Although when looking at the fundamental religous Belief's of the Catcholic faith one should asssume that the leader of such a moralistic faith ,history tell's us that certain pope's have not alway's been that cranked up with their own belief's.Therefore i ask you to Post youre rant on the pope's .

Well ,it's only a matter of time till somebody begin's to open a whole book on the Borgia's and post 23 pages of intense rant ,ill give you my other favourite ,that is UrbanusII.Granted ,his famous speech at the start of the Crusades had some political importance ,Though it's hard to say that the intention and result of te first Crusade was really in line with the belief's of Catcholicism ,rather really contradictonary.

Weren't the Borgias basically church mafia? Call the cardinals together - "You make-a my son da pope-a, ya hear? Udderwise Luigi here is gonna break-a yous legs."

Wasn't there once a woman pope? Just curious, not to say she necessarily was a dud.

Being a Luthran I'm gonna go with whichever one introduced The Concept of Indulgence. i mean you could sin all you wanted, basically,as long as you payed the Church for forgiveness? PAYING FOR FORGIVENESS??? there's also of course (This'll REALLY P!55 people off) The Pope, The current 1 i beleive, who said that Evolution was a perfectly ok thing to beleive in.

Now i will be inevitably Flamed for my beleifs.......

also on the Borgias

Mafia=Money

Catholic Church=Greedy

i don't think there was any leg breaking involved

i'd say sorry to all Catholics but then again...... No i'm not really

Originally posted by Sodak
Weren't the Borgias basically church mafia? Call the cardinals together - "You make-a my son da pope-a, ya hear? Udderwise Luigi here is gonna break-a yous legs."

Wasn't there once a woman pope? Just curious, not to say she necessarily was a dud.

actually while reading a book called history of the popes I found out that all the popes were alike,
actually the word nepotism comes from them, way before the borgias
If we think he is the worst is due to the treaty of tordesillas dividing the world between portugal and spain and closing all those trade routes and lands to other european powers.
if spain or portugal would have been the most powerful countries right now we wouldn´t take borgia as a bad pope

Urban II is also my favourite one :b:

The best Pope ever is Innocentius III, who declared that Pope is Anti-Christ (Originally in the Greek language anti ment both opposite and replacement and he declared himself replacement of Christ, wich makes him Anti-Christ right?)

Well, wouldn't the answer be Pope Pius the Contradictory, who both affirmed and denied the virgin birth seventeen times in one sentence? Who claimed not to be the Pope, whilst loudly announcing that he was God's official representative on Earth and leader of the Catholic church? Who ordered the Holy See to ignore all his commands, including this one?
He's got to be a strong contender anyway.

Originally posted by Mr. Civ 3
The best Pope ever is Innocentius III, who declared that Pope is Anti-Christ (Originally in the Greek language anti ment both opposite and replacement and he declared himself replacement of Christ, wich makes him Anti-Christ right?)


Lol freakin hilarious

Originally posted by Mr. Civ 3
The best Pope ever is Innocentius III, who declared that Pope is Anti-Christ (Originally in the Greek language anti ment both opposite and replacement and he declared himself replacement of Christ, wich makes him Anti-Christ right?)

True.

Originaly posted by DuckOfFlanders
Wich was the most contradictonary Pope through history?

contradictonary?? Duhbya's gramatical virus is spreading!

Wasn't there a Pope who ended up being a woman?
I heard it once but I have no opinion. I'm not Catholic but I have a hard time understanding how s/he would have made it that far. Unless there was a mafia :)

of course about being the replacement to christ. jesus told them that they were to do no such thing.... the Apostles asked him about it and he said that they weren't supposed to declare that a man was "More Worthy" or "Better" than another, we're all sinners aren't we? Even this "Pope" guy who's supposed to be so great. (hehe the mafia, the Antichrist hehehe) sounds rather dubious to me.

Originally posted by Daaraa
Wasn't there a Pope who ended up being a woman?
I heard it once but I have no opinion. I'm not Catholic but I have a hard time understanding how s/he would have made it that far. Unless there was a mafia :)

I think that this was only a gossip. But it was a strong gossip and if I remember correctly than (at least in some period of the Papacy) there was a chair with a hole in the middle and the potential pope had to sit on it and some guys checked from under to make sure that the next pope is a 'he'. :)
There is a very good book about the history of the popes with all their sins from Peter de Rosa with the title: "Vicars of Christ - The Dark Side of the Papacy". This guy is a former Jesuite and his book is just amazing!
:jesus:

This is why I enjoy being an British Protestant: I can say "who cares?" The papal institution seems hollow to me. I will acknowledge that a precious few popes - like the current incumbent - have done a lot of good from the chair, but in overall terms its hard not to see them as just another long line of corrupted political hacks.

I in no way mean to demean catholics, and I have a lot of respect for catholic institutions in principle. The trouble is, most of the people IN those institutions have not shown the same respect!

