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

[Alan55]

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.

OK.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on the priesthood of all believers:

The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers. (CCC. n. 1268)

Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.” (CCC n. 1546)

…and on submission to governing authorities:

The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (CCC n. 1899)

Obviously, you don’t have any idea what the Church teaches. Do your homework, please. I’ve sat through hundreds of sermons in Protestant churches, and have seldom if ever heard a sermon about these two issues. I wouldn’t expect to hear such sermons in Catholic churches either, but that has nothing to do with the bishops imposing their will on pastors. Where do you get this garbage? You are entitled to your bigotry against Catholics, but you are not entitled to make up stuff and pass it off as the truth.

 

[po18guy]

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.

The point being that, in opposition to the vast majority of denominations extant, the bible is not the basis of a Church, rather being the product of it, and standing as subservient to it as a portion of the entire deposit of faith. Not one jot of scripture can be disregarded or suppressed, as seems common today, since the entirety of God’s truth (which the bible cannot contain) is a seamless garment. Make one tear and the fabric unravels. That is clearly observable in the profoundly entropic nature of the “bible-based” Christian world.

As to being infallible in behavior, the Latin root simply denotes being “not deceptive”. Knowing our sinful nature, Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation - to which the Pope submits regularly. This precisely reveals the properness of Papal infallibility - it is not in everyday life that the Pope demonstrates this; it is not in his thoughts or speech; not in his actions - but is demonstrated solely when he determinedly speaks from the Office of Peter, addresses the entire Christian Church, and is sharply restricted to matters of faith and morals. He is not a king, but rather the Bishop of Rome, having accepted and borne a yoke of the intense (and fatal) burden of shepherding the entire Christian world through tumultuous times. He answers strictly to our Lord for his stewardship of the Church Militant. Papal infallibility is widely misunderstood and commonly (and sometimes maliciously) misrepresented by certain groups.

Truth plods along slowly, while ignorance flashes like lightning.

 

[ron77nyc]

Obviously, you don’t have any idea what the Church teaches.

I know it’s in the catechism. Everything’s in there but no one is teaching it in church.

Do your homework, please. I’ve sat through hundreds of sermons in Protestant churches, and have seldom if ever heard a sermon about these two issues. I wouldn’t expect to hear such sermons in Catholic churches either,

Then you agree with me?

but that has nothing to do with the bishops imposing their will on pastors. Where do you get this garbage?

From honest priests.

 

[ron77nyc]

The point being that, in opposition to the vast majority of denominations extant, the bible is not the basis of a Church, rather being the product of it, and standing as subservient to it as a portion of the entire deposit of faith. Not one jot of scripture can be disregarded or suppressed, as seems common today, since the entirety of God’s truth (which the bible cannot contain) is a seamless garment. Make one tear and the fabric unravels. That is clearly observable in the profoundly entropic nature of the “bible-based” Christian world.

As to being infallible in behavior, the Latin root simply denotes being “not deceptive”. Knowing our sinful nature, Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation - to which the Pope submits regularly. This precisely reveals the properness of Papal infallibility - it is not in everyday life that the Pope demonstrates this; it is not in his thoughts or speech; not in his actions - but is demonstrated solely when he determinedly speaks from the Office of Peter, addresses the entire Christian Church, and is sharply restricted to matters of faith and morals.

Does this mean it’s OK to impose a gag order as long as you have it right when you’re in the chair of St. Peter?

 

[po18guy]

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.

The bible, as a form of transmitting God’s word, is also a development! The ‘bible’ was verbal until it was written. If the verbal Word was not correct, the printed Word cannot be.

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.

Public library? So, are you then a Publican?

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?

You just proved the validity of the Church, which tested all scripture and canonized that which was inspired.

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?

What on earth are you on about here?

 

[po18guy]

Does this mean it’s OK to impose a gag order as long as you have it right when you’re in the chair of St. Peter?

Huh?

 

[joe370]

Protestant 101…

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.

How about the infallibly declared table of contents found in your bible. I know that God is the author of the holy bible, but who put the table of contents in the holy bible, if not the Catholic Church?

 

[david_ruiz]

UOTE=Gabriel of 12;7224747]

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;

Perhaps ,but the most previous post said it began slowly in 2nd .and more in third century ,which fits Tertullian,so let’s move on forward please. You also fail to address tertulian 's denial of succession ,and that he also wrote Jesus is the Rock .So I agree with him 2 out 3 and you agree with 2 out of 3 (that’s .666 batting average-ikes).I can not fault him too much because in a miniscule sense Jesus did build his church ,and upon Peter ,the most famous Apostle of the Gospels and had lead role many times, but also upon the other apostles and prophets as scripture tells us twice.I believe Tertullian goes no further ,no passing on of keys ,Petrine gifts or successor role ,in exact fashion of Peter. I have answered Tertulian ,now you ?
I

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.

