Defense Against The Bad Popes Argument

[TRAD1936]

You say the selling went on, but you having cited and quoted something proving this is the case…

Commentary, I might add is not sufficient in the case of something like this, especially considering the propaganda.

Reams of propaganda by Protestants have been written on the subject out of complete fantasy.

You’d need to cite some reliable source material from the times themselves.

From the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which I would venture is a reliable source in this matter

                        DECREE CONCERNING INDULGENCES.

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,–whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,–be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

I hope this is sufficient for you, if not you might read the following

Decrees of the Council of Clovesho (747)
Decrees of the Council of Ravenna ( 1317)
both of which addressed the issue and preceded Trent by hundreds of years.

And look into the writing of Pope St. Pius V who in 1567 canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.

If you still do not believe that these things happened then I don’t know what else to tell you. As I said if there was not a problem they would not have addressed it.

I don’t think that Trent was based on a desire to please Protestants and mollify them. If you have read the documents of that Counncil they come down very hard on Protestant beliefs and leave no room for doubt as to their intention.and beliefs in that matter .

 

[Shin]

Well, I think you’ve cited a good source, and proved your point in some ways.

 

[TMC]

From the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which I would venture is a reliable source in this matter

                        DECREE CONCERNING INDULGENCES.

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,–whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,–be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

I hope this is sufficient for you, if not you might read the following

Decrees of the Council of Clovesho (747)
Decrees of the Council of Ravenna ( 1317)
both of which addressed the issue and preceded Trent by hundreds of years.

And look into the writing of Pope St. Pius V who in 1567 canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.

If you still do not believe that these things happened then I don’t know what else to tell you. As I said if there was not a problem they would not have addressed it.

I don’t think that Trent was based on a desire to please Protestants and mollify them. If you have read the documents of that Counncil they come down very hard on Protestant beliefs and leave no room for doubt as to their intention.and beliefs in that matter .

The Catholic Encylopedia entry on indulgences also includes a section on abuses, including the sale of indulgences:

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

None of that says anything about the validity of the Church, however. All institutions have good and bad people in them, including good and bad leaders. The Catholic Church is not immune to that, and neither are the Protestants.

 

[Shin]

Hmm, I see I have some Council decrees to read. Thank you. My apologies.

 

[SecretBeliever]

So, referring to the original subject, I want to play devil’s advocate here; not to cause trouble but to have someone explain it to me better. I’m sure this has been covered elsewhere numerous times, but I’m a dummy and need a 3rd grade explanation. Do the Protestants say the same thing about, say, Martin Luther and the other “reformers”; i.e., just because they were sinners and did outrageous things, they saved the church from the gates of hell? Could someone please explain why bad Popes are OK but not Luther and the gang? Other than the fact that we say the Catholic Church is the true Church so Luther & co. are obviously wrong? Really, I’m not being flippant. I just want someone to debunk the idea that “the offshoot of Protestantism was God’s way of ensuring the Church didn’t fall into the gates of hell”. I just need a little bolstering of my faith. Thanks!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

So, referring to the original subject, I want to play devil’s advocate here; not to cause trouble but to have someone explain it to me better. I’m sure this has been covered elsewhere numerous times, but I’m a dummy and need a 3rd grade explanation. Do the Protestants say the same thing about, say, Martin Luther and the other “reformers”; i.e., just because they were sinners and did outrageous things, they saved the church from the gates of hell? Could someone please explain why bad Popes are OK but not Luther and the gang? Other than the fact that we say the Catholic Church is the true Church so Luther & co. are obviously wrong? Really, I’m not being flippant. I just want someone to debunk the idea that “the offshoot of Protestantism was God’s way of ensuring the Church didn’t fall into the gates of hell”. I just need a little bolstering of my faith. Thanks!

Luther was a lunatic who wrote a book called On the Jews and Their Lies which had a chapter 15 called the Final Solution which basically describe what an angry psycho did in the 1930s-40s also Luther has been implicated in the death of tens of thousands (Peasant’s War).

Calvin was a brutal tyrant who ruled Geneva with an iron fist, think Stalin as mayor except running a theocracy.

In other words it isn’t very nice to compare Protestants to these monsters!

 

[SecretBeliever]

Dakota, Oh yes, I totally agree with you there. I don’t know the extent of and the types of things that the bad Popes did, but what I’m trying to understand is how the Protestants can brush off the behavior of the reformers (and what their writings etc. led to) and say that the reformation was God’s way of transferring the truth of the Catholic Church to the protestant church to ensure that the gates of hell did not prevail against the church. If they do say that, that is! You know, the idea that God might think, “OK, the Catholic Church has derailed itself. Now I’ve gotta let the reformation happen, even though I know these guys are going to be pretty sinful, to carry on the church”.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m paraphrsing Father Mitch Pacwa as I understood him.

There were a handful of corrupt popes in Church history…but they were so busy being corrupt they did not make any formal teachings on doctrine or dogma etc.

