The possibility of an Evil Pope and the immutability of Catholic Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An example of bad person who became pope is Alexander VI (mistress, adultery, simony, nepotism, etc).

I will concede, however, in saying that there are no bad pope as an office. Even Alexander VI did not do anything bad as a pope (aside from the simony of his office, but not sufficent to affect the common Christians)

If even that is not allow however, then I am willing to gladly declare myself not as Catholic right here, right now. I recognize the office being good, always. I refuse to recognize the man who held the office may not have error. Like how the Pope stayed in France until St Catherine of Siena, an uneducated nun, outright told him it is wrong for him to stay under the influence of the France Crown.
 
May I introduce you to Benedict IX? He was held the See of Peter no less than three times. He sold the office once, bloodily seized it back, abdicated because he wanted to marry, was notorious when it came to nepotism and simony. There was even some suggestion of some other sexual sins. As for sources, here are a few:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02/Page_40.html

newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

britannica.com/biography/Benedict-IX

play.google.com/store/books/details?id=mnR-Zq6Q4xIC&rdid=book-mnR-Zq6Q4xIC&rdot=1 (a free e-book)

~Pax
 
SanRafael1102 said:
May I introduce you to Benedict IX? He was held the See of Peter no less than three times. He sold the office once, bloodily seized it back, abdicated because he wanted to marry, was notorious when it came to nepotism and simony. There was even some suggestion of some other sexual sins. As for sources, here are a few:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02/Page_40.html

newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

britannica.com/biography/Benedict-IX

play.google.com/store/books/details?id=mnR-Zq6Q4xIC&rdid=book-mnR-Zq6Q4xIC&rdot=1 (a free e-book)

~Pax
Click to expand...
Thanks for the sources 👍
 
joeybaggz said:
Never intended to. Why don’t you study the history of the papacy? If you don’t find some cockroaches in the woodwork, send me a pair of those rose colored glasses that you see history with. Must be nice to think everyone is holy and pious. Just don’t look too hard in the Middle Ages.

Shalom
Click to expand...
I have studied it, and the Pope has been the rock on which the Lord Jesus Christ has been building the Church for 2000 years. Nothing could be plainer.

Don’t listen to slanderous accusations that the enemies of the gospel have made against the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
 
PluniaZ said:
I have studied it, and the Pope has been the rock on which the Lord Jesus Christ has been building the Church for 2000 years. Nothing could be plainer.

Don’t listen to slanderous accusations that the enemies of the gospel have made against the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
So? All history are written by victors then, with “proofs” and etc. So what are you going to say, when there are enough evidence to support the histories? Very well. let’s just stick with Gospel, shall we? Even Paul had to rebuked him once. But Peter is not a bad pope.

You may believe you are defending the office. Your wording, however, are defending them as a person.
 
SanRafael1102 said:
May I introduce you to Benedict IX? He was held the See of Peter no less than three times. He sold the office once, bloodily seized it back, abdicated because he wanted to marry, was notorious when it came to nepotism and simony. There was even some suggestion of some other sexual sins. As for sources, here are a few:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02/Page_40.html

newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

britannica.com/biography/Benedict-IX

play.google.com/store/books/details?id=mnR-Zq6Q4xIC&rdid=book-mnR-Zq6Q4xIC&rdot=1 (a free e-book)

~Pax
Click to expand...
You mean he was accused of those things. It’s not like the Pope doesn’t have enemies …

“Why do the nations conspire,
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us burst their bonds asunder,
and cast their cords from us.””

Psalm 2
 
PluniaZ said:
I have studied it, and the Pope has been the rock on which the Lord Jesus Christ has been building the Church for 2000 years. Nothing could be plainer.

Don’t listen to slanderous accusations that the enemies of the gospel have made against the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Okay, you can’t see me hitting my head against the wall, but trust me, I am.

I’ve quoted Scripture of the first Pope being admonished by another Apostle. I’ve provided scholarly sources from inside and outside the faith. Nobody on this thread has suggested that Christ’s promise to St. Peter has been undone or undermined.

