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

[rev_kevin]

I would credit the Catholics and the Orthodox, but don’t disagree with much of what you said. I will say, they has the leadership of the Apostles who learned directly from Christ in person, and if you believe in source theory, they probably used precursors to the Gospel-documents such as Q (and others) that were latered used as sources when the Gospels were finally drafted.

I do give them credit. Thanks.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with your sentiment, Kevin. Catholics sometimes make generalities when they speak that can sound too triumphalist and tribalistic. Some Catholics, not all by a longshot. I hear some folks that want to give Catholicism credit for everything from creating colleges and academies to claiming Shakespeare was a Catholic to claims like, “C.S. Lewis really wanted to be a Catholic!” to which you produce documents from Lewis spelling out why he DIDN’T want to be Catholic EVER and then the response is, “yeah, well if he were alive today he’d convert!” LOL…hard to speculate that far out in left field…Then you show evidence that Plato, Aristotle, and the gang had academies/colleges and that Muslims also had them, etc. before and during Catholic university systems, etc.

Catholics often say they wrote the Bible. As per your statement, you’re right. They didn’t. But I give them credit for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to discern what was heretical and false and what was true, genuine, Spirit-breathed Scripture.

I think there is also often a propensity to reject the idea that the East played a huge role in things. Arianism was fought HARD by Eastern bishops! Many of these heresies were squashed thanks to eastern Christians when there was no Orthodox or Catholic but just ONE pre-schism Church.

But I also observe that the Orthodox sometimes don’t want to give Catholics credit for their greatest moments. Heck, if it weren’t for the pope, Iconoclasm would’ve won the day in the East and Orthodox Christians wouldn’t have even had icons It’s a strange thought, Orthodox should be grateful to the West for icons!

Yes the CC put the Bible together, never said they didn’t but when they say they gave us the Bible I have to differ. God gave us the Bible through the CC. But I understand what you are saying.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ok, this is the last, repeat last, time I’m addressing this stuff. Some in here have chosen to put you on ignore. I haven’t. I have hoped you’d come around and let people like me who are honestly seeking the truth have some room to ask questions and not be accused of being psychotic, emotional trainwrecks with defensive projetionist fits of lunacy thrown in. But you have continued with this nonsense so I’m getting close to Anna’s ignore solution.

Gurney,

I think you’ve shown great patience with G. and have given him many chances to participate in a respectable discussion. The problem is that his insults and negative assumptions derail the thread–we end up expending time and energy, responding to the negativity, and that takes us from the serious topic at hand.

Guanophore, I am quoting this in the spirit of Christian charity–hoping that you will choose to post according to CAF’s charity guidelines. I’m reminding myself of these guidelines, at the same time; because I’ve made plenty of mistakes in my posts too. It’s easy to get caught up in a discussion and forget charity guidelines.

Partial Quote from Rachel Malloy’s Post under "General Guidelines for posting in Non-Catholic Religions"

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=162027

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Anna. I’m with you, back to the thread! Or maybe it’s run its course? Let the people decide!

Gurney,

I think you’ve shown great patience with G. and have given him many chances to participate in a respectable discussion. The problem is that his insults and negative assumptions derail the thread–we end up expending time and energy, responding to the negativity, and that takes us from the serious topic at hand.

Guanophore, I am quoting this in the spirit of Christian charity–hoping that you will choose to post according to CAF’s charity guidelines. I’m reminding myself of these guidelines, at the same time; because I’ve made plenty of mistakes in my posts too. It’s easy to get caught up in a discussion and forget charity guidelines.

Partial Quote from Rachel Malloy’s Post under "General Guidelines for posting in Non-Catholic Religions"

Respectfully,
Anna

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on topic, stop the bickering or infractions will be handed out, Catholic Protestant, whatever.

 

[schaick]

Sorry if you believe my post about the excommunication of the 2- Luther and the Australian nun was off topic.

Are these decisions considered infallible? Why did Catholics not fight for this nun to not be excomunicated? Is it because they believe the infallibility to be far more reaching?

If the Australian nun had not been excommunicated but praised for her actions. Would the recent pediphile issue have occured? Would the children abused have had a champion to give them courage to stand up to their abusers?

Luther 100 years from now might finally be rehabilitated. All of you will have missed out on his hymns, spirituality, knowledge and insight of the Bible.

