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

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re preaching to the choir, po. I’m just telling you what they’d say most likely. And I’m glad you threw in a good “naught” for the afternoon. Very Shakespearean of you But soft! Foresooth!

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.

 

[po18guy]

You’re preaching to the choir, po. I’m just telling you what they’d say most likely. And I’m glad you threw in a good “naught” for the afternoon. Very Shakespearean of you But soft! Foresooth!

My standard question to those who doubt the value of the Pope: At work you have a mission statement, right? Now, does each employee read it and do their own thing, or is there an ‘old man’ in charge to keep things headed in the right direction? This is simply how human organizations must operate.

p.s. Get out of Kalifornia, even for a couple of weeks, and it will be much easier to decide a faith communion…

 

[david_ruiz]

I believe Tertullian is talking to you here;

 

[david_ruiz]

You’re preaching to the choir, po. I’m just telling you what they’d say most likely. And I’m glad you threw in a good “naught” for the afternoon. Very Shakespearean of you But soft! Foresooth!

Congrats .Edgar Renteria -2 series winning hits in his carreer !!!.That is all I was thinking of when he was at the plate before his homer -could it be this guy, so low on the totem pole? and bang, he did it! Begins his career and possibly ends it in such a fashion -quite a story .Happy for you, from New York territory…And hey everybody -NO MORE DEMOCRATS ! -VOTE TOMORROW !

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You lost me with the p.s., po? I LOVE CALIFORNIA, man! I wouldn’t live in any other state in this country. My GIANTS just won the World Series, best weather in the nation, awesome people, gorgeous landscapes, awesome place to live. Born and raised here. Love it!

My standard question to those who doubt the value of the Pope: At work you have a mission statement, right? Now, does each employee read it and do their own thing, or is there an ‘old man’ in charge to keep things headed in the right direction? This is simply how human organizations must operate.

p.s. Get out of Kalifornia, even for a couple of weeks, and it will be much easier to decide a faith communion…

 

[david_ruiz]

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).

Read Hebrews .Read Hebrews. Iraneus was speaking to those who were heretics ,not because they did not believe in the pope or succession or Mat16,but major Christology issues .I am in total agreement with Iraneus ,that I better believe like Peter and Paul and all who followed them and "their "belief’s, This is true succession -belief’s and sanctification because of them (works-because of faith _James)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m so proud of my Giants man, words can’t express the feeling. 54 years drought. Years of my Dodgers fan friends rubbing it in how they had 3 WS trophies since they came out in 1958 to California and we have nothing but four pennants and no rings. What a night!

Renteria had 3 trips to the DL this year. I thought he was a hack for the last couple years; proved me wrong. Renteria, Ross, Huff, Posey, all heroes man. Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Wilson, Lopez, instant legends!

As for the no more Democrats thing, I have mixed feelings. I voted for six Republicans, six Democrats on my ballot. I’m an independent, something I regularly take a beating for on this forum, like tonight.

thanks for the wishes, man!

Congrats .Edgar Renteria -2 series winning hits in his carreer !!!.That is all I was thinking of when he was at the plate before his homer -could it be this guy, so low on the totem pole? and bang, he did it! Begins his career and possibly ends it in such a fashion -quite a story .Happy for you, from New York territory…And hey everybody -NO MORE DEMOCRATS ! -VOTE TOMORROW !

 

[david_ruiz]

these ancient texts which proves the primacy of Peter and his successors

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well if I recall the point you boasted about is that no 2nd or 3rd century Father taught Peter as Jesus building his church upon by quoting Mt.16. And I gave you this one;

I believe Tertullian is talking to you here;

…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)

Can you answer Tertullians questions because he is addressing your denial about Peter being the Rock Jesus built his church. You might try and rereading this 2nd century Catholic Church Father point by point without adding a protestant thought because it did not exist back in apostolic times.

You are incorrect, because Ireneaus and others list the succession of Peter and the popes to prove the apostolicity of the Catholic Church and its authenticity from Jesus Christ himself.

The reason you have not the eyes to see nor the ears to hear because these great Saints, Martyrs and Catholic teachers are revealing their Catholic faith in writing to certain audiences that revealing Peter as Rock and possessor of the keys of the kingdom of God was not necessary, which you do not comprehend from reading their faithful and obedient Catholic hearts to the magisterium, which is foreign to your new ideology from late protestantism. What you fail to see is that these early Church Fathers are all united to Peter as one Catholic faith. Again no matter how you mince the translated words by adding your every wind of doctrine and protest, it never fits the faith of these great Apostolic successors to the original Apostles.

