False analogy. How parishioners dress is not part of the Church's liturgical expression of the Latin Mass. The uniformity of the Latin Mass is precisely its strength.

But that's a secondary point.

If you claim candelabra were introduced from VII (Freemasons) and I post a photo of a Mass with candelabra that occurred before VII, then your claim is invalid.

Also, if you're not too busy, please provide some factual support for your claim. It would be nice. :)

Please see my earlier point about the time. A video from 1940 is twenty two years before Vatican Council II, so that Mass was free from "VII Freemason" influence.

Also, a Hannukah menorah holds nine candles. The menorah in the Jewish temple held seven candles. The candelabrum in the colour video at the top of the page (where all this started from) holds ten. candles.

This means it is not a Hannukah menorah or a temple menorah. Wrong number of candles for either.

"There have been many, many "Francis'" before Francis"

Really? Name one you lunatic. Honorius? The Borgias?

Tell me, JTLiuzza ... are you old enough to remember what a "card catalog" was? Or were you in one of those "special" classes that always stayed in the Children's Section over by the colored blocks?

The reason I ask is this subject has already been covered in scholarly works long before the internet became what we see today. Over thirty years ago Peter DeRosa published Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy (New York, 1988) and he was not alone. Eamon Duffy tread much the same ground in his exhaustive Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (Yale, 2002).

Admittedly, I'm not providing those citationa for your edification, but for those here who are, in fact, capable of pursuing an interesting subject on their own. You, on the other hand, need to be spoon-fed, probably both literally and figuratively. Fair enough. Open wide...

Sergius III (904-11), was popularly know to his Curia as "the slave of every vice" and became Pope by murdering his predecessor. Pope Sergius also fathered a son with his teenage mistress, a protitute who was 30 years younger. This happy family's illegitimate offspring became the next pope, John XI.

John XII (955-64) reputedly slept with both of his sisters and history records he died while fornicating with another man's wife. Some source indicate he was murdered by the lady's husband while caught in the act.

Benedict IX, (1032-48) was a noted pederast. Evoking today's former papacy of a similar name, Benedict abdicated and then changed his mind and seized power for a second time. Saint Peter Damian described him as "a wretch who feasted on immorality" and "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest."

Boniface VIII (1294-1303) had the Italian town of Palestrina massacred after they surrendered to his troops. He, too, favored young boys and notoriously justified his vice by claiming it was "no more a sin than rubbing one hand against the other".

Clement VI (1342-52) earned the sobriquet of "Ecclesiastical Dionysus" from the poet Petrarch. Clement eventually caught gonorrhea from one of his numerous mistresses. Still, at least they were women. The Papacy was making some moral advances, it seems.

Sixtus IV (1471-84), insituted a Church tax on prostitution and apparently also sur-charged priests who kept mistresses. , but critics argued that this merely increased the prevalence of clerical homosexuality. His own appetites were more Grecian, so to speak. Even nominally sympathetic fellow Italian historians noted his choices for cardinals were extremely attractive young men.

Innocent VIII (1484-92) acknowledged eight illegitimate sons and was known to have at least twice that number. He also once graciously received a gift of 100 dark-skinned slaves and handed them out as gifts to favored cardinals.

Alexander VI (1492-1503) one of the Borgia Popes was famous for his celebrated Banquet of Chestnuts in 1501, better known as "The Joust Of The Whores". His method of financing the Vatican was to confiscate the wealth and the estates of others on spurious charges.

Julius II (1503-13), the succeeding Pope is best known for commissioning Michelangelo to paint the Sistene Chapel’s ceiling. He's much -less- known for being the first Pope recognized as having caught syphillis which ultimately consumed him.

Julius III (1550-55) became smitten with a beggar boy he noticed in the streets. Julius eventually appointed the youth to a cardinalship at the age of seventeen, dismissing critics who pointed out the boy was illiterate.

Those, mind you, are some of the truly scandalous Popes. There are certainly others, far more obscure ones. They tend not attract as much attention since history generally views spite, malice, greed and corruption as simply the marks of a shrewd leader, either temporal or spiritual.

The point we can derive from this long and sordid list, is truly flawed men have carried on the apostolic succession, many times over.

No, JTLiuzza Francis isn't a novelty at all. Except, obviously, for those dim-witted souls who never thought to compare him against his predecessors. Or those who lack even the basic skills to do so.

