The Church and Her Leaders

[meltzerboy2]

I understand that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. I also understand that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals. I think it is also acknowledged that the leaders of the Church (Pope, cardinals, archbishops, priests) are fallible humans and can make mistakes, commit sins, and do wrong. My question is if a few of the leaders of the Church, mainly popes from the distant past, have indeed committed grave or mortal sins, in what sense are these fathers of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals? In other words, what kind of moral values can “bad” popes be recognized as having? One would think that the articles of faith and morals they defined in encyclicals or infallible documents would transfer to their own behavior. Further, in what sense is the Church herself guided by the Holy Spirit given that some of her elected leaders have committed grievous wrongs? Finally, if the Church does indeed stand apart from her leaders, good and bad, then how is the Church defined according to Catholic teaching?

 

[Seagull]

Trust me - they are warned -
But sin takes no prisoners -
I believe the Book of James says ‘teachers’ will be judged harsher.
It’s why I so respect their calling - it’s a supreme vow.

 

[Genesis315]

The whole Church is infallible in general in that the the truth revealed by God will be handed on in every age–it will never be corrupted and lost as, say, the Protestants claim happened.

In as much as the entire college of bishops or the Bishop of Rome alone (their head) as the authorized teachers of the faith, to serve the unity of faith, can authoritatively pass a definitive judgment for the whole Church determining whether a particular proposition is a revealed truth or not, they are infallible when doing so (otherwise, they would corrupt the faith of the whole Church–the cannot corrupt the whole Church where there is no duty of obedience to them, such as no duty exists to follow their example).

They are only infallible in these definitive judgments for the whole Church, by which they essentially speak with the authority of the whole Church.

In our Scriptures, we see many examples of leaders saying one thing, and doing another.

Continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

Jesus said the following of the Jewish leaders:

Matt. 23:[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

Caiphas spoke with a similar charism of truth, despite his unjust actions:

John 11:[49] But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. [50] Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. [51] And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.

And Peter declared a truth and acted the opposite on multiples times:

First:

Matt. 16:[13] And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? [14] But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? [16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven…

…[21] From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23] Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.

Again:

Acts 11:[2] And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, [3] Saying: Why didst thou go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them? [4] But Peter began and declared to them the matter in order, saying: [5] I was in the city of Joppe praying, and I saw in an ecstasy of mind a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners, and it came even unto me. [6] Into which looking, I considered, and saw fourfooted creatures of the earth, and beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air: [7] And I heard also a voice saying to me: Arise, Peter; kill and eat. [8] And I said: Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth. [9] And the voice answered again from heaven: What God hath made clean, do not thou call common. [10] And this was done three times: and all were taken up again into heaven.

Gal. 2:[11] But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [12] For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Oh no! " ‘Teachers’ will be judged harsher"? Thanks for your reply.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thank you for the information.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thank you for your detailed and informative comment.

 

[po18guy]

Best to focus on Church teaching first. That, not sinful mankind, is our proper focus. Each and every leader of every religion, sect, cult or group has been sinful - in thought, word, action and inaction.

This in no way corrodes or necessarily reflects poorly on the moral goodness or evils of the belief system that they adhere to. What it indicates, once again, is the teaching of concupiscence - our natural tendencies, a leaning away from good and toward evil in our persons.

Church teaching rises above our nature - it must. It is a goal, not an absolute requirement. As long as we recognize our sinfulness, have sorrow inn our hearts for that sin, and strive to overcome it, G-d is pleased with us.

What man thinks is immaterial.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thanks for this “very Jewish” explanation (third paragraph in particular), perhaps with the exception of concupiscence. But I can identify with this.

 

[Seagull]

I am sitting outside right now - nice day -
Reading the Philokalia -
Specifically- St. Theognostos -
“ On the practice of …Contemplation and the Priesthood “
He was a Priest himself…eighth century…
Sayings…one through seventy five…
Kinda interesting, if you can find it on the internet.

 

[Mary888]

Actually the leader of the Church is Jesus Christ. He is the first bishop. All other bishops including the bishops of Rome and Constantinopole are under him. St. Macarius is said to have found a skull in the desert and started to talk with. Macarius asked - “Who are you?”. The skull replied “I am a Pagan priest and now I am in hell.” “Oh no, poor you!”
“Mneah, I am fine. On good days we get to see each others even though we suffer.”
“Why is that a good day? Tell me, what do you see?”
“I see others suffering just like me.”
“Poor souls”
“Mneah, they are fine. Underneath us are really doing badly.”
“Who is underneath you?”
“The Christian priests who betrayed Jesus.”

We bow in the icons of the Holy Fathers to their perfected image as they were seen after reaching Heaven not their earthly selves. Not all bishops are saints. If Purgatory is maybe acceptable to you (hard for me too since I am in EO, we believe in God’s Judgement which is tremendous) maybe this makes sense exactly who are we bowing to in front of an early church leader’s icon.
Their words we are taught to see not in themselves but within their spirit. St. Paul says in the NT that
2 Corinthians 3:4-6
4And we have such faith, through Christ, toward God. 5It is not that we are adequate to think anything of ourselves, as if anything was from us. But our adequacy is from God. 6And he has made us suitable ministers of the New Testament, not in the letter, but in the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
That is why before reading anything considered sacred from the Bible to the writings of the Holy Fathers we are instructed to pray for enlightment on what we read so we do not read the words in themselves but the spirit in which they are written and from that spirit which part is in harmony with the Holy Spirit. We believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit much more than others and us living today but they are human, even as saints they do not represent perfection in themselves.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Interesting, subtle comments. Thank you. We Jews do believe in purgatory.

