Posted on 06/22/2009 7:28:34 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
History is the great debunker of pre-conceived ideas that are rooted in ideology and false piety rather than in reality.
Without a grasp of history, and of the history of the papacy in particular, many Catholics are led to believe that the papacy must always have been as they have known it, and most popes have been just like the popes of the 20th and 21st centuries: Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
The pontificates of a thousand years ago, however, were very different from any that we have experienced in our lifetimes.
First of all, we do not even know how the pontificate of John XVIII ended in 1009. Did the pope abdicate before his death and, if so, was it under duress?
If he did abdicate, what did he do after he left the papacy? No living Catholic has ever seen that happen. Indeed, for those who tend to look upon popes as quasi-divine figures, papal resignation is simply unthinkable. Once a pope, always a pope -- until death. No?
According to some historical sources, Pope John XVIII most likely did abdicate, or resign, the papacy shortly before his death, and then became a monk at the basilica of St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome, where he is buried.
Otherwise, little is known of his pontificate. We do know that during this period of church history, from 1003 to 1012, one of the powerful Roman families, the Crescentiis, ruled the city and dominated the papacy itself.
From 999 to 1003 the first French pope, Sylvester II, was seated on the Chair of Peter. A dedicated reformer, he denounced simony (the buying and selling of spiritual goods and church offices), nepotism (favoring members of one's own family for appointment to church offices), and violations of clerical celibacy. He also insisted on the free election of abbots by monks.
But in February of 1001 the Roman citizenry revolted against foreign domination. The French pope and his German friend and ally, Emperor Otto III, were forced to leave the city.
Otto died the following year, before he could reestablish his authority in Rome. The new head of the Crescentii family, John Crescentius II, allowed the French pope to return, but only on condition that he limit himself to spiritual functions. The pope died less than a year later.
A relative of the dominant Crescentii family succeeded Sylvester II in an election that was undoubtedly engineered by the family's leader. What was also remarkable, besides the decisive influence of a layman on a papal election, is the fact that the new pope, John XVII, had been married before ordination to the priesthood and was the father of three sons.
The pope's only notable recorded papal act was his authorizing of Polish missionaries to work among the Slavs. It is not even known how he died or how old he was at the time of death.
Although John XVII was pope for less than six months, his pontificate was not among the shortest in history. For purposes of comparison, Pope John Paul I was in office for just 33 days in 1978, yet his was only the 11th briefest pontificate in history.
John XVIII was cardinal-priest of St. Peter's Basilica when elected to the papacy on Christmas Day 1003 (the Vatican's official list begins his pontificate in January 1004). None of his accomplishments as pope have had any lasting historical significance beyond certain locales.
Thus, he restored the diocese of Merseburg in Germany, which Pope Benedict VII had sup-pressed and divided at the request of Emperor Otto II, and John XVIII also approved the establishment of the diocese of Bamberg in Bavaria.
He summoned the bishops of Sens and Orleans to Rome under pain of excommunication because of their threats to the papal privileges granted to the abbey of Fleury.
There is some evidence that relations between Rome and Constantinople improved during John XVIII's pontificate, probably because of the pro-Byzantine sympathies of the Crescentii family. The pope's name was restored to the list of those to be prayed for at Mass in Constantinople.
However, the thaw was relatively brief. Less than 50 years later, the formal schism between East and West began, and remains in effect to this day.
John XVIII was probably forced to resign in late June or early July, 1009 -- almost exactly one thousand years ago.
His successor was Sergius IV who, because his baptismal name was Peter, changed it upon election. Taking a new papal name was still not the custom.
Alas, Sergius IV was murdered.
You wrote:
“Doesn’t matter. All priests in South Bend must have faculties from the bishop of South Bend, and are under his authority in other ways as well.”
You still don’t see the simple point. I check and McBrien is not a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. He also, however, is not a diocesan priest. At least he’s not a diocesan priest in Indiana! He’s incardinated in CT, not IN. Even if the Indiana ordinary denied him faculties, that would not stop him from teaching because he is from another diocese. Anything of any seriousness would be appealed to Rome and might take years to resolve.
