Pope Benedict XVI’s integrity is facing a new wave of attacks as revelations of his involvement in several pedophilia priest cases are surfacing. Already harshly criticized for his (mis)handling of abuse cases during his tenure as archbishop of Munich, more allegations are coming to light which incriminate him with suppressing information and failing to take disciplinary action while serving as head of the Vatican office responsible for disciplining priests.
As troubling as these charges are, what is even more disturbing is the reality that Rome will tell us Pope Benedict’s involvement in the entire affair has no bearing upon his authority as successor of Peter, and more specifically, his facility to speak ex cathedra. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church defends the dogma of papal infallibility by drawing a distinction between infallibility (in matters of faith and morals) and impeccability. Meaning, the character of a pope--the Vicar of Christ--does not preclude one from rightly sitting in the chair of Peter and speaking authoritatively and infallibly on certain theological matters.
Even though history has amply demonstrated the nefarious practices and immoral lifestyles of popes, such as Stephen VII, Urban II, Sixtus IV, Alexander VI, just to name a few, the bishop of Rome is the rightful heir of Peter, regardless of personal conduct. Practically speaking, what this means is that even though popes have been known to have had concubines, illegitimate children, sold enemies into slavery, and engaged in simony, among other machinations, every single pope holds the office of universal head of the church with the potentiality of speaking infallibly--spiritual condition notwithstanding. Roman Catholic apologists nevertheless maintain a distinction between teaching as the universal head of the church and one’s private life. How one can differentiate between lifestyle and teaching is beyond my comprehension. Is not the example of one’s life part and parcel of the Christian message? After all, what do we say of people who preach one thing yet live differently? We rightly label them as hypocrites. Yet, Rome tells us hypocrisy does not preclude papal authority or infallibility.
Moreover, when drawing the distinction between impeccability and infallibility, Roman apologists, at the very least, tacitly imply the character of the men sitting in the chair of Peter is inconsequential. But, what does the Bible teach about such matters? Does the Bible allow for concupiscent elders in the church? What exactly are the qualification for being an elder? If the pope is the ‘Elder of the Elders,’ then is stands to reason he must also subscribe to the same requirements as any elder. That is, in my estimation and at the very least, a fair statement. Consider just several verses in reference to elders.
Titus 1:7, “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…”
1 Tim 3:1-2, “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach…”
What should be troubling for the Roman position is that the current universal head of the church, along with a number of popes in history, does not even meet the minimum (biblical) qualification for being an elder. The very first requisite listed would preclude a fair number of popes, including the current one--if the allegations against Benedict are true. In fact, according to Paul, Benedict does not even qualify to be an overseer in the apostolic church, yet every person is to be subject to his authority or fall under the pain of the eternal anathema. The overseer is to be above reproach, yet the current bishop of Rome is a man who, by all accounts, willfully suppressed information relating to the general welfare of children, and when informed, acquiesced.
The Bible is unequivocal in that the elder is to set an example for the flock (1 Pet 5:3), shepherd the sheep (1 Pet 5:2, Acts 20:28), rule well (1 Tim 5:17), and watch for pernicious influences to the flock (Acts 20:29-30). Scripture unabashedly mandates elders to be in conformity with these principles, yet the bishop of Rome, the spiritual head of the universal church, the man who binds and loosens souls on earth, does not even qualify to be an elder in Christ’s church. If these charges are proved true, every Roman Catholic should cry out in opposition and demands the pope’s removal. At the very least, it should give a precipitous rise to Sedevacantism, if not make one seriously reconsider the authority and theology of Rome altogether.
So what lesson can be learned here? At the very least, it should give every one pause and make him ruminate upon the dogma of infallibility once more. Creating a distinction whereby a pope can live a reckless lifestyle and still sit in the “chair of Peter” is meaningless. Instead, we should give careful attention once more to the words of the Roman Catholic scholar and Vatican I participant, Dr. Ignaz von Dollingar, who concluded on the matter of infallibility: “the theory of papal infallibility had been introduced into the church only by a long chain of purposeful fictions and forgeries.” (Dr. Dollingar was subsequently excommunicated for not accepting the dogma of papal infallibility.) Infallibility and impeccability belong to Christ Jesus alone. The Holy Spirit is the true Vicar of Christ on earth and every elder who preaches and teaches the pure, unadulterated apostolic message follows in the succession of Peter, not the singular bishop centered in Rome.