Apostolicity -not sure what that is ,Authenticity -absolutely .Iraneus list bishops ,not popes from 3 cities ,to show carerful handling of truth with worthy elders. In Rome ,it was from Peter and Paul ,then to Linus. What was I incorrect on ?

revealing Peter as Rock and possessor of the keys of the kingdom of God was not necessary, which you do not comprehend

Why do you say that ? I have admitted to understanding this , that perhaps this dogma is not mentioned more often in 2nd century might be as you say -uncontested or common knowledge .I understand and can and have reiterated your viewpoint several times now .Why can you not understand and reiterate mine? It is just as possible that the dogma is not mentioned because it did not exist , or was not conscious in the churches mind set.I believe it is quite fair ,hence I ended my argument from a point of faith, not because lack of early writing per say.

What you fail to see is that these early Church Fathers are all united to Peter as one Catholic faith

. I know what you mean (I think) ,but I would suggest it is because of your Catholic faith ultimately. I believe also any true believer is united to Peter (but as what?),and to Paul and John etc.,etc,this being universal /catholic., gloriously so.

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.

Let us see , I do not believe in papal succession.Tell Tertulian (200A.D. ), that his same thought was foreign and unheard of or new.Tell that to the early eastern churches or to the Waldesnes, Albigeneses etc., etc., in those early centuries.

If you don’t have the first century Apostolic Traditional teaching, how are going to be able to qualify the scriptures as infallible?

This is silly .I could be silly and ask how are you going to qualify Apostolic Traditional teaching as infallible ? You correctly reply, "Cause God said it would be ".Well, God also said His Word, His Scripture would also be infallible.The term Apostolic traditional teaching is a Catholic term . I prefer Apostolic Teaching ,which may have included minor tradition ,OR became traditional in itself (preaching of the gospel ,of a Risen Savior etc.) .For sure they taught ,and they wrote. What they wrote (by God), I take it to be as if they are with us today , fully authoratative. By faith , you may include tradition ,which we know can not contradict scripture. We are in the same boat there. ,Alleluia.

Only the Catholic Church has been given the keys from Jesus Christ to teach, feed, and tend the flock of Jesus Christ.

Agreed, except catholic with a small “c” . See,we are close. Remember too, Jesus holds the keys , and He watches and shepherds His churches , as in Revelations . Because of free,and Revelations will , some may depart and the candlestick is removed from that church.

Tertullian does not help your case my friend, he slammed it shut,

Only half, and half your door also-no succession .

We have not mentioned the other Church Fathers yet,

I know,there is a growing (evolving-sorry ,had to say that) number of supporting writings -so to detractors. No need to go further.We have our foundation all talked out ,I think.

God has never left his flock unattended, be it with Abraham, Moses, Kings, Judges, Jesus who leaves Peter as Vicar until Jesus returns.

Agreed, if you apply your loose use of vicar , saying all bishops /elders are that . I would add that the Holy Spirit , has a bigger role though ,a very unique dispensation ,unparallelled in “His story”.

]

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; Thank-you for the evolving admission.Rest is good too ,except for "in the popes. That is strictly Catholic ,by Catholic faith.Thank-you

 

[david_ruiz]

**L

B]

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. I have also heard that initially coming out of Egypt they were supposed to be a kingdom of priests .This changed after their sin ,and a tribe was designated to be priests.I do not see why Christ would use a stand -in model of the O.T. for a perfect new beginning in the N.T…yes we are too obey our elders. yes ,our belief’s better be in line with paul and peter also (succession)

 

[david_ruiz]

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?

NOVEL ? I believe when the church changed presbyter /elder to mean something different,and started the latin term /usage of priest in 2nd century ,that was a twist ,novel…The rest is your catholic interpretation. Nowhere does Jesus say go make laity of all men and nations .A disciple is one who learns from someone to be like ,and do what that someone is. Hey ,sew up that middle wall of partition, the veil in the temple, torn in two at His death, so that we can not go into the holy of holies ,except for the priest. Shoot , we are right back where we started, with Judaism- where is the NEW thing scripture promised ?

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Sorry ,I am a bit slow , but what canon/scripture are you talking about ?

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry ,I am a bit slow , but what canon/scripture are you talking about ?

The Protestants use a modified version of the Bible as defined by a Synod of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

Does this mean it’s OK to impose a gag order as long as you have it right when you’re in the chair of St. Peter?

Huh?

The centuries old culture of secrecy is a man-made plan of operation that shuts out the Holy Spirit. It’s not apostolic. This was the original plan for the church:

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Ephesians 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

James 2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,

1 Peter 2:16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

 

[david_ruiz]

The Protestants use a modified version of the Bible as defined by a Synod of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.

