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

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the problem here is that some would say this argument you’re making is circular. And what you’re saying is, “Popes can’t contradict sacred tradition or the truth so no matter what this argument is over” really.

The problem is this:

Popes didn’t personally attend Nicaea or the other great Councils of the Universal Church. They never personally attended (I always found this ODD!?) so what did they do? They sent legates. When popes sent legates to fight against Arianism, you would say that is ex cathedra, right?

When popes sent legates shooting down Nestorianism, Donatism, Docetism, Monophosytism, etc. you would say those were official ex cathedra statements through papal legates right?

Then why when the pope sent a legate to the Synod of Cyprus was it NOT necessarily a big woop? That’s the whole in the logic that I see, respectfully.

It’s not just about letters written by Honorius I. It’s also about the synod and the biography of Maximus the Confessor in which it says Heracleus (the emperor) sided with monothelitism “and so with Honorius.”

Sending a legate, a delegate, to a council or synod is like Obama or Bush sending a diplomat with a certain agenda. It’s not the diplomat’s agenda, it’s the president’s. I can’t understand the logic of it not being owned by the president who issued the message to be sent. It’s a classic case of “don’t shoot the messenger.” Your approach seems to shoot the messenger pretty hard.

These types of arguments, and this is the part that troubles me, is that there are so many technicalities with this infallibility agenda. It’s so technical and legalese and inconsistent with the spirit of what I see in Scripture. Paul and his contemporaries were not so legalistic and bent on technicalities like this. I think at this point any Catholic can use exceptions and technicalities to try and get a pope out of a jam…

.

 

[guanophore]

You accuse me of being angry, not sure why- I am not.  What makes you think that?

Some of your posts drip with sarcasm, and have a resentful tone.

 Those verses do not explain the word Church or how it was used when those verses were written.  The dictionary explains the use of the word church in Matthew 16:18 g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia as it was used at the time of writing the text-as the people called out, people assembled.

You are right, the text itself does not explain what the word “ekklesia” meant when it was written. This is precisely why we read scripture in the light of sacred tradition. We understand the meaning properly when we read it through the lens of those who penned it. Ekklesia to the early church meant the assembly of people who had received the Apsotolic teaching, and were in union with them and the bishops appointed by them. Ekklesia included those who had already gone on to be with the Lord. It included Jesus as the Head, and the HS as the soul of the called out assembly. This is the Catholic undersatanding of Church.

 I have said all along that there is one true interpretation, but multiple applications.

Repeating errors does not make them correct.

The people that interprete the Bible in context of time and place without adding any undocumented beliefs or requirements to our salvation are correct.

Yes, those that interprete in context of time and place. The time and place of the NT is Catholic. It cannot be understood properly apart from the Church that created the documentation.

As for the second half of your comment, it assumes that all the beliefs of the Church were documented in the NT, which is not true, and it assumes that humans 2000 years after Christ are authorized to determine what is necessary for our salvation, over and above what Christ already committed to the Church. This is also not true.

Goodness in the Catholic Church itself today there are division-

I was not able to follow this.

people are not being true with themselves and following along like robots going through actions and prayers not believing what they are saying and reciting.

Yes. this is a sad truth. People like yourself, who study, question, and grapple with the difficulties have more integrity, in my opinion.

There are mere Christians that believe in Real Presence and Catholics that don’t. There are Catholics that roll their eyes when you mention Pope infallibility.

Which makes it shameful to call themselves Catholic.

Division didn’t start with the reformation, from the very beginning of the universal Church there were people that either believed and agreed or didn’t.

While it is true that divisions have been present since the beginning,the difference is that those not in unity with the Apostolic Succession were called schismatics and heretics.

During the Reformation, the idea was birthed that it is possible to have a valid “church” without the four marks of the Church that Jesus founded.

doctrines and dogmas didn’t stop them from believing differently, creating off shoots and forming cults.

Clearly recognized as such, and responded to by the Church as heretics. In our day, people espouse these same heresies without even knowing that they were already defeated in the Early Centuries.

Well I guess burning them at the stake might have slowed them down a bit!

