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

[gurneyhalleck1]

Read the earlier posts where I referenced the Synod of Cyprus.

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.

 

[elvisman]

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?

And why is it that people like you – who call themselves “Catholic” – don’t have a clue as to the difference between respect for the Pope and worship.

---

We worship only God. We do** not **worship the Pope and we don’t worship Mary or any other saint - however, we submit to the Authority of the Church (Matt. 18:15-18, 1 Tim. 3:15)

---

Do a little homework about the faith that you claim to be part of before making such ludicrous posts.

 

[ron77nyc]

Do a little homework about the faith that you claim to be part of before making such ludicrous posts.

I never said the pope received worship; but anyway, you didn’t answer the question.

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

.You are beyond me( but not your Giants) .Do not quite know who is looney or not (what is LOL) ? I do get your point however , but I am still not sure if it is a cop-out. The little I read on Cardinal Manning was that he was very influential in the formulating ,and writing the papal infallibility doctrine.The only one who thought it was a looney idea , at first and perhaps to the last,was his fellow Englander, Newman, whom I thought is regarded highly in Catholic circles.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s beyond me how my Giants can be in such a hitting slump! yeesh! I’m prayin’ man!

.You are beyond me( but not your Giants) .Do not quite know who is looney or not (what is LOL) ? I do get your point however , but I am still not sure if it is a cop-out. The little I read on Cardinal Manning was that he was very influential in the formulating ,and writing the papal infallibility doctrine.The only one who thought it was a looney idea , at first and perhaps to the last,was his fellow Englander, Newman, whom I thought is regarded highly in Catholic circles.

 

[CARV]

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.

I left the Catholic Church after I simply couldn’t honestly maintain a belief in papal infallibility. It would be nice if there was some 100% on the money infallible religious leader that you could get guaranteed answers to religious questions. So I don’t blame you for wanting to believe it. It sure would be nice but that doesn’t make it true.

Actually, I think that an infallible leader is only the second best scenario. Having God actually here running things instead of sitting above watching us all fight over what it is he actually wants would be the best way to have things. But its obvious that aint the way He’s doing things. So I think people really want to compensate for that by following infallibly inspired religious leaders. So you have your popes, your LDS prophets, and you Sun Yun Moons, etc.

I think it is a coping mechanism for the real problem. God is not here in a very tangible way and He is not very clear on what He wants us to do in the meantime.

 

[Louie1983]

CARV:
I left the Catholic Church after I simply couldn’t honestly maintain a belief in papal infallibility. It would be nice if there was some 100% on the money infallible religious leader that you could get guaranteed answers to religious questions. So I don’t blame you for wanting to believe it. It sure would be nice but that doesn’t make it true.

Actually, I think that an infallible leader is only the second best scenario. Having God actually here running things instead of sitting above watching us all fight over what it is he actually wants would be the best way to have things. But its obvious that aint the way He’s doing things. So I think people really want to compensate for that by following infallibly inspired religious leaders. So you have your popes, your LDS prophets, and you Sun Yun Moons, etc.

I think it is a coping mechanism for the real problem. God is not here in a very tangible way and He is not very clear on what He wants us to do in the meantime.

I think he is very clear, sounds like you have a lot of questions to ask?

You saying is basically playing things by ear until he decides what he wants?

 

[CARV]

]

I think he is very clear, sounds like you have a lot of questions to ask?

You saying is basically playing things by ear until he decides what he wants?

I am glad the you have such faith in whatever religion that you have chosen but the fact remains that God’s will could be a lot clearer to humanity on this planet. We spend a lot of time arguing, fighting, and even killing one another in His name. God could probably clear it all up in a sec if He chose to do so. But He isn’t.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Putting the pope in the company of extreme cult fanatics like Moon and LDS prophets is just too much, CARV. It’s out in left field. Catholicism isn’t a polygamist cult or a bunch of kool aid nuts. And I don’t think wishful thinking is necessarily the problem either. You sound like your view, and I agree with Louie, is basically Jesus is like a Deist view of god for you. He’s a distant, lost, uninterested clock-winder and He’s up there shrugging His head while we nuckleheads down here louse everything up and there’s no divine guidance, assurance, pure loonfest. The Gates of Hell, we are told, will not triumph over the Church. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Jesus says He will leave the Advocate, the Holy Spirit to “guide us into all truth.” Those things being said, it just doesn’t sound like the chaos theory applies…and if you compare the theologically-sound overall, coherent, focused, holy teachings of Catholicism with the sinful, liberal, chaotic, litigation drive-byes of Episcopalianism, it’s hard to imagine you’ve found a better alternative?

