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

[guanophore]

1. What makes you thing I don’t want to participate in dialoge anymore? I’m here.

I guess it was the derogatory tone.

What ruled did I violate? None. Not being disrespectful or derogitory, don't know what you call it and to me its some how magical. My opinion, nothing against the CC.

Don’t need to dust off my boots but thanks for the advice.

If you wish to have meaning ful dialogue with Catholics, it will help if you can learn the terms that Catholics use, so that your references will not come across as inadvertantly insulting. For Catholics, the use of “magic” is considered a grace sin. Your accusation that "magic’ is part of the most important aspect of our faith is quite demeaning. I will accept that this was not your intention, but it is important for you to understand how this comes across to us.

If you really believe that Catholics are practicing Magic at the Lord’s Supper, then by all means, I think it is time to dust off your boots and move along. No good will come of any dialogue if that is the case.

1. Personally I don’t see where Jesus started the CC but if that is what ya’ll go by then so be it. IMO its becaus they don’t want to. Again nothing against the CC.

NOt sure what you are saying here. It is sufficient that you accept that Catholics believe the Church written about in the NT is Catholic. It is not necessary that you agree with this belief.

In your opinion it is because Catholics don’t want to do what?

3. They are not property now, but they are in some religions.

No, but the prohibition against women teaching the congregation did not come out of the property problem.

4. You know men can't bear children but they can raise children. A single father can take care of his children just like a mother could. I know I raised 3 girls and 1 boy by myself. I had to be both father and mother to them. I was in a womens roll and a women can be in a mans roll.

But that is not the way God designed it to work, was it. God bless you, by the way, for your faithful devotion to your family.

5. What example, the 12 disciples?. Don't forget there were also women disciples. These 12 were his closest disciples out of thousands.

Women have always served the Church, ministering to Jesus and the Aposltes as they travelled, teaching, guiding, and supporting the work of God. Their role is not “less” than the man’s, just different.

6. And the freedom to preach his word, both men and women. Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty women are free at last.

Women are not to teach the men in the congregation. They are to teach the men by their reverent behavior, and by asking questions at home.

 

[guanophore]

That may be but I was asked about my church and I gave the answer. I don’t see anything wrong with women preaching, being the leader of a church, having a congregation and so on.

Yes, and I thank you for your participation. In the light of the thread topic, do you consider the Papal proclamation that the Church has not authority from God to ordain women to be an example of a fallible act on his part?

 

[guanophore]

Mardukm, with all due respect, friend, she has made it crystal clear what her concern is. You even attempted to address it. I’m not sure what you’re confused about?

She has posted section 25 of Lumen Gentium. She finds it disturbing and confusing that it says that we must submit our minds and wills completely to the Roman Pontiff EVEN WHEN he isn’t speaking ex cathedra. All we hear day in and day out in Catholic media is that non-Catholics don’t understand infallibility and submission of will to the papacy. We hear how these non-Catholics get it wrong and think that Catholics have to submit their wills to the pope even when he isn’t speaking ex cathedra. How silly. How inaccurate. Then, one reads Lumen Gentium and, low and behold, that’s exactly what it says!? Submission of mind and will at all times, basically, to the pope, ex cathedra and otherwise. I don’t blame sister Anna for finding this to be a stumbling block; I share her bewilderment and confusion over it. It is a stumbling block for me to return to Catholicism as well, that and a few other things…

Yes, there are certainly a lot of rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff, many calling themselves CAtholic. I covered teh “blind” part previously, but let me also give you another aspect of this submission.

Jesus gave Peter the responsibility for the care and feeding of His flock. Peter passed this responsibility on to his successor, and so on, up to the present day. As the one who is going to give an account of our souls to God, the successor of Peter has both the duty and the grace to feed and guide the flock. This does not make him perfect (impeccable), but as members of the flock of God, we receive all that he has to say from this point of view. This does not absolve us from study and struggle with the information, but it does govern the attitude with which we approach the task.

Picture yourself among the 3000 who were converted on Pentecost. After baptism, you do what they did:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.Acts 2:42

This is the kind of will and heart that is being summoned. We are to be devoted with teachable submission. Were there people among the 3000 who were distrustful and skeptical? Perhaps. If they devoted themselves anyway, would God let them go astray?

Really it is a matter of being able to trust God, that when we devote ourselves to the teaching of those He has placed over us for our care, He will bless our devotion.

 

[guanophore]

I do not see in scripture where unity is achieved thru hierarchy .It is achieved by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit (one baptism).

Yes, unity is achieved by the HS, but it is not separated from the authority through which He works. We are to be obedient and submissive to those He has placed in authority over us. When the Apostle commends us to “be of the same mind”, it means that our minds and wills are in unity with the Gospel that has been infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS. When he instructs “let there be no schism among you”, he teaches us that the unity is preserved by all adhering to the One Truth that has been revealed to the Church. The bishops and the elders are those responsible for preserving the One Faith, and for choosing faithful men who are able to teach others also about this One Faith.

