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

[Marybeloved]

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.

Good to know. I honestly think that a person who would do that with the chalice and the alter (ESPECIALLY* a Pope!)* would damn himself or at the least open himself up to full blown possession by he devils. I’m glad it’s only a myth.

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.

Actually, I hear it’s significantly less than 20 for the evil Popes. The rest were just weak persons trying their best to live up to an office that is just too big for anyone of them (Yes, even Our Beloved St. Peter) just like all of us in our various callings and vocations. Don’t forget that the other 11 also denied and deserted Christ and were constantly fighting among themselves for power/leadership.

 

[robwar]

Speaking of infallibility, don’t most Protestants believe the Bible is infallible? Yet, some very fallible people wrote a number of the books in our infallible Bible such as King David and Solomon. David wrote many of the Psalms and Solomon has much of Proverbs, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes attributed to him. Yet Solomon “married” 1000 women and fell into idol worship at the end of his life. Yet we have in our infallible Bible, his writing. How can someone like Solomon who fell away from God later in life write for the Bible? Also Fallible people but the cannon of scripture together and decided which books were the “inspired word of God” You can’t have it both ways. You have to go back over 500 years to point to some immoral Pope to try and prove some point that CC is wrong about infallibility, yet say the Bible is infallible when some of it is written by Solomon who left God.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

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

Yes; and both you and I know that God was true to His grace and promise through said Augustinian friar :extrahappy:

 

[robwar]

Hi,
The original list here is 8 so based on how you define it 8 to about 20. Not to quibble but the say the the rest were just weak is not really very fair. Many, especially in the early years were killed in office or thrown in jail. A number of them are saints or on their way to become saints. While 11 did scatter, St. John did end up at the foot of the cross with Jesus and His Mother. We have 3 that are called Great, ( Leo, Gregory and now JP II). We are letting the so called “bad” Popes define it for the rest. We are always seemingly on the defense based on 8 or so Popes. We need to point out that many more through God help were outstanding leaders and teachers and fulfilled what the were called to do. I heard a quote made by a Southern Baptist about JP II that “He was a Pope that knew how to Pope” It’s true. There were many more that “knew how to pope” than not in the 2000 years.

 

[latingirl]

As yes and those in Protestant leadership have always been good, decent godly fellows…that’s laughable!!! Anybody 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. The Protestant churches are just as screwed up.

and I am so sick pf people acting like Martin Luther was a saint. he was an anti-semitic, lustful fleshpot just as bad as some of those popes were! He actually encouraged people to sin and act like little devils and he has the full grace of God? Please.

I don’t know how he is any better than some of those popes. People act like he saved Christianity from the evil of clerical corruption while being corrupt himself and begetting more corruption and politicking in his own church.

I’m not saying evil in Protestant leadership shouldn’t be used to devalue the whole Protestant religion either. What I’m saying is Protestantism has just as much evil in it as the Catholic Church. As I often say “The Reformation only moved the same crud into a different church”

Until we realize we are all full of crud and try to work on cleaning that out, we shouldn’t be talking.

 

[AbideWithMe]

As yes and those in Protestant leadership have always been good, decent godly fellows…that’s laughable!!! Anybody 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. The Protestant churches are just as screwed up.

and I am so sick pf people acting like Martin Luther was a saint. he was an anti-semitic, lustful fleshpot just as bad as some of those popes were! He actually encouraged people to sin and act like little devils and he has the full grace of God? Please.

I don’t know how he is any better than some of those popes. People act like he saved Christianity from the evil of clerical corruption while being corrupt himself and begetting more corruption and politicking in his own church.

I’m not saying evil in Protestant leadership shouldn’t be used to devalue the whole Protestant religion either. What I’m saying is Protestantism has just as much evil in it as the Catholic Church. As I often say “The Reformation only moved the same crud into a different church”

Until we realize we are all full of crud and try to work on cleaning that out, we shouldn’t be talking.