 

[Wesrock]

My question is if a few of the leaders of the Church, mainly popes from the distant past, have indeed committed grave or mortal sins, in what sense are these fathers of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals?

They are prevented from formally defining a heresy as a doctrine of the Church. They are not impeccable. God’s made use of sinful and flawed men in Biblical history, whether they be patriarchs, judges, kings, or prophets, though perhaps that doesn’t need elucidating. The Church just has a guarantee that heresy won’t be formally defined as doctrine.

Finally, if the Church does indeed stand apart from her leaders, good and bad, then how is the Church defined according to Catholic teaching?

This is, admittedly, difficult for me to pin down. Was Israel defined as being equivalent with its leaders? It was a people, an assembly, a nation (and not just in the sense of being a world-state).

The term “Church” is also used in different senses. To pull some excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• It is employed to denote all who, from the beginning of the world, have believed in the one true God, and have been made His children by grace.
• It may signify the whole body of the faithful, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints.
• It is further employed to signify the Church Militant of the New Testament. Even in this restricted acceptation, there is some variety in the use of the term. The disciples of a single locality are often referred to in the New Testament as a Church, and St. Paul even applies the term to disciples belonging to a single household. Moreover, it may designate specially those who exercise the office of teaching and ruling the faithful, the Ecclesia Docens, or again the governed as distinguished from their pastors, the Ecclesia Discens. In all these cases the name belonging to the whole is applied to a part.

 

[Wesrock]

Back to my own attempts, there is a passage in Paul’s Epistle to the Ethesians which is relevant here. It’s often commented on when it comes to relations between husband and wives, and I hope I won’t divert this topic here, but it’s relevant to the Church:

Ephesians 5: 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

The Church is a mysterious reality, by that I mean something real but which has dimensions we don’t understand. We see aspects of it in assembly of the faithful, all the laity. We see aspects of it in the clergy and episcopal structure (the “Petrine” dimension). But it’s something known as if being perceived behind a veil, which will only be fully unveiled at the Second Coming (Parousia).

The Book of Revelation states the following in Chapter 21:

2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.

Here I don’t believe he means a physical city is the bride, but rather the Church, or those who belong to it. If God saw Israel as his bride, the Church, in a sense, is that as well. Even the Song of Solomon has been interpreted as a reference to God and the Church. The Gospel of John and Johannine literature in general often refers to Jesus (the Messiah) as the Bridegroom, too.

I’m rambling now. I don’t know if there’s any help to be had in anything I wrote.

Speaking of the bad things Popes and members of the clergy and laity have done, those are terrible things, and Catholics (myself included) are often too reactionary in defending the Church so as to brush these offenses aside in a callous manner. We shouldn’t ignore them. We have to acknowledge them, and the things the Church (as part of a whole, as an organization of men on earth) that were wrong.

 

[po18guy]

You are too kind. But, this is not emphasized well enough: we are a Jewish faith into which the Gentiles have been adopted. We must never forget that we have been grafted in, and thus we may also be pruned back off. The mass in particular, has been described as Synagogue with Christ. This is by divine design.

Years back, I was privileged to have a brief discourse with Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein. Of all the world faiths, he respected Catholicism, as it mandated respect for, and love of our Hebrew ‘elder brothers in the faith’ - as well that Catholic teaching, unlike other faiths, could not change.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think the guidance of the Spirit is more properly understood as a protection rather than a divine mandate. In other words, the Spirit is there to guarantee that we sinful human beings do not topple the whole edifice. It does not necessarily mean the Spirit will put the right person in the right position 100% of the time. That would negate our free will.

Same with the pope. The Spirit guarantees that the pope will not formally speak any errors on faith and morals. The Spirit does not guarantee that a particular pope will necessarily say anything of great substance.

Your question does have me wondering, now, whether any of the scandalous popes we have had in history have ever produced something that was of benefit to the development of theology. I cannot think of any examples offhand, but then I have not widely read writings of bad popes.

 

[meltzerboy2]

You are definitely NOT rambling, and you have provided A LOT of information to think about. Thanks!

 

[meltzerboy2]

I like your nuanced distinctions here. Free will is one of the keys, I’m sure. Thank you.

 

[po18guy]

I think the guidance of the Spirit is more properly understood as a protection rather than a divine mandate. In other words, the Spirit is there to guarantee that we sinful human beings do not topple the whole edifice. It does not necessarily mean the Spirit will put the right person in the right position 100% of the time. That would negate our free will.

Same with the pope. The Spirit guarantees that the pope will not formally speak any errors on faith and morals. The Spirit does not guarantee that a particular pope will necessarily say anything of great substance.

Your question does have me wondering, now, whether any of the scandalous popes we have had in history have ever produced something that was of benefit to the development of theology. I cannot think of any examples offhand, but then I have not widely read writings of bad popes.

Not a Pope, but Saint Augustine! Horrid life. Sin upon sin. Dissolute living exemplified. Each and every Pope has contributed at least something - even if they were hypocritical. I consider myself worse than any of them, as I was not chosen to be one of them.

Remember also that bad examples can bring about good, just as God allows evil so that He alone may bring good from it.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Wasn’t it St. Augustine who said something like “L-rd, make me pure but not yet”?