He uniformly convicts ALL mankind of sin,righteousness and judgement to come. Heirerchy is a catch 22. It unites and divides at the same time .(no surprise to Jesus)

This is a good point. I think the problem of authority was one of the main factors in the Reformation.

 The east and west churches were once united and celebrated Easter at varying times.Rome tried to unify the date and ordered all to follow .Some did (unity) .Some did not (disunity,where once you were united and varying Easter dates did not separate ,did not matter ).The early church had ways to settle disputes ,without all the governance you have today....

Really? Where do you see the early church settling disputes apart from governance?

You and I are unified with any and all souls, around the world, AND throughout history, who have been quickened by the Spirit to believe that Jesus is our Savior. Church offices (bishops elders ) are for local congregations ,not for “church”(worldwide) governance.

Yes, the mystical body of Christ contains all those who are joined to Christ, who is the head. However, there is only One Church, and local congregations are but members of that One Body, the Church. Jesus supplied governance for His One Body, until He returns again. It is not an either/or, but both./and.

 

[guanophore]

I believe you only have authority when you are right (in line with God-for he discerns ALL things).The early church got it right (bible), but I am not sure it was because she had “authority”. It is unbiblical to say because you got it right once ,you will always get it right. That is a little like once saved always saved. It is biblical to say that there will always be someone who is getting it right ,at the moment.

So you think Jesus was just blowin’ smoke when He told the fledgling Church that He would lead them into All Truth, and that He would be with them to the end of the age?

What He really meant was that he would lead them into Truth “once in a while” and that He would not remain with them, but would come and go, so that they may not know if He is present, or absent?

It seems to me that the logical conclusions of your position are contrary to Scripture.

 

[rev_kevin]

I guess it was the derogatory tone.

If you wish to have meaning ful dialogue with Catholics, it will help if you can learn the terms that Catholics use, so that your references will not come across as inadvertantly insulting. For Catholics, the use of “magic” is considered a grace sin. Your accusation that "magic’ is part of the most important aspect of our faith is quite demeaning. I will accept that this was not your intention, but it is important for you to understand how this comes across to us.

If you really believe that Catholics are practicing Magic at the Lord’s Supper, then by all means, I think it is time to dust off your boots and move along. No good will come of any dialogue if that is the case.

NOt sure what you are saying here. It is sufficient that you accept that Catholics believe the Church written about in the NT is Catholic. It is not necessary that you agree with this belief.

In your opinion it is because Catholics don’t want to do what?

No, but the prohibition against women teaching the congregation did not come out of the property problem.

But that is not the way God designed it to work, was it. God bless you, by the way, for your faithful devotion to your family.

Women have always served the Church, ministering to Jesus and the Aposltes as they travelled, teaching, guiding, and supporting the work of God. Their role is not “less” than the man’s, just different.

Women are not to teach the men in the congregation. They are to teach the men by their reverent behavior, and by asking questions at home.

Sorry if it offended. I have had plenty said about my religion that offended and nothing was said.

Well enough with the women thing. I say yes, you say no. So lets let it be at that.

 

[rev_kevin]

Papal infallibility was not officially defined and promulgated until July 18, 1870 at the first Vatican Council, 1800 years after the death of Peter. What this means is that for 1870 years the church did NOT teach the pope was infallible.

This doctrin is a tradition of men that contradicts Scripture. The Bible declares that “ALL” people are sinners. (Romans 3:10,23) If you notice you don’t see or read “no one, EXCEPT THE POPE.” Jesus is the ONLY infallible person who ever lived.

 

[guanophore]

Papal infallibility was not officially defined and promulgated until July 18, 1870 at the first Vatican Council, 1800 years after the death of Peter.

I think you have misunderstood definitions and promulgations, Kev. The canon was not officially defined and promulgated until 382 AD, but that does not mean that the Church did not receive and accept the Holy Scriptures befor that time. The Scriptures were inerrant and inspired from the moment they were created, not when they were proclaimed so. The proclamation is done to combat heresies - departures from the Truth.

There were 400+ documents floating around the Roman Empire in 382, all claiming to be inspired. From among them, the Church chose 27 and closed the NT with them. That was done to provide clarity to the Church, not because those 27 books were “uninspired” before that time.

What this means is that for 1870 years the church did NOT teach the pope was infallible.

It is more accurate to refer to the infallibilty as applied to the Teaching. The Word of God has always been proclaimed infallibly by the Church, by the power of the HS. When Peter proclaimed “you are the Son of God”, this is an example of an infallible teaching/statement. It does not mean Peter is perfect (as is clear from the following text where Jesus calls him '“adversary”.

This doctrin is a tradition of men that contradicts Scripture.

If it were “unscriptural”, then I would not have been able to give you the scriptural example I just did.

The Bible declares that “ALL” people are sinners. (Romans 3:10,23) If you notice you don’t see or read “no one, EXCEPT THE POPE.” Jesus is the ONLY infallible person who ever lived.

This statement confirms that you have misunderstood infalliblity. It does not mean impeccability (unable to sin). It means that God, by the power of the HS, works through a fallible person to produce a perfect act. The Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Son of God. This is an infallible statement.

when the pope is declaring the infallible teaching of God, in that action he is infallible. He is not infallible at all times, nor is he without sin.

