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

[guanophore]

I’m trying to make a very valid point. The Church does not teach the faith clearly. Most Catholics don’t know what the Church teaches, so when a pope does something contrary to the deposit of faith he is leading them to believe it is the teaching of the Church. They actually are teaching error when they do such things.

There are many very poorly catechized Catholics. I was one of them. I never made any effort to learn my faith, so my understanding remained in a childlike state for many years. I eventually wandered away because I was carried by every wind of doctrine.

There are also some that teach error (wolves among the sheep) and some who teach wrongly because they were taught wrong, don’t know any better, are well meaning but wrongly equipped, or just misled themselves. However, it is wrong to say that “the Church does not teach the faith clearly”. This is like saying that Jesus did not teach clearly because some of the disciples were confused. Or that Jesus’ doctrine was wrong because Judas did not believe.

If people under Leo X’s watch knew the gospel they would never have bought that lie…

Ron, it may be that you have decided not to post on CAF anymore, and you are ready to relinquish your membership. For my part, I would not be disappointed in this, because I have been reading your posts for a long time now, and I see that you are an insidious and negative voice on the threads.

It is required that people who want to post here respect our faith, even if they don’t agree with it. You have been here long enough to know that calling the infallible teaching of the Pope “a lie” is considered disrespectful.

The fact that they did proves they were not properly taught. It continues to the present. Most Catholics that I know do not know salvation is a free gift.

Fortunately, they people did heed his teaching for the most part, and restrained themselves from falling into heresy as a result. I do agree, there are many Catholics who are poorly taught. You are a good example of this yourself.

I also agree that most Catholics don’t understand the relationship between grace, faith,and works in salvation. I have not noticed you doing anything to correct this, either. spreading lies about the Catholic faith will surely not help.

 

[guanophore]

The popes I quoted did not provide any possibility of salvation for a non-Catholic. When Father Feeney taught the same message he was disciplined. Were those popes teaching error?

No, they lived in a different time and culture, and believed that people who were not visibly Catholic had rejected the One Faith that the Apostles committed to the Church. They had no experience with the Modern American Evangelical movement, which is historically less than 200 years old, and has produced such a plethora of denominations it would have made the Popes heads spin, as well as Apostolic heads!

 

[ron77nyc]

It is required that people who want to post here respect our faith, even if they don’t agree with it. You have been here long enough to know that calling the infallible teaching of the Pope “a lie” is considered disrespectful.

I didn’t say it was a lie. I said they were teaching error. They were not doing it intentionally but they were not truly representing the Church.
I think you’re trying to sidetrack the issue. It’s not about me or what I think. It’s about what is infallible and what is not. The fact that the Church has never published a list of infallible statements proves my point. They are not clear about what they are trying to convey.

No, they lived in a different time and culture, and believed that people who were not visibly Catholic had rejected the One Faith that the Apostles committed to the Church. They had no experience with the Modern American Evangelical movement, which is historically less than 200 years old, and has produced such a plethora of denominations it would have made the Popes heads spin, as well as Apostolic heads!

St. Augustine was writing about the invisible church in the 4th century.

I went back to read my posts and Pope Leo was definitely lying when he accepted cash for reduced time in purgatory. That was intentional on his part. Pope Boniface and Pope Eugene sincerely believed what they were saying. They were poorly catechized also.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, all of them irrelevant.

Jesus appointed Peter to feed and care for the flock. He passed this responsibiity to His successor, Linus, and so on up until the present day.

Some of the sheep reject the shepherd appointed by Christ, and rebelliously and waywardly go away from him. The fact that they are rebellious subjects does not make them any less his care. He still has to answer for their souls.

If they are saved, it will be through the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Oh, I shall shout it from the rooftops -There is salvation outside the Catholic church.There is salvation outside the Baptist church .There is salvation outside the Lutheran Church.There is salvation outside Orthodoxy . Alleluia ! All you who are weary ,find rest in the Lord our Savior .You want to take credit , go ahead ,it changes nothing, if you are right or are wrong. Why do you NEED to take credit ? Why do you NEED to validate your “church”, really denomination ? You want to knock protestantism, go ahead .You want to exalt Catholicism , go ahead .May I not try to defend either of them .If you want to boast ,let us both boast of Jesus ,for He is the way the Truth, and the Life. I swear to you those in heaven do NOT go by "Catholic or Protestant, or Orthodox… We will be judged by the light we have been given.Churches will be judged by how purely they lift up the Word of God , the Lamb. Faith cometh by hearing ,and hearing by the word of God…If you want to get technical , “Salvation is of the Jews”, you know, those "dogs " as both Catholics and Protestants had a history of calling them . Like I said , if anybody is tired and weary ,of defending the indefensible (a particular church),may we find rest in our best ,the Lord in us, by His grace and by His Body ,that reached out and “touched” us .