This is a good example of one of those sarcastic and resentment laden comments I referenced above.

 

[guanophore]

Yes one universal Church that is not all completely contained in the Catholic Church with many parts.

One has to wonder why you feel the need to repeat this kind of statement. You have been shown on many occasions that the Church does not teach this either. Perhaps you feel the need to justify the existence of those not in communion with the successors of the Apostles?

The binding and loosing was given to all the Disciples. One thing about binding and loosing- no one has the authority to bind and loose something that has not already been bound or loosed by GOD.

The Catholic Church does not teach otherwise.

Luke 11
52"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

The reader is left with the impression that you are flinging this in the face of Catholics, not sure why.

In most branches of the universal Church it is the local Church [the people called out- the congregation] who is the ground and pillar of truth have the ability to correct or boot the improper elder, the minister who is preaching inappropriately, the pediphile, etc.

Since such ecclesial communities have separated themselves from the authority appointed by Christ, whatever internal discipline they set up for themselves to use for themselves can certainly be peculiar to themselves, as it often is. Most such communities “bible churches” believe they are conducting themselves according to what the “bible teaches”. Since they have received a “truth” that was deficient before they were born, then their ability to be the pillar and ground of that truth is also limited.

A meeting of all members is called, there is much prayer, sometimes depending on the situation a mediator is called in. There is not the hierarchy of multiple levels of church government and red tape that need to be passed through to solve the issue.

Hey, human societies have all kinds of governance methods, some layered, some not. At my place of employment there are at least 8 layers of administrators over me. Sometimes decisions are made that are very far away from the ground where I work. People have the freedom to govern themselves, and to choose the manner in which they do so.

 

[Louie1983]

As I try to move back to the side of Catholicism, some folks like yourself inspire me to do so. Others do nothing but accuse, trash, defame, and insult and don’t realize they’re doing more harm than good in apologetics.

Oh well, I’m used to it. At least my Giants shut out Philadelphia today! Matt Cain wooo-hoo! Giants baseball baby…

Thanks for the compliment brother.

But at the same time try not to let people’s comments/opinions/criticisms sway you whether they are good or bad.

Come back to the faith based on what the church’s comments/opinions/criticisms are (no doubt your doing this but the best of us can get side-tracked by people’s comment sometimes).

Pretend your st peter except don’t let the violent winds scare you when working towards our lord, otherwise you’ll sink just like him!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

sigh…

 

[guanophore]

If all popes had the character and obedience of Peter there would not be a problem with submission.

I think it has been clearly established that Peter did not have saintly character or obedience. Paul would not have had to confront him if he was Mr. Perfect.

Obedience is not predicated upon the perfection of character of the governed. It is easier to submit, certainly, but the Aposltes taught that we are to be obedient and submissive even to authorities appointed over us with poor character, arrogant, and otherwise disrespectful of those over whom they have been given charge.

Human beings resist submission to authority because it is part of our sin nature to do so. There are some that resist the authority apppointed by Christ even when that authority has purity of character and admirable obedience to Christ.

 Peter did not play games with the Church’s money and the Holy Spirit backed him up.

No, but he was a stubborn man, and slow to “get it”. God had to go to great lengths to get to him to see things at times. He also behaved hypocritically.

Peter did not accept praise or consider himself better than anyone else.

Are you under the impression that our current pope does?

Why is it that you and many others focus on the verses that require obedience by the average lay person and not the ones that demand obedience from church leaders?

Becuase it is the average layperson here on CAF that is defiant against the authority.

 

[guanophore]

I left the Catholic Church after I simply couldn't honestly maintain a belief in papal infallibility. It would be nice if there was some 100% on the money infallible religious leader that you could get guaranteed answers to religious questions. So I don't blame you for wanting to believe it. It sure would be nice but that doesn't make it true.

If you believe that the gift of infallibility means that everyone gets guaranteed answers to all their religious questions then you left the Church for the wrong reason.