The NT is also an example of infallible actions. The writers performed an infallible act by producing inspired and inerrant writings by the power of the HS. They are not perfect or sinless either.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you fail to address the shortcomings of the Catholic Church ruling over Europe for centuries. And you also assume that all monarchies and rulers post-Catholic Europe were evil and corrupt. Some were. Many were not. A lot of the papal intrigues actually caused the problems that led to the Reformation. If the pope hadn’t been sucking the peasantry of places like Germany dry with $$$ from indulgences to build St. Peter’s, maybe Martin Luther never would’ve happened? Maybe if the pope had not worried so much about the politics of the Holy Roman Emperor in relationship to Catherine of Aragon and granted the declaration of nullity that Henry made a strong case for (keeping in mind the pope had granted annulments to other royals and high-profile characters who had less cause than Henry!) then the Church of England never would’ve happened?

Maybe the Church caused a lot of her own problems? Something to think about.

As an American, I’m glad the Reformation took place. I don’t want a papal nation. I want a secular government that is not governed by one religion. That’s what this country was founded upon, freedom. I don’t want excommunication to nullify a person’s personal rights like it did in Europe. I don’t want my baptism to be coinciding with my citizenship. I don’t want papal legates and magistrates from the Church overseeing the justice system. I don’t want the Church and State related. No thanks.

There are people who think just like you here. They’re called radical Muslims. They think the world would be “easier” also if we all just had a caliphate again and Islam was the one religion of the world.

No thanks. Theocracy stinks. I want a constitutional republic like the one I live in now. It needs reform and to get cleaned up. Hopefully in November we can start a little of that. But when a Church rules the government and there are no checks and balances and the government polices itself without the will of the populace and various chambers, forget it! I’m out!

You object to my use of the term “blindly submit” my will and intellect. I find it accurate or I wouldn’t use it. It is blind. You accept everything the pope says not out of using critical thinking or analysis but just total blind obedience. I respect that. That’s fine. I choose not to think that way. You are of the mindset that the popes are infallible, cannot err, and are the rock and cornerstone of all Christendom so whatever they say ex cathedra or otherwise is perfect. This is blind submission, IMO. You are not thinking about it, just accepting it.

And I do find it a braintrust. If I must submit my intellect, the Church is now the steward of my brain, not me. If I give them my will, then they possess it, not me. That’s a requirement I don’t believe I should have to give up. We differ there and that’s fine.

What Anna and I are pointing out is that Lumen Gentium contradicts what we see from Catholics day in and day out saying on here and other places that only EX CATHEDRA statements are to be submitted to intellectually and willfully. LG points out that everything the pope says must entail such blind submission. It’s contradictory.

And it’s vague enough to make it so whenever a pope says or teaches something outlandish and contradictory or something heretical like Honorius, we can just dismiss it as not required and fallible. And when it sounds good and logical, it must be infallible?

There’s no litmus test, qualifications, or real list or specificity with infallibility. And if you interview ten Catholics about 20 doctrines, you’ll get 10 different opinions about what was infallible and what isn’t. Trust me, I’ve already talked to a slough of priests who contradict each other. And then what is the reality? Differing opinions and interpretations!!! The exact thing you dread and condemn Protestants for. That’s how I see it.

Gotta run. My Giants are in a life and death struggle with the Padres. This is serious stuff man!

Well, if Catholics did not have more loyalty to the Pope than they did to the Protestant secular rulers, there would have been much less fuel for the Reformation. They were called “Papists” because of this sentiment of subjecting themselves to the Bishop of Rome. At that time, the Bishop of Rome, through the regional bishops, was the most powerful economic and political force in all of Europe.

When all the countries were “Catholic”, this caused less conflict, since the Roman Pontiff annointed the secular authorities. After secular authorities were installed against the will of the Pope, or in opposition to the Pope, the faithful found themselves torn between obedience to the successor of Peter, and their secular ruling authority. Anyway, all that is probably grist for another thread.

On the contrary, I think this is EXACTLY what Anne’s objection is about this. There is no provision given for the excuse to disobey a ruler who is out of order (unless obedience would violate the commandment of God). And this priniciple (obeying a corrupt authority) is the basis for the Reformation. The clergy in Europe had become so corrupt that the laity could not see the face of Christ in them. They decided to disobey, to rebel, to “protest” against them.

 

[rev_kevin]

I think you have misunderstood definitions and promulgations, Kev. The canon was not officially defined and promulgated until 382 AD, but that does not mean that the Church did not receive and accept the Holy Scriptures befor that time. The Scriptures were inerrant and inspired from the moment they were created, not when they were proclaimed so. The proclamation is done to combat heresies - departures from the Truth.

There were 400+ documents floating around the Roman Empire in 382, all claiming to be inspired. From among them, the Church chose 27 and closed the NT with them. That was done to provide clarity to the Church, not because those 27 books were “uninspired” before that time.

