V
Valtiel
Guest
I’ve heard form a source that councils have ahd to twice remove popes because they were being “un-pope like”, so then if this is true, then catholicism is false…
- Status
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
why would it be false?
D
Della
Guest
You “heard” or you “read”? If you heard then ask the person for a reliable source. If you read, demand the same thing in writing. The onus to “prove it” lays at the feet of the accuser not the one being accused.
And why would removing a pope make Catholicism false if it were true? We don’t claim our popes are infallible human beings only that they are protected from declaring untruths in matters of faith and morals. So, one pope is just as good as any other in that regard.
V
Valtiel
Guest
It’s a flaw, meaning that if the holy spirit were to be behind every facit of the catholic church, I mean after al lit is the one true church right?, then why did they make two mistakes. Thats a flaw, and I’m just simply getting tired of this…
C
Catholic2003
Guest
The Council of Constance resolved the Great Western Schism, when there were 3 putative popes (or is that 2 putative popes and one real pope?).
Well, thanks for letting us know. Is all of Christianity a bust as well? I need to know whether to convert back to Southern Baptist, or maybe go Buddhist.
F
flamingsword
Guest
You would have to provide specific examples of when this has happened.
additionally,
If this did happen it wouldn’t prove anything either. The role of the cardinals in the election of a pope is to discern who the Holy Spirit is directing them to. Humans are imperfect, even cardinals. That is why it is so important to pray for them during periods such as the election of a new pope. Papal infallibility is something completely different than what you are thinking.
additionally,
If this did happen it wouldn’t prove anything either. The role of the cardinals in the election of a pope is to discern who the Holy Spirit is directing them to. Humans are imperfect, even cardinals. That is why it is so important to pray for them during periods such as the election of a new pope. Papal infallibility is something completely different than what you are thinking.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
It wouldn’t be a flaw by any means. Pope’s can be just as sinful as anyone else. The office is protected from teaching falsehood on matters of faith or morals, but the people still have to live up to be good people. A person doesn’t get automatic holiness by being the Pope. That’s a major confusion many Protestants have: they think the Pope is “closer” to God or more holy than everyone else when he’s not.
If a Pope was being very, very sinful, then it may scandalize people and cause people to doubt the faith, though, so I don’t see any problem with removing a Pope if that’s the case. It’s the teaching of the Pope, not the behavior of the Pope, that is protected.
D
Della
Guest
Ah, that’s probably what this is all about. I’d just like to add that anyone who claimed to be pope who really wasn’t never was a pope but an impostor. Anyone can declare him/herself as president of the USA, but that doesn’t make them the president. The Council of Constance simply cleared up a very confused period in Church history in which various European countries tried to usurp the office of pope and create their own popes. I see it as a precursor to the unfortunate “deformation” of the 16th century.
Me, I’d be a naturist, marry a tree, and call the squirrels our babies.
M
MonicaC
Guest
Hello
I was just wodering what exactly you were getting tired of?
Monica
F
Forest-Pine
Guest
First, our faith is that we will preserve to the end. Not that we won’t make mistakes along the way (although I’ve never heard these claims and am hesitant to believe them, but I’ll just give whatever your source was the benefit of the doubt). I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me and yet I still sin. The more I tune into the guidance I get from the Lord, the less I sin. It is same for the church, which is a bunch of individuals. The difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant churches is that we have the true presence of Jesus Christ the Risen Lord in the Eucharist. Jesus instituted this church here on earth and left it in the care of men. Men have flaws. Just think if you are getting tired of it in your few short years, how disheartening it is to the Lord to be putting up with it for thousands! Fortunately, the Catholic church also has reconciliation, in which we can set ourselves right with the Lord and the community and move on past our sins. When I get disappointed with the people in the church and wonder if maybe I should leave, I absolutely cannot say no to the True Presence of Jesus. No matter what some individual does who is affiliated with the Church, it cannot corrupt the Truth that the church is headed by the Holy Trinity–the Risen Lord, Eternal God and Holy Spirit.
