Can any Catholic Apologists help me out on this one?

[Ziggamafu]

A buddy got some info from Mary Ann Collins (an anti-catholic) and I have no idea how where to get info explaining (or debunking) it. Help!

Here’s the quote he sent me:

*The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). (This means that Honorious made doctrinal statements which are contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.) He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have “infallible” popes condemning another “infallible” pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished “infallible” papal decrees and the decrees of two “infallible” councils.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption of Mary originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring a doctrine to be a heresy. Then on November 1, 1950, we have Pope Pius XII (another “infallible” pope) declaring the same doctrine to be official Roman Catholic doctrine, which all Catholics are required to believe. [Note 3]

So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of “infallible” declarations of popes).
But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of the “infallible”
declaration of Pope Pius XII).*

That’s over my head and way beyond my ability to explain. And now I’m frustrated because I look like the ignorant Catholic. Sigh.

 

[Axion]

Ziggamafu:

A buddy got some info from Mary Ann Collins (an anti-catholic) and I have no idea how where to get info explaining (or debunking) it. Help!

Here’s the quote he sent me:

The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have “infallible” popes condemning another “infallible” pope as a heretic.

All this rubbish keeps on coming up time and again. If someone has been trawling through 2,000 years of papal decisions and this is all they can come up with, (from 600 AD!) it shows just how consistent catholic doctrine has been!

In fact not ALL pronouncements of a Pope are infallible. Only those very few specifically made “Ex Cathedra” are. So it is extremely unlikely that whatever decision this website is referring to was an infallible pronouncement in the first place!

In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished “infallible” papal decrees and the decrees of two “infallible” councils.

I’ve never heard of this before, and I don’t believe it’s true. You’ll need to ask for full details of these so-called abolitions.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption of Mary originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring a doctrine to be a heresy. Then on November 1, 1950, we have Pope Pius XII (another “infallible” pope) declaring the same doctrine to be official Roman Catholic doctrine, which all Catholics are required to believe.

So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of “infallible” declarations of popes).
But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of the “infallible”
declaration of Pope Pius XII).
.

This is laughable!

Pope Gelasius never condemned the doctrine of the Assumption. Nor did any other Pope. It was a public Holiday across the Eastern Roman Empire from the 6th Century! The Assumption has been confirmed church doctrine at least since then. It has never been heretical.

What some anti-catholics with too much time on their hands have done, is found a papal pronouncement condemning a whole raft of heretical literature, false gospels, gnostic works and other matters. One of the many condemned documents is a heretical account of the Assumption of Mary. The antis then leapt to the conclusion that the Assumption itself was being condemned!

That document was condemned along with the others for the heresies it contained. It was not condemned for detailing the Assumption of Mary. Lots of other accounts of the Assumption were never condemned and have been continuously used in the Church. Other condemned documents discuss the resurrection. Does that mean that to believe the resurrection was heretical?

I don’t think so.

 

[JPrejean]

The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made.

The one who was eventually condemned by Zosimus misrepresented his position to the Pope, and the Pope deemed it orthodox. When he found out what the actual position was (per St. Augustine saying “Here’s what he didn’t tell you”), he immediately condemned it. I’m unaware of any doctrinal reversals by Pope Zosimus of a previous Pope, but such claims are cheaply and easily made, so I would ask to see the evidence.

Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). (This means that Honorious made doctrinal statements which are contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.)

The bolded part is an out-and-out lie. What happened was that Pope Honorius allowed the use of a phrase (“one theandric operation”) that had both an orthodox interpretation and an impermissible (monothelete) interpretation. He knew that by allowing the phrase to continue to be used, there was a significant likelihood that people would be misled into thinking that Christ had only one will, but in order to avoid further strife, he consented to let Sergius use it. Of course, that heresiarch gleefully used that consent to argue that the Pope had approved his monotheletism, and rather than reducing strife, it simply gave the heretics more ammunition for their assault on the Church. For his refusal to take a stand against heresy when he had the opportunity and the damage that resulted from his inaction, Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by several subsequent Popes and councils.

