Papal Corruptness

[emergingfaith]

I just watched a very interesting (but it seemed to me unresponsibly biased) show on PBS about Luther. Did anyone else see this?

Anyway, how do Catholics understand (what seems to be) the lavish and corrupt papal office during the Reformation times? It seems to me that the Pope as Shepherd of the church is foundational to the Catholic Faith. How could God allow its church to have leaders of questionable character and judgment…isn’t the Holy Spirit to be guiding the Church and its leaders? I realize I might not have the whole story, but would appreciate any thoughts from those who have already worked through this issue.

Thank you.

 

[exiled]

Well, Christ Himself chose His twelve Apostles, and look what Judas did.
The men Christ chose while He walked the earth, and the men who have succeded them all have free will. The only time they are Divinely Protected from error is in matters of faith and morals, when speaking as the teacher of the universal church. Consider Peter who knew who Christ was, as was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit (don’t know chapter and verse), yet still denied the Christ three times. Divinely inspired to speak the whole Truth, yet still a man with weaknesses and free will.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I just watched a very interesting (but it seemed to me unresponsibly biased) show on PBS about Luther. Did anyone else see this?

Anyway, how do Catholics understand (what seems to be) the lavish and corrupt papal office during the Reformation times? It seems to me that the Pope as Shepherd of the church is foundational to the Catholic Faith. How could God allow its church to have leaders of questionable character and judgment…isn’t the Holy Spirit to be guiding the Church and its leaders? I realize I might not have the whole story, but would appreciate any thoughts from those who have already worked through this issue.

Thank you.

Different times, different problems. It is a long time since a Pope has caused scandal. On the other hand the present secularisation, even of practising Catholics, is quite unprecedented. There is usually some serious threat to the Church, sometimes the office of the Pope is the thing under attack, at other times it is bulwark against the enemy.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The example of Judas is a good one. God the Son himself had an “error rate” of close to 8.5% if we insist on impeccability.

But the Church does not, any more that did her head and founder. Corrupt personally? Yes, but did they cause her to teach errors in faith and morals?

From the beginning, God has managed to deal with the weaknesses – and in some cases, downright corruption – of people. It never thwarts his plan.

This biblical example comes to mind. When Naaman the Leper, a General of an enemy country, heard of the Prophet Elisha, he was eventually cured when he journeyed to him and followed his instructions. But in that story, none of the people involved acted in other than the expected way people would act in the circumstances they found themselves. People acted normally, and God worked a miracle.

People can be people, even decadent and corrupt people, but not thwart God’s plans. And God protects his Church, for whom he has GREAT plans.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[kell0618]

The Church is one body in Christ, yet is comprised of human beings. Yes, there were popes of poor character to say the least; but the Church remains after these 2000 years and will continue to do so until He comes again.

Judas’ betrayal as well as Peter’s denial of Christ, not once but three times, is a perfect example. One needs only read about some of God’s chosen people in the Old Testament to see how merciful He really is and how patient He is with His children. He gets let down everyday by people just as He was since He created Adam and Eve in the garden.

Peace be with you,

Kelly

 

[abu_kamoon]

I agree that there have been popes who by their moral turpitude, caused great scandal. The selling of indulgences was an abuse that was used to justify the Reformation. While I am in no position to judge, it looks to me like it was the conduct of some of those popes that provoked the Reformation.

Look at what has happened to church attendance, vocations and the image of the Catholic priest in the last forty years. Is this not the result of the novelties and Modernism that Vatican II initiated? If not, then what caused it?

When Church leaders promote heresies like evolution, thereby giving currency to the idea of naturalistic explanations for the universe, and for the origin of life, what is likely to be the result? How can someone who speaks for the Church accept theories that contradict the Bible, and which constantly change, have any credibility?

I think it is a loss of faith.

ابو كمون

 

[Randy_Carson]

I just watched a very interesting (but it seemed to me unresponsibly biased) show on PBS about Luther. Did anyone else see this?

Anyway, how do Catholics understand (what seems to be) the lavish and corrupt papal office during the Reformation times? It seems to me that the Pope as Shepherd of the church is foundational to the Catholic Faith. How could God allow its church to have leaders of questionable character and judgment…isn’t the Holy Spirit to be guiding the Church and its leaders? I realize I might not have the whole story, but would appreciate any thoughts from those who have already worked through this issue.

Thank you.

The central question to be ansered is this: does personal sin in a Pope disqualify him to be the leader of the Church in any way?

