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

[elvisman]

I believe Cardinal manning wrote this for a pope , “I acknowledge no civil power;I am subject of no prince.I am more than this.I claim to be the supreme judge and director of the conscience of men: of the peasant who tills the field and of the prince who sits upon the throne of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the legislator that makes laws for the kingdom.I am the sole, last, supreme judge of what is right or wrong”

Well, there you have it. I was wondering when you or another would go down that path. Go to an anti-Catholic source and you’ll get anti-Catholic garbage.

**This remark is from “Fifty Years in the Church of Rome”, by Charles Chiniquy. Chiniquy wrote MANY false and slanderous things about the Church, including (but not limited to) his claim that the **Church assassinated Lincoln!

Chiniquy’s work has been debunked about as many times as his fellow crackpots Lorainne Boettner and Alexander Hyslop.

 

[david_ruiz]

Pickle? No. Only for those who do not understand the term “Unanimous Consent of the Fathers”. I guess that would include you - and unfortunately, your priest friend.

This term does not mean that the Fathers agreed on every single thing. Every human being has his own opinion. It means that they ALL finally agreed on doctrinal matters for they (many of them) did not individually enjoy the charism of infallibility.

When the heresy of Pelagianism was condemned by the Church in 416, St. Augustine was inspired to make his famous remark, “Roma locuta, causa finites” – “Rome has spoken, the matter is ended.”
THIS**, in a nutshell, is the Consent of the Fathers.**

---

Whether or not they individually agreed on matters to the letter is not the point because they all bowed to the infallibility of the Church when the matter was settled doctrinally.

---

So, you see - there is no pickle - only a matter is misunderstanding Church teaching. Shame your priest friend couldn’t comprehend that.

Good .Just so we agree their is "division"or disagreement by the Holy Fathers on quite a few dogmas.It does not show consensus but top down heirarchy. The term "unanimous " seems a bit misleading,and yes ,shameful to be so.

 

[david_ruiz]

Well, there you have it. I was wondering when you or another would go down that path. Go to an anti-Catholic source and you’ll get anti-Catholic garbage.

This remark is from “Fifty Years in the Church of Rome”, by Charles Chiniquy. Chiniquy wrote MANY false and slanderous things about the Church, including (but not limited to) his claim that the Church assassinated Lincoln!

Chiniquy’s work has been debunked about as many times as his fellow crackpots Lorainne Boettner and Alexander Hyslop.

Pretty good .I did not think you would recognize Manning’s statement . Well ,is it true he said it ? Yes,I did not mention Chiniquy because he has been maligned by others, as have ALL heretics .So no more quoting Luther ,Calvin etc.etc. Anyways ,much of what he did say has been verified as true to my reading . So do you have an alternate source to read the full context of the statement ? I believe Chiniquy’s context was one of pride that he was taught to have as a priest of Rome , that was challenged when Protestants said they were sincerely praying for him in his challenge to reform some evils in the culture.Actually ,we should ALL feel we have the ultimate truth and light ,in this dark world,and should shine it in more places.

 

[david_ruiz]

Sadly, it’s pretty predictable what happens when someone (me in this case) tries to start a thread with a solid premise just asking a simple question: folks who oppose the Catholic polity/papacy predictably get on and start laying out reasons why the pope is a sham, Catholics get on here and start defending him with a long litany of apologetics points.

That’s NOT what this thread is about. So can we please get back on topic? Please read the thread title and OP. Honorius is usually considered the lightning rod, the chink in Catholic papal claims armor that anti-infallibility folks claim proves the point that popes can not only err, but teach heresy officially. Pro-infallibility crowds argue that he was just guilty of a failure to teach. I’ve argued the former not the latter. But in any case, if the papacy were open to error and the ability to teach heresy, one would’ve thought that the popes would’ve taught heresies in the last 2,000 years apart from just Honorius, right?

2,000 years is a long time! And in that time, what other heretical positions can anyone point out that the popes have taught?

Some of you point out that he has taught heresies, just none that the Church would agree are heresies, etc. Valid points. But what about heresies we all agree on?

I don’t care if people point out heresies we all agree on or that just non-Catholics agree on. Let’s just try to stay on course without all the off-topic apologetics **multi-colored **antics, please!

No more of this cause your Giants are one up

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We are BACK baby! It was so sweet to see all those Philly fans stunned, man. All I hear right and left is Roy this, Roy that. And they’re so accustomed to watching their team steamroll people that it was great to see the cocky thing dissipate really fast. Lincecum is the real deal. I knew that when I first went to AT&T Park a few years ago in one of his early games. He pitched out here at AAA Fresno. The kid is a freak of nature and amazing for his age. Halladay got over-hyped after that no-hitter. I don’t think he’ll make the same mistakes again back in San Francisco when we play there against him. He’s an amazing pitcher but I think he got cocky. He won’t repeat it.

Next game I give to my Giants (I originally predicted we’d win 2 but probably not game 1 because of Halladay). Sanchez, IMO, can out-pitch Oswalt and he’s just devastating to lefties. Sanchez has thrown his own no-hitters before and has actually put up numbers as good as Lincecum and is really our star this year.

If we can get a 2-0 lead on Philly going in to SF, I’ll be like the Ozzy song: Flying High Again!

GO GIANTS!!!

No more of this cause your Giants are one up

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Prove that the Catholic Church is the **only branch **of Jesus’ universal Church and not all of those called out.

Very simple, just research your founders in protestantism and you will find they all came from the Catholic Church. Then research Church history prior to the sixteenth century and you will find all christians Catholic (both east and western hemispheres of the world) dating back to the resurrection. Shall I give you the page number to the brittanica encyclopedia to give you the successions of the Catholic popes leading all the way back to St. Peter? who walked on water, raised the dead, heard from God to accept the Gentiles into the body of Christ (Catholic Church) and who was given the keys to the kingdom of God singularly from Jesus himself, who promised Peter to be with his Church until the consumation of the world, or if you prefer the scripture quotes from Jesus himself?

I Know of no other man recorded in history to walk on water other than Jesus except Peter our first Pope. Talk about Papal infallibility, that was a physical infallibility described in scripture by the man Peter shepherd of Jesus flock on earth until he returns; John 21;…

Yet this same Pope Peter denied Jesus 3 times? Honorious a Greek speaking Pope himself 40 years after his death made a heretic from letters (not a papal declaration of infallibility binding on all christians) to prove his support of His eastern Greek heresies? Never qualifies as an infallibility of neither his bishophoric nor his Papal seat of Peter.

What is interesting? Truth be told; we never had this problem of heretics from Roman Latin Popes they preferred death before heresy or denying Jesus Christ. Yet we find heretics and heresies and apostates coming from the Eastern (orthodox) Greek side of the Catholic Church members.

Peace be with you

 

[Petergee]

Honorious a Greek speaking Pope himself 40 years after his death made a heretic from letters (not a papal declaration of infallibility binding on all christians) to prove his support of His eastern Greek heresies? Never qualifies as an infallibility of neither his bishophoric nor his Papal seat of Peter.

What is interesting? Truth be told; we never had this problem of heretics from Roman Latin Popes they preferred death before heresy or denying Jesus Christ. Yet we find heretics and heresies and apostates coming from the Eastern (orthodox) Greek side of the Catholic Church members.

There’s no need to be culturally trumphalist or racist about it. There have been quite a few popes whose native language was Latin or another western language, who were equally if not more cowardly and poor adminstrators as Honorius was. What protects the popes is not their language or culture but that they are the succesors of st peter as rulers nof all the Church, East and West.

It’s true that most of the early heresies first arose in the east, but so did most of the great early saints. The east was the more highly populated, culturally developed part of the Mediterranean world, until the Moslem invasions destroyed its cultural preeminence.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There’s no need to be culturally trumphalist or racist about it. There have been quite a few popes whose native language was Latin or another western language, who were equally if not more cowardly and poor adminstrators as Honorius was. What protects the popes is not their language or culture but that they are the succesors of st peter as rulers nof all the Church, East and West.

It’s true that most of the early heresies first arose in the east, but so did most of the great early saints. The east was the more highly populated, culturally developed part of the Mediterranean world, until the Moslem invasions destroyed its cultural preeminence.

This thread is an attack on Papal infallibility not lack of leadership in the office of Peter. Infallibility has nothing to do with language or culture of the Popes, I pray that the facts be revealed here to those who have fallen victim to false arguments who distort these facts of Papal infallibility.

The OP suggests that a 40 year old dead Pope Honorious spoke infallibly in support of his heresy (Honorious a dead condemned heretic) from the East, as you stated most heretics and heresies came from, “you stated this yourself”, because these are the facts of history, I will not condemn you of triumphalism or culturally prejudiced, for stating that “most heresies and heretics came from the East”.

I hoped to reveal this Truth which you gracefully mentioned to recognize this Greek Pope Honorious became Pope at a time when heresies from the East were rampant. It does not suffice here the sentiments of the Greek speaking Pope for his Eastern Church when Pope Honorious championed the heretics and heresies trying to infect the Western Latin Catholic Church. But this credit due Pope Honorious is never mentioned.

I have not revealed my sentiments and much respect and reverence for my Eastern brothers in Christ both in full communion with the Pope and those who refuse communion with my Pope.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m highly offended that you’re saying my thread is an “attack,” period. That’s paranoid and shows a fear of discussion in these topics. If you actually took the time to read what I’ve written throughout this thread (it’s evident you have not) instead of knee-jerk apologetics and attack mode, you’d see that I have stated over and over again that I feel the popes have been outstanding, Honorius is the only good example anyone can provide (and I’ve mentioned even his case is debatable) and 2,000 years with only one “possibly” heretical pope would not make me jump ship on the infallibility arguments. I’d need more and no one has provided that ‘more’ for me yet. My posts have said several times that opponents of infallibility have failed to convince me that popes have erred.

I did indeed suggest that some think Honorius spoke infallibly in that he sent his legate to the Synod of Cyprus and according to a biography of Maximus the Confessor, the emperor, Heracleus, ruled in favor of the pro-monothelite camp “and so with Honorius” we are told in the writings. I have felt that if a pope sends a legate to adopt a position and that position is heretical, he’s teaching from the Chair. I am still prayerfully studying that bit of history.

To call my OP an attack and always suspect foul play takes away credibility and insults the OP (me) greatly. Never have I sought to attack anyone and I think you know that.

This thread is an attack on Papal infallibility not lack of leadership in the office of Peter. Infallibility has nothing to do with language or culture of the Popes, I pray that the facts be revealed here to those who have fallen victim to false arguments who distort these facts of Papal infallibility.

The OP suggests that a 40 year old dead Pope Honorious spoke infallibly in support of his heresy (Honorious a dead condemned heretic) from the East, as you stated most heretics and heresies came from, “you stated this yourself”, because these are the facts of history, I will not condemn you of triumphalism or culturally prejudiced, for stating that “most heresies and heretics came from the East”.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;7171661]I’m highly offended that you’re saying my thread is an “attack,” period. That’s paranoid and shows a fear of discussion in these topics. If you actually took the time to read what I’ve written throughout this thread (it’s evident you have not) instead of knee-jerk apologetics and attack mode, you’d see that I have stated over and over again that I feel the popes have been outstanding, Honorius is the only good example anyone can provide (and I’ve mentioned even his case is debatable) and 2,000 years with only one “possibly” heretical pope would not make me jump ship on the infallibility arguments. I’d need more and no one has provided that ‘more’ for me yet. My posts have said several times that opponents of infallibility have failed to convince me that popes have erred.

I will bypass the cordial introductions here Gurney; Two things; First I did not say the OP is attacking infallibility but the thread " Re: Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I? You are addressing me from a third person to my commentaries here. So I would ask that you forgive me in advance if I have offended you, although I was never addressing you directly.

You are correct from my lack of time on these threads, I must confess I have not previewed every 400+ posts here, although I have visited time and time again without a response.

I did indeed suggest that some think Honorius spoke infallibly in that he sent his legate to the Synod of Cyprus and according to a biography of Maximus the Confessor, the emperor, Heracleus, ruled in favor of the pro-monothelite camp “and so with Honorius” we are told in the writings. I have felt that if a pope sends a legate to adopt a position and that position is heretical, he’s teaching from the Chair. I am still prayerfully studying that bit of history.

We never finished our discussion on this matter because the thread was closed before I could respond to your posts in regards to Honorius, which I have stated above, that Honorius never spoke Ex-cathedra because his personal letters were never binding upon all believers exempting his heretical letters from infallibility.

To call my OP an attack and always suspect foul play takes away credibility and insults the OP (me) greatly. Never have I sought to attack anyone and I think you know that.

Again I never called the OP (you) attacking Infallibility, please re-read my commentary. The last thing I would ever want to do is offend you over these matters and hope to continue our discussions without ever offending you but only to provoke your intelligence and great esteem in clarifying our faith especially when it crosses the path of great difficulty. I only wish to inform you that there are never any amature apologists, for we are all called to give an answer for our faith no matter at what level that may be. **I Peter 3:15… Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, **

I have always found you to be reasonable and charitable in our discussions, it is I who may have sought to get your attention here on the subject of Honorius, for this I ask for your forgiveness and pray in humility to remove any insult or injury that I may have caused you to get your direct attention on this topic.

Please pray for me

 

[Petergee]

This thread is an attack on Papal infallibility not lack of leadership in the office of Peter.

Some people in this thread are attacking infallibility, that doesn’t mean the whole thread is attcking it. Put your six-guns down for a moment. Not every post requires a full-on blast of condemnation in response.

Infallibility has nothing to do with language or culture of the Popes,

Yes, that’s the point I was making. You seem to think that pope Honorius supprted heresy because he was of Greek language-cultural background.

I pray that the facts be revealed here to those who have fallen victim to false arguments who distort these facts of Papal infallibility.

The OP suggests that a 40 year old dead Pope Honorious spoke infallibly in support of his heresy (Honorious a dead condemned heretic) from the East, as you stated most heretics and heresies came from, “you stated this yourself”, because these are the facts of history, I will not condemn you of triumphalism or culturally prejudiced, for stating that “most heresies and heretics came from the East”.

Actually you stated it first yourself, I was merely agreeing with you but pointing out that this does not mean that the whole East was rotten, far from it there were many great saints there.

I hoped to reveal this Truth which you gracefully mentioned to recognize this Greek Pope Honorious became Pope at a time when heresies from the East were rampant. It does not suffice here the sentiments of the Greek speaking Pope for his Eastern Church when Pope Honorious championed the heretics and heresies trying to infect the Western Latin Catholic Church. But this credit due Pope Honorious is never mentioned.

Honorius did not “champion” heretics nor heresies. He merely suggested for peace’s sake but partly out of cowardice and incompetence as an administrator, in a private letter to a heretic, that the heretic dilute his heretical position to one less heretical, and Honorius tried to avoid the heretics and orthodox from openly confronting each other. I don’t know why you think this is a “credit” to Honorius. It was a failure by Honorius, although it did not entail, as some now claim, his teaching heresy.

 

[schaick]

Thank you for your dictionary definition of Church.
I, however, prefer God’s definition (Matt. 16:18, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 1 Tim. 3:15).

You see, my angry friend - tens of thousands of constantly-splintering, bickering Protestant denominations cannot be right for ONE reason: There is only ONE truth - not tens of thousands.

Some** Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration**, while others do not.
Some** believe in soul-sleep**, while others do not.
Some** believe in the total depravity** of man, while others do not.
Some** believe in the Holy Trinity**, while others do not.
Some** believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture**”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some** believe that some were predestined for hell**, while others do not.
Some** believe in a woman’s right to choose** abortion, while others do not.
Some** believe that practicing homosexuality** is a sin, while others do not.
Some** believe in contraception**, while others do not – and the list goes on.

Tell me, Schaick - using your heavily flawed definition of “Church” - who is right?

You accuse me of being angry, not sure why- I am not. What makes you think that?

Those verses do not explain the word Church or how it was used when those verses were written. The dictionary explains the use of the word church in Matthew 16:18 g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia as it was used at the time of writing the text-as the people called out, people assembled.

Actually I have not seen bickering between trinitarian Christians. I have attended multiple Bible study groups where there were many diffferent branches of the universal Church and there was actually agreement on all our tenets of faith.

I have said all along that there is one true interpretation, but multiple applications. The people that interprete the Bible in context of time and place without adding any undocumented beliefs or requirements to our salvation are correct.

Goodness in the Catholic Church itself today there are division- people are not being true with themselves and following along like robots going through actions and prayers not believing what they are saying and reciting.

There are mere Christians that believe in Real Presence and Catholics that don’t. There are Catholics that roll their eyes when you mention Pope infallibility.

Division didn’t start with the reformation, from the very beginning of the universal Church there were people that either believed and agreed or didn’t. Developed doctrines and dogmas didn’t stop them from believing differently, creating off shoots and forming cults.

Well I guess burning them at the stake might have slowed them down a bit!

 

[schaick]

continued . . .

There is no getting past the Word of God. christ established ONE Church - and NOWHERE does the bible even hint at different “denominations”:

Matt. 17:19
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you (singular), Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you (singular r), but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you (singular) you (singular) are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke 22-31
**“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, **but I have prayed that your (singular) own faith may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers.”

Matt. 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

**Pretty clear **stuff about authority Christ left his one and only Church.
Tell me - WHO do Protestants go to when they need to settle matters? Jesus told us to leave it up to the CHURCH to decide . . .

Yes one universal Church that is not all completely contained in the Catholic Church with many parts.

The binding and loosing was given to all the Disciples. One thing about binding and loosing- no one has the authority to bind and loose something that has not already been bound or loosed by GOD.

Luke 11
52"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

Revelation 1
18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

In most branches of the universal Church it is the local Church [the people called out- the congregation] who is the ground and pillar of truth have the ability to correct or boot the improper elder, the minister who is preaching inappropriately, the pediphile, etc. A meeting of all members is called, there is much prayer, sometimes depending on the situation a mediator is called in. There is not the hierarchy of multiple levels of church government and red tape that need to be passed through to solve the issue.

 

[ron77nyc]

continued . . .

There is no getting past the Word of God. christ established ONE Church - and NOWHERE does the bible even hint at different “denominations”:

Matt. 17:19
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you (singular), Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you (singular r), but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you (singular) you (singular) are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke 22-31
**“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, **but I have prayed that your (singular) own faith may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers.”

Matt. 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

**Pretty clear **stuff about authority Christ left his one and only Church.
Tell me - WHO do Protestants go to when they need to settle matters? Jesus told us to leave it up to the CHURCH to decide . . .

If all popes had the character and obedience of Peter there would not be a problem with submission. They might even be walking on water and healing people. Peter did not play games with the Church’s money and the Holy Spirit backed him up.

Acts 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

Peter did not accept praise or consider himself better than anyone else.

Acts 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

Why is it that you and many others focus on the verses that require obedience by the average lay person and not the ones that demand obedience from church leaders?

 

[schaick]

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

Looking at the form, function and beliefs of the Church Jesus built I have a problem seeing the Catholic Church as anything but a branch formed from that universal Church. A branch that developed over the first few hundred years AD.

It was not inspired members of the Catholic Church that wrote the Bible but inspired members of the univesal Church. It was the universal Church that recognized what GOD inspired as Scripture but finally the Catholic Church that canonized and protected Scripture.

I understand is not our perogative to determine what is “necessary for our salvation”. This is what Popes are doing-man deciding what is necessary, GOD has already laid all HIS requirements out in HIS Word. Catholics really believe GOD would leave something so important out of HIS Word?

Why would GOD leave something out of HIS Word that would be required for our salvation?

No I believe you as an eyewitness have repeorted what other eyewitnesses have reported.

**Exactly! ** Why is there a need for the Catholic Church to say and try to prove through infallible statements, developed dogmas that Mary HAD to be a virgin perpetually, assumed, immaculately conceived.

In trying to explain a mystery, something that could remain a mystery and is not a factor in our salvation divisions are created between the people called out, not only in the universal Church but inside the Catholic Church itself.

 

[schaick]

Why are you being so sensitive?

If you mean this statement I am explaining what the non-Catholic Churches [In most branches of the universal Church] do to address such problems. What I am accusing the Catholic Church of having is a huge heirarchy and a lot of red tape to work through to get a problem solved.

So if you were to read it carefully you would see that **all branches of the universal Church have issues with the improper elder, the minister who is preaching inappropriately, the pediphile, etc. **

In most branches of the universal Church it is the local Church [the people called out- the congregation] who is the ground and pillar of truth have the ability to correct or boot the improper elder, the minister who is preaching inappropriately, the pediphile, etc. A meeting of all members is called, there is much prayer, sometimes depending on the situation a mediator is called in. There is not the hierarchy of multiple levels of church government and red tape that need to be passed through to solve the issue

The second complaint from you about burning heretics is only to say that not all those people who disagreed with the Catholic Church were able to believe differently, create off shoots and form cults for obvious reasons.

*Division didn’t start with the reformation, from the very beginning of the universal Church there were people that either believed and agreed or didn’t. Developed doctrines and dogmas didn’t stop them from believing differently, creating off shoots and forming cults.

Well I guess burning them at the stake might have slowed them down a bit! *

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks for your post, Gabriel. You haven’t done me any injury; don’t worry. I simply want it known that my OP and me as a person, both of us are not out to discredit or blast the papacy. Like the X-Files movie (and boy was it a lousy movie!) “I Want to Believe!” Myself and a few others like Anna Scott, we’re honestly wanting not to prove the papacy and infallibility to be nonsense, we’re hoping the reverse. But being intellectually honest and seeking the truth, I have to get both sides and try to discern the truth without prejudice. So, I started this thread. If the doctrine of papal infallibility is bogus, then I would assume over a 2,000 year period there would be more moments of error and heresy than Honorius, which is, as I stated, debatable in itself. So my OP put the burden of proof on the Orthodox, Protestants, and other folks who oppose papal infallibility, NOT on Catholics like yourself. My OP was a searcher’s op, not one of those baiting-style angry anti-Catholic rants trying to drum up venom.

As far as Honorius, you’re correct about the letters between he and Sergius. If that were all there were, then it’d be pretty plain that this was private opinion and just bad judgment. But the fact that he sent his deacon Gaius to the Synod of Cyprus with the monothelite agenda and guys like Maximus the Confessor oppposed them, and yet the emperor ruled with monothelitism “and so with Honorius” it seems that he was teaching ex cathedra. I’d like to believe otherwise but if a pope sent legates to Nicaea, and they furthered the anti-Arian agenda, you’d claim that’s ex cathedra right? Or if he sent them to proclaim the anti-Nestorian or anti-Pelagian position at a synod of council, you’d say that’s ex cathedra? Why when he sent a delegate with a heretical position is it NOT infallible? That’s my question. I haven’t gotten many good responses related to that except for a couple from mardukm that sadly degenerated into feuding and warfare rather than discussion.

Thanks again for your post, your passion, and sincerity as well as integrity as a poster.

I will bypass the cordial introductions here Gurney; Two things; First I did not say the OP is attacking infallibility but the thread " Re: Critics of Papal Infallibility: Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I? You are addressing me from a third person to my commentaries here. So I would ask that you forgive me in advance if I have offended you, although I was never addressing you directly.

You are correct from my lack of time on these threads, I must confess I have not previewed every 400+ posts here, although I have visited time and time again without a response.

We never finished our discussion on this matter because the thread was closed before I could respond to your posts in regards to Honorius, which I have stated above, that Honorius never spoke Ex-cathedra because his personal letters were never binding upon all believers exempting his heretical letters from infallibility.

Again I never called the OP (you) attacking Infallibility, please re-read my commentary. The last thing I would ever want to do is offend you over these matters and hope to continue our discussions without ever offending you but only to provoke your intelligence and great esteem in clarifying our faith especially when it crosses the path of great difficulty. I only wish to inform you that there are never any amature apologists, for we are all called to give an answer for our faith no matter at what level that may be. **I Peter 3:15… Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, **

I have always found you to be reasonable and charitable in our discussions, it is I who may have sought to get your attention here on the subject of Honorius, for this I ask for your forgiveness and pray in humility to remove any insult or injury that I may have caused you to get your direct attention on this topic.

Please pray for me

 

[david_ruiz]

Well, there you have it. I was wondering when you or another would go down that path. Go to an anti-Catholic source and you’ll get anti-Catholic garbage.

This remark is from “Fifty Years in the Church of Rome”, by Charles Chiniquy. Chiniquy wrote MANY false and slanderous things about the Church, including (but not limited to) his claim that the Church assassinated Lincoln!

Chiniquy’s work has been debunked about as many times as his fellow crackpots Lorainne Boettner and Alexander Hyslop.

Wait a minute , why should I backpedal .So quoting a cardinal is "that " path and anti- catholic ?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You quoted the “wrong” cardinal LOL apparently! That’s like quoting Spong for Episcopalians or Hans Kung for Catholics. There are loons in all quarters of Christendom.

Wait a minute , why should I backpedal .So quoting a cardinal is "that " path and anti- catholic ?

 

[Louie1983]

This might be really late.

But i’m sure the “heresy” referred to in this discussion was written in a private letter. At no stage was he teaching this or maybe not even suggesting it.

He wasn’t actually trying to bind the church to this teaching. So I don’t know if this can be classified as the pope being guilty of being fallible.