Regarding Roman Catholic view on "bad popes"

[Albion]

What does that mean?

It means that there is, among Christian theologians, in Christian history and philosophy, etc. etc. a strain of thought that says Apostolic Succession remains intact if the lineage is unbroken AND none of the people in the lineage taught significant doctrinal error.

 

[GingerBeer]

AND none of the people in the lineage taught significant doctrinal error.

In that case it doesn't exist.

 

[com7fy8]

Is it your contention that we can do better that Jesus because in your view Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as a tool to bring about the betrayal and hence the crucifixion?

Well, certainly we Jesus Christ's disciples can not do better than Jesus has done!! So, no we can not do better than Him. But possibly you mean that now Jesus has us doing better things than Judas did; certainly Jesus praying for us and in us is succeeding in having us do more and better than Judas has done ! ! !

Jesus is doing better with us, than what He did with Judas. He lost Judas. Now He is keeping us. And Jesus did better than losing Judas > He kept Peter, even in spite of Peter's failure and denying Jesus three times.

You can look at Luke 22:31-34. Here is how Jesus handled Peter, even though He knew Peter would deny Him three times. First, Jesus tells Peter how Satan has asked to sift Peter as wheat. Then Jesus says,

"'But I have prayed for you, that your strength should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.'" (in Luke 22:32)

So, Jesus had already prayed for Peter, before Peter denied Jesus three times. This is better than what He did with Judas, and now Jesus is doing so better by making intercession for us > Romans 8:34. I see how Jesus with us, too, can pray for us before we fail, and so He keeps us. And His prayer is all-loving; so His prayer has us become more and more all-loving.

So, not we but Jesus is doing better with us, than He did with Judas.

When Peter says he will go with Jesus through prison and death, then is when Jesus predicts how Peter will deny Jesus three times . . . making this prediction after He says He has prayed for Peter.

So . . . what I see here is, that Jesus knew Peter would deny Him; so even before Peter did that, already Jesus prayed that Peter would come back. But, like I say, the prayer of Christ is all-loving > Jesus did not only pray for Peter to be blessed for himself, but that Peter would become able to strengthen his brothers and sisters.

Because Jesus' prayer is all-loving.

So, yes, with Jesus we do much better.

 

[com7fy8]

Who is the decider of the qualifications and their applicability in individual cases, will it be voters in a congregation, already established leaders in a denomination, or each individual deciding for him or her self who is a "true elder" that ought to be respected and obeyed?

Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to take care of this matter.

So, I do see hierarchy, here. But there is no naming of a certain organized group, simply the ones God had Paul appoint. Christians knew who their leaders were; they were family; the leaders took care of them as family > 1 Thessalonians 2:7&11. They knew who was who.

My opinion is they had the help of the prayer and recommendations of leaders already qualified; and if non-leaders were maturing in Christ they could tell the difference and help to commend new leaders.

You can tell who is ministering you to become more like Jesus and real in how the Bible says to love. I think this is what Paul meant when he said he knew the phonies were not real because they could not add anything to him > Galatians 2:6 > Paul says, "they added nothing to me." This does not say they added nothing to what Paul said, but "nothing to me."

What I understand is he could tell they were not ministering the effect of God's grace to make him more real in Jesus. But any child of God can minister God's grace, like this, as Paul has directed us to do >

"Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers." (Ephesians 4:29)

Peter could trust "the multitude of the disciples" . . . the "brethren" . . . to know who were qualified to be deacons > Acts chapter six. He told the "brethren" to select men "of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom". He knew they could tell the difference. So, my opinion is it was not by voting, but by unanimous consent, with prayer, of course. They did things as family.

But individuals, local churches, and whole denominations and organizations take things into their own hands. And we see the resulting anarchy . . . of minister's turning out to be predators and con artists, and spouses turning out to be abusers and cheaters, and pastors turning out to be burn-out cases. Because people are rushed through seminary and are evaluated by ones who can't tell the difference.

There are people who are not staying in the precise guiding of God's peace (Colossians 3:15, Proverbs 3:5-6) which keeps us in Jesus Christ's "rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30), and gives us God's sense to tell the difference.