While you’re formulating your answer…consider that Peter denied Jesus three times before the day of Pentecost and was rebuked by Paul for his behavior toward the Gentiles after…

So, what’s your answer?

 

[BelFarfalla]

I agree that there have been popes who by their moral turpitude, caused great scandal. The selling of indulgences was an abuse that was used to justify the Reformation. While I am in no position to judge, it looks to me like it was the conduct of some of those popes that provoked the Reformation.

The selling of indulgences was against Church doctrine. It was individual priests/bishops who choose to do this. The took action against many of those priests who were doing this.

As for the reformation being caused by the bad personal conduct of a some popes… that would hold more water if those like Luther were people of utmost repute. The fact is that many of the reformers were as bad as any of the corrupt Catholic clergy. For ever corrupt clergy member there were probably hundreds, if not thousands, who were good spiritual leaders who lead a good life.

What provoked the reformation more then anything is politics. People in power are always looking for more power to assume. They found that by embracing the reformation their personal power increased.

Look at what has happened to church attendance, vocations and the image of the Catholic priest in the last forty years. Is this not the result of the novelties and Modernism that Vatican II initiated? If not, then what caused it?

No it’s not because of Vatican II. Church attendance and vocation have fallen in Western countries because of the growth of secularism and the constant push by Protestants to convert a Christian to their own brand of the same. What you seem to have missed is that the Catholic Church is growing very fast and it looks like it will continue to grow at a good pace for a long time to come. Unlike Islam, the Catholic Church does not execute its apostates. So people are not bound to the Church out of fear for their lives.

The negative image of the Catholic priest has been caused by the press and those who are more then willing to print anything bad about the Church. Now isn’t it odd that we have not heard much of the epidemic of secular misbehavior and child abuse among Protestant clergy and Muslim clergy? Put telling the bad, even if it is the truth, of the Protestants and Muslim clergy is taboo these days. At least the Catholic Church has now changed its policies and come into the 21st century on this topic. Too bad the others don’t do the same thing.

When Church leaders promote heresies like evolution, thereby giving currency to the idea of naturalistic explanations for the universe, and for the origin of life, what is likely to be the result? How can someone who speaks for the Church accept theories that contradict the Bible, and which constantly change, have any credibility?

I think it is a loss of faith.

ابو كمون
Good grief, I love this garbage put out by those who are seeking to destroy the Church. The Church accepts observable science. We know that scriptures are infallible. Hence, when science appears to contradict scripture, it is not scripture that is wrong. It is our interpretation of scripture that is wrong. God, Genesis and evolution are totally compatible.
An example of evolution that occurs constantly is when bacteria evolve to become immune to anti-biotics. This happens by the survival of the ‘fittest’. These live long enough to produce offspring who are immune and the cycle goes until the only ones of a strain of bacteria left are the new, mutated ones. How does accepting this observable science contradict God or the scripture?
Do you also believe that it is a heresy to believe that the earth is not flat and that the earth orbits the sun? These were once thought to be heresies.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I agree that there have been popes who by their moral turpitude, caused great scandal. The selling of indulgences was an abuse that was used to justify the Reformation. While I am in no position to judge, it looks to me like it was the conduct of some of those popes that provoked the Reformation.

Look at what has happened to church attendance, vocations and the image of the Catholic priest in the last forty years. Is this not the result of the novelties and Modernism that Vatican II initiated? If not, then what caused it?

When Church leaders promote heresies like evolution, thereby giving currency to the idea of naturalistic explanations for the universe, and for the origin of life, what is likely to be the result? How can someone who speaks for the Church accept theories that contradict the Bible, and which constantly change, have any credibility?

I think it is a loss of faith.

ابو كمون

I did not know that Vatican II was responsible for the problems in the Church. I know that Satan is at work and promotes evil to the detriment of the Church, but I did not know he took over the council to bring evil into the Church. I did not get that when I read the Vatican II documents. It sounds like you have an ax to grind with the council, but don’t blame the council on how evil makes itself evident in history.
Anyway, getting back to the thread, PBS has a lot of “religious” programs on that I find questionable in content when one considers the Catholic point of view. Some of the programs are like “shock jocks” that make outrageous claims like Mary Magdalen was really the power behind the apostles and Mary Magdellen wrote her own gospel that the Church hides, etc. When they want to make a point from an “expert”, they seem to always find a professor from some little known college and almost never consult a Catholic to hear the Church’s viewpoint, unless it is some radical Catholic viewpoint. This is why I question their objectiveness.
mdcpensive1

 

[NotWorthy]

Back to the OP, Jesus foretold the corrupt Church leaders when he talked about the wheat and the chaff co-existing in the kingdom. And yet the mustard seed continues to grow!