It is more accurate to refer to the infallibilty as applied to the Teaching. The Word of God has always been proclaimed infallibly by the Church, by the power of the HS. When Peter proclaimed “you are the Son of God”, this is an example of an infallible teaching/statement. It does not mean Peter is perfect (as is clear from the following text where Jesus calls him '“adversary”.

If it were “unscriptural”, then I would not have been able to give you the scriptural example I just did.

This statement confirms that you have misunderstood infalliblity. It does not mean impeccability (unable to sin). It means that God, by the power of the HS, works through a fallible person to produce a perfect act. The Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Son of God. This is an infallible statement.

when the pope is declaring the infallible teaching of God, in that action he is infallible. He is not infallible at all times, nor is he without sin.

The NT is also an example of infallible actions. The writers performed an infallible act by producing inspired and inerrant writings by the power of the HS. They are not perfect or sinless either.

I don’t think I misunderstood infallibility. If Peter’s was a infallible statement then the Roman officer who also proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God is a infallible statement as well. He like Peter must have been inspired by the HS to say that. Infallible statements are not limited to just the Pope.

Now the Pope is the only one who can declare infalliblilty when teaching of God?
How do you know what he is teaching is inspired by the HS?
See anyone can say its inspired by the HS, you can’t prove he wasn’t.

 

[Anna_Scott]

To mardukm-Part 1 of 4

. . . .If that does not seem like trolling – well, I don’t know. . . .

mardukm,

It’s sad that you’ve had to resort to insults. People usually do this when they are having difficulty defending their position.

Post 52, I quoted an article, entitled “Infallibility” from the Catholic Encyclopedia that defends the Catholic position on the actions of Pope Liberius, Pope Vigilius, and Pope Honorius. (Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

My concerns are very specific:

Post #29

. . . .Evidently, when a Pope acts “under pressure of a very cruel coercion” or a Pope is not a “profound or acute theologian” and allows “himself to be confused and misled” by some “wily” person, his actions don’t count. . . .

Post #52

This Infallibility article from the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this claim, “The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.”

. . . .And to that end, the article seems to suggest that when a Pope acts “under pressure of a very cruel coercion” or a Pope is not a “profound or acute theologian” and allows “himself to be confused and misled” by some “wily” person, his actions don’t count. . . . … . .As one continuing to study Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, such articles push me farther from Catholicism. I truly wish that were not the case. Perhaps Catholics can shed some light on this article.

Post #60:

Why does this bother you? This is one of the most basic axioms of free will. So you actually believe that actions under duress have legal or moral value?

I still can’t believe you actually asked that question.

Post #60

**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: . . . .

Post #60

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.

Your opinion is noted; but it still sounds like an excuse to me.

Post #60

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?

If even one Pope in history made decisions based on someone’s lie; it could happen again.

Post #65

. . . . . .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.

Post #86

That may have relevance for his morality, but that has no relevance on the question of whether him subscribing to a heretical formula under duress can be counted as an official act of the Petrine office. Would you agree to that?

I didn’t claim his actions were to “be counted as an official act of the Petrine office.” Though “relevance for morality” would be a concern in whatever capacity the Pope speaks.

Post #86

Regardless - again, that looks like it is nothing more than background info. The actual reason that same article gives for the notion that Honorius was not exercising infallibility is because there is no place in his letters that states he is actually defining the matter at issue (monothelitism), not because he was misled or lacked theological acumen.

You are denying what the Catholic Encyclopedia article said about Pope Honorius:

. . . . .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. . . . .(Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

Post 181

. . . .IMO, the Catholic Encyclopedia should have omitted these excuses, because they do little to lend credibility to the defense of Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius. The historical debate regarding whether or not either of these Popes taught heresy is less of an issue for me, than how their actions are justified by the CC. . . .

Submitting mind and will to any human being is a serious issue that requires faithful discernment.

Cont----

 

[Anna_Scott]

To mardukm-Part 2 of 4

Post #87

mardukm, Before we continue, it would be helpful to me if you explained under what circumstances you submit mind and will to the Pope.

Post #88

Dear sister Anna, I find that question strange. As far as Church authority, I submit to my bishop first and foremost, as I hope any other apostolic Christian would. On rare occasions, if there is a situation when the Metropolitan intervenes, I would submit to the metropolical synod. On even rarer occasions, if my patriarch has to intervene, I will submit to the patriarchal synod. On occasions even rarer than that, if the Holy Father has to intervene, I would submit to him. The fact is, it is a rare occasion I even have to think about the Pope in terms of faith and morals. I only think about him when I have to defend him against deprecators (which is often enough ).

In short, I have not yet found a circumstance where I have to submit mind and will to the Pope distinct from the submission I give to my bishop. Given the structure of the Catholic Church, it’s hard for me to imagine a circumstance when I’d have to choose between my bishop and the Pope. My metropolitan or patriarch will surely have resolved the matter before it even needs to get to the Pope.

Does that answer your question?

Blessings

I didn’t ask if you have ever found a circumstance where you have to submit mind and will to the Pope distinct from the submission you give to your bishop. I asked “under what circumstances you submit mind and will to the Pope.” You did not answer the question. Since you brought the “synod” into the discussion; I tried to clarify the question in post #92.

