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

[AbideWithMe]

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.

Coptic—

I didn’t see that movie. I’d participate in a general thread like this if I had more free time, but I don’t. Maybe come winter…

 

[robwar]

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.

Hi Abide,
I am not sure what you are meaning by the fact that this thread is derailed. From what I was reading and understanding by you and Radical comments is that you are having trouble with the Papacy in that in 2000 years of history we have unfortunately had some bad or immoral popes. Because there have been immoral Popes that this negates infallibility of the position or how can these type of men be elected if we are being lead by the holy spirit? I think I am understanding you correctly in that is your objection? please clarify because I think some of us are trying to answer your concerns in this thread.

 

[AbideWithMe]

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.

Hi there Robwar —

Here’s a reply I gave to Radical. The thread isn’t derailed.

On another thread there was some discussion about ECF’s who wrote of the “rock” of Matthew 16 as Peter’s faith, not only Peter the man (and by extension for Catholics the Bishop of Rome). I have some old questions about this topic (ECF’s and Peter’s faith as the rock) and since it came up on that thread I was hoping to air my questions rather than keep them private. On the original thread I brought up “bad popes” as side topic, or side concern. (In a nutshell, I was wondering what happens when Peter [the Bishop of Rome in Catholic language] gets separated from Peter’s faith----is the Bishop of Rome still then the rock of Matthew 16 according to what was written by some ECF’s? And for those “bad popes” ( John XII would be one notorious example) who were elected before the Great Schism, what was going on the other (eastern) Sees that those bishops didn’t do anything about the goings-on in Rome? Was the leadership of the Eastern Churches just as ungodly, or worldly, or afraid to rebuke the Bishop of Rome, or what? I’m looking for facts from the historical record of those times concerning what the Eastern Churches were doing while some of the pre-Schism bad popes were busy being popes gone wild. Some posters here seem very knowledgeable about this things.)

Again, there’s nothing wrong with this thread…I’m simply low on time myself to get involved in wide-ranging threads such as this one. I was looking for some short and sweet information or an idea of where to get the information that I was looking for.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

Abide, are you aware of the irony in your response to latinagirl, who appears to be voicing one of her concerns in good faith…?

 

[Radical]

well, I guess I’m still around…so please allow me to clean up some things

…Tim Staples on Bad Popes found here…

Even despite all their corruption and human weakness, the bad Popes and unscrupulous clerics did not change the centuries-old body of Catholic teaching. They did not re-write Catholic doctrine nor try to change the traditional beliefs about the Mass and the Sacraments.

one often sees the claim ‘’'that the bad Popes didn’t corrupt any doctrine" as an evidence that God’s hand must have been on the Papacy, protecting it so that such corruption was never introduced by the bad Popes. Coptic, if you would be so kind, please tell me what motivation the bad Popes would have possibly had to change a belief about the sacraments? Their interests lay in wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh. What doctrine (that they couldn’t simply ignore) stood in their way in their pursuit of those things? God’s requirements (re qualifications) were simply ignored (w/o reprocussions) in their appointments. God’s requirements (re righteousness) were simply ignored (w/o reprocussions) in their occupation of that office. What need did they have of changing doctrine…it would have only rocked the boat, caused discord and possibly interfered with their pursuit of wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh. Their failure to change doctrine is something we should expect and not something that should be touted as evidence of the miraculous.

 

[stewstew03]

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

That is not even remotely the question. As has been explained before, impeccability is distinct from infallibility.

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

So you’re saying the Doctrine of the Trinity has been taught in error…?

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

I’m referring to guidance by the Holy Spirit on matters of faith (and morals). In that context, I’m not following your response.

