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

[JohnnyReb]

Good point but all it takes is one for there to be doubt in all.

It perhaps creates doubt, but is it necessarily proof against it? I think Gurney’s point is that Honorius alone does not make a solid case. It takes more than that.

 

[Anna_Scott]

It perhaps creates doubt, but is it necessarily proof against it? I think Gurney’s point is that Honorius alone does not make a solid case. It takes more than that.

Hey JohnnyReb,

For me, once is one time too many. If one Pope falls into heresy, that demonstrates it is possible for other Popes to fall into heresy. Has the Catholic Church denied that it is possible for this to happen? I would love a definitive answer.

As previously posted, there is an article, here on CAF, to cover the possibility:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp
White Smoke, Valid Pope
A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly
By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

White Smoke, Valid Pope, A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly, By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

To sum up then:

1. The traditional and continuing law of the Church, expressed repeatedly in papal constitutions ever since the Middle Ages, allows for a heretical or apostate cardinal to participate fully in a papal conclave and even to be elected pope. If he could validly attain the papacy as a heretic or apostate, he could certainly retain it validly, even while remaining in that unhappy spiritual state.
2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.

So when the white smoke rises from the Vatican signifying that the college of cardinals has elected a new pope, we are assured that that pope’s authority is valid. Thus God guards his Church from the possibility of being cast into chaos by being left without an earthly governing authority.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I personally have serious concerns about Honorius and think he was teaching on behalf of the Church. But there is an opposing argument for that. Being intellectually honest as possible, I am looking at the 2,000 year span of Catholicism and must admit the lack of heretical teachings and continual papal onslaught against heresy is strong as heck. You’re right. I’d like to see more examples and am not hearing any. I wouldn’t want to base my findings and final conclusions all just on Honorius as there is reasonable doubt as to his ex cathedra infallibility teaching vs. private opinion and failure to teach, etc. Jury’s still out with me and I have a deep sense of fairness. I want to give the pope the benefit of the doubt and put the burden of proof on us to show Honorius has company.

It perhaps creates doubt, but is it necessarily proof against it? I think Gurney’s point is that Honorius alone does not make a solid case. It takes more than that.

 

[guanophore]

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

It was not my intention to be insulting or forward any negative insinuations. Following what is emotionally charged in ourselves is one of the fastest paths to spiritual growth. When a person is triggered by something, there is an important reason for it. Gurney was so aroused by the subject matter that he was accusing me of positions which are not true, and have no basis except in his imagination.

I can relate, though, as it has taken me many decades of prayer,study, and struggle to arrive where I am now. That being the case, it is ludicrious to me that I should be accused of “blindly following” anyone, or anything. Gurney will find very few Catholics that have spent as much time as I have in seminary, monastery, daily Liturgy of the Hours, service to the Church, and daily reading and study. My submission to the Pope is anything but shallow, or blind. This is how I know that these issues emanate from within himself, and do not describe me.

What I said to him applies to you also. Those issues that upset you the most will probably be the most useful for you in your spiritual quest. This is not an insult, but a statement of fact. It is the nature of humanity.

 

[guanophore]

 I have frequently observed a two-pronged strategy by posters who cannot explain and defend their positions:

You want me to defend a positon I do not hold, Gurney. You have irrationally assigned it to me, and it does not belong to me. Of course I could not explain or defend it. It is coming from you, not from me.

b) accuse the poster of emotionalism, rants, irrational thought, insanity, etc.

The fact that you have accused me of motives and positons I do not hold does not equate to insanity. It only means that you are unable to own what belongs to you, so you are trying to palm it off on someone else. This is good old fashioned projection.

It does seem that you are very emotional about this, and you have made statements that do not appear to be based upon any rational evidence. That does seem like emotionalism to me.

It doesn’t fly with me and I decide that the person making those charges just can’t reconcile certain concepts, explain them adequately, and is frustrated.

It is true that I am unable to reconcile the positons I have with those you have assigned to me. It appears that there is something that exists in your imagination with regard to my beliefs that is quite different than the actual facts.

