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

[Bluegoat]

oops

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is precisely the problem. There are those who claim the papacy existed in present form since day ONE.

This is probably why? Your not gonna like this??? but it is for those new here; Mt 16:15-19

Before the resurrection;
He (Jesus) said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” **Jesus said to him **in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you 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 the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

And again after the resurrection?

Jn 21:15-17
… Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” **(Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.” **

And now you know the rest of the story;

First and Second Centuries
o St. Peter (42 - 67)
o St. Linus (67 - 79)
o St. Anacletus (79 - 92)
o St. Clement I (92 - 101)
o St. Evaristus (101 - 105)
o St. Alexander I (105 - 115)
o St. Sixtus I (115 - 125)
o St. Telesphorus (125 - 136)
o St. Hyginis (136 - 140)
o St. Pius I (140 - 155)
o St. Anicetus (155 - 166)
o St. Soter (166 - 175)
o St. Eleutherius (175 - 189)
o St. Victor I (189 - 199)
o St. Zephyrinus (199 - 217)

The Papacy existed for sure according to Jesus, but it was not developed until Peter in his successors from the unbroken line of Popes from Peter, finally closed the gates of Hell on the evil one by pronouncing Peter’s “infallibility” protection from the Holy Spirit so as never to infect Jesus teachings ever again in His Catholic Church.

In brief; The papacy today began from sacred scripture sacred Tradition, though the world changed, but Jesus Word’s to Peter never have.

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=Gabriel of 12;7187746]

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?

Yes, thanks (still learning threading menu). I believe Sacred Scripture does not mention any popes or head bishops or any successors to Peter, right? How many does St.Ignatius include ? Does he allude to succession or of their supremacy over all other bishops ? Is this list in a document that is considered spurious ,that is not written by him ? I understand only half of what could be attributed to him is spurious…I was referring to Iraneus’ list ,which I thought was the first list (170 A.D.?), and his list does not regard supremacy ,and he has bishop succession lists for two other cities.He listed Paul and Peter as the begining equally of Rome’s church or foundation… I heard that the first few lists differ slightly on the first five “popes”.That’s it, thanks

 

[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.

I can see why it appears different, as the office of the papacy has grown with the needs of the Church. Peter certainly didn’t have a whole staff.

It might be useful to distinguish “form” from function. Clearly Peter had primacy among the Apostles, and his successor was recognized in this role up until the Schism. A thousand years is a long time!

The current pope is protected by the same infallibility Peter was.Certainly no decisions that applied to the universal church were made apart from Peter, do you think? Some believe that Peter and Paul were not in unity of faith and practice, but they taught the same faith.

When the apostolic college adjourned, and the letter was written to the faithful, they opened it by saying “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. This is the same way that infallible decisions are made today. And the HS, being God, cannot err, which is why they are infallible.

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.

I am not even sure that was an “endgame”. Since Jesus said He would be with the Church until “the end of the age”, who is to know what will happen before the end of the age?

But the same fundamental aspects of the papacy that Jesus gave to Peter are the foundation of those functions, which have developed over time. The Petrine gifts to feed and care for the flock, the Keys, and the power to legislate (bind and loose) were placed there by Christ.

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 Kingdom of God is a theocracy, not a democracy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Come on, Gabe. You know me better than that. I’m familiar with Matthew 16:18. Come on. And you know I’m NOT saying that Catholics are unreasonable for believing IN the papacy, but that the papacy functioned identically to its present form, the same polity and powers. You know what I’m saying.

And if anyone is so new that they don’t know Matt. 16:18, they’ve been living in Siberia…

Also, why do you tell me “you’re not going to like this?” What do I have against the Word of God? Matthew 16:18 is inspired Scripture. No Protestant or Catholic would object to words uttered by Jesus Christ unless their a heretic? Why say such a thing?

This is probably why? Your not gonna like this??? but it is for those new here; Mt 16:15-19

 

[guanophore]

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.

Both things are true, Gurney. The Petrine gifts have always been the same in definition, charism, office, scope, and power. The development lies in how these fundamentals, put in place by Christ, were fanned into flame by the HS to care for the growing Church.

But I am saying that most Catholic theologians, Cardinals, and bishops can't even agree on when and how the papacy came into being

This is hard to believe, since, if they are Catholic, they will all believe that the role of Peter was established by Christ.

But, even if there was disagreement, it is immaterial, since the doctrine of the faith is not created by theologians, cardinals and bishops, or confused laypersons. The doctrine of the faith comes from Jesus, through the Apostles. Those who stray from the deposit of faith stray from Catholicism.

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.

I am puzzled why you would think that apologists would be of one “apologetic agenda”. I am not even sure such a thing exists. Most apologists are laypersons with no formal education in the faith.

The Church has no trouble explaining these things to Catholics. I will grant you that the majority of Catholics are poorly formed in their faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Normally I’d answer all these responses to my responses to the responses of my responses Guanophore. Honestly, my Giants just got trampled by the Phillies. I’m too angry and too tired of the Giants brand of torture baseball to even think clearly. I’m intellectually and emotionally spent, man. I’ll get back to ya when I actually can form a coherent thought. Couple teaching 28 sixth graders day in day out with coming home and watching the Giants torture you to the brink, you have nothing left in the tank…

Later…

Both things are true, Gurney. The Petrine gifts have always been the same in definition, charism, office, scope, and power. The development lies in how these fundamentals, put in place by Christ, were fanned into flame by the HS to care for the growing Church.

This is hard to believe, since, if they are Catholic, they will all believe that the role of Peter was established by Christ.

