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

[gurneyhalleck1]

mardukm,

This is a post unworthy of your character. I’ve seen a great deal of character and class in your posts since you started here; I always enjoy your posts, truly. You’re a bright fellow and sincere about your faith.

But you seem to be at a point where you can’t answer questions and you’re frustrated so you’re hurling insults. It’s unworthy of you. Anna is a troll? Come off it. She and I communicate a lot outside this forum. Whether you want to believe it or not, she is very sincerely looking at Catholicism. Where you might have bought the product lock, stock, and barrel, many of us wanted to critically, deeply, and cautiously look at this Church and understand fully what we’re buying into. I would think you’d respect that. There are people who join Catholicism for lame reasons. I’m not signing up because I think holy water is “cool” or I like confession or because I saw Catholic priests fighting vampires in horror flicks. Neither is Anna. We’re truly wanting to buy the product. But to jump blindly into a church this deep and full of complex dogma, canons, history, and controversial moments, we’d be no better than Jim Jones cult members to surrender our brains without understanding why, to whom, and how we’re supposed to surrender them.

I don’t see contradiction in Anna’s posts with the papacy. I must’ve missed the “too narrow” accusations but I sure have seen the “too wide” statements regarding Catholic papal rules of engagement. I think the papal powers and infallibility are too wide and vague as to be malleable for Catholic apologists to manipulate x, y, and z as infallible but when something is an embarrassment or bizarre, it’s not infallible.

You speak of contradiction, brother, yet you insult Anna as a “possible” troll and yet turn around and say you are giving her the benefit of the doubt. You are doing precisely what we see the Church doing in talking out of both sides and being shocked when someone calls a person on it.

When you make things personal or speculate “trollery” you seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees with you for more than a few pages on a forum must be up to no good and a bum. It’s not so. And it’s not fair. I hate it when people demonize or question the character of opponents. Drives me nuts. Please disagree but don’t assume people are of ill will or lacking character just because their understandings aren’t in line with yours.

Blessings to you

To show that the “character of a document” can be pretty obvious.
Anna seems to be applying an impossible, and confusing standard. First, she complains that the criteria for infallibility established by the Catholic Church has been narrowed down in order to excuse the actions of past Popes. Then she complains that the criteria is too vague, allowing just about anything that a Pope says to be required for Faith. It almost seems like she is nitpicking, purposefully neglecting the contexts, just to find things wrong with the Catholic faith.

The conversation is reminiscent of discussions with non-Catholics who complain that there is no official list of infallible papal teachings, yet complain about the existence of papal infallibility in the first place. It doesn’t make sense.

I can’t judge Anna’s heart, and I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and believe she is sincere in her search, but her questions don’t seem to be consistent, and makes it seem like she is just trolling.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GKC]

Hi again GKC,

What specific question about these canons do you have for mardukm? How do they relate to the topics at hand? I’ll click on them and read as you both discuss…blessings to all…

I don’t have a specific question. Sort of like when the subject, long ago, was* Exsurge Domine*, I am curious as to how various assertions about the point of infallibility , as expressed by posters here, fits in with both LG and these particular Canons. That is, I wonder how any given assertion about what infallibility means might be related to, or supported by, these Canons. So the question would be “Here’s the Canons. How do they support your definition?”

I have no dog in this fight. Anymore than I did when discussing ED. But I do have an interest in how people explain what I’ve read, as it relates to what they have said.

Here’s another example. Anna gave a reference to a gentleman named Young, who had explained the topic under discussion. Here’s another such, from a gentleman named Conte:

catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm

I solicit a comment on the definition of and assertions about the Magisterium (especially the Ordinary Magisterium) given here, likewise. I do not, of course, assert or necessarily believe that either Young or Conte are accurate, definitive, authoritative or even marginally correct. I am interested in either supprt of or a definitive (with CCC or Canon references) refutation of the definitions.

Just curious.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t see that; what I see is people who are complaining about infallibility often do so for the exact reason that there ARE NO lists or definitive sources for understanding papal decrees as infallible or not. It underscores the untruth of what Catholics keep saying: Protestants are chaotic and lost, Catholics are united of one mind.

I don’t see that. You could list 20 papal statements or encyclicals on a thread and have people vote: infallible or not? You’ll get such a range of answers that your head will spin like Linda Blair in the Exorcist!