These kinds of responses to people who would like to voice their concerns in good faith are really unhelpful. It doesn’t make the concerns go away, it just sends a message that if someone wants to talk about their private reservations in a charitable public discussion with more knowledgeable people, they will be told they’re being foolish to even have reservations.

 

[Radical]

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.

For a good many Protestants the existence of the Bad Popes (BPS) calls into question claims #2 and #3.

Re # 2: I don’t see any evidence in scripture that suggests the existence of such a unique gift (after all other apostles authored scripture that is every bit as infallible as anything Peter produced). Infallibility simply isn’t mentioned in relation to Peter (by any NT author) and no such spiritual gift is listed by those who list spiritual gifts (nor, for that matter is the office of “Pope” listed by those who name offices in the NT. As such, Catholic efforts to present a scriptural argument for #2 merely resort to (what I see as forced and self-serving) subjective interpretations of various passages.

Re#3: Again, I don’t see anything in scripture for any part of it. The Catholics here have put forward two candidates for an office that continued with God’s blessing notwithstanding unrighteousness. The first was the line of Israelite/Judean kings, but they didn’t enjoy any infallibility and the hand of God was removed from them. If the Papal office is like the line of Israelite/Judean kings, then it would in fact, follow that the Pope isn’t infallible and that the hand of God was likely removed from that less than infallible office (reducing its significance in the kingdom even more). The second was the seat of Moses occupied by the Pharisees. Again, if the Papal office is like the Pharisees and teachers of the law, then it would, in fact, follow that the Pope isn’t infallible and is the teacher of bad tradition and that the hand of God was likely removed from that less than infallible office (reducing its significance in the kingdom even more).

Without any clear scriptural foundation for assertion #2 or #3, Protestants will look to see if there is any extrabiblical evidence that would justify those claims. Regarding the ECFs, before any special authority should be given to their opinions, assertions or interpretations it would have to be established that they enjoyed some sort of special insight/connection to the teachings of the apostles. Catholics must acknowledge that their doctrine has undergone “development” and in doing so acknowledge that being closer in time to the apostles does not, by itself, mean that the ECF enjoyed a greater understanding (otherwise any and all development of doctrine would be bad). Further, the use of the works of ECFs often suffers from forced and self-serving interpretations of various passages.

What then is left by which one might objectively evaluate assertions #2 and #3? Well first, we might agree on the following from scripture:

1. The appointee to the office of overseer was to be blameless
2. The gift of infallibility would be the work of the Spirit
3. The fruits of the Spirit are righteousness, self-control etc.

If so, then the presence of unrighteous Popes calls into question the attachment of the HS to that office b/c the fruit that should be displayed b/c of the presence of the HS is absent, and in fact, the opposite fruit is what was actually found on those occasions. Why would God’s Spirit remain with that office solely for the purpose of ensuring infallibility of doctrine and w/o ensuring an adequate level of blamelessness (especially when the appointers and the bad pope appointees turned their backs on God and his requirements). Why would God continue to keep his hand of blessing on that office? Where is the biblical precedent for God to be valuing doctrine over righteousness in the manner that such a continued blessing would require? If one looks at the matter in that fashion, then the likelihood of the gift of infallibility to be attached to the office of the Pope is diminished or even eliminated (depending on what significance one places on those bad Popes).

Hopefully that will explain why the observation that “protestant pastors aren’t sinless either” totally misses the point. A special presence of the Holy Spirit ensuring infallibility is not claimed for those pastors and would actually be denied (exactly b/c of their sinfulness… among other reasons). If you want to compare the bad Popes to bad Protestant pastors, the I will readily agree that they are similar and that none of them occupied an office that possessed infallibility.

 

[Radical]

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

well hopefully that plank prevents you from sinning wantonly too.

Not sure that’s exactly how I meant it.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt

I think that is exactly the OP’s point; that regardless of the corruption, the Spirit continued to protect the teaching of the Church.

that is indeed his claim, but it doesn’t flow from an express promise by Jesus…a promise that said that the gates of hell prevail if doctrine is distorted but not if the church’s hierarchy is a disgrace.

