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

[guanophore]

It is man that has sewn up the curtain to the Holy of Holies ,so that now only priests can go in and laity is outside

Can you please explain what this means?

That is why you do not see “priest” being used in N.T. except that we all are priests, or by early Fathers, thru 200 A.D…This is just another point where Catholic tradition does NOT compliment scripture ,but rather contradicts it

It contradicts only in your mind, David. Did you not know where our modern word “priest” came from? It is a Latin contraction of “presbyter”. If you don’t see this in the NT and the fathers, it is because you are reading without any knowledge of history.

The CC teaches there are two classes of “manly” priests , the ordained and the laity ,in a general sense.It is sad that you see a separation for saints (sorry ,believers) in experiencing the fullness of His fellowship based upon the office ,or what "part " of the body we are. …

I agree that it would be sad, if indeed this did happen. But this is not the case in the Catholic Church. Each one has his own gift, and every person is called to the fullness of life in Christ not based upon “office” but upon their station in life. Each person has the potential to be fulfilled in Christ, though their gifts are different.

1 Cor 12:29-30
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

1 Cor 7:7
each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.

They are not “less” because they have different callings. All are called to fullness of fellowship.

I am not sure what a “manly priest” is, but the NT reveals what was forshadowed in the Old. there is a High Priest, a ministerial priesthood, and the priesthood of all believers.

We are all called to be persona Christi , imitators , even of Paul (Philippians4).

Imitators in character, but when the priest acts “in persona Christi” he stands in the place/position of Christ. This goes beyond following a godly role model.

What office you hold is inconsequential…

Not to the person who is in it, it is not. A person who has been installed in an office has a divine duty to fulfill it. They will have to answer for all they do.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account.

James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

As far as I know , Peter nor Paul held confessionals.

You really don’t believe anyone told their sins to the Apostles?

Why did James instruct the presbyters to confess to one another, so that they can be healed? If there was no confession going on, then how can sins be retained or forgiven?

.I can certainly forgive your faults against me , but if I give the gospel message by His power and spirit ,and you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, it is retained and can not be forgiven ,even by God,on the judgement day.

Yes, we are all called to forgive the sins of others, but only those ordained by Christ, through the Apostolic succession, are authorized to act in the Person of Christ and to retain or forgive sins.

We are all called to preach the gospel, and if that was all there was to retaining and forgiving sins, then there would never have been a need for this further instructions on forgiving and retaining, would there?

Then you have the added difficulty of explaining why the Apostles misunderstood Jesus, and taught their disciples to misunderstand, and why God was so weak and disinterested that He could not correct the Church for 1500 years.

 

[Neithan]

I find it fascinating, upon reading Quia quorundam that John XXII actually seems to say right off the bat that the doctrine of irreformable doctrine actually comes from the “Father of Lies” himself. Wow. franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html

Anyone want to weigh in on this?

I tried searching the thread for more posts on this but didn’t get a result, so just ignore this if you’ve already covered it.

While it’s shocking how forcefully Pope John XXII denounces papal infallibity in this document, he certainly does not invoke it himself. If this denunciation had been promulgated by an ecumenical council with papal approval, then it would be infallible indeed. But it isn’t concilar and does not contain any definitive pronouncements that a pope may revoke previous definitive pronouncements. Of course not, because pope John XXII did not even believe that he had that power. He would just be blatantly contradicting himself if he had used it. We now know that he could have.

As far as I know, there have only been two ex cathedra definitions in history (1854 and 1950). Some thought JPII’s 1994 rejection of female ordination ex cathedra, but that was more a confirmation of what was already infallible. All previous infallibility was exercised in ecumenical councils.

It’s ironic that Vatican I did exactly what John XXII was arguing for: his teaching was reformed.

Infallibility is severely restricted. The papacy can be profoundly fallible whenever they are not explicitly invoking it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks for your post, Neithan. But I think there are many Catholics in here who would disagree with your characterization of infallibility and what is and what isn’t infallible. It just goes to show how wobbly, loosey-goosey, and imprecise this doctrine of infallibility really is. It seems that nobody can agree to the particulars of it.

