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

[Gabriel_of_12]

Do you have any book or article recommendations on this subject?
Thanks

Honorius? or Papal infallibility? there are many, I will pm them to you if you like?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the problem is that you can take ten learned Catholics, be they theologians or priests, cardinals, or laymen and ask them if ten different dogmas or encyclicals or statements are infallible and they’ll all disagree. The protocol and actual procedures behind as well as specifics and particulars are so ill-defined and confusing and open to interpretation that it becomes a blur for just about anyone. And Lumen Gentium only makes things sound more confusing as Anna Scott has pointed out in other threads that we are to submit our full minds and wills to the Pope even when he’s NOT speaking ex cathedra. So it’s murky water I’m trying to tread here and easy to doubt it. The fact it took until the 19th Century to define it really raises eyebrows…

I hate to be a stickler on this point but does that mean we are free to ignore anything a papal legate said in any of the Ecumenical Councils? After all the pope personally attended none of them, he only sent legates. Also, how does that square with documents such as the Dictatus papae?

That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.

Considering the fact that the pope sent legates to every single Ecumenical Council, I don’t think Catholics can go too far with this line of reasoning. By doing so they divorce the papacy even further from the decisions of the Councils and that flies in the face of modern Catholic teaching.

In Christ
Joe

 

[ron77nyc]

I think the problem is that you can take ten learned Catholics, be they theologians or priests, cardinals, or laymen and ask them if ten different dogmas or encyclicals or statements are infallible and they’ll all disagree. The protocol and actual procedures behind as well as specifics and particulars are so ill-defined and confusing and open to interpretation that it becomes a blur for just about anyone. And Lumen Gentium only makes things sound more confusing as Anna Scott has pointed out in other threads that we are to submit our full minds and wills to the Pope even when he’s NOT speaking ex cathedra. So it’s murky water I’m trying to tread here and easy to doubt it. The fact it took until the 19th Century to define it really raises eyebrows…

And you have to accept it all or you can’t be saved.
AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XV promulgated on 1 November 1914.
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is precisely the problem. There are those who claim the papacy existed in present form since day ONE. Peter was an infallible pope and conducted Church business just like Benedict XVI and everything was the same, universal jurisdiction and primacy with a universally-accepted infallible charism.

Then I talk to Catholics, very learned ones in fact, who believe the papacy DEVELOPED, evolved, so to speak, to the point where Vatican I finally was its culminating evolutionary proper endgame.

Then there are those who claim it came out of necessity after Rome fell to the visigoths and with time it just was a necessity God gave us.

On and on. There is a serious contradiction between the development doctrine in Catholicism that Newman adopted and the “day one” argument by staunch Catholics adopting that angle. They can’t both be true.

So people can’t agree how the papacy came to being and they can’t agree on what is infallible either.

And you have to accept it all or you can’t be saved.
AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XV promulgated on 1 November 1914.
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved.”

 

[ron77nyc]

It may be time to take the advice of the master. Look at the footnotes. Is history repeating itself?

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew11.htm

Matthew 11
28 (15) “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, (16) and I will give you rest.
29 (17) Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

Footnotes

16 [28] Who labor and are burdened: burdened by the law as expounded by the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:4).
17 [29] In place of the yoke of the law, complicated by scribal interpretation, Jesus invites the burdened to take the yoke of obedience to his word, under which they will find rest; cf Jeremiah 6:16.

 

[ron77nyc]

On and on. There is a serious contradiction between the development doctrine in Catholicism that Newman adopted and the “day one” argument by staunch Catholics adopting that angle. They can’t both be true.

So people can’t agree how the papacy came to being and they can’t agree on what is infallible either.

It may be time to take the advice of the master. Look at the footnotes. Is history repeating itself?

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew11.htm

Matthew 11
28 (15) “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, (16) and I will give you rest.
29 (17) Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

Footnotes

16 [28] Who labor and are burdened: burdened by the law as expounded by the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:4).
17 [29] In place of the yoke of the law, complicated by scribal interpretation, Jesus invites the burdened to take the yoke of obedience to his word, under which they will find rest; cf Jeremiah 6:16.

