How can corrupt Church Leaders be Infallible?

[VociMike]

Remember that most of the Apostles fled Christ during His Passion. Peter explicity denied Him. Paul pursued the persecution and murder of the faithful. And yet who wrote the inerrant Scriptures of the NT?

 

[skattas]

Sherlock:

God has a history of using flawed instruments—man. Look at David, Solomon, Peter, Paul… You wrote that you “strongly believe that it would be hard to do something abominable one morning, and then later that day have God reveal his word and truth to me”, but isn’t that just what Paul was doing, persecuting Christ’s Church (and thus Him) one day, and the next changing his life? You are looking at the papacy as a solely human institution, but we believe that God is with His Church. Which is probably why he can do so well with sometimes crummy material. Nor do I think that a dozen bad popes in 2000 years is too awful (though obviously I wish there were none). No human monarchy or any other form of government could show such a small percentage of lousy leaders vs. good, and none of them have lasted as long as the Church has. Which implies an integrity that is much more than man is able to accomplish by himself. So, sure, it is impossible for man alone to be a pig one day and then a saint the next. But it isn’t impossible with God.

I completely agree with the idea that a dozen bad popes amidst 200 years worth isn’t so bad. But my problem lies in how the Catholic faith seems to exalt them above any other. Tha very fact that it must maintain apostolic succession is a very clear example of this (hence the Anglican Church not being recognized since they decided to break this chain). I just find it increasingly hard to fathom that in this line…Go would not have prtected his church from such past horrors. Also, if this chain really is so strong and necessary, then how could such a necessity lead to such terrible things. The are supposed to be better equiped and informed to make decisions such as those who succeed them, are they not? Yet somehow, horrible men get appointed. My problem isn’t so much that there is corruption in the church (because there is corruption in all churches), but the level to which you raise these authorities. To a point where you take their interpretation of the Word as law with no quastions, you consider them infallible in this task, and you honestly believe them to have apostolic succession. All this seems to contradict one another (or at least raise questions) as to if all this could be so, considering their behaviors, and so forth. It’s just a thought. I know it’s not very clear, but I can make more sense of it, if you have trouble. Thanks for your time!

God Bless

 

[skattas]

Franz:

Hi Skattas, you are not offending anyone. I ask that you review my earlier post #11. Here it is, and it touches on exactly this obstacle you have:

The Special gift of infallibility has nothing to do with the moral perfection of the Church’s members (which other have noted refers to Impeccability). Even so, Protestant Christians should have no problem with the concept that sinners can teach infallibly.

The Bible is a perfect example. All its writers were sinners, but their writings are infallible. Just look at Peter. He denied Christ, was rebuked by one of his bishops (Paul), and yet wrote two infallible encyclicals. Moses, was a murderer and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they too wrote infallibly. God even allowed Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and helped to plot Jesus’ death.

God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints.

Hope this helps.

I can understand this, except I really think my problem lies in how honored they are in the church. It’s almost as if you must seek their favor as well as God’s. Confession for example: for the Priest to give to penance (for lack of a better word )(ex. 8 Hail Mary’s, 2 Our Father’s,…) this completely undermines the one on one relationship God wants with his children. Is forgiveness from God not enough? I just feel that placing the authorities as gatekeepers to your father’s house id in vain, futile if you will. For them to interpret God’s Word for you, with no questions asked advocated for complacency in your relationship with God. No questionning is encouraged, but acceptance of the church’s intrpretation is somewhat mandatory. I just feel that everything is done for you. There are too many distractions in the way of God. Now I knw that you believe that all these venues lead to God…but frankly, I have a direct path to my destination…why wouldn’t I take that road? Sure, I have to read for myself, question and attempt to understand the Word with the HELP of my church authorities…but never would I believe that they too have a possibility to make a mistake. These are my own thoughts, and I hope they came out clear and honest. I know there is a lot here to sift through, sorry about that! Thanks for your thought too.

In Christ

 

[skattas]

LSK:

I think you make a very good point, in that we - the Body of Christ - have an obligation to hold ourselves and our leaders to a standard of behavior demanded by Christ Himself. And we can, as people, become complacent and lazy (oh, gee…my spelling is a good example. forgive me!).

I am an obedient daughter of the Holy Mother Church, and I accept the teachings and Traditions. I even love learning more about the traditions (with a little ‘t’)! However, I also think I have an obligation to keep my eyes and ears open so as to help myself and others stay safe within the arms of the Church.