Simultaneously, many great Catholic orders started during those periods. The Holy Spirit never abandoned us.

If anyone can correct my understanding, I’ll appreciate it greatly.

 

[dcointin]

Dakota, Oh yes, I totally agree with you there. I don’t know the extent of and the types of things that the bad Popes did, but what I’m trying to understand is how the Protestants can brush off the behavior of the reformers (and what their writings etc. led to) and say that the reformation was God’s way of transferring the truth of the Catholic Church to the protestant church to ensure that the gates of hell did not prevail against the church. If they do say that, that is! You know, the idea that God might think, “OK, the Catholic Church has derailed itself. Now I’ve gotta let the reformation happen, even though I know these guys are going to be pretty sinful, to carry on the church”.

Protestants are generally unaware of the unethical things done by the founders of their churches. I was raised an LC-MS Lutheran, and didn’t know of the work Luther wrote about the Jews until college, where I was a theology major. Like an organization, they tend to gloss over the worse parts of their history

 

[SecretBeliever]

Mary Gail, that’s interesting and good to know. I would like someone to comment on Fr Mitch’s explanation, not in the sense of trying to correct your understanding though, don’t get me wrong!

dcointin, yep, I have a great familiarity with the Lutherans also (I was one). In my experience, they do gloss over the horrible things that Luther and the reformers did and caused. I have heard pastors acknowledge those facts, but don’t get into it too much, that’s for sure. I just wonder if they actually claim that it’s God’s way of ensuring the Church goes on; the reformation that is. And if they do, how can they explain away the bad things? Sorry, starting to sound like a broken record! (uh, what’s a broken record? maybe a scratched CD is a better analogy! LOL)

Is it the type of evil done by the reformers et al, vs. that done by the bad Popes or that done by the Church? Is it some sort of lack of good things done by the protestant churches vs. the good things that have always been done by the Church? …or something? help me understand this better! If both sides (Catholic vs. Protestant) have done bad stuff how does one side explain things to their benefit over against what’s been done by the other side?

All I’m trying to understand is how Protestants might claim that the bad Popes mean that the Catholic Church isn’t the true Church, when they have so many bad reformers to explain away, that’s all.

 

[TimothyH]

I’m paraphrsing Father Mitch Pacwa as I understood him.

There were a handful of corrupt popes in Church history…but they were so busy being corrupt they did not make any formal teachings on doctrine or dogma etc.

Simultaneously, many great Catholic orders started during those periods. The Holy Spirit never abandoned us.

If anyone can correct my understanding, I’ll appreciate it greatly.

You have said in four lines what I have failed to do in forty.

-Tim-

 

[dcointin]

As you said, the argument is illogical, but more than that it fails to understand the nature of the Church. The Church is a hospital for sinners, confession the healing of the soul, and the eucharist the medicine of immortality. If everyone in the Church, including its Popes, were impeccable, then there would be no need for it to exist. Christ said “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9:13). Sin is our personal choice to refuse Christ and instead pursue our own pride, envy, hatred, etc., despite the pleading of the Church to come home and be healed. You cannot fault the doctor if you refuse his treatments.

If the devil made a special effort to tempt Christ, surely he makes a special effort to tempt the Pope as well. They say that the stole of the priesthood is a yoke representing the burden that the priest bears. Can you imagine the weight of the mitre of the Pope? I think this is one reason you pray for him at each Divine Liturgy: God grant you strength to bear the full assaults of the evil one! I for one would not want to be in that position, and think in humility that we shouldn’t focus too heavily on his mistakes.

 

[Robert_Burns]

From the Decrees of the Council of Trent, which I would venture is a reliable source in this matter

                        DECREE CONCERNING INDULGENCES.

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,–whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,–be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

I hope this is sufficient for you, if not you might read the following

Decrees of the Council of Clovesho (747)
Decrees of the Council of Ravenna ( 1317)
both of which addressed the issue and preceded Trent by hundreds of years.

And look into the writing of Pope St. Pius V who in 1567 canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.

If you still do not believe that these things happened then I don’t know what else to tell you. As I said if there was not a problem they would not have addressed it.

I don’t think that Trent was based on a desire to please Protestants and mollify them. If you have read the documents of that Counncil they come down very hard on Protestant beliefs and leave no room for doubt as to their intention.and beliefs in that matter .

I dont think anyone really doubts that the practise took place - but it was overstated by the Protestants. They used it as an excuse to leave the Church. So if your position is that it was the Churches fault for it to get to that point - then it would appear that you agree that it was the Churches fault. I on the other hand think that it was a rather minor issue and that the Protestants seized it , and used it as a propaganda tool to get numerous defections from the faith by its followers. The Council of Trent had no choice but to villify this practise as a result but the damage was already done. So , in my view , the Fault still lies with the Protestants for leaving. And with the Protestants for using this issue against the Church in a spirit of Disunity. To me , the Fault always lies with those who defect. So its an interesting argument. Degree of Culpability.