With that said, you might also find a study into Eastern Catholicism interesting. They have a different view of papal responsibilities, infallibility, etc while still being in communion with the True Church. You might find yourself more comfortable knowing that there is an allowance for various understandings within the Church.
And a joke I saw on this site:
Jesus returned to Nazareth after a hard day’s preaching. As he entered the town, he came across a crowd about to stone a woman to death for adultery. “Jesus,” said one of the people, “should we stone this woman to death as the law commands?”
Jesus declared, “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.”
The crowd fell silent and then suddenly a rock flew out and hit the sinner in the head. The others then followed suit.
Jesus looked into the crowd, and his eyes alighted on the preson who threw the first stone.
“You know Mom,” he said, “sometimes you really make me mad.”
We’re not perfect Valtiel. We just know that no matter how much we screw things up, the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, will prevail.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
So then because of the Civil War, the United States is not the true United States because they had to fight to remove a “unpresidential” president? I’m not making fun of you Valtiel, but that’s about the way the logic works on this reasoning. Is it true? Of course not!
The fact of the matter is that just because someone claims to be the pope or is even elected by others, does not make him a valid pope. The better question is, “Was there a valid pope?” Answer: yep! There are even “anti-popes” today, but they are not valid.
Even more important, did anything like this affect the teaching of the truth or did the bad guys attempt to change the deposit of faith from what we already had?
Answer: Nope!
In other words, “Did Jesus keep His promise to be with us always and to never allow the gates of hell to prevail against the church, and did the Holy Spirit still guide the church into all truth?” Answer? A resounding YES!
My friend you are very new to the faith and I understand how tiresome this gets for you. It get wearisome for those of us who have been Catholic for a while and who you come to for answers, but I wouldn’t trade being here for you for the world. Don’t let all the people who attack our most holy faith get ya down because they really don’t know what they are talking about (though of course they think they do).
Feel free to PM me if you need to if I can be of any help at all. I consider it a service to God to be whatever little help I can.
Pax tecum,
1
199
Guest
My opinion for what it is worth.The validity of the Pope is the validity of the Roman Catholic Church.The Church has had more that one “bump” in its history.I personally think the validation to both is in the apparitions of The Virgin Mary and Jesus.The apparitions of Mary have supported Catholocisim and apparitions of Jesus have supported Mary and her Rosary.
F
Forest-Pine
Guest
We’ve had some real doozies throughout the years. Some that really caused some scandals. Justifiably so, even. (The scandals, not the actions.) An Ask an Apologist thread mentions one such example. We know that the pope, no matter how bad he is, could never be bad enough to trump the Truth we have in Jesus Christ, preserved in the Holy Spirit.
F
Fox
Guest
You’re false, go get enlightened.
E
Eden
Guest
As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI said that while the Holy Spirit guides the conclave, the bishops have not always listened to that guidance. When the wrong person was chosen to be pope (AKA “bad popes”) the Holy Spirit continued to protect the Church from error. The element of free will still applies when the selection of a new pope takes place.
I can’t find the actual quote from Cardinal Ratzinger right now but here it was similar to the explanation from this article:
“There have been times that the Church failed to heed the guidance of the Holy Spirit– some pretty bad men managed to wrest the papacy from His hands – but He has seen to it that the Church has survived such bad popes and the persecutions it has suffered off and on for 2,000 years.”