I tried searching the thread for more posts on this but didn’t get a result, so just ignore this if you’ve already covered it.

While it’s shocking how forcefully Pope John XXII denounces papal infallibity in this document, he certainly does not invoke it himself. If this denunciation had been promulgated by an ecumenical council with papal approval, then it would be infallible indeed. But it isn’t concilar and does not contain any definitive pronouncements that a pope may revoke previous definitive pronouncements. Of course not, because pope John XXII did not even believe that he had that power. He would just be blatantly contradicting himself if he had used it. We now know that he could have.

As far as I know, there have only been two ex cathedra definitions in history (1854 and 1950). Some thought JPII’s 1994 rejection of female ordination ex cathedra, but that was more a confirmation of what was already infallible. All previous infallibility was exercised in ecumenical councils.

It’s ironic that Vatican I did exactly what John XXII was arguing for: his teaching was reformed.

Infallibility is severely restricted. The papacy can be profoundly fallible whenever they are not explicitly invoking it.

 

[JDZwiers19]

Thanks for your post, Neithan. But I think there are many Catholics in here who would disagree with your characterization of infallibility and what is and what isn’t infallible. It just goes to show how wobbly, loosey-goosey, and imprecise this doctrine of infallibility really is. It seems that nobody can agree to the particulars of it.

Your choice of wording certainly seems like an attempt to put the doctrine in worst possible light. You might as well call the definitions of the Trinity wishy washy. The doctrine of papal infallibility is not imprecise it is mysterious. It doesn’t matter what certain Catholics think it is because it is not for them to decide what it is and how it is used. It is not the Pope that invokes it, the Holy Spirit does and he uses it when and how he chooses. It is simply one way the Church is protected and it has protected the Catholics and Orthodox to this day whether they think so or not. Even the Orthodox disagree among themselves as to the true position of the Pope in the Church. I have read 'You are Peter" by Olivier Clement and it seems he cannot even agree with himself as to the true nature of papal primacy. Difficulty in defining something does not make it loosely goosy. I prefer to think of it as mysterious.

 

[JDZwiers19]

I think a lot of the confusion is caused by people (catholic and others) reading their own bias into church documents and church fathers. I don’t think anyone can look at a doctrine like papal infallibility and be completely impartial. For example, Clement in his book claims to be making an objective study of papal primacy but can’t help but use the opportunity to take a few cheap shots, such as saying he doesn’t much care for the mass at St. Peters and calls it naive. It kind of came out of nowhere. It’s hard to take someone seriously when they cannot even hide their own prejudice.

 

[ron77nyc]

It is not the Pope that invokes it, the Holy Spirit does and he uses it when and how he chooses.

Would you say then that infallible positions that were true at one time in church history could be changed later on? For example: would the Holy Spirit say everyone not in submission to the pope cannot have salvation and then later on say there are some exceptions to what I said before? Because if we can say infallible teachings change according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit then I can accept that but if infallible proclamations are not to be changed then I think a few popes have made some errors.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s disturbing that you equate papal criticisms with trinistarian ones as if they’re one in the same issue? Distrurbing. I find the vague and imprecise definitions of the infallible statements of the pope to be a touch wishy-washy and confusing and so logically I must then find the Trinity to be wishy-washy? That’s quite a leap, JDZ!

You’re missing the whole point of what we’re talking about. I’m not concerned what all Catholics individually think. Heck, I’d love for the Church to come out and be more precise and lay out what is and what is NOT infallible that has been stated by the Church. But you know that that won’t happen. I find it interesting how you state that the Holy Spirit uses infallibility when protecting Catholicism AND THE ORTHODOX Church! They don’t accept the papacy as their magisterial leader nor do they believe infallibility is a charism that pertains to him but to the entire Church in conciliar congregation together. I wonder how the Holy Spirit uses infallibility to protect the Orthodox Church that rejects the very papal notions of it and are cut off from said charism? How does that work?

