not its father."



CONSTANTINE (708-15). He is said to have excommunicated the Emperor, Philip Bardanes, for being of the same heresy as Pope Honorius. To oblige Constantine, Justinian II cut out the tongue and blinded the eyes of the Archbishop of Ravenna, who refused to pay the obedience due to the apostolic see.



ST. GREGORY II (715-31). He was chiefly noted for his endowing monasteries with the goods of the poor, and for his opposition to the Emperor Leo's edict against image worship. Rather than obey the edict, he raised civil war both in Italy and elsewhere. He prayed that Christ might set the Devil on the emperor, and approved the barbarous murder of the imperial officer. Yet the priests place in the list of saints a pontiff who, to establish the Christian idolatry of image worship, filled Italy with carnage.



STEPHEN III (768-72). When elected he found on the pontifical throne a lay pope, one Constantine, who, after a violent struggle, was dislodged and punished with the loss of his eyes, many of his friends sharing the same fate.



ADRIAN I (772-95). He made a league with Irene, the murderess of her son, to restore image worship, and presented to Charlemagne the pretended donation of Constantine. Avarice was the vice of this able pontiff. He left large sums to his successors.



ST. PASCAL I (817-24). At the Diet of Compeigne this pope was charged with being accessory to the mutilation and murder of two Roman priests. The Pope denied the charge, but refused to deliver up the perpetrators of the crimes, alleging that they belonged "to the family of St. Peter."



EUGENIUS II (824-27). He had the honor of inventing the barbarous practice of ordeal by cold water.



NICHOLAS (858-67). He excommunicated Photius, the Greek patriarch, and the emperor Michael as his abettor, and threatened King Lothaire with the ecclesiastical sword if he suffered any bishop to be chosen without his consent.


ADRIAN II (867-72). He was a married priest. He congratulated Bazilius, the murderer of the emperor Michael, and entered into alliance with him.


JOHN VIII (872-82). The meek and holy nature of this worthy successor of St. Peter may be judged by his ordering the Bishop of Naples to bring him the chief men among the Saracens in that city, and cutting their throats in the presence of his legate. A letter of John is extant, in which he justifies Athanasius, Bishop of Naples, for having plucked out the eyes of Sergius, Duke of Naples, who favored the Saracens in despite of the papal anathemas. He even cites the Gospel text as to plucking out offending eyes. Cardinal Baronius declares that this pontiff perjured himself, and that he rather deserved the name of a woman than that of a man. [128:3] The annals of the Abbey of Fulda relate that John VIII was poisoned by the relations of a lady whom he had seduced from her husband.



FORMOSUS (891-96). He had been repeatedly excommunicated by John VIII. He invited Arnulf, the German emperor, to invade Italy, which he did, committing great atrocities. Formosus, however, had a great character for piety. He is said to have been well versed in scripture, and to have died a virgin in his eightieth year.



BONIFACE VI (896). Even according to Baronius, he was a man of most infamous character. He had been deposed for his scandalous life, first from the rank of sub-deacon, and afterward from the priesthood.



STEPHEN VI. (896-7). He intruded into the see in the room of the intruder Boniface. Being of the opposite faction to Pope Formosus, he caused the body of that pontiff to be taken out of the tomb and to be placed, in the episcopal robes, on the pontifical chair. Stephen then addressed the dead body thus: "Why didst thou, being Bishop of Porto, prompted by thy ambition, usurp the universal see of Rome?" After this mock trial Stephen, with the approbation and consent of a Council of bishops, ordered the body to be stripped, three of the fingers (those used in blessing) to be cut off, and the remains to be cast into the Tiber. At the same Council all the ordinations of Formosus were declared invalid.



JOHN XI (931-36). He was the son of Pope Sergius III. by Marozia, and if possible he surpassed his parents in crime. Elected pope at the age of eighteen, Alberic, his half brother, expelled him from Rome and imprisoned their mother Marozia. Stephen VIII (939-942) made himself so obnoxious to the Romans that they mutilated him.



