The papacy was sold?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggling1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Struggling1

Guest
I saw there was a young pope like 20 who sold the papacy how does that not break apostolic succession and counter act the Holy Spirit?
 
Apostolic succession refers to the laying on of hands from bishop to bishop going all the way back to the apostles. The successor of St. Peter is the man whom the Church recognizes to be the Bishop of Rome. As long as that man has been ordained a bishop by another bishop in apostolic succession, he is the Pope. The sins of individuals do not change this reality. It is Christ Himself who sustains the Church. Apostolic succession is a gift from Christ and does not depend upon the merits of those who receive it.
 
God has preserved the Church from error in spite of the sins of men.
 
Here’s my understanding in a nutshell: in this case, it was technically simoniacal according to the letter of the law, but it was the opposite in spirit (simony being the buying of spiritual goods). Benedict IX was essentially paid to leave rather than Gregory VI buying the papacy of his own ambition. Benedict IX was generally a terrible Pope and person. His godfather, the Archpriest John Gratian, on the other hand, was a good guy. Benedict got sick of being Pope and, since he knew no one liked him, offered to resign and have his godfather elected instead on the condition that he get paid on his way out (supposedly he wanted to pursue a more secular life). This was agreed to just to get rid of him and everyone was happy to have John (now Gregory VI) elected (everyone except the supporters of the antipope Sylvester III). Even the super strict St. Peter Damian approved of this for the good of the Church. In many ways it was the best solution to an unhappy situation.

Gregory VI eventually resigned himself for the sake of peace in Rome to help end the schism with Sylvester III’s group.
 
Last edited:
Struggling1 said:
How so? I don’t understand?
Click to expand...
We was wanting to resign but withstood a substantial economic loss in his election. Ergo he wanted to surrender it specifically to his godfather but with the bonus of paying back some of his expenses.

“He sold the papacy” is an oversimplification.

He also took it back, more-or-less nullifying the sale.

He was a pretty loose canon…
 
How do we know anything at all? How can you prove you aren’t a brain in a vat?
 
Struggling1 said:
How do we know anything at all? How can you prove you aren’t a brain in a vat?
Click to expand...
Lord, how do you know that proof is proof? That up is really up and and down is really down?

You have to make fundamental, axiomatic concessions.

Being a skeptical is a good thing. Being a skeptic to the point that you get stuck in a feedback loop is nihilistic and often ends in the suicide of the thinker. Just throwing that out there…
 
How do you know that Napoleon or Genghis Khan were other than “it is claimed”. We have trusted, historical sources.
 
I am asking for evidence of a specific claim. Responding “how can you prove you aren’t a brain in a vat” would end every discussion on these forums and doesn’t advance knowledge.
 
Ridiculous. There is evidence of their existence, just like there is some evidence of Jesus’ existence. I can provide evidence if you like. I am asking for evidence of your claim.
 
KevinK said:
Ridiculous. There is evidence of their existence, just like there is some evidence of Jesus’ existence. I can provide evidence if you like. I am asking for evidence of your claim.
Click to expand...
There wouldn’t be any such thing as “proof” as the word is defined.

Evidence for it would be the membership of the Church (its success) relative to other Christian claimants of being “the one”. Another point would be that the Catholic Church has a pretty decent claim as being historically continuous with the 1st century Church. Related to this, the CC boasts a maintained apostolic succession.

There are others, but I’d wager these are the bigs. But it’s nothing that can’t be denied; like most anything abstract.
 
Last edited:
The most important source for the history of the first nine popes who bore the name of Benedict is the biographies in the Liber Pontificalis, of which the most useful edition is that of Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886-92), and the latest that of Mommsen, Gesta Pontif. Roman. (to the end of the reign of Constantine only, Berlin, 1898). Jaffé, Regesta Pont. Rom. (2d ed., Leipzig, 1885), gives a summary of the letters of each pope and tells where they may be read at length. Modern accounts of these popes will be found in any large Church history, or history of the City of Rome. The fullest account in English of most of them is to be read in Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902, passim).

About this page
APA citation. Mann, H. (1907). Pope Benedict IX. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved March 9, 2018 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

MLA citation. Mann, Horace. “Pope Benedict IX.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 9 Mar. 2018 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Kryspin J. Turczynski.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
 
I was being facetious sorry :confused: but yeah I have to break my skeptical feedback loop.
 
I’m sorry I was being facetious. I guess I don’t know. People pass down the stories and some people have written about it but I don’t know for sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top