Scandals Of Past Popes

[goldenchild17]

I've been debating whether I should post this topic because I do not want to make a flame thread about the papacy. Some of you might know of my theological leanings the past few years. I have made a lot of progress towards reconciliation but still have some roadblocks and am looking for some of this information for a line of reasoning that I am following up on. I don't want to go into much detail here but you can email me if you want to talk more.

What I'm looking for is all the information you may have about any major (or not so major if you think it is notable) scandal that a pope prior to Vatican II might have gotten involved in. Theological scandals are more relevant to what I need than personal sin scandals, although I will accept either for my purposes.

I know how this could degenerate into a bad thread about the failings of the papacy and I don't intend that. I fully accept the power and legitimacy of the papacy no matter the personal failings of the popes. But I wanted to ask here because all searches only result in anti-Catholic (either Protestant or non-Christian) attacks on Catholicism. I don't want that here which is why I am fine if you email me the information. But it's somewhat difficult to find a Catholic source that addresses these things. I understand that Patrick Madrid addresses some of these cases, like Sixtus V and his revision of the Latin Vulgate, Liberius, Honorius and Vigilius. These is the kind of thing I'm looking for.



That all said, mods if you don't think this should be here (whether the info is given to me privately or not) then I understand if the thread should be closed.

peace

Edited November 30, 2009 by goldenchild17

[Arpy]

I can think of some personal sins that have caused scandal (Alexander VI, anyone?), but the Holy Spirit seems to be pretty good about keeping Popes from straying into theological error. I seem to recall some sort of controversy with this one pope (Honorius? Or Celestinus?) over this one heretical view (monosomethingtism?), but he never solemnly declared it as Church doctrine or something like that.

[Nihil Obstat]

I hear the medieval popes tended towards some pretty deplorable excesses.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Arpy' date='29 November 2009 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1259556665' post='2011743']
I can think of some personal sins that have caused scandal (Alexander VI, anyone?), but the Holy Spirit seems to be pretty good about keeping Popes from straying into theological error. I seem to recall some sort of controversy with this one pope (Honorius? Or Celestinus?) over this one heretical view (monosomethingtism?), but he never solemnly declared it as Church doctrine or something like that.
[/quote]

Definitely the Church is protected from official heresy and I am using that fact for something I'm working on, but I'm trying to find a number of cases to use. And yes I believe that was Honorius and the heresy of the Monothelites.

[CatherineM]

I'm sure there are many because one prerequisite of being the Pope is that you be human.

There are some things that were quite normal for the time and place, but not acceptable to our present sensibilities such as Julian taking the lead in battles.

[Veridicus]

Dante placed Anastasius II in hell for his conciliar attitude toward the monophysite Acacius.

I should add that Anastasius II ended up being the second pope in history to [i]NOT [/i]be canonized by the Church.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Veridicus

[Resurrexi]

Pope Honorius I said that he believed that Christ had one will in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Pope Honorius was posthumously anathematized at Constantinople III (the ecumenical council that condemend monothelitism).

EDIT: I see this was already mentioned.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Veridicus]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='30 November 2009 - 12:14 AM' timestamp='1259558084' post='2011769']
Definitely the Church is protected from official heresy and I am using that fact for something I'm working on, but I'm trying to find a number of cases to use. And yes I believe that was Honorius and the heresy of the Monothelites.
[/quote]


[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I"]Wiki of Honorious I[/url]

[Resurrexi]

Apparently at the end of the nineteenth century the Honorius controversy was a big deal. I guess it was the only convincing argument the anti-infallibility party had against what was defined at Vatican I.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='30 November 2009 - 02:21 AM' timestamp='1259565703' post='2011844']
Apparently at the end of the nineteenth century the Honorius controversy was a big deal. I guess it was the only convincing argument the anti-infallibility party had against what was defined at Vatican I.
[/quote]

One potential skeleton in 1800 years isn't too shabby.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='30 November 2009 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1259565980' post='2011845']
One potential skeleton in 1800 years isn't too shabby.
[/quote]

There's also the argument about Pope Liberius' signing an Arian or semi-Arian creed, but I don't think it's a convincing argument.

[Winchester]

Peter directly denied Christ. That's pretty bad.

One of Jesus's hand-picked Apostles betrayed Him.

Apparently, being weak doesn't disqualify one from office.

[SaintOfVirtue]

Here is a report I had to do for school covering some of these issues, particularly the infallibility of the Pope.

[quote] It is necessary, for the teachings of Christ to be related to mankind free from error that the leader of His church, the Pope, be infallible while teaching them. Infallibility of the Pope can be proved from Sacred Scripture, as well as just reason. The Pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals and, at that, only when four conditions are present.
The four conditions that apply for the Pope’s teachings to be accepted as infallible are as follows. First, the Pope must be speaking as the Supreme Pontiff of the entire Church. Second, the Pope must be teaching on a matter of faith or morals; on any other issue he is not infallible. Third, the teaching must be clearly stated in a way so as to remove all doubt to the contrary. Fourth, the Pope must bind the whole Church with the teaching, not just part of it. When these qualifications are met we know that the Pope is infallible, but from where does the Pope derive his authority to speak infallibly?
We see in the New Testament of the Bible that Jesus clearly institutes Peter over the other apostles. Jesus called Peter, Kephas, which is the Greek word for rock, and stated that on this “rock” He would build His church. This clearly means that Peter was to be the foundation of Christ’s church. Christ gave him the special gift of infallibility by saying, “Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven.” (Matthew 16:19). Clearly this means that Peter was to be infallible while instructing the faithful in the ways of Christ.
Yet, protestants still look for an example of a Pope who has overstepped his authority and taught heresy. They have found only four possible examples throughout the two-thousand year history of the Church. All four of these examples can be proven illegitimate, easily. They accuse Pope St. Callistus as favoring the Monarchian heresy, but Callistus actually denounced the heresy and excommunicated its leading promoter. Protestants claim that Pope Liberius promoted the Arian heresy, but Liberius condemned, it even from his prison cell where he was tortured and forced to sign the Third Formulary of Sirmium. They claim Pope Honorius I, endorsed the Monothelite heresy but, in actuality, he never even offered his opinion on the heresy and is, therefore, only guilty of negligence. Lastly, they claim that Pope John XXII was a heretic on the matter of Beatific Vision. Pope John XXII never presented his theology to the church as being infallible but rather as a personal theology open for debate.
Therefore, we see that the Pope is indeed infallible. The Popes have never taught heresy and their authority to teach infallibly is backed by Sacred Scripture. Further, there are four conditions which must be met for the Popes’ teachings to be infallible, so not everything the Pope says is infallible.
[/quote]

[Jesus_lol]

i seem to remember reading that one of the earlier popes wrote a smut novel, erotic literature. cant remember the name though, way to long to go digging through all the Bathroom Readers to find that again.

[TheSword]

Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the 6th General Council. This alone should prove that the bishops at the time had no idea of any papal infallibility.