Bad Popes..Pulp Fiction...Yea though I walk

[Nine_Two]

I think he might mean the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which was the list of banned (prohibited) books from the Vatican. Pope Paul VI abolished it if I remember correctly.

That is exactly what I meant.

 

[AbideWithMe]

First, thank you to everyone who posted on this thread.

But, hmm…My specific concerns aren’t really being addressed, and I know part of that is due to not expressing them more clearly myself. I’ve heard all these apologetic efforts before, and I don’t mean to dismiss them, but the issue in my mind (which I’m apparently not getting across well) isn’t due to a confusion of infallibility with impeccability. I understand the difference.

I still don’t know at this point how to make myself more clear so that my questions can be addressed in an academic manner (simply laying on the table the plain facts of history so far as we have them) moreso than an apologetics manner.

I’ll try to think up a way to form my questions that will be more likely to turn up the information that I’m looking for.

 

[CopticChristian]

First, thank you to everyone who posted on this thread.

But, hmm…My specific concerns aren’t really being addressed, and I know part of that is due to not expressing them more clearly myself. I’ve heard all these apologetic efforts before, and I don’t mean to dismiss them, but the issue in my mind (which I’m apparently not getting across well) isn’t due to a confusion of infallibility with impeccability. I understand the difference.

I still don’t know at this point how to make myself more clear so that my questions can be addressed in an academic manner (simply laying on the table the plain facts of history so far as we have them) moreso than an apologetics manner.

I’ll try to think up a way to form my questions that will be more likely to turn up the information that I’m looking for.

Abide,

The Kingdom of David is the foreunner of the Kingdom of God…and in spite of bad leadership the Kingdom lasted a long time…and it was never the Kingdom of the earthly Kings…it was under the guidance of God for as you have expressed you believe in God’s chosen people…will these evil doers never learn as they eat up my people as they eat bread…it is God’s creation and there are those that do good and those that do evil…it is His Church and even the bad Popes could not change the course of the OHCAC…

After the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided. Ten tribes formed the Northern Kingdom, called Israel; Judah and Benjamin formed the Southern Kingdom, called Judah. The date of the division of the kingdom is approximately 931 B.C. The following dates are approximate, due to overlapping reigns, associated sovereignty, intervals of anarchy and parts of years referred to as full years. Some of the reigns were, in part, concurrent. All the kings of Israel practiced idolatry; the worst served Baal. Many of the kings of Judah served idols; few served Jehovah faithfully. Some bad kings were partly good; some good kings partly bad. The kings, the approximate dates of their reigns and their dispositions are listed below:

KINGS OF ISRAEL:
Jeroboam, bad, 930-909 B.C.
Nadab, bad, 909-908 B.C.
Baasha, bad, 908-886 B.C.
Elah, bad, 886-885 B.C.
Zimri, bad, 885 B.C.
Tibni, bad, 885-880 B.C.
Omri (overlap), extra bad, 885-874 B.C.
Ahab, the worst, 874-853 B.C.
Ahaziah, bad, 853-852 B.C.
Joram, bad mostly, 852-841 B.C.
Jehu, not good but better than the rest, 841-814 B.C.
Jehoahaz, bad, 814-798 B.C.
Joash, bad, 798-782 B.C.
Jeroboam II (overlap), bad, 793-753 B.C.
Zechariah, bad, 753 B.C.
Shallum, bad, 752 B.C.
Menahem, bad, 752-742 B.C.
Pekahiah, bad, 742-740 B.C.
Pekah (overlap), bad, 752-732 B.C.
Hoshea, bad, 732-722 B.C.

