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

[gurneyhalleck1]

Like if I were to look at the priest and confess that I feel bad that the Giants whipped and shut out the Texas Rangers tonight. That would be a bold face lie and I’d be refused absolution

In Orthodoxy this can and does happen. I would assume that this is possible in the RC as well, but I would say it must be much harder to do when the penitent is anonymous and when most people are not consulting a regular confessor or spiritual director.

Beyond that, the confession must be made in good faith, this is a standard requirement. Pretending to be contrite in confession is an awesome sin directly against God, it is basically a bald-faced lie. God, who can see into anyone’s heart, would probably not be amused.

 

[Hesychios]

Like if I were to look at the priest and confess that I feel bad that the Giants whipped and shut out the Texas Rangers tonight. That would be a bold face lie and I’d be refused absolution

Sure enough! If the priest knows you like the rest of us do …

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

. Brother Michael, being an Orthodox Christian yourself, do you see many differences between Catholic and Orthodox confessions? What would say are the main differences and what they have in common? I’m totally ignorant in this department really but would love to learn…

Sure enough! If the priest knows you like the rest of us do …

 

[Louie1983]

Like if I were to look at the priest and confess that I feel bad that the Giants whipped and shut out the Texas Rangers tonight. That would be a bold face lie and I’d be refused absolution

well god may send punishment in the sense that he would let texas win

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

They might very well win the next game actually. Cliff Lee will be back with a vengeance, angry and embarrassed that he got womped in his first outing. But we’ll then get to win the series at home in the Bay which would be even sweeter! Play some more “Journey” tunes like “Lights” and have some fireworks, sourdough, garlic fries, chowder and light up coit tower!

well god may send punishment in the sense that he would let texas win

 

[po18guy]

Ha ha! How are you my friend? Long time “no see!” You don’t have to let me “get away with anything!” I would be disappointed if you did.

I will say though, that you have provided some evidence how the Catholic Church can, in the end, only claim her own authority, and not Bible authority for some of their beliefs. Your own leaders will candidly admit that it is by reason of your Church’s perceived/claimed “authority” ONLY that you hold certain beliefs.

With an unbroken line of succession via hands-on ordination, yes she does claim absolute authority both on earth and in heaven, just as Christ gave Peter and the Apostles. Clear from the bible is that Jesus sent forth Apostles to teach. They did. They ordained others by the authority given them by Christ. Got a better plan?

One of the reason I enjoy following Jesus; is because He is a Protestant. Jesus is my Protestant authority and rule of faith!! You have no way of proving me “wrong” because the word “Catholic” isn’t in the Bible either; but Jesus shows all the characteristics of a true Protestant.

What? Disunity, heresy, false prophets? Don’t think Jesus left that. Using only the bible, what does Jesus tell you about embryoninc stem cell research? Abortion? Human cloning? Same sex unions? Zip. Zero. Nada. Not in the bible. Now what?

About that “infallible declaration” you would like to see me “prove wrong.” How about showing me in official Catholic writings, a list of “infallible declarations,” and I will look them over and comment on one of them for you.

The bible. Prove the Church was wrong when she infallibly declared the canon of the New Testament. Simple.

 

[schaick]

]…
What? Disunity, heresy, false prophets? Don’t think Jesus left that. Using only the bible, what does Jesus tell you about embryoninc stem cell research? Abortion? Human cloning? Same sex unions? Zip. Zero. Nada. Not in the bible. Now what?

The bible. Prove the Church was wrong when she infallibly declared the canon of the New Testament. Simple.

Actually all of that is addressed in the Bible:

Abortion and embryonic stem cell research-it kills a human life. There is a commandment against killing.

Some question when does human life begin:
Jeremiah 1
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Individuality versus cloning:
Psalm 139
Luke 12
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

What I would like to see is a canon of infallible statements.

Also proof that Mary was born immaculate, she was assumed and is co-redeemer.

When you intreprete Scripture it must not contradict, Peter being the rock Jesus builds HIS Church on contradicts Scripture. There must be a tradition in the Catholic Church that outweighs or negates Scripture for Peter or Pope to be considered a Vicar of Christ-stand in for Jesus.

I would also like to see proof of that tradition- that Jesus built HIS Church on one man Peter or that “Peter was grafted onto the cornerstone” or that Peter or any Pope is the head of the Church when Scripture says otherwise:

Ephesians 2
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

1 Corinthians 3:
11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1
22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Colossians 1
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 Peter is one of many in the foundation.

1 Corinthians 10
3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

1 Peter 2
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

 

[david_ruiz]

Actually all of that is addressed in the Bible:

Abortion and embryonic stem cell research-it kills a human life. There is a commandment against killing.