If we obey how God takes care of us, we get taken care of.

And He organizes us along with the whole body of Jesus > "in one body" > in this peace ruling in us > Colossians 3:15.

But people can take shortcuts in order to fill their pulpits, and in order to get married.

And, according to what I have seen in various churches and groups, there can be people who know what they are doing, even among others who are not doing things right - - - right in the same group or church or denomination. And people can tell who knows what he or she is doing.

 

[com7fy8]

"Even sheep ... can tell the difference" sounds a little like the anarchy model of authority in the church.

I am talking about Christ's obedient sheep whom He gives sense to tell the difference.

Jesus makes His sheep able to tell the difference, and He guarantees His sheep will not follow another. This is not anarchy. But there are leaders and groups, even, who can spit this out.

Denominations that take a more centralised approach, appointing leaders according to rules decided by the existing leadership within the denomination are by far the most common.

But the leaders can be anarchical, making rules which suit their purpose, and getting copy-cat outward control and obedience.

So, if we are with Jesus, we need to be able to tell the difference.

The rules of a group can throw out the standard of Paul which we have in 1 Timothy 3:1-10. Leaders can just not keep these standards, while they make rules and policies which do not hold the standards which our Apostle Paul has given us.

 

[com7fy8]

The story you tell here, in the quote above, looks rather idealistic and unrealistic. Human beings in positions of authority in churches tend to be every bit as good and bad as people in similar positions in non-church organisations. And the membership are about as effective in overthrowing "bad" leaders in both contexts.

But Jesus guarantees His sheep know His voice and will not follow another > John 10:1-30.

I am offering what is possible with God; so of course this can seem unrealistic to us humans.

If humans in church leadership are like people of the world, this can mean a number of things >

> They were not checked out by qualified leadership who can tell the difference between a person of worldly nature and Christian character.

> Ones in their group have not developed in how Jesus is in love > 1 John 4:17-18 > therefore, they do not believe or know this is possible; so they do not expect a leader to be a person who has matured in how the Bible says to become and love. They do not know that all which God's word commands is possible with God, maybe because they have tried to get themselves to do this, and think it is not to be expected if they themselves failed. However > this is not about what we can do, and making our own results be the measure of what is realistic. This is about what God commands, and therefore He knows it is realistic!

> Possibly, they have assembly-lined people through seminary, and judged by what someone has to say, instead of testing leadership candidates by how well they have matured in marriage and caring for their children . . . like our Apostle Paul says to do > 1 Timothy 3:1-10 < I find this to be very realistic > let a couple discover together how they mature in Jesus and relate in their marriage and bringing up their children > so they know how to take care of people in our Father's family caring and sharing way > and then you know the guy can "take care of the church of God" . . . in our Father's family caring and sharing way. Their home is their seminary and testing place. And then they together can help other couples learn how to do well in marriage and caring for their children. This is what God's word says . . . in my opinion . . . this is about family, and family is not anarchy.

But church culture people can not do this > "without Me you can do nothing," Jesus says in John 15:5.

 

[com7fy8]

The first paragraph is tending to the anarchic model of church authority where the members decide each individually for him or her self who to recognise and follow as leaders.

Well, each of us does need to be able to tell the difference, as Christ's sheep, so we can know His voice through the ones He approves.

You might consider 1 Corinthians 11:19 >

"For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." (1 Corinthians 11:19.

The people could tell who was "approved". Each one needed to be able to tell the difference, so he or she could know. It seems to me, they had right people and wrong people, all there with each other, making different claims. So, they had no way to know, unless God in them made them able to know.

God is the One in us who personally guides us >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

there are many denominations so how can one decide which (if any) has the "true succession" that you mentioned before?

My opinion, with experience of having been with various groups - - there are groups who have leaders who I would say are more with it. First of all > they are gentle and humble and they effect me to become more gentle and humble and compassionate about ones who are not exactly, instead of boasting how I can see who is the fake-o and welcome this as an excuse to look down on people who are not real leaders and who are suffering emotionally and in their personal relating because of not being sound and growing in God's love. The real ones have hope for the not exactlies. They are not conceited, at all. And their excellent example feeds me how love "hopes all things" (in 1 Corinthians 13:7) > so I have hope for the wrong people > Hebrews 5:2.