Reading these early Church Fathers, one has read them from their Catholic Faith for which they went to their deaths for, not forcing a new interpretation to try and collect support for a foreign protestant ideology that they never heard of. This same rule applies to the scriptures. If you don’t have the first century Apostolic Traditional teaching, how are going to be able to qualify the scriptures as infallible? Only the Catholic Church has been given the keys from Jesus Christ to teach, feed, and tend the flock of Jesus Christ. Sounds triumphant yes, but I did not say it, Iam only repeating what Jesus and the scriptures teach. See 1 Tim.3:15

Tertullian does not help your case my friend, he slammed it shut, since the second century. We have not mentioned the other Church Fathers yet, nor the pagan emperors who recognized the authority of the Popes sitting in Peter’s chair and these are secular powers who recognized the Popes as having Peter’s primacy as the key holder of the kingdom of God given to him personally by Jesus himself. God has never left his flock unattended, be it with Abraham, Moses, Kings, Judges, Jesus who leaves Peter as Vicar until Jesus returns.

**The Papacy evolved yes **into what it is today, **but it began by Jesus “building” (present tense always) his church upon Peter and his successors in the Popes which has never changed; **as St. Irenaeus points out when Peter and Paul appointed the first successor Pope Linus and thereafter to today in Pope Benedict XVI with unbroken succession from Peter who was given the Keys to the Kingdom of God singularly.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree there have been other Christians throughout the centuries who have introduced every wind of doctrine. But the Catholic church has always measured them up to the revelations of Jesus Christ and the apostolic writings and oral Traditional teachings. When they don’t meet these infallible teachings from Jesus Christ, and they don’t repent, Peter and the Popes along with the apostolic successors have bind and loosed these new christian ideologies from the Kingdom of God.

It is a historical fact that Muhammad was a contemporary to 3 different Christianities that were excommunicated from the Catholic Apostolic Church. And realized that his Epilepsy attacks revealed his new religion apart from these 3 heretical Christian churches that Muhammad lived among. Had Muhammad visited the Pope, maybe things would of been different today, insteading passing judment on 3 disagreeing heretical Christian groups in his time.

It appears that you are asking a Rock to change? This Rock cannot, has not and will never change. I grant that their is cultural and liturgical rites practiced differently in Catholicism. But these same diversed Catholic communities remained united to fend off new offshoots to the apostolic Catholic Church and officially named them heretical or excommunicated by their divine authority given to them. Until 1600 years later there is no other side, except in Protestantism which branched off Catholicism with no official unity and or heirarchy from unbroken succession to the original apostles. What makes you unique apart from the Orthodox Catholics who refuse communion with Popes. Is that you have no valid Holy Orders in the Priest hood of Jesus Christ to administer valid sacraments. For the exception of the one some of you took with you in baptism, by virtue of your laity priesthood, if done correctly is recognized by the Catholic Church, but not by the Orthodox not in communion with Pope.

Peace be with you

=david ruiz;7224698 I look at the dates and find an evolving .I see veiled scriptural acount-quite deliberate.and no “Father” text in !st century .By the end of 2nd C-you have some Fathers alluding to it .By the end of 3rd C even more and by Augustine quite defined and pronounced and in abundance .During those centuries ,there are a few examples of contemporary disagreement .So ,I am not denying your plethara of documents, and that there are various opinions as to there lack in first and second centuries. Indeed ,it is a very strong argument ,elst why would it prevail for so long and by so many , till today ,up to,today .Again ,many opinions on that also. I have done my part in bowing to truth and evidence . It is a matter of faith that separtes us , in the light of all evidence . Why can you not except another opinion , that there is biblical , historical , Fatherly,and Christian experience of the “other side”, down thru the ages,up to today ?

 

[ron77nyc]

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 bible is church-based. I can agree with that. The early church selected those writings which accurately reflected the beliefs and practices of the established church. That is not an excuse to disregard the bible or to pick and choose what to teach and what not to teach. The teachers and traditions are not superior to the Word of God and never a substitute for the Word of God. They have neglected to teach it and to follow it but they do major on those scriptures that boost their authority. They fell away from and completely diregard many of those principles that instruct the leaders as to how they should behave. If you want to be infallible you should back it up with your behavior.

