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

[tomarin]

That is my understanding as well, which seems to me a clear rejection of the primacy of Peter and his successors.

With all due respect, I believe my point still stands, which is that the Orthodox have an extraordinary degree of unity of belief and practice, without having a hierarchy that is centered around Peter’s See. If we were living in a world populated only by Protestants and Catholics then you would have a point about papal authority and unity; but the fact is the Orthodox are here too and intellectual honesty demands that we recognize the remarkable unity that they exhibit, without having a Pope to tell them what is right belief.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Which council was this?

Have you been reading Fr. Meyendorff?

Blessings

634 Synod of Cyprus.

I would not brush off Fr. Meyendorff so easily, he was one of the leading Orthodox thinkers and certainly quite knowledgeable on the subject.

The difference between an appointment and an affirmation is minor, especially when the election leading to the appointment is itself questionable. The quote Anna provides makes clear that the sack was opposed by the pope at first and is not misleading.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear sister Anna,

Why do EO scholars have to twist the facts? Pope Innocent III did not appoint Thomas Morosini. What actually happened was that the Latin Venetian clergy elected Thomas Morosini, without the knowledge of the Pope, and the Pope later confirmed him after his anger at the Crusaders had died down a bit. Father Meyendorff knows full well the difference between an appointment and an election, but presenting the case as a “confirmation” would not satisfy his agenda of painting the papacy as a monarchical dictatorship.

Since Fr. Meyendorff has to twist the facts in order to support his conclusion, this necessarily throws the intergrity of his conclusions into doubt.

Please cite sources to support your disagreement.

High Petrine advocates on both sides can come to a consensus. It is the Absolutist and Low Petrine camps who are constantly at odds with each other.

Sister Anna, I’m sure you are familiar with this rhetoric. It is the identical to the one Protestants use against the principle of Apostolic Succession itself. They claim that the prerogatives of the Apostles were given only to the Apostles, and ended with the last Apostle. This argment against the papacy is just a mitigated form. I hope you can see the senselessness of the argument. Namely, all the charisms of the Apostles were handed down in the Apostolic Succession for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. Christ gave the office of confirming the Faith of the brethren to Peter among the Apostles. Christ did this because He knew in His divine wisdom that the Apostles themselves would need a head for the confirmation of their Faith. Unless anyone has the gall to believe that the Church today is better than the Church of the Apostles, unless anyone has the gall to believe the bishops today are better than the Apostles themselves, then who can believe that the office of confirming the brethren was not passed down as well?

Blessings,
Marduk

I am familiar with Protestant claims, however Protestant claims are not the issue. Orthodox claims are the issue, and EO claim Apostolic Succession. And I doubt they would say their view of Apostolic Succession is the same view held by Protestants. But I may be wrong.

Would Orthodox friends please comment on Apostolic Succession?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

With all due respect, I believe my point still stands, which is that the Orthodox have an extraordinary degree of unity of belief and practice, without having a hierarchy that is centered around Peter’s See. If we were living in a world populated only by Protestants and Catholics then you would have a point about papal authority and unity; but the fact is the Orthodox are here too and intellectual honesty demands that we recognize the remarkable unity that they exhibit, without having a Pope to tell them what is right belief.

If only the Anglican Communion could have done as well as the Orthodox. . . . .

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .So you actually believe that actions under duress have legal or moral value?

I think the Martyrs woulds would say “yes, actions under duress have legal and moral value.” What we do under duress speaks more about what we believe and who we are than at any other time.

It seems to me the article was only mentioning that as a bit of background, not as an excuse. The real reason Pope Honorius fails as an argument against papal infallibility is because he was not intending to give a definitive teaching to the Church.

Pope Honorius may not have produced an Ex Cathedra teaching, but whether or not he intended to give a “definitive” teaching is debatable.

Again, that’s a very basic axiom of free will. Someone who makes a decision based on someone’s lie is not a free act. Again, can you explain why this would bother you as far as considering papal infallibility?