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

Passive-aggressive insult…? I guess I owe you an apology for wasting your time…

 

[LilyM]

well, I guess I’m still around…so please allow me to clean up some things one often sees the claim ‘’'that the bad Popes didn’t corrupt any doctrine" as an evidence that God’s hand must have been on the Papacy, protecting it so that such corruption was never introduced by the bad Popes. Coptic, if you would be so kind, please tell me what motivation the bad Popes would have possibly had to change a belief about the sacraments? Their interests lay in wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh. What doctrine (that they couldn’t simply ignore) stood in their way in their pursuit of those things? God’s requirements (re qualifications) were simply ignored (w/o reprocussions) in their appointments. God’s requirements (re righteousness) were simply ignored (w/o reprocussions) in their occupation of that office. What need did they have of changing doctrine…it would have only rocked the boat, caused discord and possibly interfered with their pursuit of wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh. Their failure to change doctrine is something we should expect and not something that should be touted as evidence of the miraculous.

The Ten Commandments stood in their way! - and yes, they broke them.

Point being it would have been very easy and even helpful for them to officially declare that their circumstances were exceptions to those Ten Commandments - that it was at least sometimes OK for a Pope to lie, cheat, steal, kill.

An example of what I mean is Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons). Smith not only fornicated and adulterously pretended marriage to multiple women at the same time, but attempted to justify it by declaring that God had revealed to him that polygamy was morally fine and dandy.

And needed to do so - as even some LDS then as today look askance at polygamy. He would’ve had no hope at all of persuading anyone that what he was doing was OK without the revelation to back him up.

 

[Marybeloved]

The Ten Commandments stood in their way! - and yes, they broke them.

Point being it would have been very easy and even helpful for them to officially declare that their circumstances were exceptions to those Ten Commandments - that it was at least sometimes OK for a Pope to lie, cheat, steal, kill.

An example of what I mean is Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons). Smith not only fornicated and adulterously pretended marriage to multiple women at the same time, but attempted to justify it by declaring that God had revealed to him that polygamy was morally fine and dandy.

And needed to do so - as even some LDS then as today look askance at polygamy. He would’ve had no hope at all of persuading anyone that what he was doing was OK without the revelation to back him up.

As did Mohammed, with his adopted Son’s wife, Zainab- Declaring adoption of children illicit for Muslims, contrary to the Arab culture and the belief of the Muslims up until that point so that he could marry her after he accidentally saw her nude and made his attraction to her known to her husband, his adopted son. (He was forbidden to marry her per his previous teachings, as she was considered his daughter in law and out of bounds for him until a revelation came down saying otherwise).

 

[stewstew03]

…what motivation the bad Popes would have possibly had to change a belief about the sacraments?

Plenty, for example:

Their interests lay in wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh. What doctrine (that they couldn’t simply ignore) stood in their way in their pursuit of those things?

Their failure to change doctrine is something we should expect and not something that should be touted as evidence of the miraculous.

This is quite a twist. Basically, you’re acknowledging Coptic’s point; and I’m assuming you would disagree with protestants who claim bad popes equate to bad doctrine. After all, you’ve just made a wonderful argument that a bad pope has no need to change doctrine, and therefore Christ’s teachings remain preserved.

As it is written:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JonNC]

=latingirl;9246687] 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.

Well, yes. We are full of sinners, just like the Catholic Church.

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.

Johannes Ecke was anti-jewish, as were many in the CC at the time of Luther. Your comment about lust, at least beyond the fact that all humans are, seems contrary to what I understand the 8th commandment to say. He did not encourage people to sin and act like little devils. That’s just plain false.

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.

He wasn’t any better than any pope. But then, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

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”

Agreed.

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

Come, Lord Jesus.

Jon

 

[robwar]

Hi there Robwar —

Here’s a reply I gave to Radical. The thread isn’t derailed.