Source: newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/19/202720.shtml
“The doctrine of infallibility has nothing to do with the bra(name removed by moderator)ower, intuition, moral fibre, or even the faith of the Pope. The Doctrine of infallibility has everything to do with God protecting his Church. It’s amazing that even during medieval times when there were some questionable and even bad popes, God kept them silent on issues of faith and morals during their office.”
davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm
Here is an interesting article on the “Jesus System” (the Papal elections):
catholicity.com/commentary/20050421.html
Here’s an audio series from EWTN entitled “Pope Fiction” which includes a program entitled “Popes who led immoral lives”:
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesId=6148&pgnu=
I can’t find the actual quote from Cardinal Ratzinger right now but here it was similar to the explanation from this article:
“There have been times that the Church failed to heed the guidance of the Holy Spirit– some pretty bad men managed to wrest the papacy from His hands – but He has seen to it that the Church has survived such bad popes and the persecutions it has suffered off and on for 2,000 years.”
Source: newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/19/202720.shtml
“The doctrine of infallibility has nothing to do with the bra(name removed by moderator)ower, intuition, moral fibre, or even the faith of the Pope. The Doctrine of infallibility has everything to do with God protecting his Church. It’s amazing that even during medieval times when there were some questionable and even bad popes, God kept them silent on issues of faith and morals during their office.”
davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm
Here is an interesting article on the “Jesus System” (the Papal elections):
catholicity.com/commentary/20050421.html
Here’s an audio series from EWTN entitled “Pope Fiction” which includes a program entitled “Popes who led immoral lives”:
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesId=6148&pgnu=
I
Ignatius
Guest
Because there is not one shred of evidence that it ever happened.
E
EA_Man
Guest
The Pope is the supreme teacher of the church. That being said, it is odd that of the 260 plus men—give or take an antipope—that have occupied the chair, not one has been a theologian of the first order. The real thinking has come from further down the chain-of-command, to wit., Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Bonaventura, Newman, Rahner, Scotus, and von Balthasar. One must wonder, when advisors and other theologians are more distinguished teachers than the Pope is, what exactly are the teaching credentials required for the papacy?
Whenever a case had to be made in defense of papal preeminence during the Reformation, who made it? Wouldn’t the Pope be the natural candidate to present the case for his own preeminence? Again, none of the heavy hitters were Popes, but men who spoke on their behalf, i.e., Eck, Cajetan, Bellarmine and Stapleton. Now if the Pope is supposed to be the supreme teacher of the Church, then why can’t he speak for himself? Can’t he even make his own case? If he isn’t up to the job of laying out his own credentials for the job, then what does that say about his credentials for the job?
Whenever a case had to be made in defense of papal preeminence during the Reformation, who made it? Wouldn’t the Pope be the natural candidate to present the case for his own preeminence? Again, none of the heavy hitters were Popes, but men who spoke on their behalf, i.e., Eck, Cajetan, Bellarmine and Stapleton. Now if the Pope is supposed to be the supreme teacher of the Church, then why can’t he speak for himself? Can’t he even make his own case? If he isn’t up to the job of laying out his own credentials for the job, then what does that say about his credentials for the job?
G
gus
Guest
Have you forgot Paul VI and John Paul II already
Both in your lifetime both intelectual and spiritual giants
PIUS X , XI ,and X11 were no lightweights either
Not all were intellectuals some a pastoral like John XXIII
The Holy spirit picks the right man for the times
Both in your lifetime both intelectual and spiritual giants
PIUS X , XI ,and X11 were no lightweights either
Not all were intellectuals some a pastoral like John XXIII
The Holy spirit picks the right man for the times
E
EA_Man
Guest
Like Alexander VI?
G
gryskull
Guest
I think you are confusing infalliblity with impeccability. Having a person in the office of the papacy doesn’t mean that he will never sin again. He(the pope) has every flaw(due to original sin) like everyone does. What he is protected from is teaching the untruth(if that is even a word). This also is only in regard to faith and morals, not math or any other subject. His office doesn’t encompass that. So if the pope was unchrisitian, and we had several, it still doesn’t make the church false because her(the Catholic Church) teachings have remained true to Jesus all throughout the centuries.
And as some in this thread have mentioned the burden of proof lies on the accuser not the accused. Let them produce their proof. I hope this helps shed light on your question and help you be firm in your faith.
- Status