Christ didn’t say, “Thou art Peter, and me saying this means you’ll never err or falter again; so do whatever you want [denies Christ thrice], and don’t worry about it [Paul admonishes Peter].”

He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against Peter or his successors. The gift of binding and loosing would be disproved if it were meant to mean that the popes couldn’t be wrong, scandalous, or evil.

~Pax
 
PluniaZ said:
You mean he was accused of those things. It’s not like the Pope doesn’t have enemies …

“Why do the nations conspire,
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us burst their bonds asunder,
and cast their cords from us.””

Psalm 2
Click to expand...
You might as well say that the Pope is without possibility of sin.

The reality is Popes do sin like every human being, and sometimes they sin badly. I don’t understand why you are so against that reality.
 
Jestersage said:
So? All history are written by victors then, with “proofs” and etc. So what are you going to say, when there are enough evidence to support the histories?

You may believe you are defending the office. Your wording, however, are defending them as a person. So is Peter perfect? Of course not. Even Paul had to rebuked him once. But Peter is not a bad pope.
Click to expand...
The office/person distinction is an invention of modernists. The first millennium Church respected the person:

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.”

-From the Council of Ephesus. newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

“And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.”

-From the Seventh Ecumenical Council. newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm
 
SanRafael1102 said:
Okay, you can’t see me hitting my head against the wall, but trust me, I am.

I’ve quoted Scripture of the first Pope being admonished by another Apostle. I’ve provided scholarly sources from inside and outside the faith. Nobody on this thread has suggested that Christ’s promise to St. Peter has been undone or undermined.

Christ didn’t say, “Thou art Peter, and me saying this means you’ll never err or falter again; so do whatever you want [denies Christ thrice], and don’t worry about it [Paul admonishes Peter].”

He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against Peter or his successors. The gift of binding and loosing would be disproved if it were meant to mean that the popes couldn’t be wrong, scandalous, or evil.

~Pax
Click to expand...
“But even if you believe the Bishop of Rome to be in error, that does not give you the right to judge him, for only God can judge the pope. No mortal man may accuse him of faults. Oh, how wrong is the opinion of many men: though they do not allow a king’s subjects to have any say against the king, they would allow it in the case of the pope even if God has given him power over all mortal men. Those stupid men are unconcerned that the Holy Apostolic Church has, from Saint Peter to this day, never been heard to teach anything that is contrary to orthodox faith. This privilege it has received from the Lord that it shall never succumb to wrong teachings for the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Let this suffice concerning your praise of the Apostolic See.”

Pope Pius II, Multa hic hodie. halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/…84531/document

“He himself may be judged by no one.” - Pope Gregory VII, *Dictatus Papae *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae

“Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power;** but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man**, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man‘ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

It’s quite foolish to slander the person on whom your salvation depends.
 
IWantGod said:
You might as well say that the Pope is without possibility of sin.

The reality is Popes do sin like every human being, and sometimes they sin badly. I don’t understand why you are so against that reality.
Click to expand...
A Pope may sin, but it is not appropriate for the laity to sit around gossiping about what sins the Pope may or may not have committed.

It’s not our place to judge the Pope. It is our place to humbly, reverently obey him.
 
PluniaZ said:
The office/person distinction is an invention of modernists. The first millennium Church respected the person:

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.”

-From the Council of Ephesus. newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

“And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.”

-From the Seventh Ecumenical Council. newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm
Click to expand...
Funny. You quoted the newadvent when it match your point of view, yet dismiss it when it was not in favor of your topic.
newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

So tell me, how do you get through history? Pick and choose? What about Pope who speak poorly of the past pope? Is he in error? When I enter the faith, three things I refuse to budge: history, mathematics, and science.

And how do you explain about Paul rebuking Peter then?

Oh, most importantly, you yourself is not the pope. Or are you a priest, a bishop then?
 
PluniaZ said:
The office/person distinction is an invention of modernists. The first millennium Church respected the person:

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.”

-From the Council of Ephesus. newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

“And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.”