JOHN XII (956-64), the son of Alberic, was the first to change his name, which was originally Octavian. He nominated himself pope at the age of seventeen. Wilks says: "His profaneness and debaucheries exceeded all bounds. He was publicly accused of concubinage, incest, and simony." This pope was so notorious for his licentiousness that female pilgrims dared not present themselves in Rome. Bower says that he had changed the Lateran Palace, once the abode of saints, into a brothel, and there cohabited with his father's concubine; that women were afraid to come from other countries to visit the tombs of the apostles at Rome; that he spared none, and had within a few days forced married women, widows, and virgins to comply with his impure desires. He was at length deposed by Otho, at the solicitation of a council of bishops and laymen, on charges of sacrilege, simony, blasphemy, and cruel mutilation. He had deprived one deacon of his right hand and made him a eunuch. He put out the eyes of Benedict, his ghostly father, cut off the nose of the keeper of the archives, and scourged the Bishop of Spires.Â* On the deposition of John, Leo VII was put in his place. John fulminated anathemas against his opponents, and soon after died, from a blow on the head while in bed with a married woman.

[weedmeister2]

BONIFACE VII (974). The old authors in derision call him Maliface. Having had his predecessor Benedict murdered, he plundered the Basilica and escaped with his spoils to Constantinople, whence he afterwards returned and murdered John XIV (984), then on the papal throne.



GREGORY V (996-99). He was turned out of his see by Crescentius, who elected the antipope John. Upon Gregory's restoration he had this unfortunate creature deprived of sight, cut off his nose, and tore out his tongue. He then ordered him to be led through the streets in a tattered sacerdotal suit, and mounted upon an ass with his face to the tail, which he held in his hand.



SERGIUS IV (1009-12). This pope was called Os Porci, or Swine's Mouth. Of his doings little is known, but he is asserted to have gravely declared "that the pope could not be damned, but that, do what he would, he must be saved."



BENEDICT VIII (1012-24). He saved the city of Rome from a great storm, which it seems was caused by some Jews. The Jews being immediately executed the storm ceased.



JOHN XIX (1024-33). He was a layman, brother of Benedict, yet he was raised to the see. It was by gold, and not by imperial power, that the Romans consented to this uncanonical election. The rapacity of this pope was so great that he offered to sell the title of 'Universal Bishop' to the see of Constantinople for a sum of money! By his exactions, debauchery and tyranny, he became so odious to the Romans that he had to flee for his life.



BENEDICT IX (1033-46). A nephew of the last two pontiffs. Some say he was raised to the papacy at the age of twelve -- others, at eighteen. He "stained the sacred office with murder, adultery, and every other heinous crime." Desiderius, afterwards pope under the name of Victor III, styles Benedict the successor of Simon the sorcerer, and not of Simon the apostle, and paints him as one abandoned to all manner of vice. Being eager to possess the person and property of a female cousin, he sold the papacy to John Gratianus, "the most religious man of his time," for a sum of money, and consecrated him as Gregory VI. Benedict afterwards poisoned Pope Damasus II. The Romans, weary of his crimes, expelled him from the city, but he was reinstated by Conrad. "But," says Jortin, "as he continued his scandalous course of life, and found himself despised and detested both by clergy and laity, he agreed to retire, and to abandon himself more freely to his pleasures." Stipulating therefore to receive a sum of money, he resigned his place to Gratianus, called Gregory VI, and went to live in his own territories.




ADRIAN IV (1154-59). The only Englishman who ever became pope. He caused Arnold of Brescia to be burnt at the stake (1154) for preaching against papal corruption. The Irish should remember that it was this pope who, in virtue of the pretended Donation of Constantine, made over to Henry II of England the right to take and govern Ireland on condition of the pope receiving an annual tribute of one penny for each house.



ALEXANDER III (1159-81). The Lateran Council (1179) declared war against all heretics, and a crusade against them was sanctioned by this pontiff.



CLEMENT III (1188-1191). He published the third crusade (1189).




INNOCENT III (1198-1216) also preached a crusade. He claimed for his see universal empire and established the Inquisition to support the claim. He excommunicated Philip II of France and put the whole nation under interdict. Afterwards he placed England under interdict, excommunicated John, bestowed the crown on Philip of France, and published a crusade against England. He also instituted a crusade against the Albigenses, butchering them by tens of thousands with every circumstance of atrocity.



GREGORY IX (1227-41). He formally established the Inquisition; and, to support his ambition and the unbridled luxury of his court, raised taxes in France, England and Germany, excommunicated kings, and incited nations to revolt; finally causing himself to be driven from Rome.



