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

[Louie1983]

What if there isn’t? The message at the other denomination that I attend says to walk in obedience and trust God completely. How does that conflict with Catholicism?

***Ron, that doesn’t conflict. but what do they teach about our lady? abortion? homosexuality? apostolic succession? Papal authority? where the bible came from?don’t just look at one issue look at the whole picture when it comes to knowing the truth. Every church would say walk in obedince and trust in God, but there are critical issues need to be addressed here as well.

***The culture of secrecy. They are disobedient to the teaching of St. Paul.
Ephesians 5:8 walk as children of Light 9 (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), 10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.

***What secrets are there though? why concern yourself with the actions of dissident priests when what you need to know (the faith) is preached far and wide by the catholic church. By bishops such as fulton sheen, popes like JP2, Priests like father corapi. ***

I know they are very biblical but they don’t have bible study.

***Not to be rude but that is a poor excuse, there is an abundant of resources where you can learn what the church teaches about the bible. Websites, books, church father writings etc.

***Thank, I’ll take a look at it.

No probs.

 

[Louie1983]

A few of us have already commented on this. If you have the truth that doesn’t mean you will be OK. You need to obey the truth also.

Couldn’t agree with you more!

Many people do, many people don’t.

My point is making sure you the truth and obeying it. What other people do (priests, popes, nuns etc) shouldn’t sway you. There are people in other denominations who do the exact same thing as what has happened in the catholic church.

 

[ron77nyc]

There are people in other denominations who do the exact same thing as what has happened in the catholic church.

Let’s all stay away from them too. This is from post #438.

! Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world. 11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them that are without ? Do not you judge them that are within ? 13 For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, that doesn’t conflict. but what do they teach about our lady? abortion? homosexuality? apostolic succession? Papal authority? where the bible came from?

Our Lady is the mother of Jesus, abortion is murder, homosexuality is a sin. The bible is the inspired word of God. They don’t comment on apostolic succession and papal authority. Why would they? They’re not Catholic.

 

[Louie1983]

Our Lady is the mother of Jesus, abortion is murder, homosexuality is a sin. The bible is the inspired word of God. They don’t comment on apostolic succession and papal authority. Why would they? They’re not Catholic.

My point exactly!

Do they believe that the bible is not the final authority or word of god? do they accept that the oral traditions of the church must be accepted also? Do they accept that the bible was put together by the catholic church around 400ad?

My point is if you want truth then you have to accept it in it’s entirety. This includes papal authority, apostolic succession. The bible is not the only source.

 

[ron77nyc]

Do they believe that the bible is not the final authority or word of god? do they accept that the oral traditions of the church must be accepted also? Do they accept that the bible was put together by the catholic church around 400ad?

I have not met everyone in the church but I’m sure some are aware of it and some are not just as some Catholics know and some don’t.

My point is if you want truth then you have to accept it in it’s entirety. This includes papal authority, apostolic succession. The bible is not the only source.

I know about papal authority and apostolic succession.

 

[schaick]

That’s right, meaning church will not teach error because he is guiding it. It’s about truth.

Prevailing is not all about the Catholic Church teachings.

We have already been told that errors will enter the teachings of the Church.
Acts 20
29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

What will prevail is the community of people called out [no matter their denomination] that hold onto the truth left to us by the Apostles- Scripture. That Jesus: *“is the are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” *

The only thing we know for certain that has not been distorted is Scripture.

 

[schaick]

My point exactly!

Do they believe that the bible is not the final authority or word of god? do they accept that the oral traditions of the church must be accepted also? Do they accept that the bible was put together by the catholic church around 400ad?

My point is if you want truth then you have to accept it in it’s entirety. This includes papal authority, apostolic succession. The bible is not the only source.

Unless you have some concrete evidence a theory can not be considered a fact/truth.

Sacred Traditions about Mary, Popes, infallibility, even Apostolic Succession{except for what is handed to us in Scripture] can not be proved true or false until there is evidence.

If a theory is not mentioned in Scripture but shows up 100 years later you have no proof that Jesus commanded or the Diciples followed a certain teaching- it is not fact. It can be considered a fact that the church fathers followed the theory but nothing more.

Which is exactly why the Catholic Church had to develope the doctrine of Sacred Traditions and Pope infallibility- you can’t have anyone questioning a theory to find out there is no proof.

How can the Catholic Church require you to believe something saying it is requuired for your salvation when it is not mentioned in Scripture? You turn to Pope infallibility and Sacred Tradition.

Now I am not saying that following a developed Doctrine or Dogma is bad what is bad is when a belief is forced on a person or they are told it is required for their salvation.

 

[elvisman]

Prevailing is not all about the Catholic Church teachings.