Does that make sense?

Of course it makes sense! Thanks for writing! I guess in my faith, we are just so encouraged to ask questions and such that to just accept it as so is very difficult. My churchis constantly telling us to meditate on the Word, to continually study it, ask about it, teach it, and live it. Well, I guess we can chalk this up to differences again! Thanks for your thoughts and opinions, they are GREATLY appreciated!

In Christ

 

[mercygate]

skattas:

. . . I guess in my faith, we are just so encouraged to ask questions and such that to just accept it as so is very difficult. My churchis constantly telling us to meditate on the Word, to continually study it, ask about it, teach it, and live it. Well, I guess we can chalk this up to differences again! Thanks for your thoughts and opinions, they are GREATLY appreciated!

In Christ

Y’know, that bolded part? My Church says that too. And I’m Catholic!

 

[skattas]

"Protestantism has fragmented, split, splintered and squabbled to the point where there are literally tens of thousands of Protestatn sects – all claiming to teach the truth."

I concur, well said.!

Sara

But the core of the church is the same teachings. I once asked my boyfriend about some occurrences in the chuch that happened to many of my family members. Here’s what they are: my aunt was not allowed to play, or barely move after taking the Eucharist in fear that if she were to cut herself, Jesus would bleed out of her. My grandmther was excomunicated from the Church for marrying outside the church (Orthodox), My other grandmother was not allowed to read in the church at her cousin’s wedding because she left the church, yet they let my cousin’s homosexual brother read the scriptures instead. Now, isolated incidents, perhaps, but I have heard many more from many others. I asked him about this, and he said that different churches run their churches different ways, but the core truth of what they believe is all the same, when you finally get down to what’s important. This is the same in many other faiths, including Protestants. I’ve constantly heard this arguement from many Catholics, including my boyfriend, and I find it very offensive. It does nothing but show self-righteousness and ignorance of one’s own faith. There are splits, discrepancies and much more in ALL faiths…even yours; but the one thing that makes them a faith is the core of what they are founded on. That is what is important, I think it’s time we all focus on that, don’t you agree?

 

[Sherlock]

skattas:

I completely agree with the idea that a dozen bad popes amidst 200 years worth isn’t so bad. But my problem lies in how the Catholic faith seems to exalt them above any other. Tha very fact that it must maintain apostolic succession is a very clear example of this (hence the Anglican Church not being recognized since they decided to break this chain). I just find it increasingly hard to fathom that in this line…Go would not have prtected his church from such past horrors. Also, if this chain really is so strong and necessary, then how could such a necessity lead to such terrible things. The are supposed to be better equiped and informed to make decisions such as those who succeed them, are they not? Yet somehow, horrible men get appointed. My problem isn’t so much that there is corruption in the church (because there is corruption in all churches), but the level to which you raise these authorities. To a point where you take their interpretation of the Word as law with no quastions, you consider them infallible in this task, and you honestly believe them to have apostolic succession. All this seems to contradict one another (or at least raise questions) as to if all this could be so, considering their behaviors, and so forth. It’s just a thought. I know it’s not very clear, but I can make more sense of it, if you have trouble. Thanks for your time!

God Bless

Skattas, I don’t know what to say: your initial post asked “how can corrupt Church leaders be infallible”. We have answered that infallibility does not imply impeccability; that Jesus Himself picked flawed men; that God in the Old Testament also picked flawed men; and so on. Yet now you say that it’s not the corruption per se, but rather the “level to which you raise these authorities” that you have difficulty with. Make up your mind…We value “those authorities” because, we believe, Jesus instituted the papacy. We respect the office, even if a small percentage have been unworthy of it, because of our love for Jesus and the Church he instituted. I think He knew what He was doing, and so I’m not going to second-guess Him and demand explanations for why some of His tools are more flawed than others. As for your claim that we elevate these men "to a point where you take their interpretation of the Word as law with no quastions, you consider them infallible in this task, and you honestly believe them to have apostolic succession: well, well, that’s a mouthful! Would you care to provide some proof of this unquestioning interpretation of Scripture? You haven’t read many Catholic publications, I would guess. Our late pope was constantly scrutinized and criticized from various quarters, beloved as he was. I just don’t see the kind of blind acceptance you’re talking about. And I wonder if you realize just how rare infallible pronouncements are—you give the impression that the popes have a frequent habit of announcing that such-and-such passage means THIS, in an infallible capacity. This is ludicrous, and in fact, when I was a Protestant, I found much more hard and fast determinations regarding Scriptural interpretation: a certain verse meant THIS and that was it, no other interpretations allowed. I have experienced considerably more freedom, in that regard, in the Catholic Church. I would respectfully suggest you learn more about infallibility before you continue to criticize it. I suspect your ideas about what infallibility is do not correspond very well with reality. Dittos with apostolic succession. For the life of me, I don’t know why you have a problem with that, except, I suppose, to make it OK that your church doesn’t have it.