 

[david_ruiz]

Actually, he fell for a lie from the pit. The Church cannot err because Jesus is her Head, and her Soul is the HS. It is the divine elements of the Church that prevent her from error.

Luther rightly recognized that the leaders were in need of reform. Men are always in need of reform. His “enlightenment” though, misled him to believe that the Doctrines of Jesus, preserved infallibly in the Church, also needed reform, because the leaders were not following them. This mistake led him into the mistake of Sola Scriptura, one he came to regret at the end of his life.

Thank-you .I have trouble when people defend their church ,even though their leaders can be bad .Hey , if my pastor goes bad and stays bad ,that is a reflection on my entire church and on myself. There is no way around that.You nicely but strangely admit Catholic errors,in it’s leaders yet defend Catholicism. “Doctrines of Jesus” is totally debateable .He held on to all of those , in my opinion .He held on to some Catholic stuff too which I do not think were doctrines of Jesus, in my opinion. Whatever sola scriptura is , he did what all defenders of the faith have done in the past, use scripture, like Augustine against the Donatists. …Yes the church , His Body , will be presented as pure. Just like souls may have to be purified in purgatory, what makes you think churches will not go thru the same. As far as not erring ,according to Revelations ,she she can and will. The Holy Spirit is the "soul ’ of the church .Never heard that .He is in anyone born again ,and He is with any “gathering” of two or more.He does guide ,but ,again ,according to Revelations ,an individual and a church can reject some of His guidance , hence the question when He returns , will there be faith on the earth ? ,and can you endure to the end ?..I would have to see if indeed Luther recanted Sola Scriptura. I know he did not like some of the political unrest that ensued (was not his fault ,for under catholicism -religion was politics).and perhaps he regretted those that went further in “reform”,do not know.I am not Lutheran.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

David, my good brother in Christ, calm down my brutha! Calm down! My Giants just advanced to the NLCS and I’m not this excited (ok, yes I am! but I’m keeping a lid on it! ). Calm! Calm!

Oh, I shall shout it from the rooftops -There is salvation outside the Catholic church.There is salvation outside the Baptist church .There is salvation outside the Lutheran Church.There is salvation outside Orthodoxy . Alleluia ! All you who are weary ,find rest in the Lord our Savior .You want to take credit , go ahead ,it changes nothing, if you are right or are wrong. Why do you NEED to take credit ? Why do you NEED to validate your “church”, really denomination ? You want to knock protestantism, go ahead .You want to exalt Catholicism , go ahead .May I not try to defend either of them .If you want to boast ,let us both boast of Jesus ,for He is the way the Truth, and the Life. I swear to you those in heaven do NOT go by "Catholic or Protestant, or Orthodox… We will be judged by the light we have been given.Churches will be judged by how purely they lift up the Word of God , the Lamb. Faith cometh by hearing ,and hearing by the word of God…If you want to get technical , “Salvation is of the Jews”, you know, those "dogs " as both Catholics and Protestants had a history of calling them . Like I said , if anybody is tired and weary ,of defending the indefensible (a particular church),may we find rest in our best ,the Lord in us, by His grace and by His Body ,that reached out and “touched” us .

 

[guanophore]

I didn't say it was a lie. I said they were teaching error.

I’m trying to make a very valid point…if people under Leo X’s watch knew the gospel they would never have bought that lie.

So, when the Popes made infallible statements, it was an error. When Leo was practicing Simony, it was a lie?

    They were not doing it intentionally but they were not truly representing the Church.

If you are talking about the infallible statements of the popes, they were both intentional and representative of the church. They were reiterating what the Church has always believed and taught.

I think you’re trying to sidetrack the issue. It’s not about me or what I think.

Trying to figure out whether you think it is an error, or a lie is definitely a journey down a not so scenic route.

Indeed, it is all about what you think. You think the infallible pronouncements of the Popes are errors, or lies, or both?

 The fact that the Church has never published a list of infallible statements proves my point. They are not clear about what they are trying to convey.

I am willing to accept that it is not clear to you.

