Protestant's Questions About The Papacy

[Protestant101]

As I was doing some research about who the first Pope was to formally recognize in writing, the keeping of Sunday as “The Christian Day Of Rest;” I came across something that really puzzled me. Therefore; I would be interested to study with anyone willing, the following:

a) The Nature Of The Papacy
b) The Authority Of The Pope
c) Related questions/topics

Here is something I found in OUR Sunday Visitors Encyclopedia Of Catholic History; after which I will start my questions:

CATHOLIC HISTORY

Sylvester III

Pope from January 20-March 10, 1045. Known originally as John, he was serving as bishop of Sabina when Pope Benedict IX was forcibly deposed in September 1044.

After long negotiations and machinations, particularly on the part of the family of the Crescentii, John was elected pope in January 1045.

His brief pontificate was immediately troubled by the deposed Benedict, who excommunicated his successor.

On March 10, Sylvester was compelled to step down; deciding to ignore the excommunication by Benedict, he returned to his see in Sabina.

Benedict, meanwhile, sold the papacy to Giovanni Graziano, Pope Gregory VI.

At the subsequent Synod of Sutri (1046), Sylvester, Benedict, and Gregory were all declared deposed and replaced by Suidger, bishop of Bamberg, Pope Clement II.

Sylvester continued to serve as bishop of Sabina until just before his death. He is considered in some lists to have been an antipope, particularly if the deposition of Benedict was not legal.

Questions:

1) Who was Benedict IX “forcibly deposed” by? Was it Sylvester III?

2) If so, how can a Catholic Church member just walk up to a Pope and depose him? By what authority could this be done?

3) By what authority would Bendict IX then be able to “excommunicate” a Pope currently serving in office, after being duly elected there?

4) This whole accounting of Papal history for Sylvester III makes the Papacy look pretty mixed up, disorganized, and not experiencing God’s leading at all. With everyone in this account either deposing or being deposed; the grand finale reveals one Pope actually “selling” the Papacy (like one would sell a donut franchise), to some other guy who wanted to be Pope!! I find this really hard to understand how it can be claimed that God would approve of marketing and selling of “The Papacy” to the highest bidder like this. I can’t imagine any Church doing such a thing as selling their office of Leadership for money. How would you reconcile this history from OSV about Sylvester III with the following:

#882 of the CCC: “The Pope, Bishop of Rome, and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity, both of the Bishops, and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church; has full, supreme, and universal power, over the whole Church which he can always exercised unhindered.”

I don’t understand how “The Vicar Of Christ” and his office thereof in the Catholic Church can have such a mixed up and questionable history. It certainly reflects some problems with “unity;” and with how Catholics typically see the Pope’s authority, as well as many questions about God’s leading?

5 I would still like to know which Pope formalized Sunday keeping in writing; and where I could read what he wrote. (I will start a separate topic on this asap).

I am hoping someone can explain all this to me better.

 

[demerzel85]

Hmm…thread does not belong here. No reference to Sacred Scripture, so it belongs most appropriately in the main Apologetics section.

 

[Protestant101]

Hmm…thread does not belong here. No reference to Sacred Scripture, so it belongs most appropriately in the main Apologetics section.

That’s OK. I was not sure where to put this. If it needs to be moved; that is fine.

 

[RCCDefender]

Specifically, I am unable to answer each of your questions without considerable research. Even then, we are not assured to find any definitive answers. Sometimes you just have to say that it’s by God’s grace that the Church made it through some terrible times.

Generally speaking I can tell you this: One of the things many anti-Catholics (and I’m not saying you are one, you post looks very charitable and straightforward) use to try to disprove the Church is that there have been “bad popes.” The answer is, so what? How does this prove that Catholicism is wrong. No one ever said that the pope is impeccable. Look at the apsotles Jesus Himself chose. One of them turn Him over to the authorities for some silver. Another, the one He chose specifically to lead His Church, denied that he even knew Jesus. Jesus knew that they would do these things and still He had reasons to choose these specific men. The pope is still human and isjust as capable as you or I of committing sin. The pope even has his own confessor.

I know this may not answer everything for you, but I hope it makes things a little more clear.

 

[corvidae]

It looks like this may be part of the “great western schism”. At one point there were 2 or even 3 popes running around, excommunicating their opposers and saying they had been legitimately elected.

Only through the lense of history are we able to discern the one who was the truly elected pope.

There were numerous councils that tried to straighten things up. For example Sigismund of Luxemborg A Holy roman emporer, arrested 2 popes and set up a council to replace them with one.