Look at the section on Pope Honorius again:

(Emphasis is mine throughout.)
Infallibility
Pope Honorius
The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter’s misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius’s letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings. Link: Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

If I convert to Catholicism and I am expected to submit mind and will to the Pope, even in cases when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra; how would I know if the Pope’s decisions and teachings are legitimate or a result of coercion or the result of a lack of theological talent? How would I know that the Pope would not allow “heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings,” just as Pope Honorius did?

As far as Galileo is concerned, it is true that the Pope cannot delegate infallibility because it is not his to give, only God’s. But the normal apologetic I have heard regarding Galileo is that infallibility does not extend to the sciences. Infallibility only applies to what is in the Sacred Deposit of Faith - on doctrine of Faith and morals. The Church has no authority to add to the Sacred Deposit – she can only explain it, clarify it and defend it.

The Pope’s position, action, or lack of action in any given situation has far reaching effects, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra in matters of Faith and Morals.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re right, Anna. Honorius’s actions are indeed debatable. Sending a legate to a synod in favor of a heresy could definitely be considered a use of his teaching office from the Chair. I also agree with you about the moral duress angle.

As you’ve pointed out in the past, Lumen Gentium makes it sound as if the pope’s opinions are binding on us whether it is official ex cathedra OR private opinion. You produced the quote making it sound that way.

It’s hard to know which Church to join: East or West. The East make an excellent example showing us a history that has a primacy of “honor” for the pope and a first amongst equals, but not total supremacy of jurisdiction and absolute control. They have managed for 2,000 years to stay cohesive, coherent, relevent, holy, apostolic, and very true to their liturgy without the watered-down nonsense the 1960’s sought to pour into the tanks of liturgies all over the world.

But the Catholics have an excellent case in that the popes HAVE been the greatest defenders of the faith and killers of heresy overall. The keys of Peter DO matter. The holiness taught by the Catholic Church is great testimony to its being Spirit-driven. The catechism and official coherent, orderly, common-sense teachings and holy guidance are powerful.

But to be Catholic is to call the East schismatics. To be Orthodox is to do the same to the West and even call to question their ability to convey sacraments and grace. To be Catholic is to deny the conciliar realities of the first millenium. To be Orthodox is to sometimes minimize the importance of the papacy.

I happen to buy into the Eastern Church polity and setup but I buy into the Catholic Western view of atonement, original sin, and Augustinian thinking. In short, I’m as caught between two worlds as you, Anna! God help us both!

My daily prayers are still for us both to be enlightened to His Holy Will.

I think the Martyrs woulds would say “yes, actions under duress have legal and moral value.” What we do under duress speaks more about what we believe and who we are than at any other time.

Pope Honorius may not have produced an Ex Cathedra teaching, but whether or not he intended to give a “definitive” teaching is debatable.

Look at the section on Pope Honorius again:

(Emphasis is mine throughout.)
Infallibility
Pope Honorius
The charge against Pope Honorius is a double one: that, when appealed to in the Monothelite controversy, he actually taught the Monothelite heresy in his two letters to Sergius; and that he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the decrees of which were approved by Leo II. But in the first place it is quite clear from the tone and terms of these letters that, so far from intending to give any final, or ex cathedra, decision on the doctrinal question at issue, Honorius merely tried to allay the rising bitterness of the controversy by securing silence. In the next place, taking the letters as they stand, the very most that can be clearly and incontrovertibly deduced from them is, that Honorius was not a profound or acute theologian, and that he allowed himself to be confused and misled by the wily Sergius as to what the issue really was and too readily accepted the latter’s misrepresentation of his opponents’ position, to the effect that the assertion of two wills in Christ meant two contrary or discordant wills. Finally, in reference to the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, it is to be remembered that there is no ecumenical sentence affirming the fact either that Honorius’s letters to Sergius contain heresy, or that they were intended to define the question with which they deal. The sentence passed by the fathers of the council has ecumenical value only in so far as it was approved by Leo II; but, in approving the condemnation of Honorius, his successor adds the very important qualification that he is condemned, not for the doctrinal reason that he taught heresy, but on the moral ground that he was wanting in the vigilance expected from him in his Apostolic office and thereby allowed a heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings. Link: Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

If I convert to Catholicism and I am expected to submit mind and will to the Pope, even in cases when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra; how would I know if the Pope’s decisions and teachings are legitimate or a result of coercion or the result of a lack of theological talent? How would I know that the Pope would not allow “heresy to make headway which he should have crushed in its beginnings,” just as Pope Honorius did?

