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

[guanophore]

Thank you for those Bible verses.

And yet Catholics believe the Holy Spirit doesn’t come to the called and ordained minister who lives a spirit filled life where the fruits of the spirit can be seen,

No, schaick, Catholics believe nothing of the kind. You are making this up, out of your resentment, or something. Why post lies about what Catholics believe?

The fact that such persons are not validly ordained does not necessarily mean they are not called. Certainly the fruit of the Spirit cannot exist outside of the working of Grace by the HS in the life of an individual.

who does belong to Christ is seen as incapable of consecrating the Eucharist-so that there is Real Presence. The Holy Spirit won’t come to him?

The capability of consecration is a gift of God. He has determined the boundaries within which it occurs. We are not at liberty to set aside what He has promulgated. A valid Eucharist is one that is done within the Apostolic succession, by a person in unity with the ordained bishop, or his representative.

The HS comes to all those who open their hearts to Him. He draws all into the unity of the Son of God, which means that all who are open to Him are drawn to His One Church.

Except when he performs baptisms and marriages?

Such sacraments do not require a validly ordained bishop.

 

[guanophore]

A charism is a divinely inspired gift or power. Teaching everything correctly is not an evidence of having any gift other than being intelligent enough to learn, interpret and teach. The Pharisees were masters at doing that. Were they infallible?

Clearly you are confused about the gift of infallibility. It is a divinely inspired power that prevents the Church from teaching error. It does not mean everything is taught correctly (the Church has no duty to teach “everything”).

However, being able to learn, interpret, and teach correctly is not possible in the Church apart from Divine Intervention. that is because the substance of what is taught is Divine Revelation. It is not accessed by intelligence.

I agree with KevnLee; having all the right answers does not make the Church triumph over the gates of hell.

Amen to that! Fortunately, infallibility does not equate to “having all the right answers”. The gift of infallibility does enable the Church triumph over the gates of hell.

 

[guanophore]

 Leaders have to lead by example especially if they claim to be Christ’s representative on earth. If the leader walks crooked his followers walk the same way.

I agree with this principle. However, a leader who fails to follow the Teaching does not invalidate the teaching. Peter’s failure to walk in his own infallible teaching given at the Council of Jerusalem does not invalidate the Word which he spoke there. In fact, Paul’s critcism of him was for the exact reason you cite here. Peter’s failure to follow the Truth that was revealed to him by God was drawing people astray. The Truth is immutable, though.

Paying attention to what the apostles taught in the bible to the first generation of believers would be a good place to start; that would include not only knowing what pleases God but also doing it.

Yes. This is also the reason that we understand Scritpure through the writings of the Early Fathers. These men wrote what they learned from the Apostles.

When you add too much to the gospel message people only get confused.

This is a load of happy pungent organic matter. The Revelation of God, no matter how vast, does not “confuse” anyone except those who are perishing.

the Modern abridged version of “the gospel” represents a significant departure of what the Apostles believed and taught. We are obligated to transmit “the whole truth of God”.

They learn so much that they forget what Jesus taught: "Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” Jesus wants to unburden and give peace.

I have never met anyone that learned so much of God’s revelation that they “forget what Jesus taught”. I think this is a preposterous strawman. It implies that God will “overwhelm” us with Himself. He is our creator. He knows best how much of His revelation we can absorb.

If you don’t know how Jesus thinks and acts you won’t know if his representative is following his example.

This is very true, and is the responsibility of all of us.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Fascinating how you’re quick to defend the LDS folks but not to defend Catholicism and choose to lump it with wacko cults and Muslim totalitarianism?