Matthew 23: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

 

[schaick]

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.

Actually the canonized list of what is Scripture is not recognized as an infallible statement by the Catholic Church, the canon is not on any list of infallible statements. They do not claim developement the way they do The Dogmas of Mary.

We have at our hand from any public library all the writings- the spurious gospels, the New Testament and Old Testament Apocryhpa, the Gospel, Paul’s letters, etc., etc.

We could choose from any of these writings to boost our point whether canonized or not. Why choose a writing that was not recognized by GOD as scripture?

Why choose a writing that is obviously written too late, does not have proof of being read by the early church fathers, too fanciful and ridiculous to be GOD’s Word?

 

[schaick]

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).

The name is** schaick**

The need for the ritualistic and legalistic 3 priest system of the Old Testament was done away with the cominng of Christ- HIS final sacrifice.

Yes, Jesus is our high Priest, but there are no longer 3 classes of people. There is but one class all are priests, but with different duties, functions, callings.

Matthew 23
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Jesus shows us how HE feels about the Priests of HIS day:
Luke 10
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

 

[schaick]

My standard question to those who doubt the value of the Pope: At work you have a mission statement, right? Now, does each employee read it and do their own thing, or is there an ‘old man’ in charge to keep things headed in the right direction? This is simply how human organizations must operate.

p.s. Get out of Kalifornia, even for a couple of weeks, and it will be much easier to decide a faith communion…

Actually why many mere Christians are not Catholic- If the churches mission statement something you disagree with you move on.

Just because a person doesn’t believe in Pope infallibility or that he is the Vicar of Christ doesn’t mean we don’t believe in local Church authority.

We have a similar network of seminaries, bishops, pastors, elders, deacons, laity, etc.

The difference no one person one stands higher in authority except by office, meaning a lay person can correct a pastor if need be, point out the failings of a bishop without being called a heretic and excommunicated from the Church.

A bishop steps in if there is an issue with a Pastor and the issue can’t be resolved by the laity, elders and deacons. There is not a lot of red tape to go through to get the problem addressed.

We actually did have a problem with an older Pastor that would not step down-he had signed on to be a Pastor for life and a younger Pastor that wanted things done** his** way.

The Church heirarchy supported us as we prayed, voted, discussed. The young one was called to another Church with the help of our Church authorities after they saw we wanted someone that was willing to work with the old Pastor basically until he died. Which he did just a couple years later after having multiple heart attacks while serving midnight Christmas services.

 

[elvisman]

The name

is** schaick**
I know your name. It was a typo - get over it.

The need for the ritualistic and legalistic 3 priest system of the Old Testament was done away with the cominng of Christ- HIS final sacrifice.

Please show me where the Bible claims this.

Yes, Jesus is our high Priest

, but there are no longer 3 classes of people. There is but one class all are priests, but with different duties, functions, callings.

Matthew 23
8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Jesus shows us how HE feels about the Priests of HIS day:
Luke 10
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
That’s funny – MY** Bible talks about different classes. It talks about bishops, presbyters and deacons (Acts 20:17-28, 1 Tim. 4:14, Titus 1:5, 7, James 5:14, 2 John 1, 3 John 1, 1 Pet. 5:1-2).

---

**It talks about the general **priesthood of Christians and the ministerial priesthood of the hierarchy (2 Cor. 2:10, 2 Cor. 5:18-20, 1 Peter 2:5-9, James 5:14-15).

---

What are you reading?

 

[elvisman]

Read Hebrews .Read Hebrews.
I HAVE read Hebrews. What’s your point?

david_ruiz:
Iraneus was speaking to those who were heretics ,not because they did not believe in the pope or succession or Mat16,but major Christology issues .I am in total agreement with Iraneus ,that I better believe like Peter and Paul and all who followed them and "their "belief’s, This is true succession -belief’s and sanctification because of them (works-because of faith _James)
Huh?? **
You agree with Ireneaus but you reject the fact that we are to obey the Bishops who follow in the succession of the Apostles?
That is some pretty convoluted logic . . .