I am not frustrated, though. I must say I am surprised, as I find you to be one of the more rational members here, and this type of projection is very unlike most of your posts I have read.

I am saddened, also, that you seem to be too emotionally charged to have a discussion.

We can’t get very far if you tell me what I believe (erronously) then demand that I defend it. I really have no interest in defending a view I do not hold.

So I usually stop the conversation when the person is at that frustration level. I am not going to respond to all these statements because I think you’re at that level where you cannot make your points without accusations of a personal nature or insinuations of a lack of education on the part of posters like Anna and I. It’s insulting and not helpful. Best of luck to you.

Did I say something about a lack of education? I don’t remember that. I do remember noting that you don’t know me well , if you think those beliefs you assigned to me are mine.

I don’t blame you for bailing out, though. It is really hard to own these conflicts in oneself, and to work through them.

 

[guanophore]

Wow! This sounds like something out of a horror movie! Obey a leader of the Church even when he is wrong, and that will purify the church? Absolutely amazing. Is that called being infallibly wrong?

This is exactly the principle that Jesus was teaching when He instructed HIs disciples to do all that those on the Seat of Moses commanded, because they were in authority. He told them not to follow their example, because they were hypocrites.

Yes, obedience to those in authority purifies the soul of the one submitting, as well as the Church, and sometimes, the soul of the corrupt authority as well.

This principle of obedience and submission, and the great grace that works through it, is what was lost during the Reformation, when those who were disgusted with corruption refused to offer themselves to purify the Church. Instead, they rebelled, and established their own churches, which then became corrupted.

The Apostle also urges this principle upon women with unbelieving husbands.

1 Peter 3:1
3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

1 Peter 3:1
3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

1 Peter 3:17-18

17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Suffering quickens the Spirit,when it is offered to God. Suffering purifies, and in suffering, we may add our suffering to that of Christ on the Cross.

Did not Christ offer HImself as a lamb to be slain under an unjust ruler?

Who are we to think we should be spared that fate?

 

[guanophore]

Did any one answer me, how the Australian nun who was excommunicated but now years later is to become a saint fits in with this topic of pope infallibility?

Many of the saints were excommunicated or otherwise sanctioned by their superiors.

This phenomenon is not related to the topic of papal infallibility, as far as I can tell.

How do you find it related?

Also what about limbo?

Limbo was a pious speculation. Throughout the history of the Church, there have been many theological speculations. They are not considered part of the Divine Deposit of Faith.

This is a very interesting:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp
White Smoke, Valid Pope
A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly
By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

“2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.”

Basically the congregation is protected from the evil/sinfu/heretic Priest in that when he performs Mass correctly in all forms then the Mass in not seen as lacking. The congregation must follow decisions of the Priest in question.

I don’t know how you get this last conclusion from what you posted here. The congregation is under no obligation to follow of the decisions of the “priest in question”, especially if they are sinful. You are quoting something about the Pope, not the parish priest.

Sad to think then that the good, GOD fearing, christian Lutheran Pastor is incapable of consecrating the Eucharist, forgiving someone’s sins in Jesus name, etc. in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to be sad about this. Such a person is received into communion, and performs all these duties just as any other validly ordained Pastor would do.

 

[guanophore]

Hey does anyone know if Pope Benedict XVI rehabilitated Martin Luther? It was to be announced sometime soon.

Is this related to the thread topic? If he did, would that mean that the pope made a fallible decision?

Here is the question- do Catholics believe that Luther is in purgatory, hell, heaven while he is in excommunication, but then once Pope Benedict says that he wasn't a heretic then he is in heaven?  Or has he been in heaven all along?

I am having trouble figuring out how this is related to the thread topic.

Catholics do not presume to know the eternal state of any soul. We only know about those about which it has been revealed to us, for example, Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus, so we know that they are in communion with Him.

Those that came forth from their tombs after the resurrection ascended with HIm to heaven.

Luther espoused heresies. Whether or not he abandoned them prior to, or at his judgment we may not know until we pass from this life.