Actually, I think that an infallible leader is only the second best scenario. Having God actually here running things instead of sitting above watching us all fight over what it is he actually wants would be the best way to have things. But its obvious that aint the way He's doing things. So I think people really want to compensate for that by following infallibly inspired religious leaders. So you have your popes, your LDS prophets, and you Sun Yun Moons, etc.

IT sounds like you don’t believe that Jesus kept His promises when He said “I will never leave you or forsake you” “I will be with you till the end of the age”. “I will not leave you orphaned”.

I think it is a coping mechanism for the real problem. God is not here in a very tangible way and **He is not very clear on what He wants us to do in the meantime**.

It seems clear that there is more to the lack of your Catholicity then just the issue of infallibility.

What brings you here to CAF?

 

[guanophore]

A secret knowledge, hidden apostolic teaching that didn’t show up until hundreds of years later? The information was not important enough to put into writing, but now is? It makes no sense that this information would be left out if GOD required us to believe it hundreds of years after the fact.

Do you think the table of contents for the NT was “hidden” for centuries?

It is a mistake to think that information that was not inculded in the NT is “unimportant”. If this were the case, then two years of Paul teaching at the temple in Tyrannus was “unimportant” and the instruction He gave to His Aposltes during the 40 days after his resurrection was equally “unimportant”. You are basing your rejection on a false premise.

It is regrettable that you received a deficient gospel, but it is not because the CC was trying to hide anything from you. Your ancestors willfully left those parts of the instruction behind.

The Trinity has Scripture proof, the Nicene Creed has Scripture proof, the 2 natures of Christ has Scripture proof, etc.. If it is in Scripture we know for CERTAIN it was taught/revealed by Jesus to the Disciples- we don’t know this about the Mary doctrines, that she is co-redeemer, co-mediator, Pope infallibility.

YOu conceive of what you read there as “proofs”, but it is not scientific evidence. It is divine revelation. There are parts of the divine revelation you accept, and some you do not.
You claim the evidence for them does not exist, while you are avoiding that evidence with every effort you can muster.

Does it matter whether a Christian knows if Mary was ever virgin or not? Was born immaculately? Was assumed? Do you really believe it is a requirement for your salvation?

I believe that it is God who decides what is required for our salvation, and not we ourselves. we are the creature, and He the creator. I believe it is an expression of hubris that we beleive we can decide this for ourselves.

If Marian dogmas, Pope infallibility are false teachings do you believe that the Church Jesus built has not prevailed?

I believe it is not up to you to determine what teachings are false, and which are true. You are free to reject what the Apostles believed and taught. It does not change the truth of them for anyone but yourself.

 

[Louie1983]

sigh…

Chin up champ.

 

[Louie1983]

If you believe that the gift of infallibility means that everyone gets guaranteed answers to all their religious questions then you left the Church for the wrong reason.

IT sounds like you don’t believe that Jesus kept His promises when He said “I will never leave you or forsake you” “I will be with you till the end of the age”. “I will not leave you orphaned”.

It seems clear that there is more to the lack of your Catholicity then just the issue of infallibility.

What brings you here to CAF?

**By the way, I didn’t post the above. That was someonelse.I was responding to this guy (trying to anyway).

Don’t know why it’s saying I posted them. **

 

[guanophore]

I know that’s what the Church teaches but I believe it is God alone that enables the Church to triumph over the gates of hell. Many of the Christians without a pope are also triumphing despite their errors.

Yes, it is God who promised the gift of infallibilty, and He that preserves and protects the Chruch through it.

There are no Christians without a Pope. The Successor of Peter serves the whole flock of God, including those members of his Body that are separated from the Apostolic Succession.

 

[shaky]

Hi Bob,

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

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

Are you still Catholic or…?

Hi gurneyhalleck

There is no such thing as a Pope being Infallible: The Pope does not teach new things by himself: Things are discussed and worked out by a Group number of Bishops First and by a majority vote a dogma is Agreed. All the Pope does is Establish it because he is head bishop.

