Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gurneyhalleck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gurneyhalleck1

Guest
In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.
 
QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;7098971]In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.

:ouch:👋
 
Popes are not infallible in all their actions and teaching. Papal infallibility relates to certain papal teaching in which infallibility is specifically invoked. The better question would be: is there anything infallibly defined by a Pope that is erroneous?
 
Popes are not infallible in all their actions and teaching. Papal infallibility relates to certain papal teaching in which infallibility is specifically invoked. The better question would be: is there anything infallibly defined by a Pope that is erroneous?
Click to expand...
The way I read the original post, that’s the exact question he is asking.

I don’t have an answer. Sorry, but I do believe in papal infallibility on matters of faith and morals. 😛
 
Infallible decrees can only be infallible if they are in harmony both with the Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. This would prevent any possibility of error in areas of faith and morals. I can’t think of any pope who made a fallible infallible decree.

Popes also make decisions on many other less important matters and one pope can disagree with the last pope and they often did and changed legislation as they saw fit from one pontificate to the next.
 
=gurneyhalleck1;7098971]In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.
Click to expand...
Dear friend in Christ: Infallibility is most often NOT properly understood.

Here from the current Code of Canon Law are some defintions and explainations.BOOK III

BOOK III.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

§2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. Meaning specified as an Infallible Doctrine.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him

SUMMATION:

Infalibility applies ONLY to matters of Faith and or Morals

Infallibility must be specifically specified

HOWEVER: ANY and ALL Teaching by the Supreme Pontiff and or the Magisterium with the Pope on matters of Faith and Morals must be held with th same level of belief as a Infallible pronouncement.

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
While a good question, the problem I’ve discovered is that Ex Cathedra is not well defined, so other than the two times since the doctrine that the Pope holds that Infalibility any argument that something was being defined ex cathedra is easily pushed aside with the claim that it wasn’t really Ex Cathedra.

The reason Honorus works as an argument is that he attempted to press a theology that was later declared heretical at a council, therefore it stands to reason that the place to look is the councils and finding where the later or earlier popes contradict a position.

Without having looked for that sort of thing I don’t know what there is, certainly some canons are disregarded by the Catholic Church, but in most cases they are based on discipline, not spiritual requirement.

However there have been a considerable number of immoral men who have become pope, but that does not explicitly contradict a belief in infallibility.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.
Click to expand...
I once heard on EWTN Radio (I recognize many Roman Catholics may not consider this a scholarly source, I only quote it as an example) that the only two times ex cathedra was used were with the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary. It’s ironic because I consider both of those to be fallible declarations. 😛
 
That’s not a better question, that really is the question. I’m asking opponents of infallibility to quote another example apart from Honorius I that shows infallibility of popes to be false. I haven’t received any examples so far. In 2,000 years all one hears about is Honorius I. That’s about it. I would think that if one were to oppose infallibility, more examples would be out there but it seems pretty quiet.
Alan55 said:
Popes are not infallible in all their actions and teaching. Papal infallibility relates to certain papal teaching in which infallibility is specifically invoked. The better question would be: is there anything infallibly defined by a Pope that is erroneous?
Click to expand...
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
I once heard on EWTN Radio (I recognize many Roman Catholics may not consider this a scholarly source, I only quote it as an example) that the only two times ex cathedra was used were with the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary. It’s ironic because I consider both of those to be fallible declarations. 😛
Click to expand...
I heard there wer more, but that they were all related to Mary. I think her perpetual virginity is one?
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
That’s not a better question, that really is the question. I’m asking opponents of infallibility to quote another example apart from Honorius I that shows infallibility of popes to be false. I haven’t received any examples so far. In 2,000 years all one hears about is Honorius I. That’s about it. I would think that if one were to oppose infallibility, more examples would be out there but it seems pretty quiet.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you’re asking for specific provable examples, however most are going to be along the lines of, for example, Pope Pius IX who dogmatized the IC, but as with all matters of faith there is no way to conclusively prove this dogma correct, nor is there any way to prove it incorrect, it very much depends on a point of view.

Pope Leo III opposed the Filioque to such an extent that he had the creed erected at the Vatican sans the clause, seems to me that kind of message should be considered to be made Ex Cathedra, In Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV declared an interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus stating that anyone not in Communion with him, Christian or not, was damned. I have seen many argue this was Ex Cathedra, and the way it was written certainly resembles that of the more recent ones which we know to be Ex Cathedra, but the modern Catholic Church doesn’t teach this, so was Pope Eugene in error, or is the modern Church?
 