-From the Seventh Ecumenical Council. newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm
Click to expand...
You are using newadvent.org to prove your point! It’s the same source I used! If you discount my source, you have to discount your own. How do you prove that somebody didn’t alter the texts your quoting? AND DON’T tell me that I’m just attacking the office; give me a direct answer, the ball is in your court. I could work for New Advent, and I could have altered every one of the texts you just cited, prove that I didn’t. I’ll tell you that I didn’t, but I might be lying; maybe I’m secretly trying to undermine the Church.

Regardless, your quote from Ephesus never mentions the personal conduct of the successor of Peter; it says the exact thing that I already said–that they can’t teach in error.

I respect every true pontiff. I don’t have to like them, I don’t have to agree with them. They are the Vicar of Christ. I pray for them, and when they teach something doctrinal, I follow it even if I don’t quite understand it, or it sounds weird.

Pope Francis talks about climate change (even wrote an encyclical about it), that’s not doctrinal. He may be absolutely correct, but neither you or I have to accept it as fact. If he wanted to say that the Earth revolves around the sun, the Church doesn’t teach that you have to accept it. A pope can be married (it has happened), be lecherous (definitely happened), be involved with the mafia (Francis has suggested this to be the case at least in the curia), or any other number of nefarious deeds; that doesn’t mean that he destroys the office, proves Christ or the Church wrong, etc.
 
Jestersage said:
Funny. You quoted the newadvent when it match your point of view, yet dismiss it when it was not in favor of your topic.
newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

So tell me, how do you get through history? Pick and choose? What about Pope who speak poorly of the past pope? Is he in error? When I enter the faith, three things I refuse to budge: history, mathematics, and science.

And how do you explain about Paul rebuking Peter then?

Oh, most importantly, you yourself is not the pope. Or are you a priest, a bishop then?
Click to expand...
I quoted primary sources from the first millennium that are available on New Advent.
 
SanRafael1102 said:
You are using newadvent.org to prove your point! It’s the same source I used! If you discount my source, you have to discount your own. How do you prove that somebody didn’t alter the texts your quoting? AND DON’T tell me that I’m just attacking the office; give me a direct answer, the ball is in your court. I could work for New Advent, and I could have altered every one of the texts you just cited, prove that I didn’t. I’ll tell you that I didn’t, but I might be lying; maybe I’m secretly trying to undermine the Church.

Regardless, your quote from Ephesus never mentions the personal conduct of the successor of Peter; it says the exact thing that I already said–that they can’t teach in error.

I respect every true pontiff. I don’t have to like them, I don’t have to agree with them. They are the Vicar of Christ. I pray for them, and when they teach something doctrinal, I follow it even if I don’t quite understand it, or it sounds weird.

Pope Francis talks about climate change (even wrote an encyclical about it), that’s not doctrinal. He may be absolutely correct, but neither you or I have to accept it as fact. If he wanted to say that the Earth revolves around the sun, the Church doesn’t teach that you have to accept it. A pope can be married (it has happened), be lecherous (definitely happened), be involved with the mafia (Francis has suggested this to be the case at least in the curia), or any other number of nefarious deeds; that doesn’t mean that he destroys the office, proves Christ or the Church wrong, etc.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human being be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

Disrespect the Vicar of Jesus Christ at the peril of your soul.
 
Let’s just close this thread. Clearly we will not have a civil discussion.
 
Jestersage said:
Let’s just close this thread. Clearly we will not have a civil discussion.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I get into these things too much, lol. Nevertheless, I pray that each of you had a blessed Assumption! Everybody please pray for Papa Francisco! And have a good day tomorrow.
 
People who lost respect for the Pope through history:

North Africa (early 5th century) - conquered by the Vandals

Syria and Egypt (5th-7th centuries) - conquered by the Muslims

Greeks - conquered by the Muslims

Russians - slaves to the Tzar then Bolsheviks

Germans (Reformation, 16th century) - 8 million killed in 30 Years War

English (16th century) - English Civil War, despotic regime of Oliver Cromwell

French (Gallicanism 16th-18th Century) - French Revolution

America (today) - Lord have mercy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top