On another thread there was some discussion about ECF’s who wrote of the “rock” of Matthew 16 as Peter’s faith, not only Peter the man (and by extension for Catholics the Bishop of Rome). I have some old questions about this topic (ECF’s and Peter’s faith as the rock) and since it came up on that thread I was hoping to air my questions rather than keep them private. On the original thread I brought up “bad popes” as side topic, or side concern. (In a nutshell, I was wondering what happens when Peter [the Bishop of Rome in Catholic language] gets separated from Peter’s faith----is the Bishop of Rome still then the rock of Matthew 16 according to what was written by some ECF’s? And for those “bad popes” ( John XII would be one notorious example) who were elected before the Great Schism, what was going on the other (eastern) Sees that those bishops didn’t do anything about the goings-on in Rome? Was the leadership of the Eastern Churches just as ungodly, or worldly, or afraid to rebuke the Bishop of Rome, or what? I’m looking for facts from the historical record of those times concerning what the Eastern Churches were doing while some of the pre-Schism bad popes were busy being popes gone wild. Some posters here seem very knowledgeable about this things.)

Again, there’s nothing wrong with this thread…I’m simply low on time myself to get involved in wide-ranging threads such as this one. I was looking for some short and sweet information or an idea of where to get the information that I was looking for.

You have a number of questions and issues here. The common Protestant commentary about Matt 16 is that Jesus meant by “on this rock” is Peter’s confession. But the passage really does not support this notion nor does the book of Acts which does record Peter leading the new Church on Pentecost, the conversions of Gentiles etc. Jesus made it clear that he was setting up his Church with Peter and his successors as the head. When Jesus was giving Peter the “keys to the Kingdom” it was a transfer of authority on Peter not on Peter’s confession.
The east west schism of 1054 is really more political than over issues with doctrine. Constantinople ended up as the Bryzentine headquarters not Rome so there were tensions building between Rome and Constantinople. It was not a split over bad Popes even though one on the bad Pope list was from this time period.
Finally, your concern over the election of “bad” Popes. Papal election has changed and reformed over the years to keep the outside influences out of it, which is often times what we sadly see during the middle ages where rival kings and powerful families such as the Medici were trying to pick and influence who was Pope. In fact in the 1300 when Popes were not in Rome but France is an example of this. I have read and heard a number of Catholic commentaries that when the Church gave up the Papal states in the 1800s, the church became less involved in politics of states and has finally free to focus on faith and religion. In all of this God has not abandon his Church and here we are today.
While Papal infallibility is often difficult for many Protestants, it is narrowly defined byVatican 1 in 1870 and actually only used once to defined the assumption of Mary in 1950. I am not sure if any of this help you or answers your questions but it is important to keep studying especially the of the church.
God bless

 

[robwar]

Well, yes. We are full of sinners, just like the Catholic Church.

Johannes Ecke was anti-jewish, as were many in the CC at the time of Luther.

Jon

Yes Johannes Ecke was anti-Jewish but anti-semitism since then has clearly been denounced by the Catholic Church. In the 1930’s a Fr Charles Coughlin in Detroit had his plug pulled by the church for anit-semtic remarks. And Jews were hidden in monasteries and the Vatican during WWII. Hilter was clearly denounced by a number of bishops in Europe at the time. I have never seen a clear denunciation by any Protestant of Luther’s anti- semitism which he wrote at the end of his life. Johannes Ecke did defend the Church against Luther and personality was very much like Luther. There have been many apologies by the Church over anti-semitism to Jewish groups. Where is the Protestant apologies?

 

[Radical]

The Ten Commandments stood in their way! - and yes, they broke them.

Point being it would have been very easy and even helpful for them to officially declare that their circumstances were exceptions to those Ten Commandments - that it was at least sometimes OK for a Pope to lie, cheat, steal, kill.

you are very wrong…the situation was such that a very sinful fellow could be appointed Pope by those with full knowledge of his sinfulness…that sinful fellow could continue to publicly pursue his sinful desires and the (other) powers that be within the CC simply stood by and watched or joined in. It wouldn’t have been helpful to try and justify their activities b/c they weren’t (effectively) called to justify their activities…to try and change doctrine would have only stirred the pot and possibly created effective opposition to their sinful use of the office…besides, if they actually believed in Catholic doctrine they could simply absolve themselves of any of their sins (past, present and future) and so no eternal consequences would have existed.