Some question when does human life begin:
Jeremiah 1
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Individuality versus cloning:
Psalm 139
Luke 12
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

What I would like to see is a canon of infallible statements.

Also proof that Mary was born immaculate, she was assumed and is co-redeemer.

When you intreprete Scripture it must not contradict, Peter being the rock Jesus builds HIS Church on contradicts Scripture. There must be a tradition in the Catholic Church that outweighs or negates Scripture for Peter or Pope to be considered a Vicar of Christ-stand in for Jesus.

I would also like to see proof of that tradition- that Jesus built HIS Church on one man Peter or that “Peter was grafted onto the cornerstone” or that Peter or any Pope is the head of the Church when Scripture says otherwise:

Ephesians 2
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

1 Corinthians 3:
11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1
22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Colossians 1
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 Peter is one of many in the foundation.

1 Corinthians 10
3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

1 Peter 2
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Like your scriptures esp .that we are a holy priesthood…thanks.Several 1st and 2nd century fathers also say Jesus is Rock ,with no mention of Peter

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cephas = Rock from Matthew 16 nothing added nothing subtracted from this Aramaic name Jesus gave Cephas (aramaic)= Rock = translated Petros = Peter.

Your new interpretation to this text introduces a pseudo understanding from the translation with a forced protestant man made theological mindset that does not exist from the original author and scripture text. It appears you are wishing to find something in the air that does not exist about this Rock, when Jesus “renames” Simon bar Jona “Rock”= Cephas.

I believe Tertullian is talking to you here;

Here is a 2nd century father “Tertullian” speaking; On Monogamy, Chapt. 8 "Peter alone do I find- through (the mention of) his “mother in law”- to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the church, which, built upon him…

…If because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build my church,” to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom," or, “Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven” (Mt. 16:16-18), you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter; what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?
“On you,” He says, “will I build my church”; and, “I will give to you the keys,” not to the church; and, “Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound,’ not what they shall have loosed or bound”…On Modesty, Chapt.21 (all parentheses by Tertullian)

Here is St. Clement of Alexandria (not Rome)

From Who is the Rich Man that will be Saved? Chapt.21…“Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the Chosen, the Pre-eminent, the First of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying”…

St.Cyril of Jerusalem;

The Lord is loving unto man**…Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the Apostles,** denied the Lord thrice before a little maid… Catechises, No. 2:19

St.Augustine who was one of the last Early Church Fathers of this apostolic era;

(To Generosus,ca. 400) For, if the order of succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the Whole Church, the Lord said; “Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18). For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus…( St. Augustine goes on to list all the successors of Popes from Peter to Anastasius)

Tertullian who teaches the Popes speak infallibly when teaching ex-cathedra

“But if Peter was reproved because, after having lived with the Gentiles, he separated himself from their company out of respect for persons, surely this was a fault in his conversation, not in his preaching”…The Prescription of Heretics, Chapt. 23

No matter how you imply your late denial or protestant arguments to these ancient texts which proves the primacy of Peter and his successors in the Popes was believed in according to Jesus words of building his Church upon Peter and taught not only against heretics but to catechumens from these early church fathers catechetical teachings.

It may not be evident in plain English as you wish them too be at times, Yet the Catholic lived out faith from these early Church fathers is enough testimony that exceeds any documentation.

As Catholics we are the first Christians to hand down to you that Jesus is the Rock of our salvation this is never denied or new to a Catholic. What is meant about the Catholic Church is that she was built upon this Rock beginning with Peter who holds the Keys to the Kingdom of God on earth binding and loosing (infallibly) while Jesus binds and looses in heaven, as Jesus promised Peter to never leave him, it is in this never leave him that the Popes can speak infallibly because it is the teachings of Jesus being revealed in every age.

Peace be with you

Like your scriptures esp .that we are a holy priesthood…thanks.Several 1st and 2nd century fathers also say Jesus is Rock ,with no mention of Peter

 

[elvisman]

Like your scriptures esp .that we are a holy priesthood…thanks.Several 1st and 2nd century fathers also say Jesus is Rock ,with no mention of Peter

Looks like you and Schaik have a real problem understanding just what kind of priesthood we are part of.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests: Aaron, the High Priest, the Levitical or ministerial Priesthood, and the rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

**In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests: Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25), the Ministerial/Levitical Priests (James 5:14-15) and the general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).
Just as with all New Testament fulfillments, the fulfillment is always more glorious than the Old Testament type. **

Finally, in the Epistle of Jude, we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

To add to Gabriel of 12’s list of Patristic evidence – I also give you the following from Irenaeus:
"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church***, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles*; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.**** But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion" (ibid 4:26:2).**

 

[po18guy]

Actually all of that is addressed in the Bible: Abortion and embryonic stem cell research-it kills a human life. There is a commandment against killing. Some question when does human life begin:

I must point out that everything you have said is 100% your private interpretation of what scripture intimates. The majority of modern protestants now disagree with you on at least some points - some protestants disagree with you on most points. They have studied those exact scriptures for years, decades, and have come to oppose your opinion. Now what? How can you possibly say that you are correct and that they are incorrect? Same bible verses.