 

[abu_kamoon]

Good grief, I love this garbage put out by those who are seeking to destroy the Church. The Church accepts observable science. We know that scriptures are infallible. Hence, when science appears to contradict scripture, it is not scripture that is wrong. It is our interpretation of scripture that is wrong. God, Genesis and evolution are totally compatible.
An example of evolution that occurs constantly is when bacteria evolve to become immune to anti-biotics. This happens by the survival of the ‘fittest’. These live long enough to produce offspring who are immune and the cycle goes until the only ones of a strain of bacteria left are the new, mutated ones. How does accepting this observable science contradict God or the scripture?
Do you also believe that it is a heresy to believe that the earth is not flat and that the earth orbits the sun? These were once thought to be heresies.

How can evolution possibly be compatible with Genesis? In Genesis it says that death was brought about by man’s sin. Evolution teaches that animals had been dying for millions of years before the first man “evolved”. Genesis says that man was made from the dust of the Earth, while Darwin claims that we evolved from some other animal. Who is correct: God or Darwin? Genesis says that each kind of animal reproduced its own kind. Why would He put that in there? Isn’t it obvious that a zebra will produce zeebra ofspring? A camel will reproduce camels. It seems to me like God is saying that each kind came from its own kind, not from some other kind.

You example of the bacterial is a common error that evolutionists like to throw out to “prove” evolution. You are correct when you speak of the survival of the fittest. But nothing evolves. There are thousands if not millions of variations within the bacteria. The ones that perish from the anti-biotic are replaced by the variants that have an immunity. The are the fittest and they are the survivors. This is NOT evolution, since they already existed. They do not come into existence after the anti-biotic is introduced. There is NO MECHANISM for them to change.

The Bible never taught that the Earth was flat. That was science. As to whether the Earth rotates around the sun, or the sun around the Earth, since there is no point of reference in space, the point is moot.

ابو كمون

---

 

[Catholig]

While this might not fit the situation perfectly, and indeed commentary said it was in reference to those jews how attempted to cast out demons in Christ’s name without belief, I think that it will work…

**21 **Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Catholig

 

[BelFarfalla]

How can evolution possibly be compatible with Genesis? In Genesis it says that death was brought about by man’s sin. Evolution teaches that animals had been dying for millions of years before the first man “evolved”.

So tell me, if you think that evolution is a heresy and you take the Bible literally, how do you explain the huge number and variety of fossils found all over the world that date back billions of years?

Genesis says that man was made from the dust of the Earth, while Darwin claims that we evolved from some other animal. Who is correct: God or Darwin?

The elements of life are found in the dust/dirt/clay of this earth. Within a short time after a volcano eruption new forms of life are found growing in the cooling lava beds, generally where water has pooled. No contradiction here.

The Bible never taught that the Earth was flat. That was science.

No… religious scholars used to believe that the earth was flat and they could offer all kinds of biblical (OT & NT) evidence of this. However as men’s scientic tools grew in sufistication, it was proven that the earth is not flat. So religious scholars had to admit that they were interpreting the scriptures wrong. They had to reevaluate their interpretation of the Bible verses based on the observable truth.

As to whether the Earth rotates around the sun, or the sun around the Earth, since there is no point of reference in space, the point is moot.
ابو كمون

---

The point is not moot since is was once believed that the sun orbited the earth and that the earth was the center of the universe. This is another misinterpretation of scripture that most had. It does no matter if there is a reference point in space. First off a person can name any reference point they choose and then characterize the universe based on that point. The issue here is not however a reference point in space. The issue is the relationship between the earth, the son and the other planets in our system. At one time it was believed that all of the planets and the sun and the stars orbited the earth. Since we are looking at the relationship between objects that can be tracked, we can observed that the earth is the center of nothing… well except our moon. The earth is just one more planet that orbits the sun.

It is perhaps your interpretation of Genesis that is wrong.

 

[Smber2c]

Well, Christ Himself chose His twelve Apostles, and look what Judas did.
The men Christ chose while He walked the earth, and the men who have succeded them all have free will. The only time they are Divinely Protected from error is in matters of faith and morals, when speaking as the teacher of the universal church. Consider Peter who knew who Christ was, as was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit (don’t know chapter and verse), yet still denied the Christ three times. Divinely inspired to speak the whole Truth, yet still a man with weaknesses and free will.