KINGS OF JUDAH:
Rehoboam, bad mostly, 933-916 B.C.
Abijah, bad mostly, 915-913 B.C.
Asa, GOOD, 912-872 B.C.
Jehoshaphat, GOOD, 874-850 B.C.
Jehoram, bad, 850-843 B.C.
Ahaziah, bad, 843 B.C.
Athaliah, devilish, 843-837 B.C.
Joash, good mostly, 843-803 B.C.
Amaziah, good mostly, 803-775 B.C.
Uzziah, GOOD mostly, 787-735 B.C.
Jotham, GOOD, 749-734 B.C.
Ahaz, wicked, 741-726 B.C.
Hezekiah, THE BEST, 726-697 B.C.
Manasseh, the worst, 697-642 B.C.
Amon, the worst, 641-640 B.C.
Josiah, THE BEST, 639-608 B.C.
Jehoahaz, bad, 608 B.C.
Jehoiakim, wicked, 608-597 B.C.
Jehoiachin, bad, 597 B.C.
Zedekiah, bad, 597-586 B.C.

 

[tarboy]

I don’t find this response accetable for apologetics. You can’t argue,** because there might be some error**, we get to ignore all the available evidence that is negative. All efforts at history must deal with bias somehow (solid accounts of history cross refernece their work).

Denial does nothing but fuel Protestant criticism.

The problem with the Renaissance Papacy (I did actually write an essay on them, 4000 words!) is that the knowledge we have of them comes from their enemies, not from them themselves. Therefore the historicity of some of the claims can be challenged, no doubt they were bad but exactly how bad? The historical evidence being so unreliable makes it incredibly hard to ascertain.

Pope Alexander VI for example, most of the sources we have on him are wrote by his opponents, and those that really did not like the Spaniard. So some of the accusations may be false, but we can never know.

 

[Marybeloved]

Probably one of the most important distinctions I have learned on this forum is the difference between the Pope being an infallible man that could make human mistakes vs the Holy Spirit PREVENTING him from making an error that will harm the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Here they are in all their glory…lets have at em…did they change Doctrine? Did we have 12 sacraments and now 7, Mary Worship, Idol worship and now fixed, were we Pelagians and they corrected it…what gives here??? Did these Popes change the Church or speak Ex Cathedra against what we have now or what? Will these evildoers never learn…!!!

Pope Stephen VI (896–897)
Pope John XII (955–964)
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048)
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303)
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389)
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503)Pope Leo X (1513–1521)
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534)

Tim Staples on Bad Popes found here…

catholic.com/video/what-about-the-bad-popes

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/newcat.html

I see Evangelicals, Protestants looking at Bad Popes comparing them to the Faith of Peter however did they change the Church or was Christ faithful?

It seems to me that if we as non-Catholics wish to attack those popes who were “bad”, we had best remove the plank from our own eyes.
That said, 2 thoughts:

1. I reject the notion that to disagree with Catholic doctrine is to imply that Christ was not faithful. Christ is always faithful to His Church, the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, and if you wish, the Church Suffering. That human beings are in sin and may misunderstand the message of the Spirit is not an indictment of the Spirit, or Christ’s faithfulness, but instead an indictment of us.
2. The issue for this Lutheran is not whether or not any pope was bad, or even if the Spirit guides Catholics. He certainly does, as He does Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, and others. The issue for me is doctrine, boiled down to one in particular - the issue of the supremacy of the pope.

For the number of “bad” popes there may have been, there are countless good ones, honest Christian men that have served the Church Militant well, and not the least of which the last 2.
I’ve heard it said, and I agree, if one is an orthodox Lutheran, one must everyday wake up and question the reasons why not be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I’ve stated mine, and pray for the day when that problem is removed. If the reason was because there had been bad popes, then counting the number of bad leaders in all communions, including Lutheranism, would leave me churchless.
Jon

 

[pablope]

It seems to me that if we as non-Catholics wish to attack those popes who were “bad”, we had best remove the plank from our own eyes.

That said, 2 thoughts:

1. I reject the notion that to disagree with Catholic doctrine is to imply that Christ was not faithful. Christ is always faithful to His Church, the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, and if you wish, the Church Suffering. That human beings are in sin and may misunderstand the message of the Spirit is not an indictment of the Spirit, or Christ’s faithfulness, but instead an indictment of us.
2. The issue for this Lutheran is not whether or not any pope was bad, or even if the Spirit guides Catholics. He certainly does, as He does Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, and others. The issue for me is doctrine, boiled down to one in particular - the issue of the supremacy of the pope.