If that is the case then doesn’t the judgedment of a Pope as far as excommunication is concerned hold no weight?

No. Excommunication is to motivate the errant to correct their behavior, so that they can be in unity with the Body. If Luther did repent (and there is evidence that he did, at least on some things) then the excommunication served it’s purpose.

 

[guanophore]

I’m trying to give Catholicism careful consideration. My purpose here is not to beat up on Catholics;

Anna, I have never considered your posts “beating up”. It seems clear that you are giving most careful thought and study, and that you apply a most keen mind to the task presented to you of discerning your place in the Body of Christ. Sometimes you seem quite reactive to things you read, though.

and I’m certain that was not Gurney’s intention in starting this thread.

I am equally certain that Gurney is trying to sort out all these issues for himself, for the Greater Glory of God, and to perfect himself in service to His Creator.

  I don't know what to make of this article. It is especially disturbing when considering LUMEN GENTIUM and its requirements for "religious submission of mind and will" to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra. This article only legitimizes my fear of submitting to a teaching of the Roman Pontiff, when he may be wrong--even to the extent of falling into heresy or apostasy.

It is certainly an understandible fear, but it seems to me that we face this possibility no matter who we trust. All humans are, by nature, fallible. This is why the Church needs the gift of infallibility!

In principle, submitting to the Pope in obedience and meekness is no different than what Peter advises to wives, and Paul to slaves. In submitting ourselves with obedience and serenity, His character is brought out in the situation, and conversion happens. Or, we are the odor of death to those who are perishing. No matter what, who is there to harm us, when we entrust our souls to a faithful creator? We only need fear the one who has the power to cast us into hell. There is nothing that man can do to us, for we are kept for our inheritance by His grace.

Ultimately, trust of all human beings is an exercise of faith in trusting God.

 I really don't know what to think anymore.

Sometimes we overthink such matters, and it is prudent to let them rest, while we rest in HIm prayerfully. It is our duty to ask, seek, and knock, and His to guide. If the way is unclear, then He will make it clear.

May His peace be with you and Gurney both, as you rest in Him.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As usual, guano, you make everything personal and internalize each argument a poster makes as directed at you personally. You don’t need to prove how devout you are and how many hours you pray and what seminaries you’ve been in. You don’t know what “issues emanate from” me. You don’t even know me. What you do, as I stated, is personalize and internalize arguments you don’t feel you’re winning. I’ll leave it there. This thread was designed to discuss an important topic. It was not designed for character assassination and bragging about our prayer life and hours of study.

Gurney was so aroused by the subject matter that he was accusing me of positions which are not true, and have no basis except in his imagination.

I can relate, though, as it has taken me many decades of prayer,study, and struggle to arrive where I am now. That being the case, it is ludicrious to me that I should be accused of “blindly following” anyone, or anything. Gurney will find very few Catholics that have spent as much time as I have in seminary, monastery, daily Liturgy of the Hours, service to the Church, and daily reading and study. My submission to the Pope is anything but shallow, or blind. This is how I know that these issues emanate from within himself, and do not describe me.

What I said to him applies to you also. Those issues that upset you the most will probably be the most useful for you in your spiritual quest. This is not an insult, but a statement of fact. It is the nature of humanity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

How in God’s green earth can you know I’m emotional about this by sitting on the other side of a computer screen? LOL! If these insults weren’t so sad this would be hysterically funny. Projection? Now we’re delving into Freud?

Bottom line is this: you’re doing it again. Your argument doesn’t hold water, several people disagree with you so to satisfy yourself in your mind you decide we’re irrational, crazed, angry, emotionally unstable, and nuts. I would hope in your heart of hearts and intellect, you know that that statement is nuts. I assure you I’m not an emotional type LOL

Nobody is trying to get you to defend anything against your will. Now you’re inventing strawman accusations by posters? oy vay!

If you want to make yourself feel edified by accusing your opponents of irrational emotionalism while you play the cool, calm, and collected card, fine by me. You never had to post on this thread of mine if you felt emotional mania was ensuing against you. You keep coming back and posting on it. Nobody is forcing you.

