Papal Corruptness

  • Thread starter Thread starter emergingfaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello Betsygrace
It was a pleasure to have read the post you last made. I hope we can converse again sometime. With God’s grace we will meet again and thankyou for your kind words. It was pretty late when I wrote what I did so I hope I was making my words understandable.

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.)

Thanks. I believe David Currie had a list of the heresy in see of bishops, as well and Rome is the only one had not proclaim any heresy.
 
Hi mdcpensive,
Your reply was most understandable and encouraging, though if I hadn’t already been reading on the subject, the Isaiah reference would’ve been a little cryptic:) However, your reference to Matt. 16:19, did bring out another question that has been rattling around in the back of my mind, which is what does all the talk of “binding and loosing” refer to? I can get the idea of keys more or less, but what is it exactly that will be bound or loosed? Does this refer to people, spiritual beings, rules, ??? I would appreciate anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut as reading through this passage has caused many a wrinkle in my brow! Thanks.
 
Hi mdcpensive,
Your reply was most understandable and encouraging, though if I hadn’t already been reading on the subject, the Isaiah reference would’ve been a little cryptic:) However, your reference to Matt. 16:19, did bring out another question that has been rattling around in the back of my mind, which is what does all the talk of “binding and loosing” refer to? I can get the idea of keys
Code:
Thank you for your kind words and I will try to explain the question.
The Church established by Jesus is Holy.  Part of what this means is that in its Holiness there can not be error as Jesus did not preach error and could not preach error.  In fact, the Church is the Body of Christ and the Holiness of the Church is the Spirit of Christ.  Even though authority has been given to successors of St. Peter who are still sinners, the Church which is the Spirit of Christ will not be allowed to be in error in matters of faith as Christ will never be in error.  So when Christ says "whatever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven......" means that statements of faith proclaimed as truth by the authority given by Christ will be truth accepted by Christ in heaven where there will never be anything false.

This gives me much comfort in that I know that there is an objective truth that I can search for.  The search for truth is what we all should be doing.  So many times I encounter those who say "you have your truth and I have mine" as if truth is relative to one's personal beliefs.  Christ gave us His truth through His  written Word, His Tradition and His teaching authority for the benefit of helping us understand what He wants of us and to show us the way to Him.
mdcpensive1
 
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
sorry we should not be this far off topic but this is inacurate. Marco elvoution cannot be proven and has never been proven. that is why it was abondened in 1980 at a scientific conference in chicago and this new theoy was estiblased that says evoluition takes place instantly. out of the way Dr. suse. they want us to believe a tricearatops laid an egg and a chicken poped out. It is quite rediculous, but it is scientific fact you can look it up. I heard it on tv in a kids program much to my amazement. There was and is no proof of evoluition (macro) so rather then abandon it they give us this. But none of this proves one way or another anything to do with the pope.
 
A corrupt pope is not an anti-pope. An anti-pope is an illegitimate claimant to the office of the papacy.

tee
for the record there have been 21 antipopes who took power through political intrigue or military might without or in spite of the proper election.
 
said:
actually this story is quite amazing she told in letter 2 popes to get back to rome they refused and they promptly died. then she went to avignon. and personnally met with the pope she made all the proper respectful curtieses then told the pope 'You stink" he asks how do you know that you just got here. she says I could smell you in italy. He got to packing and got back to rome very shortly thereafter. the point is she did disagree with the person in the office while respecting the office totally.
 
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.
Think of King Solomon. God spoke through Solomon (he wrote the book of Proverbs and the Song of Songs through him), yet Solomon fell into sin (see 1 Kings Chapter 11).

All human beings are capable of choosing to sin. That includes God’s servants. The fact that a person sins doesn’t disprove the content of their doctrine. If I sin, that doesn’t disprove the content of my faith (although it certainly may be evidence that I personally am not living up to it). God can use me to speak the truth even though I personally am in a state of sin.
 
The Church established by Jesus is Holy. Part of what this means is that in its Holiness there can not be error as Jesus did not preach error and could not preach error. In fact, the Church is the Body of Christ and the Holiness of the Church is the Spirit of Christ. Even though authority has been given to successors of St. Peter who are still sinners, the Church which is the Spirit of Christ will not be allowed to be in error in matters of faith as Christ will never be in error. So when Christ says “whatever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” means that statements of faith proclaimed as truth by the authority given by Christ will be truth accepted by Christ in heaven where there will never be anything false.
Many thanks for your response. While I was familiar with the theology of the Church as Christ’s body, the idea of the Church’s holiness as His spirit is new to me and certainly food for thought. You know, it’s interesting, because whenever I’ve read Matt. 16:19 before, I guess, because “earth” is mentioned before “heaven” I had kind of subconsciously assumed that the state of things in heaven was a result of what happens on earth (which is confusing). It makes much more sense the other way around. In fact, when I relooked it up in my NASB translation, it says, “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven…” which more clearly expresses earth reflecting heaven. Understanding it that way brought up some parallels with the Lord’s prayer “…They will be done on earth as it is in heaven…” The binding/loosing of statements of faith seems as plausible candidate for what is being bound as I’ve come across so far, although to be honest, I think I still have a ways to go, before I feel like I understand this verse completely.
This gives me much comfort in that I know that there is an objective truth that I can search for. The search for truth is what we all should be doing. So many times I encounter those who say “you have your truth and I have mine” as if truth is relative to one’s personal beliefs. Christ gave us His truth through His written Word, His Tradition and His teaching authority for the benefit of helping us understand what He wants of us and to show us the way to Him.
Well I bet it gives you comfort to trust that there is somebody on earth that can be infallibly relied upon as the accurate interpretation of God’s truth! Part of me desires that as well, and at the same time fears that it might simply be wishful thinking. As a Protestant, I have always just had faith in the fact that God reveals sufficient truth to us to love and follow Him. (You know, that just because you can’t be entirely certain of everything doesn’t mean you can’t know anything!) There is a sense in which various Protestant traditions disagree on a lot of issues, but I’ve always viewed these as somewhat tangential to the common Gospel we all share. You know it’s funny that I was considering similar issues to what we’ve been discussing on this board (as far as how personal holiness relates to correct discernment in matters of faith) back when I took a class on the Protestant Reformation in college. I was struck by the fact that sometimes pretty bad people seemed to have good ideas, and that very holy people still had significant disagreements in matters of faith. I remember thinking in my frustration. “God, why couldn’t you just send us somebody to set the record straight about Your truth?!” Then I had to laugh as I caught myself reflecting, “Oh yes, I suppose that was Jesus Christ! And here we all are disagreeing about what He meant!” At that time, I hadn’t been introduced to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I suppose for now, I will just have to continue to struggle with the issue with patience and faith. But all your comments have been truly helpful and are appreciated!

down under, thanks for the synopsis of the St. Catherine of Siena story. It had me laughing.

Gamera, good point about Solomon! I’ve always found it very discouraging that the world’s wisest person seems to have failed miserably! It reminds me of my motto that I’ve adopted over the past year, which is, “You’re never too old to be stupid!” It’s sounds kind of cynical, but it’s really an important thing to keep in mind!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top