The Pope’s position, action, or lack of action in any given situation has far reaching effects, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra in matters of Faith and Morals.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

With all due respect, I believe my point still stands, which is that the Orthodox have an extraordinary degree of unity of belief and practice, without having a hierarchy that is centered around Peter’s See. If we were living in a world populated only by Protestants and Catholics then you would have a point about papal authority and unity; but the fact is the Orthodox are here too and intellectual honesty demands that we recognize the remarkable unity that they exhibit, without having a Pope to tell them what is right belief.

I don’t disagree with your overall point.

My point was more specific. The Orthodox Church has changed it’s view of Church hierarchy and the role of the Bishop of Rome compared to the early Church.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES,

Good to bump into you in a discussion again. It’s been awhile.

I’m glad the issue is solved for you. I wish it were for me.

Unity is indeed an issue; but unity was not the issue of the post you answered. The issue is a lack of evidence for a “Papal universal jurisdiction” in the early Church. Perhaps it exists and I just haven’t read the right books. So, I welcome any resources you want to offer.

Here’s a book that you might find interesting:

Unity, Plurality, and the Papacy | Hans Urs von Balthasar

From the Introduction:
Pascal says in his Pensées: “If one contemplates the Church as unity, then the pope who is her head is also the whole. If one perceives her as plurality, then the pope is only a part. From time to time the Fathers of the Church thought of the Church in one way or the other… but they emphasized both; they excluded neither. A plurality that cannot be integrated into unity is chaos; unity unrelated to plurality is tyranny.”

Entire introduction:

ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/hub_officeofpeter_july07.asp

 

[Anna_Scott]

You’re right, Anna. Honorius’s actions are indeed debatable. Sending a legate to a synod in favor of a heresy could definitely be considered a use of his teaching office from the Chair. I also agree with you about the moral duress angle.

As you’ve pointed out in the past, Lumen Gentium makes it sound as if the pope’s opinions are binding on us whether it is official ex cathedra OR private opinion. You produced the quote making it sound that way.

It’s hard to know which Church to join: East or West. The East make an excellent example showing us a history that has a primacy of “honor” for the pope and a first amongst equals, but not total supremacy of jurisdiction and absolute control. They have managed for 2,000 years to stay cohesive, coherent, relevent, holy, apostolic, and very true to their liturgy without the watered-down nonsense the 1960’s sought to pour into the tanks of liturgies all over the world.

But the Catholics have an excellent case in that the popes HAVE been the greatest defenders of the faith and killers of heresy overall. The keys of Peter DO matter. The holiness taught by the Catholic Church is great testimony to its being Spirit-driven. The catechism and official coherent, orderly, common-sense teachings and holy guidance are powerful.

But to be Catholic is to call the East schismatics. To be Orthodox is to do the same to the West and even call to question their ability to convey sacraments and grace. To be Catholic is to deny the conciliar realities of the first millenium. To be Orthodox is to sometimes minimize the importance of the papacy.

I happen to buy into the Eastern Church polity and setup but I buy into the Catholic Western view of atonement, original sin, and Augustinian thinking. In short, I’m as caught between two worlds as you, Anna! God help us both!

My daily prayers are still for us both to be enlightened to His Holy Will.

gurney,

I appreciate your sentiments. You make excellent points. There is much to be respected in both East and West. And “God help us both” is a prayer that cannot be repeated often enough on our behalf.

What I would like my Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican brethren in Christ to know is that my questions arise from sincere investigation into these three faiths. So, if I give any one of the three a difficult time; it is because there are certain questions that I must ask. I have to probe the areas of strength and the areas of weakness and the areas of controversy. That is the nature of discernment and investigation.

