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

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have frequently observed a two-pronged strategy by posters who cannot explain and defend their positions:

a) say the poster doesn’t understand x, y, and z when the person knows full well that the poster indeed does understand said concepts

b) accuse the poster of emotionalism, rants, irrational thought, insanity, etc.

It doesn’t fly with me and I decide that the person making those charges just can’t reconcile certain concepts, explain them adequately, and is frustrated. When the frustration kicks in, the insults start a-comin’ along with accusations of an elitist tone: “It’s apparent you don’t understand __________________.”

So I usually stop the conversation when the person is at that frustration level. I am not going to respond to all these statements because I think you’re at that level where you cannot make your points without accusations of a personal nature or insinuations of a lack of education on the part of posters like Anna and I. It’s insulting and not helpful. Best of luck to you.

Well, ok. I don’t know who you are talking about here, but it is not me. Apparently this issue is too emotionally charged for you, and we cannot have a discussion about it without you heaping your projections on me.

I think you misunderstand the biblical concept of submission. Probably meekness too.

Yes. It is a valid complaint. I have also noted this discrepancy.

No, Gurney, that is not what LG says. This is your violent emotional reaction to what is written. It might be useful for you to explore where that is coming from. It is probably a major factor in your spiritual quest.

It does not say this either, and this approach is not consistent with Scripture, which instructs us to study, to show ourselves approved, to test everything, and hold fast to that which is good, to test the spirits, etc, etc.

Now you are just spewing irrationally.

\

Actually, there are many but right now, it seems like it is not a good time to try to discuss it.

You will get no arguement from me on that. The only difference is that the Catholic Church has One Faith, and even thought most of her so called adherants are not familiar with it, that does not change the facts. The Teaching is not determined by the popular vote of those who depart from it.

You example is also a good testimony that Catholics dont’ “blindly obey”, and neither do they follow the Apostolic command to study.

Maybe this explains the emotional and erratic content of your post?

 

[guanophore]

You are denying what the Catholic Encyclopedia article said about Pope Honorius:

. . . . .In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter’s misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. . . . .(Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

I think the concern you are trying to communicate is that the Pope was confused and misled, and asserted a falsehood. You are of course rightfully concerned that the same thing can happen today, and that if you are submitted to the Pope…what? Do you think you might be misled?

Do you think you will suffer bad consequences if you submit yourself to someone who makes a mistake?

Submitting mind and will to any human being is a serious issue that requires faithful discernment.

Cont----

Absolutely! And I see that you are doing that right now. I don’t think you would stop doing it if you decided to become Catholic, would you?

 

[guanophore]

My concerns are very specific:

Post #29
Originally Posted by Anna Scott
. . . .Evidently, when a Pope acts “under pressure of a very cruel coercion” or a Pope is not a “profound or acute theologian” and allows “himself to be confused and misled” by some “wily” person, his actions don’t count. . . .

One of the elements of an infallible proclamation is that it is consistent with the Apostolic faith. Another is that it represents the faith to fhe Church. if a Pope is being coerces or himself is confused or misled, then by defiintion he may not be able to make an infallible statement. Although, one has to note (as I mentioned above) that even a misled or coerced person (or donkey) can make an infallible statement.

Post #52
Originally Posted by Anna Scott
This Infallibility article from the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this claim, “The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.”

. . . .And to that end, the article seems to suggest that when a Pope acts “under pressure of a very cruel coercion” or a Pope is not a “profound or acute theologian” and allows “himself to be confused and misled” by some “wily” person, his actions don’t count. . . . … . .As one continuing to study Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, such articles push me farther from Catholicism. I truly wish that were not the case. Perhaps Catholics can shed some light on this article.

I am not sure what you mean by “actions dont’ count”. The actions of these popes are still being counted! Although they don’t meet the criteria for infallibility, they still “count”. He has the position to mislead a lot of people. I think this is one of your biggest concerns about submitting mind and will to the Pope.

I did respond to this post by saying that I did not understand why the article “pushed you further from Catholicism”.

: Originally Posted by mardukm
Why does this bother you? This is one of the most basic axioms of free will. So you actually believe that actions under duress have legal or moral value?

Originally Posted by Anna Scott I still can’t believe you actually asked that question.

Instead of just being appalled that we dont’ understand you, Anna, can you help us to do so? Some of us are sincerely trying to understand you objections.

Should I assume that you believe actions that occur under duress have legal and moral value?

