The Alleged Idolatry of Pope St. Marcellinus (Parsons, 1900)
Oct 21, 2023 12:21:59 GMT -5
wenceslav, John Lewis, and 1 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Oct 21, 2023 12:21:59 GMT -5
The following is chapter III, of the Supplement, "The Alleged Idolatry of Pope St. Marcellinus," from the multivolume set of books dealing with peculiar issues in Church history covering mostly frequently used historical cases that are used against the Church or the Papacy, written by Fr. Reuben Parsons, D.D., in his set Studies in Church History, Vol. VI, Part II, 1906, pp. 510-520.
Fr. Parsons, was a scholar and first rate historian who sought to defend the Church and particularly the Holy See from false historical misunderstandings that were used against it. His credentials are are top notch, and anyone wanting to read more about him will find a great biographical sketch on him in a Memoriam written about him in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, pp. 581-582., Vol. XXXI, no. 123, 1906., linked HERE
The chapter, "The Alleged Idolatry of Pope St. Marcellinus," is linked HERE
The book is linked HERE
(Comment: I realize this matter of the allegation that St. Pope Marcellinus, in a matter of weakness offered up incense to a false god through its idol, is controverted, and even St. Robert Bellarmine thought it was certainly true, but my point in posting this is to show that the matter is hardly settled, and there are good arguments against it being true.
Secondly, it regards to equating this matter to the recent actions of Francis, even if it were true, as far as the allegation of St. Pope Marcellinus, which I absolutely do not concede, there would still be no comparison.
According to the allegation against the Saint-Pope, he in a moment of weakness, as his life was threatened gave in and offered incense to an idol, thereby saving his life, and immediately repented of the act afterwards. Does the case of Francis have any similarity at all? Let's go over it in detail.
1. Bellarmine, who believed the charge against Pope St. Marcellinus explains that he didn't lose his office as he only did it out of weakness, not out of apostasy, as he didn't believe in the false god to whom he offered incense.
2. In the case of Francis, this was not a matter of weakness at all, as this was a premeditated act by him, as he was the one who authorized the organizing of the worship of a false god through its idol. These pagan worship rites happened with his direct consent, approval, and even participation.
3. He, along with his Cardinals and other clergy under him were present during the pagan rite as the idol was worshipped with those participating in the rite, even making prostrations, and Francis himself actively participated in the rite. This is all beyond dispute, as the entire matter was photographed, videotaped, and written about by witnesses.
4. He authorized processions in Rome for this idol of a false god to be publicly venerated.
5. He did not intervene when the Italian bishops published a prayer to this false god, thereby showing tacit approval of the prayer.
6. Furthermore, he did not intervene, by condemning other instances in which this false god was worshipped by "Catholics," including even "Cardinals."
7. When the idols were thrown in the Tiber River by a zealous Catholic, Francis condemned the conduct of the Catholic who did this, and defended the idols, and very importantly, Francis affirmed that these wooden idols were of the false god, Pachamama, thereby leaving no defense of him that he may not have known that these were in fact idols.
8. Lastly, Francis, in his statement defending the idols after they were retrieved from the Tiber River, made it clear that his desire was to have the statutes displayed in St. Peter’s for the final “mass” of the Synod and that it was good news that this may happen, as the Italian police retrieved the idols from the river. Although this didn’t happen, we now know his wish that this would have happened, thanks to his statement. Francis apologized for the idols being thrown into the river, not the idolatry that had taken place! If the allegation against Pope St. Marcellinus is true, he apologized for his participation in idolatry and was repentant. There is no comparison between the two apologies.
To sum up, even if the allegation against Pope St. Marcellinus was true, there is absolutely no similarity to what Francis did in regards to idol worship. There was no fear or excusing factor, whereby he was only doing this under duress, as he was one who authorized the worship of a false god, participated in the rite personally, and defended the idols, rather than the Catholic who was outraged by the idol worship taking place. Francis demonstrated his guilt.
Fr. Parsons, was a scholar and first rate historian who sought to defend the Church and particularly the Holy See from false historical misunderstandings that were used against it. His credentials are are top notch, and anyone wanting to read more about him will find a great biographical sketch on him in a Memoriam written about him in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, pp. 581-582., Vol. XXXI, no. 123, 1906., linked HERE
The chapter, "The Alleged Idolatry of Pope St. Marcellinus," is linked HERE
The book is linked HERE
(Comment: I realize this matter of the allegation that St. Pope Marcellinus, in a matter of weakness offered up incense to a false god through its idol, is controverted, and even St. Robert Bellarmine thought it was certainly true, but my point in posting this is to show that the matter is hardly settled, and there are good arguments against it being true.
Secondly, it regards to equating this matter to the recent actions of Francis, even if it were true, as far as the allegation of St. Pope Marcellinus, which I absolutely do not concede, there would still be no comparison.
According to the allegation against the Saint-Pope, he in a moment of weakness, as his life was threatened gave in and offered incense to an idol, thereby saving his life, and immediately repented of the act afterwards. Does the case of Francis have any similarity at all? Let's go over it in detail.
1. Bellarmine, who believed the charge against Pope St. Marcellinus explains that he didn't lose his office as he only did it out of weakness, not out of apostasy, as he didn't believe in the false god to whom he offered incense.
2. In the case of Francis, this was not a matter of weakness at all, as this was a premeditated act by him, as he was the one who authorized the organizing of the worship of a false god through its idol. These pagan worship rites happened with his direct consent, approval, and even participation.
3. He, along with his Cardinals and other clergy under him were present during the pagan rite as the idol was worshipped with those participating in the rite, even making prostrations, and Francis himself actively participated in the rite. This is all beyond dispute, as the entire matter was photographed, videotaped, and written about by witnesses.
4. He authorized processions in Rome for this idol of a false god to be publicly venerated.
5. He did not intervene when the Italian bishops published a prayer to this false god, thereby showing tacit approval of the prayer.
6. Furthermore, he did not intervene, by condemning other instances in which this false god was worshipped by "Catholics," including even "Cardinals."
7. When the idols were thrown in the Tiber River by a zealous Catholic, Francis condemned the conduct of the Catholic who did this, and defended the idols, and very importantly, Francis affirmed that these wooden idols were of the false god, Pachamama, thereby leaving no defense of him that he may not have known that these were in fact idols.
8. Lastly, Francis, in his statement defending the idols after they were retrieved from the Tiber River, made it clear that his desire was to have the statutes displayed in St. Peter’s for the final “mass” of the Synod and that it was good news that this may happen, as the Italian police retrieved the idols from the river. Although this didn’t happen, we now know his wish that this would have happened, thanks to his statement. Francis apologized for the idols being thrown into the river, not the idolatry that had taken place! If the allegation against Pope St. Marcellinus is true, he apologized for his participation in idolatry and was repentant. There is no comparison between the two apologies.
To sum up, even if the allegation against Pope St. Marcellinus was true, there is absolutely no similarity to what Francis did in regards to idol worship. There was no fear or excusing factor, whereby he was only doing this under duress, as he was one who authorized the worship of a false god, participated in the rite personally, and defended the idols, rather than the Catholic who was outraged by the idol worship taking place. Francis demonstrated his guilt.