Pax

 

[Robert_Burns]

As you said, the argument is illogical, but more than that it fails to understand the nature of the Church. The Church is a hospital for sinners, confession the healing of the soul, and the eucharist the medicine of immortality. If everyone in the Church, including its Popes, were impeccable, then there would be no need for it to exist. Christ said “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9:13). Sin is our personal choice to refuse Christ and instead pursue our own pride, envy, hatred, etc., despite the pleading of the Church to come home and be healed. You cannot fault the doctor if you refuse his treatments.

If the devil made a special effort to tempt Christ, surely he makes a special effort to tempt the Pope as well. They say that the stole of the priesthood is a yoke representing the burden that the priest bears. Can you imagine the weight of the mitre of the Pope? I think this is one reason you pray for him at each Divine Liturgy: God grant you strength to bear the full assaults of the evil one! I for one would not want to be in that position, and think in humility that we shouldn’t focus too heavily on his mistakes.

But your point of view doesnt take into account that every Pope remains the Vicar of Christ - Chosen by GOD at the conclave to lead HIS Church. The Pope isnt like the average person.

 

[dcointin]

I’m not sure I understand where you disagree with me. Are you saying that the Pope doesn’t experience temptation or need the medicine of healing?

 

[TMC]

But your point of view doesnt take into account that every Pope remains the Vicar of Christ - Chosen by GOD at the conclave to lead HIS Church. The Pope isnt like the average person.

Catholics believe that the Church, including the papal conclave, is guided by the Holy Spirit; but the Church does not teach that the Church and its leaders always follow that guidance. Thus, it is not accurate to say that all Popes were chosen by God. It seems to me that some of them would clearly not have been God’s choice, so it seems those doing the choosing did not always follow the Spirit when doing so.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I’m not sure I understand where you disagree with me. Are you saying that the Pope doesn’t experience temptation or need the medicine of healing?

I dont necessarily disagree with the premise of your argument , per se , but rather think that there are other factors that temper the teachings that eminate from the Chair. Lets face it - GOD knows us all inside and out - and it is GOD who selects the Vicar of Christ and once selected the Vicar of Christ has the Keys and the guidance of the holy Ghost when defining Ex Cathedra. So is the Pope a man , yes , but he is more than just a man he has certain powers we dont have nor can we automatically and arbitrarily say he is absolutely wrong about anything because we are not on that level nor do we possess the same gifts as Vicar. So can a Pope be wrong about Faith or Moral Teachings? I say no.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Catholics believe that the Church, including the papal conclave, is guided by the Holy Spirit; but the Church does not teach that the Church and its leaders always follow that guidance. Thus, it is not accurate to say that all Popes were chosen by God. It seems to me that some of them would clearly not have been God’s choice, so it seems those doing the choosing did not always follow the Spirit when doing so.

I disagree. Not only in regards to the Pope but world leaders as well. We obey because of our fidelity to those in positions of power. We do not obey only when they defy Faith and Morals. It is for that reason that despite Our Lords opinion of the Pharisees - he told the Apostles who were still under the Old Covenant to obey them.

Pax

 

[dcointin]

I dont necessarily disagree with the premise of your argument , per se , but rather think that there are other factors that temper the teachings that eminate from the Chair. Lets face it - GOD knows us all inside and out - and it is GOD who selects the Vicar of Christ and once selected the Vicar of Christ has the Keys and the guidance of the holy Ghost when defining Ex Cathedra. So is the Pope a man , yes , but he is more than just a man he has certain powers we dont have nor can we automatically and arbitrarily say he is absolutely wrong about anything because we are not on that level nor do we possess the same gifts as Vicar. So can a Pope be wrong about Faith or Moral Teachings? I say no.

I wasn’t addressing the issue of papal infallability, but sinfulness. The term I used, “impeccable” means that one is incapable of sinning, and I apologize if that created confusion. I won’t comment on infallability since I’m not Catholic, but I certainly disagree with the argument that because certain popes led unethical lives that the nature of the Church is somehow affected.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I wasn’t addressing the issue of papal infallability, but sinfulness. The term I used, “impeccable” means that one is incapable of sinning, and I apologize if that created confusion. I won’t comment on infallability since I’m not Catholic, but I certainly disagree with the argument that because certain popes led unethical lives that the nature of the Church is somehow affected.

Well certain Popes led personally sinful lives and Certain Popes were elevated through Nepotism but these abuses were dealt with long ago and the interesting thing about that was that even in the times of the Pope Alexander the VI no official Heresy in Faith or Morals eminated , even though the Pope as a man was defective obviously. If anything it proves the fact that the Holy Ghost is active in the Church even when a Pope is weak or sinful. If anything it teaches that the Vicar of Christ overcomes the Man that is the Pope - that GOD the Holy Ghost is with us all days since Pentecost Sunday. Not enough is said regarding that fact which is extrordinary IMO.