I think the Martyrs woulds would say “yes, actions under duress have legal and moral value.” What we do under duress speaks more about what we believe and who we are than at any other time.

Yes, I agree with you. However, whatever the actions of a Pope may be under such circumstances, that does not define his actions as infallible.

Pope Honorius may not have produced an Ex Cathedra teaching, but whether or not he intended to give a “definitive” teaching is debatable. Look at the section on Pope Honorius again: . .

Clearly he intended to support an heretical position. Fortunately, God acted as He always has, and always will, to check this problem,and guide the Church into “all Truth”.

The question is, can you trust that God will always do this for His Church, regardless of the shortcomings of the people in charge?

Your opinion is noted; but it still sounds like an excuse to me.

I do not understand why there is a need for an “excuse”. Either the action meets the criteria for infallibilty, or it does not. In his case, it did not.

If even one Pope in history made decisions based on someone’s lie; it could happen again.

This is absolutely true. If it iwere not, then there would be no need for the gift of infallibilty.
Post #65Originally Posted by Anna Scott:

. . . . . .If I convert to Catholicism and I am expected to submit mind and will to the Pope, even in cases when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra; how would I know if the Pope’s decisions and teachings are legitimate or a result of coercion or the result of a lack of theological talent? How would I know that the Pope would not allow “heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings,” just as Pope Honorius did?. . . .

The same way you do now…by careful study, reflection, prayer and discernment. Submitting to the shepherds that God has placed over us does not absolve us from these responsibilities. That is why I objected to Gurney’s term of “blind”.

The Pope’s position, action, or lack of action in any given situation has far reaching effects, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra in matters of Faith and Morals.

Yes. As we can see, Honorous is still affecting us today.

Yes, the position and actions of the Pope have far reaching effects. Even more so when he is speaking on matters of faith and morals. I think this is why the Apostle says “let not many of you become teachers, brethren, for teachers will be judged with greater strictness.”

 

[guanophore]

" Post #86:

Originally Posted by mardukm
That may have relevance for his morality, but that has no relevance on the question of whether him subscribing to a heretical formula under duress can be counted as an official act of the Petrine office. Would you agree to that?

I didn’t claim his actions were to “be counted as an official act of the Petrine office.” Though “relevance for morality” would be a concern in whatever capacity the Pope speaks.

I thought you took it that way, which is why you were so bothered.

Remember how the disciples devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles at Pentecost? Remember how Peter later was confronted by Paul in Galatia about his hypocritical actions?

This is a good example of what still happens today. Peter was not acting according to his own teaching. His behavior was a great concern, because, as Paul notes, he was drawing others away from the right way by his poor example.

Can you trust that God will correct this again, if it occurs? Was the correction of the Church toward Honorous sufficient for you? Was Paul’s exortation to Peter?

 

[Protestant101]

There is an assumption in Catholicism that God works through the authorities He has appointed. Though they sometimes miss the mark, obedience to them even when they are in the wrong is what purifies the Church.

If the Pope is corrupt, God will use our obedience to purify the Church. This is the spiritual principle that the Reformers missed. they tried to remove the corrupt themselves (pulling out the weeds) instead of letting the angels of God sort them out.

Wow! This sounds like something out of a horror movie! Obey a leader of the Church even when he is wrong, and that will purify the church? Absolutely amazing. Is that called being infallibly wrong?

 

[schaick]

Did any one answer me, how the Australian nun who was excommunicated but now years later is to become a saint fits in with this topic of pope infallibility?

Also what about limbo?

 

[schaick]

Wow! This sounds like something out of a horror movie! Obey a leader of the Church even when he is wrong, and that will purify the church? Absolutely amazing. Is that called being infallibly wrong?

This is a very interesting:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp
White Smoke, Valid Pope
A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly
By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

“2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.”

Basically the congregation is protected from the evil/sinfu/heretic Priest in that when he performs Mass correctly in all forms then the Mass in not seen as lacking. The congregation must follow decisions of the Priest in question.

Sad to think then that the good, GOD fearing, christian Lutheran Pastor is incapable of consecrating the Eucharist, forgiving someone’s sins in Jesus name, etc. in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

 

[schaick]

Hey does anyone know if Pope Benedict XVI rehabilitated Martin Luther? It was to be announced sometime soon.

Here is the question- do Catholics believe that Luther is in purgatory, hell, heaven while he is in excommunication, but then once Pope Benedict says that he wasn’t a heretic then he is in heaven? Or has he been in heaven all along?

