Apostolic rivalry?


did this pope lose a land and power contest with an archbishop? is that another way of saying he sold bishoprics to raise funds?


catholic encyclopedia

if these popes are bearing this kind of fruit, does’nt it cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of their christianity? implication: if a few popes were’nt catholic, does’nt it cast doubt on the authority of the papacy?


Since Judas Iscariot sold out Jesus, doesn’t that cast doubt on the legitimacy of Jesus?


This is the difference between Catholic and Protestant ecclesiology. Protestants basically say big sinners are not really Christians anymore–they say only those who are “saved” are members of the invisible Church. As Catholics, we ackowledge that a member of the Church can be in mortal sin–not in the state of grace–but still a Christian, still a member of the visible Church.

Sure, there have been saintly Popes and Popes who were great sinners–it doesn’t have any bearing on their membership in the Church.

St. Peter deined the Lord three times and refused to sit at the same table with certain folks. Sts. John and James wanted Jesus to obliterate a town. Judas was stealing from the collection for the poor–but they were all true Apostles. The Lord often works through human brokenness and sinners.


hm, there is record of apostolic rivalry prior to the day of pentecost when the Holy Spirit came. the apostles were corrected then. are they being corrected now? As most protestants, I recognize that a person can individually be struggling with sin or even be ignorant of a particular sin and still be a Christian–who does’nt fit this catagory! however, it would seem that for a bishop to be involved in public rivalry of greed, such as a contest for land, would be in direct contradiction to the apostle paul’s instruction, “a bishop must be blaimless or above reproach or unimpeachable]” fighting between christian brothers either by violent or non-violent means for land is not above reproach.


Yet it is irrelevant to the truth of the Church’s doctrines.

Did the conflicts between Paul and his companions or between Paul and Peter invalidate their positions? Obviously it did not.

Would that also show them less than above reproach?

Besides, he wasn’t all bad.

More of a temporal prince than an ecclesiastical ruler, Clement was munificent to profusion, a patron of arts and letters, a lover of good cheer, well-appointed banquets and brilliant receptions, to which ladies were freely admitted. The heavy expenses necessitated by such pomp soon exhausted the funds which the economy of Benedict XII had provided for his successor. To open up new sources of revenue, in the absence of the ordinary income from the States of the Church, fresh taxes were imposed and an ever-increasing number of appointments to bishoprics and benefices was reserved to the pope. Such arbitrary proceedings led to resistance in several countries. In 1343 the agents of two cardinals, whom Clement had appointed to offices in England, were driven from that country. Edward III vehemently complained of the exactions of the Avignon Court, and in 1351 was passed the Statute of Provisors, according to which the king reserved the right of presentation in all cases of papal appointments to benefices. The memory of this pope is clouded by his open French partisanship and by the gross nepotism of his reign. Clement VI was nevertheless a protector of the oppressed and a helper of the needy. His courage and charity strikingly appeared at the time of the Great Pestilence, or Black Death, at Avignon (1348-49). While in many places, numerous Jews were massacred by the populace as being the cause of the pestilence, Clement issued Bulls for their protection and afforded them a refuge in his little State. He canonized St. Ivo of Tréguier, Brittany (d. 1303), the advocate of orphans (June, 1347), condemned the Flagellants, and in 1351 courageously defended the Mendicant friars against the accusations of some secular prelates. Several sermons have been preserved of this admittedly learned pope and eloquent speaker.


the only conflict I know of between peter and paul was a matter of fidlity to the dogma concerning God’s offer of acceptance to the gentiles. paul rebuked peter and peter presumably accepted his rebuke. This sounds more like spiritual growth for peter. conflict over. this is entirely different than fighting over earthly riches.

I would’nt presume to say he was all bad. but I don’t think he showed the signs of fidelity to God if he was out partying and getting in land spats. If one pope could be so far off in his beliefs to think that it is God’s will that he aquire land in contest of another apostle, it casts serious doubt on the reliability of apostolic teaching.


The apostolic teaching was fine. He just wasn’t doing as fine a job as other bishops of rome in teaching it.


What about the argument with Paul concerning Mark?


paul did’nt trust mark because he had abandoned him before. barnabus was ready to give him a second chance. apparently they resolved the dispute eventually because paul requests mark’s presence (2 timothy 4:11) I wonder if perhaps paul had to humble himself in order to make peace. in any case, I don’t see how this agreement is parallel. were talking about a sharp disagreement about the trustworthyness of a Christian leader based on his record compared to fighting over temporary wealth. am I the only one who sees the difference? Paul said that to set one’s mind on carnal matters was a deadly sin. Romans8:5-9


John Calvin ordered a man to be burned (i.e. Michael Servetus). Martin Luther encouraged violence during the Peasant’s Revolt and violence against the Jews. Ulrich Zwingli’s Zurich persecuted fellow Protestats (i.e. Anabaptists). Does this cast doubt on the validity of the Protestant reformation since all of the major reformers willingly engaged in - or encouraged- violence?

God Bless,


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.