An example of what I mean is Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons). Smith not only fornicated and adulterously pretended marriage to multiple women at the same time, but attempted to justify it by declaring that God had revealed to him that polygamy was morally fine and dandy.

it is a very different thing to start a religion and see who will join in (on one hand) and to become the leader of an established religion where the powers that be will tolerate anything that you care to do (on the other hand)…it seems that you miss that distinction

He would’ve had no hope at all of persuading anyone that what he was doing was OK without the revelation to back him up.

exactly…if he couldn’t justify what he did, then no one would follow. In contrast, the Catholics during the reigns of the bad Popes allowed the bad Popes to do whatever they wanted to do w/o any meaningful repercussions.

 

[Radical]

This is quite a twist. Basically, you’re acknowledging Coptic’s point; and I’m assuming you would disagree with protestants who claim bad popes equate to bad doctrine.

I don’t know any Protestant who makes that claim…it is that bad Popes are an indication of the absence of God’s hand…an essential thing for infallibility

After all, you’ve just made a wonderful argument that a bad pope has no need to change doctrine, and therefore Christ’s teachings remain preserved.

no…it is that the CC’s teachings remained unchanged…I distinguish between Christ’s teachings and the CC’s teachings

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t know any Protestant who makes that claim…it is that bad Popes are an indication of the absence of God’s hand…an essential thing for infallibility

no…it is that the CC’s teachings remained unchanged…I distinguish between Christ’s teachings and the CC’s teachings

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?

 

[Guy]

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)

Good popes, the other 258.

 

[JonNC]

Yes Johannes Ecke was anti-Jewish but anti-semitism since then has clearly been denounced by the Catholic Church. In the 1930’s a Fr Charles Coughlin in Detroit had his plug pulled by the church for anit-semtic remarks. And Jews were hidden in monasteries and the Vatican during WWII. Hilter was clearly denounced by a number of bishops in Europe at the time. I have never seen a clear denunciation by any Protestant of Luther’s anti- semitism which he wrote at the end of his life. Johannes Ecke did defend the Church against Luther and personality was very much like Luther. There have been many apologies by the Church over anti-semitism to Jewish groups. Where is the Protestant apologies?

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

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide, are you aware of the irony in your response to latinagirl, who appears to be voicing one of her concerns in good faith…?

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.

 

[AbideWithMe]

You have a number of questions and issues here. The common Protestant commentary about Matt 16 is that Jesus meant by “on this rock” is Peter’s confession. But the passage really does not support this notion nor does the book of Acts which does record Peter leading the new Church on Pentecost, the conversions of Gentiles etc. Jesus made it clear that he was setting up his Church with Peter and his successors as the head. When Jesus was giving Peter the “keys to the Kingdom” it was a transfer of authority on Peter not on Peter’s confession.
The east west schism of 1054 is really more political than over issues with doctrine. Constantinople ended up as the Bryzentine headquarters not Rome so there were tensions building between Rome and Constantinople. It was not a split over bad Popes even though one on the bad Pope list was from this time period.
Finally, your concern over the election of “bad” Popes. Papal election has changed and reformed over the years to keep the outside influences out of it, which is often times what we sadly see during the middle ages where rival kings and powerful families such as the Medici were trying to pick and influence who was Pope. In fact in the 1300 when Popes were not in Rome but France is an example of this. I have read and heard a number of Catholic commentaries that when the Church gave up the Papal states in the 1800s, the church became less involved in politics of states and has finally free to focus on faith and religion. In all of this God has not abandon his Church and here we are today.
While Papal infallibility is often difficult for many Protestants, it is narrowly defined byVatican 1 in 1870 and actually only used once to defined the assumption of Mary in 1950. I am not sure if any of this help you or answers your questions but it is important to keep studying especially the of the church.
God bless

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.

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t know any Protestant who makes that claim…it is that bad Popes are an indication of the absence of God’s hand…an essential thing for infallibility

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

no…it is that the CC’s teachings remained unchanged…I distinguish between Christ’s teachings and the CC’s teachings

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.