Troubled by the Renaissance Period of the Church

[Greg00]

Hello. I am a practicing Catholic and I have recently learned about the Church during the Renaissance Period and I am particularly troubled with it. I would just like some reassurance and some answers.

During the Renaissance Period, the Church and the Popes were (from what I’ve read) more concerned about a secular political agenda than with matters of faith. Apparently this lead to corruption within the Papacy and within the Church.

One thing I am really concerned about are the Borgia Popes of the late 15th Century. They were known for greediness and ruthlessness and apparently Alexander VI bought the Papacy and did many bad things.

Now I am also aware of the Counter-Reformation (ie. Council of Trent) in response to Luther’s Reformation. This ended the corruptness, saw the creation of the Jesuit Holy Order, and strengthened the Church as a whole.

My question is: Doesn’t that period of corruptness within the Church and the Papacy, even though the Council of Trent happened, debunk the statement that the Church and the Pope is infallible. If some of the Popes were corrupt, then they were not the Vicar’s of Christ on Earth, were they? Alexander VI was not the Vicar of Christ on Earth because of the way he lived and acted and because he bought the Papacy, correct? So if those Popes were not truly Christ’s Vicar’s, how did they become Pope in the first place if the Cardinals who vote are inspired by God? Who is to say, then, even if a certain Pope leads a good life, that he is truly the Vicar of Christ on Earth if mistakes regarding the Papcy have been made in the past?

I’m sorry if this sounds confusing. I am very confused myself and would only like to have my faith reaffirmed and my questions answered. I greatly appreciate your responses. Thank you.

 

[RobNY]

Greg00:

My question is: Doesn’t that period of corruptness within the Church and the Papacy, even though the Council of Trent happened, debunk the statement that the Church and the Pope is infallible. If some of the Popes were corrupt, then they were not the Vicar’s of Christ on Earth, were they?

Infallibility is protection in doctrine on faith and morals. Infallibility is not impeccability. Impeccability means the pope is perfect, sinless. Infallibility, means the the pope isn’t wrong when he makes pronouncements on doctrines related to faith and morals.

The personal character of the pope has nothing to do with the charism of infallibility, which belongs to the office, nor does a bad character invalidate his position as, “The Vicar of Christ on Earth.”

 

[Thal59]

Greg00:

If some of the Popes were corrupt, then they were not the Vicar’s of Christ on Earth, were they?QUOTE]

Yes, they were. Try taking a look at Matthew 23. Just before Jesus tears into the Pharisees for their hypocisy, He informs His disciples and the crowd: “…the pharisees have sat on the seat of Moses, therefore whatever they tell you; observe and do - just don’t do as they do, for the talk and do nothing.”

It is clear that sin and corruption on the part of the office holder does not affect their authority which comes from God. The office is always valid regardless of the person who holds it.

As you pointed out, the counter-reformation cleared things up. This is our duty to the Lord; to keep faith with Him and trust Him to take care of those who are corrupt in His own way. The “Reformers” did not heed the words of Matthew 23 and seperated themselves from the Lord’s church.

And the devil has been sifting them ever since.

Thal59

 

[Contarini]

Greg00:

Hello. I am a practicing Catholic and I have recently learned about the Church during the Renaissance Period and I am particularly troubled with it. I would just like some reassurance and some answers.

I am a Protestant (Anglican) and I study the Reformation (I just got my Ph.D. last fall), so I find this subject interesting.

During the Renaissance Period, the Church and the Popes were (from what I’ve read) more concerned about a secular political agenda than with matters of faith. Apparently this lead to corruption within the Papacy and within the Church.

One thing I am really concerned about are the Borgia Popes of the late 15th Century. They were known for greediness and ruthlessness and apparently Alexander VI bought the Papacy and did many bad things.

Well, this wasn’t the only low point. There has been corruption from time to time throughout church history–the 10th century was another rather sordid period. Not all the Renaissance popes were rotten, but certainly many of them seemed more interested in politics (or art) than in holiness.

Now I am also aware of the Counter-Reformation (ie. Council of Trent) in response to Luther’s Reformation.

Right, although there were plenty of reform movements before Luther came along. It took the threat of Protestantism to get the Pope to call a Council, and even so it took the Papacy 30 years (after the outbreak of Luther’s movement) to get its act together in this regard. And it was another 17 years or so before the Council wrapped up its deliberations (there were many interruptions). Meanwhile, there were many other reform initiatives, including the formation of the Jesuits–this was not a result of the Council.

My question is: Doesn’t that period of corruptness within the Church and the Papacy, even though the Council of Trent happened, debunk the statement that the Church and the Pope is infallible.