For the number of “bad” popes there may have been, there are countless good ones, honest Christian men that have served the Church Militant well, and not the least of which the last 2.
I’ve heard it said, and I agree, if one is an orthodox Lutheran, one must everyday wake up and question the reasons why not be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I’ve stated mine, and pray for the day when that problem is removed. If the reason was because there had been bad popes, then counting the number of bad leaders in all communions, including Lutheranism, would leave me churchless.
Jon

:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

Well put…Jon…I just wished more protestant would share your view…that one must look beyond the person/s…

 

[latingirl]

John XII was the one who was so bad they prayed for his death.

I think the one about the pope who toasted the Euchairstic chalice to Satan is a myth. It was supposedly Leo X but it has been disproven.

Jesus had 12 apostles and out of them, 1 was Judas, and out of 265 popes you’d had 20 or so nasty ones. And mathematically speaking, those are good odds.

 

[Skeptic92]

I don’t find this response accetable for apologetics. You can’t argue,** because there might be some error**, we get to ignore all the available evidence that is negative. All efforts at history must deal with bias somehow (solid accounts of history cross refernece their work).

Denial does nothing but fuel Protestant criticism.

I come from an academic background, we have been instructed by our Historical Theology Lecturer (who happens to be Greek Orthodox in faith) to take the sources linking to the actions of the ‘bad popes’ with a pinch of salt. This is due to the obvious bias going against the Pope (who is likely to be long dead by the time of writing of the sources) which renders them unreliable, you may say it doesn’t help for apologetics but it is common sense to anyone within academia.

 

[Radical]

Abide,

The Kingdom of David is the foreunner of the Kingdom of God…and in spite of bad leadership the Kingdom lasted a long time…

and that kingdom was divided and taken away from the line of those sinful kings…if this is your precedent for the alleged successors of Peter, then one should expect the chair of Peter to have been taken from Rome long, long ago.

…and it was never the Kingdom of the earthly Kings…

this also seems to argue against an earthly king sitting in Rome

…it is God’s creation and there are those that do good and those that do evil…

and no one claimed infallibility for that line of Jewish kings…if this is your precedent for a claim of infallibility for the Pope (that God will not take from the office no matter what), then you should be able to easily see how poor a precedent it is…it seems to be a better precedent for those who would argue that, if such of gift of infallibility was granted to the office of the bishop of Rome, then surely an all righteous God would have revoked that gift (given the immorality of a number of Popes).

 

[Radical]

It seems to me that if we as non-Catholics wish to attack those popes who were “bad”, we had best remove the plank from our own eyes.

well, only if we claim that we possess infallibility whilst we sin wantonly

That said, 2 thoughts:

1. I reject the notion that to disagree with Catholic doctrine is to imply that Christ was not faithful. Christ is always faithful to His Church, the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, and if you wish, the Church Suffering.

yes, the Catholics might have a point if Jesus had made a distinction between impeccability and infallibility in the key verses. It seems extraordinarily disingenuous to claim that the Church can have the most corrupt leadership imaginable but, if it can still be somehow said that no error was officially taught, then the gates of hell have not prevailed against that Church….as if Christ’s proclamation to the world was, “All that really counts is what my Church (officially) says. That is how I will judge who has prevailed.”

1. The issue for this Lutheran is not whether or not any pope was bad, or even if the Spirit guides Catholics. He certainly does, as He does Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, and others. The issue for me is doctrine, boiled down to one in particular - the issue of the supremacy of the pope.

I think for this thread the issue is: would God allow the charism of infallibility to continue in an office that remained corrupt for so long and to such a degree.