INNOCENT IV (1243-54). He conspired against the life of the Emperor Frederic, through the agency of the Franciscan monks. To avoid confronting his accuser, he retired to France, summoned a council at Lyons (1244), and excommunicated and deposed the emperor, whom he coolly denominated his vassal. He also excommunicated the kings of Arragon and Portugal, giving the crown of the latter to the Count of Bologna. He persecuted the Ghibellines, and pretending to have the right of disposing of the crown of the two Sicilies, offered it to Richard, Earl of Cornwall, brother to Henry III of England. Innocent made exorbitant claims to the bishoprics and benefices in England.




BONIFACE VIII (1294-1303). He had his predecessor, Celestine, put in prison, where he died. He openly styled himself "King of Kings," trafficked in indulgences, and declared all excluded from heaven who disputed his claim to universal dominion. He persecuted the Ghibellines, and ordered the city of Bragneste to be entirely destroyed. He was publicly accused of simony, assassination, usury, of living in concubinage with his two nieces and having children by them, and of using the money received for indulgences to pay the Saracens for invading Italy.



CLEMENT V (1305-1314). He is noted for his cruel suppression of the order of Knights Templar, so as to appropriate their property. He summoned the grand master of the Templars under false pretexts to his court, and issued a bull against the order in which he brought against it the most unfounded and absurd charges, and finally pronounced its abolition, having the Grand Master and many leading members burnt alive. After sharing the spoils of the Templars with the king of France, Clement V fixed his court at Avignon, and gave himself publicly to the most criminal debaucheries. He preached a new crusade against the Turks and gave each new crusader the right to release four souls from purgatory. Dante places him in hell.



JOHN XXII (1316-34). Like his predecessors, he persecuted and burnt heretics. He anathematised the emperor of Germany and the king of France, and preached a new crusade. Money was raised in abundance by the sale of indulgences, and was misappropriated by the pope. He left enormous treasures. Villani, whose brother was one of the papal commission, states that this successor of the fisherman amassed altogether twenty-five million florins. Gieseler says: "He arbitrarily disposed of the Benefices of all countries, chiefly in favor of his own nephews, and the members of his curia."



URBAN VI (1378-89). In his time occurred what is known as "the great Western schism," which lasted from 1378 till the Council of Constance (1414). There were during that time two popes, one residing at Rome and the other at Avignon. But which of the popes was the true one and which the antipope has not yet been decided. Urban VI was a ferocious despot. He ordered six cardinals, whom he suspected of opposing him, to be brutally tortured. Nor was his competitor, Clement VII, behind him in violence and crime. For fifty years they and their successors excited bloody wars and excommunicated one another. The schism, which cost thousands of lives, was ended by the deposition of John XXIII (1415), who was found guilty of murder and incest. He was accused before the Council of having seduced two hundred nuns. Theodoric de Niem informs us that he kept two hundred mistresses in Bologna, and he is described by his own secretary as a monster of avarice, ambition, lewdness and cruelty. The same author says that an act of accusation, prepared against him, presented a complete catalogue of every mortal crime.



MARTIN V (1417-31). His crimes were not of a kind to be censured by a Council of bishops. He had John Huss and Jerome of Prague burnt alive, and to put down their heresies excited civil war in Bohemia. He wrote to the Duke of Lithuania: "Be assured thou sinnest mortally in keeping faith with heretics."



EUGENIUS IV (1431-47). His first act was to put to torture the treasurer of his predecessor, Martin V. He seized that pontiff's treasures and sent to the scaffold two hundred Roman citizens, friends of the late pope. The Council of Basle was called and deposed the pope, setting up an antipope, Felix V. Civil war and much cruelty of course followed.



PAUL II (1464-71). He broke all the engagements he had made to the conclave prior to his election. He persecuted with the greatest cruelty and perfidy the Count of Anguillara. He strove to kindle a general war throughout Italy, and excommunicated the king of Bohemia for protecting the Hussites against his persecutions. He also persecuted the Fratricelli. "His love of money," says Symonds, "was such that, when bishoprics fell vacant, he often refused to fill them up, drawing their revenues for his own use, and draining Christendom as a Verres or a Memmius sucked a Roman province dry. His court was luxurious, and in private he was addicted to all the sensual lusts." The same writer says that "He seized the chief members of the Roman Academy, imprisoned them, put them to the torture, and killed some of them upon the rack." He died suddenly, leaving behind him an immense treasure in money and jewels, amassed by his avarice and extortion.



