Bad Popes..Pulp Fiction...Yea though I walk

[robwar]

Originally Posted by AbideWithMe

Robwar---

Yes, that's of some help, especially the paragraph about the changes in the election of the popes. That might be an interesting subject to delve further into at some point.

The part about Protestants seeing Peter's confession as the rock of Matthew 16 is more complicated. The discussion on this thread, as far as my my involvement in it, started on Coptic's earlier thread "Protestants Declare Peter is the Rock, Rock On". Another poster brought out the fact that a good number of early Christian writers, including some ECF's, wrote that Peter's faith or confession was the rock of Matthew 16. We had some helpful discussion on that thread, and I'm thinking my questions could be answered less confusingly, and in more detail, on thread.

The earliest writers such as St. Ireanas did not teach that Jesus was talking about confession. It was always Peter himself. The wikipedia link about Popes gave a very good analysis about how Popes are elected or chosen and how that has changed through the years and been reformed. Since it is neutral (not either Catholic or Protestant) I think you would find it helpful. Obviously with reforms since the time of the reformation, we have not seen the immoral styled Popes like those already listed. Again Matt 16 has always been taught about Peter himself. If someone posted that early writers taught otherwise, they should quote them instead of making a general statements. keep the conversation going!

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by Radical

Stewstew03, I believe that responding to you would be a waste of time...and here is an example as to why:


somehow you arrive at this conclusion even though, in the post that you are addressing I had written;

6. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants' infallibility

...and in a previous post that you had responded to, I had written;

It seems to me that the Catholic Church makes the following claims in this regard:

1) Peter was the first to occupy the office of the Pope (an office created by Christ himself)…while I hardly agree that such was the case, we can leave this assertion aside b/c the corrupt Popes are not used to challenge this particular claim;

2) The office of the Pope was invested with a unique spiritual gift of infallibility;

3) The office (automatically?) vested in the bishopric at the location nearest to Peter’s place of death (which, by tradition, occurred at Rome) and then is forever passed on to the successors of that office notwithstanding that in quite a number of instances the successors to that office a) were appointed with absolute disregard for God’s requirements for the office of overseer; and b) were particularly unrighteous fellows.

notwithstanding my repeated references to the gift attaching to the office, you still felt the need to clarify "but as I've tried to explain, this is a quality that attaches to the office, not the person." It doesn't matter if you are wilfully ignoring my clear assertions or if you are somehow incapable of grasping my clear assertions (I doubt that it is the latter)...either way a further response would be a waste of time

Okay, ad hominem aside, you've already acknowledged that a bad pope would have no motivation to change doctrine anyway. So you can't have it both ways; either the Papal Office and the pope are severable or they are so intertwined that when Satan prevails against one he prevails against the other. You cannot claim

(a) a bad Pope excludes attachment of the Holy Spirit to the Papal Office,

while also claiming

(b) the failure of a bad Pope to change doctrine is not evidence of God protecting the Papal Office because the Pope and the Office are separate and distinct. That is, a bad Pope has no use for the Papal Office because he's not attempting to change doctrine anyway.

As a reminder - infallibility relates to the teaching of faith and morals.

You continue to cite impeccability as evidence of papal infallibility even while holding your breath and stomping your feet and insisting that you're surrounded by complete idiots who fail to understand your simple argument that for the Papal Office to be infallible it requires evidence of an impeccable Pope. You even said (not once, but twice):

6. . since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants' infallibility

So which is it? Do bad popes indicate the absence of the Holy Spirit from the Papal Office, i.e., if all Popes were good (read: impeccable) it would indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit? Or is the failure (of bad popes) to change doctrine merely an expectation because they didn't need the Papal Office to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh?

Can the Pope be separated from the Papal Office or not?

[pablope]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Radical

I am

2. scriptures clearly teach that righteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with that person and that unrighteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not with that person

Can you provide that verse which states that above?


1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”.

3. a number of Popes were very unrighteous

Well, how do you how unrighteous they were? How did you come to such a conclusion? I thought only God can judge...so you are making a judgement here?

Did you just base your conclusions on what their enemies or those with gripes againts them wrote about them? How can you trust that what their enemies wrote about them are not exaggerated, or are truth beyond doubt?

4. given 1-3, one would not expect the Holy Spirt to be with those corrupt Popes

So...how do you know what the Holy Spirit does or does not want to do? Can you tell the Holy Spirit what to do and not what to do?

6. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants' infallibility

Same question as above....how do you know what the Holy Spirit wants to do? Are you capable of telling the Holy Spirit when to be present or not to be present?

Or you are just making an assumption...of "it is likely"......it is also likely the opposite of what you assume....since the Holy Spirit can do what it wants, correct?

[AbideWithMe]

Originally Posted by robwar

That is good to here. I stand corrected. Except for Detrick Bonhoffer, there seemed to be little Lutheran opposition to Hitler at the time he rose to power in Germany. Now maybe it is under reported but there was much more from the Catholics in Germany and the current Pope is a product of that with his father being opposed to Hitler. Learning about what Luther wrote about Jews was one of the many steps in becoming Catholic. I can't trust or believe in someone that can write that evil ugly hate about Jews. Once I rejected Luther, what the Catholic church teaches and had looked a whole lot better.

