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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gurneyhalleck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
david_ruiz said:
Sola scriptura made perfect sense to one Catholic , Luther .He had no problem at first with his beloved church, including heirarchy ,and councils and early fathers and sacraments etc .It is just that **he became enlightened **to believe they could be wrong from time to time ,and that scripture was the best point of reference, benchmark , guideline , even authority for the pope and bishops and councils etc. …
Click to expand...
Actually, he fell for a lie from the pit. The Church cannot err because Jesus is her Head, and her Soul is the HS. It is the divine elements of the Church that prevent her from error.

Luther rightly recognized that the leaders were in need of reform. Men are always in need of reform. His “enlightenment” though, misled him to believe that the Doctrines of Jesus, preserved infallibly in the Church, also needed reform, because the leaders were not following them. This mistake led him into the mistake of Sola Scriptura, one he came to regret at the end of his life.
 
Hi David,

Thanks for your post. I actually never thought that the Fathers made their deliberations and votes at councils in a vacuum. They did it with Scripture, of course. You’re absolutely correct. And if you read the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and company as well as the Didache, a heap of Scripture is quoted there to support claims and theology. So you’re absolutely right on that. And I think sometimes Catholics forget that point.

As a young boy, the Catholic Church taught me nothing. I learned nothing from catechism class…zip. I learned nothing from the banal homilies or anything church related. As a high schooler, the Holy Spirit moved me and I started reading the Bible BY MYSELF front to back. I bought study guides and scholarly commentary to guide me and I went through the Bible on a quest for truth and to meet the Lord through His Word.

I didn’t come back to Catholicism until age 19 or so and had an endless chain of lousy experiences. I can honestly say I have precious few good memories and never learned much of anything from the Catholic church in this area. I learned it self-taught and believe the HS guided me.

So I appreciate your point here about Scripture. I don’t buy the idea of just going to Mass for x amount of years and you’ll go through the whole Bible. That doesn’t equal a good longterm bible study! The Bible is the word of God, period.

I simply think that apostolic succession is very important, the Eucharist is very important, the Church did indeed come before the Bible was finalized, etc. Think about Mark’s Gospel being the first one written down. It’s estimated at around 60AD or possibly a little later. So for around 30 years between the ascension of our Savour and the writing down of Mark’s gospel one had to rely on the oral Word and the judgments of the Church, the bishops, the clergy, the leadership and inspired assembly of the Lord, not the new testament as it wasn’t written yet. And shoot, John’s Gospel didn’t come around until most likely the second century! The only non-synoptic gospel took a long time to materialize. And Paul’s epistles were sporadic and not available to all churches so the Churches were authoritative, etc.

It’s just something to think about—the chicken or the egg thing. If the chicken is the Church and the egg is the Bible, the chicken came first. 😛 But that does not negate the crucial central, beautiful and powerful role of Scripture on the Church…That’s what I’m trying to stress.

God bless, david
david_ruiz said:
Hello again.St Ignatius would agree with about half your list of descriptive terms of the early church . Again , how early is early, for your entire list ?.. Consubstantiation (?) is as explicit at theory as transubstantiation…some Fathers have disagreed on episcopacy, I believe…Sacraments, yes, two , really three if you count being married before God…Most denominations have one teaching on authority. Yes , there are many denominations (6-7 main ones), of which , to the world and other religions, Catholicism is just one of them. …Are you sure all those falsehoods you listed were dealt with without Holy Scripture ? I see the Fathers using tons of scripture , as Timothy suggests, for correction. I do believe scriptures were fully assembled before some on your list. Anyways , some on your list could be combatted with the O.T. and only several new testament books, I think…After the church gloriously rose , thru the apostles and prophets , why would you then not rest on their inspired writings ? What could be more natural and logical .That is no “switch”. The switch is then resting on conjecture and extra-biblical tradition, the same mistake the Jews made (partly -they at least had freedom to differ on much ,yet remain Jewish, e.g.-Sadducees,Pharisees)…Sola scriptura made perfect sense to one Catholic , Luther .He had no problem at first with his beloved church, including heirarchy ,and councils and early fathers and sacraments etc .It is just that he became enlightened to believe they could be wrong from time to time ,and that scripture was the best point of reference, benchmark , guideline , even authority for the pope and bishops and councils etc. …Thanks for letting me respond .It’s late gotta go.
Click to expand...
 