SIXTUS IV (1471-84). He strove to excel his predecessors in crime. According to Symonds, "He began his career with a lie; for though he succeeded, to that demon of avarice, Paul, who had spent his time in amassing money which he did not use, he declared that he had only found five thousand florins in the papal treasury." The historian continues:

"This assertion was proved false by the prodigality with which he lavished wealth immediately upon his nephews. It is difficult even to hint at the horrible suspicions which were cast upon the birth of two of the Pope's nephews and upon the nature of his weakness for them: yet the private life of Sixtus rendered the most monstrous stories plausible, while his public treatment of these men recalled to mind the partiality of Nero for Doryphorus ... The Holy Father himself was wont to say, A Pope needs only pen and ink to get what sum he wants.' ... Fictitious dearths were created; the value of wheat was raised to famine prices; good grain was sold out of the kingdom, and bad imported in exchange; while Sixtus forced his subjects to purchase from his stores, and made a profit by the hunger and disease of his emaciated provinces."

"He was restrained by no scruple from rendering his spiritual power subservient to his worldly views, or from debasing it by a mixture with those temporary intrigues in which his ambition had involved him. The Medici being peculiarly in his way, he took part in the Florentine troubles; and, as is notorious, brought upon himself the suspicion of being privy to the conspiracy of the Pazzi, and to the assassination which they perpetrated on the steps of the altar of the cathedral: the suspicion that he, the father of the faithful, was an accomplice of such acts! When the Venetians ceased to favor the scheme of his nephew, as they had done for a considerable time, the pope was not satisfied with deserting them in a war into which he himself had driven them; he went so far as to excommunicate them for persisting in it. He acted with no less violence in Rome: he persecuted the Colonnas with great ferocity: he seized Marino from them; he caused the prothonotary Colonna to be attacked, arrested and executed in his own house. The mother of Colonna came to San Celso in Branchi, where the body lay -- she lifted the severed head by the hair, and cried 'Behold the head of my son! Such is the faith of the pope. He promised that if we would give up Marino to him he would set my son at liberty; he has Marino: and my son is in our hands -- but dead! Behold thus does the pope keep his word.'"
Jortin says that "Sixtus IV erected a famous bawdy-house at Rome, and the Roman prostitutes paid his holiness a weekly tax, which amounted sometimes to twenty thousand ducats a year."



INNOCENT VIII (1484-92). Schlegel, in his notes to Mosheim, says he "lived so shamefully before he mounted the Roman throne, that he had sixteen illegitimate children to make provision for. Yet on the papal throne he played the zealot against the Germans, whom he accused of magic, and also against the Hussites, whom he well-nigh exterminated." Wilks says: "He obtained the votes of the cardinals by bribery, and violated all his promises." The practice of selling offices prevailed under him as well as under his predecessors. "In corruption," says Symonds, " he advanced a step even beyond Sixtus, by establishing a bank at Rome for the sale of pardons. Each sin had its price, which might be paid at the convenience of the criminal: one hundred and fifty ducats of the tax were poured into the Papal coffers; the surplus fell to Franceschetto, the Pope's son." The Vice-Chancellor of this rapacious pontiff, on being asked why indulgences were permitted for the worst scandals, made answer that "God wills not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should pay and live." It must be added that "the traffic which Innocent and Franceschetto carried on in theft and murder filled the Campagna with brigands and assassins." The Pope's vices cost him so much that he even pledged the papal tiara as a security for money.



ALEXANDER VI (1492-1503). Roderic Borgia was one of the most depraved wretches that ever lived. His passions were so unbridled that, having conceived a liking for a widow and two daughters, he made them all subservient to his brutality. Wilks calls him "a man of most abandoned morals, deep duplicity, and unscrupulous ambition. Like his predecessors, he had but one object at heart, the temporal and hereditary aggrandisement of his family." Mosheim says: "So many and so great villainies, crimes and enormities are recorded of him, that it must be certain he was destitute not only of all religion, but also of decency and shame." This pope, at a certain feast, had fifty courtesans dancing, who, at a given signal, threw off every vestige of clothing and -- we draw a veil over the scene! "To describe him," says Symonds, "as the Genius of Evil, whose sensualities, as unrestrained as Nero's, were relieved against the background of flame and smoke which Christianity had raised for fleshly sins, is justifiable." His besetting vice was sensuality; in oriental fashion he maintained a harem in the Vatican. He invited the Sultan Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the princes who opposed his intrigues in favor of his children.