“And a cleric living in concubinage is in violation of canon law.”
Agreed. Now prove that that is the case - that he is living in concubinage. Who’s going to do that?
“The only thing protecting McBrien from laicization is the absence of testosterone in the bloodstreams of the relevant authorities.”
No. No bishop in Indiana can do that by canon law. They could only request that and only after a long, long legal process.
“McBrien is a priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport, IIRC.”
Hartford.
“Which is an indictment of the bishop of Bridgeport, as well as the bishop of South Bend.”
Maybe, but he’s even further removed from the scene and even less able to prove anything.
You wrote:
“Common in the sense of Cardinals having descendants.”
No, actually that isn’t all that common either.
People do things for reasons.
There are REASONS
folks in a certain group are
MUCH MORE INTENSELY, MUCH MORE EMOTIONALLY, MUCH MORE STRIDENTLY
DEFENSIVE ABOUT, FIERCE ABOUT, DECLARATIVE ABOUT . . .
Mary
and the rest of the list above
vs
their asserting themselves in behalf of The Bible—GOD’S WORD.
What do you think the reasons are?
What do I think the reason is? Love. The Sacredness of Scripture isn’t in question and hasn’t been insulted.
She had other children.
**Mary
The Pope
The Magisterical
The Edifice
The Structure
!!!!TRADITION!!!!
The Saints**
All in the Bible, my dear.
**the RUBBER DICTIONARY strikes again!**
That was TOO close! I had just swallowed the last of my before bedtime brownie & milk before reading that! L O L !
Doesn’t wash, with me.
The only explanation I can think of that fits the observations is
a marked difference in levels of adoration for one vs the other.
And, in fact, RC’s seemingly minimalist perspective on Scripture has been spoken of many times, hereon.
The emotions then generated are about as excited as those from watching paint peel.
Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.
THEN the emotions flare intensely.
Only in Rubber Bibles.
I’d apologize but it would be disingenuous.
I am glad you spared your keyboard.
LOL.
I really should force my fingers to walk away from this carrying on.
LOL.
So the cultists claim.
Never.
You wrote:
“Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.”
Actually the Bible never once says Mary had other children. Please don’t say that the “brethren” or “sisters” mentioned prove Mary had other children. Christians with exception always believed they were not Mary’s and not full brothers and sisters of Jesus. It is noteworthy that no other person is actually said to be Mary’s child. No one.
I think we have very different Bibles and very different dictionaries.
However . . . cheers.
Heading for bed.
Has this man been formally disciplined by the Church?
Carrying on?
Hey, even good soil can get extra hard in a dry spell, and require the tractor to drop down a gear or two to pull the plow through. Getting the job done sometimes is just a matter of getting tough when the going gets tougher.
But, I guess even Paul gave up on some hardheads.
Goodnite, and Lord Bless
Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.
Well, where does Scripture make the claim that she birthed other children? There is mention of "brothers" of Christ at the wedding at Cana in some translations (the original word actually means "relatives" and is translated in the Douay-Rheims as "bretheren". That doesn't mean they came from the same womb), but in all the years of hearing the gospels proclaimed I don't recall hearing that the Blessed Mother birthed other children. So, if it's there....
And, in fact, RC’s seemingly minimalist perspective on Scripture has been spoken of many times, hereon.
Last I knew, RC was a soda that tasted a lot like Dr. Pepper.
Catholics, OTOH, don't think much about Scripture unless we're specifically studying it, because it's such an integral part of worship, that it's a natural part of life. Take a gander sometime at the Mass threads and morning and evening prayer. It's all scripture. We all know the Prodigal Son better than the Canon. We don't actively defend Scripture because we don't have to. Now, defending what scripture SAYS, that's another story. The parts of the Faith that are constantly maligned are going to invoke more vitriol because we are constantly having to explain the theology.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have an incredibly long day ahead of me and need to pray and get some shut-eye.
LOLOL. Yep. Lamps thrown. Tables overturned. Men leaving in huffs.
How do you know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.