Also i can see why the Eastern Orthodox church will no Reunite. When the split happend
In 1054 over makeing head bishop.> patriach>Pope of Rome Supreme. Over the 4 head bishops>patriachs>Popes of The Eastern Orthodox Church. Because of Peters Chair.
This Was decided by a Group number of Bishops In Rome;
Thats Like saying all the bishops in Rome are supreme over all the Bishops in the Eastern Church. ITS WRONG

 

[josephdaniel29]

I think the problem here is that some would say this argument you’re making is circular. And what you’re saying is, “Popes can’t contradict sacred tradition or the truth so no matter what this argument is over” really.

The problem is this:

Popes didn’t personally attend Nicaea or the other great Councils of the Universal Church. They never personally attended (I always found this ODD!?) so what did they do? They sent legates. When popes sent legates to fight against Arianism, you would say that is ex cathedra, right?

When popes sent legates shooting down Nestorianism, Donatism, Docetism, Monophosytism, etc. you would say those were official ex cathedra statements through papal legates right?

Then why when the pope sent a legate to the Synod of Cyprus was it NOT necessarily a big woop? That’s the whole in the logic that I see, respectfully.

It’s not just about letters written by Honorius I. It’s also about the synod and the biography of Maximus the Confessor in which it says Heracleus (the emperor) sided with monothelitism “and so with Honorius.”

Sending a legate, a delegate, to a council or synod is like Obama or Bush sending a diplomat with a certain agenda. It’s not the diplomat’s agenda, it’s the president’s. I can’t understand the logic of it not being owned by the president who issued the message to be sent. It’s a classic case of “don’t shoot the messenger.” Your approach seems to shoot the messenger pretty hard.

These types of arguments, and this is the part that troubles me, is that there are so many technicalities with this infallibility agenda. It’s so technical and legalese and inconsistent with the spirit of what I see in Scripture. Paul and his contemporaries were not so legalistic and bent on technicalities like this. I think at this point any Catholic can use exceptions and technicalities to try and get a pope out of a jam…

And perhaps the most tragic part of this is that none of theses arguments should be necessary. The Catholic Church got by just fine for centuries without dogmatizing papal infallibility. Why all of a sudden do it in the 19th century? All it has done is throw up stumbling blocks for individuals such as yourself and for entire Churches, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. If not for the dogma of papal infallibility there would be no need for Catholics to twist themselves into knots trying to defend Honorius when, if a Patriarch of Constantinople had behaved exactly the same way he would be condemned without question.

There are also plenty of examples of popes promulgating teachings that appear to contradict each other. On the issue of natural family planning look at what Pope Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae versus what Pope Pius XI said in Casti Connubii, or what Pope John XII said about the right of subsequent popes to reform the decrees of previous popes in Extravagantes and Quia Quorundam versus what Pope Pius IX promulgated in Pastor Aeternus, or what numerous popes have said about salvation outside the Catholic Church versus what the Church teaches today.

It seems clear to me that many of these popes promulgated contradictory teaching which indicates that one of them was wrong. I’m sure that the Catholics have formulated some argument about each of these as to why that’s not the case. That brings me back to my original point. If not for the dogma of papal infallibility none of it would be necessary.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good points. And, as you point out, these are precisely my stumbling blocks bugging me! Much-appreciated, joseph…

My Giants did it again! Two more, man, two more!..

And perhaps the most tragic part of this is that none of theses arguments should be necessary. The Catholic Church got by just fine for centuries without dogmatizing papal infallibility. Why all of a sudden do it in the 19th century? All it has done is throw up stumbling blocks for individuals such as yourself and for entire Churches, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. If not for the dogma of papal infallibility there would be no need for Catholics to twist themselves into knots trying to defend Honorius when, if a Patriarch of Constantinople had behaved exactly the same way he would be condemned without question.

There are also plenty of examples of popes promulgating teachings that appear to contradict each other. On the issue of natural family planning look at what Pope Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae versus what Pope Pius XI said in Casti Connubii, or what Pope John XII said about the right of subsequent popes to reform the decrees of previous popes in Extravagantes and Quia Quorundam versus what Pope Pius IX promulgated in Pastor Aeternus, or what numerous popes have said about salvation outside the Catholic Church versus what the Church teaches today.