Robwar---

When, in my early twenties, I first read Luther's attacks on Jews, I was really disturbed, though I knew before then that he didn't have an easy personality. I had never idealized the Protestant reformers, so it wasn't like they fell off a pedestal in my estimation.

But, I have to say that Luther's attacks were inherited from a very long line of anti-Jewish nastiness running back many centuries before him. He wasn't saying anything new. My father, now passed away, was raised as a Reform Jew, so out of curiosity and a desire to understand a little of the experiences of my relatives, I read about the very mixed ( sometimes pretty good, sometimes horrific) treatment of Jews by Christians over the long centuries of Christianity. My initial response was perhaps similar to yours but even stronger-I couldn't attend any church at all for awhile without feeling physically sick.

[AbideWithMe]

Originally Posted by robwar

The earliest writers such as St. Ireanas did not teach that Jesus was talking about confession. It was always Peter himself. The wikipedia link about Popes gave a very good analysis about how Popes are elected or chosen and how that has changed through the years and been reformed. Since it is neutral (not either Catholic or Protestant) I think you would find it helpful. Obviously with reforms since the time of the reformation, we have not seen the immoral styled Popes like those already listed. Again Matt 16 has always been taught about Peter himself. If someone posted that early writers taught otherwise, they should quote them instead of making a general statements. keep the conversation going!

Robwar---

On the thread that spawned this one, some early writers were quoted who wrote of Peter's confession as the rock, and we started to discuss them and to try to put their quotes in context. So that's one of the reasons I'm thinking it would be helpful to return to that thread. I know this a hard week for university students with finals, and several knowledgeable posters here have said they're busy over these few weeks with papers and exams, so I'll think I'll wait a bit before going back to that thread. Thanks for your help....I'll check out that wiki article.

[Skeptic92]

Originally Posted by AbideWithMe

Robwar---

On the thread that spawned this one, some early writers were quoted who wrote of Peter's confession as the rock, and we started to discuss them and to try to put their quotes in context. So that's one of the reasons I'm thinking it would be helpful to return to that thread. I know this a hard week for university students with finals, and several knowledgeable posters here have said they're busy over these few weeks with papers and exams, so I'll think I'll wait a bit before going back to that thread. Thanks for your help....I'll check out that wiki article.

This can be a hectic time of the year for those of us about to finish off this year of university. Luckily I only have one Paper left on Aristotle, but it means all of the resources I would like to use for this thread, I currently don't have, and have reached my limit of the amount of books I can take out from the Library at one time.


I know i will try to chime in when I can, but i don't like stating something from my own notes, without seeing the original source

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by pablope

1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”.

It's interesting - when we have our discussions on Mary, protestants insist that NOT ONE is righteous, including Mary. Yet, here we have a protestant (looking at you Radical) insisting that a man show himself to be righteous before the papal office can be declared infallible.

Notice that Catholics never claim (and never have claimed) that Popes are without sin. It seems if a bad pope really wanted to do some damage, he could just proclaim, as dogma, that Popes can never be condemned as sinners.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

The question is did the bad Popes in any way invoke infallibility concerning Faith and Morals as teachings not by action.

That would be an interesting question to explore. First, we would have to define who were the bad Popes. Skeptic raised a valid point by saying that we have to consider the prejudice of the reporter in determining the sinfulness of any alleged bad Pope. That, of course, cuts both ways. When the only reports that we have wrt a Pope are from fans/supporters of the Pope/CC , then we might also expect that their sinfulness has been downplayed or eliminated entirely. Also you might recall Pope Martin V from a previous thread …he wrote/taught that nothing could be more agreeable to God than the killing of Hussites. It is also reported that his Bull called for an extermination of the Hussites (among others) and the Council of Siena is reported as calling for much the same. I would count him as a bad Pope (…and I can’t help but note that a Catholic on this thread rightly took issue with Luther’s anti-Semitism…so I assume that Catholic would take issue with Martin’s “anti-Protestantism”). In other words, I think that the candidates for the “bad Pope” label are more numerous than those listed by Catholics on this thread and the rest shouldn’t be considered “good Popes” by default.

Second, what would a bad Pope have done to invoke infallibility concerning Faith and Morals as teachings? The “ex cathedra” thing wasn’t specified at that time so what would a Pope have done to signal that his teaching was forever binding and correct? If I understand the present situation, Catholic scholars cannot agree among themselves as to which Papal declarations should be seen as being “ex cathedra”. That, of course, raises another problem with your assertion that the bad Popes never changed doctrine. Even if a bad Pope went out of his way to corrupt the existing Catholic doctrine and even if He fully intended his effort to be recognized as infallible and forever binding, Catholics today reserve the right to categorize any disagreeable thing as being not an ex-cathedra teaching. In that way the corruption is wiped off the books. Too contrived…to convenient.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by stewstew03

You even said (not once, but twice):

6. . since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is likely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants' infallibility

thanks for catching that....it should have been:

6. . since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants' infallibility

So which is it? Do bad popes indicate the absence of the Holy Spirit from the Papal Office,...

yep...btw what example can you give of the HS attaching to any office...as opposed to the HS indwelling the occupant of that office. You claim this sort of animal exists...do you have any example of such an animal besides the one that you allege exists?