We have already been told that errors will enter the teachings of the Church.
Acts 20
29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

What will prevail is the community of people called out [no matter their denomination] that hold onto the truth left to us by the Apostles- Scripture. That Jesus: *“is the are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” *

The only thing we know for certain that has not been distorted is Scripture.

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing” were the heresies the Church faced through the centuries - as well as the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

**The Church prevailed despite them all. You CANNOT have thousands of denominations - ALL possessing the truth. there is only ONE truth - the Church (1 Tim. 3:15). **Jesus established ONE Church. Rebellious men established the tens of thousands of constantly-splintering denominations we have today . . .

It cracks me up how you will adhere so firmly to the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura - without ANY Scriptural evidence for it - yet you reject Papal Infallibility and Church Authority and there is much Scriptural support (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 22:31-32, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 21:15-18).

 

[david_ruiz]

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing” were the heresies the Church faced through the centuries - as well as the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

The Church prevailed despite them all. You CANNOT have thousands of denominations - ALL possessing the truth. there is only ONE truth - the Church (1 Tim. 3:15). Jesus established ONE Church. Rebellious men established the tens of thousands of constantly-splintering denominations we have today . . .

It cracks me up how you will adhere so firmly to the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura - without ANY Scriptural evidence for it - yet you reject Papal Infallibility and Church Authority and there is much Scriptural support (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 22:31-32, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 21:15-18).

Hello, I believe you are in a pickle , for as priest once wrote,“You can not join the protestants,for the numberless and ridiculous sects of these heretics are an antidote for their errors”.Yet the same priest had to take an oath not to interpret scripture except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers. When he finally did read much of the Holy Fathers (not to become a priest , but much later), there was much NOT unanimous in them. Much of what on Father may write is to prove another Father wrong. The priests solution was to remain Catholic ,despite the fallibility of Origen ,Tertullian, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine etc.and because of the unanimity of the apostles and prophets,and Holy Scripture…As far as papal blunders , he considered the obligatory oath imposed by Pius IV to be a big, unfortunate one.

 

[Petergee]

Brothers and sisters in Christ. You are clearly trying to defend the indefensible. It is clear that nothing anyone says is going to make you see otherwise even though the evidence is right in front of you, the history books are open for all to read however you seem to think that it is completely irrelevent.

We are not defending the sins of the popes, we are saying that a pope’s sins have no effect on, and are completely irrelevant to, the fact thet his universal teaching is infallible.

I pray that the scales will fall from your eyes and you clearly see the truth. Im not saying you need to leave the catholic church, I believe we are all saved by grace through Jesus Christ alone irrespective of our denomination, im just saying I hope you will be able to see that the pope is a sinner saved by grace just like you and me and you need to read the bible for youself instead of blindly accepting another mans private interpretation. I know you will say that we blindly accept the words of eg white and some in our church probably do However I havent read her writings I only read the bible. Im a seventh day adventist (after 15 years in pentecostal churchs) because of what the bible says not what eg white says.

Really? You, tiotalloy independently of anything which anyone told you that Ms White said, by an incredible coincidence independently came up with exactly the same highly unusual, novel and amazing interpretations and additions to the Bible and Christianity, which Ms White came up with 150 years ago? Truly amazing.

I pray that you will be a roman catholic because of what you see the bible saying and not because of what the pope says.
Your brother in Christ sincerely Kevin

It’s great that you pray and read the Bible Kev. Whilst doing so, remember to say a prayer of thanksgiving that the only reason you have a Bible is that the Popes of the Catholic Church infallibly chose the books of the Bible and infallibly declared those books and no others, to be the inspired Word of God. After they had first carefully checked that every word in every book is totally consistent with Catholic doctrine. (Although your Bible is probably missing the 7 books which the British Bible Society ripped out in the 19th century to save on shipping costs).

 

[Protestant101]

We are not defending the sins of the popes, we are saying that a pope’s sins have no effect on, and are completely irrelevant to, the fact thet his universal teaching is infallible. Really?

The trouble with this idea is that we are ignoring the fact how that if a Pope sins, that too is a “teaching” and what does it “teach” people? I don’t see how any Pope could be infallible; nor do I believe that any Pope’s doctrines are “infallible.” A Pope, or any other man would have to be God, in order to be “infallible.”

(Although your Bible is probably missing the 7 books which the British Bible Society ripped out in the 19th century to save on shipping costs).

These books were recognized as not being legitimate scripture, that’s why they were taken out. It is in this sense; and in several other senses that we cannot consider that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. Papal infallibility should be changed to Papal humanity.

 

[Petergee]

The trouble with this idea is that we are ignoring the fact how that if a Pope sins, that too is a “teaching” and what does it “teach” people?