There are even people today who say that the pope was not truly elected and that there is another pope out there.

The important thing is the apostolic succesion, which remains, and the infallibility of doctrine which (miraculously) was unchanged by these so called bad popes.

A lone Raven

 

[Verita]

I’ll try to answer some of your questions.

1) Who was Benedict IX “forcibly deposed” by? Was it Sylvester III?

According to New Advent it was “factions in the City”. What city? Probably Rome. If you read a history of the Popes you’ll quickly see that Rome was very faction driven.

2) If so, how can a Catholic Church member just walk up to a Pope and depose him? By what authority could this be done?

By no authority. That is why Sylvester is considered an anti-pope.

3) By what authority would Bendict IX then be able to “excommunicate” a Pope currently serving in office, after being duly elected there?

Sylvester was not validly elected as Pope. Therefore Benedict was still the Pope and had the authority to excommunicate Sylvester.

4) This whole accounting of Papal history for Sylvester III makes the Papacy look pretty mixed up, disorganized, and not experiencing God’s leading at all. With everyone in this account either deposing or being deposed; the grand finale reveals one Pope actually “selling” the Papacy (like one would sell a donut franchise), to some other guy who wanted to be Pope!! I find this really hard to understand how it can be claimed that God would approve of marketing and selling of “The Papacy” to the highest bidder like this. I can’t imagine any Church doing such a thing as selling their office of Leadership for money. How would you reconcile this history from OSV about Sylvester III with the following:

I don’t understand how “The Vicar Of Christ” and his office thereof in the Catholic Church can have such a mixed up and questionable history. It certainly reflects some problems with “unity;” and with how Catholics typically see the Pope’s authority, as well as many questions about God’s leading?

The Church is made up of men and men make mistakes and men sin. God does not approve of these things. God does not condone these things. Does he allow them? Yes. Why? Because of Free Will. However, what I find the most telling in all of these stories of bad popes is that though many of them were immoral and ambitious, they never tried to impose their morals on the church. They didn’t try to declare that fornication was ok even though they participated in it themselves. The guidance of the Holy Spirit kept the Church intact through those bad times and brought the Church out of those bad times intact.

Yes, the Papacy got submerged in politics, and yes there were simply awful men as Pope, but God protected the Church through all of it. Considering that such men were at the head of the Church for so long, I think it rather proves that the Holy Spirit is with the Church than otherwise.

 

[Tom]

Basically there has never been more than one living pope. There have, at times, been several people claiming to be pope. For example there are, this very day, three people that I know of who claim to be the pope of the Catholic Church, there is of course only one. The fact that an anti pope “excommunicates” either the validly elected pope or another anti pope, although confusing, is of absolutely no serious consequence. Does it matter if the “pope” in California excommunicates Benedict? No, not really because the guy who claims to be pope in California really isn’t the pope is he? There is an excellent book “Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church by H. W. Crocker III (Three Rivers Press, 2003)” which does an excellent job explaining this and many other oddities. It really gives an objective view. I found it very interesting and informative. Maybe I could contact the “pope” in California and buy his see myself… Pope Tom, I like it!!!

 

[Protestant101]

Specifically, I am unable to answer each of your questions without considerable research. Even then, we are not assured to find any definitive answers. Sometimes you just have to say that it’s by God’s grace that the Church made it through some terrible times.

Generally speaking I can tell you this: One of the things many anti-Catholics (and I’m not saying you are one, you post looks very charitable and straightforward) use to try to disprove the Church is that there have been “bad popes.” The answer is, so what? How does this prove that Catholicism is wrong. No one ever said that the pope is impeccable. Look at the apsotles Jesus Himself chose. One of them turn Him over to the authorities for some silver. Another, the one He chose specifically to lead His Church, denied that he even knew Jesus. Jesus knew that they would do these things and still He had reasons to choose these specific men. The pope is still human and isjust as capable as you or I of committing sin. The pope even has his own confessor.

I know this may not answer everything for you, but I hope it makes things a little more clear.

You are right, I am not intending to disprove anything by my comments re Sylvester III. I am just puzzled about all the ruckus I read about in the OSV History.

 

[visavismeyou]

The best response I can give is from my studies and observations of historical greed in all seats of “power”. (Power being defined as having enough swey to get one’s will fulfilled). The death Charlemange, and many other world leaders throughout history, displays perfectly my point. After the death of these singular leaders, there was a vacuum of power. Into this vacuum flowed the greed of lesser men who wanted to be like the leader.

