"Merely" bad popes??? Like they weren't any different than any other Catholic?
Actually, that's right.
In themselves, popes aren't any different than any other Catholic. They are neither divinely inspired nor divinely controlled in their every thought-word-and-deed, they are not all-purpose Soothsayer of Truth, even in matters of faith and morals.
Pope Benedict XVI once said, "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."(LINK) Reportedly when speaking at the Greek College in Rome 50 year ago, Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."
So, yeah. The pope is not God's radio-controlled android. He's as free to be stupid, confused, or sinful as anybody else.
"Aren't these men supposed to be Holy Spirit-specially-selected to succeed St. Peter in authority?"
No, they're not Holy-Spirit-specially-selected in a predestined or dispositive sense as you seem to think. Naturally much ardent prayer goes into the election by the College of Cardinals. One hopes the whole Church is deep in prayer for a good, Holy-Spirit-blessed election. But it's an election; and the Cardinals (flawed as you and me) are still free to vote as they choose. Over the centuries, many of the choices were surprisingly good; some of the choices have left a lot to be desired, and a few were nothing sort of disastrous.
Yet the Church somehow reeled and careened but did not collapse despite this one--- and that one --- and the other one!! Myself, I think the survival of the Church itself, despite historic instances of hierarchical malpractice starting in the Acts of the Apostles, is pretty sound proof of Divine protection.
"I can't help but see duplicity when Martin Luther is thrown in the face of "Protestants" - as if they were involved in his selection as the Protestant "Pope" "
I'm not familiar with the context here, so I can't comment directly. I would agree that "Protestants" as a class are hardly responsible for Martin Luther's distinctive opinions. Protestants at large do not choose their founding fathers. Catholic at large do not choose their popes.
"... but the very guys y'all insist MUST be obeyed and submitted to get a pass."
Popes have to be obeyed in the sense of having the authority of their office, in the same sense that the Captain of a Ship has to be obeyed. This does not imply that either popes or captains have flawless judgment, special access to hidden truths, or protection from screwing up big. It means "this guy is in charge here."
We are obliged in general to obey authority 1 Peter2:13 (LINK) --- and that deserves a good long look, because it applies to Church authorities even more than to secular authorities. This has to do with authority in general. But nobody is obliged to obey a sinful order, and that is true whether the guy giving the order is captain or pope.
SO: the pope gets a pass in what way?
I would caution you in general not to take a maximalist, "ultramondane papalism" approach. That was ruled out by Vatican I, 140 years ago, which instead went along the more limited lines suggested by Blessed John Henry Newman. I'm studying Newman now, and appreciating his thinking on the subject.
No it does not, as in context it is referring more to secular authorities.If you want to find support for submission to ecclesiastical authorities that would be Heb. 13:17.
There's NO chance at all I would ever take a "maximalist ultramontane papalism" approach but I don't think even Newman would deny that that certainly WAS the view held by many Popes and their bishops in the past - that the whole world should be under the temporal as well as spiritual papal supremacy and in the clerical domination of society.
Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letters, p. 112 said:
And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it.
He also stated in his Encyclical on the "Evils Affecting Modern Society", page 11:
Cardinal Henry Manning (1892), the Archbishop of Westminster, stated:
In his book, "The Present Crisis of the Holy See", page 75, Archbishop Manning stated:
So, I hope you can understand that, when I read statements like those, other encyclicals and past ex cathedra proclamations of popes that there is no salvation to anyone who is not subject to the Pope of Rome, it isn't unreasonable to expect that this requires popes to be far different than any other Catholic. If, as FRoman Catholics frequently assert here, there is an "unbroken line of succession" all the way back to Peter and that the power and authority Christ granted to him is passed down to his successors, it raises the stakes and makes these men much more than merely bad popes - there should NEVER be one. If, as you say, they are "free to be stupid, confused or sinful as anybody else", then you are admitting - though perhaps not knowingly - that they are NOT Divinely ordained and anointed successors to Peter, and that whatever succession there was, it was one of the passing down of sound teaching rather than the authority of an Apostle.
Popes have to be obeyed in the sense of having the authority of their office, in the same sense that the Captain of a Ship has to be obeyed. This does not imply that either popes or captains have flawless judgment, special access to hidden truths, or protection from screwing up big. It means "this guy is in charge here."
We are obliged in general to obey authority 1 Peter2:13 (LINK) --- and that deserves a good long look, because it applies to Church authorities even more than to secular authorities. This has to do with authority in general. But nobody is obliged to obey a sinful order, and that is true whether the guy giving the order is captain or pope.
I often wonder how Catholics today would react if they had a Pope like Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia), for example? Would you feel obligated to obey him and submit to his authority or would you withhold that obedience based upon whether or not what he said and how he behaved matches what you already know is the truth? Jesus said unto whom much is given, much will be required. I don't think it is wise to brush off the depravity of Church leaders while asserting ALL of Christendom must submit to their authority. It's no surprise that the Reformation came about in the years leading up to and after such an ignoble time in the Catholic church. This is why I know the Roman Catholic church cannot be THE one, true church Jesus established and, though many of her members no doubt are part of that spiritual temple, the Body of Christ remains a set apart assembly of the redeemed, washed white in the blood of the Lamb and preparing to meet the Lord in the air and so to ever be with Him in heaven.
One last thought on this. The pope gets a pass when he is permitted to remain in his position of authority - supposedly over all Christians - even when his behavior is contrary to Biblical standards for, at minimum, a member, and more so for those in positions of leadership. And...I'm not talking about whoopsies and the common human sin nature, but ongoing, public and overt displays of depravity and immorality. Ask yourself if St. Peter would have laid hands on any of those "bad popes" and placed them - or allowed them to remain - in church leadership? See, I don't think he would and that is why I reject both the mandated submission to the Pope of Rome and acceptance of dogmas that either contradict Scripture or do not have Apostolic sanction that are part of the Roman Catholic faith of today.
I appreciate your respectful reply and hope you have a blessed Lord's day.