Post #92

Not exactly, for you as one in communion with Rome, to whom do you submit mind and will and under what circumstances? Only to Ex Cathedra teachings? or other teachings as well?

Post #94

Surely Catholics are supposed to follow all of the church’s teachings in faith and morals? I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with this line of questioning.

Post #106

I’m asking about the submission of mind and will in the context of LUMEN GENTIUM.

Post #108

Only dogmatic teachings. I don’t feel bound to agree with the Pope on peculiarly Latin doctrines or theologoumena.

You finally answered the question. You will only submit mind and will to the Pope in “dogmatic teachings,” but you don’t feel bound to agree with the Pope on “peculiarly Latin doctrines or theologoumena.”

We began to address LUMEN GENTIUM. See post #119.

Cont----

 

[Anna_Scott]

To mardukm-Part 3 of 4

Post #127

LUMEN GENTIUM
". . . . .This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . ." (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

It’s the submission of “mind and will,” even beyond the Ex Cathedra teachings.

Then you launched into your explanation of infallibility and the Magisterium, most of which I have heard or read before in one form or another. We discussed that for awhile.

Post #129

. . . .I’m sure you see that teaching from V2 and to you it probably means that one has to give religious assent to every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth. That would worry me, too – IF that is actually what it is teaching. The terms “authentic Magisterium” and “supreme Magisterium” should have clued you in on the fact that the passage is not talking about just any old teaching from the Pope. . . . .

. . . .So when the LG paragraph states that one must give religious assent to the Magisterium of the Pope even if it is not being exercised ex cathedra, it is not at all saying one must give religious assent to every teaching that comes from the Pope’s mouth. All it is saying is that one must also give religious assent to that teaching that comes by way of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope. One must give religious assent to this ordinary Magisterium because it is also infallible. . .

Post #132
Anna Scott;7121196:

. . . .False assumption. I do not see this as meaning I must give religious assent to “every single teaching that flows from the Pope’s mouth.”

LUMEN GENTIUM does offer qualifications for acceptance of non-Ex Cathedra teachings:

“. . . . .it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . .”

However, this qualification seems to leave a great deal of “wiggle room.”

Post #129

. . .Here’s the key: One only needs to give religious assent to the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope (i.e., not ex cathedra

) if it is an obvious universal teaching of the Church (or if the Pope has made it clear that it is a universal teaching of the Church).

Post #129

. . . .The Pope may teach that there is a purgatorial fire. Since it is not taught definitively by the universal episcopate, that doctrine would not be considered part of the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope. So I do not need to give religious assent to it. . . .

Post #134

. . .So after all this effort, are you actually going to let us know what your concern is? Or should we just keep guessing until we get it right? Please be frank.

You’ve got to be kidding.

Post #140

I thought my concerns were obvious. Guess that was my

“false assumption.”

. . . . .LUMEN GENTIUM’s requirement of “religious submission of mind and will” to the “authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” is just too much. I would be expected to submit to teachings that may turn out to be wrong. . . .

According to LUMEN GENTIUM non-Ex Cathedra teachings requiring “submission of mind and will” may be known:
*either from the character of the documents,
*from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,
*from his manner of speaking.

These requirements seem far too subjective. IOW, Catholics must submit mind and will to the Pope, but the CC always has an “out”, if the non-Ex Cathedra teachings turn out to be problematic.

Post #149

It seems your concern then is “I would be expected to submit to teachings that may turn out to be wrong.” Your concern is 1) how to identify the Truth, and 2) how to identify whether that Truth is necessary for salvation. Is that correct?

True, my concern is that I would be expected to submit to teachings that turn out to be wrong. True, identifying Truth is a concern.

You’re adding things I didn’t say. Though admittedly important; I didn’t say my concern was how to identify Truth necessary for salvation.

More discussion of the Magisterium.

Cont----

 

[Anna_Scott]

To mardukm-Part 4 of 4

Post #156

OK. So I was incorrect in assuming that your concern is to know how to identify the Truth. Your real problem is authority. Is that right? If so, then I assume you also have a problem with submitting to a bishop, not just the Pope? Or am I misunderstanding you again? Once, again, I request that you be frank.

Now you’ve decided my concern is not how to identify truth; and that my “real problem” is authority, submitting to a Bishop or the Pope. Did you pay any attention to what I wrote???

Post #181

You are misunderstanding me again. . . .the wording in LUMEN GENTIUM is really quite brilliant. The circumstances for submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff are so subjective; they can be used to dismiss a Papal teaching or to support a Papal teaching. Look at the criteria line by line:

**"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff,

even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;

that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to,

according to his manifest mind and will.

His mind and will in the matter may be known either from

the character of the documents,

from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,

or from his manner of speaking."**

(vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

Post 181

What is the definition of “manner of speaking”?

Post 187

When he says something to the effect of “I define this to be held by the universal Church.” Sounds simple enough to me.

Cite your source.

Post 181

How many times constitutes “frequent repetition of the same doctrine”?