You keep trying to psychoanalyze me and Anna and anyone who differs in opinion from you Guanophore and that worries me a bit. You insist people are “assigning” you positions which boggles me.

I personally think your posts make little or no sense either just as you feel about mine so I would say the best route at this point is to ignore one another or just stop the conversation.

Blessings

Gurney

You want me to defend a positon I do not hold, Gurney. You have irrationally assigned it to me, and it does not belong to me. Of course I could not explain or defend it. It is coming from you, not from me.

The fact that you have accused me of motives and positons I do not hold does not equate to insanity. It only means that you are unable to own what belongs to you, so you are trying to palm it off on someone else. This is good old fashioned projection.

It does seem that you are very emotional about this, and you have made statements that do not appear to be based upon any rational evidence. That does seem like emotionalism to me.

It is true that I am unable to reconcile the positons I have with those you have assigned to me. It appears that there is something that exists in your imagination with regard to my beliefs that is quite different than the actual facts.

I am not frustrated, though. I must say I am surprised, as I find you to be one of the more rational members here, and this type of projection is very unlike most of your posts I have read.

I am saddened, also, that you seem to be too emotionally charged to have a discussion.

We can’t get very far if you tell me what I believe (erronously) then demand that I defend it. I really have no interest in defending a view I do not hold.

Did I say something about a lack of education? I don’t remember that. I do remember noting that you don’t know me well , if you think those beliefs you assigned to me are mine.

I don’t blame you for bailing out, though. It is really hard to own these conflicts in oneself, and to work through them.

 

[guanophore]

  You put so much guidelines for the Holy Spirit, like He is in a box .Trouble is Jesus said He is like the wind .Put wind in a box and what do you have -stale air .

No, David. I have no ability to “box” the HS, nor does any human. There are parameters within which He chooses to function with man, but those perogatives are His, not ours.

   No, the apostle said we have an unction , from the Holy One. to each every one of us .It is NOT the church first corralling us in with truth , but the Spirit Himself , and then you have a body , a church, a pillar of truth.

This instruction about the unction was directed to those who are in unity with the Apostles and those they ordained. It does not apply to those who have departed from the unity of the faith, and rejected the Apostolic authority.

.You put the cart before the horse.....Bishops and elders yes ,for the local congregation,and for finding and appointing "Stephens". St Ignatius said nothing of them having universal rule.

The Church is universal, David, and the Church founded by Christ has unity. This unity is visible in the authority structure appointed by Christ.

I was taught in the catechism that the holy Ghost is a real person ,in the trinity ,in us and with us. To say we need universal headship ,is like appointing Peter as pope while Jesus was still on Earth,before His ascension.

Of course Jesus appointed all the Apostles, and authorized them prior to his ascension. This was why He trained them.

We need universal headship because that is the way God designed the Church. Jesus is Head of His One Body, the Church. The successor of Peter is the visible sign on earth of the unity that exists in the One Body that has Jesus as her Head.

Jesus could have chosen a successor for Judas. He had 40 days. No, He left this task to Peter, so it would be clear to all that this was what He expected the Apsotels to do.

Jesus ,through the Holy Spirit IS amongst us,as Jesus ever was with the apostles. I would grieve Him, if I were to ask for a" king" or one person to truly represent Him,as if he did not really exist amongst us and in us.......

Yes, we all would grieve Him if we wanted this. However, it pleases Him that we submit to the shepherds and teachers that He has placed over us, because they will give an account of our souls to God.

 .Authority yes , in the local congregation.The apostles also tell us of guidelines for those responsible for truth ,Scripture

You may have forgotten that there are sometimes problems in the local congregation that require an authority outside and above it to mediate.

The guideline given by Christ to resolve disputes was to “take it to the Church”. This can’t happen if there is no visible Church authority.

Yes, the scriptures are authoritative, and profitable in the tasks appointed to shepherds, but the Scriptures don’t exercise discernment. This is an activity that can only be conducted by persons.

That is the only" box" I will place the Holy Spirit in. Can we be unified if we are not scriptural ? Can there be legitimate authority that is at odds with scripture ?

