Papal Corruptness

  • Thread starter Thread starter emergingfaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
I don’t know about you, but I have received the Holy Spirit, yet I still struggle with sin. The pope is no different.

By the way, you are arguing for the very type of sinless papacy that most Protestants accuse US of advocating.

So, while some Protestants attack us (erroneously) because they think we claim the Pope is impeccable, but you are dismissing the Pope because he isn’t!

We catch it from both sides. :tiphat:
 
As a history buff and someone who enjoyed the Vatican Museums very much, I’d like to point out something important.

Catholics do not say the pope will not sin, just that the Holy Spirit will keep him from promoting errors in the faith.

The Renaissance popes were pretty appalling, all right. Mistresses, murder, intrigue, wars, etc. HOWEVER, they apparently never tried to issue any statements that what they were doing was ok; they knew they were in sin (unlike many modern American Catholics who want the Church to declare that their sins aren’t really sins, but that’s for another thread).

But they did collect some really fabulous art!
 
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 first priest that God ordained in the OT - Aaron - was quick to bring out he Golden Calf when Moses’ back was turned. God was just trying to tell us that indeed there is nothing good in man.
 
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!
I don’t know if this will help, but it is a different twist on what has been previously said.
In Matthew 16: 19 Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. This is a very important passage in scripture. It’s source is from IS chapter 22 where the prime minister is given the keys to take care of things until the master returns. There are two parts of the Kingdom, the temporal (earth) and the spiritual (non-temporal) where Christ reigns. The keys are for the successor of Peter to take care of things (guard the deposit of faith) on earth until the second comming of Christ. The successor of Peter is human and under the effects of sin as we all are, but is prevented by the Holy Spirit from proclaiming doctrine that is incorrect (He who hears you hears me - Luke 10:16). This is why some Popes who were less than holy did not write much or not at all.
But again this ability to not declare error applies to our faith and morals and not to opinions on sports scores and lottery numbers.

mdcpensive1
 
Why is it that Protestants assumed that anyone who sits on the Papal Throne will be impeccable?

How is it that they find the doctrine of infallibility as whatever the popes says becomes infallible?

This has always puzzled me.🤷

As far as official Catholic Church teaching says, infallibility only applies when Pope speaks ex-cathedra or from the chair when proclaiming faith and moral issues. Infallibility also applies to the whole universal Church, the Magisterium, the bishops in union with the Pope.

Other than that, I don’t see how Protestants assumed to know better than we do. I don’t think Protestants who are extremely Anti-Catholics are experts in the field when it comes to the teaching of the CC. I don’t even give Ex-Catholic much credit of their testimony. Some Ex-Catholics here still have a distorted view of the Papacy.
 
Why do protestants expect the pope to be without sin? They claim the righteousness of the indwelling Holy Spirit for themselves, and the ability to interpret Scripture correctly as a result, yet doubtful they would claim they are sinless.
So from their own theology the guidance/protection of the Holy Spirit does not = sinlessness, yet they want to condemn Catholic teaching with exactly that.
 
Well, personally I think the Pope should be as close to impeccable as anyone could be. I think JP II approached that as admirably as any other Pope. But sadly, that was not always the case with some of our middle ages popes.
 
Well, personally I think the Pope should be as close to impeccable as anyone could be. I think JP II approached that as admirably as any other Pope. But sadly, that was not always the case with some of our middle ages popes.
Gosh, I just love Pope John Paul II. He is truly Our Spiritual Father… a model for us all. His love of Jesus, his love of Mary, his love for the Church, his love of the faithful (us)… is just amazing…

John Paul II, we love you. I remember chanting that when he visited NYC in 1995 during the Central Park Mass with 550,000 Catholics…
 
Hello everyone. I’m new to this foruming thing, but the topic of this thread is one that has really been in my thoughts of late. As a devoted Christian, raised Protestant, but with a deep respect and interest for the Catholic faith, I could identify with emergingfaith’s question. I know that you Catholics have to put up with a lot from us Prostestants sometimes, but please do understand, that for Protestants genuinely and respectfully exploring the Catholic faith, questions like this one are troubling issues that we have to wrestle through and are not meant to be criticisms!