No, it doesn’t. “Infallibility” means that the Pope will not define dogma contrary to the Truth. It doesn’t mean the Pope will be a good and holy person–though many Popes have been and that’s always a good thing!

If some of the Popes were corrupt, then they were not the Vicar’s of Christ on Earth, were they? Alexander VI was not the Vicar of Christ on Earth because of the way he lived and acted and because he bought the Papacy, correct?

No, that’s not correct. In the Catholic view Popes are Vicars of Christ by virtue of their office, not by virtue of their character. I struggle with this as a Protestant. But here’s what I think can be said in favor of the Catholic view. If you say that authority depends on personal character, then you have to be always checking to see if the current Pope is a good person. And how on earth would you know that for sure? He might seem to be, but he might be a rotten hypocrite for all you know. And you will always have people who have ultra-stringent standards and decide that the Pope isn’t good enough (Andrew Sullivan criticizes the current Pope because he allegedly has expensive taste in clothes–I’m not committing myself to the truth of this allegation, simply pointing out that people can always find something to criticize). So, in the Catholic view, Christ gave an unconditional promise–the Church in communion with St. Peter’s successor would never abandon the Faith, no matter how much the Church’s leaders might sin.

So if those Popes were not truly Christ’s Vicar’s, how did they become Pope in the first place if the Cardinals who vote are inspired by God?

Actually, the current Pope himself (before he became Pope) debunked the idea that the Cardinals are inspired by God. Obviously they pray for divine guidance–as we all do. And since we believe in Divine providence, there’s a sense in which whoever gets elected is the person God chose. But Scripture makes it clear that God sometimes allows His people to have bad leaders (the Old Testament speaks of God giving Israel a king in anger, as a judgment on their sins). There is no guarantee that the cardinals will pick a good person.

No church has perfect members or perfect leaders. The Catholic Church is very big and has been around for a long while. And on the hypothesis that it’s the true Church, or in some way the center of God’s plans, it makes sense that Satan would attack it.

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Greg00:

Hello. I am a practicing Catholic and I have recently learned about the Church during the Renaissance Period and I am particularly troubled with it. I would just like some reassurance and some answers.

During the Renaissance Period, the Church and the Popes were (from what I’ve read) more concerned about a secular political agenda than with matters of faith. Apparently this lead to corruption within the Papacy and within the Church.

One thing I am really concerned about are the Borgia Popes of the late 15th Century. They were known for greediness and ruthlessness and apparently Alexander VI bought the Papacy and did many bad things.

There were two - and only two. Callistus III (1455-58), who was about 78 when elected, and his more famous (or notorious) nephew Rodrigo Borja or Borgia, who became Alexander VI in 1492, and lasted until 1503.

The impression that there were more Borgia Popes may be a result of the extent to which Rodrigo Borgia treated the Papacy as his personal property, having first bribed the other cardinals to elect him; and of the fact that his illegitimate offspring took pretty much the same view. When one of his sons was murdered in 1497, he briefly thought of calling a council - the operative word being “briefly”.

Now I am also aware of the Counter-Reformation (ie. Council of Trent) in response to Luther’s Reformation. This ended the corruptness, saw the creation of the Jesuit Holy Order, and strengthened the Church as a whole.

It dealt with some of the symptoms of corruption. And certainly cleared away some of the more blatant scandals, such as the traffic in indulgences, and curbed - without ending - Papal nepotism. It also did a great deal to to try ensure that bishops actually bothered to reside in their sees, instead of entering their cathedrals only on the day of their burials: as one of the French cardinals had done.

My question is: Doesn’t that period of corruptness within the Church and the Papacy, even though the Council of Trent happened, debunk the statement that the Church and the Pope is infallible. If some of the Popes were corrupt, then they were not the Vicar’s of Christ on Earth, were they? Alexander VI was not the Vicar of Christ on Earth because of the way he lived and acted and because he bought the Papacy, correct?

It’s hard to believe St.Paul would have thought of Rodrigo Borja as a Christian, let alone as the successor of an Apostle. Be that as it may, the CC reckons him as an honest-to-goodness pope.

His subsequent recognition as Pope makes up for the fact of his having committed what in the canon law of the time was a crime which rendered his electon invalid - at least that is my understanding of his position. Had there been an election of some other man instead, by means which did not involve committing simony, Borja might be nothing more than a footnote. But alas, there wasn’t, so the Church had to suffer 11 years of him.