R.III

right on Richard III!

Potestants Rock!

The Borgias take the cake. The words despot and nepotism were written into every single action they took and showed how to misuse power. I think it was he who made the statement, "The Lord has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.":mad:

johannes paulus 2 AKA the pope now.
Everyone wants that he dies.
And the things he says:in the year 2002:
1)no abortion
2)no anti-conception
3)no divorces
he is just a old sick man who just dont want to die.

Originally posted by philippe
johannes paulus 2 AKA the pope now.
Everyone wants that he dies.
And the things he says:in the year 2002:
1)no abortion
2)no anti-conception
3)no divorces
he is just a old sick man who just dont want to die.

At least he isn't adding

"Evolution is most certainly false."
or
"Everything in the bible is meant to be taken literaly as is"

He may not be a left-wing liberal, but at least he isn't as extreme as one of those who gave the american bible belt its name.

The female pope is a legend, also. Basically, it all started when pope John VIII recognized the banned byzantine patriarch Photius. His political rivals accused him of being weak and, added as a comment, "We don't have a pope, we have a she-pope!" The peasants heard of that through rumors et al which found a way of traveling and found it funny. From the XIIIth century onward, various writers started creating the history of the She-Pope Joan, and everyone forgot to check if she had actually existed.

Her lack of existence was only demonstrated around the reform when it became important to do so. Catholic historians, checking the historical files when being attacked, realized there had been no such person...something which was admitted very openly their protestant opponents.

As for the seat, from what I have read, contrary to popular belief, it's not for investigational purpose. It's for a much more down-to-earth reason. Simply put, they wanted to remind the pope he was still human...by reminding him he still had certain very human needs. They found the holed seat worked well for that.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga

As for the seat, from what I have read, contrary to popular belief, it's not for investigational purpose. It's for a much more down-to-earth reason. Simply put, they wanted to remind the pope he was still human...by reminding him he still had certain very human needs. They found the holed seat worked well for that.

Yes, those guys sometimes need to face the fact that they are not gods...

I feel sympathy and pity for the old guy who people call John Paul II. Clearly, God's representative need not be as God.;)

Originally posted by philippe
johannes paulus 2 AKA the pope now.
Everyone wants that he dies.
And the things he says:in the year 2002:
1)no abortion
2)no anti-conception
3)no divorces
he is just a old sick man who just dont want to die.
Well I mean, have you seen the place where he lives? It's absolutely beautiful (I was there a few weeks ago), I wouldn't want to die either being surrounded with so much beauty around me. ;)

I hope he will die soon because his ideas are outdated and he sure isn't going to step down voluntarely. He may not be the most extreme orthodox pope there has ever been but he sure managed to scare everybody out of the church in the Netherlands.....

I've gotto go with John XX.

I think the Pope who's reported to of said "God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it" was Leo X, and he was a de Medici rather than a Borgia, although they're not a great deal better.
I think the guy squandered his treasury in two years on art and parties. He spent so much money that it was said: "Leo X had consumed three pontificates; the treasure of Julius II, the revenues of his own reign, and those of his successor".
It might be argued that this wild extravagance led, in part, to the
success of the Reformation.
So, you Lutherans owe this pope :p

Don't really care about an old guy that speaks a dead language, Non-Denominational Christianity for me. :)

Originally posted by civ1-addict


I hope he will die soon because his ideas are outdated and he sure isn't going to step down voluntarely. He may not be the most extreme orthodox pope there has ever been but he sure managed to scare everybody out of the church in the Netherlands.....

Outdated? Like what? Abortion? Homosexuality? His Ideals are based on the Bible and the Bible hasn't been updated in 2,000 years(give or take a few). This Pope is the first who even said homosexuals should be accepted by the community as people, yet their actions should not be accepted. All others before him have condemed all homosexuals! There will NEVER be a Pope who accepts homosexuality.

Abortion and contricetpives prevent conception, the only purpose of sex prescribed by the Bible and sex for recreation is a sin. Unless the writing in the Bible magicly changes some time soon, that isn't going to be changed anytime soon.

Finally, to all protestants whose churches change to conform to modern societal issues(such as homosexuality, abortion, and others) I say you're simply wrong and you're churches are weak. To live your life by what society accepts and not by what the Bible says makes your church corrupt. So if you wish death on the leader of my faith, I could wish death upon you, but I have been raised to turn the other cheek.

Actually if you think about it the whole idea is contradictory. Jesus said that he would have no replacement (there's a special word for it but i cannot recall it) he basically said that there would be no 'replacement jesus' that they claim to be.

They're just a bunch of confused old men. who dislike their followers reading the bible and cannot do so themselves

Originally posted by Myartar


Outdated? Like what? Abortion? Homosexuality? His Ideals are based on the Bible and the Bible hasn't been updated in 2,000 years(give or take a few). This Pope is the first who even said homosexuals should be accepted by the community as people, yet their actions should not be accepted. All others before him have condemed all homosexuals! There will NEVER be a Pope who accepts homosexuality.