In regard to his death we follow Ranke:

"It was but too certain that he once meditated taking off one of the richest of the cardinals by poison. His intended victim, however, contrived, by means of presents, promises and prayers, to gain over his head cook, and the dish which had been prepared for the cardinal was placed before the pope. He died of the poison he had destined for another."



JULIUS II (1503-13). He obtained the pontificate by fraud and bribery, and boldly took the sword to extend his dominion. Mosheim says:

"That this Julius II possessed, besides other vices, very great ferocity, arrogance, vanity, and a mad passion for war, is proved by abundant testimony. In the first place, he formed an alliance with the Emperor and the King of France, and made war upon the Venetians. He next laid siege to Ferrara. And at last, drawing the Venetians, the Swiss and the Spaniards, to engage in the war with him, he made an attack on Lewis XII, the king of France. Nor, so long as he lived, did he cease from embroiling all Europe."



PAUL III (1531-49). He was as much a man of the world as any of his predecessors. He acknowledged an illegitimate son and daughter. The emperor once remonstrated with him on having promoted two of his grandsons to the cardinalate at too early an age. He replied that he would do as his predecessors had done -- that there were examples of infants in the cradle being made cardinals.



We now close this horrid list of criminals. Since the Reformation the popes have been obliged to live more decently, or at least to conceal their vices instead of flaunting them before the world. :mrgreen:

[weedmeister2]

"The Lies and Prejudices of ANTI-Catholics"

So, manny, from the list of your Vicars of Christ, Who has spread the most lies? Who has proliferated the most prejudice?

You keep harping on Martin Luther, you keep destroying the credibility of the authors I present, well, what do you have to say for Christ's Representatives on Earth?

Manny's Quotable Quotes

Still being "holier than thou", eh? The stench is overwhelming.

People really ought to read an entire article befiore misquoting it. They will look less like clowns that way!

It's also the definition that you have IGNORED. That is quite dishonest of you.

All your MISREPRESENTATIONS of it can't change the fact that you are engaging in a straw man argument. The other term for that is LYING. You do it often and quite badly too.

Perhaps you would continue to believe in a persistent liar. We, on the other hand, aren't that dumb.

Your wacky pastor does the same and as a result has wacky errors too.

Now YOU are putting words in my mouth, but you're doing it in such a ridiculously incompetent manner that we can see right through it.

You should really take your foot out of your mouth.

Christians are supposed to speak the truth. You seem to have forgotten all about that

More wacky personal intepretations of scriptiure?

Like it guided Jim Jones, the dude who convicned his foillowers to commit mass suicide? Yeah, that's the kind of "heaven" your personal interperetations of a pile of paper will lead.

You are pretending to see things that aren't in the text at all. That's also called LYING.

You are DISTORTING what's there to suit your deceitful purpoises. That's called LYING.

The author hasn't the faitnest understanding of the subject

This has got to be one of the most IGNORANT posts I have read

Find a real argument. Thinking first would really help. Just give it a try

Read the statemenjt again, S-L-O-W-L-Y so as to prevent overload.

Too bad you've run out of feet to shoot. Your head next maybe?

If you don't know that I suggest you try thinking first

Your GCF church is a false church, gleefully extracting tithes to line its pockets. What hypocrisy

You just shot your other foot.

You're just plain lying now

It's your WACKY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of scrupture that is wrong.

And to this day you are still unable to back up any of your wacky claims with any real evidence. You are truly the master of sophistry.

There's a word to describe your attitude of attacking a doctrine without even understanding it. It is called PREJUDICE.

Again, you misrepresent the teaching. PREJUDICE on your part

Again, misrepresentation of teachings = PREJUDICE.

Pretty much the rest of the garbage you've posted is all the same: you misrepresent the teaching and then attack. That is a straw man argument. It is also dishonest and prejudiced. MrBiddle/Cardinalwacko are experts at this

We process knowledge too, Carlo. And I think some are doing just as well as, and sometimes better than, you are.

You just shot yourself in the foot!

That, of course, isn't the least bit honest on your part.



Manny, by your words it is clear that YOU walk the path of the prejudiced... and you expect people to rally to your side to defend your religion, when by your words we can tell that Jesus does not reside in your heart, and that you just want to win the argument at all costs?


Fine, you win. Enjoy the moment.

[tolstoi]

bai Weed..it's still too early to concede ..i believe those are all part of Manny's knack for pushing arguments..

i can see you made a quite arduous research task in there..prepare for Manny's counter punch

[mannyamador]

How does the validity of God before time hold up against deductive reasoning? How do you prove a God that exists, has always existed, and will never cease to exist without stumbling through a shitload of illogical series of events?