This understanding of the issues which occur often during the passage of power creates an understanding that when a pope loses legitimacy in the eyes of some, he can get diposed by a popular and powerful figure. Is it right? of course not, does it delegitimize the papacy? of course not. One constant that I am attempting to draw is that humans are fallible. Christ knew this, and Christ knew that we would have people who would always look back to the Truth which He spoke and would fix the Church when she went astray.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My understanding is at times the power of the church was more in the bureaucracy and the Pope was considered more as a head of the bureaucracy. This has no real affect on the authority vested in the Pope but on the way the Pope uses his authority. What is being discussed is sections of the bureaucracy refusing to further support the current Pope. In this particular case the clam is the Pope chose not to surrender authority. What is important is all who lead the church receive the full responsibility; any none can remove the authority. The authority always resides with the church leader not the individual man. The authority is installed by the Holy Spirit which resides in and guides the church.

The Bureaucracy is the Bishops who reside in Rome plus Priest who also reside in Rome and are assigned to Vatican duties.

 

[batteddy]

Sylvester may or may not have been pope. Benedict, upon forceful deposition, may have consented to resignation in his heart…only to change his mind and try to take it back.

I mean…he changed his mind when he unambiguously and officially resigned and let the next Gregory become Pope.

Benedict was at times both Pope, antipope, and then for a period, Pope again! and there were a bunch of other awkward figures in there. Sad time, really.

Popes cannot be deposed, though people in the dark ages certainly tried. Sometimes they consented to resignation upon deposition (ie, agreed to give up and live out their lives in a monastery) other times they didnt.

Especially infamous there is this case, and the case of Leo VIII. Here, from wikipedia (but much of the content is from New Advent, and I personally helped edit this one):

“Leo VIII (died 965), Antipope from 963 to 964, true Pope from 964 to 965, a Roman by birth, held the lay office of protoserinus when he was invalidly elected pope at the insistence of Emperor Otto I the Great (936–973), by the Roman synod which invalidly deposed Pope John XII (955–964), who was still alive, in December 963. Having been hurried with unseemly haste through all the intermediate orders, he received consecration two days after his election, which was unacceptable to the people. In February 964, the Emperor having withdrawn from the city, Leo VIII found it necessary to seek safety in flight, whereupon he was deposed by a synod held under the presidency of the restored John XII. On the sudden death of John XII, the populace chose Pope Benedict V (964–966) as his successor; but Otto I, returning and laying siege to the city, compelled their acceptance of Leo VIII.With the consent of all his would-be judges, Benedict was degraded to the rank of a deacon, Leo himself tearing the pallium from his shoulders (July, 964). If it be the fact, as is asserted by a contemporary, that Benedict validly acquiesced in his deposition, and if, as seems certain, no further protest was made against Leo’s position, he may well be regarded as a true pope from July, 964, to his death in 965, about the month of March.”

So John was Pope, Leo tried to depose him and so was an Antipope, but John returned (still the true pope because he never consented to resignation) and drove Leo out. Then John died and Benedict was elected true Pope. However, Leo and the Emperor did not like Benedict and so Leo as antipope returned and (sacreligiously) tried to depose Benedict. Benedict, however, did acquiesce and gave up his power under such pressure, and so Leo the antipope was (reluctantly) recognized by the Romans, and was the true pope for the next year until he died.

Very sad situation. But I think Benedict V was wise to aquiesce, consent, and resign…for his own safety, and for the good of the Church.

 

[batteddy]

As for Benedict IX, there was a series of events:

“In September 1044 he was forced from the city again and replaced by Pope Silvester III (1045), who is sometimes considered an antipope, though generally Benedict’s abdication for a financial reward is recognized as valid. Benedict IX’s forces returned in April 1045 and expelled his rival. There is debate as to whether Silvester validly acquiesced to his deposition, and thus as to who was true pope from this point until the reign of Pope Clement II when Silvester had definitely accepted abdication. However, Benedict’s second term as Pope is often recognized as valid. Benedict IX then resigned in May 1045, possibly to marry, selling his office to priest John Gratian, his godfather (possibly for over 650 kg /1450 lb of gold). Gratian apparently became Pope Gregory VI (1045–46) in May, 1045, though if Silvester never validly resigned, neither Benedict nor Gregory were true Pope during this period. Benedict IX apparently soon regretted the sale and returned to try to depose Gregory VI. Silvester III also re-emerged to make a claim.
Benedict IX retook Rome and remained on the throne until July 1046, although Gregory VI continued to be recognized as the true Pope. Emperor Henry III (1039–56) intervened, and at the Council of Sutri in December 1046 Benedict IX and Silvester III were deprived of their offices and Gregory VI was encouraged to resign, which he did. Silvester accepted this, but Benedict IX did not actually attend. The German Bishop Suidger was crowned Pope Clement II (1046–47), which Benedict IX rejected, though his abdication to Gregory VI was incontrovertible. After Clement II died in October 1047, Pope Benedict IX seized the Lateran Palace in November 1047, but was driven away in July 1048. During this period he is generally recognized to have had his third term as true Pope. When Poppo of Brixen finally drove him out for good and was elected as Pope Damasus II (1048). Benedict IX refused to appear on charges of simony in 1049 and was excommunicated. Benedict IX’s is universally regarded to have validly acquiesced to his third deposition, and Damasus II is universally recognized as Pope.
Benedict IX’s eventual fate is obscure. He may have given up and resigned the pontificate, dying around 1065 in the Abbey of Grottaferrata. Other sources say he died in 1085. Pope Leo IX (1049–54) may have lifted the ban on him. Another report is that he continued to seek support for a return but died in January 1055 or 1056.”

 

[batteddy]

A summary:

-Benedict was elected Pope. This is not questioned.

-Sylvester drove him out of the city. This is not questioned.

-Benedict probably resigned for a price. This is questionable. If he did in fact resign, Sylvester was Pope. If not, Benedict still was.

-Benedict came back and drove Sylvester out. This is not questioned. If Benedict was still Pope, there is no problem presented (he was just taking back his rightful office). But if Sylvester was truly Pope (because Benedict had given up the office the first time for a pay-off), then Benedict may or may not have become Pope after this: if Sylvester acquiesced to this deposition by a returned Benedict, then Benedict became Pope again, but if Sylvester didn’t consent then Sylvester was Pope until he official resigned a few years a later.

-Benedict once again resigned, this time to get married. Gregory was recognized as Pope (though if Sylvester was truly Pope after Benedict’s first term but didnt resign before his second…Gregory was never pope)

-Benedict again tried to take back the papacy, even though this time it was unquestionable that he was NOT pope (he had resigned to marry!) Sylvester also reemerged with his claims

-The emperor held a council. He encouraged Gregory (generally recognized as true pope) to resign, and he did resign. He declared Benedict definitely not pope (which he certainly wasn’t, as he had resigned to marry) and also declared that Sylvester was not Pope. Whether Sylvester had been or had not been Pope up to this point…he accepted this and gave up his claim.

-Clement II is elected Pope. He is unquestionably the true Pope as each of the two potentilly valid claimants (Gregory and Sylvester) had resigned at the request of the Emperor (Benedict’s claim was not valid at all…he had clearly and officially resigned to marry)

-Clement died and Benedict took over and had himself elected Pope again. He was generally recognized as true Pope during this period.

-Poppo drove him out, and was elected Damasus II. Benedict is universally regarded to have acquiesced and resigned. What happens to him after that is obscure. He may have once again revived his claim and tried to take back the papacy, or he may have lived out his days in a monastery.

So there are really three possibilities:

1. Benedict never resigned the first time so Sylvester was never Pope. This would make the sucession: Benedict IX, Gregory, Clement II, Benedict IX, Damasus.
2. Benedict did resign the first time, and when he came back to depose Sylvester, Sylvester didn’t resign. This would make the sucession: Benedict IX, Sylvester, Clement II, Benedict IX, Damasus.
3. Benedict did resign the first time, but when he came back to depose Sylvester Sylvester did resign. This would make the sucession: Benedict IX, Sylvester, Benedict IX, Gregory, Clement II, Benedict IX, Damasus. This is the one generally held (I guess because it gives everyone a turn as pope…)

There is of course also the small chance that Benedict really was never pope between Clement and Damasus (making the sucession go right from Clement to Damasus with a year long gap with no pope, which has happened before). There is also a small chance that Benedict was Pope during this time but never acquiesed to deposition by Poppo (who became Damasus) and so Benedict was actually Pope until he died, and the next Pope was whoever was left after he died. But the date of his death is unknown and it is actually universally agreed that he did consent to resignation to Poppo (who became Damasus II) and probably lived out his life in a monastery.

 

[Protestant101]

Thanks to everyone for the info. Now I really find it all confusing; and hard to keep track of.

