"Bad Popes"

  • Thread starter Thread starter kp1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kp1

Guest
In my CRE classes today, my JR High students asked about papal infalabilty and where there any “bad popes”?

I remember reading this somewhere, but just can not put my finger on it at the moment. I know one surrounding the indulgences issues, atleast one during the inquisitions, but I know there are a few more.

Thanks!
 
Alexander VI
John XII
Clemet V
Benedict IX
Innocent VIII

Those were some bad Popes. They were a disgrace to the chair of St. Peter.
 
Leo X wasn’t that bad. He was a big spender for sure, and he was worldly, but I don’t think he was that bad. The indulgences he sold were for the building of St. Peters Basilica, not for personal gain. He prayed, he fasted, ect. He was Pope during a terrible time, AKA Luthers revolt.
 
I didn’t think anyone was supposed to sell indulgences anytime, anyplace, anyhow, for any reason. That is AKA Simony.
 
No, you are not supposed to sell indulgences, as decreed by the Council of Trent.
 
Thankfully, none of the ‘bad’ popes made any infallible statements.

They were probably too busy being ‘bad’.
 
Boniface VIII was very bad, in fact a murderer. He waged many small wars to benefit his family, laying seige to walled towns in order to dispossess their lords, many massacres resulted. He arrested and imprisoned his predecessor Pope Celestine V, a holy monk who subsequently died in his captivity from maltreatment. (Not too many years after the reign of Boniface came to an end, Pope Celestine was proclaimed a saint.)

Dante reserved a special place in Hell for Boniface in his Magnum Opus, the ‘Divine Comedy’. According to Dante’s scheme of ascription he would be eternally in a hole headfirst with flames of fire burning the soles of his feet, this is the fate of Simoniacs.

He is the author of the Bull Unam Sanctam.
 
RomanCrusader said:
Leo X wasn’t that bad. He was a big spender for sure, and he was worldly, but I don’t think he was that bad. The indulgences he sold were for the building of St. Peters Basilica, not for personal gain. He prayed, he fasted, ect. He was Pope during a terrible time, AKA Luthers revolt.
Click to expand...
http://www.catholic-forum.com/SAINTS/pope0217.jpg
"Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it."

Leo X was a Medici, his life was not that of an ascetic as you seem to state, but of an avaricious glutton. He was a prime reason for the Protestant Reformation, things did not start to improve for the church until he and his kind were out of the way.

The scandal of Leo X caused a great many to lose faith in the Holy Church, this is a responsibility he cannot escape.
 
Remember to make VERY CLEAR that a ‘bad’ Pope was bad because Popes are not IMPECCABLE.

Too many people confuse ‘impeccable’ with infallible, and argue that because a Pope was ‘bad’- i.e. was personally sinful (peccability), that it means Popes cannot be INFALLIBLE (which is different. Infallibility means in Catholic teaching that a Pope cannot teach heresy or error when speaking definitively on matters of faith and morals).

ALL people have personal sin. Remind the students that no matter WHAT these few ‘bad’ Popes did in their personal lives, they never–never–taught error in teaching or maintaining Catholic truth in FAITH AND MORALS.
 
Fidelis said:
Five arguably bad Popes out of 264? Pretty good track record, I’d say.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, assuming the numbers cited are accurate. Then again, we ARE talking about the Vicar of Christ on Earth sitting in the See of St. Peter. I suspect the standards necessary for the job require, or if they don’t should require, devout holiness as a minimum.
 
rr1213 said:
Perhaps, assuming the numbers cited are accurate. Then again, we ARE talking about the Vicar of Christ on Earth sitting in the See of St. Peter. I suspect the standards necessary for the job require, or if they don’t should require, devout holiness as a minimum.
Click to expand...
St John, according to some accounts, was the only disciple to reamin with Jesus at the foot of the cross.
However Peter, not John, was chosen as leader. To me, this is always a mystery - the perfection of thing is often a poison to its good. For instance, good academic results generally lead to worldly success in employment, unless they are too good, in which case you are likely to wind up poor. The very rich man eats ryvitas and drinks veggie tonic. Beautiful prose tends to be unreadable.
 
rr1213 said:
Perhaps, assuming the numbers cited are accurate. Then again, we ARE talking about the Vicar of Christ on Earth sitting in the See of St. Peter. I suspect the standards necessary for the job require, or if they don’t should require, devout holiness as a minimum.
Click to expand...
Much like one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ, eh? Oh wait, one of them turned out to be a cad, as well. 😉

Percentage wise, I think the Holy Spirit has improved His ratio, don’t you? 😃
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Remember to make VERY CLEAR that a ‘bad’ Pope was bad because Popes are not IMPECCABLE.

Too many people confuse ‘impeccable’ with infallible, and argue that because a Pope was ‘bad’- i.e. was personally sinful (peccability), that it means Popes cannot be INFALLIBLE (which is different. Infallibility means in Catholic teaching that a Pope cannot teach heresy or error when speaking definitively on matters of faith and morals).

ALL people have personal sin. Remind the students that no matter WHAT these few ‘bad’ Popes did in their personal lives, they never–never–taught error in teaching or maintaining Catholic truth in FAITH AND MORALS.
Click to expand...
However actions speak louder than words. One can teach by their actions. Just playing “devil’s advocate” here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top