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

[stewstew03]

Stewstew—

My response to latingirl was mostly because of this sentence in her first paragraph: “Anyone who uses bad popes and bad people in the hierarchy as an excuse to question the truth of Catholicism and to be Protestant is fooling themselves.”

I don’t see the irony in my response to her. I’m here as one of a relatively small number of non-Catholics on a Catholic forum, hoping to talk in good faith about a thorny subject. I’m already well aware that this subject is going to be difficult to discuss in a way that doesn’t make both sides defensive. Coptic started this thread out of good will to be a place for non-Catholics such as myself to air their concerns and reservations regarding this subject, so I assume.

For me, already hesitant to try to talk about this because of the sensitivity of both parties over this subject, latingirl’s post is a big conversation squelcher. Why would I want to try to dialogue with someone who thinks we non-Catholics who stumble over the “bad popes” are making excuses and fooling ourselves? Instead of coming to the discussion table as fellows, assuming the good faith and integrity of the other side, her post makes me feel like we non-Catholics are already suspected of excuse-making and self-deception.

If you want point out where you see irony in my response to latingirl, please do and I’ll apologize gladly.

Well, first of all, it’s obvious to me that latingirl was not trying to squelch conversation, she was merely weighing in on the topic. Her basic argument is that protestants are in no position to judge the Church as evil and then run to their churches as if their pastors are without sin. That’s a valid point. And then, she throws protestants a bone by saying…

I’m not saying evil in Protestant leadership shouldn’t be used to devalue the whole Protestant religion either.

So she acknowledges that all churches (protestant AND Catholic) are full of sinners, and that we should not let the behavior of human beings be the standard by which we judge Christ’s truth.

Your comment to her was intended to squelch her view (by calling it unhelpful) while at the same time extolling the virtues of a free and open discussion; hence, the irony.

 

[stewstew03]

Really? Tell us the distinction between Christ teachings and the CC’s teachings.

Why you are at it,please tell us the difference between Christ teachings and the array of flavors of Protestanism?

Radical… if you want, you can respond to Nicea’s post and mine in one response.

 

[Radical]

Again, you’re confusing impeccability and infallibility. I’m not sure there’s anything else I can say to explain that point to you.

I am not confusing the two…this is not a sophisticated argument that I am presenting. It is exceedingly simple. Here it is once again (but now in point form to make it easier to grasp):

1. Infallibility would absolutely require God’s presence
2. scriptures clearly teach that righteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with that person and that unrighteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not with that person
3. a number of Popes were very unrighteous
4. given 1-3, one would not expect the Holy Spirt to be with those corrupt Popes
5. since the Holy Spirit was not with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were impeccable) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were infallible)
6. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

yes, impeccability and infallibility are two different things, but they absolutely require the same source: the Holy Spirit. IMHO it is point #5 that you should be engaging by doing more than claiming that I am confusing impeccability with infallibility. Someone else had made a somewhat relevant point by pointing out that David and Solomon (both sinful, but to differing degrees) were used by God to write infallibly. The problems with that line of reasoning include:

1. there is no reason to believe that either was used in that way during a period of unrighteousness (so they are not evidence that the HS was present to ensure infallibility w/o ensuring righteousness at the exact same time)
2. neither were vested with an office of infallible teacher such that one could hope to use them as an example of the gift of infallibilty remaining with an office notwithstanding the unrighteousness of string of officers.

Radical, as I’m sure you know, assuming you are a Christ follower - there is no distinction between Christ’s teachings and the Church’s teachings. The Church, after all, is Christ’s Bride.

hmm…I also distinguish between the Church and the Catholic Church…how is it that you do not already understand that the distinctions that I make would be made by virtually every Protestant?

 

[CopticChristian]

I am not confusing the two…this is not a sophisticated argument that I am presenting. It is exceedingly simple. Here it is once again (but now in point form to make it easier to grasp):

1. Infallibility would absolutely require God’s presence
2. scriptures clearly teach that righteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with that person and that unrighteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not with that person
3. a number of Popes were very unrighteous
4. given 1-3, one would not expect the Holy Spirt to be with those corrupt Popes
5. since the Holy Spirit was not with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were impeccable) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were infallible)
6. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

yes, impeccability and infallibility are two different things, but they absolutely require the same source: the Holy Spirit. IMHO it is point #5 that you should be engaging by doing more than claiming that I am confusing impeccability with infallibility. Someone else had made a somewhat relevant point by pointing out that David and Solomon (both sinful, but to differing degrees) were used by God to write infallibly. The problems with that line of reasoning include:

1. there is no reason to believe that either was used in that way during a period of unrighteousness (so they are not evidence that the HS was present to ensure infallibility w/o ensuring righteousness at the exact same time)
2. neither were vested with an office of infallible teacher such that one could hope to use them as an example of the gift of infallibilty remaining with an office notwithstanding the unrighteousness of string of officers.

hmm…I also distinguish between the Church and the Catholic Church…how is it that you do not already understand that the distinctions that I make would be made by virtually every Protestant?