 

[copland]

God has always used even the ungodly to proclaim His Word infallibly. Solomon is a good example. He wrote Scripture and he was a man who had many wives and concubines, and he also practiced idolatry!

 

[Franz]

skattas:

I completely agree with the idea that a dozen bad popes amidst 200 years worth isn’t so bad. But my problem lies in how the Catholic faith seems to exalt them above any other. Tha very fact that it must maintain apostolic succession is a very clear example of this (hence the Anglican Church not being recognized since they decided to break this chain). I just find it increasingly hard to fathom that in this line…Go would not have prtected his church from such past horrors. Also, if this chain really is so strong and necessary, then how could such a necessity lead to such terrible things. The are supposed to be better equiped and informed to make decisions such as those who succeed them, are they not? Yet somehow, horrible men get appointed. My problem isn’t so much that there is corruption in the church (because there is corruption in all churches), but the level to which you raise these authorities. To a point where you take their interpretation of the Word as law with no quastions, you consider them infallible in this task, and you honestly believe them to have apostolic succession. All this seems to contradict one another (or at least raise questions) as to if all this could be so, considering their behaviors, and so forth. It’s just a thought. I know it’s not very clear, but I can make more sense of it, if you have trouble. Thanks for your time!

God Bless

I’m not sure if you are aware of the circumstances regarding Anglicanism and Catholicism, but it has nothing to do with the authority of the Pope, and they do believe in Apostolic Succession and it’s importance.

God protects the Church in teachings of faith and morals, however imperfect that human that he uses may be. Scripture shows this. Why does God allow people to murder? Why did Jesus pick Judas who he knew would betray him? Why does God allow murders? True, these people should be better equipped to make the right decisions, but these people are human, and have free will. They will sin, because they are sinners. The Pope is a sinner. God protects the Church to teach the truth, that is, the church (Bishops) in union with it’s sheppard on earth, St. Peter (Pope). We have 2000 years of clear consistant teaching, and though the faithful are prone to disagree, argue, etc., the Church teaches the same doctrine. This is what Christ promised, this is what scripture teaches.

You ask why do Catholics elevate the Pope above others, it’s because Jesus did with Peter. Ask yourself, why did Jesus elevate Peter above the Apostles? Why did Jesus elevate the Apostles above the rest of the believers? We do not take the popes word as law. He is, as a private theologian, able to err. I think you need to review the following article to get a good understanding of the role of the papacy, and what it is, versus what it isn’t.
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Regarding problems in the Church, I would review this: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104bt.asp

Apostolic succession is hisotrically documented, and is not some sort of fable.
nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-Popes

answers.com/topic/list-of-bishops-and-archbishops

Many more resources too. God Bless.

 

[Lillith]

skattas:

my aunt was not allowed to play, or barely move after taking the Eucharist in fear that if she were to cut herself, Jesus would bleed out of her.

That isn’t a teaching of the Church…possibly your grandmother’s parents idea, but never taught by the Church. It is encouraged to sit in mediation for some time after recieving the Eucharist, and to meditate, because it is the closest we come to Jesus…he is truly with us in the most intimate way possible.

skattas:

My grandmther was excomunicated from the Church for marrying outside the church (Orthodox)

My mother claims this too, but she and your grandmother are incorrect, and this is not a Church teaching. She could not receive communion because she was not in communion with the Church you see…it takes a lot to be excommunicated (heresy comes to mind), it isn’t as simple as that. My mother got her feelings hurt and decided that it was easier for her to say that she was booted out rather than she left, and that is really very common…I’ve heard it more than your gram and my mum, and I have corrected it often.

Skattas:

My other grandmother was not allowed to read in the church at her cousin’s wedding because she left the church, yet they let my cousin’s homosexual brother read the scriptures instead.