 

[elvisman]

The bible is church-based. I can agree with that. The early church selected those writings which accurately reflected the beliefs and practices of the established church. That is not an excuse to disregard the bible or to pick and choose what to teach and what not to teach. The teachers and traditions are not superior to the Word of God and never a substitute for the Word of God. They have neglected to teach it and to follow it but they do major on those scriptures that boost their authority.

Please show me where the Church disregards the Bible and have neglected to teach the word of God.
**That is a rather huge *****false ***claim that BEGS proof.

ron77nyc:
They fell away from and completely diregard many of those principles that instruct the leaders as to how they should behave. If you want to be infallible you should back it up with your behavior.

Matthew 23: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
So, let me get this straight.
You’re saying that ALL priests and bishops have gone morally astray and have therefore rendered their God-given authority (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23) null and void? Is THAT what you’re saying??**
Because - if it is - you need to prove that claim. Are you prepared to do that?

 

[elvisman]

Actually the canonized list of what is Scripture is not recognized as an infallible statement by the Catholic Church, the canon is not on any list of infallible statements. They do not claim developement the way they do The Dogmas of Mary.

We have at our hand from any public library all the writings- the spurious gospels, the New Testament and Old Testament Apocryhpa, the Gospel, Paul’s letters, etc., etc.

We could choose from any of these writings to boost our point whether canonized or not. Why choose a writing that was not recognized by GOD as scripture?

Why choose a writing that is obviously written too late, does not have proof of being read by the early church fathers, too fanciful and ridiculous to be GOD’s Word?

ALL** Christians – Catholic and Protestant - believe that the Holy Spirit and not man who decided the canon of Scripture. The Church declared the canon but it was GOD who ordained it.**

---

Therefore – you are dead wrong when you say that it is not infallible. God doesn’t make mistakes.

 

[ron77nyc]

elvisman:
Please show me where the Church disregards the Bible and have neglected to teach the word of God.
**That is a rather huge *****false ***claim that BEGS proof.

So, let me get this straight.
**You’re saying that ALL priests and bishops have gone morally astray and have therefore rendered their God-given authority (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23) null and void? Is THAT what you’re saying??
Because - if it is - you need to prove that claim. Are you prepared to do that?
I never said all. 100% participation is not needed to mess up the whole church. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.
It’s the duty of the bishops with the pope as head bishop to decide what is taught. The priests are under the authority of the bishops. They don’t ever teach the two that I quoted. They never teach about the priesthood of believers. The popes and bishops do not submit to earthly authorities so they can’t teach that one.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,

They might teach this one to explain how everyone should submit to them but they won’t teach this one which says “everyone” thereby holding themselves accountable to a secular governing authority, which is what Paul and Peter did and obviously taught in their letters to the Church.

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

I could go on and give you more and someone will give me quotes from the catechism to show me I’m wrong but most Catholics only know what is taught at mass on Sunday and that is under the restraint of the bishops.

 

[elvisman]

I never said all. 100% participation is not needed to mess up the whole church. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

And Jesus GUARANTEED that his Church wouldn’t collapse. Unfortunately, it appears that you lack the faith to believe what he told Peter in Matt. 16:16-19.

The Church is run by flawed human beings but is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) and is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Only TWO entities are referred to in ALL of Scripture as the truth: God and His Church.

It’s the duty of the bishops with the pope as head bishop to decide what is taught. The priests are under the authority of the bishops. They don’t ever teach the two that I quoted. They never teach about the priesthood of believers. The popes and bishops do not submit to earthly authorities so they can’t teach that one.

They don’t ever teach Matt. 23:1-6 or 1 Corinthians 5:1-2??
MY pastor does – so does my Bishop.
How can you make those sorts of sort of ludicrous statements with a straight face?**

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,

They might teach this one to explain how everyone should submit to them but they won’t teach this one which says “everyone” thereby holding themselves accountable to a secular governing authority, which is what Paul and Peter did and obviously taught in their letters to the Church.

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

I could go on and give you more and someone will give me quotes from the catechism to show me I’m wrong but most Catholics only know what is taught at mass on Sunday and that is under the restraint of the bishops.

And your post is filled with nothing but angry rants, false claims and outright lies, my bitter friend. NONE of what you say is true nor can it be substantiated. Nothing but sweeping, general statements that are empty and without merit.

---

You have an ax to grind with the Church and will stop at nothing – including spewing lies – to get your voice heard.**
Stick to the facts and leave the falsehoods at the door . . .