Amen.

I stumbled onto this idea when talking with a Protestant woman attacking the Church. She asked just this question about how Popes and priests going wrong 'must show the spirit isn’t with Catholics".
The Judas example was perfect. It convinced her that she at least needed a new reason to detract the church, since keeping her current one would also mean that she had to toss out Jesus.

---

It’s all free will right? God calls priest. He calls Popes. But He doesn’t take away their free will while bestowing the grace of Holy Orders. A Pope could do almost any sin out there - the one lacking being purposefully teaching something that is incorrect Ex Cathedra’. Which I belive God would strike him down for before allowing this sin to pass.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The example of Judas is a good one. God the Son himself had an “error rate” of close to 8.5% if we insist on impeccability.

As others have pointed out: it’s not just Judas. Peter denied him before the night was done. The other nine were no where metnioned and presumably fled, only John stuck by him. But even John is not without fault.

Thomas gets (IMHO) a bad rap as the “doubter” – When Mary came to the cenacle on Sunday morning, who believed her story? Not Peter, and not John – They had to go and see for themselves, didn’t they?

:twocents:
tee
peccable human

 

[down_under]

Good grief, I love this garbage put out by those who are seeking to destroy the Church. The Church accepts observable science. We know that scriptures are infallible. Hence, when science appears to contradict scripture, it is not scripture that is wrong. It is our interpretation of scripture that is wrong. God, Genesis and evolution are totally compatible.
An example of evolution that occurs constantly is when bacteria evolve to become immune to anti-biotics. This happens by the survival of the ‘fittest’. These live long enough to produce offspring who are immune and the cycle goes until the only ones of a strain of bacteria left are the new, mutated ones. How does accepting this observable science contradict God or the scripture?
Do you also believe that it is a heresy to believe that the earth is not flat and that the earth orbits the sun? These were once thought to be heresies.

How can evolution possibly be compatible with Genesis? In Genesis it says that death was brought about by man’s sin. Evolution teaches that animals had been dying for millions of years before the first man “evolved”. Genesis says that man was made from the dust of the Earth, while Darwin claims that we evolved from some other animal. Who is correct: God or Darwin? Genesis says that each kind of animal reproduced its own kind. Why would He put that in there? Isn’t it obvious that a zebra will produce zeebra ofspring? A camel will reproduce camels. It seems to me like God is saying that each kind came from its own kind, not from some other kind.

You example of the bacterial is a common error that evolutionists like to throw out to “prove” evolution. You are correct when you speak of the survival of the fittest. But nothing evolves. There are thousands if not millions of variations within the bacteria. The ones that perish from the anti-biotic are replaced by the variants that have an immunity. The are the fittest and they are the survivors. This is NOT evolution, since they already existed. They do not come into existence after the anti-biotic is introduced. There is NO MECHANISM for them to change.

The Bible never taught that the Earth was flat. That was science. As to whether the Earth rotates around the sun, or the sun around the Earth, since there is no point of reference in space, the point is moot.

ابو كمون

---

I think what we are getting at here is the difference between micro evolution (the bacteria, another good example the mussle and the crab) and macro evolution (we came from apes) micro evolution is totally exceptable macro evolution is bopgis and has been proven such by the very scientists who created it and found out back in 1980 that there was no evidence in the fossel record to back them up. Evidence darwin said would become evident. In fact the fossel record backs Gensis when we see suddenly whole and varied creatures come on the scene all at once. Not the slow evolution of different species. All this is off topic sorry. but the distinction is important.

 

[emergingfaith]

Thanks everyone-some good insights here. I would like to respectfully say I believe evolution should be discussed in a different thread.

So-it seems the consensus here is that the papal office is a human office, and thus subject to corruption and poor decisions. However, the Holy Spirit guides this office on matters of doctrine, dogma, and biblical interpretation. This does not seem to be surprising based on Jesus’ prophesy of the what and chaff…and that Jesus himself entrusted himself to others (Judas, Peter) who betrayed or denied him.

I can see this–although it doesn’t quite sound right to me. Isn’t there a difference in that Judas and Peter’s actions occurred BEFORE the gift of the Holy Spirit and the establishing of the Church? Jesus never appointed Judas to be a shepherd of his people. Peter was transformed to pope after the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is my understanding that the Pope represents Christ to the world…he is the shepherd of God’s people. It is just hard to swallow that the Holy Spirit would lead others to elect someone so prone to corruptness to be the shepherd of the flock.