 

[Louie1983]

This is precisely the problem. There are those who claim the papacy existed in present form since day ONE. Peter was an infallible pope and conducted Church business just like Benedict XVI and everything was the same, universal jurisdiction and primacy with a universally-accepted infallible charism.

Then I talk to Catholics, very learned ones in fact, who believe the papacy DEVELOPED, evolved, so to speak, to the point where Vatican I finally was its culminating evolutionary proper endgame.

Then there are those who claim it came out of necessity after Rome fell to the visigoths and with time it just was a necessity God gave us.

On and on. There is a serious contradiction between the development doctrine in Catholicism that Newman adopted and the “day one” argument by staunch Catholics adopting that angle. They can’t both be true.

So people can’t agree how the papacy came to being and they can’t agree on what is infallible either.

No they can’t both be true.

So what does the church teach about this?..

 

[schaick]

I have been warned officially about going off topic -sorry to all.

I think this is on topic critics of papal infallibility- Can you name other examples of popes making fallible decisions apart from Honorius I?

Sort of hard to determine without knowing what has been said as an infallible statement.

2 Timothy 4
2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

If a teaching it is said to be a teaching from GOD’s Word one goes to Scripture to test whether it is true.

How do you now if something is GOD’s sacred tradition? What is your proof? How are you assured it is truth? Were does a Catholic go to test an infallible teaching concerning a tradition?

Is the following 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,”

If that is an infallible statement then there is a tradition out there that outweighs Scripture for never was a statement made/recorded in Scripture. Where does one go to test/affirm whether that statement from Boniface VIII is a truth from GOD’s sacred tradition?

Same goes for any infallible statement- how do you know it is true? Does a Catholic follow papal infallible statements blindly? Are they not tested or checked for accuracy?

If so then for the Catholic the final authority is neither Tradition or Scripture it is Pope infallibility.

 

[shaky]

I never said a pope is impeccable. I said if and when a pope speaks “infallibly on faith and morals” (which is the only way a pope can speak infallibly, never on deciding political, administration, debates, encyclicals outside of “faith and morals of the Christian”) He does so on his own with the help of the Holy Spirit, sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture which can never contradict.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Let’s remove the false pretense that Peter who denied Christ 3 times, or a Pope is “being infallible”. Infallibility applies two aspects here; 1. The unity of the Catholic Church councils decisions are infallible. 2. The Pope is the only one who can proclaim an “infallible” (without error) Christian teaching independently from Church Council, based on faith and morals outside of the magisterium, which has the protection of the Holy Spirit, supported by sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition.

I agree with you, anyone who believes a person is infallible besides our Lord Jesus Christ has been deceived. Yet I find this argument of belief or argument in an infallible person of the Popes to be found only protestant circles never in Catholic circles. Can you answer why protestants/non catholics believe that the Popes are infallible person? Or are your communities being deceived of such a false teaching on infallibility?

Infallible teaches that the Gospel message pertaining to faith and morals proclaimed by the Pope “infallibly” and or the magisterium in unity are without error, These all have the protection of the Holy Spirit, and these outcomes will never conflict with scripture and the revelation of Jesus Christ from Apostolic sacred Tradition. The New Testament is infallibly declared by the Catholic Church, the Blessed Trinity is proclaimed by the Catholic Church, Jesus born of the virgin, Jesus died, Jesus resurrected are all infallible statements made by the Catholic Church from antiquity.

Also when you think about it Supreme Head Bishop>Patriarch>Pope Should have Been Sorted Out and Established Right From the Beginning. Not in 1054 Causing a Split.
IT was the Group number of Bishops in Rome that Decide to have a Supreme Patriarch
Pope by a Majority Vote.
That is Like saying the Group Number of Bishops in Rome are Supreme over the Group number of bishops in the Eastern Church. Surly that is WRONG In Itself

]

What you suspect here is never the case; There is alot more going on from history that deals with this schism than meets the eye of the present. That said, Christ left a shepherd to tend, feed his flock (John 21) to deny this is to reject scripture. A body cannot function with out a head, that is why Jesus told Peter what you bind on earth he will bind in heaven the two have never parted ways. Man wishes to undo what God has joined together.

Peace be with you

 

[guanophore]

This is precisely the problem. There are those who claim the papacy existed in present form since day ONE. Peter was an infallible pope and conducted Church business just like Benedict XVI and everything was the same, universal jurisdiction and primacy with a universally-accepted infallible charism.