Anna_Scott said:
CHESTERTONRULES,

I agree with you. The Bible isn’t all that clear on a number of issues, and many things are not addressed at all.

At some point during 2009, I had to release Sola Scriptura and many other Baptist teachings. If Scripture is all a persons needs, Protestant ministers would not need to take 45-plus minutes to explain the meaning of a few lines of Scripture to their congregations.

Anna
Click to expand...
I appreciate your rational and sincere approach to these discussions. Your concerns about papal authority are legitimate and challenging as well. I have resolved these issues for myself buy I completely understand your position.

Keep up the good work!
 
guanophore said:
The Church cannot err because Jesus is her Head, and her Soul is the HS. It is the divine elements of the Church that prevent her from error.
Click to expand...
This is an error:

MORTALIUM ANIMOS
11. Furthermore, 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 legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”[26]

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928, and the sixth year of Our Pontificate.
PIUS XI
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
I appreciate your rational and sincere approach to these discussions. Your concerns about papal authority are legitimate and challenging as well. I have resolved these issues for myself buy I completely understand your position.

Keep up the good work!
Click to expand...
CHESTERTONRULES,

I really appreciate your kindness. I think sometimes Catholics interpret my questions as being anti-Catholic and that is not the case. I’ve embraced infant Baptism; the Sacraments and the Graces they impart; corporate liturgical worship centered around the Eucharist/the Real Presence; the communion of the Saints. I even had an experience with the Blessed Virgin Mary during the Feast of the BVM.

This old Baptist girl has come along way. 😉 So now, I’m dealing with the authority/infallibility issue. That’s a tough one; but I’m working on— and I appreciate the patience of Catholic friends like you.

I’m glad these issues have been resolved for you. In that regard, I’m guilty of the sin of “envy”. 😊

Peace and blessings,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
CHESTERTONRULES,

I agree with you. The Bible isn’t all that clear on a number of issues, and many things are not addressed at all.

At some point during 2009, I had to release Sola Scriptura and many other Baptist teachings. If Scripture is all a persons needs, Protestant ministers would not need to take 45-plus minutes to explain the meaning of a few lines of Scripture to their congregations.

Anna
Click to expand...
Protestant ministers would not need to take 45-plus minutes to explain the meaning of a few lines of Scripture to their congregations

Interesting statement. My Pastor takes that time showing us ways to apply the Scripture in our everyday life, not explain it.

What I find unclear are how the Catholic Church has come up with some of their teachings that aren’t in Scripture.

What is not addressed that you feel you must know?
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Well my pendulum is definitely not swinging toward the East. Their views on the Atonement are an enormous turnoff for me. I don’t like their Original Sin views either. And the stubborn refusal to acknowledge papal moments of greatness and success drive me nuts. But I’m not sold on Rome either. Like you said, exhausted! I give credit to the Catholics for being a lot closer to the proper view of the atonement, original sin, etc. than the east. But I’m just a bit too stubborn about imputation and grace and justification through faith vis a vis Romans, don’t like indulgences and Honorius and the language of Lumen Gentium, etc. So where does that get us, Anna? Back to square one! :p:eek:
Click to expand...
I hate square one :takethat: OOPS, guess I need my computer.

Anna
 
I find it hard to believe that your pastor has never explained a scriptural verse or readings to you guys. There are many statements in Scripture or references to certain cultures, lands, idioms, phrases, characters, etc. that are now obscure and most layfolks don’t understand. Most good preachers explain and dilineate and try to make ideas and references in Scripture tangiable/comprehensible then they try to help the flock to apply it to their lives. That’s always been my understanding in any church I’ve been in protestant or catholic?
schaick said:
Protestant ministers would not need to take 45-plus minutes to explain the meaning of a few lines of Scripture to their congregations

Interesting statement. My Pastor takes that time showing us ways to apply the Scripture in our everyday life, not explain it.

What I find unclear are how the Catholic Church has come up with some of their teachings that aren’t in Scripture.

What is not addressed that you feel you must know?
Click to expand...
 
Anna_Scott said:
CHESTERTONRULES,

I agree with you. The Bible isn’t all that clear on a number of issues, and many things are not addressed at all.

At some point during 2009, I had to release Sola Scriptura and many other Baptist teachings. If Scripture is all a persons needs, Protestant ministers would not need to take 45-plus minutes to explain the meaning of a few lines of Scripture to their congregations.