With that disclaimer out of the way, I will move on to the issue of Papal corruption. I think one of the posts I read put it rather succinctly when they said the basic question was (quoting loosely), “Does personal sin prevent the Pope from being the legitimate leader of the church?” If we looked at any other office in the church, I think most of us could agree that a certain severity of personal sin could disqualify a person for leadership. I know, for instance, in a Prostestant church (where I grew a lot as a Christian!) our pastor left his family for another woman. Our church, while sincerely praying for his repentance, did not see him any longer as a fit leader. I also saw that the church persevered and even grew through the trial, that God can strengthen us even, despite the weaknesses that sometimes occur in leadership. Of course, Prostestants have a very different view of authority than Catholics, but I think that in the Catholic church, priests might be seen as no longer fit to lead after committing a particularly grievous sin.

A question that comes to my mind, is that if the Pope is in sin, are Catholics allowed to resist him. The example was given of Paul rebuking Peter for disassociating himself with the Gentile believers. Can the Pope be rebuked? I’ve been reading a lot of church history lately, and I was reading about Innocent III putting entire nations under an interdict. Surely that could not be the will of Christ, could it? I can understand excommunication as a means to bring an individual to repentance, but surely within an entire country, there must be some who should not be denied the grace of the Eucharist. When reading that, I just heard the words of Christ ringing in my ears, when He said, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?..Feed my sheep.” I mean, He didn’t say “Starve my sheep.” Would a Catholic of that day be wrong to criticize something like an interdict? I don’t ask this as a challenge, but as a question that troubles my heart deeply and sincerely. I thank God that Catholics of today do not have to wrestle with the idea of the actions of the Pope being opposed to the honor of God. Part of what drew me to Catholicism was the goodness and humility of John Paul II. Christ was truly evident in him!
 
Hello everyone. I’m new to this foruming thing, but the topic of this thread is one that has really been in my thoughts of late. As a devoted Christian, raised Protestant, but with a deep respect and interest for the Catholic faith, I could identify with emergingfaith’s question. I know that you Catholics have to put up with a lot from us Prostestants sometimes, but please do understand, that for Protestants genuinely and respectfully exploring the Catholic faith, questions like this one are troubling issues that we have to wrestle through and are not meant to be criticisms!
Welcome to CAF and may the Lord be with you.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I will move on to the issue of Papal corruption. I think one of the posts I read put it rather succinctly when they said the basic question was (quoting loosely), “Does personal sin prevent the Pope from being the legitimate leader of the church?”
There had been corrupt Popes in the past and during those times, none of the corrupt Popes (Anti-Pope) have issued Ex-Cathedra or declare certain dogma infallible.

There was a time when a bishop said if he had become a Pope he would endorse a heresy, I forgot the name of the heresy. He did in fact became a Pope, but change his mind not to support the heresy. I forgot the name of the heresy but it starts with the letter M. It is very apparent the Holy Spirit preserve the CC from making errors in terms of Moral and faith.

David Currie’s Book "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic mention it. David Currie is a former Evangelical Protestant Minister but converted to the Catholic Church.

If we looked at any other office in the church, I think most of us could agree that a certain severity of personal sin could disqualify a person for leadership. I know, for instance, in a Prostestant church (where I grew a lot as a Christian!) our pastor left his family for another woman. Our church, while sincerely praying for his repentance, did not see him any longer as a fit leader. I also saw that the church persevered and even grew through the trial, that God can strengthen us even, despite the weaknesses that sometimes occur in leadership. Of course, Prostestants have a very different view of authority than Catholics, but I think that in the Catholic church, priests might be seen as no longer fit to lead after committing a particularly grievous sin.

A question that comes to my mind, is that if the Pope is in sin, are Catholics allowed to resist him. The example was given of Paul rebuking Peter for disassociating himself with the Gentile believers. Can the Pope be rebuked? I’ve been reading a lot of church history lately, and I was reading about Innocent III putting entire nations under an interdict. Surely that could not be the will of Christ, could it? I can understand excommunication as a means to bring an individual to repentance, but surely within an entire country, there must be some who should not be denied the grace of the Eucharist. When reading that, I just heard the words of Christ ringing in my ears, when He said, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?..Feed my sheep.” I mean, He didn’t say “Starve my sheep.” Would a Catholic of that day be wrong to criticize something like an interdict? I don’t ask this as a challenge, but as a question that troubles my heart deeply and sincerely. I thank God that Catholics of today do not have to wrestle with the idea of the actions of the Pope being opposed to the honor of God. Part of what drew me to Catholicism was the goodness and humility of John Paul II. Christ was truly evident in him!

The members to include the religious will always be sinners, and we are always called for repentence and conversion everyday of our lives so that we maybe perfected.
 
