Is it ok to say that The Church had false leaders?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DictatorCzar

Guest
We had bad Popes, priests and others in the Church. Is it ok to say that they’re false? I’ve been reading a lot. Some say that the organization is good but the leadership is bad, is that also good to say? That the position Pope is Holy but the actual person is not?
 
I guess it depends what you mean by “false”. Good or bad, holy or not, priests were truly priests, and elected Popes were truly Popes.

To be sure, we have had some deplorable people, religious and lay in history, but the Catholic Church is the one, true church. It is perfectly fine to face that fact and say it.

Oh, there were a couple of Apostles that had some failings too, didn’t we?
 
If this is all code for “I’ve been reading some website that claims Pope Francis is a false leader and also contains a list of bishops and priests who are too liberal and they’re false leaders too, is this okay?” the answer is No, it’s not okay and stop reading that junk.
 
In a way, the answer to “that junk” is, yes, it is ok. That’s why, for all his faults and contradictions, Francis is Pope.

The alternative is to hold that it’s not ok, in which case the sedevacantist position has greater strength
 
DictatorCzar said:
We had bad Popes, priests and others in the Church. Is it ok to say that they’re false?
Click to expand...
Well it really depends on the context and how one is using the term false. There have been morally bad members of the clergy throughout our Church’s history and there have been some who’ve been misguided in terms of their theology or understanding of Church teaching.

I think a person could make a strong case that someone like a McCarrick was a false leader and others like him are false shepherds.
 
Last edited:
It’s a good question as to whether a cleric who is lawfully put in place and who does not outwardly teach against the Church’s doctrine, but commits sins in private, is a false shepherd, or merely a sinful cleric.
 
That discussion was settled during the Donatist controversy
 
I think for many popes, false leader is an accurate term. That does not mean they weren’t pope or the Church is false.
 
Agreed. I honestly don’t know. From my own point of view I would think that the nature of the sins would have some bearing on the situation.

It’s not a black and white issue to be sure and I think a large part of it would have to depend on if their actions harmed the Church and the laity as a whole and how detrimental those actions were.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top