Certainly a pope’s behaviour is an example, either good or bad, for the whole Church. But no Catholic has ever claimed that if a pope does something, then it must not be a sin. If the head of your denomination committed a sin, say fornication, would you say that that meant that your denomination’s official doctrine is that that fornication is not a sin? Of course not. So apply the same common sense to Catholic leaders and their sins.

I don’t see how any Pope could be infallible; nor do I believe that any Pope’s doctrines are “infallible.” A Pope, or any other man would have to be God, in order to be “infallible.”

Or be guided by God.

These books were recognized as not being legitimate scripture, that’s why they were taken out.

Funny how it took protestants at least 300 years (beginning with the British Bible Society’s purely commercial decision to cut the books out, and then gradually spreading to most, but **still not all **protestant denominations) to supposedly “recognise” that the books are not “legitimate” - but according to what standard of legitimacy? Some protestants say the books the BBS excluded are legitimate, some say they are not, who decides?

It is in this sense; and in several other senses that we cannot consider that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible.

You may find that a comforting fantasy, but it’s totally contrary to the historical facts that the Catholic popes and bishops selected, approved, edited, published and declared canonical the books of the Bible, and in the case of the New Testament also wrote them. Every secular historian recognises this obvious fact.

Papal infallibility should be changed to Papal humanity.

Boy you really are confused about what Catholics belive about the pope. Be believe he is a human being. We don’t worship him as some sort of god!

 

[schaick]

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing” were the heresies the Church faced through the centuries - as well as the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century.

The Church prevailed despite them all. You CANNOT have thousands of denominations - ALL possessing the truth. there is only ONE truth - the Church (1 Tim. 3:15). Jesus established ONE Church. Rebellious men established the tens of thousands of constantly-splintering denominations we have today . . .

It cracks me up how you will adhere so firmly to the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura - without ANY Scriptural evidence for it - yet you reject Papal Infallibility and Church Authority and there is much Scriptural support (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 22:31-32, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 21:15-18).

Prove that the Catholic Church is the only branch of Jesus’ universal Church and not all of those called out.

g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   b) the assembly of the Israelites
   c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   d) in a Christian sense
2. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
3. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
4. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
5. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
6. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Actually the proof for Scripture being the rule measure, the need to search Scripture to see if a teaching is correct has been shown you proof.

It cracks me up how you adhere to Dogmas and Doctrines that have no proof. Those Scriptures in no way prove that Peter was an infallible Pope. Yes there is Church authority- all those called out must make sure their own local Church is preaching truth and ministers have the authority to make sure each of us is applying GOD’s Word appropriately in our daily lives.

You want a church built on a man the rock of Peter, you have exactly what you want.

I choose the church built on the rock of truth that Jesus is: the Christ, the Son of the living God

 

[david_ruiz]

I believe Cardinal manning wrote this for a pope , “I acknowledge no civil power;I am subject of no prince.I am more than this.I claim to be the supreme judge and director of the conscience of men: of the peasant who tills the field and of the prince who sits upon the throne of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the legislator that makes laws for the kingdom.I am the sole, last, supreme judge of what is right or wrong”

 

[elvisman]

Hello, I believe you are in a pickle , for as priest once wrote,“You can not join the protestants,for the numberless and ridiculous sects of these heretics are an antidote for their errors”.Yet the same priest had to take an oath not to interpret scripture except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers. When he finally did read much of the Holy Fathers (not to become a priest , but much later), there was much NOT unanimous in them. Much of what on Father may write is to prove another Father wrong. The priests solution was to remain Catholic ,despite the fallibility of Origen ,Tertullian, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine etc.and because of the unanimity of the apostles and prophets,and Holy Scripture…As far as papal blunders , he considered the obligatory oath imposed by Pius IV to be a big, unfortunate one.

Pickle? No. Only for those who do not understand the term “Unanimous Consent of the Fathers”. I guess that would include you - and unfortunately, your priest friend.

This term does not mean that the Fathers agreed on every single thing. Every human being has his own opinion. It means that they ALL finally agreed on doctrinal matters for they (many of them) did not individually enjoy the charism of infallibility.

When the heresy of Pelagianism was condemned by the Church in 416, St. Augustine was inspired to make his famous remark, “Roma locuta, causa finites” – “Rome has spoken, the matter is ended.”
THIS, in a nutshell, is the Consent of the Fathers.**

---

Whether or not they individually agreed on matters to the letter is not the point because they all bowed to the infallibility of the Church when the matter was settled doctrinally.