So if those Popes were not truly Christ’s Vicar’s, how did they become Pope in the first place if the Cardinals who vote are inspired by God? Who is to say, then, even if a certain Pope leads a good life, that he is truly the Vicar of Christ on Earth if mistakes regarding the Papcy have been made in the past?

It depends what you have in mind: there were times when the choice of who was bishop of Rome depended on which of the Roman families was politicaly strongest least hindered by morals - as during the period from about 896 to 1046 (formerly known as the “pornocracy”) when there was a remarkable turn-over in Bishops of Rome.

Don’t worry about this - past generations were perfectly capable of distinguishing between the Petrine office in the Church, and the thuggish conduct of too many of its occupants. A Papacy which can survive the Renaissance can survive anything - as Paul IV (1555-59) noted. Christians are ghastly people anyway - it’s only to be expected that some of their shepherds should behave disgracefully. The wonder is that there have not been far more scoundrels as Popes.

There is only one reason the Church did not collapse the day after Pentecost, and that is, the faithfulness & grace of Christ. As grace comes to us only because God so Wills - and never because we deserve it; we couldn’t - it depends on God alone that the Church remains in being. So our crimes cannot destroy, but only spoil, the Church. Our sins cannot destroy what God does not permit to be destroyed.

I’m sorry if this sounds confusing. I am very confused myself and would only like to have my faith reaffirmed and my questions answered. I greatly appreciate your responses. Thank you.

 

[LilyM]

Gottle of Geer:

Christians are ghastly people anyway

Just on that point Gottle - I note your profile says “Christo-panentheistic Acosmist Barthian Catholic Christian” - does that make you about three times as ghastly as those of us boring enough to stick with only one of the established Churches?

 

[Greg00]

So even though some Popes behaved very badly, they were still the Vicar’s of Christ? Let’s say one of those Popes decided to make a declaration on Church doctrine that said it was ok to murder or commit adultery, would his position on Church doctrine still be considered infallible?

 

[callalily]

Like Gregg 00, I’m also a practicing Catholic who finds this particular topic confusing. I do believe in our Lord’s promise that He would never abandon the Church, however, I find it difficult to explain the
(declared) anti-popes of the past. I don’t know how to defend it.

 

[1ke]

Greg00:

My question is: Doesn’t that period of corruptness within the Church and the Papacy, even though the Council of Trent happened, debunk the statement that the Church and the Pope is infallible.

No. Infallible doesn’t mean sinless. It means that the Pope and Bishops in Council cannot teach error in Faith and Morals.

Greg00:

If some of the Popes were corrupt, then they were not the Vicar’s of Christ on Earth, were they?

Yes, they were. They were sinful, but they were still Pope. We are all sinful, so please try not to be surprised that Popes could be too.

Greg00:

Alexander VI was not the Vicar of Christ on Earth because of the way he lived and acted and because he bought the Papacy, correct?

No. He may have improperly influenced the vote, but he was still Pope.

Greg00:

So if those Popes were not truly Christ’s Vicar’s, how did they become Pope in the first place if the Cardinals who vote are inspired by God?

Cardinals also have free will. The men elected were truly Pope.

Who is to say, then, even if a certain Pope leads a good life, that he is truly the Vicar of Christ on Earth if mistakes regarding the Papcy have been made in the past?

Greg00:

I’m sorry if this sounds confusing. I am very confused myself and would only like to have my faith reaffirmed and my questions answered. I greatly appreciate your responses. Thank you.

There have been holy popes, and not so great popes, but what you can be assured of is that God preserves the church from Doctrinal error, working with whatever he is given in each age.

 

[1ke]

Greg00:

So even though some Popes behaved very badly, they were still the Vicar’s of Christ? Let’s say one of those Popes decided to make a declaration on Church doctrine that said it was ok to murder or commit adultery, would his position on Church doctrine still be considered infallible?

It is not possible for a pope to teach error when teaching ex cathedra.

 

[1ke]

callalily:

Like Gregg 00, I’m also a practicing Catholic who finds this particular topic confusing. I do believe in our Lord’s promise that He would never abandon the Church, however, I find it difficult to explain the
(declared) anti-popes of the past. I don’t know how to defend it.

The popes Greg00 is talking about were not anti-popes. Anti-popes were something else entirely-- they were people invalidly claiming to be pope. We still have anti-popes. There’s one who lives in Kentucky and has a website.

 

[davy39]

callalily:

Like Gregg 00, I’m also a practicing Catholic who finds this particular topic confusing. I do believe in our Lord’s promise that He would never abandon the Church, however, I find it difficult to explain the
(declared) anti-popes of the past. I don’t know how to defend it.