A question that comes to my mind, is that if the Pope is in sin, are Catholics allowed to resist him. The example was given of Paul rebuking Peter for disassociating himself with the Gentile believers. Can the Pope be rebuked? I’ve been reading a lot of church history lately, and I was reading about Innocent III putting entire nations under an interdict. Surely that could not be the will of Christ, could it? I can understand excommunication as a means to bring an individual to repentance, but surely within an entire country, there must be some who should not be denied the grace of the Eucharist. When reading that, I just heard the words of Christ ringing in my ears, when He said, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?..Feed my sheep.” I mean, He didn’t say “Starve my sheep.” Would a Catholic of that day be wrong to criticize something like an interdict? I don’t ask this as a challenge, but as a question that troubles my heart deeply and sincerely. I thank God that Catholics of today do not have to wrestle with the idea of the actions of the Pope being opposed to the honor of God. Part of what drew me to Catholicism was the goodness and humility of John Paul II. Christ was truly evident in him!

The members to include the religious will always be sinners, and we are always called for repentence and conversion everyday of our lives so that we maybe perfected.
But there are the sedevacantists, who consider themselves true Catholics, who consider the papacy to have been vacant since Pius XII.
 
But there are the sedevacantists, who consider themselves true Catholics, who consider the papacy to have been vacant since Pius XII.
Sedevacantists themselves have fallen into error. If what they proclaim is true, then the gates of hell prevail against the Church. Jesus promised that he will be with always, and the Spirit will guide his Church in all truths.

The sedevacantists are what I consider pseudo-Protestant. Pseudo because they claim the Chair of Peter is empty and they did not agree with Second Vatican II. They are not Catholics dispite their claims.
 
No one is perfect. While the Holy Spirit kept the leaders from corrupting the doctrine of the church, he did allow them to have free will and they unfortunately made bad decisions. It’s sad, but humans are fallible.
 
There had been corrupt Popes in the past and during those times, none of the corrupt Popes (Anti-Pope) have issued Ex-Cathedra or declare certain dogma infallible.
A corrupt pope is not an anti-pope. An anti-pope is an illegitimate claimant to the office of the papacy.

tee
 
I think part of what Mannyfit75 is asking has to do with the permanence of the office of pope. With only a few exceptions in history, once you’re elected, that’s it. That way, if you insist on some truth and someone, say an emperor, doesn’t like it, the emperor can’t just manufacture a conclave and depose the pope he doesn’t like. Think of the Supreme Court; their position is permanent until they choose to resign so that they can not be unduly influenced by the other branches of government.

On the question of “resisting” a bad pope, certainly many saints have done so, just in a respectful manner. St. Francis persisted in asking the Pope to approve his new rule for the order that became the Franciscans. The Pope kept saying “no” until he had a dream showing Francis holding up the crumbling Church. St. Catherine of Siena (one of the Doctors of the Church) persistently wrote the Pope in Avignon, France, begging and exhorting him to come home to Rome for the good of the Church.

The key is that they still acknowleged the Pope’s authority and office. St. Francis and St. Catherine worked hard to encourage people in holiness, and, certainly, their pope’s examples were not helping, but they still respected him and the office God had given him.
 
Hello everyone. I’m new to this foruming thing, but the topic of this thread is one that has really been in my thoughts of late. As a devoted Christian, raised Protestant, but with a deep respect and interest for the Catholic faith, I could identify with emergingfaith’s question. I know that you Catholics have to put up with a lot from us Prostestants sometimes, but please do understand, that for Protestants genuinely and respectfully exploring the Catholic faith, questions like this one are troubling issues that we have to wrestle through and are not meant to be criticisms!
With that disclaimer out of the way, I will move on to the issue of Papal corruption. I think one of the posts I read put it rather succinctly when they said the basic question was (quoting loosely), “Does personal sin prevent the Pope from being the legitimate leader of the church?” If we looked at any other office in the church, I think most of us could agree that a certain severity of personal sin could disqualify a person for leadership. I know, for instance, in a Prostestant church (where I grew a lot as a Christian!) our pastor left his family for another woman. Our church, while sincerely praying for his repentance, did not see him any longer as a fit leader. I also saw that the church persevered and even grew through the trial, that God can strengthen us even, despite the weaknesses that sometimes occur in leadership. Of course, Prostestants have a very different view of authority than Catholics, but I think that in the Catholic church, priests might be seen as no longer fit to lead after committing a particularly grievous sin.
Welcome to the forums and I welcome your questions because they are very good and necessary for us all to understand.