As far as your second paragraph, with all due respect, how do you know what God wants and what he’s doing? You’ve demoded God to a deist vision of an empty clock-winder who is forelorn and lost and incoherent in other threads, and now you seem to know his agenda, admitting it’s a lost one? And your hypothesis about what Matthew 16:18 means doesn’t jive with the Fathers, history, or anyone else except your own view and yet you try to equate it to making as much sense as infallibility? How is it “less useful?” I fail to see why and how you’ve proven that the papal claims and powers given the Holy Father are “an irrational choice?” You haven’t proven that point at all. It seems just pure bitterness and resentment fueling your arguments, not actual facts or history? And no, I don’t agree with you, CARV. My “nexus” state is my own issues I’m grappling with. And I have personally had PLENTY of bad experiences in the Catholic church with bad clergy, etc. and YET I don’t hold a burning resentment for Catholicism and a desire to get on a Catholic message board and trash the religion that is hosting me…

Again, I’d ask you, what is your motivation in coming to CAF? It seems pure hatred. Most Protestants, Orthodox, and other folks who come on here have some nice, positive, intellectually honest complimentary things to say about Catholicism and the popes. They have criticisms and disagreements, but they are balanced with appreciation and respect. I don’t see that in your posts?

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.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on the topic of the OP please

 

[schaick]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes. This is the purpose of Sacred Tradition.

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”)

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.

A secret knowledge, hidden apostolic teaching that didn’t show up until hundreds of years later? The information was not important enough to put into writing, but now is? It makes no sense that this information would be left out if GOD required us to believe it hundreds of years after the fact.

The Trinity has Scripture proof, the Nicene Creed has Scripture proof, the 2 natures of Christ has Scripture proof, etc.. If it is in Scripture we know for CERTAIN it was taught/revealed by Jesus to the Disciples- we don’t know this about the Mary doctrines, that she is co-redeemer, co-mediator, Pope infallibility.

Does it matter whether a Christian knows if Mary was ever virgin or not? Was born immaculately? Was assumed? Do you really believe it is a requirement for your salvation?

If Marian dogmas, Pope infallibility are false teachings do you believe that the Church Jesus built has not prevailed?

 

[schaick]

schaick;7169181:

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

There are multiple lists of “popes”. A list does not prove that a person holds a truth that no one else has access to and has the ability to make into an infallible statement.

The form and function of the Catholic Church we see today is nothing like the universal Church built by Jesus. You can see the developement of the Catholic branch occurring in the first 100 years.

Yes, Peter did fine until he took his focus off Jesus:
Matthew 14
29And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

30But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

32And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

 

[schaick]

No, schaick, Catholics believe nothing of the kind. You are making this up, out of your resentment, or something. Why post lies about what Catholics believe?

The fact that such persons are not validly ordained does not necessarily mean they are not called. Certainly the fruit of the Spirit cannot exist outside of the working of Grace by the HS in the life of an individual.

The capability of consecration is a gift of God. He has determined the boundaries within which it occurs. We are not at liberty to set aside what He has promulgated. A valid Eucharist is one that is done within the Apostolic succession, by a person in unity with the ordained bishop, or his representative.

The HS comes to all those who open their hearts to Him. He draws all into the unity of the Son of God, which means that all who are open to Him are drawn to His One Church.

Such sacraments do not require a validly ordained bishop.

Actually Catholics do say only a Catholic minister can consecrate the bread and fruit of the vine.

Ah there you go, GOD has set limits on where the Holy Spirit will go. And so will not come to my Pastor. Prove it. Prove the limits HE set and that we are outside these limits.

Prove there is not the Real Presence in, under and with the Eucharist at my church a member of the universal Church.

Luke 11
11"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

You say the Holy Spirit comes only to a select few?

Acts 10
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Final warning.
Stay on topic

 

[ron77nyc]

Clearly you are confused about the gift of infallibility. It is a divinely inspired power that prevents the Church from teaching error. It does not mean everything is taught correctly (the Church has no duty to teach “everything”).

They have a responsibility to teach everything pertaining to salvation. This is where it gets confusing:catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

“Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made.”

The above is saying: If a pope is an evil non-believer who has fallen away or maybe never believed the gospel message at all, then he too can be infallible if he doesn’t teach anything. Does that make sense?