I am glad that you realize you are boxing the HS with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It does, indeed, cause staleness.

No, there is no unity that is at odds with Scripture. the problem is, though that there are as many interpretations of scripture as there are belly buttons. Just because someone in authority does something that does not agree with your ideas of what the scripture means does not make that outside of the HS. The HS is not “boxed” in the Scriptures, or confined to them.

  Yes, that  church authority is subject to scripture

Scripture cannot have “subjects”. Ruling can only be done by persons, not writings, however Holy.

  Never said they did not have governance.They had no hint of "pope" or universal bishop".What God said ,wrote and did , ruled the day. And you really think today's Catholic governance is just like governance in the book of Acts ? I think then other denominations have closer resembling  governance.

In Acts we see the seed of early Church governance. In the present day, we see that seed grown to a large mustard tree.

   the emphasis on governance should be further down the list

This is the polemic of all who have rejected the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

My point, see it been said that only the Pope can be infalluble when it comes to matters of scripture, moral. and spiritual matters and a protestant minister can’t.

I dont’ know where that has been said, but you might want to consider your sources. It is not a good idea to believe everything you hear.

Most protestant ministers don’t claim infallibility, anyway, so isnt this a moot point?

But infact anyone inspired, lead by the HS can interpert scripture, moral and spiritual matters also.

Absolutely! And we see more “inspired” persons who believe they are led by the HS than we can count. Many of them taking up opposing positions. They can’t all be right!

I agree that all those who read scripture with a sincere heart, praying for the guidance of the HS, believe that their conclusions are from God. However God is not the author of confusion and division. He also does not reveal things that oppose what He has previously revealed.

How once again, is the Pope is the only one with the gift of infallibility, or can this gift be given to anyone?

The gift is for the Church. It prevents the Church from falling into error. It is the means by which He guides us into all Truth. Any of us can benefit from the gift, if we remain in unity with the Church, which is infallibly guided.

With every interperitation of Scripture? With every moral judgment? With everything that has to do with spiritual matters?

Do you think there is part of the Truth that should be excluded from His promise?

 

[guanophore]

So why is it CC does not believe in once saved always saved ?

We do! No one that is in heaven will be separated from Him for all eternity.

Jesus ,the holder of the keys… He is always there for correction .So when Rome rose up and told other congregations not to follow tradition since apostolic days and celebrate Easter on such an accorded day, many good saints rose up to try to correct Rome.

Thanks be to God!

And so it was thru out Rome’s errors,even Luther. Some say he would have been cannonized had he not been excommunicated.

David, men are always in need of reform, but the doctrine, commited by Christ to the Chruch does not need reform. This is where Luther went off track. He had legitimate complaints about the conduct of the shepherds. His complaints about the doctrine of the faith were not legitimate.

Much was right with Rome , but not all, and Jesus was loyal to try to guide her. Others have picked up the torch and carried certain truths that Rome has seems to have lost.Sorry ,but that is my humble opinion .Perhaps you should forget all I said except for one thing,to please read Revelations with His guidance.

I respect that you stand in the tradition of Apollos.

 

[Just_Lurking]

As the OP I have to say, we’ve gotten way way way off topic here. It would be nice to return to the original point of discussion: for all the critics out there of papal infallibility, for all the nay-sayers that feel infallibility is innovative and false, can you produce any good historical examples of popes erring in theological or moral teachings OTHER than Honorius I?

See here for a thread I started on a mistake by Pope Celestine III.

 

[Anna_Scott]

How in God’s green earth can you know I’m emotional about this by sitting on the other side of a computer screen? LOL! If these insults weren’t so sad this would be hysterically funny. Projection? Now we’re delving into Freud?

Bottom line is this: you’re doing it again. Your argument doesn’t hold water, several people disagree with you so to satisfy yourself in your mind you decide we’re irrational, crazed, angry, emotionally unstable, and nuts. I would hope in your heart of hearts and intellect, you know that that statement is nuts. I assure you I’m not an emotional type LOL

Nobody is trying to get you to defend anything against your will. Now you’re inventing strawman accusations by posters? oy vay!