Whether simply on matters of faith or not infallibility gives power and power corrupts.

How does the Catholic congregation know what must be followed if there isn’t a list of infallible statements?

I for one would like to see a list of infallible statements. How do you know if infallibility is a gift? You must be able to test?

 

[schaick]

To top it off in looking for a list on line I find:

cmri.org/theolog.htm

 

[ron77nyc]

How does the Catholic congregation know what must be followed if there isn’t a list of infallible statements?

I for one would like to see a list of infallible statements. How do you know if infallibility is a gift? You must be able to test?

I would like to see a list also. Giving a definition and an explanation does not make it clear.

Here is what one Catholic website says:
americancatholic.org/messenger/aug2004/Wiseman.asp#F1
Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?
Q: I am having a debate with another Catholic. She says that the Church has spoken infallibly only twice: Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption.
I say that it has spoken infallibly many times, especially through its 21 ecumenical councils. Which one of us is right?
A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct. Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in 1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible.
The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary magisterium (teaching role) has been used only once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s liturgy.
Since 1870, some people have argued that canonizing a saint is an infallible act, but that assertion is a debatable point at this time.
Not all decisions by each ecumenical council are automatically infallible……

Here is another one saying the opposite:jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html
Two Instances Of Papal Infallibility?
(Jimmy Akin)
Papal infallibility continues to be widely used. In fact, the current pontiff has used it more than any of his predecessors. The reason is that papal canonizations of saints are infallible. In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption thus are not the only two exercises of papal infallibilty in history. They are arguably the only two dogmatic definitions (i.e., definitions of dogmas; saint canonizations being definitions of what are known as dogmatic facts rather than dogmas per se) in the last hundred and fifty years, but they are far from the only two in history.

 

[ron77nyc]

Wait…there is more.

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
Infallibility of general councils
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost.

Papal and conciliar infallibility
Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility.
Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. The council’s dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility, nor does that definition imply a “circular demonstration” by which the council would make the pope infallible and the pope would render the same service to the council. It should however, be borne in mind that the council without the pope has no guarantee of infallibility, therefore the conciliar and the papal infallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence.

Is a council above a pope?
The Councils of Constance and of Basle affirmed with great emphasis that an Ecumenical council is superior in authority to the pope, and French theologians have adopted that proposition as one of the famous four Gallican Liberties. Other theologians affirmed, and still affirm, that the pope is above any general council.

 

[tomarin]

Yes the CC put the Bible together, never said they didn’t but when they say they gave us the Bible I have to differ. God gave us the Bible through the CC. But I understand what you are saying.

Of course God is the ultimate author of the Bible, but as Gurney has pointed out it was the Church who assembled it.

Added: so it seems kind of contradictory to me to claim, as Schaick did earlier in the thread, that the Church has no authority to define dogmas relating to salvation, since all we need to know about salvation comes from the Bible. As if the Bible just dropped out of the sky one fine day.

 

[Hesychios]

But I also observe that the Orthodox sometimes don’t want to give Catholics credit for their greatest moments. Heck, if it weren’t for the pope, Iconoclasm would’ve won the day in the East and Orthodox Christians wouldn’t have even had icons It’s a strange thought, Orthodox should be grateful to the West for icons!

Actually, that is a matter of opinion and I disagree.

There is no question some Popes had been instrumental in the fight, but the way you put it here, in absolute terms, does not give due recognition to the many others involved.

That would be like saying “If it weren’t for the Prime Ministry of England, the Nazi’s would have taken over the world”. Regardless of how one remembers Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, giving that office sole recognition for what was an unquestionably an awsome effort on the part of many, with real martyrs from many lands, would be a severe exaggeration and distortion.

It’s the same here. I believe the church itself is infallible and would have survived in any case, regardless of how much blood was spilled.

There is more credit to be given to two women: Irene and Theodora, both of whom were able to engineer a legal toleration and restoration of iconodulia in their own times.

Let us not forget that iconoclasm had it’s outbreaks in the Pope’s own backyard in the west as well, long before the advent of Protestantism. In fact there was a synod in the Holy Roman Empire (Frankfurt perhaps? I forget) which actually formally opposed the restoration of icons in Byzantium. Legates of the Pope were present and signed off on it, it must have given him fits. That’s the kind of struggle it was, there was no ‘front line’ and no single person can be singled out as the one who changed the course of church history.