However, being able to learn, interpret, and teach correctly is not possible in the Church apart from Divine Intervention. that is because the substance of what is taught is Divine Revelation. It is not accessed by intelligence.

According to the website just quoted it does.
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

Amen to that! Fortunately, infallibility does not equate to “having all the right answers”. The gift of infallibility does enable the Church triumph over the gates of hell.

I know that’s what the Church teaches but I believe it is God alone that enables the Church to triumph over the gates of hell. Many of the Christians without a pope are also triumphing despite their errors.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks to moderator Mr. Hilbert for trying to get people back on track to the OP. In case anyone forgot the OP, here it is:

**In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all. **

 

[ron77nyc]

Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.

**This is the current teaching on limbo:
**catholicapologetics.org/ap090400.htm
There never has been nor is there any official Roman Catholic doctrinal position or teaching on the existence of or state of limbo.

This the traditional teaching on limbo:fatima.org/news/newsviews/limbo.asp

“More than just a theory”
The traditional Catholic doctrine of Limbo is in a higher category than that of a dismissible theological hypothesis. It is part of Catholic teaching since ancient times and is enshrined in magisterial pronouncements.
Pope Pius VI’s famous Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei, which condemned the Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, denounced the rejection of Limbo as “false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.”2

The theologian Father Joseph Le Blanc, in his 1947 article “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, summarized two central points taught in this Papal constitution:
“(1) There exists a Children’s Limbo, where the souls of children dying with original sin are detained; (2) the doctrine of Limbo as commonly accepted by the faithful, and taught by the schoolmen, is not a Pelagian fable, but an orthodox teaching.”3

It is de fide — an unchangeable article of Faith — that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific vision.4

The Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45) taught infallibly:
“The souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different.”5

 

[guanophore]

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.

It is true that such topics do seem to constellation opposites. I notice threads about Mary are the same way. They tend to polarize.

That’s NOT what this thread is about. So can we please get back on topic? Please read the thread title and OP.

The OP was flawed from the start. Infallibility has nothing to do with individual popes making fallible decisions. The gift of infallibility is a NEGATIVE gift. It PREVENTS the Church from falling into error. Therefore, individual popes and bishops can (and do) make many fallible decisions. The gift is what prevents those errors from becoming the teaching of the Church.

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.

Even a bishop teaching an error officially, such as Arius or Pelagius, does not equate to the Church teaching error. There are wolves among the sheep, but in the case of Honorous, just like all those before him who fell into heresy, the heresy was condemned by the infallible Church.

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?

I think there can be no arguement that any human being is open to error and falling into heresy, or other sins. The gift of infallibility does not prevent this. The gift belongs to the Church, and when one departs from the Apostolic Teachings infallibly preserved in the Church, one is no longer protected by the gift. This is what happened with Nestorius, Pelagius, Arius, Honorous and others.

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

This summarizes the basic flaw in the OP. Since a person espousing an heretical position does not prevent the gift of infallbiility from operating, the question proposed is based upon a false premise, that infallibility can be equatee to individual impeccability.

This is where it is necessary to recognize that the Church is greater than the sum of her visible parts.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Perhaps you did not intend to launch an attack in the OP, but the selection of the topic brings that result. When one misrepresents the faith of the Church in such a manner, animosity usually is the outcome. The superficial attempt to equate infallibility with individual mistakes is a strawman. What may appear to you on the surface to be an “honest” inquiry was sabotaged by the choice of wording.

  My posts have said several times that opponents of infallibility have failed to convince me that popes have erred.

This also seems a bit disingenuous, since it is quite obvious that many Popes have erred, beginning with Peter, as described in the NT.

However, I do commend you for being able to give a very accurate description and definition of infallibility.

 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.

Then it is a good thing that the meaning of papal infallibilty is not dependent upon your “feeling”.