So, such example leaders, I would say, are in the succession; how they got here, in some groups, I don't know But I trust that Christ's succession is obedient and with good example >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

 

[GingerBeer]

Well, certainly we Jesus Christ's disciples can not do better than Jesus has done!! So, no we can not do better than Him.

If what you've written is right then why expect Christians to avoid choosing leaders who turn out to be bad after they've been leaders for a while? Judas Iscariot was an apostle chosen by Jesus Christ, in Christian teaching it is said that Jesus knew what was going to happen and knew what motives a person had because Jesus is God who knows all things. So if God chose a bad leader to be one of the twelve apostles why complain when human beings - who are not God and do not know what motivates a person nor what will happen in the future - choose a leader who turns out to be a bad leader?

 

[GingerBeer]

Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to take care of this matter.

So, I do see hierarchy, here.

Okay, then let the already existing leaders choose others who can lead. That's what apostolic succession does. Those who are already bishops choose others to be bishops.

 

[GingerBeer]

But Jesus guarantees His sheep know His voice and will not follow another

If that is true then why complain about the leaders chosen in churches that have apostolic succession? Are they not sheep of Christ and does the guarantee not apply to them?

 

[com7fy8]

So if God chose a bad leader to be one of the twelve apostles why complain when human beings - who are not God and do not know what motivates a person nor what will happen in the future - choose a leader who turns out to be a bad leader?

We already offered how Jesus chose Judas for a specific purpose, including to provide someone to betray Jesus as the Scriptures foretold.

Humans can be expected to get it right, because Jesus gives us the ability to evaluate reliably. And He guarantees this, by saying we hear His voice and will not follow another. So, this is realistic because of what is possible with God. It doesn't depend on us; it depends on how God is able. God is not distant and impersonal, but God's word guarantees He personally guides each of His children who are obeying Him.

And He does this in His peace > Colossians 3:15 < this is a basic of our Christian calling.

Plus, if we have experienced God's love in the Holy Spirit, we can tell if a leadership candidate is ministering this, versus only putting on some chameleon act.

So, whenever I fail in this, this is because I was not making sure with God. I am accountable to obey how God leads us according to all He knows is true. His leading and guiding is trustworthy. Jesus makes us able to obey how God guides each of us.

 

[com7fy8]

If that is true then why complain about the leaders chosen in churches that have apostolic succession? Are they not sheep of Christ and does the guarantee not apply to them?

If they are functional in the true succession, they know Christ's voice and choose leaders reliably. And if they are Christ's sheep, Jesus says His sheep can tell the difference; so if someone has failed to tell the difference, I can not tell you they are sheep or exemplary leaders.

My concern is with intellectual and trained people who claim to be in Christ's succession, but they can not tell the difference between a qualified leader and a predator or con artist. If they can not tell the difference between a person of God's love and a person otherwise, this is a major problem; Jesus makes us able to tell the difference, and He warns us not to trust wolves in sheep's clothing.

If we can tell the difference between a sheep and a wolf, we can expect leaders to be able to do this. Just because someone claims to have the succession does not make it so. Jesus says to test, and to judge with righteous judgment, not by appearances > John 7:24.

People and groups who are failing are not examples of how God does things with His people. This is about how God is able. People's say-so does not make it so. I have offered scripture for what I am offering.

 

[GingerBeer]

Jesus chose Judas for a specific purpose, including to provide someone to betray Jesus as the Scriptures foretold.

Perhaps God chooses bad church leaders for a specific purpose. God has been known to do that sort of thing.

 

[BobRyan]

Hello,
I came across a wikipedia article about a book entitled "The Bad Popes" by someone named Chamberlain. I'm sure it's a huge derogatory slamfest on Catholics, which I don't support and I would never read. However, the following information is presented in the wikipedia article regarding specific popes below. Are the facts below from Wikipedia disputed or accepted?

