And from Book IV chap 4 we have this quote-
The political disorder of Europe affected the church and paralyzed its efforts for good. The papacy itself lost all independence and dignity, and became the prey of avarice, violence, and intrigue, a veritable synagogue of Satan. It was dragged through the quagmire of the darkest crimes, and would have perished in utter disgrace had not Providence saved it for better times. Pope followed pope in rapid succession, and most of them ended their career in deposition, prison, and murder. The rich and powerful marquises of Tuscany and the Counts of Tusculum acquired control over the city of Rome and the papacy for more than half a century. And what is worse (incredibile, attamen verum), three bold and energetic women of the highest rank and lowest character, Theodora the elder (the wife or widow of a Roman senator), and her two daughters, Marozia and Theodora, filled the chair of St. Peter with their paramours and bastards. These Roman Amazons combined with the fatal charms of personal beauty and wealth, a rare capacity for intrigue, and a burning lust for power and pleasure. They had the diabolical ambition to surpass their sex as much in boldness and badness as St. Paula and St. Eustachium in the days of Jerome had excelled in virtue and saintliness. They turned the church of St. Peter into a den of robbers, and the residence of his successors into a harem. And they gloried in their shame. Hence this infamous period is called the papal Pornocracy or Hetaerocracy.
Some popes of this period were almost as bad as the worst emperors of heathen Rome, and far less excusable.
Sergius III., the lover of Marozia (904–911), opened the shameful succession. Under the protection of a force of Tuscan soldiers he appeared in Rome, deposed Christopher who had just deposed Leo V., took possession of the papal throne, and soiled it with every vice; but he deserves credit for restoring the venerable church of the Lateran, which had been destroyed by an earthquake in 896 and robbed of invaluable treasures.
My Roman Catholic friends have no qualms about claiming apostolic succession, in spite of problems such as those highlighted above. Apostolic succession is said to be the key to a carefully guarded Apostolic tradition. But what if the chain of succession is not just broken, but VERY broken? Evil, godless men who are clearly not regenerate, i.e. they are not Spirit-filled nor Spirit led- cannot be representatives of Christ on earth, as God has not blessed them with a new heart, they are not born from above. God Almighty is the one who does His work in the heart of the believer. This is called being "born again" or "born from above". Jesus describes this in John Chapter 3, in His discussion with Nicodemus. Paul describes the "fruit of the Spirit" in Galatians 5:16-26. Many other passages portray what it means to walk as Christ walked. Take a look at 1 John 2:3-6 for instance-3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. (NIV)
This passage would certainly need to apply to anyone who would claim to be 'Vicar of Christ' on earth. However, just looking at the plain history of many of the Popes who would claim this title for themselves casts a horrible image on Christ, and those Popes prove themselves liars. I cannot say that these men are Apostolic in any sense- neither, it would seem would John, or Paul, nor presumably Peter! That chain that connects one Popes name to another is broken and rendered void of spiritual meaning.I agree with David T King when he said "..since bishops of Rome embraced and have been condemned for heresy, succession obviously did not guarantee the maintenance of doctrinal purity." In other words folks- the Scriptures alone are the only reliable touchstone to the faith.
4 comments:
What is your point here? Catholics never claim all the popes are saved. They don't claim all or even most are moral people. So try and learn what the church teaches before you try and disprove it. This is a complete straw man. Alexander was a scoundrel but he was a pope.
Hi Randy,
I am merely pointing out a very real, historical problem that the RC Church has- just because you can sweep it under a theological rug doesn't make it go away. My point is clearly stated- "Evil, godless men who are clearly not regenerate, i.e. they are not Spirit-filled nor Spirit led- cannot be representatives of Christ on earth" and further "many of the Popes who would claim this title for themselves casts a horrible image on Christ, and those Popes prove themselves liars. I cannot say that these men are Apostolic in any sense".
This is NOT insignificant. If we are to look for who are the shepherds, who are those who accurately portray Christ and Christianity, we need to consider who these people are, what they accomplish, what they do, how they behave. If Apostolic succession is to mean anything real and tangible at all, they should have 'clean noses' so to speak. They don't-, so the list is comprised of a series of men, MANY of who cannot be properly called regenerate Christians at all. Therefore, why should I or anybody else take the list to be significant at all? It is a simple question, a simple point. Perhaps you can suggest a simple answer?
Alexander was a scoundrel but he was a pope.
My point is that Alexander had no business being a pope at all, considering who he was and what he did while pope.
But you need to prove your point. You state it well but don't bother try and proving it. Catholics believe in grace. You seem to be focused on works. In Cardinal Newman’s words, “Christ’s priests have no priesthood but His … what they do, He does; when they baptize, He is baptizing; when they bless, He is blessing.” So then the works of the priest are irrelevant. The same principle applies for popes and bishops. It is not a good thing when they are bad men but the goodness of God is more important than the badness of men.
Thanks for your input Randy.
First off, this is not a full exposition by any means as to why one should not be a papist, nor believe that the papacy is a valid institution. I am bringing up one problem as I see it, and would enumerate Biblical reasons as to why it is a problem.
I understand what you are saying, and I can see your point, and Newmans point is logical per se. I am a sinner like all men, and I wouldn't expect perfection from any mortal, fallen human- Pope or pauper. But there are higher standards at play here- holiness, to set oneself apart for God. The principles that Christ taught, the obedience that we are to show in our lives to His word, His commands, the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians Chapter 5). These things are visible indicators of whether we conform to the new man AND can test whether we in fact are 'new men' (regenerate) at all! You cannot conform for long to something that you are not, so ultimately whether you are a child of God or a son of perdition, there are signs to look for. The Bible warns of false teachers, it tells us to be diligent, to be aware, to watch. That can only have meaning if there is something to watch for, of course. That is the point here. No sign of the 'new man' in some popes, no sign of Spiritual birth, the lacking of the Holy Spirit in the life of many popes is a grievous sign, a statement. I am appealing to signs, indicators, not works. That may be as far as this point can go, so there you have it.
May God richly bless you!
Post a Comment