You know there was a time in history when there were two competing popes? Catholics who lived then would not have known who to believe. Catholics today can look back in retrospect and pick the guy they feel was more orthodox or the one that did better things, and label the other guy as an impostor. I think a lot of Catholics today are looking at Francis and saying that he is an impostor also. The question for Catholics then becomes, who is the genuine pope?
Of course the word of God is the only unchanging revelation, and it appears self evident that past and present popes have disagreed on doctrinal issues. Papal infallibility or even apostolic succession does not hold up to scrutiny from a logical standpoint. I think Jesus and Paul both taught that holding to the original message was the test of being a true disciple, not claiming to be the successor of an apostle and therefore infallible yourself.
See John 8:31,32 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
If we hold to Jesus teaching, we are His disciples, if we don’t hold to His teachings, we are not.
See also Paul from Galatians 1: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
By including the “we” in the above he showed that even those claiming apostleship must have their message examined to see if it matches the original message. Our foundation must be the unchanging revelation of God’s word.
Ancient proverb:
Man with one watch knows what time it is.Ours is a world with many popes and pastors and tall weeds growing with the wheat.
Man with two watches never sure.
Nothing new under the Son, just lots of willful humans being human.
100% agree, though I’m not sure any Catholics here will see it this way.
I’ve engaged in this debate in the past and am not trying to rehash it. But I’ve been surprised lately at this trend of even Catholics calling into question the credentials of the currently-recognized Pope. Your explanation makes sense from a Protestant perspective.
To me the arguments against the legitimacy of the Reformation seem to be contradictory to the idea of the Pope going astray. So, I’ve been wondering whether I’ve misunderstood the position of the Catholics on this subject.
A 'protester' pope that predates Luther's creation.