If it were, then you would have to start accusing Peter in Galatia, who adoped a posittion that was at least hypocritical.

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.

Perhaps not, but the position formed in the OP is erroneous, and bound to foment a defensive reaction.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No offense, guano, but I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to another poster. I wasn’t asking here for your opinion. I was not misrepresenting anything, owe you no explanation, didn’t create a strawman, and am done answering your posts. You are the last person in CAF who should be lecturing people about intellectual honesty, choosing words carefully p) and being sensitive.

Perhaps you did not intend to launch an attack in the OP, but the selection of the topic brings that result. When one misrepresents the faith of the Church in such a manner, animosity usually is the outcome. The superficial attempt to equate infallibility with individual mistakes is a strawman. What may appear to you on the surface to be an “honest” inquiry was sabotaged by the choice of wording.

This also seems a bit disingenuous, since it is quite obvious that many Popes have erred, beginning with Peter, as described in the NT.

However, I do commend you for being able to give a very accurate description and definition of infallibility.

Then it is a good thing that the meaning of papal infallibilty is not dependent upon your “feeling”.

If it were, then you would have to start accusing Peter in Galatia, who adoped a posittion that was at least hypocritical.

Perhaps not, but the position formed in the OP is erroneous, and bound to foment a defensive reaction.

 

[Louie1983]

No offense, guano, but I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to another poster. I wasn’t asking here for your opinion. I was not misrepresenting anything, owe you no explanation, didn’t create a strawman, and am done answering your posts. You are the last person in CAF who should be lecturing people about intellectual honesty, choosing words carefully p) and being sensitive.

wow, easy fellas. We are supposed to be on the same side here.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As I try to move back to the side of Catholicism, some folks like yourself inspire me to do so. Others do nothing but accuse, trash, defame, and insult and don’t realize they’re doing more harm than good in apologetics.

Oh well, I’m used to it. At least my Giants shut out Philadelphia today! Matt Cain wooo-hoo! Giants baseball baby…

wow, easy fellas. We are supposed to be on the same side here.

 

[SSTeacher]

As I try to move back to the side of Catholicism, some folks like yourself inspire me to do so. Others do nothing but accuse, trash, defame, and insult and don’t realize they’re doing more harm than good in apologetics.

Oh well, I’m used to it.

And in my view you’re handling it extremely well (still following your posts, you see).

Observantly,
Mick

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey Mick! Always a welcome sight seeing you on here! I’m in a good mood since my Giants won so insults and attacks just roll off right now. Ridin’ the high, man! maybe I’ll go as Cody Ross for Halloween!

And in my view you’re handling it extremely well (still following your posts, you see).

Observantly,
Mick

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You seem to think that pope Honorius supprted heresy because he was of Greek language-cultural background

.

I will state this briefly, because there is more to this thread that has been discussed that you may not be aware of; That said these are my sentiments on this issue, they are not prejudiced as you incorrectly assumed. My comments clarify to other posters who may not be aware of Honorius Greek background, because from past previous posters on this Honorius topic, claim and think all Popes were all Latin. Making the argument of infallibility of the Popes as being only Roman.

The problem here is, the arguments against infallibility are made from a 40 year old dead pope who was labeled a heretic from letters, never while he lived, never by an infallible statement if one was ever made by Honorious, when infallibility did not need defining during this time.

Honorious sending of delegates is never an “infallible” statement because his letters that labeled him a heretic after his death of 40 years are never considered binding on all believers when a Pope speaks ex-cathedra he does not need legates to pronounce his infallible teaching on faith and morals, because the holy spirit, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture will never contradict a Popes infallible statement which becomes binding on all believers. That is why the argument against infallibility when it uses Honorius falls to pieces.

Honorius championed heretics and heresies in the west, I did not say he championed them in the East. Honorius was more lenient towards the heretics and heresies that came from the East. I was giving Honorius honors here how you interpret them as other?

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.