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.

agreed, but we are trying to figure out if a promise of infallibility for the office of Pope was ever even made

cheers

 

[Radical]

Radical,

Missed you.

thanks…when are you ever going to come up north here for a coffee? the Calgary Stampede turns 100 in a few months…might be worth a gander

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…

the “he lived earlier, so he must know more” argument is kinda like arguing that the first doctor to examine the corpse will always have the best insight into the cause of death (even though a subsequent doctor has been able to run further tests and access other opinions…including that of the first doctor)… that wouldn’t fly in any court, now would it?..

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

your scale is badly broken…but in any event, where did Chrysostom say anything about that passage establishing infallibility for the pharisees?

 

[robwar]

These kinds of responses to people who would like to voice their concerns in good faith are really unhelpful. It doesn’t make the concerns go away, it just sends a message that if someone wants to talk about their private reservations in a charitable public discussion with more knowledgeable people, they will be told they’re being foolish to even have reservations.

I think the point that you and Radical are bringing up is that because there were a few bad Popes (8 listed here) that these men must disprove the gift of infallibility that covers the Papacy when the Pope would rule ex cathedra on matters of doctrine and dogma. Again no one here was really defined what a bad Pope is except in some of the cases of immorality.
I am sure you and Radical would see the Bible as infallible yet some of the books deemed infallible are written by very fallible men such as King David and Solomon and Solomon later left God at the end of his life. These sinful Popes were not redefining dogma and doctrine of the Church and in a way demonstrates the gift of infallibility protecting the Church or preventing “sinful” Popes from going into heresy and teaching it. You want to discredit the election of some of these Popes based on Titus and Tim 1 yet there is not one Protestant Church that fully follows those guidelines. But somehow some sinful bad Pope that was elected over 500 years ago is suppose to disprove infallibility. But the excuse for sinful bad Protestant clergy is that it is ok because they are not infallible.
There are enough very good Popes that did fulfill what Christ called them to do that to just focus on 8 bad boys to negate the Papacy really is not fair.
Protestantism is founded by Martin Luther and most you follow his main teaching of Sola Scriptura and faith alone. Yet, if you really look at what he wrote, he was a very angry man. he had a problem with authority, He at the end of his life wrote an number of very anti-Semitic hateful things that was the basis of Hilter’s final solution. If Luther wrote these things how can you honestly believe in anything else he wrote and his view of the Bible?
Even with some sinful Popes, the Church still stands true to the deposit of faith given to it.
yes we all want Popes of the highest moral character but when that did not happen, the gift of infallibility in the Papacy has protected it the Church from heresy and error.

 

[robwar]

What then is left by which one might objectively evaluate assertions #2 and #3? Well first, we might agree on the following from scripture:

1. The appointee to the office of overseer was to be blameless
2. The gift of infallibility would be the work of the Spirit
3. The fruits of the Spirit are righteousness, self-control etc.

If so, then the presence of unrighteous Popes calls into question the attachment of the HS to that office b/c the fruit that should be displayed b/c of the presence of the HS is absent, and in fact, the opposite fruit is what was actually found on those occasions. Why would God’s Spirit remain with that office solely for the purpose of ensuring infallibility of doctrine and w/o ensuring an adequate level of blamelessness (especially when the appointers and the bad pope appointees turned their backs on God and his requirements). Why would God continue to keep his hand of blessing on that office? Where is the biblical precedent for God to be valuing doctrine over righteousness in the manner that such a continued blessing would require? If one looks at the matter in that fashion, then the likelihood of the gift of infallibility to be attached to the office of the Pope is diminished or even eliminated (depending on what significance one places on those bad Popes).

Hopefully that will explain why the observation that “protestant pastors aren’t sinless either” totally misses the point. A special presence of the Holy Spirit ensuring infallibility is not claimed for those pastors and would actually be denied (exactly b/c of their sinfulness… among other reasons). If you want to compare the bad Popes to bad Protestant pastors, the I will readily agree that they are similar and that none of them occupied an office that possessed infallibility.