Mysterious, loosey-goosey, you choose the semantics but the point is the same—it’s not clear and yet we as laity are supposed to accept it lock, stock, and barrel. Catholics can’t agree on how it works, Catholics half the time can’t agree whether the papacy evolved or existed with these charisms day one, etc. The point is the unity that is often so boasted about in this forum isn’t as unified as one might think. I’m not trying to put anything in its “worst light” but just as how I see it—vague, confusing, contradictory at times, circular, poorly-spelled-out, and yet often cited by hardcore Catholics as the core.

Your choice of wording certainly seems like an attempt to put the doctrine in worst possible light. You might as well call the definitions of the Trinity wishy washy. The doctrine of papal infallibility is not imprecise it is mysterious. It doesn’t matter what certain Catholics think it is because it is not for them to decide what it is and how it is used. It is not the Pope that invokes it, the Holy Spirit does and he uses it when and how he chooses. It is simply one way the Church is protected and it has protected the Catholics and Orthodox to this day whether they think so or not. Even the Orthodox disagree among themselves as to the true position of the Pope in the Church. I have read 'You are Peter" by Olivier Clement and it seems he cannot even agree with himself as to the true nature of papal primacy. Difficulty in defining something does not make it loosely goosy. I prefer to think of it as mysterious.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If you read Dr. Carroll’s Christendom series of books like “Triumph!” and all those, they’re terribly biased in favor of Catholicism. It works both ways and it’s hard, as you say, to get a good impassionate “Vulcan-style” read anymore.

I have found Diarmaid MacCulloch’s books to be VERY unbiased and written with great precision and accuracy reflecting all points of view. Despite my disgust for his own private life choices, he’s an outstanding writer to say the least. Sometimes he goes over my humble head!

I think a lot of the confusion is caused by people (catholic and others) reading their own bias into church documents and church fathers. I don’t think anyone can look at a doctrine like papal infallibility and be completely impartial. For example, Clement in his book claims to be making an objective study of papal primacy but can’t help but use the opportunity to take a few cheap shots, such as saying he doesn’t much care for the mass at St. Peters and calls it naive. It kind of came out of nowhere. It’s hard to take someone seriously when they cannot even hide their own prejudice.

 

[joe370]

Gurneyhalleck1, I did not want to read through every post on this thread, but was curious as to what you were able to glean from all of these posts regarding your OP?

In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.

 

[guanophore]

 Difficulty in defining something does not make it loosely goosy.  I prefer to think of it as mysterious.

This is a very good point, and applies to all the mysteries of the faith such as baptism, Eucharist, the Trinity, etc. Some of these Truths are simply beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp.

For example, how is it that the Holy Bride of Christ is pure and yet, one person can join her member to a prostitute?

How can a council of Apostles meet, and emerge able to say “it seemed right to the HS and to us”?

I agree that this is not “loosy goosy”, but it is very mysterious and I agree with Gurney, hard to define.

 

[josephdaniel29]

While it’s shocking how forcefully Pope John XXII denounces papal infallibity in this document, he certainly does not invoke it himself. If this denunciation had been promulgated by an ecumenical council with papal approval, then it would be infallible indeed. But it isn’t concilar and does not contain any definitive pronouncements that a pope may revoke previous definitive pronouncements. Of course not, because pope John XXII did not even believe that he had that power. He would just be blatantly contradicting himself if he had used it. We now know that he could have.

I had to read this paragraph three times to make sure I understood you correctly. You’re saying that Pope John did indeed condemn papal infallibility, but since he didn’t invoke infallibility himself, then his condemnation of infallibility is not binding? :banghead:

 

[guanophore]

It’s disturbing that you equate papal criticisms with trinistarian ones as if they’re one in the same issue? Distrurbing. I find the vague and imprecise definitions of the infallible statements of the pope to be a touch wishy-washy and confusing and so logically I must then find the Trinity to be wishy-washy? That’s quite a leap,

Some doctrines of the faith are difficult and imprecise to define, but that does not make them “wishy washy”.