I have questions about how this all implicates on church authority, and nature of the Papacy; but will have to post them a little later when I have more time.

 

[sires6]

Thanks to everyone for the info. Now I really find it all confusing; and hard to keep track of.

I have questions about how this all implicates on church authority, and nature of the Papacy; but will have to post them a little later when I have more time.

If you notice, despite all the fluffing about, there were no doctrines defined during this time, therefore Authority and Infallibility should never be questioned.

Another thing that hit me as a Protestant was that apostolic succession never failed. All the popes, good and bad, we validly conferred as priests and therefore could be Pope… any priest can be pope, but not just any priest CAN be pope…

And one more thing, if we look at the middle ages with the eyes of modernity, we have a hard time understanding what was going on and why. If we understand that back then was a bit different then it is now, then you can understand why and what for. It was politically expedient and fairly acceptable back then to kill off your rival, especially in family controlled Italian city-states. Like the Mafia, but tougher. And then you put your second cousin on your sister’s side on the [throne, papal chair, bishopric] because it worked, you got lands and money and then you had control.

It was the main reason the church outlawed lay investiture, in other words the conferring of priestly titles by non-church people such as kings and ruling monarchs.

hope that helps

Triumph by Crocker is a great help in wading through the historical mud.

 

[Mickey]

If you notice, despite all the fluffing about, there were no doctrines defined during this time, therefore Authority and Infallibility should never be questioned.

There was no such doctrine as supreme infallible pontiff at this time.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

Even if so, there still were no direct statements within what we decide is such-

This is in fact proof of the church, ironically-

“Here what they say, do what they say”, Yes, Christi,
as for what they do- this is for them, God, and judgment to decide



newconscience.googlepages.com/merenessoftruth

 

[chris_molter]

You are right, I am not intending to disprove anything by my comments re Sylvester III. I am just puzzled about all the ruckus I read about in the OSV History.

As relatively steady as the Papacy and the political situation around him has been in the past couple hundred years, it IS hard to imagine a world where the Papacy was like this.

It’s also hard to imagine the eras where corrupt and decadent men ruled as Pope or when Bishops and Cardinals schemed and plotted like any other political group to obtain power. Unfortunately, such things did occur, which can mar the Church’s witness of Christ to the world

Happily, the Holy Spirit is still ensuring that the Holy Catholic Church teaches only the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Gospel and that Peter still safeguards the keys!

 

[Neal]

Triumph by Crocker is a great help in wading through the historical mud.

An alright book, I had to stop reading it once he started talking smack about the Irish.

Yeah, all this stuff is much adieu about nothing, as no real theology was done during this time. Makes me glad that the Pope really has no political power anymore.

 

[Joero]

As I was doing some research about who the first Pope was to formally recognize in writing, the keeping of Sunday as “The Christian Day Of Rest;” I came across something that really puzzled me. Therefore; I would be interested to study with anyone willing, the following:

a) The Nature Of The Papacy
b) The Authority Of The Pope
c) Related questions/topics

Here is something I found in OUR Sunday Visitors Encyclopedia Of Catholic History; after which I will start my questions:

Questions:

1) Who was Benedict IX “forcibly deposed” by? Was it Sylvester III?

2) If so, how can a Catholic Church member just walk up to a Pope and depose him? By what authority could this be done?

3) By what authority would Bendict IX then be able to “excommunicate” a Pope currently serving in office, after being duly elected there?

4) This whole accounting of Papal history for Sylvester III makes the Papacy look pretty mixed up, disorganized, and not experiencing God’s leading at all. With everyone in this account either deposing or being deposed; the grand finale reveals one Pope actually “selling” the Papacy (like one would sell a donut franchise), to some other guy who wanted to be Pope!! I find this really hard to understand how it can be claimed that God would approve of marketing and selling of “The Papacy” to the highest bidder like this. I can’t imagine any Church doing such a thing as selling their office of Leadership for money. How would you reconcile this history from OSV about Sylvester III with the following:

I don’t understand how “The Vicar Of Christ” and his office thereof in the Catholic Church can have such a mixed up and questionable history. It certainly reflects some problems with “unity;” and with how Catholics typically see the Pope’s authority, as well as many questions about God’s leading?

5 I would still like to know which Pope formalized Sunday keeping in writing; and where I could read what he wrote. (I will start a separate topic on this asap).

I am hoping someone can explain all this to me better.

These links may give clarification to your queries:
newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/06791a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/04017a.htm