Or is the failure (of bad popes) to change doctrine merely an expectation because they didn't need the Papal Office to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh?

they used the Papal Office to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh? They didn't need to change any doctrine in order to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh.

Can the Pope be separated from the Papal Office or not?

yes...in fact any overseer who does not continue to meet the qualifications of an overseer as set out in Titus and 1 Tim should be quickly removed from the office.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by robwar

That is good to here. I stand corrected. Except for Detrick Bonhoffer, there seemed to be little Lutheran opposition to Hitler at the time he rose to power in Germany. Now maybe it is under reported but there was much more from the Catholics in Germany and the current Pope is a product of that with his father being opposed to Hitler. Learning about what Luther wrote about Jews was one of the many steps in becoming Catholic. I can't trust or believe in someone that can write that evil ugly hate about Jews. Once I rejected Luther, what the Catholic church teaches and had looked a whole lot better.

If you rejected Lutheranism based on Luther's anti-judaism, it is hard to see that going to the Catholic Church is much better. Now, to be sure, we are talking about a different era, and it is safe to say that neither communion looks back on those days with pride. But the fact is that Luther's was not in a vacuum. In fact, early on in his career, he was accused by some Catholics of being a judaizer because he spoke so highly of them. It is a reflection of his time. That's not an excuse for Luther or Ecke, or the many others. But it does explain it.

As for the Hitler era, I get the impression that Lutherans and Catholics both have been painted with a broad brush regarding their opposition to The Third Reich.

Jon

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by Radical

thanks for catching that....it should have been:

6. . since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibilty (during the time of the bad Popes) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants' infallibility

I noticed, and I knew what you meant...(figured it was a typo)

...btw what example can you give of the HS attaching to any office...as opposed to the HS indwelling the occupant of that office. You claim this sort of animal exists...do you have any example of such an animal besides the one that you allege exists?

The Holy Spirit prevents bad popes from officially teaching in error, according to our beliefs.

Here's a question for you (a variation of what I asked you before): would you not agree that the Holy Spirit prevented fallible men from choosing the wrong books for the canon of scripture?

they used the Papal Office to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh? They didn't need to change any doctrine in order to pursue wealth, power, and the lusts of the flesh.

Right - the Holy Spirit prevented them from changing doctrine. Looks like we agree on this then...

yes...in fact any overseer who does not continue to meet the qualifications of an overseer as set out in Titus and 1 Tim should be quickly removed from the office.

Sorry, I meant "severed." Can the Pope be severed from the Papal Office, i.e., the teaching authority of the Church? If the gates of hell prevail against the man, can they also prevail against the "office?"

[stewstew03]

Originally Posted by Radical

In other words, I think that the candidates for the “bad Pope” label are more numerous than those listed by Catholics on this thread and the rest shouldn’t be considered “good Popes” by default.

In your opinion, were there any "good Popes" Radical?

Catholics today reserve the right to categorize any disagreeable thing as being not an ex-cathedra teaching. In that way the corruption is wiped off the books.

Wiped off the books? Hardly. But you're quite right about correcting the past with guidance from the Holy Spirit. By the grace of God, Radical, the Church will persevere to the end.

Too contrived…to convenient.

Contrived? No. But it does seem rather inconvenient for you (regrettably).

[AbideWithMe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic92

This can be a hectic time of the year for those of us about to finish off this year of university. Luckily I only have one Paper left on Aristotle, but it means all of the resources I would like to use for this thread, I currently don't have, and have reached my limit of the amount of books I can take out from the Library at one time.


I know i will try to chime in when I can, but i don't like stating something from my own notes, without seeing the original source

I'll look for you later, Skeptic92. God's blessings be on you as you finish your paper.

[AbideWithMe]

Originally Posted by JonNC

If you rejected Lutheranism based on Luther's anti-judaism, it is hard to see that going to the Catholic Church is much better. Now, to be sure, we are talking about a different era, and it is safe to say that neither communion looks back on those days with pride. But the fact is that Luther's was not in a vacuum. In fact, early on in his career, he was accused by some Catholics of being a judaizer because he spoke so highly of them. It is a reflection of his time. That's not an excuse for Luther or Ecke, or the many others. But it does explain it.

As for the Hitler era, I get the impression that Lutherans and Catholics both have been painted with a broad brush regarding their opposition to The Third Reich.

Jon

This is true. And, though not wishing to get too off track, in the present day I haven't seen among Lutherans the hateful anti-Jewish attacks that I still infrequently run into from some extreme traditionalist Catholics.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by AbideWithMe

This is true. And, though not wishing to get too off track, in the present day I haven't seen among Lutherans the hateful anti-Jewish attacks that I still infrequently run into from some extreme traditionalist Catholics.

Abide,

What is it these traditionalist Catholics say or do that cause you to say that they are hateful anti-Jewish?