A simple proof that Pope Benedict XVI is an illegitimate pope
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 under proofs with the following tags: defending the faith, doctrine, godliness, Roman Catholicism.A 6-step argument showing that the bishop of Rome doesn’t have the credentials required to hold his office.
Following up on my previous proof that the Roman Catholic Church is illegitimate, it occurs to me that a much more modest, albeit equally damaging argument can be made about the good ol’ Pontiff himself.
- If a man is not above reproach, then he is not qualified to be a bishop and cannot legitimately hold that office (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9)
- Benedict XVI is not above reproach
- Therefore, Benedict XVI is not qualified to be a bishop and cannot legitimately hold that office
This leads pretty obviously to a second argument. Let’s assume that Catholics are right about the papacy. By definition, the pope must be a bishop. The Catholic Encyclopedia observes:
The title pope, once used with far greater latitude, is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.
This being the case…
- Benedict XVI is not qualified to be a bishop and cannot legitimately hold that office
- Therefore, Benedict XVI is not qualified to be the bishop of Rome and cannot legitimately hold that office
- Therefore, Benedict XVI is not qualified to be the pope and cannot legitimately hold that office (by definition)
Or, put another way, therefore, Pope Benedict XVI is an illegitimate pope.
I’m not sure exactly what the trickle-down effect is if this is true—I’ll let Catholics work that out—but I imagine it is somewhat debilitating. For one thing, how can Benedict XVI be a legitimate successor to Peter if he is not a legitimate pope? But if he is not a legitimate successor to Peter, then we don’t have unbroken apostolic succession, which is central to Rome’s authority (and presumably Benedict isn’t the first bishop of Rome to fail the grade). So at least you get sedevacantism. But given Rome’s top-down hierarchy, it’s easy to see that the implications would be far more wide-reaching. Indeed, it seems likely they’d be catastrophic.
You might object…
“Benedict XVI is above reproach after all”
Obviously this hinges on what Paul meant by “above reproach” when he wrote to Timothy and Titus; and what the actual facts are about Benedict’s conduct. And if his conduct were less dubious, I might have a thorny job on my hands proving just what standard Paul was assuming. But I think the following statements are just obviously true, and if anyone disagrees with them it is clearly not I who has the burden of proof:
- A person is not above reproach if he knowingly places a child-molester into a position of authority over minors, against the explicit warnings of a psychiatrist. But then-Archbishop Ratzinger did exactly that, and six years later that child-molester was convicted of sexually abusing minors while in the position Ratzinger had given him.
- A person is not above reproach if he knows the details of serious crimes by colleagues, but does not reveal these crimes to the authorities for prosecution, nor take any action to address them except to conceal them as well as possible. Yet, as the cardinal in charge of reviewing sexual abuse cases for the Vatican, then-Cardinal Ratzinger must have known about these sorts of crimes, perpetrated by hundreds if not thousands of clergy, against thousands or possibly tens of thousands of people—including many children. By not taking action he made himself a moral accomplice to these crimes.
- A person is not above reproach if he orders the termination of an investigation into the now-confirmed molestation of perhaps 200 deaf boys by a priest, despite protests by two archbishops who knew the priest and were involved in the situation. Yet that is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger did, after the priest, Fr Lawrence Murphy, wrote him a letter saying it was cool because he’d already repented, and pretty-please let me “live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood”. Yes, the word “dignity” doesn’t seem quite appropriate there, does it?
“If Benedict is an illegitimate bishop, then so are lots of others—maybe even in your own denomination”
Well, I’m Reformed Baptist and we don’t have bishops, but let’s say “elder” and the point stands. So what? Obviously I think many Catholic bishops are illegitimate because many Catholic bishops are implicated in these kinds of scandals. And many Catholic bishops are not even Christians, which naturally enough excludes them from legitimately taking a Christian office. Etc.
But perhaps my argument proves that lots of bishops or elders in lots of churches are illegitimate. So much the worse for those bishops and churches, I’m afraid—it doesn’t show that the argument is wrong.