I find it interesting how you state that the Holy Spirit uses infallibility when protecting Catholicism AND THE ORTHODOX Church! They don’t accept the papacy as their magisterial leader nor do they believe infallibility is a charism that pertains to him but to the entire Church in conciliar congregation together. I wonder how the Holy Spirit uses infallibility to protect the Orthodox Church that rejects the very papal notions of it and are cut off from said charism? How does that work?

This is a very pertinent question, since the Orthodox have also received the Apostolic instruction and charism of the HS of infallibility. They also share our concept of it’s consiliar function.

Mysterious, loosey-goosey, you choose the semantics but the point is the same---it's not clear and yet we as laity are supposed to accept it lock, stock, and barrel.

Do your really think the Apostles “understood” Jesus when He said they had to eat His Body, and drink His Blood or they would not have life in them? They accepted it because He had the Words of eternal life.

Catholics can’t agree on how it works, Catholics half the time can’t agree whether the papacy evolved or existed with these charisms day one, etc. The point is the unity that is often so boasted about in this forum isn’t as unified as one might think.

You are not being consistent, Gurney. In the post above, you claimed that you were not concerned about what individual Catholics think, and now you are using the fact that there is misunderstandings and disagreement among them to defame the doctrine. You can’t have it both ways. Either you are making your arguement based on the ignorance/rebellion of the individuals, or you only care about what the Church really teachtes.

just as how I see it—vague, confusing, contradictory at times, circular, poorly-spelled-out, and yet often cited by hardcore Catholics as the core.

Unity is not defined by those who depart from it. The Teaching is unified. when individuals depart from it, they are no longer part of the unity that Jesus has established.

 

[JDZwiers19]

Would you say then that infallible positions that were true at one time in church history could be changed later on? For example: would the Holy Spirit say everyone not in submission to the pope cannot have salvation and then later on say there are some exceptions to what I said before? Because if we can say infallible teachings change according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit then I can accept that but if infallible proclamations are not to be changed then I think a few popes have made some errors.

The statement you are referring to says that all must be subject to the pontiff if I am not mistaken. Well what does the pontiff demand of his subjects? If someone honestly follows their conscience and never learns of the Church and is protected by an invincible ignorance do you not think the pope would consider that person a faithful subject? The original statements leave room for further definition. But now a pope says that a sincere person can be invisibly united with the Church as long as they do not reject the workings of the holy spirit. The Church has always taught that a person must consciously turn from God to merit eternal damnation. Someone cannot reject the Church if they do not know of it. This is a complicated matter that has never been made clear by the Church but I see no contradiction.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes. Jesus is the Rock, Peter was grafted into the Cornerstone, and was made into a Rock (that is why Jesus changed his name to Cephas), and Peter’s statement is also solid Rock.

 

[JDZwiers19]

It’s disturbing that you equate papal criticisms with trinistarian ones as if they’re one in the same issue? Distrurbing. I find the vague and imprecise definitions of the infallible statements of the pope to be a touch wishy-washy and confusing and so logically I must then find the Trinity to be wishy-washy? That’s quite a leap, JDZ! .

If you think a lack of clarity and a lot of disagreement disproves a doctrine then you have damned the Church. Name me one defined doctrine that has not created division and disagreement either before or after it was defined? Some took centuries to completely define. Perhaps more will be revealed as to the nature of papal infalibility. My comparison to the trinity was merely to show what a fine line you were walking. Not much of a leap if you ask me.

You’re missing the whole point of what we’re talking about. I’m not concerned what all Catholics individually think. Heck, I’d love for the Church to come out and be more precise and lay out what is and what is NOT infallible that has been stated by the Church. But you know that that won’t happen. I find it interesting how you state that the Holy Spirit uses infallibility when protecting Catholicism AND THE ORTHODOX Church! They don’t accept the papacy as their magisterial leader nor do they believe infallibility is a charism that pertains to him but to the entire Church in conciliar congregation together. I wonder how the Holy Spirit uses infallibility to protect the Orthodox Church that rejects the very papal notions of it and are cut off from said charism? How does that work?