For one thing, you don’t have to go to the past to find an anti-pope. There was some guy on in Kansas recently that claimed he was the real Pope. Some nut case. I believe that JP2 went to confession daily. Evidently he thought he wasn’t perfect in everyday life.

 

[Greg00]

I think I am beginning to understand. But now the real challenge is getting a Protestant to understand when he/she brings up the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Renaissance. Any tips?

 

[Sherlock]

Greg00:

I think I am beginning to understand. But now the real challenge is getting a Protestant to understand when he/she brings up the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Renaissance. Any tips?

First off, you need to educate yourself about those topics. You can’t give what you don’t have. The Crusades were defensive wars, and I don’t see why Christians need to be shame-faced about them. Granted, some bad stuff happened during them, but unfortunately you can say that about any war, no matter how righteous the cause. It’s likely that you’d be praying to Allah five times a day if it weren’t for the Crusades. I would recommend historian Thomas Madden’s “A Concise History of the Crusades”. There was also an article in a recent Crisis magazine about the Crusades, and a whole issue of the now-defunct (unfortunately) Catholic Dossier magazine devoted to the topic. Look on the Net for those.
Dittos with the Inquisition. The Inquisitional courts were the enlightened courts of their day. The BBC (no friend of Catholicism) did a documentary on the subject some years ago, exposing the myth of the Inquisition for what it is: a myth. I would also point out that when the witch craze swept Europe, Protestant countries with no such courts did most of the killing. The Inquisition would have put a stop to such nonsense. As for the Renaissance, one really does have to understand that bad office holders don’t make the office invalid. I happened to think that Bill Clinton was a slimebag; that doesn’t mean that because of Bill Clinton I think that the office of the Presidency is invalid. The Church has been protected from errors in teaching doctrine, and that has stood regardless of the relatively few cads that held the office of pope. We’ve had 2000 years of popes, and only a few duds—not bad. Various monarchies with a relatively shorter history cannot say the same.

 

[Greg00]

Sherlock:

First off, you need to educate yourself about those topics. You can’t give what you don’t have. The Crusades were defensive wars, and I don’t see why Christians need to be shame-faced about them. Granted, some bad stuff happened during them, but unfortunately you can say that about any war, no matter how righteous the cause. It’s likely that you’d be praying to Allah five times a day if it weren’t for the Crusades. I would recommend historian Thomas Madden’s “A Concise History of the Crusades”. There was also an article in a recent Crisis magazine about the Crusades, and a whole issue of the now-defunct (unfortunately) Catholic Dossier magazine devoted to the topic. Look on the Net for those.
Dittos with the Inquisition. The Inquisitional courts were the enlightened courts of their day. The BBC (no friend of Catholicism) did a documentary on the subject some years ago, exposing the myth of the Inquisition for what it is: a myth. I would also point out that when the witch craze swept Europe, Protestant countries with no such courts did most of the killing. The Inquisition would have put a stop to such nonsense. As for the Renaissance, one really does have to understand that bad office holders don’t make the office invalid. I happened to think that Bill Clinton was a slimebag; that doesn’t mean that because of Bill Clinton I think that the office of the Presidency is invalid. The Church has been protected from errors in teaching doctrine, and that has stood regardless of the relatively few cads that held the office of pope. We’ve had 2000 years of popes, and only a few duds—not bad. Various monarchies with a relatively shorter history cannot say the same.

Thank you for that great info. I have another question, also. Can you please elaborate on how the BBC exposed the Inquisition as a myth? From my understanding, the Inquisition was basically Catholic missionaries going to Mexico, Central America, and South America, and telling the people there to either convert to Catholicism or be killed. Was this not the case?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Greg00:

Thank you for that great info. I have another question, also. Can you please elaborate on how the BBC exposed the Inquisition as a myth? From my understanding, the Inquisition was basically Catholic missionaries going to Mexico, Central America, and South America, and telling the people there to either convert to Catholicism or be killed. Was this not the case?

The Inquisition was nothing of the sort. My understanding is that it was to root out heretics and execute them if they refused to stop perverting Christ’s Gospel. I have no problem with this considering that heresy is the greatest of all sins (although contemporary sensibilitees would think otherwise). Anyways, for more, go here:

catholic.com/library/inquisition.asp

 

[Neilbass2]

Greg00:

I think I am beginning to understand. But now the real challenge is getting a Protestant to understand when he/she brings up the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Renaissance. Any tips?

Quote the scripture for them…

“Let he who is whithout sin cast the first stone”.