Post 187

At least twice on different occasions - just to make sure it has not been misinterpreted.

So, I must submit mind and will to anything the Pope says twice? Cite your sourse.

Post 181

How does one define “character of documents”?

Post 187

If it is on official letterhead as opposed to scribbled on a piece of toilet paper. . . . .

This is offensive on so many levels. This is your answer? Cite your source.

Post 187

You submit in the same way you submit to the teaching of your bishop in their own exercise of the ordinary Magisterium. So I don’t understand the problem. Which goes back to what I stated before. it seems your main concern is submission to authority period. It’s not about how one can distinguish the Truth, but just about the idea of submitting to authority.

Still falsely assuming my concern is not for truth, but “submission to authority period.” Again, have you paid any attention to what I have written?

Post #190

. . . . .To repeat, when LG refers to “Magisterium” it is not merely talking about the authority to teach; rather, it is talking about the divine teaching authority that is protected by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals.

Matters spoken Ex Cathedra, from the Chair of Peter, protected by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, are not the issue of my concern re LUMEN GENTIUM.

Summary of my concerns:

1. 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.
2. LUMEN GENTIUM offer qualifications for acceptance of non-Ex Cathedra teachings:

“. . . . .it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . .”

How are these qualifications defined? Or do all Catholics agree with mardukm’s answers given in red above?

1. Submitting mind and will to any human being is a serious issue that requires faithful discernment. My search is for Truth. I must know that I am submitting to the Truth of Christ, if I submit mind and will to the Pope, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

What part of this is inconsistent with what you read in Scripture about submitting to your leaders, and the Apostolic instruction?

I’m not in the mood for questions answered with questions.

Here are some of the passages that seem to me to convey the same concept:

1 Peter 2:13-15

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

These are only secular authorities, but the Apostles urges us to submit to them.

1 Peter 5:5-6

5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

The submission of mind and will is an attitude of humility, that trust of a child, that one rests in the hand of God, and there fore, there is no evil that any man harm us.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1 Cor 16:15-16

15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

The Apostle instructs Titus to vigorously exercise his apostolic authority:

Titus 2:15

15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

I can speculate that your concern about this humble obedience relates to the shepherd possibly wandering away from the will of God. Is that what is concerning, or am I missing the point?

If you were to submit yourself in humble obedience to a person in authority over you, what do you imagine the worst possible negative outcome might be?

For example, if a person were a slave…

Titus 2:9-10

9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

What if the servant were submissive and Godly, but the master beat them and treated them cruelly anyhow?

Sounds like you are arguing pro-slavery, pro-cruelty to those in submission, pro-whatever governing authorities are in power. In this line of argument; Pope John Paul II should not have championed communism’s collapse–but should have taught the people to submit to their governing authorities. There’s no way I’m buying that.

. . . .It’s not a matter of submitting. It’s a matter of to WHOM we must submit and to what degree? . . .One isn’t supposed to blindly give in to their wills? Or look at the United States Council of Catholic Bishops telling Catholics to support the ObamaCare health care fiasco. I’m not submitting blindly to that. No thank yuh!

Anna and I are concerned about the degree to which we must submit our minds and intellects to the ordinary magisterium. It’s not about obedience or submission but the degree to which common sense, our own consciences and intellects, and opinions can play a part. Lumen Gentium very plainly makes it obvious that whether it’s ex cathedra or not, we must submit blindly to the braintrust no matter what. That’s what we get from LG 25. and that concerns me. It concerns Anna as well.

Gurney, great post.

Guanophore, If you have Scriptures that answer the following concerns, I’ll be glad to read them.

. . . Summary of my concerns:

1. 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.
2. LUMEN GENTIUM offer qualifications for acceptance of non-Ex Cathedra teachings:

“. . . . .it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . .”

How are these qualifications defined? Or do all Catholics agree with mardukm’s answers given in red above?

1. Submitting mind and will to any human being is a serious issue that requires faithful discernment. My search is for Truth. I must know that I am submitting to the Truth of Christ, if I submit mind and will to the Pope, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra.

 

[guanophore]

I respect that. That’s fine. I choose not to think that way. You are of the mindset that the popes are infallible, cannot err, and are the rock and cornerstone of all Christendom so whatever they say ex cathedra or otherwise is perfect. This is blind submission, IMO. You are not thinking about it, just accepting it.

Well, ok. I don’t know who you are talking about here, but it is not me. Apparently this issue is too emotionally charged for you, and we cannot have a discussion about it without you heaping your projections on me.

And I do find it a braintrust. If I must submit my intellect, the Church is now the steward of my brain, not me. If I give them my will, then they possess it, not me. That’s a requirement I don’t believe I should have to give up. We differ there and that’s fine.

I think you misunderstand the biblical concept of submission. Probably meekness too.

What Anna and I are pointing out is that Lumen Gentium contradicts what we see from Catholics day in and day out saying on here and other places that only EX CATHEDRA statements are to be submitted to intellectually and willfully.

Yes. It is a valid complaint. I have also noted this discrepancy.

LG points out that everything the pope says must entail such blind submission. It's contradictory.