Radical,

I accept your premise. The question is did the bad Popes in any way invoke infallibility concerning Faith and Morals as teachings not by action.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Well, first of all, it’s obvious to me that latingirl was not trying to squelch conversation, she was merely weighing in on the topic. Her basic argument is that protestants are in no position to judge the Church as evil and then run to their churches as if their pastors are without sin. That’s a valid point. And then, she throws protestants a bone by saying…

So she acknowledges that all churches (protestant AND Catholic) are full of sinners, and that we should not let the behavior of human beings be the standard by which we judge Christ’s truth.

Your comment to her was intended to squelch her view (by calling it unhelpful) while at the same time extolling the virtues of a free and open discussion; hence, the irony.

Okay, Stewstew, I see why my response to latingirl seemed ironic to you.

I wasn’t intending to squelch her view. I was giving feedback about how part of her post might feel–unhelpful–to a non-Catholic on a Catholic forum hoping to dispassionately discuss a difficult subject.

I could have picked out that particular sentence (the one I later quoted to you) to be more clear about the reason for my feedback. My apologies to latingirl for not being more clear.

 

[stewstew03]

I am not confusing the two…this is not a sophisticated argument that I am presenting. It is exceedingly simple. Here it is once again (but now in point form to make it easier to grasp):

Radical, if it makes you “feel” better to adopt a condescending tone then I’m willing to look past it, as long as your self-esteem serves as the beneficiary.

Now, you say your argument lacks sophistication, and I happen to agree. However, I do like your “point” format so I’ll adopt the same:

1. Your perception of the pope is that he is some sort of autocrat - he is not. I’ve explained this to you before but what is obvious to me is that you are unable to understand certain ideas and principles from a Catholic perspective. I’ve noticed this same pattern on other threads where you have participated in discussions with my Catholic brethren, many of whom have protestant backgrounds - including myself.

Side note: the ability to see things from another’s viewpoint is known in the social/behavioral sciences as “perspective-taking.” This cognitive ability allows humans to relate to the needs and interests of others. Studies involving children have shown that those who lack perspective-taking tend to be self-centered and unable to reason with their peers. As you can imagine, this lack of social competence is not an endearing quality and causes acrimony in the classroom… but I digress.

1. You misunderstand infallibility as attaching to the Pope personally; but as I’ve tried to explain, this is a quality that attaches to the office, not the person. What’s more, infallibility is only relevant when teaching on faith and morals. When I say, “you’re confusing impeccability with infallibility” it’s because you’re actually confusing impeccability with infallibility. (See side note, supra, regarding perspective-taking).
2. Professor Robert Brown once wrote: if papal infallibility is impossible then so is paper infallibility [paraphrased]. In other words, how can one reject the idea of papal infallibility yet defend the possibility that the bible is infallible - written by fallible men, translated by fallible men, canonized by fallible men, etc.
3. St. Peter denied Christ three times. Hopefully you and I can agree that the blessed apostle was still eligible to receive (and did receive) the gift of the Holy Spirit.
4. Finally, I’ll leave you with the words of James Cardinal Gibbons:

"If God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? For would it not be most unreasonable of Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving him a means of ascertaining its precise import? …You tell me to drink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in passing through the medium of your interpretation…

According to the Church, Christ says to every Christian: Here, my child, is the Word of God, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who will expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its difficulties. Here are the waters of eternal life, but I have created a channel that will communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without sediment of error.

Here is the written Constitution of our Church [the Bible]. …I have appointed over it a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one `to whom I have given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’ who will preserve that Constitution inviolate, and will not permit it to be torn to shreds by the conflicting opinions of men. And thus my children will be one, as I and the Father are one."

 

[stewstew03]

Okay, Stewstew, I see why my response to latingirl seemed ironic to you.

I wasn’t intending to squelch her view. I was giving feedback about how part of her post might feel–unhelpful–to a non-Catholic on a Catholic forum hoping to dispassionately discuss a difficult subject.