It seems clear to me that many of these popes promulgated contradictory teaching which indicates that one of them was wrong. I’m sure that the Catholics have formulated some argument about each of these as to why that’s not the case. That brings me back to my original point. If not for the dogma of papal infallibility none of it would be necessary.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think the problem here is that some would say this argument you’re making is circular. And what you’re saying is, “Popes can’t contradict sacred tradition or the truth so no matter what this argument is over” really.

I never said a pope is impeccable. I said if and when a pope speaks “infallibly on faith and morals” (which is the only way a pope can speak infallibly, never on deciding political, administration, debates, encyclicals outside of “faith and morals of the Christian”) He does so on his own with the help of the Holy Spirit, sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture which can never contradict.

This legate disposal of a popes view on council subjects as you have stated here; does not qualify for an “infallible” statement. Besides it was Honorius personal letters to those in heretical error which got him labeled as a heretic 40 years after this death, never his Chair of Peter residing as Pope.

The problem is this:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

sigh…

LOL… I am right with you gurney give it time.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

While I don’t agree with every single thing stated here, I think overall this is the most compelling and well-stated argument in favor of infallibility that has been posted on this thread so far. Thanks very much, Gabriel. I cannot respond to each point, nor do I really need to, right now. I’m at work!

I never said a pope is impeccable. I said if and when a pope speaks “infallibly on faith and morals” (which is the only way a pope can speak infallibly, never on deciding political, administration, debates, encyclicals outside of “faith and morals of the Christian”) He does so on his own with the help of the Holy Spirit, sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture which can never contradict.

 

[simspt]

I never said a pope is impeccable. I said if and when a pope speaks “infallibly on faith and morals” (which is the only way a pope can speak infallibly, never on deciding political, administration, debates, encyclicals outside of “faith and morals of the Christian”) He does so on his own with the help of the Holy Spirit, sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture which can never contradict.

 

[josephdaniel29]

This legate disposal of a popes view on council subjects as you have stated here; does not qualify for an “infallible” statement. Besides it was Honorius personal letters to those in heretical error which got him labeled as a heretic 40 years after this death, never his Chair of Peter residing as Pope.

I hate to be a stickler on this point but does that mean we are free to ignore anything a papal legate said in any of the Ecumenical Councils? After all the pope personally attended none of them, he only sent legates. Also, how does that square with documents such as the Dictatus papae?

That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.

Considering the fact that the pope sent legates to every single Ecumenical Council, I don’t think Catholics can go too far with this line of reasoning. By doing so they divorce the papacy even further from the decisions of the Councils and that flies in the face of modern Catholic teaching.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I hate to be a stickler on this point but does that mean we are free to ignore anything a papal legate said in any of the Ecumenical Councils? After all the pope personally attended none of them, he only sent legates. Also, how does that square with documents such as the Dictatus papae?

Speaking in generalities on the topic of infallibility here; During a council, synod or Ecumenical councils the sending of legates by the Bishop of Rome is his participation in unity with all the Catholic Magisterium and correspondence to and from council which takes place without his presence.

There is only one council in church history that a pope attended recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It is very important to note here, that once the council has concluded the Pope completes its universal unity by affirming the councils findings excercising his God given authority to bind and loose with the Keys of the Kingdom entrusted to him as successor of Peter. With this magisterial unity with Peter the councils finding becomes “infallible” binding on the whole of Christendom, without the Pope ever having to excercise his own “infallibility” from Peter’s Chair.

Dictatus papae is never an infallible statement from the Pope. Dictatus Papae is a papal letter dictated by himself or composed himself. This Dictatus Papae is never published or circulated widely or made known outside the eyes and ears it was original intended for. It never dictates a teaching that is “infallible” or binding on all Christians, although the Pope can excercise his authority as Peter to the ears from his Dictatus Papae, but this Dictatus Papae never speaks infallibly or binding on all Christians, because it is never made public.

If someone has misinformed you with some other definitions, I would like to know what your interpretation of Dictatus Papae implies?

That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.