If that is the case then doesn’t the judgedment of a Pope as far as excommunication is concerned hold no weight?

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

Have you seen this blog:
willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2010/06/pope-leo-xiii-lost-his-office-on.html

 

[GKC]

This is a very interesting:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp
White Smoke, Valid Pope
A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly
By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

“2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.”

Basically the congregation is protected from the evil/sinfu/heretic Priest in that when he performs Mass correctly in all forms then the Mass in not seen as lacking. The congregation must follow decisions of the Priest in question.

Sad to think then that the good, GOD fearing, christian Lutheran Pastor is incapable of consecrating the Eucharist, forgiving someone’s sins in Jesus name, etc. in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

It’s a question of sacerdotal orders and apostolic succession, as to who can validly confect the sacrament, not the moral state of the celebrant.

I doubt that the statement “The congregation must follow decisions of the Priest in question.” is accurate, as stated.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

This is a very interesting:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp
White Smoke, Valid Pope
A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly
By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

“2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.”

Basically the congregation is protected from the evil/sinfu/heretic Priest in that when he performs Mass correctly in all forms then the Mass in not seen as lacking. The congregation must follow decisions of the Priest in question.

Sad to think then that the good, GOD fearing, christian Lutheran Pastor is incapable of consecrating the Eucharist, forgiving someone’s sins in Jesus name, etc. in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

I checked out the article. I added #1 to post the complete “summary.”

White Smoke, Valid Pope, A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly, By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

To sum up then:

1. The traditional and continuing law of the Church, expressed repeatedly in papal constitutions ever since the Middle Ages, allows for a heretical or apostate cardinal to participate fully in a papal conclave and even to be elected pope. If he could validly attain the papacy as a heretic or apostate, he could certainly retain it validly, even while remaining in that unhappy spiritual state.
2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.

So when the white smoke rises from the Vatican signifying that the college of cardinals has elected a new pope, we are assured that that pope’s authority is valid. Thus God guards his Church from the possibility of being cast into chaos by being left without an earthly governing authority.

I’m trying to give Catholicism careful consideration. My purpose here is not to beat up on Catholics; and I’m certain that was not Gurney’s intention in starting this thread. I don’t know what to make of this article. It is especially disturbing when considering LUMEN GENTIUM and its requirements for “religious submission of mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra. This article only legitimizes my fear of submitting to a teaching of the Roman Pontiff, when he may be wrong–even to the extent of falling into heresy or apostasy.

I really don’t know what to think anymore.

Anna

 

[tomarin]

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

That’s a good way of putting it, and a fair assessment as well. But I’m not sure territoriality is equivalent to unity of belief. I think they have a remarkable unity of belief, despite the occasional territoriality problem.

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

I agree, and I agree he was the leader of the apostles. It’s quite clear from the New Testament.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, unity is achieved by the HS, but it is not separated from the authority through which He works. We are to be obedient and submissive to those He has placed in authority over us. When the Apostle commends us to “be of the same mind”, it means that our minds and wills are in unity with the Gospel that has been infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS. When he instructs “let there be no schism among you”, he teaches us that the unity is preserved by all adhering to the One Truth that has been revealed to the Church. The bishops and the elders are those responsible for preserving the One Faith, and for choosing faithful men who are able to teach others also about this One Faith.

 

[rev_kevin]

Perhaps so. God can speak infallibly through the mouth of a donkey! cute

And even the High Priest prophesied about Christ during his trial. It is more proof that an infallible act can come through a fallible human being by the power of God.

My point, see it been said that only the Pope can be infalluble when it comes to matters of scripture, moral. and spiritual matters and a protestant minister can’t. But infact anyone inspired, lead by the HS can interpert scripture, moral and spiritual matters also.

I don’t think you understand the gift of infallibility.
Now once again, is the Pope is the only one with the gift of infallibility, or can this gift be given to anyone?

There are many conditions and tests that are applied. But the bottom line is that we trust Jesus’ promise to lead HIs Church into “all Truth”. With every interperitation of Scripture? With every moral judgment? With everything that has to do with spiritual matters?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As the OP I have to say, we’ve gotten way way way off topic here. It would be nice to return to the original point of discussion: for all the critics out there of papal infallibility, for all the nay-sayers that feel infallibility is innovative and false, can you produce any good historical examples of popes erring in theological or moral teachings OTHER than Honorius I?

 

[david_ruiz]

So you think Jesus was just blowin’ smoke when He told the fledgling Church that He would lead them into All Truth, and that He would be with them to the end of the age?