During this inquiry, I am attending a Conservative Episcopal Church. If I ask Catholics and Orthodox Christians endless questions online; you can only imagine what the Episcopal Church must endure on behalf of my inquiry into Anglicanism. I’m tough on them too. And it’s worse for them, because they have to deal with me face to face. lol They bear it well.

Peace, blessings, and prayers for your continued inquiry,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Here’s a book that you might find interesting:

Unity, Plurality, and the Papacy | Hans Urs von Balthasar

From the Introduction:
Pascal says in his Pensées: “If one contemplates the Church as unity, then the pope who is her head is also the whole. If one perceives her as plurality, then the pope is only a part. From time to time the Fathers of the Church thought of the Church in one way or the other… but they emphasized both; they excluded neither. A plurality that cannot be integrated into unity is chaos; unity unrelated to plurality is tyranny.”

Entire introduction:

ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/hub_officeofpeter_july07.asp

CHESTERTONRULES,

Thank you for the suggestion. I welcome all resource recommendations. I read as much as I can. Just can’t seem to read fast enough. It seems like the more I read, the more I realize how much I don’t know.

Thanks so much,
Anna

 

[Nicea325]

The Pope is human and all humans are fallible, even in Scripture. Even if he is quided by the Holy Spirit how do we know he followed what the Holy Spirits guided him to. He could misinterperate what the Holy Spirit is telling him. Remember he is just a human.

Would you apply the same to the writers of the NT? What certitude do we have Rev Kevin?

 

[Nicea325]

And as a Catholic that should be your sentiment. Nothing wrong with it, Nicea. I’m merely saying, respectfully, that when debating, discussing, and analyzing issues apologetically with non-Catholics, “beause the pope said so” isn’t going to chime. You need to really make the case for the value of the teachings, the timeless truths of them, and the essential holiness of said doctrines on their own, preferably tied to Scripture if possible, and that plants the seed for a common ground. If a Catholic has the magisterium, a Protestant does not, the debate needs a common reference point. Scripture and the councils are good starting places.

I happen to think that the popes have often been the STRONGEST force against heresies and the papacy has played a key role in destroying many of them if not most.

Blessings to you…

Indeed Gurney and blessings to you? How is your spiritual journey coming along?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Nicea,
Thanks for asking. It’s pretty up and down. Like Anna and I were saying today in this thread, we see the good in all three parts of Christianity. I have a lot of love for Catholicism, no doubt, and yet plenty of concerns and questions. Eastern Orthodoxy probably isn’t an option for me because of cultural factors, my Augustinian beliefs about the Atonement and Original Sin. Anglicanism is in a pretty sad state. But I don’t want to be Catholic just to “settle” for it. I want to totally believe it and have the faith and willingness to defend it 100%. I’m not totally there yet.

I appreciate your asking!
blessings to you

Indeed Gurney and blessings to you? How is your spiritual journey coming along?

 

[rev_kevin]

Would you apply the same to the writers of the NT? What certitude do we have Rev Kevin?

Well, they were also human. We all agree that the Bible was written by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that the Bible teaches good and the right way to live. But it could be possible that the NT writters did some emblished in their writtings, added things to make it sound better, Were they fallible or infallible in their writtings, who really knows, I wasn’t there when they wrote their scriptures were you? Where you around during that time I wasn’t? What make you so sure that everything they wrote was what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write?
Is the Pope the only that can be correct in his view of Scripture? Couldn’t he, like all of us, make a mistake? See anyone can say this is what it say because the Holy Spirit inspired me or the Holy Spirit told me. Does that make it automaticly true? Now I see nothing wrong with the way the NT was written, it has good meaning. But totally factual, ???
See what you want to believe is up to you and you alone. What I want to believe is up to me and me alone. No one can tell anyone what to believe. You believe he, the Pope is infallible and I believe the Pope is fallible. You believe the NT writters were totally factual, I believe they emblished in their writtings.
See the Holy Spirit inspired me to say this, now prove me wrong.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea,
Thanks for asking. It’s pretty up and down. Like Anna and I were saying today in this thread, we see the good in all three parts of Christianity. I have a lot of love for Catholicism, no doubt, and yet plenty of concerns and questions. Eastern Orthodoxy probably isn’t an option for me because of cultural factors, my Augustinian beliefs about the Atonement and Original Sin. Anglicanism is in a pretty sad state. But I don’t want to be Catholic just to “settle” for it. I want to totally believe it and have the faith and willingness to defend it 100%. I’m not totally there yet.