I could have picked out that particular sentence (the one I later quoted to you) to be more clear about the reason for my feedback. My apologies to latingirl for not being more clear.

Abide, perhaps Radical and I (in our back-and-forth) can learn from your humility!

 

[stewstew03]

Radical,

I accept your premise. The question is did the bad Popes in any way invoke infallibility concerning Faith and Morals as teachings not by action.

Going on record to say that I completely reject Radical’s premise; which obviously confuses impeccability with infallibility.

:dts:

 

[Radical]

Stewstew03, I believe that responding to you would be a waste of time…and here is an example as to why:

1. You misunderstand infallibility as attaching to the Pope personally; but as I’ve tried to explain, this is a quality that attaches to the office, not the person.

somehow you arrive at this conclusion even though, in the post that you are addressing I had written;

1. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

…and in a previous post that you had responded to, I had written;
It seems to me that the Catholic Church makes the following claims in this regard:

1. Peter was the first to occupy the office of the Pope (an office created by Christ himself)…while I hardly agree that such was the case, we can leave this assertion aside b/c the corrupt Popes are not used to challenge this particular claim;
2. The office of the Pope was invested with a unique spiritual gift of infallibility;
3. The office (automatically?) vested in the bishopric at the location nearest to Peter’s place of death (which, by tradition, occurred at Rome) and then is forever passed on to the successors of that office notwithstanding that in quite a number of instances the successors to that office a) were appointed with absolute disregard for God’s requirements for the office of overseer; and b) were particularly unrighteous fellows.

notwithstanding my repeated references to the gift attaching to the office, you still felt the need to clarify “but as I’ve tried to explain, this is a quality that attaches to the office, not the person.” It doesn’t matter if you are wilfully ignoring my clear assertions or if you are somehow incapable of grasping my clear assertions (I doubt that it is the latter)…either way a further response would be a waste of time

 

[robwar]

Oh, Lutheran synods around the world have denounced Luther’s anti-jewish statements. Make no mistake, modern Lutherans and Catholics stand together in the rejection of anti-judaism and anti-semitism.

Jon

That is good to here. I stand corrected. Except for Detrick Bonhoffer, there seemed to be little Lutheran opposition to Hitler at the time he rose to power in Germany. Now maybe it is under reported but there was much more from the Catholics in Germany and the current Pope is a product of that with his father being opposed to Hitler. Learning about what Luther wrote about Jews was one of the many steps in becoming Catholic. I can’t trust or believe in someone that can write that evil ugly hate about Jews. Once I rejected Luther, what the Catholic church teaches and had looked a whole lot better.

 

[robwar]

Robwar—

Yes, that’s of some help, especially the paragraph about the changes in the election of the popes. That might be an interesting subject to delve further into at some point.

The part about Protestants seeing Peter’s confession as the rock of Matthew 16 is more complicated. The discussion on this thread, as far as my my involvement in it, started on Coptic’s earlier thread “Protestants Declare Peter is the Rock, Rock On”. Another poster brought out the fact that a good number of early Christian writers, including some ECF’s, wrote that Peter’s faith or confession was the rock of Matthew 16. We had some helpful discussion on that thread, and I’m thinking my questions could be answered less confusingly, and in more detail, on thread.

The earliest writers such as St. Ireanas did not teach that Jesus was talking about confession. It was always Peter himself. The wikipedia link about Popes gave a very good analysis about how Popes are elected or chosen and how that has changed through the years and been reformed. Since it is neutral (not either Catholic or Protestant) I think you would find it helpful. Obviously with reforms since the time of the reformation, we have not seen the immoral styled Popes like those already listed. Again Matt 16 has always been taught about Peter himself. If someone posted that early writers taught otherwise, they should quote them instead of making a general statements. keep the conversation going!

 

[stewstew03]

Stewstew03, I believe that responding to you would be a waste of time…and here is an example as to why:

somehow you arrive at this conclusion even though, in the post that you are addressing I had written;

1. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

…and in a previous post that you had responded to, I had written;
It seems to me that the Catholic Church makes the following claims in this regard:

1. Peter was the first to occupy the office of the Pope (an office created by Christ himself)…while I hardly agree that such was the case, we can leave this assertion aside b/c the corrupt Popes are not used to challenge this particular claim;
2. The office of the Pope was invested with a unique spiritual gift of infallibility;
3. The office (automatically?) vested in the bishopric at the location nearest to Peter’s place of death (which, by tradition, occurred at Rome) and then is forever passed on to the successors of that office notwithstanding that in quite a number of instances the successors to that office a) were appointed with absolute disregard for God’s requirements for the office of overseer; and b) were particularly unrighteous fellows.