Abortion and contricetpives prevent conception, the only purpose of sex prescribed by the Bible and sex for recreation is a sin. Unless the writing in the Bible magicly changes some time soon, that isn't going to be changed anytime soon.

Finally, to all protestants whose churches change to conform to modern societal issues(such as homosexuality, abortion, and others) I say you're simply wrong and you're churches are weak. To live your life by what society accepts and not by what the Bible says makes your church corrupt. So if you wish death on the leader of my faith, I could wish death upon you, but I have been raised to turn the other cheek.

Refusing to accept that the world changed and still dumbly believing everything in the bible is the exact word of god (seeing as the bible manages to contradict itself and history repeatedly) is no better.

The Catholic church is starting to show some signs of realizing that they can't simply stay with what they have and refuse all form of change.

It was about time.

To put it bluntly the bible was written by men who twisted all views in it (regardless of wheter or not they were divinely inspired) to their own preconception of the world. IE, women=weak (servants), etc. That's painfully obvious if you look at it without admitting before even reading it that it is "The entirely right and true word of God".

Plus, even God's will may change. See passage from "Eye for an eye" to "Turn the other cheek".

Since they're not the son of God and don't die on the cross for sins of mankind, I fail to see how they're a "replacement Jesus".
Jesus appointed Paul as the first Pope, first leader of the church, as the Bible says. Then you go slandering since you have little else to say.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga


Refusing to accept that the world changed and still dumbly believing everything in the bible is the exact word of god (seeing as the bible manages to contradict itself and history repeatedly) is no better.

The Catholic church is starting to show some signs of realizing that they can't simply stay with what they have and refuse all form of change.

It was about time.

To put it bluntly the bible was written by men who twisted all views in it (regardless of wheter or not they were divinely inspired) to their own preconception of the world. IE, women=weak (servants), etc. That's painfully obvious if you look at it without admitting before even reading it that it is "The entirely right and true word of God".

Plus, even God's will may change. See passage from "Eye for an eye" to "Turn the other cheek".

The contradictions in the are the difference between the Old and New Testaments. Now if you wanna get critical, the "Eye for and eye" was not said by God or Jesus, it was said by a Jewish King(Saul I believe) in one of the Old Testament books known as a history. This was not nessisarly the belief of God, but that's a whole other can of worms. Now you are right, the will of God may change and it has in the past(sacrifices of animals to bread and wine), no argueing that. However there is no evidence that is has or ever will. When there is a second coming of Christ and he says "Hey guys, we're gonna do this now b/c that's what my father wants" Me and other Christans will comply. Until then, the Bible is what we will go by.

On your point of the writers of the Bible twisting the words to fit thier views I disagree in part. The twisting of the words of the Bible I do not believe was done by those who put God's words down on the orignal parchment, but it was done by those who translated it and this can be seen all in forms of the Bible. However, I beleive if you interpret the Bible with your heart and not your head(as it was intended) you will see the true meaning.

Back to your claim of the Church refusing to change, the church changes with society as long as it does not contradict the Word of God. At one time, women were not allowed to attend mass with out a cover on thier heads, priests never faced thier flock, and all mass was done in Latin. These practices were considered out dated and were changed. These changes didn't contradict the Bible and were approved. Why should the church change just b/c sociteys view of right and wrong have? We believe certian things are a sin and will always see them as sin. It's kinda like the saying everyone's mom says "If everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you do it too?"

*shrugs* I think there was word-twisting everywhere.

And in a way I suppose you could say that the church simply adapt to the modern world by changing its interpretation of the bible.

If worse come to pass and some commandment (other than the key ones) become impossible, they can always reconsider that particular book and state that it has become too corrupted/changed from the original word of God.

Remember, too, that the protestants and such have fewer books in the bible than the Catholics ;)

I just want to say that society has not change. It has always had these aspects. If you guys think homosexuality is the new thing your wrong. Just the people don't kill you for publicly admiting it. It was prevelent in all times of the bible. Noahs time one of the Reasons for the Flood Gay people. Jesus' time. Pretty much all the Greek guys were gay or by. Yet they became one of the strongest groups of christians later.
Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. evolution needs out side sorces first certain things to happen. i forget what they are but ask a biology major they should be able to explain it better. And the most important thing. No one knows what a day is to God. His has all time to work. He did not invent time because he exsist out side time. Humans very temporal creature created time. That is how we are made in the image of God. We are creators.
The borgias were probably the most depraved. Preforming orgies on the altars of St. Peter's Basilica with nuns. They were the peak of the corruption. He even fought wars in italy to bring it all under the Papal rule.

Oh and for that guy who said god did not intend for sex to be recreational go read song of solomon. It is all of about the joys of sex in marriage. It was intended for married people to have fun diong and to create kids. Its the unmarried people having sex that is the problem.