 

[Contarini]

Greg00:

Thank you for that great info. I have another question, also. Can you please elaborate on how the BBC exposed the Inquisition as a myth? From my understanding, the Inquisition was basically Catholic missionaries going to Mexico, Central America, and South America, and telling the people there to either convert to Catholicism or be killed. Was this not the case?

No. The Inquisition had no authority over non-Christians whatsoever.

The Inquisition wasn’t a single institution–it was a kind of court. It was a church court that used Roman law (including the use of torture when there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant it) to prosecute baptized Christians guilty of heresy or magic or other serious offenses against the Church. The proper term for an inquisition was “inquisitio hereticae pravitatis” which translates as something like “an investigation of heretical wickedness.” The inquisitions did persecute Jews, Muslims, and (in the New World) pagans who had converted to Christianity but were still practicing their previous traditions. They also persecuted Protestants, of course, although generally speaking areas with lots of Protestants did not have inquisitorial courts.

The two most famous single inquisitorial institutions were the Spanish Inquisition founded (against initial papal protest) in the 15th century and the Roman Inquisition founded by the papacy after the Reformation (this Inquisition eventually developed into the present Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

In my opinion Sherlock is going too far in defending the Inquisitions. I wouldn’t say they were “the enlightened courts of their day.” The use of Roman law meant that the Inquisitions were more orderly and rational in their method than many other courts. They were less likely to be swept away by hysterical panic when it came to things like witchcraft. Sherlock is right that wherever the Inquisition was in operation, relatively few people were condemned as witches. He is wrong to say that Protestants were more prone to witchcraft hysteria than Catholics, though. From what I’ve read, there doesn’t seem to have been much to choose between Protestants and Catholics. After all, the initial witchcraft persecutions broke out before there were any Protestants, and in fact two of the pioneers of witch hunting (the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum) were Dominican inquisitors. The later (and much worse) persecutions that broke out in the late sixteenth century and continued into the seventeenth (with a few late outbreaks in the eighteenth) seem to have been linked to confessional conflict. They tended to occur along the “frontier” between Protestant and Catholic areas. Both Protestants and Catholics participated in them.

So the Inquisitions were superior to most contemporary courts in many ways. But at the same time, precisely because they were more efficient and organized, they were more to be feared. Most civil governments cared mainly for keeping peace and order. The whole idea of an Inquisition was to search out people’s private ideas, to get neighbors to spy on each other, to hunt down heretics even if (especially if) they kept quiet and minded their own business.

And most relevantly, the Church had no business running criminal courts anyway. Yes, the courts may have been fairer in many ways than the civil courts. But the Church bloodied its hands, perhaps irredeemably. Theoretically, the Inquisition didn’t execute anyone–it handed over condemned heretics (if they refused to recant or if they relapsed) to the “secular arm” for execution, with an official recommendation of mercy. But this was a patent sham. The Church ought not to be in the business of killing people, period. The establishment of the first inquisitions (in the 13th century) was one of the most disastrous and evil developments in the history of Christianity.

Edwin

 

[Petergee]

And anyway even Alexander VI was, like all of us, a mixture of good as well as bad. He did some good things as Pope, perhaps most notably brokering the treaty between the two superpowers of the time, Spain and Portugal, to prevent them going to war over access to the riches of the vast newly-discovered lands of the “New World”.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Contarini:

No. The Inquisition had no authority over non-Christians whatsoever.

Let’s also put this in perspective as well (I had to cut your quote in order to get it to the 5,000 char length). Spain had just regained its identity as a Catholic Christian country after 800 years or so of Musilm rule, and was trying to weed out some Jews who converted to Christianity who did indeed help the Moorish invaders to gain control of the country. It is true that people which were caught for breaking secular laws would BEG to be tried by the Inquisition because it was much more fair than the courts of the day. It is similar to what you have here in America today, you have to look at it with a subjective reality and in the context of history. Many Muslims and Jews had proclaimed to convert to Christianity in front of Christians but when they went home for the day they were practicing their birth religion. Now, I don’t believe that every single person tried and who was convinced of heresy and killed was truly a heretic, but I also don’t believe that every person who is tried and killed in American courts is guilty either (that is a fact which is why I am against the death penalty). You also bring up the fact that the Inquisition only tried Christians – it only tried Catholic Christians. The court went to painstaking lengths to determine if a person who was a Protestant was once a Catholic who had apostasized or if they were raised that way. If they were raised that way the Inquisition would let them go because the Inquisition was only responsible for Catholic Christians. It helps to put things into perspective. Also, I would like to point out that in newly converted Protestant countries Catholic Christians were forced to convert there as well or were hanged as traitors for not giving up the faith they were brought in.