No, Gurney, that is not what LG says. This is your violent emotional reaction to what is written. It might be useful for you to explore where that is coming from. It is probably a major factor in your spiritual quest.

And it’s vague enough to make it so whenever a pope says or teaches something outlandish and contradictory or something heretical like Honorius, we can just dismiss it as not required and fallible.

It does not say this either, and this approach is not consistent with Scripture, which instructs us to study, to show ourselves approved, to test everything, and hold fast to that which is good, to test the spirits, etc, etc.

And when it sounds good and logical, it must be infallible?

Now you are just spewing irrationally.

There’s no litmus test, qualifications, or real list or specificity with infallibility.

\

Actually, there are many but right now, it seems like it is not a good time to try to discuss it.

And if you interview ten Catholics about 20 doctrines, you’ll get 10 different opinions about what was infallible and what isn’t. Trust me, I’ve already talked to a slough of priests who contradict each other. And then what is the reality? Differing opinions and interpretations!!! The exact thing you dread and condemn Protestants for. That’s how I see it.

You will get no arguement from me on that. The only difference is that the Catholic Church has One Faith, and even thought most of her so called adherants are not familiar with it, that does not change the facts. The Teaching is not determined by the popular vote of those who depart from it.

You example is also a good testimony that Catholics dont’ “blindly obey”, and neither do they follow the Apostolic command to study.

Gotta run. My Giants are in a life and death struggle with the Padres. This is serious stuff man!

Maybe this explains the emotional and erratic content of your post?

 

[guanophore]

 I think you fail to address the shortcomings of the Catholic Church ruling over Europe for centuries.

Oh, most certainly! I thought about going into more detail on this, but it is really outside the scope of the thread. Suffice to say that the clerical leadership in Europe at the time of the Reformation gave the population plenty of reason to have a hard time “submitting mind and will”. Will that be sufficient?

And you also assume that all monarchies and rulers post-Catholic Europe were evil and corrupt.

No, not at all! I am assuming, though that there were irreconcilable differences between the Protestant Monarchies and the Roman Pontiff. There was evil and corruption on both sides. My point, though, is that these conditions placed the flock in a position where they often had to choose one or the other. To say that a faithful Catholic must “submit mind and will to the Roman Pontiff” under such conditions was a severe strain on the flock, resulting in death sometimes.

A lot of the papal intrigues actually caused the problems that led to the Reformation. If the pope hadn't been sucking the peasantry of places like Germany dry with $$$ from indulgences to build St. Peter's, maybe Martin Luther never would've happened?

Maybe not, but the corruption had been persistent so much for so long, that if it was not Martin, then it would have been someone else, and the wait would not have been long. He was a small pebble that dislodged a large rock slide that was hanging precipitously .

Along the thread topic, I think this might be a good example of a reason why a person would NOT feel comfortable with the compliant acquiescence that the LG commands. I also think this might speak to Anne’s objections, and I am sure she will correct me if I am wrong. How can one submit to a corrupt authority?

Maybe if the pope had not worried so much about the politics of the Holy Roman Emperor in relationship to Catherine of Aragon and granted the declaration of nullity that Henry made a strong case for (keeping in mind the pope had granted annulments to other royals and high-profile characters who had less cause than Henry!) then the Church of England never would’ve happened?

Possibly. I think it was a mistake for the Latin Rite to become embroiled in secular politics. After all this time, it is clear that the Church recognizes this also, since clerics are now forbidden to hold secular office. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Maybe the Church caused a lot of her own problems? Something to think about.

I would not lay these problems upon the shoulders of Christ, who is head of the Church. It is His Headship that makes the Church infallible. However, when ambitious men, or those filled with avarice depart from the teachings of Christ, making themselves wolves among the sheep cause such problems as this they bring scandal to the Church. It is important to recognize that the actions of these people are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

As an American, I'm glad the Reformation took place. I don't want a papal nation. I want a secular government that is not governed by one religion. That's what this country was founded upon, freedom.  I don't want excommunication to nullify a person's personal rights like it did in Europe.  I don't want my baptism to be coinciding with my citizenship. I don't want papal legates and magistrates from the Church overseeing the justice system.  I don't want the Church and State related. No thanks.

Men are always in need of reform. It was important for the Catholic Church to get out of politics. However, division and rebellion is never necessary, and certainly the doctrines of Christ did not need to be rewritten, or new doctrine invented that is contrary to the Apostolic faith.

There are people who think just like you here. They’re called radical Muslims. They think the world would be “easier” also if we all just had a caliphate again and Islam was the one religion of the world.

Perhaps this whole post is not a reply to me. I was not sure, since you did not quote anything I said. I now realize that you may be responding to someone else. If not, I sure can’t imagine what I might have said that gave you the impression I thought Church and state should be combined. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But when a Church rules the government and there are no checks and balances and the government polices itself without the will of the populace and various chambers, forget it! I’m out!

Well, let us use this approach to address the issue of LG. Are you saying that it is appropriate to rebel against a Pope or other religious leader who demonstrates corruption?