I went back to read my posts and Pope Leo was definitely lying when he accepted cash for reduced time in purgatory.

Your own posts revealed to you the state of Leo’s soul?

That is quite a gift.

That was intentional on his part. Pope Boniface and Pope Eugene sincerely believed what they were saying. They were poorly catechized also.

Yes, Leo’s simony was intentional. He was a wolf among the sheep, along with Tetzel.

Boniface and Eugene spoke what has always been believed and held by the Church. To say they were poorly catechized indicates that you don’t understand the historical and cultural factors they addressed.

 

[Petergee]

I gave you 3 examples.

No, you made 3 claims, all false.

 

[Petergee]

Gurney,

I'm jsut coming into this discussion and it's too long to review, but have the bulls of Nicholas V condoning slavery been discussed?  I realize that a bull is not an encyclical, but they were/are paid attention to and in this case exerted a direct and very deleterious effect on millions of people.

A direct steal from Wiki, under “Nicholas V”:

In 1452, Nicholas V issued the papal bull*** Dum Diversas,*** granting the King of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. *** Dum Diversas *legitimised the colonial slave trade that begun around this time with the expeditions by Henry the Navigator to find a sea route to India, which were financed with African slaves. This approval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex of 1455.

I am not prepared to argue the Latin, theological points, etc., but simply say, there it is.

I won’t bother refuting the gross exaggerations and distortions of wikipedia’s account, but yes, all popes sinned and also most if not all popes tolerated, permitted and encouraged others to sin. That has nothing to do with infallibility.

 

[ron77nyc]

So, when the Popes made infallible statements, it was an error. When Leo was practicing Simony, it was a lie?

Of course to both. Leo the liar. The word simony comes from Simon the sorcerer.
Acts 8:18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 “You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God."

If you are talking about the infallible statements of the popes, they were both intentional and representative of the church. They were reiterating what the Church has always believed and taught.

Trying to figure out whether you think it is an error, or a lie is definitely a journey down a not so scenic route.
Indeed, it is all about what you think. You think the infallible pronouncements of the Popes are errors, or lies, or both?

It’s not complicated; a lie is intentional, an error is unintentional. Pope Eugene and Pope Boniface were not intentionally trying to deceive. They were in error.

Boniface and Eugene spoke what has always been believed and held by the Church. To say they were poorly catechized indicates that you don’t understand the historical and cultural factors they addressed.

Yes I say they were poorly catechized because they didn’t acknowledge the invincibly ignorant or baptism of desire. They not only misrepresented the Church but they misrepresented God and did it infallibly. An infallible statement is an eternal truth, inspired by God and unchangeable. Father Feeney said the same thing and was disciplined. How is an infallible truth acceptable in the middle ages and not acceptable in the 20th century?

If they were saying what the Church has always taught then the catechism is saying something the Church has not always taught.

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

Your own posts revealed to you the state of Leo’s soul?

That is quite a gift.

Yes, Leo’s simony was intentional. He was a wolf among the sheep, along with Tetzel.

Well then we agree on something.Thank you but I can’t take full credit. I got it from reading the bible. In acts we have the first pope correcting the sorcerer. 15 centuries later we have the pope immitating the sorcerer.

 

[ron77nyc]

No, you made 3 claims, all false.

What’s wrong with these?

These are all examples of popes teaching contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Popes Eugene IV, Boniface VIII and Pius XI infallibly proclaimed that non-Catholics are not saved.

Peter was teaching circumcision.

Pope Leo X was allowing people to pay for indulgences.

 

[schaick]

Yes it is. It passes the 4 tests of infallibility and it has the words “pronounce, declare, and define” attached to it.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html
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.)

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, **we pronounce, declare, and define **it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

This is also an infallible statement.

**We declare, say, define, and pronounce **that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Boniface VIII: “Unam Sanctam,”

OK so in this case **Tradition outweighs what Scripture says is required forv my salvation. ** I find that interesting considering Tradition and Scriptue is to be considered on equal footing.

Even though no one has been able to show any evidence that there were no gaps in following a tradition. *

Why would a teaching or tradition shown in Scripture need an infallible statement? The information is there you either believe it or you don’t- the concept of the Trinity, the nature of Jesus, etc. The early doctrines surrounding Jesus simply help explain what was in Scripture-the truth-infallible evidence of GOD’s Word.

It is that belief of a newly **developed **dogma or doctrine that has **no evidence from Scripture **but an **unrecorded tradition **that would need the doctrine of infallibility to proclaim and require a people to believe.