A homosexual devout Catholic can still participate, it is the act that is a sin NOT the person himself…

My point is that you have been ill informed…not all Catholics, unfortunately, understand their own Church…what a pity, but it is not the Church that is incorrect, but these individuals

 

[mercygate]

Magicsilence:

As a catholic, this does confuse me too. I know that in principle just because someone is a bad guy doesnt mean they cant interpret infallibly, but why would God let someone become pope when there must have been a better alternative. Those who were mad,corrupt etc… dont invalidate the claims of the RCC but they have made it a point which protestants find hard to accept. I wonder if this might do well in the ask an apologist page.

When I was about 17, I asked a Catholic Priest how the Catholic Church could possibly be the True Church if it had all those bad Popes (I was in the thick of Dante’s Inferno and utterly shocked by Alexander VI). The Priest told me that he thought that if the Church could survive all of that and all of the other troubles that have arisen within her, then it must be the True Church, otherwise it would have collapsed! Forty years later, I came into the Church.

 

[Lillith]

mercygate:

When I was about 17, I asked a Catholic Priest how the Catholic Church could possibly be the True Church if it had all those bad Popes (I was in the thick of Dante’s Inferno and utterly shocked by Alexander VI). The Priest told me that he thought that if the Church could survive all of that and all of the other troubles that have arisen within her, then it must be the True Church, otherwise it would have collapsed! Forty years later, I came into the Church.

Mercygate!

I actually asked that same question and was informed of a miracle…everytime we had a “bad Pope” he never bothered to change any doctrine or make infallible statements…it was the Gates of hell shall not prevail in the making.

Some of the Popes were elected by sword to the Cardinals throats…it is an interesting history, and the reason that the conclave looks as it does today!

 

[Franz]

Lillith:

That isn’t a teaching of the Church…possibly your grandmother’s parents idea, but never taught by the Church. It is encouraged to sit in mediation for some time after recieving the Eucharist, and to meditate, because it is the closest we come to Jesus…he is truly with us in the most intimate way possible.

My mother claims this too, but she and your grandmother are incorrect, and this is not a Church teaching. She could not receive communion because she was not in communion with the Church you see…it takes a lot to be excommunicated (heresy comes to mind), it isn’t as simple as that. My mother got her feelings hurt and decided that it was easier for her to say that she was booted out rather than she left, and that is really very common…I’ve heard it more than your gram and my mum, and I have corrected it often.

A homosexual devout Catholic can still participate, it is the act that is a sin NOT the person himself…

My point is that you have been ill informed…not all Catholics, unfortunately, understand their own Church…what a pity, but it is not the Church that is incorrect, but these individuals

This may help you understand what “Excommunication” really is. Believe it or not, it is done for the Spiritual Protection of the individual, not some sort of vindictive action of the church.

catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd03169.htm

 

[Superstar905]

Sherlock:

Skattas, I don’t know what to say: your initial post asked “how can corrupt Church leaders be infallible”. We have answered that infallibility does not imply impeccability; that Jesus Himself picked flawed men; that God in the Old Testament also picked flawed men; and so on. Yet now you say that it’s not the corruption per se, but rather the “level to which you raise these authorities” that you have difficulty with. Make up your mind…We value “those authorities” because, we believe, Jesus instituted the papacy. We respect the office, even if a small percentage have been unworthy of it, because of our love for Jesus and the Church he instituted. I think He knew what He was doing, and so I’m not going to second-guess Him and demand explanations for why some of His tools are more flawed than others. As for your claim that we elevate these men "to a point where you take their interpretation of the Word as law with no quastions, you consider them infallible in this task, and you honestly believe them to have apostolic succession: well, well, that’s a mouthful! Would you care to provide some proof of this unquestioning interpretation of Scripture? You haven’t read many Catholic publications, I would guess. Our late pope was constantly scrutinized and criticized from various quarters, beloved as he was. I just don’t see the kind of blind acceptance you’re talking about. And I wonder if you realize just how rare infallible pronouncements are—you give the impression that the popes have a frequent habit of announcing that such-and-such passage means THIS, in an infallible capacity. This is ludicrous, and in fact, when I was a Protestant, I found much more hard and fast determinations regarding Scriptural interpretation: a certain verse meant THIS and that was it, no other interpretations allowed. I have experienced considerably more freedom, in that regard, in the Catholic Church. I would respectfully suggest you learn more about infallibility before you continue to criticize it. I suspect your ideas about what infallibility is do not correspond very well with reality. Dittos with apostolic succession. For the life of me, I don’t know why you have a problem with that, except, I suppose, to make it OK that your church doesn’t have it.

a little harsh much? Skattas is just asking questions and stating what she feels. I do see that you make a number of points, but I think you could have done so in a non-abrasive way, IMHO.