Anna
Click to expand...
At one like you, I concluded that Sola Scriptura was fundamentally flawed. I agree with Catholics on this, and I also see where they are right where the praxis has caused alot of Theological confusion. Thus I became interested in Catholicism, and Orthodoxy as well.

At one time I would have said, if its not clearly defined by the Bible, then it must not be important. Since I started attending my local TEC parish, I really appreciated the non dogmatic nature of of TEC. But I also don’t like the liberal innovations of TEC, and how everything is n question, though it seem, even though my parish is grounded and doesn’t seem to embrace the extreme liberalism.

Catholicism offers far more certainty, but with Papal infallibility, dogmas, and infallible church, you have to toe the line so to speak, and it looks like you cannot question anything. But I long for a grounded certainty again.

I am not sure what to make of the East. Its got my interest, but its so different. Its foreign to me. It seems like its model would be easier to accept when it comes to the idea of infallible church, (no Papal one man council) but its way of explaining the faith is out there to me.

Catholics have it far more right then wrong, especially when it comes to embracing historical Christian worship and ecclesiaology.
 
Hi Johnny,

Your state of mind religiously at this point sounds much like Anna and myself. Not a great place to be in but it is what it is as they say…

I agree with your characterization of things on here except for the Orthodoxy part. I’m no longer considering Orthodoxy. I can’t swallow their views on Original Sin, the Atonement, and I think they’re far too anti-papal that it makes some of their circles far too prejudiced and arbitrary for me to take seriously. I also don’t think that they have the bully pulpit that the pope has to impact the world morally and spiritually. Catholicism, IMO, is more truly “catholic” and available and universal than Orthodoxy.

I’m really in an Anglican or Catholic phase of life right now. There are some tough pills for me to swallow to back to the Catholic Church, however, and the parishes in my area are just plain lousy IMO which is not a big incentive, unfortunately…😦 My wife and kids LOVE our Anglican parish and I have to admit I’m happy there, too, generally. It’s just my nagging doubts and unease about some things about Anglicanism and especially its future that bug me. But like Anna and I agree, running to Catholicism to just get “away” from Anglican chaos is no reason to join. You have to believe in the product to really buy it.

Blessings, Johnny! We all need to pray for each other, bigtime!
JohnnyReb said:
At one like you, I concluded that Sola Scriptura was fundamentally flawed. I agree with Catholics on this, and I also see where they are right where the praxis has caused alot of Theological confusion. Thus I became interested in Catholicism, and Orthodoxy as well.

At one time I would have said, if its not clearly defined by the Bible, then it must not be important. Since I started attending my local TEC parish, I really appreciated the non dogmatic nature of of TEC. But I also don’t like the liberal innovations of TEC, and how everything is n question, though it seem, even though my parish is grounded and doesn’t seem to embrace the extreme liberalism.

Catholicism offers far more certainty, but with Papal infallibility, dogmas, and infallible church, you have to toe the line so to speak, and it looks like you cannot question anything. But I long for a grounded certainty again.

I am not sure what to make of the East. Its got my interest, but its so different. Its foreign to me. It seems like its model would be easier to accept when it comes to the idea of infallible church, (no Papal one man council) but its way of explaining the faith is out there to me.

Catholics have it far more right then wrong, especially when it comes to embracing historical Christian worship and ecclesiaology.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Hi Johnny,

Your state of mind religiously at this point sounds much like Anna and myself. Not a great place to be in but it is what it is as they say…

I agree with your characterization of things on here except for the Orthodoxy part. I’m no longer considering Orthodoxy. I can’t swallow their views on Original Sin, the Atonement, and I think they’re far too anti-papal that it makes some of their circles far too prejudiced and arbitrary for me to take seriously. I also don’t think that they have the bully pulpit that the pope has to impact the world morally and spiritually. Catholicism, IMO, is more truly “catholic” and available and universal than Orthodoxy.

I’m really in an Anglican or Catholic phase of life right now. There are some tough pills for me to swallow to back to the Catholic Church, however, and the parishes in my area are just plain lousy IMO which is not a big incentive, unfortunately…😦 My wife and kids LOVE our Anglican parish and I have to admit I’m happy there, too, generally. It’s just my nagging doubts and unease about some things about Anglicanism and especially its future that bug me. But like Anna and I agree, running to Catholicism to just get “away” from Anglican chaos is no reason to join. You have to believe in the product to really buy it.