Respectfully (as possible regarding this subject)
-J

• Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]:19
• Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
• Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy.
• Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured .[1]:153
• Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism
  
• Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony.[1]:218
• Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

As I recall the Catholic church also has a document on the subject of what it calls "wicked popes"

 

[prodromos]

Perhaps God chooses bad church leaders for a specific purpose. God has been known to do that sort of thing.

An abbot in the early 7th century had a vision where he spoke with God and asked Him, "Is it true that all rulers are appointed by heavenly command?". The answer was positive. "Then why, O Lord, did you send the wicked tyrant Phocas to rule the Roman people?". "Because", came the stern reply, "I could find no one worse."

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Perhaps God chooses bad church leaders for a specific purpose. God has been known to do that sort of thing.

Yes I’m down with that, it’s the exact reason why we can’t and shouldn’t set up a particular one as the mouthpiece or representative of God on Earth.

 

[com7fy8]

Perhaps God chooses bad church leaders for a specific purpose. God has been known to do that sort of thing.

As I think I have already offered > our Apostle Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 11 >

"For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)

So, the wrong ones can be used to make the ones "approved" by God look good. Wrong leaders can be an object lesson, an example of how Jesus does not want a leader to be and do things.

So, the wrong people are not leaders whom God has chosen and is trusting to take care of His people.

But He can control who leads groups who are doing things wrong. It is likely, in my opinion, that God will not give a wrong group a right leader, since the group will not obey the person. So, in case a group disobeys Paul's standards for who qualifies to be a pastor > 1 Timothy 1:1-10 < this can be why the group has problems getting real pastors. In my opinion and experience, various groups and local churches have this problem. And oddly enough, they can keep justifying what they are doing . . . while it keeps failing!!

An abbot in the early 7th century had a vision where he spoke with God and asked Him, "Is it true that all rulers are appointed by heavenly command?". The answer was positive.

I understand the Bible means that God is in control of who is a secular or church leader. But this does not mean He approves of the leader, and it does not mean He approves of the nation or religious group.

"Then why, O Lord, did you send the wicked tyrant Phocas to rule the Roman people?". "Because", came the stern reply, "I could find no one worse."

This happened with the Jews because they did not want the LORD to be their King. Because they were refusing God, they got Saul. And he never really functioned as an approved leader, and he died in disgrace.

But this happened with wrong people > they got the wrong leader. And yes I would say there is a purpose for this. It is an object lesson, so we can see what can happen if we do not obey Jesus and submit to Him as our King.

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

So, if we take the yoke of Jesus and learn from Him, He will provide us with example leaders to help us with this. A leader who is not with Jesus can not do this > "without Me you can do nothing." (in John 15:5)

 

[BobRyan]

It means that there is, among Christian theologians, in Christian history and philosophy, etc. etc. a strain of thought that says Apostolic Succession remains intact if the lineage is unbroken AND none of the people in the lineage taught significant doctrinal error.

1. define "lineage unbroken" given multiple popes at the same time each with successors.
2. What does it mean to claim that no wicked pope taught any form of bad doctrine? Where is that established as being a fact of history even by Catholics?

 

[BobRyan]

Hello,
I came across a wikipedia article about a book entitled "The Bad Popes" by someone named Chamberlain. I'm sure it's a huge derogatory slamfest on Catholics, which I don't support and I would never read. However, the following information is presented in the wikipedia article regarding specific popes below. Are the facts below from Wikipedia disputed or accepted?

Respectfully (as possible regarding this subject)
-J

• Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]:19
• Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
• Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy.
• Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured .[1]:153
• Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism
  
• Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony.[1]:218
• Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

Is it even remotely possible that all of them were otherwise saintly godly, perfect in all doctrine and the Gospel -- except for the one thing listed about them in the quote above?

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Is it even remotely possible that all of them were otherwise saintly godly, perfect in all doctrine and the Gospel -- except for the one thing listed about them in the quote above?

Idk you tell me. They are supposed to be God’s mouthpiece to the church and are propped up above all other men.