That’s precisely the problem IMO. If there were a coherent list or source to understand what IS and what ISN’T infallible, critics would have less bullets to put in their clips? The Church is deliberately vague about this stuff so that it is malleable, like I said before. And that’s what I personally don’t like…

The conversation is reminiscent of discussions with non-Catholics who complain that there is no official list of infallible papal teachings, yet complain about the existence of papal infallibility in the first place. It doesn’t make sense.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know you don’t have a horse in this race, GKC, but I was just wondering if there were a specific part of the canons you found in conflict with LG or otherwise? I think mardukm wasn’t sure what exactly you wanted to discuss about them. I agree that I wasn’t sure either. That’s all. You don’t have to have a horse in the race, just analysis is fine by me. I talk about Orthodox issues sometimes and I’m no Byzantine.

I don’t have a specific question. Sort of like when the subject, long ago, was* Exsurge Domine*, I am curious as to how various assertions about the point of infallibility , as expressed by posters here, fits in with both LG and these particular Canons. That is, I wonder how any given assertion about what infallibility means might be related to, or supported by, these Canons. So the question would be “Here’s the Canons. How do they support your definition?”

I have no dog in this fight. Anymore than I did when discussing ED. But I do have an interest in how people explain what I’ve read, as it relates to what they have said.

Here’s another example. Anna gave a reference to a gentleman named Young, who had explained the topic under discussion. Here’s another such, from a gentleman named Conte:

catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm

I solicit a comment on the definition of and assertions about the Magisterium (especially the Ordinary Magisterium) given here, likewise. I do not, of course, assert or necessarily believe that either Young or Conte are accurate, definitive, authoritative or even marginally correct. I am interested in either supprt of or a definitive (with CCC or Canon references) refutation of the definitions.

Just curious.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

The example of the Eastern Orthodox would seem to say yes. They have a hierarchy but not one concentrated in one supreme cleric.

Of course – there is only one truth.

Yes, but there is not a the level of unity Christ intended there either. There are still problems with territoriality.

Peter is the symbol of unity in the Church. Peter did nothing apart from the other Apostles, nor did they without him.

 

[mardukm]

But you seem to be at a point where you can’t answer questions and you’re frustrated so you’re hurling insults.

I can’t answer the questions, because she keeps changing her questions.

Example: First I ask if she is concerned that the statement from LG makes it seem like EVERYTHING the Pope says must be adhered to with equal obedience.

She responds that this is definitely not the case.

Then YOU join in, and state the same thing.

And THEN she states that you and she are on the same wavelength.

Huh? If that does not seem like trolling – well, I don’t know. But like I said, I’m willing to give here the benefit of the doubt.

Blessings

 

[GKC]

I know you don’t have a horse in this race, GKC, but I was just wondering if there were a specific part of the canons you found in conflict with LG or otherwise? I think mardukm wasn’t sure what exactly you wanted to discuss about them. I agree that I wasn’t sure either. That’s all. You don’t have to have a horse in the race, just analysis is fine by me. I talk about Orthodox issues sometimes and I’m no Byzantine.

Keep in mind that I’m cleaning the garage. Took 5 boxes of books to the storage facility so far. And the wife fixed chicken with Old Bay lemon/herb seasoning. And I got a Chimay to drink. So if my interest wanders, pray, excuse me.

I’m not laying a trap. I wonder how someone who asserts any given position on infallibility might support it, with or from a variety of authoritative Church statements. Ott, for example, if someone did. Or those Canons. Or the CCC. Or *LG *. So far, I see interpretive opinion, and no footnotes. I like footnotes. Or, I can read Conte, at the site I gave (and he seems like a reasonable man), and find that the Ordinary Magisterium is not to be considered infallible, in the sense that the Extraordinary Magisterium is. Absent reference to authoritative sources, it’s opinion versus opinion. If someone asks “What in that source do you think contradicts me?”, that’s the wrong end of the stick. What in that source are you relying on, in your assertion, is the question.

GKC

 

[schaick]

But where do you think holy scripture came from? Who made the tough decisions about what to leave out and what to keep in?

What? You have to ask? GOD Man simply made official what GOD put forth.

You are not the first Catholic and I’m afraid you won’t be the last that has asked this.

So now I ask you - Do you trust man over GOD?

The early Church Fathers recognized the writings as Scritpure.

Paul was referencing the Scripture /Gospel in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Luke here:
1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7**

 

[Adam_Warlock]

I can’t judge Anna’s heart, and I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and believe she is sincere in her search, but her questions don’t seem to be consistent, and makes it seem like she is just trolling.

What may seem to be, and what truly is, are quite distinct. Anna is most sincere. The thoughts of a seeker/inquirer are unlike those that spring from an unwavering certainty.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, but there is not a the level of unity Christ intended there either. There are still problems with territoriality.

Peter is the symbol of unity in the Church. Peter did nothing apart from the other Apostles, nor did they without him.

Another factor is that there are things that to the Catholic Church are regarded as de fide Truths, but which to the EO, don’t seem to be regarded with the same dogmatic importance.

For example, the EO are not united on contraception (some are more strict than others), the definition of original sin, toll houses, whether Catholics have valid Sacraments, the grounds for divorce, the Atonement, etc. They are united in what they believe are important. Whether that is enough to withstand the pressures of modernistic and pluralistic society has not been sufficiently tested within the EOC paradigm. The Catholic Church has faced it throughout the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and has withstood it, and the papacy has been key to withstanding that onslaught. The Catholic Church basically has a 600 year head-start over the EOC in dealing with liberalism, modernism, and pluralism. The EOC has for most of its history been stuck in autocratic societies that were inimical to the principles of free thought. So everytime I hear or read of EO claiming “we did fine without the papacy for a thousand years,” it doesn’t sound very convincing.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I don’t see that. You could list 20 papal statements or encyclicals on a thread and have people vote: infallible or not? You’ll get such a range of answers that your head will spin like Linda Blair in the Exorcist!

I don’t think there are even 20 that can make such a list. But there are many that everyone will agree on. The few that fall outside that range I’d chalk up to wishful thinking.

Blessings

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Look, two days ago my Giants were ONE WIN away from clinching the NL West division championship and a playoff berth. All they had to do was defeat the ailing San Diego Padres. Just ONE game! San Diego comes to town and humiliates us. Then today comes. Well, just beat 'em today and we’re in the playoffs. Do you think Barry Zito, our $126,000,000 player could manage to pitch a decent game and put us in the playoffs? NOPE. We lost today in a similarly humiliating fashion.

Tomorrow is Padres-Giants. If the Padres win, WE’RE eliminated and they go to the playoffs. I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts, those blasted Friars win tomorrow and eliminate us!

So if there’s anyone here who is not of sound mind to carry rational thought, it’s ME! :banghead::nunchuk:

Keep in mind that I’m cleaning the garage. Took 5 boxes of books to the storage facility so far. And the wife fixed chicken with Old Bay lemon/herb seasoning. And I got a Chimay to drink. So if my interest wanders, pray, excuse me.

I’m not laying a trap. I wonder how someone who asserts any given position on infallibility might support it, with or from a variety of authoritative Church statements. Ott, for example, if someone did. Or those Canons. Or the CCC. Or *LG *. So far, I see interpretive opinion, and no footnotes. I like footnotes. Or, I can read Conte, at the site I gave (and he seems like a reasonable man), and find that the Ordinary Magisterium is not to be considered infallible, in the sense that the Extraordinary Magisterium is. Absent reference to authoritative sources, it’s opinion versus opinion. If someone asks “What in that source do you think contradicts me?”, that’s the wrong end of the stick. What in that source are you relying on, in your assertion, is the question.

GKC

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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.

Right at the very beginning, Paul had to haul Peter into line over the Judaising and circumcision issue. Peter may not have had the term “Pope” applied to him literally, but that’s what he was.

I fail to see how the church can give its own leader the label of “infallibility”. The Church got along without it for 1850 years. The Pope’s authority comes from Christ’s statement to Peter, not a self declared “infallibility”.

As an ex-Protestant I don’t trust it, nor do I see the need for it. I’ve seen what happens elsewhere once people start getting the idea they can’t make mistakes.

It’s merely one more ***unnecessary ***barrier to eventual reunification.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Bob,

Blessings, mate. I notice your description still says “Catholic” on it. Are you saying you’re a Catholic that doesn’t believe in infallibility? Are you SSPX or sedevecantist or Old Catholic, etc?

I agree with you that it is a HUGE barrier to reunification. The Eastern Orthodox won’t go for a reunited Christendom that includes what they see as a radical modern innovation that doesn’t jive with history. That’s why, as I hate to be cynical, I don’t see a reunion happening, period.

Are you still Catholic or…?

Right at the very beginning, Paul had to haul Peter into line over the Judaising and circumcision issue. Peter may not have had the term “Pope” applied to him literally, but that’s what he was.

I fail to see how the church can give its own leader the label of “infallibility”. The Church got along without it for 1850 years. The Pope’s authority comes from Christ’s statement to Peter, not a self declared “infallibility”.

As an ex-Protestant I don’t trust it, nor do I see the need for it. I’ve seen what happens elsewhere once people start getting the idea they can’t make mistakes.

It’s merely one more ***unnecessary ***barrier to eventual reunification.