CARV:
I left the Catholic Church after I simply couldn’t honestly maintain a belief in papal infallibility. It would be nice if there was some 100% on the money infallible religious leader that you could get guaranteed answers to religious questions. So I don’t blame you for wanting to believe it. It sure would be nice but that doesn’t make it true.

Actually, I think that an infallible leader is only the second best scenario. Having God actually here running things instead of sitting above watching us all fight over what it is he actually wants would be the best way to have things. But its obvious that aint the way He’s doing things. So I think people really want to compensate for that by following infallibly inspired religious leaders. So you have your popes, your LDS prophets, and you Sun Yun Moons, etc.

I think it is a coping mechanism for the real problem. God is not here in a very tangible way and He is not very clear on what He wants us to do in the meantime.

 

[Louie1983]

I am glad the you have such faith in whatever religion that you have chosen but the fact remains that God’s will could be a lot clearer to humanity on this planet. We spend a lot of time arguing, fighting, and even killing one another in His name. God could probably clear it all up in a sec if He chose to do so. But He isn’t.

God’s will is clear my friend.

It is we humans who make it seem unclear. That’s what he came down for! The reason he died on the cross.

Sure there is a lot of arguing and fighting however there are those who have the truth and those that don’t.

Your right God could clear it up, but why should he when we can?

That’s why he set up his holy catholic church!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s called free will. We are fallen creatures who can choose to love or reject God. With the capacity to love, sadly, comes the capacity to do evil. God must give us choice in this life and people make bad choices. He could “clear it up” just as He could’ve made sure Jesus didn’t die on the Cross. Through fire is metal tested…

I God could probably clear it all up in a sec if He chose to do so. But He isn’t.

 

[CARV]

It’s called free will. We are fallen creatures who can choose to love or reject God. With the capacity to love, sadly, comes the capacity to do evil. God must give us choice in this life and people make bad choices. He could “clear it up” just as He could’ve made sure Jesus didn’t die on the Cross. Through fire is metal tested…

If I may play devil’s advocate for a moment…

Free will implies an imformed choice. We really don’t have adequate information to make an informed choice. We have a bunch of different messages, all conflicting, about what God wants. How can someone freely choose to do what God wants if they honestly don’t know what God wants?

 

[CARV]

God’s will is clear my friend.

It is we humans who make it seem unclear. That’s what he came down for! The reason he died on the cross.

Sure there is a lot of arguing and fighting however there are those who have the truth and those that don’t.

Your right God could clear it up, but why should he when we can?

That’s why he set up his holy catholic church!

Seems as though you already have the answer that you seek. God isn’t that ambigious because He gave you the Pope.

 

[Louie1983]

If I may play devil’s advocate for a moment…

Free will implies an imformed choice. We really don’t have adequate information to make an informed choice. We have a bunch of different messages, all conflicting, about what God wants. How can someone freely choose to do what God wants if they honestly don’t know what God wants?

You then look at where the truth is.

The catholic church has not changed it’s teachings in any of it’s history, practices maybe but definately not what it teaches.

That’s why our lord promised that the holy spirit (and he) will be with the church always, even until the end of time. Our lord would not/cannot contradict himself.

 

[CARV]

You then look at where the truth is.

The catholic church has not changed it’s teachings in any of it’s history, practices maybe but definately not what it teaches.

That’s why our lord promised that the holy spirit (and he) will be with the church always, even until the end of time. Our lord would not/cannot contradict himself.

Not changed any of its teachings eh? If you really believe that there is nothing anybody can say that is gonna sway you. Have a nice night.

 

[Louie1983]

Not changed any of its teachings eh? If you really believe that there is nothing anybody can say that is gonna sway you. Have a nice night.

The same could be said for you!

Have you got any examples of where the church as changed it’s teachngs?

 

[Louie1983]

Seems as though you already have the answer that you seek. God isn’t that ambigious because He gave you the Pope.

I have the answer that God gave us.

It’s up to us to accept it.

 

[CARV]

Putting the pope in the company of extreme cult fanatics like Moon and LDS prophets is just too much, CARV. It’s out in left field. Catholicism isn’t a polygamist cult or a bunch of kool aid nuts. And I don’t think wishful thinking is necessarily the problem either. You sound like your view, and I agree with Louie, is basically Jesus is like a Deist view of god for you. He’s a distant, lost, uninterested clock-winder and He’s up there shrugging His head while we nuckleheads down here louse everything up and there’s no divine guidance, assurance, pure loonfest. The Gates of Hell, we are told, will not triumph over the Church. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Jesus says He will leave the Advocate, the Holy Spirit to “guide us into all truth.” Those things being said, it just doesn’t sound like the chaos theory applies…and if you compare the theologically-sound overall, coherent, focused, holy teachings of Catholicism with the sinful, liberal, chaotic, litigation drive-byes of Episcopalianism, it’s hard to imagine you’ve found a better alternative?

Sorry…I didn’t see this before. Its a good question really. I don’t know what God is doing because, to be honest, I’ve never met Him. I don’t know what He meant by the gates of hell will never triumph against the church. Maybe He meant Christianity will always exist. Just as plausible as believing that an elected cleric in Rome will never teach error even though that is less useful.

God isn’t clearing up the confusion about exactly what He wants. A Catholic reaction to this fact is to cling to the belief that the Pope cannot be wrong. Knowing the hisory of Catholicsm and after reading a lot of this thread, that seems like an irrational choice. I think that you kinda agree or else you wouldn’t be in the “Nexus”.

P.S. polygamist cult is kinda a cheapshot isn’t it. LDS is a major religious denomination with millions of members who don’t beleive in polygamy.

 

[guanophore]

OK so in this case **Tradition outweighs what Scripture says is required forv my salvation. ** I find that interesting considering Tradition and Scriptue is to be considered on equal footing.

There is no need to “weigh” them against each other, since there is no contradiction.

You are making a false assumption that Scripture contains all that is needed for your salvation.

Even though no one has been able to show any evidence that there were no gaps in following a tradition.

There have been plenty of “gaps in following” the Word of God, both written and unwritten. The failure of people to know and comply with the Word of God does not equate to there being a deficiency in the Word.

I seem to remember the Sacred Books being “discovered” by the Jews after some centuries of being hidden in the Temple.

Why would a teaching or tradition shown in Scripture need an infallible statement?

This is an excellent question, and the crux of the matter. From the beginning, most heresies that sprang up were “bible based”. They Gnostics created their ideas about Christ from the NT, just as non-Trinitarians do today. It is not so much what is written in Scripture that is the issue, but how it is understood.

This is the nature and purpose of Sacred Tradition. It is the Apostolic lens through wich we understand what is written in the Scriptures the way those did that wrote them. For example, we need an infallible statement that Mary was “ever virgin” because the Scriptures reference Jesus’ “brethren”, which are sometimes misunderstood to have come from the womb of Jesus mother, which they did not.

The information is there you either believe it or you don’t- the concept of the Trinity, the nature of Jesus, etc.

Some people read it/believe it differently. For those who have received the Apostolic teaching, “full of grace” means that there is no room for sin.

The early doctrines surrounding Jesus simply help explain what was in Scripture-the truth-infallible evidence of GOD’s Word.

Yes. This is the purpose of Sacred Tradition.

It is that belief of a newly **developed **dogma or doctrine that has **no evidence from Scripture **but an **unrecorded tradition **that would need the doctrine of infallibility to proclaim and require a people to believe.

It seems to you that it is not in Scripture because you understand what is written differently, just like the Mormons understand that Jesus is not the second person of the Trinity.

It seems to you that it is “unrecorded” because you reject the recorded evidence (probably because it is too “catholic”)

There is no way of proving truth, there is no evidence. You simply must believe the developed doctrines because the Catholic Church teaches it.

None of the doctrines of our faith can be successfully subjected to scientific “proofs”. As Divine Revelation, they are far above “proofs”. With regard to the evidence, it is impossible for a person to “see” that which a person has decided does not exist in advance.

 

[guanophore]

I suppose you’re right. Maybe they never happened.

Certainly what you perceive happened never really did.