 

[Skeptic92]

and that kingdom was divided and taken away from the line of those sinful kings…if this is your precedent for the alleged successors of Peter, then one should expect the chair of Peter to have been taken from Rome long, long ago.

this also seems to argue against an earthly king sitting in Rome

and no one claimed infallibility for that line of Jewish kings…if this is your precedent for a claim of infallibility for the Pope (that God will not take from the office no matter what), then you should be able to easily see how poor a precedent it is…it seems to be a better precedent for those who would argue that, if such of gift of infallibility was granted to the office of the bishop of Rome, then surely an all righteous God would have revoked that gift (given the immorality of a number of Popes).

The infallbility comes from another stretch of Scripture, Isaias 22:22, Matthew 16:15-20 (especially this), Timothy 3:15, and the Pharisaic Seat of Moses (which Christ never spoke against, he spoke against the practices of the Pharisees, but never their teachings, he infact commended his Apostles and disciples to follow what they say, as they speak with the authority of moses; Matt 23:1-5).

To the question above, I refer to Matt 23:1-5, men so heavily criticized by Christ, yet they held the authority to teach from the Seat of Moses and what they taught from that seat was deemed to be authoritative. Why could this not apply to the Papacy?

 

[Radical]

The problem with the Renaissance Papacy (I did actually write an essay on them, 4000 words!) is that the knowledge we have of them comes from their enemies, not from them themselves. Therefore the historicity of some of the claims can be challenged, no doubt they were bad but exactly how bad?

whether they earned a 9/10 on the evil scale or only merited a 7/10 makes little difference…in Titus and 1 Tim the requirements of a bishop are set out. The fellow is to be blameless. In selecting and then tolerating the bad Popes the hierarchy of the CC completely disregarded what God required…as such, why should we believe that the charism of infallibility (if such was ever attached to the office of the Pope by God) would have been left with that office by God?

 

[Radical]

To the question above, I refer to Matt 23:1-5, men so heavily criticized by Christ, yet they held the authority to teach from the Seat of Moses and what they taught from that seat was deemed to be authoritative. Why could this not apply to the Papacy?

I must go to dinner…pastor’s wife’s birthday…the big 5-OOOO…but before I go, this little article nicely sums up the uncertainty that surrounds the proper interpretation of Matt 23: 2-3…that is a pretty shaky foundation for such a lofty ediface (of infallibility)

 

[JonNC]

=Radical;9243434] well, only if we claim that we possess infallibility whilst we sin wantonly

I’m not willing to make the distinction, as the plank in my eye gets in the way.

yes, the Catholics might have a point if Jesus had made a distinction between impeccability and infallibility in the key verses. It seems extraordinarily disingenuous to claim that the Church can have the most corrupt leadership imaginable but, if it can still be somehow said that no error was officially taught, then the gates of hell have not prevailed against that Church….as if Christ’s proclamation to the world was, “All that really counts is what my Church (officially) says. That is how I will judge who has prevailed.”

Not sure that’s exactly how I meant it.

I think for this thread the issue is: would God allow the charism of infallibility to continue in an office that remained corrupt for so long and to such a degree.

I think that is exactly the OP’s point; that regardless of the corruption, the Spirit continued to protect the teaching of the Church. I don’t know, it kind of sounds like a quote from an obscure Augustinian friar which pops up here occasionally: No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?
And I think there’s a legitimate parallel and truth here, that while sin often gets in the way, His grace and promise remain true.

Jon

 

[Skeptic92]

I must go to dinner…pastor’s wife’s birthday…the big 5-OOOO…but before I go, this little article nicely sums up the uncertainty that surrounds the proper interpretation of Matt 23: 2-3…that is a pretty shaky foundation for such a lofty ediface (of infallibility)

As I stated it’s not the only foundation, there is evidence in Patristic writings, and other biblical verses (some of which I cited, but I am short on time, Aristotle Lecture tomorrow ). I am unsure of the major scholarly opinion on Matthew 23, I would have to read through some old journals once I have the time. This may take some time though, as writing on Aristotles Politics takes precedence, although I have given that Article a read (I checked the Journal as well, and it’s reputable for anyone concerned) and it is interesting, I will read further as soon as possible .

