Followup Question on Papal Succession and Infallibility?

Question

Benedict IX Rumored to have been 12 at the time he became pope, Benedict IX was probably in his late 20's when his family's position and money put him on the papal throne in 1032. Born Theophylactus, the pope led a dissolute life, and the Roman people drove him from the city in 1044 and elected Sylvester II pope or anti-pope. Benedict regained the papacy in the following year and sold it a month later to John Gratian, who became Gregory VI. Holy Roman Emperor Henry III convoked a synod at Sutri, which deposed all three claimants and elected Clement II, who died in 1047. Benedict held Rome at the time and retained rule until July 1048, when he was ousted in favor of Damasus II. Benedict retired to a family estate and refused to appear before a synod when charged with simony in 1049. He was excommunicated; Leo IX may have lifted the ban before Benedict's death in 1055/56.

Do you feel that the events surrounding Benedicts Papacy call into question the "line of succession" among popes?

My source for this info was:

www.catholic.org

Dr. Larry, Catholics have told me for two days now about the virtues of the unbroken line of succession for popes. Selling the papacy sounds like there may be a chink in that line.

John, an office that claims the power of infallibility better not mess up. If you're going to give someone that sword to yield, they had best be of high character.

Grannyof5, what I hear is that the pope has only invoked this once...when he declared himself infallible!!! Now, can you see how that seems questionable to Protestants? And just when might he decide to use this power again? That is the truly scary part. I was told yesterday, by catholics, that the power of infallibility was retroactive to past popes. Is this the case?

The undeniable fact that popes, infallible or not, continually modify and override each others teachings tells me that catholicism is built too much on the traditions of men, and not the word of God, which never changes.

I'm sure that implied infallibility was what freed the catholic church to burn folks for eating meat on friday??

Answer 1

Not to be overly simplistic about this, but one pope who was admittedly a disgrace to the chair of Peter does not put the office itself in question, any more than an impeached president (or one whose election is disputed, hmm?) calls into question the presidency.

What you've been told for the last two days is that popes are men -- fallible, like any other man -- and rather than pulling down the entire succession on the basis of his actions, Benedict IX actually illustrates in a very dramatic way the reason why popes are infallible ONLY when instructing ex cathedra rather than with every word they utter. The Church obviously endured after this pope.

No one claims that the succession has always been orderly or above reproach. But a succession, it remains.

Edit: As follow-up questions go (told you I knew there'd be one!), this one's pretty good.

Edit again: Pius IX didn't convene the first Vatican Council for the purpose of declaring himself infallible; it wasn't even on the agenda (no pre-council preparatory documents addressed it). As was the case with many Church doctrines (including Mary's Immaculate Conception), this one wasn't new -- it had been implicit long before from the early years of the church, clarified over time, and finally formalized. It was indeed hotly debated, but in the end accepted by all members. Do keep in mind the key phrase from the decree: "The Roman Pontiff cannot err in defining matters of faith and morals". And yes, because it was implicit from the beginning, it applied from the beginning.

Answer 2

"John, an office that claims the power of infallibility better not mess up. If you're going to give someone that sword to yield, they had best be of high character."

First, that's a very nice idea, but if you're a Christian, you know that's not workable in practice since we're all sinners.

Second, the infallibility of a pope depends in no way whatsoever on the pope's personal moral character. It's a supernatural charism, a gift from God to the whole Church. It's not a natural ability that a pope is born with or develops by living righteously.

Further, I assume you understand that papal infallibility is of a negative character, meaning that it doesn't cause him to do or say anything. Rather, it only prevents him from (1) teaching error, (2) while exercising his office as pope, (3) while intending to teach infallibly and stating that he is doing so, and (4) on matters of faith and morals only.

The events surrounding Benedict's papacy do not call into question the line of succession, as long and he and his legitimate successors were validly elected. There is no need to concern ourselves with the illegitimate ones, such as the one who bought his way into office. He was simply not a valid pope. There are always gaps in the succession, of varying durations, for example between the time a pope dies and his successor is elected. The point is that an apparatus remains with which to validly elect a new one to succeed the dead one, or in this case the deposed ones.

If you want to question infallibility, you will have to find an example, not of a pope who acted immorally, but of a pope who taught error while exercising his office with the intention of teaching infallibly. Believe me, people have been trying for centuries. They have managed to come up with a couple of promising candidates, but there are satisfactory answers in those cases.

Answer 3

I do not think it hurt in the least the Grace that God flows through the papal succession, because what God constantly does throughout history is use fallible men -- men who f*ck up and drop the ball, and get too involved in the petty politics of the Church -- as His imperfect vessells for his grace.

Men mess things up, but in matter of the continuence of the Church, God works fast to clean up our messes.

So the idea of the grace coming down from St. Peter all the way down to this ex Nazi pope, was not affected to a great extent because God keeps it flowing even when the pipeline gets a little skewed.

Answer 4

There can only be one pope at a time, and the one who is authentic is that pope.

Infallibilty has always applied to God's high priests and also applies to the pope, but in a much more powerful way.

Caiphus, who condemend Christ, spoke infallibly according to the power and authority of his office ... even though he was hopelessly corrupt.

When Jesus tells you he will bind in heaven whatever you choose to bind on earth, and loose in heaven anything you loose on earth ... that's as infallible as anyone can get.

And infallible does not mean impeccable. Popes are admitted sinners, just like everyone else.

Answer 5

In light of recent statements by the current Pope Benedict, it makes me wonder, "What was he thinkin'?"
Stating the Protestants do not belong to "real" churches because they lack Papal Succession.

Thank God Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, and NOT the keys to the church. (tongue-in-cheek)

Answer 6

No one is infallible. That shows the arrogance of the Pope and that is sinful.

Answer 7

No ONE is infallible...God says that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God!!!

Answer 8

IMO, something that happened a thousand years ago doesn't call anything into question now.