 

[david_ruiz]

This is a perfect example of why I take serious issue with the idea of submitting mind and will to the Roman Pontiff. This particular issue was taught for centuries, one Pope reinforcing another; and yet, today, it is not held to be true. Just think of all the Catholics who were mislead for centuries; and all those who converted under threat of the eternal flames of Hell (definition of Hell seems to be different today also). And----there are still echoes of this teaching. I have seen Catholics posts on CAF, saying there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Even if the CC can somehow argue that these are not Ex Cathedra statements; that does nothing to excuse misleading Catholics for centuries. This teaching of no salvation outside the CC seems to fulfill the requirements of LUMEN GENTIUM, for submitting to non-Ex Cathedra teachings.

(Emphasis is mine. If you follow my posts, you probably have LUMEN GENTIUM, 25, memorized by now )

Does the false teaching of no salvation outside the Catholic Church fall under heresy in the first degree, sententia haeresi proxima (approaching heresy), propositio theologice erronea (erroneous in theology), sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens (an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy,) or something else? Just trying to understand how this works.

Then there is still the question of which teaching is truth: the past teaching or present teaching regarding salvation outside the Catholic Church. How do you know which teaching is right?

on77nyc, if you don’t mind my asking: as a Catholic, how do you feel about teachings changing from one century to the next?

Respectfully,
Anna

Than-you .Good stuff. You hit hard .I still shake my head as an ex-catholic as to how stark the truth is .Hard to believe some of this stuff. Just curious though ,are you really considering Catholicism ? Doesn’t Anglicanism and Orthodox have a lot of similarities to Catholicism ? I mean they do not go far enough in “reform”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

REPLY TO HESYCHIOS’ POST

As much as I usually enjoy your posts, Michael, I think this is a horrible analogy to be sure. You’re inventing a scenario I never claimed existed, namely that the pope, without anyone else in the entire Christian world, single-handedly obliterated iconoclasm. I didn’t say that. What my post indicated is that he was responsible as a leader for its end. That implies that he led and inspired and fought hard, not unilaterally, but in a leadership position. You’re reinforcing my claim that Orthodox Christians tend to not want to give popes credit for things. It’s an almost innate revulsion and impulse to marginalize their contributions or minimize them to minor participation, period.

If you look at iconoclasm, it was the Byzantine Emperor Leo III who went into an iconoclastic rant and agenda. It was Pope Saint Gregory II who came out swinging hard in the fight against his policies regarding images. In the autumn of 727 the pope convened a synod to discuss this crisis. The synod supported the use of images. Gregory then issued this amazing letter to the Emperor with heaps of courage and guts telling him his admonitions against iconoclasm and the dignity of iconographical use. This is his letter:

Ten years by God’s grace you have walked aright, and not mentioned the sacred images, but now you want them to be entirely set aside and destroyed. You do not fear the judgment of God, and that offense will be given not merely to the faithful, but also to the unbelieving. Christ forbids our offending even the least and you have offended the whole world, as if you had not also to die and give an account…Christ knows that so often as we go into the churhc of St. Peter, and see the picture of this saint, we are moved and tears flow from us. Christ has made the blind to see: you have made the seeing blind…You say we worship stones and walls ad boards. But it is not so, O Emperor, but they serve us for rememberance and encouragement, lifting ourslow spirits upwards by those whose names the pictures bear, and whose representations they are. And we worship them not as Go, as you maintain, God forbid!! Froe we set not our hope on them, ; and if a picture of the Lord is there, we say, Lord Jesus Christ, help and save us! At a picture of His holy Mother we say: Holy God-bearer, pray for us and they son and so with a martyr…The dogmatisers fall easily into error when they are lacking in humility, partly from ignorance, partly because of the darkness of the subject, and their guilt is not as great as yours, for you have persecuted that which is open and clear as light, and stripped the Church of God!