notwithstanding my repeated references to the gift attaching to the office, you still felt the need to clarify “but as I’ve tried to explain, this is a quality that attaches to the office, not the person.” It doesn’t matter if you are wilfully ignoring my clear assertions or if you are somehow incapable of grasping my clear assertions (I doubt that it is the latter)…either way a further response would be a waste of time

Okay, ad hominem aside, you’ve already acknowledged that a bad pope would have no motivation to change doctrine anyway. So you can’t have it both ways; either the Papal Office and the pope are severable or they are so intertwined that when Satan prevails against one he prevails against the other. You cannot claim

(a) a bad Pope excludes attachment of the Holy Spirit to the Papal Office,

while also claiming

(b) the failure of a bad Pope to change doctrine is not evidence of God protecting the Papal Office because the Pope and the Office are separate and distinct. That is, a bad Pope has no use for the Papal Office because he’s not attempting to change doctrine anyway.

As a reminder - infallibility relates to the teaching of faith and morals.

You continue to cite impeccability as evidence of papal infallibility even while holding your breath and stomping your feet and insisting that you’re surrounded by complete idiots who fail to understand your simple argument that for the Papal Office to be infallible it requires evidence of an impeccable Pope. You even said (not once, but twice):

1. . since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

So which is it? Do bad popes indicate the absence of the Holy Spirit from the Papal Office, i.e., if all Popes were good (read: impeccable) it would indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit? Or is the failure (of bad popes) to change doctrine merely an expectation because they didn’t need the Papal Office to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh?

Can the Pope be separated from the Papal Office or not?

 

[pablope]

I am

1. scriptures clearly teach that righteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with that person and that unrighteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not with that person

 

[AbideWithMe]

That is good to here. I stand corrected. Except for Detrick Bonhoffer, there seemed to be little Lutheran opposition to Hitler at the time he rose to power in Germany. Now maybe it is under reported but there was much more from the Catholics in Germany and the current Pope is a product of that with his father being opposed to Hitler. Learning about what Luther wrote about Jews was one of the many steps in becoming Catholic. I can’t trust or believe in someone that can write that evil ugly hate about Jews. Once I rejected Luther, what the Catholic church teaches and had looked a whole lot better.

Robwar—

When, in my early twenties, I first read Luther’s attacks on Jews, I was really disturbed, though I knew before then that he didn’t have an easy personality. I had never idealized the Protestant reformers, so it wasn’t like they fell off a pedestal in my estimation.

But, I have to say that Luther’s attacks were inherited from a very long line of anti-Jewish nastiness running back many centuries before him. He wasn’t saying anything new. My father, now passed away, was raised as a Reform Jew, so out of curiosity and a desire to understand a little of the experiences of my relatives, I read about the very mixed ( sometimes pretty good, sometimes horrific) treatment of Jews by Christians over the long centuries of Christianity. My initial response was perhaps similar to yours but even stronger-I couldn’t attend any church at all for awhile without feeling physically sick.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The earliest writers such as St. Ireanas did not teach that Jesus was talking about confession. It was always Peter himself. The wikipedia link about Popes gave a very good analysis about how Popes are elected or chosen and how that has changed through the years and been reformed. Since it is neutral (not either Catholic or Protestant) I think you would find it helpful. Obviously with reforms since the time of the reformation, we have not seen the immoral styled Popes like those already listed. Again Matt 16 has always been taught about Peter himself. If someone posted that early writers taught otherwise, they should quote them instead of making a general statements. keep the conversation going!

Robwar—

On the thread that spawned this one, some early writers were quoted who wrote of Peter’s confession as the rock, and we started to discuss them and to try to put their quotes in context. So that’s one of the reasons I’m thinking it would be helpful to return to that thread. I know this a hard week for university students with finals, and several knowledgeable posters here have said they’re busy over these few weeks with papers and exams, so I’ll think I’ll wait a bit before going back to that thread. Thanks for your help…I’ll check out that wiki article.

 

[Skeptic92]

Robwar—

On the thread that spawned this one, some early writers were quoted who wrote of Peter’s confession as the rock, and we started to discuss them and to try to put their quotes in context. So that’s one of the reasons I’m thinking it would be helpful to return to that thread. I know this a hard week for university students with finals, and several knowledgeable posters here have said they’re busy over these few weeks with papers and exams, so I’ll think I’ll wait a bit before going back to that thread. Thanks for your help…I’ll check out that wiki article.

