I'm making it up? Let's find out:
A massive list of copied quotes with a good amount of them having never been verified (both in that you copied, but I expect the person who compiled it did nothing other than copy them themselves). I can say they haven't been verified because if people did, they would realize how some of these are false.
Indeed, I recognize some of these quotes already as false or at least highly dubious, which makes me rather skeptical in trusting anything else from it. Still, for the benefit of others, I feel it would be useful to point out some of the errors here. (I will be including the citations after the quotes, as in the original post they were put at the end and are not included in the quoted text)
Popes have repeatedly claimed to be God:
Pope Pius X declared, “
The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who is speaking, hence, when anyone speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine but to obey.” (7)
(7) Pope Pius X, Evangelical Christendom, Vol. 49, Jan 1. 1895 A.D., p. 15, “the organ of the Evangelical Alliance,” published in London by J. S. Phillips.
So, first off, even if he did say this--and for reasons I will explain, there are considerable reasons to doubt it--it can hardly be an example of a pope claiming to be God, given that this was supposedly said by Giuseppe Sarto in 1894, but he didn't become Pope Pius X until 1903. So even if he did say it, it was not actually stated by a pope.
But did he say it? I have seen the applicable pages from Evangelical Christendom, and offers the quote and indicates the time of it, namely the first sermon after he became Patriarch of Venice, gave that quote in his first sermon, which would have been late 1894. So here we come to the question: Did he say it?
It doesn't seem like the claim of Evangelical Christendom caught much attention in the English world. It only got attention half a year later, when an Old Catholic publication in Switzerland called "Catholique National" had an article in July offering the quote about the pope being Jesus Christ under the veil of flesh (it does not give a source for its claim, and may have actually gotten it from Evangelical Christendom; for those curious, "Old Catholics" were Catholics who broke off from the Catholic Church after the First Vatican Council in 1870). This apparently got noticed by some English Protestants who spread the story. Eventually, an Italian priest heard of it and asked Sarto about it, who denied giving the quote, and suggested that it was a misquote of a homily he gave on the anniversary of the pope's election, where he said "The Pope represents Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving Father." A letter from said priest, including a letter from Sarto himself about it, was sent to and published in the Catholic publication The Tablet on January 18, 1896. Scanned copies of archives of The Tablet are actually available online if you pay a subscription fee, but for those who may wish to see the letter themselves, it was reprinted in a publication of The Catholic Truth Society called "Does the Pope Claim to be God?" which can be viewed here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=NIkQAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA4-PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false
(the link should take you to the direct page, but if you have to find it, it is on page 11 of the specific publication; however, the linked book has several publications within it with their own page numbers, so you have to get to the applicable one, then go to page 11)
Now, I have seen some say that since the anniversary of the pope's election would have been on February 20 of, several months after the Evangelical Christendom article, and therefore could not be the source. So he seems to be incorrect on his guess of where it came from. However, he still denies having said it. It is notable to me that the sources people offer, rather than being direct Italian sources made when the speech was supposedly given, instead come from other countries in other languages more than a month or even more than half a year afterwards.
So this one, while not certainly false, is dubious. These quotes come not from sources in Venice reporting on his sermon, but instead sources in other countries (in other languages, at that) that aren't friendly towards Catholicism to begin with. The person who supposedly made the claim says he didn't. But even if we suppose that he did in fact make the statement in a sermon, what does it show? That in a sermon (hardly an official document), a bishop made a fairly crazy claim about the pope. As far as I am aware, he never was quoted (accurately or not) as saying something that extreme never again, and certainly never did so as pope.
Thus, even if he did say it (which is, as noted, dubious), it ultimately does not provide a case of a pope claiming to be God.
Pope Pius V blasphemed, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” (2)
(2) Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Cities Petrus Bertanous Chapter XXVII: 218.
Another one that clearly has not been checked on, as we can see with the repeated typo of "Cities" rather than "Cites". Remember, everyone: If you see a weird-looking citation that's surprisingly vague, it's normally a sign of a citation that people are just copying without checking.
So let's cut straight to the heart of this one. This claim comes from a work by William Barclay. Page 218 can be seen here:
www.digitale-sammlungen.de
A glance at that shows another error in the citation: It's Petrus Bertrandus who is referred to, not Petrus Bertanous. But, appearing to show more incompetence on the part of the person who wrote the citation, what seems to be the quote in question isn't even on page 218, but page 219: "Non mirum si Io.Gerson dixerit "pusillos", hoc est, Christianos simplices & ignoaros, ab eiusmodi glossatoribus & postillatoribus imperitis deceptos, "aestimare Papam unum Deum qui habet potestatem omnem in caeli & in terra.""
(the original work has the quotations italicized, to try to retain this meaning I put quotation marks around them)
A translation by Google Translate reads: "It is not surprising if Jo. Gerson said that "little ones", that is, simple and ignorant Christians, deceived by such ignorant glossators and postulators, "esteem the Pope as one God who has all power in heaven and on earth."" Take this with a grain of salt, of course; Google Translate has actually gotten substantially better at Latin translations, but still has deficiencies. At any rate, this appears to be the quote in question, or is the only one that seems to match it. I am not sure who this "Io.Gerson" is, but I strongly suspect it was Jean Gerson (with the "Io" being short for Ioannes, the Latin version of his first name).