Time is a sequence of discrete events, of changes. That is how we experience time. But if God always existed, and He Himself does not change, then He does not exist in time.

As for an infinite sequence, this was resolved by St. Thomas Aquinas and others. All things we see are contingent on another for existence. And the existence of anything we see is also caused by another. And there can be an infinite series of dependencies and causes.

But even given such an infinite, the act or capability of coming into being (latin: esse) is NOT in the nature of any one object in the series and as such is not anywhere to be found in the series itself. Therefore, not absolutely everything is dependent or caused.

There must be at least one being that is not dependent on another for its existence (technically, the word is "contingent"). There must be at least one being that is not caused. There must be at least one being who has the capacity to exist in and of itself (latin: esse). This being we call God.

So it is NOT illogical to believe in a God that exists out of time. There is no need for irrational thinking to believe in God. Faith is NOT irrational.

[mannyamador]

You keep harping on Martin Luther, you keep destroying the credibility of the authors I present, well, what do you have to say for Christ's Representatives on Earth?

If you look at history, on the balance the Popes have done far rmore good than bad. And certainly far more good than Martin Luther and his cohorts. All you see are the bad Popes. You seem to forget that there have been 266 Popes!. And there have been many exceptionally good and saintly ones like Peter, John Paul II, Paul VI, John XXIII, etc. But of course you ignore these. Not honest at all!

Manny, by your words it is clear that YOU walk the path of the prejudiced.

Not true. I am pointing out YOUR DISHONEST TACTICS. And I am using the same strident language that YOU use. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Prejudice means to PRE-JUDGE. That is what you do. I, on hte other hand, can substantiate my positions and I rationally consider the arguments put before me. I do not dismiss them out of hand. That is NOT prejudice. That is REASON.

[mannyamador]

Papal infallibility is a very recent doctrine.

This is quite an obvious error. The author seems to think that disagreement among the bishops and revision of a final conciliar statement is proof of a recent introduction of doctrine, making it non-Apostolic (and also uncertainty of a doctrine). But if we apply this erroneous logic, then the very doctrine of the divinity of Christ must also therefore be considered a "recent" invention at the time of the Council of Nicaea. We must remember that the Arian heresy was rampant, and there were revisions and disagreements about the final declaration of the divinity of Christ at the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) as well! There was an Arian contingent (advocating the Arian heresy) at the Council of Nicaea, and Eusebius of Nicomedia sent a letter declaring openly that he would never allow Christ to be of one substance with God. So are we to then conclude that because there were disagreements and revisions in Nicaea (just as in Vatican I), that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ declared at Nicaea is a "recent" doctrine just introduced at that time? That is ABSURD and historically false. And so too with weedmeister's argument.

You may wish to read these as reference:

• The First Council of Nicaea
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
  
  
• Arianism
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
  
  
• Arius
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01718a.htm
  
• Vatican I
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm

We should also note that the issue of the canon of the New Testament itself (which books should be in it?) was also full of debate and disagreement. It took hundreds of years to settle which books should be the New Testament (at first, many though only the four Gospels and 13 Episltes should be in it). Does that mean then that there is no Apostolic basis for the canon of the New Testament? ABSURD!!!

New Testament Canon
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

"The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is
from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old,
is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and
without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach
its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."

Pope Liberius and the Arian Controversy
Here is one pope who made a pronouncement of faith which is today looked upon as heretical.

Wrong again. Pope Liberiius did not make an ex cathedra statement. The case is the same for each and every one of the alleged "proofs" of papal infallibility you list.

It seems you think you can prove your point through quantity of claims instead of their quality. Even if you list a thousand "errors" by Popes, not a single one, or all of them taken together, would prove your point unless you can show that these "errors" were ex cathedra statements. And you have totally failed to do so. Miserably.

I have ALREADY shown the requirements for a papal statement to be ex cathedra. You already know these requirements. I ahev also repeatedly shown that your previous examples of papal "errros" were not ex cathedra statements. And yet you continue to IGNORE the requiremewnts for an ex cathedra statement and continue to claim that these past papal "errors" were ex cathedra. That, I think, is sufficient evidence to prove your GRAVE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY and BLIND PREJUDICE.