We all want our leaders to be people of character because we look up to them for guidance, direction and personal emulation. Certain offices that have authority should have people in them that are also quality people. The higher the offce, the more character a person should have. This is why when one falls from high office the fall is very hard and people who once believed in them feel pain in their hearts for being let down.
This being said, we all are being attacked by Satan and sometimes we fall. In certain cases, people in high positions should be removed from their jobs and others should take over to restore trust and end any possible corruption. In the place of a Pope, it is different. The Pope is, because of the office of the chair of Peter he holds, is guided by the Holy Spirit in proclaimations of faith and morals. Where does this come from? In Matthew 16:19, Peter is given the keys to the kingdom. This is a most important scripture (along with IS ch 22) in that Peter and his successors are to keep and preserve the integrity of the faith until the master comes again at the end of time. In Luke 10:16, it is said to Peter “he who hears you hears me”, showing that Christ is not allowing something wrong to be proclaimed in His name. Hense, all the not-so-good Popes did not write anything of importance or nothing at all. The Holy Spirit was at work.
Anyway, the plan of salvation is a mystery and who knows what the Holy Spirit has in mind for us having people in power who are not up to the task. In Rom 8:28, we are told that all good and bad is to be used by God for good if we have faith. So we have faith that God knows what He is doing and our faith is also in us knowing He is in control.
mdcpensive1
 
Hi folks. Many thanks for the helpful and thoughtful answers!

Mannyfit75, the M-heresy you were thinking of was Monophysitism (the belief that Jesus had only a divine nature, not both a divine and human nature). I looked it up. Apparently in the 500’s, the Empress Theodora was a Monophysite, and agreed to use her sway to have Vigilius installed as Pope if he would preach Monophysitism. He agreed, but then changed his mind after becoming Pope, preventing the heresy from being spread. (Currie, David B., Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, p. 95-96.)

Gardening Mommy, I liked your example of the saints petitioning the Popes. How wise it is to look to the example of the saints when trying to figure how to negotiate perplexing situations like this one!

mcdpensive1, thanks for your understanding answer and the encouraging scripture references. Reading your response reminded me of 1 Peter 8:21-24
“For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” Ever since first reading that verse, I have been struck by the phrase, “but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.” It shows us that even when worldly circumstances seem chaotic, or we might have leaders that are less than they should be, we can have peace if we entrust ourselves to God. We can see that in the lives of the saints in Gardening Mommy’s example, in that, while working within the bounds of church authority, they had faith in God, that He would make possible whatever He willed in their lives, that they did not take things into their own hands. Thanks folks.
 
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.
I must confess that I do not understand this either. I just watched a special on the Davidic Kingdom, and it was clear that Saul was a corrupt king in many ways. Why did God choose him?

Why did Jesus choose Judas, train him, fellowship with him for three years, and include him in the last supper? He could have chosen another way to be betrayed…

Why did Jesus say “do all that they (the pharisees) tell you, for they sit in the seat of Moses, but do not do what they do”. Why did He allow them to occupy the seat of Moses, when they were corrupt?
 
I must confess that I do not understand this either. I just watched a special on the Davidic Kingdom, and it was clear that Saul was a corrupt king in many ways. Why did God choose him?
Saul was a very good Military strategist. That may have been necessary to further secure Israel’s claim on Canaan. He just failed when it came to the domestic issues.

You’ll see that Saul surrounded himself with Benjamites, which doesn’t go too far in uniting the twelve tribes.

Later on, you’ll find David surrounded himself with members of other tribes, for he called them Israelites.

Saul may have been an example of why God didn’t want Israel to have kings. Sort of like, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it”.
Why did Jesus choose Judas, train him, fellowship with him for three years, and include him in the last supper? He could have chosen another way to be betrayed…
Why did Jesus say “do all that they (the pharisees) tell you, for they sit in the seat of Moses, but do not do what they do”. Why did He allow them to occupy the seat of Moses, when they were corrupt?
So that people can have to rely on “blind faith” to trust the Word of God.

For example, let’s say the Church could cure all paralytics. It would be easy to trust the Church, because the miraculous cures would be proof of God’s Divine Guidance. You’d be like the Apostle Thomas, “You believe because you have seen, Thomas? Blessed are those who haven’t seen and still believe”.

But without these “proofs”, you are left with believing out of pure faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top