None of this material was particularly difficult to find, least of all now in the so-called "Information Age". Does the word "google" have any meaning for you? I mean outside of that funny noise you make with your sippy-cup during "snack-time"?

Sometimes I genuinely how people like you even manage to get online in the first place. Do the orderlies turn on a computer in the rec-room and wheel your chair over to it?

From some your comments, I wouldn't at all be surprised.

You still haven't named one you snotty pompous ass. If Bergolio would murder, get venereal disease, or sire children, you would have a point. But as usual, you don't. And you're too stupid to see the chasm between Bergoglio and ALL of his predecessors.

And as info the hissy fits are not very becoming. You're liable to break a nail typing so much.

...and you call me a lunatic? Oh my stars... Pope Francis is corrupt and he's evil. Nor is he the first pope like this. Do you seriously think Francis' ideology separates his nature from his predecessors? It doesn't. Francis' ideology is a means to an end and that's where your pathetic near-sightedness falls short. The end hasn't changed. Previous corrupt Popes shaped the Vatican and made policy to suit their ends, packed the Curia with their favorites, and so does Francis.

If you want to argue there's a "chasm between Bergoglio and ALL of his predecessors" then it's up to you to prove it. You'd understand that if you had the slightest understanding of how normal people disagree with one another. Maybe you should ask your therapist for guided role-play therapy with one of the other mouth-breathers in your ward.

What a gullible fellow!
You quoted a product of VII, by VII for VII. Written by "2 great historians" in 1988,2002. Just like how every protestant history looks like. Its accusations are very trivial without any base. Every book on History says that the Catholic Church opposed science but only a fool will believe that.
Where did those two authors of yours get that "authentic" info from? Seminary? Sisters? Or University?
Just like all modern books on science push heliocentricism. Please cite a book written by a Catholic.
Catholic history is Catholic history. VII history is VII history. Protestant history is protestant History. Now cite a pre-VII book (when VII had not started dealing with gullible people).

What about Honorius?

You can continue your history reading at www.history.com/news/vatican-archive…

"What a gullible fellow! You quoted a product of VII, by VII for VII. Written by "2 great historians" in 1988,2002."

Speaking of gullibility, you're making a Genetic Fallacy. If Martin Luther said 1+1=2, it isn't false because he's a protestant heretic. If you wish to argue an author's claims are false, it's YOUR job to prove that.

"Please cite a book written by a Catholic."
Better still, why don't I quote a Catholic, a Doctor of The Church, and an actual Saint as well? Oh, that's right I already did. Check the condemnations Saint Peter Damian issued against Benedict IX.

"Every book on History says that the Catholic Church opposed science but only a fool will believe that."

...including a "fool" named Gallileo and the other "fools" who apologized 350 years later, particularly the "fool" who later became a Saint in the Chruch.

www.nytimes.com/…/after-350-years…

Your move, punk. :)

So nytimes is your authority?
VII apologised. The Catholic Church can never apologise to falsehood. Galileo, was wrong, VII only wanted to paint the Church as fallible.
St. Robert Bellarmine in the trial of Galileo pronounced that to say that the sun is in the center of the universe and that the earth moves round the sun is to say that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
"Saint Peter Damian issued against Benedict IX"? Link to a book? I will gladly use ctrl + F. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes .

"If Martin Luther said 1+1=2"? Its just like saying that the devil is not a liar because he can pronounce 'a b c'

So you believe the Church opposed science? What definition do you give the Church? Have you heard of 1. St. Albert the great Scientist?
2. Christopher Columbus
3. Well science is not to oppose the Church. science is what it takes to build a Church: The Gold smiths, the carpenters, the Stone layers, the engravers. That is pure science.
4. What the Church was against was alchymy.
5. Do you know what it takes to cast a sword or a shield? The swift chariots and carriages. Having very strong wheels! :)
6. Papal physician. You can trace them down from Pope Pius XII. :)

VII apologized to:
1. Galileo
2. Martin Luther
3. Homosexuals
4. Demons (Psalm 95:5)

"VII apologised. The Catholic can never apologise to falsehood."

No. This happened after VII. The Roman Catholic Church apologized.