 

[po18guy]

Like your scriptures esp .that we are a holy priesthood…thanks.Several 1st and 2nd century fathers also say Jesus is Rock ,with no mention of Peter

Do you ignore the fact that Jesus Himself appointed the Ministerial Priesthood of Apostles? He nowhere gave any such authority to individual believers. Do you ignore Jesus’ own words because they do not support your novel twist on theology?

 

[po18guy]

Looks like you and Schaik have a real problem understanding just what kind of priesthood we are part of.

In the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests: Aaron, the High Priest, the Levitical or ministerial Priesthood, and the rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

**In the New Testament, there are *also *three levels of Priests: Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25), the Ministerial/Levitical Priests (James 5:14-15) and the general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).
Just as with all New Testament fulfillments, the fulfillment is always more glorious than the Old Testament type.

Finally, in the Epistle of Jude, we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

To add to Gabriel of 12’s list of Patristic evidence – I also give you the following from Irenaeus:
"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church***, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles***; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.** But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion"** (ibid 4:26:2).

Oh, those pesky facts rear their heads again!

 

[po18guy]

I find it extremely ironic to note that those who challenge Papal authority (forget about infallibility), use the Papally defined canon of scripture to do so.

 

[elvisman]

I find it extremely ironic to note that those who challenge Papal authority (forget about infallibility), use the Papally defined canon of scripture to do so.

Yes - that is the quandary of ALL Sola Scripturists . . .

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Papally-defined but not papally-written or inspired, I would assume they’d reply…

I find it extremely ironic to note that those who challenge Papal authority (forget about infallibility), use the Papally defined canon of scripture to do so.

 

[Neithan]

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:

Yes, sir. He could not have condemned it infallibly because that would have been self-contradictory.

The papacy is usually fallible, unless confirming Tradition, in an ecumenical council, or defining ex cathedra.

Perhaps Pope John XXII rightfully condemns an exaggerated sense of papal infallibility which the Franciscans at the time held, however, even that was not stated in an infallible context. I confess I didn’t read the document in full detail.

 

[po18guy]

Papally-defined but not papally-written or inspired, I would assume they’d reply…

Wiggle words! Personal opinion. Ego-driven assumptions. Can anyone show, from the bible, what the contents of the bible are supposed to be? Can anyone show, again from the bible, just when the Lord stopped inspiring the Church, lead by the Pope, in her declarations? To imply that inspiration stopped when the ink was dry on the final draft of the NT is, well, words fail me…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My kids used to like the Wiggles! Po, you, lost for words? come now! I think the Orthodox would argue that the “led by the pope” part is a stretch. Protestants tend to vary in their thinking as to when the Church departed from orthodoxy and Biblical-based theology. The Anglicans see it as a steady process that took centuries, the Lutherans the same thing, the Orthodox 1054, on and on…

Wiggle words! Personal opinion. Ego-driven assumptions. Can anyone show, from the bible, what the contents of the bible are supposed to be? Can anyone show, again from the bible, just when the Lord stopped inspiring the Church, lead by the Pope, in her declarations? To imply that inspiration stopped when the ink was dry on the final draft of the NT is, well, words fail me…

 

[po18guy]

My kids used to like the Wiggles! Po, you, lost for words? come now! I think the Orthodox would argue that the “led by the pope” part is a stretch. Protestants tend to vary in their thinking as to when the Church departed from orthodoxy and Biblical-based theology. The Anglicans see it as a steady process that took centuries, the Lutherans the same thing, the Orthodox 1054, on and on…

Well, the Church never taught or possessed “biblically based” anything. The bible is church-based, since it does not form a church, but reflects an already established Church. The Church had the entire deposit of faith (some of it written), and taught from that - the incomplete bible being only a part of it. The problem for many non-C/non-O faith communities is that they are “bible based”, since the bible contains only a portion of God’s revealed truth. The Church produced the bible, not the other way round. Confusion, division and disagreement is produced when reversing this process.