There is no way of proving truth, there is no evidence. You simply must believe the developed doctrines because the Catholic Church teaches it.*

 

[schaick]

Your own posts revealed to you the state of Leo’s soul?

That is quite a gift.

.

Galatians 5
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

 

[david_ruiz]

David, my good brother in Christ, calm down my brutha! Calm down! My Giants just advanced to the NLCS and I’m not this excited (ok, yes I am! but I’m keeping a lid on it! ). Calm! Calm!

thank-you .I am laughing cause you are right ,calm down,but on the other hand…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I needed to calm down last night, excited, fired-up, thrilled about my Giants winning the NLDS. Then I look at what we’re up against this weekend—Philadelphia…sigh…

thank-you .I am laughing cause you are right ,calm down,but on the other hand…

 

[Petergee]

What’s wrong with these?

3 (or 5) groundless allegations do not add up to one proof.

 

[ron77nyc]

3 (or 5) groundless allegations do not add up to one proof.

I suppose you’re right. Maybe they never happened.

 

[KevnLee]

Brothers and Sisters in Christ
Please hear my heart, I do not say this out of vindictivness or sarcasm but how can you say that popes are infallible with issues if morals and ethics when they ordered the wholesale slaughter of tens of millions of innocent Christian men women and children during the dark ages simply because they chose to follow the dictates of their conscience and Gods word instead of the catholic church. Brothers and sisters it dosent get any more immoral and unethical than that. I have read in other posts that you believe jesus was refering to the catholic church when he said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you”. Do you really believe that, it seems to me that the gates of hell have had a proverbial field day with the catholic church. Again I dont say that out of sarcasm. I do not wish to mock your beliefs however this is a question that has been in the back of just about every protestants mind
yours in Christ.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Kevn,

You’re making the error of confusing impeccability with infallibility. No pope claims to be behaviorally perfect or even close to it. Some popes have been downright audacious and personally sinful like mad. Some led debauched lives and made very poor decisions.

Impeccability is perfection in behavior and action. No Catholic ever claimed that exists.

Infallibility is a charism, according to Catholicism, given to the pope when he speaks officially about morality and theological matters binding to the consciences of the faithfull in the Church. It is only when teaching in an official capacity about faith and morals. If a pope tells soldiers to march in a crusade, that has nothing to do with teaching the faith and protecting doctrines of the Church. That’s about politics and non-theological matters, no teaching office implied. Hope that helps.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ
Please hear my heart, I do not say this out of vindictivness or sarcasm but how can you say that popes are infallible with issues if morals and ethics when they ordered the wholesale slaughter of tens of millions of innocent Christian men women and children during the dark ages simply because they chose to follow the dictates of their conscience and Gods word instead of the catholic church. Brothers and sisters it dosent get any more immoral and unethical than that. I have read in other posts that you believe jesus was refering to the catholic church when he said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you”. Do you really believe that, it seems to me that the gates of hell have had a proverbial field day with the catholic church. Again I dont say that out of sarcasm. I do not wish to mock your beliefs however this is a question that has been in the back of just about every protestants mind
yours in Christ.

 

[KevnLee]

Kevn,

You’re making the error of confusing impeccability with infallibility. No pope claims to be behaviorally perfect or even close to it. Some popes have been downright audacious and personally sinful like mad. Some led debauched lives and made very poor decisions.

Impeccability is perfection in behavior and action. No Catholic ever claimed that exists.

Infallibility is a charism, according to Catholicism, given to the pope when he speaks officially about morality and theological matters binding to the consciences of the faithfull in the Church. It is only when teaching in an official capacity about faith and morals. If a pope tells soldiers to march in a crusade, that has nothing to do with teaching the faith and protecting doctrines of the Church. That’s about politics and non-theological matters, no teaching office implied. Hope that helps.

Im not sure I understand your answer brother or sister. Are you saying that a pope can murder for political reasons but still be a legitimate spiritual/religious leader in Gods eyes? if so I couldnt dissagree more. I dont believe that God draws a line of demarkation between ones religious actions and his political actions. If that was the case , there is no reason why hitler couldnt have been a pope. Murder is murder in Gods eyes wheather it is politically or religiously motivated. Ones religious beliefs should dictate what he does in every facet of his life therefore you cant say that what one does in his political life is irrelevant in their religious life. I hope I have simply misunderstood what you wer saying.