The gift of the Holy Spirit on the office of the Papacy is not dependent on whether the Pope had all the fruit of the Spirit as you are proposing and setting up here. That gift of Infallibility is when the Pope would rule ex cathedra on matters of faith and dogma. You have an incorrect view of the gifts of the spirit in that it depends on our character or the character of the Pope. Yes, we all want Popes with the highest morals but in 2000 years of history that sometimes has not happen but when there have been less than moral Popes, that does not negate the gift of that office and that gift is for the church. You are incorrectly setting up a fruit of the spirit with gifts of the spirit which comes with that office.
You are combing infallibility with impeccability and they are different. Calls and gift of an office such as the Papacy are not negated if the Pope does not demonstrate all the fruit of the spirit.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi Robwar----

CopticChristian started this thread as an off-shoot of another thread called “Protestants Declare Peter is the Rock, Rock On”. He started it at least partly for my sake, so I could talk about some some concerns without derailing that thread. However, this thread has gone off in a direction that has little to do with my original questions and concerns.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

For a good many Protestants the existence of the Bad Popes (BPS) calls into question claims #2 and #3.

Re # 2: I don’t see any evidence in scripture that suggests the existence of such a unique gift (after all other apostles authored scripture that is every bit as infallible as anything Peter produced). Infallibility simply isn’t mentioned in relation to Peter (by any NT author) and no such spiritual gift is listed by those who list spiritual gifts (nor, for that matter is the office of “Pope” listed by those who name offices in the NT. As such, Catholic efforts to present a scriptural argument for #2 merely resort to (what I see as forced and self-serving) subjective interpretations of various passages.

Re#3: Again, I don’t see anything in scripture for any part of it. The Catholics here have put forward two candidates for an office that continued with God’s blessing notwithstanding unrighteousness. The first was the line of Israelite/Judean kings, but they didn’t enjoy any infallibility and the hand of God was removed from them. If the Papal office is like the line of Israelite/Judean kings, then it would in fact, follow that the Pope isn’t infallible and that the hand of God was likely removed from that less than infallible office (reducing its significance in the kingdom even more). The second was the seat of Moses occupied by the Pharisees. Again, if the Papal office is like the Pharisees and teachers of the law, then it would, in fact, follow that the Pope isn’t infallible and is the teacher of bad tradition and that the hand of God was likely removed from that less than infallible office (reducing its significance in the kingdom even more).

Without any clear scriptural foundation for assertion #2 or #3, Protestants will look to see if there is any extrabiblical evidence that would justify those claims. Regarding the ECFs, before any special authority should be given to their opinions, assertions or interpretations it would have to be established that they enjoyed some sort of special insight/connection to the teachings of the apostles. Catholics must acknowledge that their doctrine has undergone “development” and in doing so acknowledge that being closer in time to the apostles does not, by itself, mean that the ECF enjoyed a greater understanding (otherwise any and all development of doctrine would be bad). Further, the use of the works of ECFs often suffers from forced and self-serving interpretations of various passages.

What then is left by which one might objectively evaluate assertions #2 and #3? Well first, we might agree on the following from scripture:

1. The appointee to the office of overseer was to be blameless
2. The gift of infallibility would be the work of the Spirit
3. The fruits of the Spirit are righteousness, self-control etc.

If so, then the presence of unrighteous Popes calls into question the attachment of the HS to that office b/c the fruit that should be displayed b/c of the presence of the HS is absent, and in fact, the opposite fruit is what was actually found on those occasions. Why would God’s Spirit remain with that office solely for the purpose of ensuring infallibility of doctrine and w/o ensuring an adequate level of blamelessness (especially when the appointers and the bad pope appointees turned their backs on God and his requirements). Why would God continue to keep his hand of blessing on that office? Where is the biblical precedent for God to be valuing doctrine over righteousness in the manner that such a continued blessing would require? If one looks at the matter in that fashion, then the likelihood of the gift of infallibility to be attached to the office of the Pope is diminished or even eliminated (depending on what significance one places on those bad Popes).