They have watched the CC continue the work of the Holy Spirit through further councils and papal definitions and always responded with an accusation of corrupting the faith. I guess you could say it gave them a motivation to keep their own faith in stagnation. Although this is not the organic and growing thing Christ said the Church was to be it is still better then absolute apostasy. This of course is my own conclusions and everyone is welcome to disagree. I’m just throwing it out there.

Mysterious, loosey-goosey, you choose the semantics but the point is the same—it’s not clear and yet we as laity are supposed to accept it lock, stock, and barrel. .

How can you say that and not give credit to others who have rejected other doctrines that seem to make no sense? A slippery slope my friend.

 

[JDZwiers19]

You are not being consistent, Gurney. In the post above, you claimed that you were not concerned about what individual Catholics think, and now you are using the fact that there is misunderstandings and disagreement among them to defame the doctrine. You can’t have it both ways. Either you are making your arguement based on the ignorance/rebellion of the individuals, or you only care about what the Church really teachtes…

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Orthodox Church is stagnate?

Funny, that’s what Protestants always say about the Catholic Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s good to have someone of a like mind. Like the James Taylor tune…“You’ve got a friend…”

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**Did I say it “disproved” the doctrine? I’m simply saying that it is vague, ill-defined, and there is a lot of disagreement and lack of cohesion when it comes to how the charism is applied, carried out, and actually what has been infallible. If you seriously think I’m damning the Catholic Church, you’re way out in left field. But that’s fine. You can believe what you want about me. I know that that is not how I feel about Catholicism. I don’t damn the Church or the papacy. If you follow my other posts and not snapshots, you’ll see that I feel the papacy is the best hope for the re-Christianization of Europe, the single most vital force on the world stage for restoration of traditional morality, and is still the world leader in evangelization and ministry. I still do not agree with your Trinity analogy. It’s apples and oranges IMO but you’re welcome to it. **

If you think a lack of clarity and a lot of disagreement disproves a doctrine then you have damned the Church. Name me one defined doctrine that has not created division and disagreement either before or after it was defined? Some took centuries to completely define. Perhaps more will be revealed as to the nature of papal infalibility. My comparison to the trinity was merely to show what a fine line you were walking. Not much of a leap if you ask me.

What you would call “stagnation,” Orthodox whom I know would probably call it preservation and faithfulness to the deposit of faith. The old hillbilly axiom applies to Orthodoxy: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if the dogma ain’t necessary to throw down on the backs of the laity, don’t do it. They haven’t felt the need to define minutiae or to demand certain dogmas and finer points be required. They are not what I’d call stagnate. Orthodoxy has survived Islamic domination, communism and the Soviets, persecution to a high degree, and has spread to many parts of the world. It has preserved its liturgy and polity splendidly and never suffered through a Reformation or the tons of heresies that Catholicism has had…all without a papal presence. Not bad. Not constantly defining everything and innovating is not necessarily a bad thing. Looking at Vatican II and the N.O. Mass that came out of it and then looking at the Orthodox liturgy rich in tradition and unspoiled, if that’s stagnation, many would say, sign me up to stagnate! Morally speaking Orthodox seem fine to me. They are highly moral people without stagnation keeping up with the times in a just and moral manner.
They have watched the CC continue the work of the Holy Spirit through further councils and papal definitions and always responded with an accusation of corrupting the faith. I guess you could say it gave them a motivation to keep their own faith in stagnation. Although this is not the organic and growing thing Christ said the Church was to be it is still better then absolute apostasy. This of course is my own conclusions and everyone is welcome to disagree. I’m just throwing it out there.

**I must confess you lost me here. I’m just not reading you right. **
How can you say that and not give credit to others who have rejected other doctrines that seem to make no sense? A slippery slope my friend.

 

[david_ruiz]

1

4 15 **Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas **