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

[ron77nyc]

Peter is our first Pope. How can you say he is not Catholic? Do you think marriage is “not Catholic”? Honestly, I have to wonder what benefit you get out of spreading lies about the Catholic faith. It is a very dangerous practice.

I’m saying he was Catholic, he was the first pope (bishop but not bishop of Rome) and he was married. Bishops were also married.
1 Timothy 3
Douay-Rheims Bible

1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife,

Some of them did, certainly. Some modern Catholic priests have wives. What is uncatholic about that?

Those are recent exceptions to the rule in Catholicism. Priests are not allowed to be married.

It is not Catholic to worship people. Humans are creatures, and should not be worshipped, as this is only for God.

If you choose to show no respect for the Pope when you meet him, that is your affair. We treat him as we would Christ, as he is our representative of our chief shepherd.

Jesus receives worship so we can’t treat the pope in the same way. Kissing the ring is a Roman tradition; not an apostolic tradition.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We’re getting WAYYYY off topic here. After pages and pages, and hundreds of posts, I think I would award the trophy to the Catholics. The people opposed to the papacy and infallibilty have by no means made a case, IMO, that any other popes other than Honorius have shady theological teachings and heresy, etc. I don’t see any compelling argument that anyone apart from Honorius has failed the office. And Honorius is open to debate anyway. So I must conclude that in 2,000 years the popes have been stellar, consistent, and true to the office. I don’t see evidence to the contrary?

 

[BenMac]

We’re getting WAYYYY off topic here. After pages and pages, and hundreds of posts, I think I would award the trophy to the Catholics. The people opposed to the papacy and infallibilty have by no means made a case, IMO, that any other popes other than Honorius have shady theological teachings and heresy, etc. I don’t see any compelling argument that anyone apart from Honorius has failed the office. And Honorius is open to debate anyway. So I must conclude that in 2,000 years the popes have been stellar, consistent, and true to the office. I don’t see evidence to the contrary?

Would it not take more time than we have to research every possible heretical (or mistaken) position by a pope? One cannot award the win to the pro-Pope side here on the basis of inferior opposition.

 

[ron77nyc]

We’re getting WAYYYY off topic here. After pages and pages, and hundreds of posts, I think I would award the trophy to the Catholics. The people opposed to the papacy and infallibilty have by no means made a case, IMO, that any other popes other than Honorius have shady theological teachings and heresy, etc. I don’t see any compelling argument that anyone apart from Honorius has failed the office. And Honorius is open to debate anyway. So I must conclude that in 2,000 years the popes have been stellar, consistent, and true to the office. I don’t see evidence to the contrary?

These are all examples of popes teaching contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Popes Eugene IV, Boniface VIII and Pius XI infallibly proclaimed that non-Catholics are not saved.

Peter was teaching circumcision.

Pope Leo X was allowing people to pay for indulgences.

 

[Petergee]

Would it not take more time than we have to research every possible heretical (or mistaken) position by a pope? One cannot award the win to the pro-Pope side here on the basis of inferior opposition.

Such research is not necessary. The only thing necessary to disprove papal infallibility would be to find just ONE purportedly infallible doctrine promulgated by a pope, which can be shown to have been mistaken, or at least contradicted by another purportedly infallible statement by the same or any other pope. The anti-inafillibilists have been unable to come up with even one such case.

 

[schaick]

No, He does not. He speaks agains following man made traditions that nullify the Word of God. He had no problem with man made traditions. He wore the same clothing, at the same food, and followed the same customs as His people. There is nothing inherintly wrong with man made traditions.

This is a modern evangelical innovation that is not found in scripture. There is no reason that the Word of God should stop being passed because some of it was written down.

This is like you standing out oun my yard at noon, and demanding “prove to me there are stars in the sky”.

It is not possible to convince anyone of something who will not accept the evidence.

That is not what the text says, schaick. It says it is profitable THAT the man of God may be equipped. There is nothing in scripture that supports this concept,and this concept contradicts many other scriptures, as well as the notion that, if it were true, Jesus founded a useless Church.

Yes, walking in a life of righteousness is what we are all called to do, and be equipped for the work of the ministry. This is the duty of those God has appointed and authorized to teach.

Indeed we are, but not all of us are especially gifted and authorized to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.

Yes, many are now being equipped with deficient tools.

Well, schaick, you are not in a position to create a definition of the Church, fortunately. The Churche’s function and design belongs to Jesus, not to you. You are artificially severing Christ from His Church, and the believers from the Church. You are suffering from a deficient concept of the nature and function of the Church.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus is confined to the pages of Holy Scripture?

It is good to base one’s faith upon truth supported by evidence. A person who rejects part of the evidence will suffer from a deficient concept of the faith.

Part of the evidence that you reject, schaick, is that Catholics added to the Scripture. The CC wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized the entire NT. It is written by, for, and about Catholics, and there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

Hopefully you know this is what I meant -traditions that some require that are not neccesaary for our salvation.

We are all to walk in righteousness whether in the ministery or not.

No Jesus is in my heart and every other Christian

OK so GOD had nothing to do with the writing, preservation, promulgation and canonization of the entire NT. So show me the whole evidence that the Apostles believed the Mary Dogmas, Papal infallibility.

To prove infallibility or not we must first know which is any statements are considered infallible. The initial question can not be answered without a list. Are there only 2 infallible statements are there 20?

 

[schaick]

eht ee sts mue wenh ECNDEIV EE MUST SEEtHEN W

We’re getting WAYYYY off topic here. After pages and pages, and hundreds of posts, I think I would award the trophy to the Catholics. The people opposed to the papacy and infallibilty have by no means made a case, IMO, that any other popes other than Honorius have shady theological teachings and heresy, etc. I don’t see any compelling argument that anyone apart from Honorius has failed the office. And Honorius is open to debate anyway. So I must conclude that in 2,000 years the popes have been stellar, consistent, and true to the office. I don’t see evidence to the contrary?

You have not looked very hard.

Of course Christians can’t make a case no one has told us which statements are even considered infallible.

Then we must see the evidence they have based that infallible statement on.

Did Mary come to a Pope in a vision and say hey by the way I was immaculately conceived?

Did Paul say to a student of his - I’m not going to write this part down as a Scripture but I want you to pass it along that Mary was conceived immaculately.

Is there a writing outside the canonized New Testament, some Apochrypha writing that says Mary was conceived immaculatly?

Is the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately even considered an infallible statement to begin with?

 

[ron77nyc]

Such research is not necessary. The only thing necessary to disprove papal infallibility would be to find just ONE purportedly infallible doctrine promulgated by a pope, which can be shown to have been mistaken, or at least contradicted by another purportedly infallible statement by the same or any other pope. The anti-inafillibilists have been unable to come up with even one such case.

I gave you 3 examples.

Popes Eugene IV, Boniface VIII and Pius XI infallibly proclaimed that non-Catholics are not saved.

 

[ron77nyc]

Is the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately even considered an infallible statement to begin with?

Yes it is. It passes the 4 tests of infallibility and it has the words “pronounce, declare, and define” attached to it.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html
If you see a pope say **“we define” or “I define,” **it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, **we pronounce, declare, and define **it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

This is also an infallible statement.

**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. Boniface VIII: “Unam Sanctam,”

 

[guanophore]

Jesus speaks about not following man-made traditions.

No, Schaick, he does not. He speaks against the customs of men that nullify the Word of God. There is nothing inherintly wrong with human customs. Jesus engaged in a multitude of man made traditions, such as reclining at table, attending weddings, going on pilgrimmages to the Temple, eating and drinking the foods that were customary and traditional in His day.

You do not appear to be distinguishing between the traditions of men (human customs) and Sacred Tradition (the Word of God).

v GOD’s Word was passed orally until recording it began shortly after the death of Jesus.

Where does it say in your Bible that the Word of God stopped being passed orally once some of it was written down? this is a tradition of men also.

Prove that the Word of GOD was not confined to Scripture.  Prove that there was a *"deposit of faith"*.

Do you honestly deny what the Scirpture says on these points, Schaick?

1 Thess 2:13

13 And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, (even the word) of God, ye accepted (it) not (as) the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.

The Word of God was given to the Church by the Apostles, and is at work in the faithful. This is the definition of Sacred Tradition. It is not the word of men, but of God.

Jude 3

3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.

The reason that Catholics cannot accept the innovative ideas of the Reformers is that we have a responsibility to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the Church. Anything that was not delivered by the Apostles consitutes “a differerent gospel”.

Scripture is profitable yes and it completely furnishes a person for good works. Not just duties in the ministry but “equipped for every good work”.- walking in a life of righteousness.

No, Schaick. the passage does NOT say that scripture completely furnishes a person for anything. It says it is PROFITABLE for the furnishing. The equipping of the saints is the duty of the Church.

Seminaries equip, fellow Pastors equip fellow Pastors, etc.

Scripture is profitable in forming the saints for the work of the ministry.

Jesus gave various gifts to all of us - not just the Church.  Of course a Church is still needed for fellowship, support, inspiration, teaching, learning, helping us each find our gift.

Schaick, this comment is a demonstration that you have a deficient notion of the Church. The Church is the building of God, into which we, as individual stones, have been added. There is no separation between the stones and the building they comprise. The gifts are given to individuals for the benefit of the Church. You are creating a false dichotomy.

**John 17**

17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

And where does it say that God’s Word of Truth is confined to Scripture, or stopped being spoken when Scripture was written?

You accuse me of basing my faith on truth supported with evidence.

Actually, I accused you of denying the evidence.

 

[guanophore]

I’m saying he was Catholic, he was the first pope (bishop but not bishop of Rome) and he was married. Bishops were also married.
1 Timothy 3
Douay-Rheims Bible

1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife,

If it was required for a bishop to be married, then Paul would have excluded himself. He would have excluded Christ from being an appropriate shepherd of the flock, also. This would also rule out Timothy and Titus.

Yes, there were married priests and bishops, especially in the first generation.

Those are recent exceptions to the rule in Catholicism. Priests are not allowed to be married.

You rightly note that it is a rule, not a doctrine. There is no theological prohibition for a married priest. It is a discipline of the Church. the Church prefers to choose from among those who are called to celibacy to serve in the priesthood.

Jesus receives worship so we can’t treat the pope in the same way. Kissing the ring is a Roman tradition; not an apostolic tradition.

Indeed, there are many and varied forms of respect throughout the world. In the East, bowing and prostrating is the custom, rather than kneeling, or genuflecting. Do you honestly believe that a gesture of respect toward someone is “worship”?



Are these people “worshipping” that speaker during this altar call?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Boy you really don’t know me very well. Ask anyone in CAF, people who agree with me much of the time and the people who often disagree with me. Both will tell you that “looking very hard” is not one of my weaknesses. For goodness sakes, schaick, I’ve looked into this issue and others until I’m blue in the face. Seriously.

Of course Mary didn’t come to the pope in a dream with a cheesy dialogue like you described. By Catholic thinking, the Holy Spirit helped the pope discern once and for all a theological debate that has gone on for centuries—the Assumption of Mary and her Immaculate Conception. Nothing so melodramatic as your characterization of it happened I’m sure.

You are correct that the Church does NOT have a list of infallible statements and I share your frustration with that. But you can bet that when it has an anathama attached to it and it’s a papal decree with the proper language like that, it’s infallible. These two Marian dogmas are usually considered the only guaranteed infallible decrees actually.

eht ee sts mue wenh ECNDEIV EE MUST SEEtHEN W

You have not looked very hard.

Of course Christians can’t make a case no one has told us which statements are even considered infallible.

Then we must see the evidence they have based that infallible statement on.

Did Mary come to a Pope in a vision and say hey by the way I was immaculately conceived?

Did Paul say to a student of his - I’m not going to write this part down as a Scripture but I want you to pass it along that Mary was conceived immaculately.

Is there a writing outside the canonized New Testament, some Apochrypha writing that says Mary was conceived immaculatly?

Is the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately even considered an infallible statement to begin with?

 

[1234]

Gurney,

I'm jsut coming into this discussion and it's too long to review, but have the bulls of Nicholas V condoning slavery been discussed?  I realize that a bull is not an encyclical, but they were/are paid attention to and in this case exerted a direct and very deleterious effect on millions of people.

A direct steal from Wiki, under “Nicholas V”:

In 1452, Nicholas V issued the papal bull*** Dum Diversas,*** granting the King of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. *** Dum Diversas *legitimised the colonial slave trade that begun around this time with the expeditions by Henry the Navigator to find a sea route to India, which were financed with African slaves. This approval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex of 1455.

I am not prepared to argue the Latin, theological points, etc., but simply say, there it is.

 

[guanophore]

These are all examples of popes teaching contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Popes Eugene IV, Boniface VIII and Pius XI infallibly proclaimed that non-Catholics are not saved.

In the first example, the Popes are teaching Catholic doctrine. Jesus only founded one Church. All who are saved come through Jesus, as there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. Jesus is Head of His One Body, the Church, so all who are saved are members of His One Body, the Church. This has always been, is now, and always will be, the Teaching of the Church.

Peter was teaching circumcision.

These are all good examples of how people misunderstand the gift of infallibility.

Peter never taught circumcision. Peter, on the contrary, delivered the Teaching from God to the Council of Jerusalem that God had poured out His Spirit upon the Gentiles (in the house of Cornelius) and that baptism (the entrance rite into the New Covenant) should not be withheld from them. The Gentiles, he taught everyone, had been received by grace through faith just as the Jews. On the basis of Peter’s infallible teaching, the council wrote to the Gentiles that they did not need to be circumcised.

Later, when Peter went to Galatia to visit, he behaved hypocritically, not according to the infallible teaching he had given to the Church. By his hypocritical actions, he was being a poor role model, and others followed him into hypocrisy.

This is an excellent example of how infallibility does not equate to impeccability.

Pope Leo X was allowing people to pay for indulgences.

Pope Leo was acting in greed, abusing the Gospel (Simony) for temporal benefit. The Church teaches that this is a grave sin, not only because Simony is a sin, but because teachers are judged with greater strictness. Leo, Tetzel, and all the others involved in this scandal, just as those involved in worse scandals today, will be required to give an account to God of the souls they abused.

The misrepresentation of the Truth that grace cannot be purchased, though not uncommon, is not part of the Deposit of Faith, and was certainly never taught by the Church. It was nto even taught by Leo X, though it is true that he allowed this abuse to occur under his watch.

What you have posted is part of an ongoing insidiously anti-catholic polemic that can be found in all of your posts. It is the promulgation of falsehoods. This is a very dangerous practice.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes it is. It passes the 4 tests of infallibility and it has the words “pronounce, declare, and define” attached to it.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html
If you see a pope say **“we define” or “I define,” **it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, **we pronounce, declare, and define **it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

This is also an infallible statement.

**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. Boniface VIII: “Unam Sanctam,”

Ron,
This is very helpful. Thanks so much!
Anna

 

[guanophore]

Hopefully you know this is what I meant -traditions that some require that are not neccesaary for our salvation.

No, I did not. It seemed to me that you were unable to distinguish between man made traditions, and Sacred Traditions.

Either way, it is not our perogative to determine what is “necessary for our salvation”. This is a perogative of God only, and should not be usurped by men.

 We are all to walk in righteousness whether in the ministery or not.

From an apostolic point of view, each baptized person has a ministry. When the Scripture speaks of “equipping the saints for the work of the ministry” it is talking about the faithful, the baptized. God gave the gifts to equip to the Church (preaching, teaching evangelism, pastoring, etc.) so that the Church can accomplish the task of equipping the saints (the called out ones) to bring Christ to the world. Scripture is profitable in these duties.

OK so GOD had nothing to do with the writing, preservation, promulgation and canonization of the entire NT.

Schaick, I am not sure why you are stuck in this either/or mentality, but it is really not helping you at all. The Catholic Church teaches that God is the primary author of Scripture, and that it exists because of the actions of the HS in accmoplishing all these infallible acts. The HS worked through the lives and faith of Catholic people.

What you are saying is the same as saying “Since Moses penned the Law of God and the Pentateuch, God had nothing to do with writing, preserving or promulgating it”. It is a silly assertion.

So show me the whole evidence that the Apostles believed the Mary Dogmas, Papal infallibility.

I live in an area of the country where one can readily see the milky way, and bizzillions of stars on a clear night. You are like a person who stands in my yard at noon on a sunny day, and demands “show me the stars!”. You will not be able to see the evidence because you have already made up your mind that it does not exist. You are blinded by the manner in which you look (standing only at noon)

**To prove infallibility or not we must first know which is any statements are considered infallible**.  The initial question can not be answered without a list.  Are there only 2 infallible statements are there 20?

I am not at all certain that it is possible to “prove” any of the gifts of God. The gifts and revelation of God are quite above any modern scientific methods. In fact, I think that they are beyond the reach of modern scientific “proofs”.

Can you “prove” that handkerchiefs taken from the Apostle Paul healed the sick?

Can you “prove” that a person was raised from the dead by the bones of Elijah?

Can you “prove” that God spoke through the mouth of a donkey?

 

[guanophore]

eht ee sts mue wenh ECNDEIV EE MUST SEEtHEN W

Schaick, maybe you better lay off those nightcaps?

You have not looked very hard.

Of course Christians can’t make a case no one has told us which statements are even considered infallible.

Schaick, the implication here that Catholics are not Christians is considered disrespecful of our faith.

The qualifications for an infallible statement are very rigorous and specific.

However, that is not the topic of the thread. The OP is asking (I think erroneously) about “fallible decisions”. I think the thread has made very clear that a pope can have infallible actions and decisions. Infallibity does not equate to impeccability.

Then we must see the evidence they have based that infallible statement on.

This will not be possible for you, Schaick, since you deny that evidence exists. It is like saying “prove to me that Pluto exists”, when you refuse to accept any and all evidence that has accumilated.

Did Mary come to a Pope in a vision and say hey by the way I was immaculately conceived?

No, that was Bernadette.

But the Pope believed her.

Did Paul say to a student of his - I’m not going to write this part down as a Scripture but I want you to pass it along that Mary was conceived immaculately.

Paul, nor any of the other writers of NT documents, made no effort to pen a complete compendium of the faith.

Is there a writing outside the canonized New Testament, some Apochrypha writing that says Mary was conceived immaculatly?

The writings if the Church refer to her as “without stain” and “all holy”. Immaculate is a Latin term that is not used in the East.

**

schaick:
Is the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately even considered an infallible statement to begin with?**

Yes. It represents the constant teaching and faith of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I gave you 3 examples.

Yes, all of them irrelevant.

This is also an infallible statement.

**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. Boniface VIII: “Unam Sanctam,”

Jesus appointed Peter to feed and care for the flock. He passed this responsibiity to His successor, Linus, and so on up until the present day.

Some of the sheep reject the shepherd appointed by Christ, and rebelliously and waywardly go away from him. The fact that they are rebellious subjects does not make them any less his care. He still has to answer for their souls.

If they are saved, it will be through the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

 

[ron77nyc]

In the first example, the Popes are teaching Catholic doctrine. Jesus only founded one Church. All who are saved come through Jesus, as there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. Jesus is Head of His One Body, the Church, so all who are saved are members of His One Body, the Church. This has always been, is now, and always will be, the Teaching of the Church.

These are all good examples of how people misunderstand the gift of infallibility.

Peter never taught circumcision…

Pope Leo was acting in greed, abusing the Gospel (Simony) for temporal benefit…

The misrepresentation of the Truth that grace cannot be purchased, though not uncommon, is not part of the Deposit of Faith, and was certainly never taught by the Church. It was nto even taught by Leo X, though it is true that he allowed this abuse to occur under his watch.

What you have posted is part of an ongoing insidiously anti-catholic polemic that can be found in all of your posts. It is the promulgation of falsehoods. This is a very dangerous practice.

I’m trying to make a very valid point. The Church does not teach the faith clearly. Most Catholics don’t know what the Church teaches, so when a pope does something contrary to the deposit of faith he is leading them to believe it is the teaching of the Church. They actually are teaching error when they do such things.

If people under Leo X’s watch knew the gospel they would never have bought that lie. The fact that they did proves they were not properly taught. It continues to the present. Most Catholics that I know do not know salvation is a free gift.

 

[ron77nyc]

Yes, all of them irrelevant.

The popes I quoted did not provide any possibility of salvation for a non-Catholic. When Father Feeney taught the same message he was disciplined. Were those popes teaching error?