So why is it CC does not believe in once saved always saved ? That is right, there are conditions to be met , by US. Jesus never fails .He can keep us , but we still have free will ,WE can err. When we do ,the church suffers. So you think Jesus was blowing smoke when he warned the churches in Revelations, His churches ,that He was shepherding ? Jesus ,the holder of the keys , able to take away a church’s candlestick (and give it to another perhaps-just like the Jews loss is our gain (gentiles)) ?.. He is always there for correction .So when Rome rose up and told other congregations not to follow tradition since apostolic days and celebrate Easter on such an accorded day, many good saints rose up to try to correct Rome. And so it was thru out Rome’s errors,even Luther. Some say he would have been cannonized had he not been excommunicated. Much was right with Rome , but not all, and Jesus was loyal to try to guide her. Others have picked up the torch and carried certain truths that Rome has seems to have lost.Sorry ,but that is my humble opinion .Perhaps you should forget all I said except for one thing,to please read Revelations with His guidance.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’d love it if we could get back on topic, everybody. See my post a couple back…

 

[rev_kevin]

As the OP I have to say, we’ve gotten way way way off topic here. It would be nice to return to the original point of discussion: for all the critics out there of papal infallibility, for all the nay-sayers that feel infallibility is innovative and false, can you produce any good historical examples of popes erring in theological or moral teachings OTHER than Honorius I?

Why do you need more, isn’t Honorius proof that there is Papal fallibility. I think the point is that there is falibility among them. See its been said that the Pope cannot and I stress cannot, be fallible when it comes to spiritual, moral, and scripture. But not so true now is it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Because I want to …It’s a fair question. In 2,000 years if Honorius is the only example, and his culpability as a teacher of a heresy is questioned and debated, then critics of infallibility don’t have much ammo, do they? 2,000 years and all the popes except “possibly” Honorius, have taught orthodox, wholesome, true doctrine, then it makes Catholicism look pretty plausible, true, worth looking into I’d say…One would expect more than one screw-up from a pope in 2,000 years if they aren’t infallible.

Why do you need more, isn’t Honorius proof that there is Papal fallibility. I think the point is that there is falibility among them. See its been said that the Pope cannot and I stress cannot, be fallible when it comes to spiritual, moral, and scripture. But not so true now is it.

 

[rev_kevin]

Because I want to …It’s a fair question. In 2,000 years if Honorius is the only example, and his culpability as a teacher of a heresy is questioned and debated, then critics of infallibility don’t have much ammo, do they? 2,000 years and all the popes except “possibly” Honorius, have taught orthodox, wholesome, true doctrine, then it makes Catholicism look pretty plausible, true, worth looking into I’d say…One would expect more than one screw-up from a pope in 2,000 years if they aren’t infallible.

Good point but all it takes is one for there to be doubt in all.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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." **. . . .

Catholic Encyclopedia
Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
(Emphasis is mine throughout.)

Infallibility

Objections alleged
The only noteworthy objections against papal infallibility, as distinct from the infallibility of the Church at large, are based on certain historical instances in which it is alleged that certain popes in the ex cathedra exercise of their office have actually taught heresy and condemned as heretical what has afterwards turned out to be true. The chief instances usually appealed to are those of Popes Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius in the early centuries, and the Galileo affair at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Pope Liberius
Liberius, it is alleged, subscribed an Arian or Semi-Arian creed drawn up by the Council of Sirmium and anathematized St. Athanasius, the great champion of Nicaea, as a heretic. But even if this were an accurate statement of historical fact, it is a very inadequate statement. The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once deprives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra, and that he himself, as soon as he had recovered his liberty, made amends for the moral weakness he had been guilty of. This is a quite satisfactory answer to the objection, but it ought to be added that there is no evidence whatever that Liberius ever anathematized St. Athanasius expressly as a heretic, and that it remains a moot point which of three or four Sirmian creeds he subscribed, two of which contained no positive assertion of heretical doctrine and were defective merely for the negative reason that they failed to insist on the full definition of Nicaea.

Pope Honorius
The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter’s misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius’s letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings.

Pope Vigilius
There is still less reason for trying to found an objection to papal infallibility on the wavering conduct of Pope Vigilius in connection with the controversy of the Three Chapters; and it is all the more needless to delay upon this instance as most modern opponents of the papal claims no longer appeal to it.

Galileo
As to the Galileo affair, it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained — which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.
Conclusion

The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.

Are Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and John XXII in the clear?

Anna