If you want to make yourself feel edified by accusing your opponents of irrational emotionalism while you play the cool, calm, and collected card, fine by me. You never had to post on this thread of mine if you felt emotional mania was ensuing against you. You keep coming back and posting on it. Nobody is forcing you.

You keep trying to psychoanalyze me and Anna and anyone who differs in opinion from you Guanophore and that worries me a bit. You insist people are “assigning” you positions which boggles me.

I personally think your posts make little or no sense either just as you feel about mine so I would say the best route at this point is to ignore one another or just stop the conversation.

Blessings

Gurney

Gurney,

You are far more patient than I am. When people repeatedly insult those who disagree, assume they know what others are thinking, assign false motives to others, and repeatedly answer questions with questions—I put them on “ignore”.

Anna

 

[JohnnyReb]

I personally have serious concerns about Honorius and think he was teaching on behalf of the Church. But there is an opposing argument for that. Being intellectually honest as possible, I am looking at the 2,000 year span of Catholicism and must admit the lack of heretical teachings and continual papal onslaught against heresy is strong as heck. You’re right. I’d like to see more examples and am not hearing any. I wouldn’t want to base my findings and final conclusions all just on Honorius as there is reasonable doubt as to his ex cathedra infallibility teaching vs. private opinion and failure to teach, etc. Jury’s still out with me and I have a deep sense of fairness. I want to give the pope the benefit of the doubt and put the burden of proof on us to show Honorius has company.

Yeah, the jury is still out with me too. I personally could come up withs other example that I think show the Pope’s fallibility, but to many that are not convincing (ie declaring that the assumption of Mary is dogma,). Last night at work I drove past my old Catholic parish. There is part of me that really longed to return and thought about the peace of mind that the Catholic epistemological model provides. But alas…

 

[Anna_Scott]

I personally have serious concerns about Honorius and think he was teaching on behalf of the Church. But there is an opposing argument for that. Being intellectually honest as possible, I am looking at the 2,000 year span of Catholicism and must admit the lack of heretical teachings and continual papal onslaught against heresy is strong as heck. You’re right. I’d like to see more examples and am not hearing any. I wouldn’t want to base my findings and final conclusions all just on Honorius as there is reasonable doubt as to his ex cathedra infallibility teaching vs. private opinion and failure to teach, etc. Jury’s still out with me and I have a deep sense of fairness. I want to give the pope the benefit of the doubt and put the burden of proof on us to show Honorius has company.

Gurney,

I really appreciate your giving this topic a fair consideration. I would agree that historically the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff has guarded against many heresies. I can see giving “assent” to or “acquiescing” to Papal teachings. I just can’t get past the “submission of mind and will” issue.

Anna

 

[ron77nyc]

Here are a few infallible statements that are no longer true. I know many will say that the Church never meant this for the invincibly ignorant but that is not the message that comes across in these statements. You can’t read these or hear these statements and come to the conclusion that non-Catholics will be saved.

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which **no one at all **is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that **it is absolutely necessary **for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Pope Pius XI ( A.D. 1922-1939 ) " The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God;** if any man enter not here,** or if any man go forth from here, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation…Futhermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept , recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitmate successors." Encyclical " Mortalium Animos "

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You and I are on a similar road, Johnny. I actually HATE my old parish and the priests there are a BUMMER! The people are funky, too. But I miss the Church more than I miss my parish. Intellectually I am just not ready, like you, Johnny, more than I am emotionally. That’s what makes it so tough when people on here blast me personally. They think guys like you and I are out to bash and demean Catholicism when we’re really trying to rationalize it and WANT things to work out…

Yeah, the jury is still out with me too. I personally could come up withs other example that I think show the Pope’s fallibility, but to many that are not convincing (ie declaring that the assumption of Mary is dogma,). Last night at work I drove past my old Catholic parish. There is part of me that really longed to return and thought about the peace of mind that the Catholic epistemological model provides. But alas…