I appreciate your asking!
blessings to you

I’ll pray for you. May God bless you and your family where ever he sends you.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, they were also human. We all agree that the Bible was written by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that the Bible teaches good and the right way to live. But it could be possible that the NT writters did some emblished in their writtings, added things to make it sound better, Were they fallible or infallible in their writtings, who really knows, I wasn’t there when they wrote their scriptures were you? Where you around during that time I wasn’t? What make you so sure that everything they wrote was what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write?
Is the Pope the only that can be correct in his view of Scripture? Couldn’t he, like all of us, make a mistake? See anyone can say this is what it say because the Holy Spirit inspired me or the Holy Spirit told me. Does that make it automaticly true? Now I see nothing wrong with the way the NT was written, it has good meaning. But totally factual, ???
See what you want to believe is up to you and you alone. What I want to believe is up to me and me alone. No one can tell anyone what to believe. You believe he, the Pope is infallible and I believe the Pope is fallible. You believe the NT writters were totally factual, I believe they emblished in their writtings.
See the Holy Spirit inspired me to say this, now prove me wrong.

I am not concerned about proving you or any Christian wrong Rev Kevin. The only thing that concerns me is our salvation.

BTW: I too believe scripture is inspired by God-Almighty. I love scripture too. Any favorite books or passages?

God Bless you

 

[rev_kevin]

I am not concerned about proving you or any Christian wrong Rev Kevin. The only thing that concerns me is our salvation.

BTW: I too believe scripture is inspired by God-Almighty. I love scripture too. Any favorite books or passages?

God Bless you

I was trying to let you see that anything is possible, anyone can say somthing and say its from the HS or I was guided by the HS. My point is we don’t really know one way or another. My concern is also salvation, salvation for all.

Right now I am doing a series on the Book of Mark. As far as favorite passages, It would be the parable of the Good Samaritan.

 

[Nicea325]

I was trying to let you see that anything is possible, anyone can say somthing and say its from the HS or I was guided by the HS. My point is we don’t really know one way or another. My concern is also salvation, salvation for all.

Right now I am doing a series on the Book of Mark. As far as favorite passages, It would be the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I understand sir and it is well taken. Book of Mark? Good one. I enjoy John and the epistles of Paul. Hey…Good Samaritan? I like that one too…

Hey quick question,since you a Baptist. Does your particular congregation allow women to be pastors? Or is it striclty for men?

God Bless

 

[rev_kevin]

I understand sir and it is well taken. Book of Mark? Good one. I enjoy John and the epistles of Paul. Hey…Good Samaritan? I like that one too…

Hey quick question,since you a Baptist. Does your particular congregation allow women to be pastors? Or is it striclty for men?

God Bless

Good question. My particular congregation would have no problem for a woman to be a pastor. See its not about man or woman, its about our Lord, its about our salvation. Its not just up to a man to be concerned about one’s salvation, to spread the Good News. Its up to all, men, and women. The sex of one preson should have nothing to do with preaching. If they feel its their calling then who are we to say, no you can’t because you are a woman.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

St. Paul didn’t have your view about women preaching. It’s not apostolic, it’s not biblical, and it’s not orthodox to permit women to preach or be priests. But seeing as how Baptists reject a priesthood, you’re in a completely different frame of thought about the roles of clergy, etc. anyway.

Good question. My particular congregation would have no problem for a woman to be a pastor. See its not about man or woman, its about our Lord, its about our salvation. Its not just up to a man to be concerned about one’s salvation, to spread the Good News. Its up to all, men, and women. The sex of one preson should have nothing to do with preaching. If they feel its their calling then who are we to say, no you can’t because you are a woman.