This can be a hectic time of the year for those of us about to finish off this year of university. Luckily I only have one Paper left on Aristotle, but it means all of the resources I would like to use for this thread, I currently don’t have, and have reached my limit of the amount of books I can take out from the Library at one time.

I know i will try to chime in when I can, but i don’t like stating something from my own notes, without seeing the original source

 

[stewstew03]

1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”.

It’s interesting - when we have our discussions on Mary, protestants insist that NOT ONE is righteous, including Mary. Yet, here we have a protestant (looking at you Radical) insisting that a man show himself to be righteous before the papal office can be declared infallible.

Notice that Catholics never claim (and never have claimed) that Popes are without sin. It seems if a bad pope really wanted to do some damage, he could just proclaim, as dogma, that Popes can never be condemned as sinners.

 

[Radical]

The question is did the bad Popes in any way invoke infallibility concerning Faith and Morals as teachings not by action.

That would be an interesting question to explore. First, we would have to define who were the bad Popes. Skeptic raised a valid point by saying that we have to consider the prejudice of the reporter in determining the sinfulness of any alleged bad Pope. That, of course, cuts both ways. When the only reports that we have wrt a Pope are from fans/supporters of the Pope/CC , then we might also expect that their sinfulness has been downplayed or eliminated entirely. Also you might recall Pope Martin V from a previous thread …he wrote/taught that nothing could be more agreeable to God than the killing of Hussites. It is also reported that his Bull called for an extermination of the Hussites (among others) and the Council of Siena is reported as calling for much the same. I would count him as a bad Pope (…and I can’t help but note that a Catholic on this thread rightly took issue with Luther’s anti-Semitism…so I assume that Catholic would take issue with Martin’s “anti-Protestantism”). In other words, I think that the candidates for the “bad Pope” label are more numerous than those listed by Catholics on this thread and the rest shouldn’t be considered “good Popes” by default.

Second, what would a bad Pope have done to invoke infallibility concerning Faith and Morals as teachings? The “ex cathedra” thing wasn’t specified at that time so what would a Pope have done to signal that his teaching was forever binding and correct? If I understand the present situation, Catholic scholars cannot agree among themselves as to which Papal declarations should be seen as being “ex cathedra”. That, of course, raises another problem with your assertion that the bad Popes never changed doctrine. Even if a bad Pope went out of his way to corrupt the existing Catholic doctrine and even if He fully intended his effort to be recognized as infallible and forever binding, Catholics today reserve the right to categorize any disagreeable thing as being not an ex-cathedra teaching. In that way the corruption is wiped off the books. Too contrived…to convenient.

 

[Radical]

You even said (not once, but twice):

1. . since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

thanks for catching that…it should have been:

1. . since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

So which is it? Do bad popes indicate the absence of the Holy Spirit from the Papal Office,…

yep…btw what example can you give of the HS attaching to any office…as opposed to the HS indwelling the occupant of that office. You claim this sort of animal exists…do you have any example of such an animal besides the one that you allege exists?

Or is the failure (of bad popes) to change doctrine merely an expectation because they didn’t need the Papal Office to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh?

they used the Papal Office to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh? They didn’t need to change any doctrine in order to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh.

Can the Pope be separated from the Papal Office or not?

yes…in fact any overseer who does not continue to meet the qualifications of an overseer as set out in Titus and 1 Tim should be quickly removed from the office.

 

[JonNC]

That is good to here. I stand corrected. Except for Detrick Bonhoffer, there seemed to be little Lutheran opposition to Hitler at the time he rose to power in Germany. Now maybe it is under reported but there was much more from the Catholics in Germany and the current Pope is a product of that with his father being opposed to Hitler. Learning about what Luther wrote about Jews was one of the many steps in becoming Catholic. I can’t trust or believe in someone that can write that evil ugly hate about Jews. Once I rejected Luther, what the Catholic church teaches and had looked a whole lot better.

If you rejected Lutheranism based on Luther’s anti-judaism, it is hard to see that going to the Catholic Church is much better. Now, to be sure, we are talking about a different era, and it is safe to say that neither communion looks back on those days with pride. But the fact is that Luther’s was not in a vacuum. In fact, early on in his career, he was accused by some Catholics of being a judaizer because he spoke so highly of them. It is a reflection of his time. That’s not an excuse for Luther or Ecke, or the many others. But it does explain it.

As for the Hitler era, I get the impression that Lutherans and Catholics both have been painted with a broad brush regarding their opposition to The Third Reich.

Jon