So look at this letter and tell me he didn’t risk much in talking to the Emperor in this manner, Michael. It took guts and leadership. And the emperor threatened him with the same fate as Pope St. Martin, the martyr, remember? The pope wasn’t a bit intimidated and boldly shot back. I have that letter as well.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So who’s taking the helm here against iconoclasm? The pope. Is it unilateral? Of course not. Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople condemned the bishops who supported the emperor. He stood up to the emperor and told him off.
BUT…then he retired and was replaced by Anastasius, the new Patriarch of Constantinople, an iconoclast! He prohibited all images of Christ, Mary, the saints, etc. Pope St. Gregory II refused to recognize this new patriarch! That took guts and leadership. Then Gregory II died and Gregory III took over as pope. He convened a synod and declared EXCOMMUNICATIONS for all iconoclasts!! 93 bishops were present. Emperor Leo refused to abide by the decrees of the synod of the pope. Emperor Leo decreed that the patriarch of Constantinople was now in charge of supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Churches, not the papacy.

If you look at this long, sordid mess, you’ll see the popes supported the Eastern bishops more than either the emperor or the patriarch of Constantinople!

So you cannot deny my statement that if it weren’t for the staunch support and decrees of the popes, this iconoclastic nonsense would’ve continued unabated.

Forget Churchill or Chamberlain. This is different. It’s about leadership. And it’s about intellectual honesty, giving credit where credit is due. Take the pope out of the picture for a minute. You now have an emperor who is iconoclastic, a patriarch of the “New Rome” who is an iconoclast, and several eastern bishops in support. In the middle are traditional orthodox pro-iconography/images bishops who lack a cohesive voice rallying them. To give a better analogy, you’re saying that the British and Russians could’ve defeated Germany without the leadership of the United States.

Also I don’t think it’s fair that you claim I put the popes’ role in “absolute terms.” Where? I didn’t need to give credit to the others because in every single statement about solid, crucial, vital leadership, we don’t always have the time and energy to mention ever single contributor, right? Imagine if I say, Roosevelt got Social Security passed (ah, but you forgot to mention every congressman who voted yay on it!) or say that George Bush won the Iraq War (ah but you mentioned the generals, commanders, and all the names of the soldiers!). It’s a reference to leadership and the central role they played, not an absolutist stance. Hope that helps.

Actually, that is a matter of opinion and I disagree.

There is no question some Popes had been instrumental in the fight, but the way you put it here, in absolute terms, does not give due recognition to the many others involved.

That would be like saying “If it weren’t for the Prime Ministry of England, the Nazi’s would have taken over the world”. Regardless of how one remembers Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, giving that office sole recognition for what was an unquestionably an awsome effort on the part of many, with real martyrs from many lands, would be a severe exaggeration and distortion.

It’s the same here. I believe the church itself is infallible and would have survived in any case, regardless of how much blood was spilled.

There is more credit to be given to two women: Irene and Theodora, both of whom were able to engineer a legal toleration and restoration of iconodulia in their own times.

Let us not forget that iconoclasm had it’s outbreaks in the Pope’s own backyard in the west as well, long before the advent of Protestantism. In fact there was a synod in the Holy Roman Empire (Frankfurt perhaps? I forget) which actually formally opposed the restoration of icons in Byzantium. Legates of the Pope were present and signed off on it, it must have given him fits. That’s the kind of struggle it was, there was no ‘front line’ and no single person can be singled out as the one who changed the course of church history.

 

[david_ruiz]

Of course God is the ultimate author of the Bible, but as Gurney has pointed out it was the Church who assembled it.

Added: so it seems kind of contradictory to me to claim, as Schaick did earlier in the thread, that the Church has no authority to define dogmas relating to salvation, since all we need to know about salvation comes from the Bible. As if the Bible just dropped out of the sky one fine day.

If only we would all stick to the Gospel as given to the early church by God ,thru the apostles and Sacred Scripture.Today the same church that takes credit for assembling the bible also lowers it’s authority by saying people were saved without it before it was assembled, therefore salvation must be in a particular church. No the early church in Antioch (or Ephusus,or Phillippi) were established by God thru the apostles and their writings. They did not establish themselves or have authority in themselves. Why would it be any different today ?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The early Church was sacramental, liturgical, visible, authoritative, and had the power to reconcile and forgive sinners. It was priestly, based on apostolic succession, believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, infant baptism, etc. Read the Didache, the Fathers, etc.