Hopefully that will explain why the observation that “protestant pastors aren’t sinless either” totally misses the point. A special presence of the Holy Spirit ensuring infallibility is not claimed for those pastors and would actually be denied (exactly b/c of their sinfulness… among other reasons). If you want to compare the bad Popes to bad Protestant pastors, the I will readily agree that they are similar and that none of them occupied an office that possessed infallibility.

First, you’re making an erroneous assumption that Popes exercise authority in the same manner as protestant pastors - they don’t. The Pope cannot (and will not) unilaterally make a universal declaration on a matter of faith and morals; it’s a process of awareness over time. Many discussions take place over many years before a dogma is defined ex cathedra.

Second, I could be wrong but my guess is that you regard the Church’s teaching on the Doctrine of the Trinity (confirmed in the 4th century) as infallible? How about the selection of the inspired books of the Canon? Did the Church get that one right?

 

[Radical]

Hi Robwar----

CopticChristian started this thread as an off-shoot of another thread called “Protestants Declare Peter is the Rock, Rock On”. He started it at least partly for my sake, so I could talk about some some concerns without derailing that thread. However, this thread has gone off in a direction that has little to do with my original questions and concerns.

sorry to have derailed the thread…I’ll happily step aside so that you can address your concerns

 

[Radical]

First, you’re making an erroneous assumption that Popes exercise authority in the same manner as protestant pastors - they don’t.

well, that is exactly the question, isn’t it? …namely, do Popes possess some special gift such that they are distinct? The procedure that you outline (awareness over time) is not something that others cannot avail themselves to and does not require infallibility

Second, I could be wrong but my guess is that you regard the Church’s teaching on the Doctrine of the Trinity (confirmed in the 4th century) as infallible?

no, not at all…among other things, it utilizes Greek philosophy

How about the selection of the inspired books of the Canon? Did the Church get that one right?

that one seems right, but isn’t of the infallible class where the decision could not be legitimately revisited

anyhow, your questions were easy to answer, so I thought I would answer them before I stepped aside for AbideWithYou

Cheers

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

For a good many Protestants the existence of the Bad Popes (BPS) calls into question claims #2 and #3.

Re # 2: I don’t see any evidence in scripture that suggests the existence of such a unique gift (after all other apostles authored scripture that is every bit as infallible as anything Peter produced). Infallibility simply isn’t mentioned in relation to Peter (by any NT author) and no such spiritual gift is listed by those who list spiritual gifts (nor, for that matter is the office of “Pope” listed by those who name offices in the NT. As such, Catholic efforts to present a scriptural argument for #2 merely resort to (what I see as forced and self-serving) subjective interpretations of various passages.

Re#3: Again, I don’t see anything in scripture for any part of it. The Catholics here have put forward two candidates for an office that continued with God’s blessing notwithstanding unrighteousness. The first was the line of Israelite/Judean kings, but they didn’t enjoy any infallibility and the hand of God was removed from them. If the Papal office is like the line of Israelite/Judean kings, then it would in fact, follow that the Pope isn’t infallible and that the hand of God was likely removed from that less than infallible office (reducing its significance in the kingdom even more). The second was the seat of Moses occupied by the Pharisees. Again, if the Papal office is like the Pharisees and teachers of the law, then it would, in fact, follow that the Pope isn’t infallible and is the teacher of bad tradition and that the hand of God was likely removed from that less than infallible office (reducing its significance in the kingdom even more).

Without any clear scriptural foundation for assertion #2 or #3, Protestants will look to see if there is any extrabiblical evidence that would justify those claims. Regarding the ECFs, before any special authority should be given to their opinions, assertions or interpretations it would have to be established that they enjoyed some sort of special insight/connection to the teachings of the apostles. Catholics must acknowledge that their doctrine has undergone “development” and in doing so acknowledge that being closer in time to the apostles does not, by itself, mean that the ECF enjoyed a greater understanding (otherwise any and all development of doctrine would be bad). Further, the use of the works of ECFs often suffers from forced and self-serving interpretations of various passages.