Now, how aboput we go back to YOUR obviously recent "doctrine": the claim that the Holy Trinity ios a creature? Try running that by your wacky pastor and let's see what he thinks. In fact, try telling that to ANY protestant pastor and you are quite likely to be rebuked as being blasphemous! And they would be right!

The Persons in the Holy Trinity are NOT creatures. Yet in your desperate attempt to prove that mariolatry exists, you have contradicted fundamental Christian (both Catholic and Protestant ) doctrine!

[mannyamador]

I guess it's pretty obvious that weedmeister here is incapable of conducting an honest discussion or a rational one. Here's why I say this:

Despite the fact that he knows the requirements for an ex cathedra papal statement, he continues to cite papal statements that are obviously NOT ex cathedra, and then claims that they are, so as to disprove papal infallibility. How honest is this?

Then he continues to deliberately confuse infallibility with sinelssnes, despite the fact that is has been shown that the two are quite different concepts. Papal infallibility is not the same as papal sinlessness. But still weedmeister thinks that by maligning the papacy by listing alleged papal vices and sins (no source cited, but we can find them), he can disprove papal infallibility. But these arguments miss the point, as has ALREADY been shown. How honest is this on his part?

Finally, he closes his eyes to the many good Popes, as well as to the long list of criminal and downright inhuman actions perpetrated by his Protestant forebears.

Martin Luther, for example, married a Bernardine nun (Catherinje von Bora), and revised his doctrines on morals to accommodate his sexual activities and thiose of his patrons (the double marriage of Landgrave Philip of Hesse, for example, is why Martin Luther accepted polygamy, falsely claiming, "what is permitted in the Mosaic law, is not forbidden in the Gospel"). He was extremely prejudiced against the Jews and vented his hatred against them in many of his writings. The other Reformers and their fiollowers did ghastly crimes against Catholics. Thousands of Catholics were mudered, drawn and quartered, burned, and otherwise massacred in the name of Protestantism. Weedmeister points an accusing finger while blithely ignoring the far greater immoralities of his church's heritage. How honest is that?

The bottom line is that his arguments have ALL FAILED. None of his examples of papal "errors" were ex cathedra statements. His defnitions of "infallibility" and "creature" were plain wrong when seen in context of the discusison. His claim of mariolatry was effectively refuted. So now he is resorting to OBFUSCATION (confusing the issues) and CHANGING THE SUBJECT. We can see right through these deceptive tactics.

Normally these would be just plain annoying, but it seems to follow a consistent pattern, similar to the deceptive tactics of other anti-Catholics. One can only wonder if this despicable behavior is a result of the prejudiced and hateful teachings of his so-called church.

More info on Martin Luther
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

[mannyamador]

Is Catholicism Pagan?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_C...cism_Pagan.asp

If few Fundamentalists know the history of their religion—which distressingly few do—even fewer have an appreciation of the history of the Catholic Church. They become easy prey for purveyors of fanciful "histories" that claim to account for the origin and advance of Catholicism.

Anti-Catholics often suggest that Catholicism did not exist prior to the Edict of Milan, which was issued in 313 AD and made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire. With this, pagan influences began to contaminate the previously untainted Christian Church. In no time, various inventions adopted from paganism began to replace the gospel that had been once for all delivered to the saints. At least, that is the theory.

Pagan Influence Fallacy

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.

The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this "pagan influence fallacy." Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism towards the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic "freethinkers" such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan.

The pagan influence fallacy has not gone away in the twentieth century, but newer archaeology and more mature scholarship have diminished its influence. Yet there are still many committing it. In Protestant circles, numerous works have continued to popularize the claims of Alexander Hislop, most notably the comic books of Jack Chick and the book Babylon Mystery Religion by the young Ralph Woodrow (later Woodrow realized its flaws and wrote The Babylon Connection? repudiating it and refuting Hislop). Other Christian and quasi-Christian sects have continued to charge mainstream Christianity with paganism, and many atheists have continued to repeat—unquestioned—the charges of paganism leveled by their forebears.

Use of a round wafer implies sun worship?

Hislop and Chick argue that the wafers of Communion are round, just like the wafers of the sun worshippers of Baal. They don’t bother to mention that the wafers used by the same pagans were also ovals, triangles, some with the edges folded over, or shaped like leaves or animals, etc. The fact that a wafer is round does not make it immoral or pagan, since even the Jews had wafers and cakes offered in the Old Testament (Gen. 18:1-8, Ex 29:1-2).