“You’re a filthy Catholic-hater and you’re only saying this to upset your sister”
That’s not really an objection, is it? I don’t hate Catholics, though I do hate evil institutions such as the Catholic Church. “O you who love the Lord, hate evil!” (Psalm 97:10); “the fear of the Lord is hatred of evil” (Proverbs 8:13).
Now, if my sister (or any Catholic) is upset by my calling attention to those evils, wouldn’t it be better to leave the institution that fosters them—rather than shoot the messenger?
You have grossly misrepresented Scripture.
Nowhere does Timothy write that a bishop must be
beyond reproach. Look at what he actually says.
6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
You know nothing about this topic. Your level of ignorance on this matter is truly mind boggling.
Reproach means disapointment or dissaproval. No one is above reproach before God. Peter was not above reproach. James and the rest of the apostles fled. Yet the historical fact is that the Church established by Jesus Christ which operated in the first and second century had bishops.
Elders are not bishops. In the Catholic Church, Bishops are successors to the Apostles. Bishops hold the office of Apostle. Elders do not hold the office of Apostle. At best, elders are deacons, but they are not Bishops. You don’t even know anything about your own Baptist faith. Comparing elders in the Baptist Church to Bishops is a rediculously ignorant of both Catholicism and your own faith.
To state that many Catholic Bishops are not even Christian is the hight of stupidity. You know nothing about Catholicism except what you read on a few websites and books. Sad.
I can take you to a sexual addiction recovery group here in the Atlanta suburbs where 150 pastors, youth ministers, elders, deacons, music ministers, and all kinds of pastoral care workers from every denomination under the sun meet every Monday night. Many of these are child abusers, porn addicts and homosexuals. None of these are above reproach before God. Yet there they are, deacons and pastors and ministers, holding office in their Churches.
The Catholic Church hired the top child abuse expert from the FBI to design their program to protect minors and vulnerable individuals and now has the model program for all other organizations according to the FBI. The Cathoic Church in the United States is one of the safest places for minors and other vulnerable individuals right now. That is according to the FBI.
You are simply don’t know what you are talking about.
-Tim-
Let’s do this with St. Peter.
Was he without reproach? No – he denied Christ publicly three times on the eve of his crucifixion.
Let’s do this with St. Paul.
Was he without reproach? No – he at least attended the public execution of Christians, and went around actively pursuing and persecuting them, even if he did not put them to death himself.
How about the rest of the Apostles:
Were they without reproach? No – like a bunch of cowards they all ran after the Eucharist had been instituted at the Last Supper, and after Christ had already told them about his death.
As to Pope Benedikt – neither you nor I actually know any facts about any of these cases. All we have are suppositions.
Reginald, I didn’t say Timothy wrote this; I said Paul did. In both Titus 6 and 1 Timothy 3 he explictly says an elder must be “above reproach”. Check your facts before commenting.
TimothyH:
Considering that you start out by saying my level of ignorance is truly mind-boggling, it is pretty brazen of you to then demonstrate gross ignorance of basic English. Reproach means blame or disgrace.
Why you think my argument should prove that bishops can’t exist is beyond me. Since Paul himself wrote these instrcutions, presumably you must understand his comment about reproach to be attenuated in a way that excludes the kind of history he had. Otherwise you would think Scripture was in error. The obvious candidate for such attenuation is repentance and a consistent display of moral fortitude where once there was reproachful behavior. Has Benedict XVI repented of his involvement in the cases I cited, or taken any steps (which, given his power, should be significant) to correct the wrongs he was complicit with? Not to my knowledge.
Bishops, however, are elders. And the term Paul uses, which the ESV translates “overseer”, is in the Greek episkopos—which is traditionally translated “bishop”. Again, your accuastions of ignorance are ironic to the point of comedy.
It is amazing that you know so much about me. Oddly, you don’t know that I was raised a Catholic.
1) None of us is totally above reproach. We’re all sinners.
2) Paul appointed bishops.
Ergo, Paul appointed sinners as bishops.
So, did Paul break his own “commandment”? Or maybe, just maybe, you’re misinterpreting him?
Tom, what do you think Paul meant when he instructed Timothy to appoint someone above reproach, if indeed no one is above reproach? Was he instructing Timothy to appoint no one as bishop? That would be where you logic leads us. So clearly he did not mean “sinless”. Try again.