 

[guanophore]

Good question. My particular congregation would have no problem for a woman to be a pastor. See its not about man or woman, its about our Lord, its about our salvation. Its not just up to a man to be concerned about one’s salvation, to spread the Good News. Its up to all, men, and women. The sex of one preson should have nothing to do with preaching. If they feel its their calling then who are we to say, no you can’t because you are a woman.

Brother! You must have forgotten that women are saved by childbearing…

1 Tim 2:12-15

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Women are simply not to be priests, correct. Women are by their very nature infused with the ability to be mothers to the human race. Men are by their very nature imbued with a fundamental fatherly nature. In persona christi at the altar a priest is a father for us, not a mother. The “doctrines” of some churches that women can be priestesses is total folly and foolishness as well as a modern innovation with nothing but the 1960’s Peter Paul and Mary generation trying to apply its hippy feel-good values on a 2,000 year old institution.

Brother! You must have forgotten that women are saved by childbearing…

1 Tim 2:12-15

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 

[guanophore]

 I would consider any Pope that developes a dogma or doctrine claiming it needs to be believed for you to be saved that does not have biblical evidence to be a heretic.

So, I missed the evening news…The Pope died, and you have taken over?

Self appointed papal appoinment…Hmmm.

Who are you, that you are now the standard of what is “considered a heretic”?

Maybe you don’t realize that there are as many people who can do this as there are belly buttons. Although there is a large base of agreement among Christians about what needs to be believed in order to be saved, and there is biblical evidence of this, everyone who reads scripture can interpret it differently.

It is not helpful for Christians to sit around and call one another heretics because they understand what it written in the Holy Scriptures differently. This is why Jesus set things up so that such disputes could be resolved by the Teaching Authority He appointed.

The Bible is very clear on what is needed- adding anything extra into the equation is preaching a false Gospel.

I am sure it seems that way to you, since you received an imbalanced equation in the first place.

The Catholic Church added quite a bit…the entire NT to be exact.

 

[guanophore]

OK as far as the fatherhood of priesthood thing, thats what the CC goes by which is fine for ya'll. I'm not saying take the priesthood away, I'm saying why not let them preach, let them do the Euchrist, the sacraments, and so forth?

Because the Church is not at liberty to do what is not authorized by Christ.

You can go by your traditions all you want and stick by the lame 2000 year that is always brought up here.

Can you elaborate on why 2000 years of family history is “lame”?

But I see nowhere were Jesus says women can't. I see Paul saying women can't have power but I don't see Jesus saying this.

Women have plenty of power. His mother more than all. Are you suggesting that Paul’s instruction on the role of women in Church contradicted that of Christ?

Who’s history, the CC’s. Who’s traditions, the CC’s.

Yep. For all those “lame” 2000 years, I guess.

I don’t know what has gotten into you today.

Dealing with Jesus, when Jesus picked his 12 he picked them to be his closest friends, now there were hundreds if not thousands of disciples, both men and women. See women back then were second class, property in a way, so they wouldn’t allow women to be equal to men, that was their culture, and still is in Muslims but not with Christian. See women are now equal to men, if your not sexist.

Equal in dignity, different in role.

 

[david_ruiz]

Verse?

Verse ? Do I have to be “scripture only” ?

 

[guanophore]

I see no evidence where the CC has been around before the NT.

What Church do you think that was, that wrote the NT?

Oh preform, or what ever you call it when a priest holds up the wafer and says a prayer, then it magicly turnes into Jesus body and the wine into his blood. You know able to do that.

We call it consecration.

Have you decided that you don’t want to participate in dialogue anymore here on CAF? Maybe it is time for you to move on. If that is the case, it is ok to just throw in the towel. You don’t have to start getting disrespectful and derogatory so you get yourself banned for violation of the forum rules. Just take responsibility for yourself and politely shake off the dust of your feet.

Who says women can’t be ordained? Paul? Remember womem were second class and were not allowed to do a lot of things back them but the can now, They are equal to men then they can be ordained like a man.

The Church founded by Christ does not have the authority to ordain women.

Yes, women were considered property in Jewish culture at the time of Christ.

Yes, women are equal to men, but no, they cannot be ordained like a man, because they are women. That is like saying “men are equal to women, and men can be pregnant and bear children just like a woman”. That is not how God set things up.

Just because it was that way back then, women being second class, it isn’t that way now, we have evolved and realized that women are just as equal as men are, they are treated better then they were back then.

Primarily because of the example set by Jesus.

If you don’t want women to be ordained, then be it, as for me I say Go for it women.

Human beings have been given the freedom by God to flout all of His commandments.