Thanks, though…your thoughts and examples have certainly helped!

 

[NotWorthy]

Thomas gets (IMHO) a bad rap as the “doubter” – When Mary came to the cenacle on Sunday morning, who believed her story? Not Peter, and not John – They had to go and see for themselves, didn’t they?

:twocents:
tee
peccable human

Thomas is the most under-rated of the Apostles. Easter Sunday, when the rest of the Apostles were locked up in the upper room “for fear of the Jews”, Thomas wasn’t there. Why? He must not have been afraid of the Jews.

When Jesus tells the Apostles that He must go to Jerusalem, there to be handed over to the chief priests and be killed, it was Thomas who said, “Well, I guess we should go to die with him” (Paraphrasing).

In John 14, when Jesus says where He is going, the Apostles will follow for they know the way, it is Thomas who, in confusion, admits “Uh… no. No we do not know the way”. (Paraphrasing).

 

[Greg27]

Good grief, I love this garbage put out by those who are seeking to destroy the Church. The Church accepts observable science. We know that scriptures are infallible. Hence, when science appears to contradict scripture, it is not scripture that is wrong. It is our interpretation of scripture that is wrong. God, Genesis and evolution are totally compatible.
An example of evolution that occurs constantly is when bacteria evolve to become immune to anti-biotics. This happens by the survival of the ‘fittest’. These live long enough to produce offspring who are immune and the cycle goes until the only ones of a strain of bacteria left are the new, mutated ones. How does accepting this observable science contradict God or the scripture?
Do you also believe that it is a heresy to believe that the earth is not flat and that the earth orbits the sun? These were once thought to be heresies.

How can evolution possibly be compatible with Genesis? In Genesis it says that death was brought about by man’s sin. Evolution teaches that animals had been dying for millions of years before the first man “evolved”. Genesis says that man was made from the dust of the Earth, while Darwin claims that we evolved from some other animal. Who is correct: God or Darwin? Genesis says that each kind of animal reproduced its own kind. Why would He put that in there? Isn’t it obvious that a zebra will produce zeebra ofspring? A camel will reproduce camels. It seems to me like God is saying that each kind came from its own kind, not from some other kind.

You example of the bacterial is a common error that evolutionists like to throw out to “prove” evolution. You are correct when you speak of the survival of the fittest. But nothing evolves. There are thousands if not millions of variations within the bacteria. The ones that perish from the anti-biotic are replaced by the variants that have an immunity. The are the fittest and they are the survivors. This is NOT evolution, since they already existed. They do not come into existence after the anti-biotic is introduced. There is NO MECHANISM for them to change.

The Bible never taught that the Earth was flat. That was science. As to whether the Earth rotates around the sun, or the sun around the Earth, since there is no point of reference in space, the point is moot.

ابو كمون

---

I don’t see what this has to do with the point in question, but there is a mechanism for evolution, the gene. While evolution, like other scientific theories, can’t be proved in the same way a logical proposition (i.e. all bachelors are unmarried) can be, if the theory could not explain phenomena it would be abandoned by working scientists. There are many wonderful and clear writings explaining evolution by many scientists, and I don’t believe religion should reject science if a scientific theory is well established.

The Earth orbits the sun and in turn this little system of ours orbits the galaxy, in which in comparison the Earth is just like a microscopic sand grain on the beach. We could even use the words of Sirach who asks ‘the sand grains on the beach, who can count them’ and apply it to our tiny blue speck in the infinite ocean of space.

Science, like philosophy begins and ends in wonder, and that can also stir and raise the heart up to the infinite and sublime majesty of God. I feel the same when I look at the evolutionary process as Darwin said, is making endless forms which are ‘most beautiful.’ And God does say (depending on the Hebrew) all the universe is good and beautiful in his sight. We should question this beauty as Augustine says, and raise our minds to God who is its cause and archetype, rather than squabble with scientists over the natural processes which in time have allowed this wonderful complexity and multiplicity to come into being from nothing.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Here is an experiment that you can perform in your own home or place of work. Make a simple drawing of a person. Place it in a photocopy machine and make a copy. Now make a copy of the copy. Keep making copies of the copies until the random errors begin to transform your simple drawing into a beautiful color portrait.

You have just demonstrated evolution. The simple became the complex through random errors (mutations). This is the proof that evolutionists have been looking for.

ابو كمون