Hi Nine,

I hear ya. I guess I’m asking for examples of a viable heresy supported by popes. Honorius was linked to monothelitism, a heresy East and West agree is bad news and a genuine virus! The filioque is great or horrible depending upon whom you ask.
Nine_Two said:
The problem is that you’re asking for specific provable examples, however most are going to be along the lines of, for example, Pope Pius IX who dogmatized the IC, but as with all matters of faith there is no way to conclusively prove this dogma correct, nor is there any way to prove it incorrect, it very much depends on a point of view.

Pope Leo III opposed the Filioque to such an extent that he had the creed erected at the Vatican sans the clause, seems to me that kind of message should be considered to be made Ex Cathedra, In Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV declared an interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus stating that anyone not in Communion with him, Christian or not, was damned. I have seen many argue this was Ex Cathedra, and the way it was written certainly resembles that of the more recent ones which we know to be Ex Cathedra, but the modern Catholic Church doesn’t teach this, so was Pope Eugene in error, or is the modern Church?
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Hi Nine,

I hear ya. I guess I’m asking for examples of a viable heresy supported by popes. Honorius was linked to monothelitism, a heresy East and West agree is bad news and a genuine virus! The filioque is great or horrible depending upon whom you ask.
Click to expand...
Popes linked with anything the Catholic Church today recognizes is a heresy, Honorius is the only one.
 
I still have trouble buying the “failure to teach” angle with Honorius. I just can’t swallow it. Like the X-Files movie title, I want to believe! I just have trouble with this one in a huge way…
Nine_Two said:
Popes linked with anything the Catholic Church today recognizes is a heresy, Honorius is the only one.
Click to expand...
 
Pope John XXII denied papal infallibility in his 1324 bull Quia quorundam, but that wasn’t a heresy at the time, since papal infallibility wasn’t defined until 1870 at Vatican I. For details, read Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350 by Brian Tierney (see here).
 
Vixit said:
I heard there wer more, but that they were all related to Mary. I think her perpetual virginity is one?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t see how, since that would be firmly established in Roman Catholic belief. In any case, it’s sometimes difficult to tell, only because some members of the Church become inconsistent. They take one example where a pope said something nice as ex cathedra, but then you go to another example under the same circumstances where the pope said something bad, and they say, “Oh no, he didn’t meet the standards for ex cathedra.” In fact they’ll get so vague in their definition of ex cathedra that I wonder how a pope could ever speak ex cathedra. 🤷
 
Thanks for pointing this out Just Lurking. It seems like Pope John was opposing the idea that a pope could never change or alter a previous doctrinal declaration by another pope. the irony in my reading of the situation with the Franciscans is that the OPPONENTS of the pope were the ones trying to further the teaching of papal infallibility while John, the actual pope, opposed the notion?
Just_Lurking said:
Pope John XXII denied papal infallibility in his 1324 bull Quia quorundam, but that wasn’t a heresy at the time, since papal infallibility wasn’t defined until 1870 at Vatican I. For details, read Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350 by Brian Tierney (see here).
Click to expand...
 
I find it fascinating, upon reading Quia quorundam that John XXII actually seems to say right off the bat that the doctrine of irreformable doctrine actually comes from the “Father of Lies” himself. Wow. franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html

Anyone want to weigh in on this?
Just_Lurking said:
Pope John XXII denied papal infallibility in his 1324 bull Quia quorundam, but that wasn’t a heresy at the time, since papal infallibility wasn’t defined until 1870 at Vatican I. For details, read Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350 by Brian Tierney (see here).
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I find it fascinating, upon reading Quia quorundam that John XXII actually seems to say right off the bat that the doctrine of irreformable doctrine actually comes from the “Father of Lies” himself. Wow. franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html

Anyone want to weigh in on this?
Click to expand...
So, basically, in his Bull, Quia quorundam of 1324, Pope John XXII was outraged when he heard some Franciscans proposed papal infallibility. And he called the following statement a lie, inspired by the “Father of lies”: **"'What the Roman Pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it." **

Interesting and disturbing. However, I realize this must be taken in the contest of history and the conflict between Pope John XXII and the Franciscans.

Hopefully Catholics will weigh in.

Anna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top