 

[Sherlock]

Superstar905:

a little harsh much? Skattas is just asking questions and stating what she feels. I do see that you make a number of points, but I think you could have done so in a non-abrasive way, IMHO.

I was not intending to be abrasive. I am answering an abrasive suggestion (that we are mindless robots who follow horrible leaders with unquestioning loyalty) with a request for proof of this mindlessness. Do you think, in reading skattas’ questions, that he/she has a correct understanding of infallibility? Why does skattas, when assured by Catholics that infallibilty does not equal impeccability, continue to beat that drum for a while, and then change the direction of the attack by raising our mindless and baseless elevation of the papacy and our mindlessness in following popes without question? That’s abrasive, in my book.

 

[allhers]

In all sincerity, when you find a man that isn’t sinful, let me know.
Let’s not forget also that Jesus choose sinful men to begin with, afterall, one of them even betrayed HIM.

 

[Superstar905]

Sherlock:

I was not intending to be abrasive. I am answering an abrasive suggestion (that we are mindless robots who follow horrible leaders with unquestioning loyalty) with a request for proof of this mindlessness. Do you think, in reading skattas’ questions, that he/she has a correct understanding of infallibility? Why does skattas, when assured by Catholics that infallibilty does not equal impeccability, continue to beat that drum for a while, and then change the direction of the attack by raising our mindless and baseless elevation of the papacy and our mindlessness in following popes without question? That’s abrasive, in my book.

Understand that these misconceptions are deeply ingrained, and although things seem obvious to Catholics, they are not always such to others. Concepts can become confusing, especially when it platforms over a number of topics the individual may not totally understand, thats all. I don’t think Skattas is “attacking” anyone, just trying to find an understanding. I do understand your points also Sherlock, I just think there’s a better more helpful way to go about making them.

Remember, people come to their conclusions from their experiences, and I think thats important to keep in mind. After seeing Skatta’s posts, I hardly think she attacking anyone, but more so seeking, and she is in the right place to do it.

 

[Sherlock]

Superstar905:

Understand that these misconceptions are deeply ingrained, and although things seem obvious to Catholics, they are not always such to others. Concepts can become confusing, especially when it platforms over a number of topics the individual may not totally understand, thats all. I don’t think Skattas is “attacking” anyone, just trying to find an understanding. I do understand your points also Sherlock, I just think there’s a better more helpful way to go about making them.

Remember, people come to their conclusions from their experiences, and I think thats important to keep in mind. After seeing Skatta’s posts, I hardly think she attacking anyone, but more so seeking, and she is in the right place to do it.

My dear, I understand what you’re saying, as I was a Protestant for a number of years. And of course I agree with you that charity is necessary in dealing with anyone’s misconceptions. But even given such deeply ingrained misconceptions, I have a hard time believing that skattas is so unfamiliar with common, civilized expressions of respect to think that suggesting that Catholics are mindless robots is simply a result of her “misconceptions”. Her posts do not address the answers that have been supplied to her by well-meaning Catholics, but instead simply open up new avenues of reproach. I agree that she is in the right place to find answers: the question is, is she willing to listen, or will she simply go through the very predictable list of sins that the Catholic Church has supposedly committed?

 

[Lost_Found]

Jesus certainly didn’t pen the bible Himself. But He did hand-pick the first bishops of His church.
There was shortage of sinless people at the time, so He picked a corrupt tax collector who penned an infallible Gospel, a politically-correct fisherman to lead His flock, a Judas thief who would betray Him, and others whom we surmise were also works in progress.
Are you questioning Jesus’s judgment??

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Infallibility has no reliance on morality. Its like in the military, when you salute a higher officer, last time I checked, you’re honoring the office, whether or not the person is worthy of it. I remember a quote by St. Augustine that said it doesn’t matter if Peter or Judas baptized you, you were baptized by Christ. In that same respect, it doesn’t matter if Peter or Judas is the Pope, they are guided by Christ.