How does one reconcile that to an extremely loose band of folks who believe everything from soup to nuts about authority, the bible, no sacraments except baptism, vague theories about holy communion, and open rejection of the things the fathers taught about episcopacy and sacraments, etc.?

As tomalin said, the same Church that defined what is Scripture and not Scripture, what was not apostolic and what was, the same Church that defined the Holy Trinity and the Creeds, the same Church that shot down Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism, Docetism, Monophosytism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc. existed in authority prior to the assembling of the New Testament. This Church preached, baptized, reconciled, led, confirmed, and fought for Christ when Scripture wasn’t even close to canonized or even finished being written. Why should we then switch from confidence and respect for the One Church in favor of the Bible and try to prooftext and try to reconstruct a church and praxis that never existed? Sola scriptura makes no sense.

The Church is not just a bunch of folks who like to study the Bible and read it or preach it, it’s about authority handed down apostolically in a visible Church that is holy and authoritative. It’s built on the apostles, sacramental, priestly, and Scriptural.

If only we would all stick to the Gospel as given to the early church by God ,thru the apostles and Sacred Scripture.Today the same church that takes credit for assembling the bible also lowers it’s authority by saying people were saved without it before it was assembled, therefore salvation must be in a particular church. No the early church in Antioch (or Ephusus,or Phillippi) were established by God thru the apostles and their writings. They did not establish themselves or have authority in themselves. Why would it be any different today ?

 

[JDZwiers19]

I agree with your sentiment, Kevin. Catholics sometimes make generalities when they speak that can sound too triumphalist and tribalistic. Some Catholics, not all by a longshot. I hear some folks that want to give Catholicism credit for everything from creating colleges and academies to claiming Shakespeare was a Catholic to claims like, “C.S. Lewis really wanted to be a Catholic!” to which you produce documents from Lewis spelling out why he DIDN’T want to be Catholic EVER and then the response is, “yeah, well if he were alive today he’d convert!” LOL…hard to speculate that far out in left field…Then you show evidence that Plato, Aristotle, and the gang had academies/colleges and that Muslims also had them, etc. before and during Catholic university systems, etc.

Catholics often say they wrote the Bible. As per your statement, you’re right. They didn’t. But I give them credit for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to discern what was heretical and false and what was true, genuine, Spirit-breathed Scripture.

I think there is also often a propensity to reject the idea that the East played a huge role in things. Arianism was fought HARD by Eastern bishops! Many of these heresies were squashed thanks to eastern Christians when there was no Orthodox or Catholic but just ONE pre-schism Church.

But I also observe that the Orthodox sometimes don’t want to give Catholics credit for their greatest moments. Heck, if it weren’t for the pope, Iconoclasm would’ve won the day in the East and Orthodox Christians wouldn’t have even had icons It’s a strange thought, Orthodox should be grateful to the West for icons!

Although Catholics can exaggerate the facts (by no means making us unique) I have never heard a catholic say we invented academies. The only thing I have heard espoused is that the CC, and the Vatican in particular, is responsible for creating the present day college system. Vatican chartered schools (and there were many) were the first to allow people that received degrees from universities to teach at other schools by right. The pope also gave protections to the students similar to those the clergy enjoyed so as to promote dialogue and cooperation between the schools. Also they had very diverse curriculums where as Greek and Muslim academies usually only focused on a single school of thought and were very secretive and suspicious of other schools. At least this is what I have gathered from my own studies. The question is not so much whether the CC invented universities but whether the CC created the first schools that qualified as modern universities by definition. Do you deny the role CC played in developing western education?

As for Lewis? What can one say? He was an odd cookie. He was a man that claimed to be protestant yet seemed friendly to ideas like purgatory and works/faith based justification. In Mere Christianity he said he wasn’t Catholic because of fear of having to accept any doctrine defined in the future and not so much that he had a problem with the ones in the present. I have never seen a work from him on why he was not catholic. Do have sources? I would be interested in reading these? However, as to what you said I have never heard anyone say he “really wanted to be Catholic”. I have hear it said that he would have become one or that he was called home before he could convert so as to draw protestants into the Church (Peter Kreeft. If you are not familiar with him please look him up).

