If Alexander VI was corrupt, as you say, does that not destroy the RCC contention that all popes are God’s chosen, infallible in their official capacity (however ya’ll define EX CATHEDRA)?
If the pope is no more than God’s instrument on Earth, why does RCC doctrine go to such lengths to establish him an Apostle with world-wide control that may not even be questioned?
Excerpts from RCC doctrine:
Decrees of the First Vatican Council:
SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870 - Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith
4. If anyone
* does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy council of Trent listed them, or
* denies that they were divinely inspired :
let him be anathema.
“And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command,”
SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870 - First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ
For this reason it has always been necessary for every church—that is to say the faithful throughout the world—to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .
# we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
# which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
* the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
* the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
o the prince of the apostles,
o true vicar of Christ,
o head of the whole church and
o father and teacher of all christian people.
Wherefore we teach and declare that,
* by divine ordinance,
* the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
* this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
o episcopal and
o immediate.
it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
* he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
* in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
* The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
* nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] .
So, then,
* if anyone says that
o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
+ not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
+ not only in matters of
# faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
# discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:
* “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” [58]
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
* when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
o that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
* he possesses,
o by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
* that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
* Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Good point. Protestants love to point at a Pope's errors and declare "Fallability!", thereby showing their lack of understanding of that term. (Hint: Infallability is NOT impeccability.)
Christ almost seems taken aback that Peter of all the apostles should give the correct answer. Peter seems so much less reliable than the other apostles, lying, cowardly, fickle and faith-challenged Peter. But God uses the weakness of men to show the Power and Glory of God.
That said, they could apply the same standard to their own leaders that they seem to expect from the Catholics.