---

So, you see - there is no pickle - only a matter is misunderstanding Church teaching. Shame your priest friend couldn’t comprehend that.**

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sadly, it’s pretty predictable what happens when someone (me in this case) tries to start a thread with a solid premise just asking a simple question: folks who oppose the Catholic polity/papacy predictably get on and start laying out reasons why the pope is a sham, Catholics get on here and start defending him with a long litany of apologetics points.

That’s NOT what this thread is about. So can we please get back on topic? Please read the thread title and OP. Honorius is usually considered the lightning rod, the chink in Catholic papal claims armor that anti-infallibility folks claim proves the point that popes can not only err, but teach heresy officially. Pro-infallibility crowds argue that he was just guilty of a failure to teach. I’ve argued the former not the latter. But in any case, if the papacy were open to error and the ability to teach heresy, one would’ve thought that the popes would’ve taught heresies in the last 2,000 years apart from just Honorius, right?

2,000 years is a long time! And in that time, what other heretical positions can anyone point out that the popes have taught?

Some of you point out that he has taught heresies, just none that the Church would agree are heresies, etc. Valid points. But what about heresies we all agree on?

I don’t care if people point out heresies we all agree on or that just non-Catholics agree on. Let’s just try to stay on course without all the off-topic apologetics **multi-colored **antics, please!

 

[elvisman]

Prove that the Catholic Church is the only branch of Jesus’ universal Church and not all of those called out.

g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
   a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
   b) the assembly of the Israelites
   c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
   d) in a Christian sense
2. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
3. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
4. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
5. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
6. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
   Thank you for your dictionary definition of Church.
   I, however, prefer God’s definition (Matt. 16:18, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 1 Tim. 3:15).

You see, my angry friend - tens of thousands of constantly-splintering, bickering Protestant denominations cannot be right for ONE reason: There is only ONE truth - not tens of thousands.

Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration**, while others do not.**
Some believe in soul-sleep**, while others do not.**
Some believe in the total depravity** of man, while others do not.**
Some believe in the Holy Trinity**, while others do not.**
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture**”, while others do not.**
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell**, while others do not. **
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose** abortion, while others do not.**
Some believe that practicing homosexuality** is a sin, while others do not.**
Some believe in contraception**, while others do not – and the list goes on.**

Tell me, Schaick - using your heavily flawed definition of “Church” - who is right?

 

[elvisman]

continued . . .

Actually the proof for Scripture being the rule measure, the need to search Scripture to see if a teaching is correct has been shown you proof.

It cracks me up how you adhere to Dogmas and Doctrines that have no proof. Those Scriptures in no way prove that Peter was an infallible Pope. Yes there is Church authority- all those called out must make sure their own local Church is preaching truth and ministers have the authority to make sure each of us is applying GOD’s Word appropriately in our daily lives.
You want a church built on a man the rock of Peter, you have exactly what you want.
I choose the church built on the rock of truth that Jesus is: the Christ, the Son of the living God

There is no getting past the Word of God. christ established ONE Church - and NOWHERE does the bible even hint at different “denominations”:

Matt. 17:19
**Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you (singular), Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you (singular r), but my heavenly Father. **
**And so I say to you (singular) you (singular) are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **
I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke 22-31
**"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, **but I have prayed that your (singular) own faith may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers."

Matt. 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Pretty clear stuff about authority Christ left his one and only Church.
Tell me - WHO do Protestants go to when they need to settle matters? Jesus told us to leave it up to the CHURCH to decide . . .

 

[elvisman]

Sadly, it’s pretty predictable what happens when someone (me in this case) tries to start a thread with a solid premise just asking a simple question: folks who oppose the Catholic polity/papacy predictably get on and start laying out reasons why the pope is a sham, Catholics get on here and start defending him with a long litany of apologetics points.

That’s NOT what this thread is about. So can we please get back on topic? Please read the thread title and OP. Honorius is usually considered the lightning rod, the chink in Catholic papal claims armor that anti-infallibility folks claim proves the point that popes can not only err, but teach heresy officially. Pro-infallibility crowds argue that he was just guilty of a failure to teach. I’ve argued the former not the latter. But in any case, if the papacy were open to error and the ability to teach heresy, one would’ve thought that the popes would’ve taught heresies in the last 2,000 years apart from just Honorius, right?

2,000 years is a long time! And in that time, what other heretical positions can anyone point out that the popes have taught?

Some of you point out that he has taught heresies, just none that the Church would agree are heresies, etc. Valid points. But what about heresies we all agree on?

I don’t care if people point out heresies we all agree on or that just non-Catholics agree on. Let’s just try to stay on course without all the off-topic apologetics **multi-colored **antics, please!

Conversations about such topics must - and usually do - go down various tributaries to arrive at the answer.

As for your veiled reference to my use of colors - I’m used to your color-phobic attacks . . .