 

[robwar]

whether they earned a 9/10 on the evil scale or only merited a 7/10 makes little difference…in Titus and 1 Tim the requirements of a bishop are set out. The fellow is to be blameless. In selecting and then tolerating the bad Popes the hierarchy of the CC completely disregarded what God required…as such, why should we believe that the charism of infallibility (if such was ever attached to the office of the Pope by God) would have been left with that office by God?

The problem with this thinking is that Protestant churches don’t following the Titus and 1 Tim completely either and many so called Bible only churches don’t even have any Bishops, they are indepedently run. To reject the papacy because of a few “bad Popes” is again just grasping for straws. An the Catholic Church does follow the requirements set forth in Titus and 1 Tim. They do examine the lives of those that come forward to become priests and deacons. They cannot be married more than once and Deacons which are married, cannot be married again when their current spouse dies. The few Protestant churches that do have an ordained bishops have women and homosexuals and clearly do not follow the Bible in Titus and 1 Tim. If you are rejecting the papacy based on some very bad Pope from over 500 years ago, you are setting up straw men to knock them down and justify your position. Remember Jesus did pick Judas. There have been scandals and problems in the Protestant world too. Does that mean that mean that they should not have been ordained? Did who ever picked them not follow Titus and 1 Tim? This argument is inconsistant and doesn’t really hold any water.

 

[CopticChristian]

I must go to dinner…pastor’s wife’s birthday…the big 5-OOOO…but before I go, this little article nicely sums up the uncertainty that surrounds the proper interpretation of Matt 23: 2-3…that is a pretty shaky foundation for such a lofty ediface (of infallibility)

Radical,

Missed you. That nice little article says study over the past 200 years. I suspect that it should yield little looking back over that much time. On the other hand I suggest that John Chrysostom has a better handle on this…looking back closer to the time of Christ found here…

newadvent.org/fathers/200172.htm

But here He is discoursing about their life and morals, since this was chiefly the cause of their unbelief, their depraved life, and the love of glory. To amend therefore His hearers; that which in the first place most contributes to salvation, not to despise our teachers, neither to rise up against our priests, this does He command with superabundant earnestness. But He does not only command it, but also Himself does it. For though they were depraved, He does not depose them from their dignity; to them rendering their condemnation heavier, and to His disciples leaving no cloke for disobedience.

I mean, that lest any one should say, that because my teacher is bad, therefore am I become more remiss, He takes away even this pretext. So much at any rate did He establish their authority, although they were wicked men, as even after so heavy an accusation to say, All whatsoever they command you to do, do. For they speak not their own words, but God’s, what He appointed for laws by Moses.

I would weigh your little article as Christianity light 90 Calories and Chrysostom Heavy Weight and filling…

 

[pablope]

well, only if we claim that we possess infallibility whilst we sin wantonly

yes, the Catholics might have a point if Jesus had made a distinction between impeccability and infallibility in the key verses. It seems extraordinarily disingenuous to claim that the Church can have the most corrupt leadership imaginable but, if it can still be somehow said that no error was officially taught, then the gates of hell have not prevailed against that Church….as if Christ’s proclamation to the world was, “All that really counts is what my Church (officially) says. That is how I will judge who has prevailed.”

I think for this thread the issue is: would God allow the charism of infallibility to continue in an office that remained corrupt for so long and to such a degree.

Why so? So…seems you do not have faith in the words of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail…and so your doubts?

Or it is not that you have no faith in the words of Christ…but I sense just a innate hatred in all your posts with regards the Catholic Church…well, if not the Catholic Church…at catholics?

 

[Marybeloved]

Radical,

Missed you. That nice little article says study over the past 200 years. I suspect that it should yield little looking back over that much time. On the other hand I suggest that John Chrysostom has a better handle on this…looking back closer to the time of Christ found here…

newadvent.org/fathers/200172.htm

I would weigh your little article as Christianity light 90 Calories and Chrysostom Heavy Weight and filling…

Radical wants to know where Christ made the distinction between infallibility and impeccability when it’s right in the Gospels! “Do as they say but not as they do, for they occupy the seat of Moses”. Seems simple, clear and direct!