Do Bad Popes Count Against the Truth of Catholicism?

In this short clip, Bishop Robert Barron responds to the "Bad Popes" objection to Catholicism. Would we expect Jesus to establish a church with seriously immoral popes?

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.

---------------------------------- LINKS ----------------------------------

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Catholicism #Papacy #BadPopes

[Lerian_V]

Peter essentially renounced his Christian faith 3 times at the moment of truth. But he repented and wept, thank God.

[outlaw-outfitters]

I feel like this is a secret catholicism apologetics channel lol

[CatholicReCon]

For those who dismiss Papal authority based on Popes’ sins…

First of all, there is a major difference between impeccability (which no Pope ever was or ever will be), infallibility, and declaring various matters ex cathedra.

For skeptics: you don’t believe in impeccability, so therefore you would never believe in infallibility, right?

Someone would have to be perfect to state anything infallibly, right? That seems to be the position.

With this logic, which Christian beliefs are infallible? The Trinity? And who told you? And if something needed to come from the mouth of Jesus in order for it to be infallible, which interpretation or understanding of such words is infallible?

When saying “bad pope”, it seems to beg the question: at what subjective point do they become bad or corrupted?; at what threshold of sin does any given pope become unfit for office? What sins can they commit while still being able to declare anything infallibly?

If a “bad” leader of any Christian denomination states anything, and congregants simply take it or leave it based on his or her sins, individuals are in fact deciding what is or is not infallible. And if anyone claims that nothing is infallible, then what on earth is absolute? And what is Christianity anyway? And, again, who told you?

People will say “well my pastor does not claim to declare things infallibly.” So what? If we don’t have a living Church that will declare things infallibly, what do we have? The Scriptures, right? Okay, without arguing, what is the true meaning of John 6:53-54?

So, we’re left with the same question: what is or is not infallible and who said so?

[ferrywijaya]

Yep. Even Peter was a mess. Yet that does not stop redemption nor disqualifying him for repentance.

[tappanzee]

I love when BB is just so low-key chill on topics others would lose their minds over ;p

[HelbertLeite]

The argument “bad popes...therefore Catholicism is wrong” is so weak that I’m surprised Bishop Barron didn’t laugh at it. The argument can be extended to all religions. In fact, it can be applied to anything actually. There are bad pastors therefore Protestantism is wrong. There are bad teachers therefore school is wrong. The fact that he acknowledged the existence of bad popes and the fact the he, as a bishop of the church, makes a distinction between the man, who’s stained by sin, and the role of the papacy is evidence enough of an institution, such as the Catholic Church, which is well aware of its flaws and do not hide from it but faces it head on. An example all institutions should follow.

[brando]

Hold on. How can a morally corrupt person be the one single person to adjudicate doctrinal disputes righteously? It would seem that could easily lead to corrupt doctrine, when there are none worthy to dispute him.

[Justas]

Problems with a papacy:
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church.

2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church.

3- The papacy (supreme bishop leader of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9

4- ..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80, 221-222). –Catholic scholar.

5- Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).

[kevinpruski]

Great questions Cameron. As a former Roman Catholic, I am sorrowful for such a nonchalant response to such a mournful issue. Where is the concern for the destruction those popes caused to the Body of Christ? He implies they went bad. The entire process was bad that clearly revealed itself with bad popes.

[prestondenby]

What about when the pope says hell isn't real? or that pushing Christianity on people is wrong? Does that fall under infallibility?

[hectorchavez]

As a Catholic I find it ironic how their are SOME non-denominational Christians that reject papal infallibility but attend a mega church where the pastor actually can change his mind on a teaching, essentially changing doctrine. The pope can’t change doctrine

[brando]

Peter is not "the first Pope", unless you are already a Roman Catholic. Nowhere in the word does it suggest Peter was "the first Pope".

[albaniancrusader]

I’m afraid to go to a perfect church because I may not fit in.
When you find a perfect church please let me know.

[wmarkfish]

Peter was not the first Pope or any kind of pope at all.

[chrisazure]

When you have an unbiblical doctrine of ex cathedra, yes, it does matter if you have a bad pope.

[jdajayi]

Peter would slap every so-called "Pope" for the self-idolatry and blatant disregard of Truth. Acts 10:25-26 "Don't Praise Me". 1 Peter 2:1-5 "I'm not the foundation, Jesus is."

[pietervanleeuwen]

If a pope ever contradicts scripture, who wins? The pope or scripture?

[protestantwarrior]

Yep, ignore all those evil popes who prosecuted and murdered Christians who read their Bible in their own language. Like Christ said, you will know them by their fruits.

[Tonyd]

Will you all PLEASE STOP referring to Peter as Pope. Peter was not a Pope. He was an apostle of Christ, that’s it, no more and no less. The Rock that Jesus said the church would be built upon was Peter’s confession that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

[masterchief]

Well, our Evangelical-Protestant brothers make a simple confusion on this.

“Impeccability” is not a concept for us. Every Bishop of Rome confesses. Every single one of them. That is pretty obvious to an educated Catholic. For some wicked Pope we had a huge majority of Popes who were not only good Christians, but lived the “heroic Christians virtues”, as we call them “saints” like St Leo the Great, St Gregory the Great, St Pious V or St John Paul II, for example.


If you understand this in good faith, bad Popes wouldn’t make a case for or against anything, since every Pope is a sinner and not impeccable.


But “infallibility” in SOME teachings (and under specific circumstances, we call “ex cathedra”) is an ecclesial and ‘petrine’ charism.


Even the Pharisees were recognized by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as having binding teaching authority when they preached “EX CATHEDRA”, and that means (on the context of the Mosaic Law and the Ancient Covenant) - theologically- when they taught “sitting” in “Moses’s Seat”. But they were hypocrites and sinners, so the faithful had to listen to those of their teachings, but not to imitate their conduct.

Teaching authority vs. conduct.


What is so hard to understand here?


Let me quote the Gospel:

_”The teachers of the law and the Pharisees _*_sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach”_* (Matthew 23, 2).



*OBS:* “Seat” or “chair” in Latin is “cathedra”, just for you to know. In Portuguese, for example, it is “cadeira”.


To see this kind of confusion only reinforces the general impression that our Protestant brothers (in general) don’t have a clue on what the Catholic Church truly teaches or they’d rather represent it always as a bad caricature of itself.


Greetings from a 🇧🇷 Brazilian friend.