Unfortunately for Chick and other Fundamentalists, their arguments backfire. An atheist will take the pagan connection one step further, saying, "Christianity itself is simply a regurgitation of pagan myths: the incarnation of a divinity from a virgin, a venerated mother and child, just like Isis and Osiris, Isa and Iswara, Fortuna and Jupiter, and Semiramis and Tammuz. Beyond this, some pagans had a triune God, and pagan gods were often pictured with wings, as was your God in Psalms 91:4. The flames on the heads of the apostles were also seen as an omen from the gods in Roman poetry and heathen myths long before Pentecost. A rock is struck that brings forth water in the Old Testament . . . just like the pagan goddess Rhea did long before then. Also, Jesus is known as the ‘fish,’ just like the fish-god Dagon, etc." Unless the Fundamentalists are willing to honestly examine the logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies, they are left defenseless. Fortunately, like the attacks on Catholicism in particular, all of the supposed parallels mentioned above self-destruct when examined with any scholarly rigor. If not guilty of historical inaccuracies, they all are guilty of what can be called "pagan influence fallacies."

Anything can be attacked using fallacy

The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., "No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer").

Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the post hoc ergo proper hoc ("After this, therefore because of this") fallacy—e.g., "Some ancient pagans did or believed something millennia ago, therefore any parallel Christian practices and beliefs must be derived from that source." Frequently, a variant on this fallacy is committed in which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is the more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc ("Similar to this, therefore because of this") fallacy.

When the pagan influence fallacy is encountered, it should be pointed out that it is, in fact, a fallacy. To help make this clear to a religious person committing it, it may be helpful to illustrate with cases where the pagan influence fallacy could be committed against his own position (e.g., the practice of circumcision was practiced in the ancient world by a number of peoples—including the Egyptians—but few Jews or Christians would say that its divinely authorized use in Israel was an example of "pagan corruption").

To help a secular person see the fallacy involved, one might point to a parallel case of the genetic fallacy involving those of his perspective (e.g., "Nobody should accept this particular scientific theory because it was developed by an atheist").

Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The danger of accepting an inaccurate claim is too great. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel as true unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:

1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source.

For example: "The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known" (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.

2. Is the parallel dependent or independent? Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.

For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this. The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.

3. Is the parallel antecedent or consequent? Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. It may be that the pagan parallel is a late borrowing from a non-pagan source. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times, it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing from anyone).

For example: The ideas expressed in the Norse Elder Edda about the end and regeneration of the world were probably influenced by the teachings of Christians with whom the Norse had been in contact for centuries (H. A. Guerber, The Norsemen, 339f).

4. Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively? Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask how they regarded it. Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative?

For example: Circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed "neutral" Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.

Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol (the pagan cultures which use it as a symbol, notably in East Asia and the Americas, had no influence on the early Christians). The cross was used as a Christian symbol because Christ died on a cross—his execution being regarded as a bad thing in itself, in fact, an infinite injustice—but one from which he brought life for the world. Christians did not adopt it because it was a pagan symbol they liked and wanted to copy.

Examples of negative parallels are often found in Genesis. For instance, the Flood narrative (Gen. 6-9) has parallels to pagan flood stories, but is written so that it refutes ideas in them. Thus Genesis attributes the flood to human sin (6:5-7), not overpopulation, as Atrahasis’ Epic and the Greek poem Cypria did (I. Kikawada & A. Quinn). The presence of flood stories in cultures around the world does not undermine the validity of the biblical narrative, but lends it more credence.

Criticism, refutation, and replacement are also the principles behind modern holidays being celebrated to a limited extent around the same time as former pagan holidays. In actuality, reports of Christian holidays coinciding with pagan ones are often inaccurate (Christmas does not occur on Saturnalia, for example). However, to the extent the phenomenon occurs at all, Christian holidays were introduced to provide a wholesome, non-pagan alternative celebration, which thus critiques and rejects the pagan holiday.

This is the same process that leads Fundamentalists who are offended at the (inaccurately alleged) pagan derivation of Halloween to introduce alternative "Reformation Day" celebrations for their children. (This modern Protestant holiday is based on the fact that the Reformation began when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517.) Another Fundamentalist substitution for Halloween has been "harvest festivals" that celebrate the season of autumn and the gathering of crops. These fundamentalist substitutions are no more "pagan" than the celebrations of days or seasons that may have been introduced by earlier Christians.

Historical truth prevails

Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism "pagan" fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices. The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.