Blessings, Johnny! We all need to pray for each other, bigtime!
Click to expand...
Yeah, there are quite a few of us in the “almost Catholic” Club. :grouphug:
 
schaick said:
What I find unclear are how the Catholic Church has come up with some of their teachings that aren’t in Scripture.

What is not addressed that you feel you must know?
Click to expand...
Scripture was created by the Church as witness to the gospel. Jesus is the Truth, but the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, not scripture itself.

Most of what Jesus said and did is not recorded in scripture.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
GKC would tell us we already are…just not Roman. Maybe he’s got something there. ;)😛
Click to expand...
Maybe. . . .though I would say I’m not “swimming the Tiber,” but “treading water” in the Tiber. Don’t want to drown in the process.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Hi Johnny,

Your state of mind religiously at this point sounds much like Anna and myself. Not a great place to be in but it is what it is as they say…

I agree with your characterization of things on here except for the Orthodoxy part. I’m no longer considering Orthodoxy. I can’t swallow their views on Original Sin, the Atonement, and I think they’re far too anti-papal that it makes some of their circles far too prejudiced and arbitrary for me to take seriously. I also don’t think that they have the bully pulpit that the pope has to impact the world morally and spiritually. Catholicism, IMO, is more truly “catholic” and available and universal than Orthodoxy.

I’m really in an Anglican or Catholic phase of life right now. There are some tough pills for me to swallow to back to the Catholic Church, however, and the parishes in my area are just plain lousy IMO which is not a big incentive, unfortunately…😦 My wife and kids LOVE our Anglican parish and I have to admit I’m happy there, too, generally. It’s just my nagging doubts and unease about some things about Anglicanism and especially its future that bug me. But like Anna and I agree, running to Catholicism to just get “away” from Anglican chaos is no reason to join. You have to believe in the product to really buy it.

Blessings, Johnny! We all need to pray for each other, bigtime!
Click to expand...
Amen to that. Thanks for the kind words. It is helpful to know that people like us are not alone. Perhaps one day I will make the decision to return to Rome. I’m not sure. Perhaps my knowledge of Orthodoxy is lacking-the only thing that I really can say about it is when I was in seminary I included a section in my Gospel of John paper defending the Orthodox position on Flioque from a Sola Scriptura stand point. I am not sure what to make of their views on Original Sin and Atonement, except maybe too mystical for my western oriented mind.
 
I’m ok with their views on the filioque and understand their position as it makes sense. The West shouldn’t have inflicted it upon the East and it shouldn’t be a deal-breaker.

As for the other stuff, I’m too Augustinian for Orthodoxy 😉
JohnnyReb said:
Amen to that. Thanks for the kind words. It is helpful to know that people like us are not alone. Perhaps one day I will make the decision to return to Rome. I’m not sure. Perhaps my knowledge of Orthodoxy is lacking-the only thing that I really can say about it is when I was in seminary I included a section in my Gospel of John paper defending the Orthodox position on Flioque from a Sola Scriptura stand point. I am not sure what to make of their views on Original Sin and Atonement, except maybe too mystical for my western oriented mind.
Click to expand...
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Scripture was created by the Church as witness to the gospel. Jesus is the Truth, but the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, not scripture itself.

Most of what Jesus said and did is not recorded in scripture.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s right there in the Bible (1 Timothy 3:15, I think right off the top of my head). I see nowhere in the Bible that states the the Bible ALONE is our source of truth.

That is why when I began this journey, as sacramental and liturgical as they are, I could not consider Lutheran Christianity as my way to go, although they have much appeal if not for the SS praxis. Heck, Luther even maintained devotion to Mary.
 
After the Luther and Melanchthon years, in subsequent decades and centuries Lutherans distanced themselves more and more from their catholic roots and went too far protestant IMO…
JohnnyReb said:
Yeah, that’s right there in the Bible (1 Timothy 3:15, I think right off the top of my head). I see nowhere in the Bible that states the the Bible ALONE is our source of truth.

That is why when I began this journey, as sacramental and liturgical as they are, I could not consider Lutheran Christianity as my way to go, although they have much appeal if not for the SS praxis. Heck, Luther even maintained devotion to Mary.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top