Does your statement hold true for all Popes or just the current one? How about Pope Alexander VI? He took over much of Italy by force with the help of his son Cesare (yes, his son), a racy relationship with his daughter Lucrezia (some say her son was his), and his affinity for throwing large parties, bordering on orgies, that usually culminated with little naked boys jumping out of large cakes.
How about Pope Innocent IV? He introduced the use of torture to extract confessions of heresy. It is shocking to learn about the deranged instruments of torture that were used on so many innocent people. One of the most famous people to suffer at the hands of Roman inquisitors was Galileo. The church condemned Galileo for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun.
How about Pope John XV? He split the church's finances among his relatives and was described as "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."
How about Pope John XII? He converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel, raped female pilgrims in St. Peter's, stolen church offerings, drank toasts to the devil, and invoked the aid of Jove, Venus, and other pagan gods when playing dice. He was deposed, but returned as pope when Otto left Rome, maiming and mutilating all who had opposed him. On 964, he was apparently beaten by the husband of a woman with which he was having an affair, dying three days later without receiving confession or the sacraments.
Shall I go on? History bears witness to the fact that Rome's Popes have no special handle on "matters of faith and morals"..... in fact sometimes quite the opposite!
I don’t know if you’ve been told before but the personal sins of a pope don’t effect his ability (or inability) to teach infallibly on faith and morals. To say otherwise is exactly saying God can’t use a donkey to speak.
And we don’t even say the Pope’s words are God’s words. Only that whenever they teach to the Church universal about faith and morals, they don’t contradict previous teaching they merely expand our knowledge of the original deposit of faith.
Your task is to show any of the Popes you mentioned taught error (not demonstrated sin) to the Church Universal. That they taught something that contradicted a previous Pope. That’s your task, if you wish to demonstrate an error in the office of Pope.
Because no serious Catholic denies there have been some real stinkers as Pope. That’s nothing new there, because the Church is full of sinful men.
Oh, the Catholic Church has had sinners in her presence before? I’m shocked, shocked!!
It doesn't hold true for what came out of Vatican II, presided over by TWO popes. It was the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church and the second to be held at Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. The council, through the Holy See, formally opened under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1965. ...Of those who took part in the council's opening session, four have become pontiffs to date: Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, who on succeeding Pope John XXIII took the name of Paul VI; Bishop Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I; Bishop Karol Wojtyła, who became Pope John Paul II; and Father Joseph Ratzinger, present as a theological consultant, who became Pope Benedict XVI.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
How about it, NKP_vet, are you supposed to say Vatican II was wrong or that the Catechism is just based on someone's opinion? Can you "fathom" that thought and still be a good, faithful Catholic?
But which is contrary to how the church began, and which in principal is what one ancient man affirmed,
Ambrose (c. 339-97): Many times have the clergy erred; the bishop has wavered in his opinion; the rich men have adhered in their judgment to the earthly princes of the world; meanwhile the people alone preserved the faith entire. - John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), p. 197.