But we can see that this quote is NOT attributed to Pius V, but Gerson. In fact, I'm not even sure if it's something Gerson actually said, given that unlike other apparent quotations in the work, no citation is given for it, and it is preceded with the word "if" ("si" in Latin). If it was something Gerson said, it should be noted Gerson appears to have been (from some brief research) a proponent of the power of councils against popes; in such a case, he certainly would not have been arguing for such a claim, and rather would be him complaining that people think such a thing.
But whether Gerson said it or not, Barclay doesn't attribute it to Pius V. This appears to be a mix-up because Pius V is mentioned afterwards, but not as the source of the above quote.
So the quote is false; Pius V didn't say it. And the citation is incompetently done too; aside from it falsely claiming Barclay says Pius V said the quote, the citation writes "cities" instead of "cites", misspells Petrus Bertrandus's name, claims that Bertrandus was citing this when the quote (which may have been a hypothetical one by Barclay!) was from someone else, and gets the page number wrong too. I'm curious as to who the originator of this incompetently written citation is... but, like others, it's simply copied uncritically online.
Pope Innocent III said “We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God.” (3)
(3) Decretals of Gregory IX, Bk. 1, Ch. 3
A rather vague citation; the first part of the Decretals is divided into Distinctios which are then divided into Chapters, so this is like giving me the page number of something in the Encyclopedia Britannica but without offering the volume. It's hard to try to look into it for context without that. Since you offered the quote, would you mind showing where it is? The whole thing can be found at
Decretum Gratiani (Kirchenrechtssammlung).
In the meantime, a Catholic did offer this explanation for it:
"The issue about which Pope Innocent III was writing was again the transferring of bishops from diocese to diocese, discussed under the John Foxe pastiche above. The pope is claiming he has the authority to do this not merely as a man and by human authority, but as God's representative. In other words, it's a limited claim, not a universal one. No Catholic should be ashamed of a pope's claim to govern in ecclesial matters with authority entrusted to him by God. That does not make the Pope God; it does not entitle him to worship; it does not take away his humanity; it says nothing more than does Luke 10:16"
Source:
The Truth About Papal Claims to be God
Pope Boniface VIII said “We declare, assert, define and pronounce to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary for salvation… I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all, and above all, so that God Himself and I, the Vicar of Christ, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?” (5)
So the first part, before the ellipsis, is true. The latter, however, is false... laughably false, even. For you see, the first part (prior to the ellipsis) is what Unam Sanctam ends on. How, precisely, can a document end, and then go on to say more? It can't.
Boniface VIII never said that second part, nor did any pope, because it actually comes from John Foxe's work "Acts and Monuments" where he was writing up an essay, presented from the point of view of a pope, which he used to attack Catholicism. It's a combination of Foxe's own remarks, actual quotes or paraphrases from popes, and quotes or paraphrases (often very vaguely cited) from Catholic writers. None of the quoted section, however, traces back to an actual pope. (this quote is actually discussed at the above link, incidentally, though I did verify the above on my own by looking at Foxe's work)
Pope Pius IV said, “The Bible is not for the people; whosoever will be saved must renounce it. It is a forbidden book. Bible societies are satanic contrivances.” (26)
Dare I ask how Pius IV could refer to "bible societies" given that he died centuries before the first organization that called itself a Bible society was founded?
Historians estimate that the Roman Catholic Church caused over 50 million “heretics,” mostly Christians, to be killed during the Dark Ages and Inquisition, because they did not submit to the Papal Church.
Not a quote, but I felt it warranted a note. As far as I can tell, the "historians" in question are not so much historians as "people who wrote polemical works against Catholicism and seized onto high numbers to bolster their arguments".
“All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that he is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” (35)
(35) Robert Bellarmine, On the Authority of Councils, Volume 2: 266.
So this appears to be where you got your claim much earlier in the topic that "Do you realize the papacy claims all the names and titles of Jesus also belong to the pope...so that makes the pope "savior", "the mighty God", "the everlasting Father", etc.?" The problem is that the above quote is not saying that all the names and titles of Jesus also belong to the pope. It says that the names by virtue of which it is established that he is over the church, are applied to the pope. That's far more limited set of names.
Indeed, I was able to consult a translation of the work, and Bellarmine makes it very clear in his work what names he is referring to, as he goes on to talk about them: The names he has in mind are "householder", "shepherd", "head of the Body of the Church", and "husband, or bridegroom". A far cry from names like "savior", "the mighty God", and "the everlasting Father".
“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” (37)
(37) Quoted in the New York Catechism.
Given that you offer this quote, would you be so kind as to show us where this quote can be found in the New York Catechism? Because here's the thing: No one has ever been able to find this mysterious document. Indeed, search for "New York Catechism" online and something like half of the things that come up are people asking what this work is and where someone can find it.
The first person to apparently refer to this New York Catechism is Lorraine Boettner's in his work "Roman Catholicism", which was a book attacking the Catholic Churhc. In Boettner's book he offers several quotes from "the New York Catechism", one of which is the one you quote. But he gives no information on this document at all; he gives no author, no date, or even any page number for his quotations. No one who repeats this claim has ever demonstrated this work exists. Did Boettner make it up? Was he relying uncritically on bad information? Who knows, but why should anyone take this quote seriously when no one has ever been able to prove the work exists to begin with?
“We confess that the Pope has power of changing Scripture and of adding to it, and taking from it according to his will.” (38)
(38) Roman Catholic Confessions for Protestants Oath, Article XI.
The supposed oath, also known as the "Hungarian Oath", is highly dubious in authenticity. This Catholic source talks some about it and offers what seem to me to be reasonable arguments it's a fake:
https://archive.org/details/publicationscat18britgoog/page/n126/mode/2up?view=theater