You seem to be searching for the truth with great fervour and you have my respect for that. However, you say you despise exaggerations but in this particular post you seem to be exaggerating a little yourself. I apologize in advance. This was not intended to be a rebuke or anything. I know you are willing to give the Church credit when you think its deserving, I just happen to love Lewis and the contributions the CC has made to the world and feel you may have sold us short in this particular post. However if Catholics have said this they are wrong or just failed to clarify what they meant.

You have my best wishes and my prayers.

 

[ron77nyc]

Of course God is the ultimate author of the Bible, but as Gurney has pointed out it was the Church who assembled it.

Added: so it seems kind of contradictory to me to claim, as Schaick did earlier in the thread, that the Church has no authority to define dogmas relating to salvation, since all we need to know about salvation comes from the Bible. As if the Bible just dropped out of the sky one fine day.

The early fathers assembled the new testament but their successors failed to read and follow the example of Peter.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”

Acts 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.”

If only we would all stick to the Gospel as given to the early church by God ,thru the apostles and Sacred Scripture.Today the same church that takes credit for assembling the bible also lowers it’s authority by saying people were saved without it before it was assembled, therefore salvation must be in a particular church. No the early church in Antioch (or Ephusus,or Phillippi) were established by God thru the apostles and their writings. They did not establish themselves or have authority in themselves. Why would it be any different today ?

Of course they can define dogmas but they have lowered it’s authority so much that they became more like the Pharisees than Peter.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

 

[Hesychios]

REPLY TO HESYCHIOS’ POST

As much as I usually enjoy your posts, Michael, I think this is a horrible analogy to be sure. You’re inventing a scenario I never claimed existed, namely that the pope, without anyone else in the entire Christian world, single-handedly obliterated iconoclasm. I didn’t say that.

But that is essentially what you said!

We shuuld be grateful to the Pope that we have icons! How else am I supposed to read that?

What my post indicated is that he was responsible as a leader for its end.

There was a lot of great leadership from the sidelines, where it was safe, Saint John of Damascus was another. The crises had to be dealt with where the police power of the emperor could reach people and hurt them.

If you look at iconoclasm, it was the Byzantine Emperor Leo III who went into an iconoclastic rant and agenda. It was Pope Saint Gregory II who came out swinging hard in the fight against his policies regarding images. In the autumn of 727 the pope convened a synod to discuss this crisis. The synod supported the use of images. Gregory then issued this amazing letter to the Emperor with heaps of courage and guts telling him his admonitions against iconoclasm and the dignity of iconographical use. This is his letter:

***Ten years by God’s grace you have walked aright, …
***]quote] That is just a letter.

It really didn’t do anything. It didn’t stop iconoclasm in the east. It didn’t even prevent iconoclasm fromerupting in the west.

Saint Gregory s a fine saint, an Orthodox saint, he is loved by the Orthodox, but he does not get the creditfor ending the iconoclastic controversy.
gurneyhalleck1;7139119:

So look at this letter and tell me he didn’t risk much in talking to the Emperor in this manner, Michael. It took guts and leadership. And the emperor threatened him with the same fate as Pope St. Martin, the martyr, remember? The pope wasn’t a bit intimidated and boldly shot back. I have that letter as well.

This was at a time when the empire was a mess in Italy. The Lombards had invaded, the empire was bankrupt or nearly so. The Arabs had reached the Bosporus and that was where the army was (this was actually the reason iconoclasm erupted in the first place).

The Byzantine emperor had no significant power in Italy, it’s presence was a mere formality at that point, the Arian Lombards had been already running loose for some time and the Byzantine provinces were in rebellion. The Pope was in no danger from the emperor of the East Romans, he was snug as a bug under the Franks and Lombards.

 

[schaick]

Of course God is the ultimate author of the Bible, but as Gurney has pointed out it was the Church who assembled it.

Added: so it seems kind of contradictory to me to claim, as Schaick did earlier in the thread, that the Church has no authority to define dogmas relating to salvation, since all we need to know about salvation comes from the Bible. As if the Bible just dropped out of the sky one fine day.

Whether the message is oral or written it is GOD’s Word.

Jesus starts HIS ministery chooses Disciples →
teaches them the message [Gospel message- Good News] HIS fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy->
message [Gospel message- Good News] is completed with Jesus’ ressurrection and ascension →
Christian Church has it’s beginning in Jerusalem

So you are saying the Church was formed first then the disciples started telling the message? Where did they get it ?