You object to my use of the term “blindly submit” my will and intellect. I find it accurate or I wouldn’t use it. It is blind. You accept everything the pope says not out of using critical thinking or analysis but just total blind obedience.

I object to the term because you are inserting it into the official Catholic document where it does not belong.

I must have hit some kind of button here, because now you are accusing me of accepting everything the Pope says without using any critical thinking or analysis. What was it I said that gave you this impression?

Maybe it is because when you read what the Pope writes, you start out assuming he is wrong, and when I read, I start out assuming he is right? If not, I am lost.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think I misunderstood infallibility. If Peter’s was a infallible statement then the Roman officer who also proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God is a infallible statement as well. He like Peter must have been inspired by the HS to say that. Infallible statements are not limited to just the Pope.

Perhaps so. God can speak infallibly through the mouth of a donkey!

And even the High Priest prophesied about Christ during his trial. It is more proof that an infallible act can come through a fallible human being by the power of God.

Now the Pope is the only one who can declare infalliblilty when teaching of God?

Where did you ever get that idea?

I don’t think you understand the gift of infallibility.

How do you know what he is teaching is inspired by the HS?
See anyone can say its inspired by the HS, you can’t prove he wasn’t.

There are many conditions and tests that are applied. But the bottom line is that we trust Jesus’ promise to lead HIs Church into “all Truth”.

 

[guanophore]

My concerns are very specific:

Post #29
Originally Posted by Anna Scott
. . . .Evidently, when a Pope acts “under pressure of a very cruel coercion” or a Pope is not a “profound or acute theologian” and allows “himself to be confused and misled” by some “wily” person, his actions don’t count. . . .

One of the elements of an infallible proclamation is that it is consistent with the Apostolic faith. Another is that it represents the faith to fhe Church. if a Pope is being coerces or himself is confused or misled, then by defiintion he may not be able to make an infallible statement. Although, one has to note (as I mentioned above) that even a misled or coerced person (or donkey) can make an infallible statement.

Post #52
Originally Posted by Anna Scott
This Infallibility article from the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this claim, “The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous.”

. . . .And to that end, the article seems to suggest that when a Pope acts “under pressure of a very cruel coercion” or a Pope is not a “profound or acute theologian” and allows “himself to be confused and misled” by some “wily” person, his actions don’t count. . . . … . .As one continuing to study Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, such articles push me farther from Catholicism. I truly wish that were not the case. Perhaps Catholics can shed some light on this article.

I am not sure what you mean by “actions dont’ count”. The actions of these popes are still being counted! Although they don’t meet the criteria for infallibility, they still “count”. He has the position to mislead a lot of people. I think this is one of your biggest concerns about submitting mind and will to the Pope.

I did respond to this post by saying that I did not understand why the article “pushed you further from Catholicism”.

: Originally Posted by mardukm
Why does this bother you? This is one of the most basic axioms of free will. So you actually believe that actions under duress have legal or moral value?

Originally Posted by Anna Scott I still can’t believe you actually asked that question.

Instead of just being appalled that we dont’ understand you, Anna, can you help us to do so? Some of us are sincerely trying to understand you objections.

Should I assume that you believe actions that occur under duress have legal and moral value?

I still can’t believe you actually asked that question.

Post #60

Post #60

Your opinion is noted; but it still sounds like an excuse to me.

Post #60

If even one Pope in history made decisions based on someone’s lie; it could happen again.

Post #65

Post #86

I didn’t claim his actions were to “be counted as an official act of the Petrine office.” Though “relevance for morality” would be a concern in whatever capacity the Pope speaks.

Post #86

You are denying what the Catholic Encyclopedia article said about Pope Honorius:

. . . . .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. . . . .(Link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

Post 181

Submitting mind and will to any human being is a serious issue that requires faithful discernment.

Cont----

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, ok. I don’t know who you are talking about here, but it is not me. Apparently this issue is too emotionally charged for you, and we cannot have a discussion about it without you heaping your projections on me.

No, Gurney, that is not what LG says. This is your violent emotional reaction to what is written. It might be useful for you to explore where that is coming from. It is probably a major factor in your spiritual quest.

Now you are just spewing irrationally.

Actually, there are many but right now, it seems like it is not a good time to try to discuss it.

You example is also a good testimony that Catholics dont’ “blindly obey”, and neither do they follow the Apostolic command to study.

Maybe this explains the emotional and erratic content of your post?

guanophore,

I know this was a response to gurney; but honestly, I truly laughed out loud when I read these suggestions that “this issue is too emotionally charged” for gurney, and you “cannot have a discussion about it without him heaping projections on you.”

You describe his response as a “violent emotional reaction to what is written.” And “it might be useful for him to explore where that is coming from. It is probably a major factor in his spiritual quest.” He is “just spewing irrationally.”

And his “example is also a good testimony that Catholics don’t’ ‘blindly obey’, and neither do they follow the Apostolic command to study.”

And “Maybe this explains the emotional and erratic content of his post.”

I think you set some kind of record in the number of insults and negative insinuations you can pack into such a short post.

Great diversion from the issues though. Gotta give you that.

Anna