Wow ,you are fast .Thank-You . Oh gees,that is whole other thread.As if Eusebius did not give Constantine 50 bibles way before this synod, or the italic bible-old, latin bible,or the muratorian canon etc etc

 

[david_ruiz]

Howdy. I have heard this argument before.Hey , it is what I say when a "protestant’ turns catholic .You know, they must have been only nominal protestant or in name only .Sometimes this is true. Sometimes this is a cop-out. Like you do not have to address any issue ,cause they had it wrong anyways .With me .maybe . BUT, experience sure counts for something towards reality. If I think I am naked or hungry ,and someone clothes me or feeds me , was I really naked and hungry ? I feel like the healed blind man , before the rabbis . Oh the blind man gave some good scripture and was accurate religiously , frustrating the rabbis .The rabbis pushed harder ,and in the end those famous words that can not be refuted honestly ,"I was blind and now I see (cause of that man Jesus) " .All I know is that the protestant gospel birthed and nurtured me…What does that say ,if you were the most zealous in your catholic class for the Lord ,altar boy ,Dominic Savio club, gave a few sermons ,an award.etc. had Jesuit education .I think I was “in” pretty good .I understand some people may have an awakening or something in the catholic church, mine happened to be outside her .I am thankful for some Catholic seed ,but some dogma got in the way also.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It is one of the most common apologetics tactics in CAF to say, “well you left the Catholic Church so it’s quite obvious you were poorly-catechized or you NEVER would’ve left! I’ll pray for you!” I’ve read that A LOT. As you pointed out, it could just as easily be said in the reverse. A Lutheran could say, “what a pity you’ve become a Catholic and choose to go back to the very corrupt, decayed institution that the Reformers worked so hard to reform and ultimately had to leave. What a pity you’ve gone backwards into a works-driven religion based on hierarchies, memorized prayers, litanies, and…” blah blah blah…

Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Orthodox, Catholics, all of them can use the “obviously you weren’t taught the truth properly” approach. It can fit any of them if you want it to.

I believe it’s best to debate the issues and exchange ideas, history, and theology and not use the personal assumptions of ignorance. We should all assume the best about one another and not presume stupidity and poor catechesis. I agree.

Howdy. I have heard this argument before.Hey , it is what I say when a "protestant’ turns catholic .You know, they must have been only nominal protestant or in name only .Sometimes this is true. Sometimes this is a cop-out. Like you do not have to address any issue ,cause they had it wrong anyways .With me .maybe . BUT, experience sure counts for something towards reality. If I think I am naked or hungry ,and someone clothes me or feeds me , was I really naked and hungry ? I feel like the healed blind man , before the rabbis . Oh the blind man gave some good scripture and was accurate religiously , frustrating the rabbis .The rabbis pushed harder ,and in the end those famous words that can not be refuted honestly ,"I was blind and now I see (cause of that man Jesus) " .All I know is that the protestant gospel birthed and nurtured me…What does that say ,if you were the most zealous in your catholic class for the Lord ,altar boy ,Dominic Savio club, gave a few sermons ,an award.etc. had Jesuit education .I think I was “in” pretty good .I understand some people may have an awakening or something in the catholic church, mine happened to be outside her .I am thankful for some Catholic seed ,but some dogma got in the way also.

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

 

[david_ruiz]

Sorry .I missed the point that you were getting at .The thread said only the apostles were to do certain things -priestly things - baptize ,confessional .communion,last rites etc…It is not meant for laity or common priesthood,according to Catholics .So ,the point is the apostles make disciples of not just an elder or presbyter or bishop , but of all believers (there are still giftings and offices).I can not be an apostle as afar as laying foundation that they already laid , but other things ,like preach ,teach ,pray for ,correct ,rebuke ,baptize ,communion in remembrance ,these are things a disciple should do to some extent, no holy orders needed ,Elst laity are NOT disciples .

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

David, if you don’t mind me asking, to what Protestant denomination do you belong exactly? I’m not sure if I’ve asked before?

Sorry .I missed the point that you were getting at .The thread said only the apostles were to do certain things -priestly things - baptize ,confessional .communion,last rites etc…It is not meant for laity or common priesthood,according to Catholics .So ,the point is the apostles make disciples of not just an elder or presbyter or bishop , but of all believers (there are still giftings and offices).I can not be an apostle as afar as laying foundation that they already laid , but other things ,like preach ,teach ,pray for ,correct ,rebuke ,baptize ,communion in remembrance ,these are things a disciple should do to some extent, no holy orders needed ,Elst laity are NOT disciples .

 

[david_ruiz]

It is one of the most common apologetics tactics in CAF to say, “well you left the Catholic Church so it’s quite obvious you were poorly-catechized or you NEVER would’ve left! I’ll pray for you!” I’ve read that A LOT. As you pointed out, it could just as easily be said in the reverse. A Lutheran could say, “what a pity you’ve become a Catholic and choose to go back to the very corrupt, decayed institution that the Reformers worked so hard to reform and ultimately had to leave. What a pity you’ve gone backwards into a works-driven religion based on hierarchies, memorized prayers, litanies, and…” blah blah blah…

Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Orthodox, Catholics, all of them can use the “obviously you weren’t taught the truth properly” approach. It can fit any of them if you want it to.

I believe it’s best to debate the issues and exchange ideas, history, and theology and not use the personal assumptions of ignorance. We should all assume the best about one another and not presume stupidity and poor catechesis. I agree.

Thank-you. may you still be Giantly giddy for a month of sundays to come.