Scandals Of Past Popes

[Selah]

[quote]Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.) [/quote]

But by their bad lives and examples, they make bad statements on faith and morals and are pronounced to be heretics. What if we had a Pope who supported abortion or gay marriage? Or a Pope that wanted to make the heresy of Pelagianism a doctrine?

Edited December 5, 2009 by Selah

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 December 2009 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1259975111' post='2014570']
isnt infallibility supposed to be all the time, not just on occassion? otherwise i would be infallible every time i was right about something(it happens! i swear!)


"he is infallible! ...except when he isnt."


[/quote]

Infallibility [i]isn't[/i] supposed to be all the time. Thus, you are arguing against a reality which doesn't exist and that no one is claiming. Infallibility has its worth when an issue of contention arises within the Church and the Pope (or Bishops in council) declare a resolution; thus binding on earth what is already bound (and objective truth) in heaven. Does that help?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Selah' date='04 December 2009 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1259975379' post='2014573']
But by their bad lives and examples, they make bad statements on faith and morals and are pronounced to be heretics. What if we had a Pope who supported abortion or gay marriage? Or a Pope that wanted to make the heresy of Pelagianism a doctrine?
[/quote]

It is not only "faith and morals" that is important. Popes can not use infallibility unless it is also universal and does not contradict any other teaching of the Catholic Church.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Selah' date='04 December 2009 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1259975379' post='2014573']
But by their bad lives and examples, they make bad statements on faith and morals and are pronounced to be heretics.
[/quote]

Being a sinner didn't stop Peter, Paul, John, Jude, Luke, John, Matthew, Mark, or James from declaring infallibly the contents of their contributions to the New Testament scriptures.
You are correct in recognizing the terrible scandal it is when someone with such authority commits flagrant sin or neglects to address heresy within the Church. However, their silence doesn't of its self speak infallibly...because they haven't spoken at all.

It is a dangerous argument to make to begin denying moral authority to anyone who has sinned; this is a quick route to utter moral relativism.


[quote name='Selah' date='04 December 2009 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1259975379' post='2014573']
What if we had a Pope who supported abortion or gay marriage? Or a Pope that wanted to make the heresy of Pelagianism a doctrine?
[/quote]

It would be horribly scandalous for a Pope to support abortion or gay marriage. But unless he [i]officially [/i] and publicly sought to alter consistent Catholic moral teaching on these matters he would not be violating infallibility to my understanding. Were a Pope to release a document which sought to make a dogma of the Pelagian heresy, this would indeed be in contradiction to Infallibility. This would of course never happen.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Selah' date='04 December 2009 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1259975379' post='2014573']
What if we had a Pope who supported abortion or gay marriage? Or a Pope that wanted to make the heresy of Pelagianism a doctrine?
[/quote]
Those would be the errors that the Church is protected against. Luckily.

[Veridicus]

It really is a testament to the veracity of claims to Papal infallibility that there are so few arguments (given there have been well over 200 Popes) against it which cite actual historical examples. I doubt you could find such consistency in any other continuous institution on the planet (the Papacy is the longest surviving continuous institution on the planet btw.)

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='04 December 2009 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1259976024' post='2014586']
It really is a testament to the veracity of claims to Papal infallibility that there are so few arguments (given there have been well over 200 Popes) against it which cite actual historical examples. I doubt you could find such consistency in any other continuous institution on the planet (the Papacy is the longest surviving continuous institution on the planet btw.)
[/quote]
Longer than the Chrysanthemum Throne?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 December 2009 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1259976476' post='2014590']
Longer than the Chrysanthemum Throne?
[/quote]

That is a hereditary monarchy bereft of any true authority; besides the historical records available only go back to the 5th century AD. Perhaps I should have stated "historically supported institution"

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='04 December 2009 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1259975493' post='2014576']
Infallibility [i]isn't[/i] supposed to be all the time. Thus, you are arguing against a reality which doesn't exist and that no one is claiming. Infallibility has its worth when an issue of contention arises within the Church and the Pope (or Bishops in council) declare a resolution; thus binding on earth what is already bound (and objective truth) in heaven. Does that help?
[/quote]

im not really arguing against anything.
and after looking it up, infallibility can mean all, or some of the time, given different circumstances. and i thought you were referring to Church issues with his "infallibility on mulitple occasions", not including stuff outside the church, which is why i asked if being right a couple of times but not all the time in serious church issues warrants the claim of infallibility for that particular pope.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 December 2009 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1259977314' post='2014595']
im not really arguing against anything.
and after looking it up, infallibility can mean all, or some of the time, given different circumstances. and i thought you were referring to Church issues with his "infallibility on mulitple occasions", not including stuff outside the church, which is why i asked if being right a couple of times but not all the time in serious church issues warrants the claim of infallibility for that particular pope.
[/quote]

Gotcha! Well, I'm glad you learned a bit about what didn't make sense for you earlier. Sorry if I responded argumentatively...I have been habitually trained by some of my intractably protestant friends that the argument over infallibility never seems to be settled.

[mortify]

There is a book titled _The Bad Popes_