What then is left by which one might objectively evaluate assertions #2 and #3? Well first, we might agree on the following from scripture:

1. The appointee to the office of overseer was to be blameless
2. The gift of infallibility would be the work of the Spirit
3. The fruits of the Spirit are righteousness, self-control etc.

If so, then the presence of unrighteous Popes calls into question the attachment of the HS to that office b/c the fruit that should be displayed b/c of the presence of the HS is absent, and in fact, the opposite fruit is what was actually found on those occasions. Why would God’s Spirit remain with that office solely for the purpose of ensuring infallibility of doctrine and w/o ensuring an adequate level of blamelessness (especially when the appointers and the bad pope appointees turned their backs on God and his requirements). Why would God continue to keep his hand of blessing on that office? Where is the biblical precedent for God to be valuing doctrine over righteousness in the manner that such a continued blessing would require? If one looks at the matter in that fashion, then the likelihood of the gift of infallibility to be attached to the office of the Pope is diminished or even eliminated (depending on what significance one places on those bad Popes).

Hopefully that will explain why the observation that “protestant pastors aren’t sinless either” totally misses the point. A special presence of the Holy Spirit ensuring infallibility is not claimed for those pastors and would actually be denied (exactly b/c of their sinfulness… among other reasons). If you want to compare the bad Popes to bad Protestant pastors, the I will readily agree that they are similar and that none of them occupied an office that possessed infallibility.

The same reason that the Geneology of Jesus is filled with sinners and God was in charge.

 

[CopticChristian]

thanks…when are you ever going to come up north here for a coffee? the Calgary Stampede turns 100 in a few months…might be worth a gander

the “he lived earlier, so he must know more” argument is kinda like arguing that the first doctor to examine the corpse will always have the best insight into the cause of death (even though a subsequent doctor has been able to run further tests and access other opinions…including that of the first doctor)… that wouldn’t fly in any court, now would it?..
your scale is badly broken…but in any event, where did Chrysostom say anything about that passage establishing infallibility for the pharisees?

Rad,

I would not mind Calgary or a visit North…probably would enjoy hearing an intelligent conversation. Wow that corpse has been around a long time to be exhumed.

 

[CopticChristian]

sorry to have derailed the thread…I’ll happily step aside so that you can address your concerns

Rad,

I do not think you derailed the thread. Anything that has to do with this topic is open season. I believe that the notion of the bad popes is relevant to lots of discussion in general. Have at it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Robwar----

CopticChristian started this thread as an off-shoot of another thread called “Protestants Declare Peter is the Rock, Rock On”. He started it at least partly for my sake, so I could talk about some some concerns without derailing that thread. However, this thread has gone off in a direction that has little to do with my original questions and concerns.

Abide,

I started this thread because the notion of the bad popes was presented and I thought that what I would do is this. Recall the movie, Clear and Present Danger, Harrison Ford. There is a scene where someone is killed in a boat and the President is trying to distance himself from the person on the boat. Harrison Ford steps in and says something like, don’t do that…embrace the friend…when they ask if he was a friend say no…a good friend. Don’t distance yourself from what is, embrace it and let it be what it is. That is why I started this thread.

I anticipated varying discussions from you and others.

 

[AbideWithMe]

sorry to have derailed the thread…I’ll happily step aside so that you can address your concerns

Radical—

You’re fine—you didn’t derail the thread. No-one did. It actuality Coptic started it off with a different idea that what I hoped to ask about on the original thread, so I’ll probably return to the first thread after final exams are over and university students such as Skeptic92 are more free to give (name removed by moderator)ut if they want.

There’s no problem with this thread, but I was looking for help and information from the considerable knowledge base among some of the posters here, and my specific questions are most likely better kept on the original thread.