I am a life long protestant, who finds something lacking in my religion. I don’t like the doctrinal pandemonium characteristic in my religion and apostolic succession makes sense to me.
My son converted to Catholicism several years ago. We have had many conversations about it and I have thought seriously about converting.
Welcome to the Forums. I’m sure you will receive much help here as you move forward on your spiritual journey.
Here are a couple of things I still have problems with. I apologize if any of this appears disrespectful. I don’t intend it that way. I’m honestly seeking clarification.
- The veneration of Mary. I don’t see this in scripture. Jesus wasn’t particularly deferential toward his mother. The Apostles didn’t seem to be either.
A quick search on this matter will turn up many discussions and I don’t really have anything to add to it.
- The bad popes- We all know there have been popes who were scoundrels. It is no secret. There has been at least one incestuous pope. Popes have bought and sold the papacy.
If the Holy Spirit chooses the pope as Christ’s Vicar on earth, how could some of these people have been chosen?
This can be a difficult thing to wrap one’s head around - so please be patient with us as we try to explain and also be patient with yourself as you try to understand.
The whole “bad popes” issue is extremely complex and we need to recognize some underlying issues and assumptions in order to get to a better understanding.
First - lets look at ourselves. Sinners. Sinners before our conversions and sinners still. Yet - even within our sinful natures we know what is right and, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we can give good advice to others. The old saying “Do as I say, not as I do” jumps to mind. Jesus addressed this point in Mt 23:1-3 when he upheld the authority of the Pharisees in spite of their sinful ways.
Likewise, in our own lives, we give advice to our children even though we are not perfect. As an obvious example, a parent who smokes may well plead with his child not to smoke.
Now - we can apply this same idea to the clergy and to the papal office. The Pope, as a man, can be a sinner, and yet still dispense good, sound, Spirit Guided, advice. Thus a sinful pope can still dispense sound teaching.
Now - to address the very sinful and worldly men who held the papal office…These men were simply not interested in spiritual matters and so they did not try to change teaching. Those who were good spiritual men, promulgated only good teaching. See what I mean???
The other thing that one needs to see - and it all ties in together - is the dual role that the Pope had to deal with for many centuries. That of being both Temporal King and Spiritual Leader. This unfortunate circumstance developed with the fall of the western Roman Empire. The Church, as the only really steady and coherent authority stepped into the “Power vacuum” and the anarchy of the time. I’m sure it seemed like a good fit at the time - and opportunity to build the “Kingdom of God”. Unfortunately, the Church ran into the age old political problems of idealism vs pragmatism…and this cause no end of problems.
Just as one example…Consider the oft discussed matter of “persecutions” etc of heretics. In technical point of fact, we can say that the Church never put anyone to death. That it was the civil authority who did this and usually the charge was treason. Of course in those days before “Freedom of Religion”, to deny or contest the faith of the king and country, was to deny the king and that was a capital offense.
NOW, and here is where the problem comes in…at various times and places…clergymen would also be office holders of the civil government. Thus, a bishop might sign and order for an execution, not as bishop, but as governor. It’s enough to make one’s head spin…:whacky::hypno:
I know that in the above, I am painting with a broad brush and over a very long period of time, but I hope that these “ideas” help to give you an insight into the matter of how teh Church managed to survive with her teachings intact.
That is - in a nutshell - a “corrupt” politician pope had no interest in “teaching” and those who were interested in “teaching” were not corrupt (at least not seriously so)
Peace
James