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring a doctrine to be a heresy. Then on November 1, 1950, we have Pope Pius XII (another “infallible” pope) declaring the same doctrine to be official Roman Catholic doctrine, which all Catholics are required to believe.

Those works were also permeated with Gnosticism and gave a specifically Gnostic interpretation to the Assumption, which is why they were condemned. Almost any heretical document is going to have some true statements in it, but that hardly means that it can’t be condemned. There is a reasonable argument that the mistaken belief that such documents were authored by the Apostles themselves misled people into accepting the Assumption as a true belief, since there is no clear record of belief in the Assumption before the Gnostic forgeries came out. On the other hand, given the complete lack of a relic tradition for Mary or any tradition about where she died, it’s also reasonable to conclude that the Gnostics used an existing tradition about Mary as support for their own heresy (which would also explain why it was persuasive where other Gnostic forgeries were dismissed relatively quickly). But leaving that aside, it’s simply nonsense that the doctrine of the Assumption was ever condemned by any Pope.

 

[Ziggamafu]

he replied with this:

*On July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued a decree suppressing the Jesuits, only to have it reversed by a decree restoring them, issued by Pope Pius VII on August 7, 1814.

Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arch (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV (1914-22) in 1920.

Agapetus (535-6) burned the anathema which Bonface II (530-2) had solemnly issued against Dioscorus (530). The later is shown as an antipope, but Agapetus, who sided with him, is shown as a true pope.

Adrian II (867-72) said civil marriages were valid; Pius VII (1800-23) declared them invalid. Both men are shown as legitimate popes.*

= (

I just got confirmed and already I’m having to defend the Faith!

 

[JPrejean]

Heck, I started getting into these when I was still in RCIA! It builds character. I’ll warn you that some people aren’t worth your time, though. If they’re just being hardheaded and it ceases to be a learning experience for you, back out. It’s hard to know when to quit sometimes.

Regarding the examples cited there, not a one of those would be considered an infallible pronouncement on dogma, even broadly construed. Also, you may want to do a search on some of the more unique terms, as this list seems familiar to me, and there may be an online rebuttal to the entire thing somewhere. In at least one instance, they had simply made up some of the items on the list.

 

[Genesis315]

Ziggamafu:

he replied with this:

On July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued a decree suppressing the Jesuits, only to have it reversed by a decree restoring them, issued by Pope Pius VII on August 7, 1814.

Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arch (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV (1914-22) in 1920.

Agapetus (535-6) burned the anathema which Bonface II (530-2) had solemnly issued against Dioscorus (530). The later is shown as an antipope, but Agapetus, who sided with him, is shown as a true pope.

None of these have anything to do with the deposit of faith and morals which is the only thing popes can speak infallibly on when speaking ex cathedra.
Adrian II (867-72) said civil marriages were valid; Pius VII (1800-23) declared them invalid. Both men are shown as legitimate popes.

It is doubtful that Adrian II was speaking ex cathedra and defining something. I’d have to see where this statement was made. *

 

[mercygate]

Ziggamafu:

he replied with this:

On July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued a decree suppressing the Jesuits, only to have it reversed by a decree restoring them, issued by Pope Pius VII on August 7, 1814.

Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arch (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV (1914-22) in 1920.

Agapetus (535-6) burned the anathema which Bonface II (530-2) had solemnly issued against Dioscorus (530). The later is shown as an antipope, but Agapetus, who sided with him, is shown as a true pope.

Adrian II (867-72) said civil marriages were valid; Pius VII (1800-23) declared them invalid. Both men are shown as legitimate popes.

= (

I just got confirmed and already I’m having to defend the Faith!

Loraine Boettner strikes again. Well, I don’t have documentation for the rest of your list but the suppression of the Jesuits was a disciplinary matter and doesn’t fall under the umbrella of infallibility. Faith and morals. Faith and morals. Faith and morals.