Then I talk to Catholics, very learned ones in fact, who believe the papacy DEVELOPED, evolved, so to speak, to the point where Vatican I finally was its culminating evolutionary proper endgame.

Then there are those who claim it came out of necessity after Rome fell to the visigoths and with time it just was a necessity God gave us.

I think you are right about the role of the Pope developing over centuries. Clearly, as the Church grew, many changes took place. Church business today is much more complex than it was in Jerusalem in 50 AD.

I think the giving of secular authority into the hands of the Bishop of Rome when the Western Empire fell was what enabled secular matters to be intertwined with spiritual. Peter, who was given charge of God’s flock, was the chief steward of a “kingdom not of this world”. When the rulership of an earthly kingdom was given into the hands of his successor, the opportunity entered for absolute power to corrupt absolutely.

On and on.  There is a serious contradiction between the development doctrine in Catholicism that Newman adopted and the "day one" argument by staunch Catholics adopting that angle.  They can't both be true.

Granted that history looks much different when one looks through the 20th century lens. It is difficult to see the mustard seed, when it has vanished and been replaced by a large tree. However, it still did come from that mustard seed.

So people can't agree how the papacy came to being and they can't agree on what is infallible either.

It is a good thing that the Apostolic Teaching is not a matter of modern consensus, or majority vote.

For that reason, it is immaterial how many people agree, or disagree. There is One Faith.

 

[david_ruiz]

]

QUOTE=schaick;7178759]

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 statementas the first

 

[Gibbs212521]

First I apologize if this is not what is meant for this post, but I believe I and all Faithful are called to defend Christ’s Bride even in searching for his own weaknesses. So I shall do so to the best of my limited faculties.
I don’t know if this is helpful, accurate, or precise. Only does this strike my eyes as simple.
A soldier may listen to his Sergeant attentively that he can survive the battle, even if he does not expect to last the entire war (Christ though is a greater general and we expect victory simply because he payed much for such). There may be stupid things a sergeant does on his own willies, but that soldier is going to respect his superior because he is human. When the the soldier is going into battle the sergeant will be in command unless he says “I am not your sergeant” (and truly he wouldn’t be, since what is authority without assertion?) so then the soldiers either mutiny or become confused and fall in the heat of battle. Let’s say they survive because their General passed on awareness of objective to the lowest of all and their sergeant doesn’t make it, the General gives a new sergeant with the same training but different willies. The giving of mind to the sergeant is effective for unity, mission-oriented, effective, and motivation.
So the sergeants must

1. Exercise his objective of saving the lives of his men while completing the objective
2. Do so in the authority given to him by his General
3. Must give directions to each men individually to be followed individually, AND if given as a whole it is a directive for all to follow