"Galileo, was wrong"

You really, really, really need some scientific support for that claim. :D

"If Martin Luther said 1+1=2"? Its just like saying that the devil is not a liar because he can pronounce 'a b c'

False analogy. Pronunciation is not a declarative statement. With proper training a parrot can pronouce human words.

"So you believe the Church opposed science? What definition do you give the Church?"

What definition do you give science? I can say the Church Herself belives She opposed science, otherwise no apology would be given posthumously to the scientist Gallileo.

"What the Church was against was alchymy."

Galllileo was discussing astronomy not alchemy.

"Do you know what it takes to cast a sword or a shield?"

As a matter of fact, I do and a forged sword is stronger than a cast one. God Himself knows why you raised that but...

blog.cmworks.com/forging-vs-cast…

www.forging.org/…/Fatigue.pdf

"Saint Peter Damian issued against Benedict IX"? Link to a book? I will gladly use ctrl + F.

Done.

The Sword and the Green Cross by Max J. Ellul AuthorHouse (February 2, 2011) ISBN-10: 145671421X

www.google.com/search

First entry.
Here is a screen cap from Google

"No. This happened after VII. The Roman Catholic Church apologized."? Exactly! Because VII a counter Church. Pay at least a little heed to prophecies.

"False analogy. Pronunciation is not a declarative statement. With proper training a parrot can pronouce human words."? Matthew 4:6.

"I can say the Church Herself belives She opposed science"? VII only wanted to paint the Church as fallible. VII apologised and not The Catholic Church (Traditional Catholic Church).

"Galllileo was discussing astronomy not alchemy."? But he was challenging a great number of truths in the Bible that proves Geocentricism.
One mark of the Church is to fight errors!

"God Himself knows why you raised that but"? Forging a sword required less skill than casting. The mould, liquefaction of the metal at a very high temperature. Take bells as another example. The also forged swords.

"Max J. Ellul"? VII historian indeed! He used the first paragraph to condemn true and faithful popes. Why then was Sylvester III chosen while Benedict IX was a valid pope?

"You really, really, really need some scientific support for that claim."?. I have supports. By the way, the Bible has all the answers already which I would be very happy to share with you.

And again. Max J. Ellul is a shallow historian (he read from the wrong source. Same accusations from prots.). Shallow historians always make baseless attacks on the Church. He has got you to believe the crusades were evil?

"Because VII a counter Church."

That is heresy.

"Matthew 4:6"

Irrelevant to the logical fallacy you are making.

"VII apologised and not The Catholic Church (Traditional Catholic Church)."

There is only one Catholic Church. Vatican Council II happened within it. The Church did not split after Vatican Council II. The apology was made by the Pope himself, a Pope who is now a Saint.

"But he was challenging a great number of truths in the Bible that proves Geocentricism."

"proves Geocentrism"??? You seriously still believe the sun orbits the earth and not the reverse? That is insane. I am not sure I should laugh or cry.

"One mark of the Church is to fight errors!"

None yet shown from Galileo.

"Forging a sword required less skill than casting."

Check your world history. Casting was discovered first for a reason. Still no explanation given why casting vs. forging is relevant. At this point I am certain I do not want to know.

"Max J. Ellul"? VII historian indeed! He used the first paragraph to condemn true and faithful popes.

Ellul was quoting a Catholic Saint and Doctor of The Church, who is also quoted in several other books in the link I supplied.

Also, you are making the same mistake: complaining about the origin of information does not disprove the information itself.

This is what you are doing:

1.) You demand proof
2.) I supply the proof you demanded
3.) You complain about the source of the proof instead of refuting the proof itself. "It is VII, Lutheran, etc."
...then...
4.) You change the subject like so.

"Why then was Sylvester III chosen while Benedict IX was a valid pope?"

I am not going to allow that again. It is dishonest of you and unfair to me.

You demanded a citation from a Catholic against Benedict IX.

I gave you one from Saint Peter Damian who condemned Benedict IX.

You demanded a link to a book showing Saint Peter Damian truly said this about Benedict IX..

Your exact words:
"Saint Peter Damian issued against Benedict IX"? Link to a book? I will gladly use ctrl + F."

I gave you a link to a book, including full publication data and even a screen shot from the book itself.

I also gave you a link that brings you to several more books with the same information.

The claim is proven. Enough is enough.