of course the Pope cannot use that authority if not claiming it, so the pope who said there is no infallibility was to be respected and prayed for. It is our job as a nation of priests (The Catholic Church is so by Baptism) to hold to the Truth protected even when our bishops are insecure, God will guide them and not allow them to do anything hindering his Providence. Does that mean the Pope has no choice in his office to “exercise the interest of his General?” No, but it does mean we will heed him no matter what he says and respect it piously? Yes. Pious faith is what we hold if there is reason to doubt, religious faith if it is concrete in Sacred Tradition (Bible & Succession of Teachings). Sacred Tradition outside the Bible is difficult, because it means reading the lectures and books from now to the Apostles, Example: St. Augustine teaches Mary was the Ark of Christ’s Covenant, that she was made pure that she would be a worthy vessel to hold him as the Old was made worthy for the Holy Spirit to dwell in without Christ’s Word in Flesh but only his Word in Stone. The previous being the greater, how much more would The Father do to Mary than he did to the Ark to prepare it? That was taught to him by St. Ambrose, who correct me if I’m wrong takes a short rode to the teachings of Peter. Then we go New Testament’s extreme reverence to Mary and St. Luke’s allusions of her and the Altar of Incense Spoken by The Blessed Mother herself. That is how one tests Sacred Tradition. The Assumption is one marked with Sacred Art (awesome huh?) in Roman Catacombs from what I’ve been told (unknown to me) & Revelations C.F. Genesis. I’ve not read anything of St. Augustine to suggest that, but I’m still a young young Catholic being baptized 2009. Those two Religious Faiths, that is those revealed certainly by God declared so by The Pope & Many Bishops of history lining up to the Apostles. Though this pious faith, which means we shall not preach anything other than what the pope does and if none of our teachings agree the mouths of the faithful shall speak nothing and God will do much with our obedience… (That has to do with salvation of the max amount of souls since Christ insists we obey those put above us even if we are not allowed to follow their wicked example.) Note the Ex Cathedra statements are Religious Faith, extra statements of Ex Cathedra on Faith & Morals are Pious Faith. So those who do not follow the pope do jeopardize souls by not saving souls via Holy Obedience, and the man who damns another soul (God have mercy on me for such a deed) by their lack of faithfulness (piousness) they do morn the loss, and if such a soul that knowingly damns a soul they commit a mortal sin themselves and are damned unless repentant (so if you put the pope’s words “are not saved” to it’s equivalent “commit mortal sin” it is by Sacred Tradition accurate since mortal sin requires knowledge). So yes the Pope who said that to follow the pope is necessary for salvation is true unto the extent of St. Paul values another soul to his own, and every inspired Christian (touched deeply by God) would be like St. Paul and rather their soul damned above another… this extent is to do with God’s Love of Obedience that saves more souls than extreme penance (private revelation) that popes have explained also (held piously as true, maybe even religious for those who trust the revelations [rightfully so]). I could though be wrong, on the value of Obedience, I merely do not know the encyclicals nor thought through the Bible on that thought. Finally from my covering of Catholic, Orthodox, & Apostolic Councils (not titles but actual meaning of the word) Patriarchs had multiple delegates (later councils the number was even limited but Honorius addressed the heretical letter to one delegate who piously held and spoke of it, not addressed to his delegates which would mean he did not give authority himself to the letter [already spoken on in this thread].)
So I hate the way I approached this, for in my eyes it appears incomplete and very legalistic parables. I do believe the parable is accurate and precise due to us being Church Militant and that has been my understanding even similar before converting Catholic (due to personal ties to military since childhood) though then without a Pope nor any understanding of the Patristic Fathers.

God Bless & Ave Maria!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This post contradicts itself to a large degree. You start off saying “I think” and then say how it’s a good thing our opinions don’t mean anything and the Church isn’t a democracy. You also give your opinion that the papacy was a development when the other half of Catholics will say it didn’t develop and that it AWAYS was the same in description, charism, office, scope, and power. Nobody, including me for sure, thinks the Church should be a democracy. That’s ahistorical and nutty. But I am saying that most Catholic theologians, Cardinals, and bishops can’t even agree on when and how the papacy came into being or how things are infallible or WHAT is infallible? It has nothing to do about democracy, but more to do with apologists NOT being able to be of one mind or one apologetic agenda when the Church can’t even explain these things coherently to Catholics. Things are more vague than you lead on, Guanophore.

I think you are right about the role of the Pope developing over centuries. Clearly, as the Church grew, many changes took place. Church business today is much more complex than it was in Jerusalem in 50 AD.

I think the giving of secular authority into the hands of the Bishop of Rome when the Western Empire fell was what enabled secular matters to be intertwined with spiritual. Peter, who was given charge of God’s flock, was the chief steward of a “kingdom not of this world”. When the rulership of an earthly kingdom was given into the hands of his successor, the opportunity entered for absolute power to corrupt absolutely.

Granted that history looks much different when one looks through the 20th century lens. It is difficult to see the mustard seed, when it has vanished and been replaced by a large tree. However, it still did come from that mustard seed.

It is a good thing that the Apostolic Teaching is not a matter of modern consensus, or majority vote.

For that reason, it is immaterial how many people agree, or disagree. There is One Faith.

 

[Bluegoat]

This post contradicts itself to a large degree. You start off saying “I think” and then say how it’s a good thing our opinions don’t mean anything and the Church isn’t a democracy. You also give your opinion that the papacy was a development when the other half of Catholics will say it didn’t develop and that it AWAYS was the same in description, charism, office, scope, and power. Nobody, including me for sure, thinks the Church should be a democracy. That’s ahistorical and nutty. But I am saying that most Catholic theologians, Cardinals, and bishops can’t even agree on when and how the papacy came into being or how things are infallible or WHAT is infallible? It has nothing to do about democracy, but more to do with apologists NOT being able to be of one mind or one apologetic agenda when the Church can’t even explain these things coherently to Catholics. Things are more vague than you lead on, Guanophore.

Do any bishops, cardinals, theologians or scholars say that the papacy isn’t a development? The only people I have encountered who claim it existed from day 1 are pious but uneducated Catholics.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sheesh, Meghan, think your signature pic is big enough? Your posts suck up half a page LOL

I cannot sit here and name the names of every bishop or priest I’ve heard or spoken to who had different views on this but the fact is they’re out there. And CAF is full of people who believe the papacy existed day one like this.

Listen to Catholic Answers radio and they’ll tell you that Peter was infallible and everyone knew it, that Peter and the first bishops of Rome had universal supremacy and jurisdiction over all the other bishops, that Peter made all the final declarations, that Peter and the successors in the earliest days yielded to him no matter what and that he had to sign off everything and could override a council, etc. They all talk about how infallibility was universally an understood reality day one as was universal papal jurisdiction in every diocese and corner of the Christian world. They’ll mostly tell you that infallibility decided at Vatican I was nothing new, just a final official proclamation of something that everybody already knew centuries and even millenia ago…

Do any bishops, cardinals, theologians or scholars say that the papacy isn’t a development? The only people I have encountered who claim it existed from day 1 are pious but uneducated Catholics.

 

[Bluegoat]

Anyone familar with the term warlording as used for overly large signatures back in the day

I have to agree though with the point that saying the Papacy has not developed in respects over time is dubious.

Oh well, I’ll ditch it then. I just liked the picture and couldn’t find a smaller version. You guys are spoil-sports!

 

[Gibbs212521]

The Church of Rome was distinguished first or Prime amongst Patriarchs in the First Nicene Council, but that only meant they would listen to Rome in prestige while stilling being equal in vote. Peter was acknowledged as such by the Bible that his voice represented the Apostles as a whole and later the Early Church. The need to understand these details in depth in the first 3 centuries is verging into silliness due to the rate of martyrdom, but those two facts are Pre-Nicene and Apostolic. The development is very valid, since those two Apostolic Teachings were unwavering amongst the Early Church as the Church herself is “the pillar of truth” was unwavering but not defined. Thus the mustard seed spoken of earlier grew into the defined tree that is still the perfect fruit of the perfect seed. All the bible verses are earlier in the thread by others already. I though am unqualified to give you a history of the development beyond the examples of saints, councils, and heresies that led to the defining of the Papal Infallibility and even the necessity to announce the Council Infallibility during the First Nicene Council, which was ratified by the Pope of the time as was the second Council where he denied few canons as non-apostolic (hence how councils show the tradition of Papal Infallibility in the Roman Rite)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

]

QUOTE=schaick;7178759]Indeed, there are multiple lists and not all agreeing as to the first five .Several list Peter and Paul as the first bishops of Rome .

Hi david ruiz, the quote you attached to my call name here, is not contained from my post, so I don’t know if your addressing me with this post?

Not to confuse you here but we are talking successors to the Apostles, Peter and Paul are not Bishops these are Apostles. There are few lists that number Peter’s successors from both Antioch and Rome if this is what you have confused?

The successors from Rome always list the first 3 Popes which names are written in sacred scripture. Remember the Apostles were not bishops their office exceeded the episcopacy. The first bishop of Antioch is believed to be appointed by Peter which continued on to St. Ignatius who after 100 a.d calls the Church “Catholic” as if common knowledge. Then this great Saint records a list of the Popes who succeeded Peter not from Antioch from which St. Igatius was from but from Rome, and his list included the same one we have today (up until his time) which includes the first 3 recorded in scripture including Peter.

Any questions?

 

[Bluegoat]

Anyone familar with the term warlording as used for overly large signatures back in the day

I have to agree though with the point that saying the Papacy has not developed in respects over time is dubious.

Oh well, I’ll ditch it then. I just liked the picture and couldn’t find a smaller version. You guys are spoil-sports!