But, even if there was disagreement, it is immaterial, since the doctrine of the faith is not created by theologians, cardinals and bishops, or confused laypersons. The doctrine of the faith comes from Jesus, through the Apostles. Those who stray from the deposit of faith stray from Catholicism.

I am puzzled why you would think that apologists would be of one “apologetic agenda”. I am not even sure such a thing exists. Most apologists are laypersons with no formal education in the faith.

The Church has no trouble explaining these things to Catholics. I will grant you that the majority of Catholics are poorly formed in their faith.

 

[david_ruiz]

Normally I’d answer all these responses to my responses to the responses of my responses Guanophore. Honestly, my Giants just got trampled by the Phillies. I’m too angry and too tired of the Giants brand of torture baseball to even think clearly. I’m intellectually and emotionally spent, man. I’ll get back to ya when I actually can form a coherent thought. Couple teaching 28 sixth graders day in day out with coming home and watching the Giants torture you to the brink, you have nothing left in the tank…

Later…

Hang in there.Think of good thoughts ,like some amazing pitching ,in the 8th inning that I saw the night before ,by your giant pitcher.I used to pitch to my son .Had a wicked curveball .Watching those screwballs (or was it splitters-to me they curved and oh so much-wow!) break so much and so fast away from those Philly bats was something. What a feeling to throw that ball and it does just what you want it to .Like the runner in “Chariots of Fire” movie said, “I can feel His pleasure” (in running-faster than anyone). We are fearfully and wonderfully made. The spiritual beauty of the breaking ball-how is that for a new thread .

 

[david_ruiz]

QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;7184603]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.

Very transparent and honest .Thank-you. It deserves much consideration for a proper discussion, Lord willing ,next time.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

…

Also, why do you tell me “you’re not going to like this?” What do I have against the Word of God? Matthew 16:18 is inspired Scripture.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No, that doesn’t bug me either. Matthew 16:18 is a cornerstone key piece of Catholic claims to their polity and theology. It’s a must for Catholics. Just like mentioning Romans is crucial for Protestants from their angle. Sorry I misunderstood. You know the internet. Always tough to gauge!

I’m not thinking clearly. My Giants tanked. I’m incoherent LOL

I wasn’t placing the dislike in the scripture, but in the redundancy of this scripture being placed on these threads.

 

[Louie1983]

No, that doesn’t bug me either. Matthew 16:18 is a cornerstone key piece of Catholic claims to their polity and theology. It’s a must for Catholics. Just like mentioning Romans is crucial for Protestants from their angle. Sorry I misunderstood. You know the internet. Always tough to gauge!

I’m not thinking clearly. My Giants tanked. I’m incoherent LOL
Gabriel of 12;7188625:
Is it the play offs or something?

Sorry got no idea about baseball all the way down here lil oz!

I’m too busy blasting a magazine that has newly australian saint mary mackilliop insulted by a swimwear model wearing a habit with the words “holy rack” written across it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

All I know about Australia is:

Mad Max movies
Men at Work songs ("he just smiled and gave me a vegimite sandwich!)
Outback
Crocodile Dundee flicks
dingos and kangaroos and koalas
Sidney opera house
hot as blazes I’ve heard
cool accent
INXS (lol)
AC/DC
The Wiggles are from there
down under

gurneyhalleck1;7188654:

No, that doesn’t bug me either. Matthew 16:18 is a cornerstone key piece of Catholic claims to their polity and theology. It’s a must for Catholics. Just like mentioning Romans is crucial for Protestants from their angle. Sorry I misunderstood. You know the internet. Always tough to gauge!

I’m not thinking clearly. My Giants tanked. I’m incoherent LOL

Is it the play offs or something?

Sorry got no idea about baseball all the way down here lil oz!

I’m too busy blasting a magazine that has newly australian saint mary mackilliop insulted by a swimwear model wearing a habit with the words “holy rack” written across it.

 

[Louie1983]

All I know about Australia is:

Mad Max movies
Men at Work songs ("he just smiled and gave me a vegimite sandwich!)
Outback
Crocodile Dundee flicks
dingos and kangaroos and koalas
Sidney opera house
hot as blazes I’ve heard
cool accent
INXS (lol)
AC/DC
The Wiggles are from there
down under
Louie1983;7188696:
hahahahahahahahaha.

other than that man, there’s not too much else you need to know.

I hearby acknowledge you as an aussie!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’d actually like to see Australia. Everyone I’ve talked to who has visited there had nothing but good things to say. Americans and Australians sure have diverse origins—puritans and penal colonies! LOL

gurneyhalleck1;7188720:

All I know about Australia is:

Mad Max movies
Men at Work songs ("he just smiled and gave me a vegimite sandwich!)
Outback
Crocodile Dundee flicks
dingos and kangaroos and koalas
Sidney opera house
hot as blazes I’ve heard
cool accent
INXS (lol)
AC/DC
The Wiggles are from there
down under

hahahahahahahahaha.

other than that man, there’s not too much else you need to know.

I hearby acknowledge you as an aussie!

 

[Hesychios]

I’d actually like to see Australia. Everyone I’ve talked to who has visited there had nothing but good things to say. Americans and Australians sure have diverse origins—puritans and penal colonies! LOL

Actually, many more Americans started out as indentured servants than as freemen like the Puritans, and many of those were ransomed from debtors prisons. (Then of course there was that enormous kidnapped population.)

Some say the loss of the north American colonies was one more good reason to start moving people to Australia.

 

[schaick]

AND I got warned about being off topic!! LOL!!

I have read 2 things that cause me to take notice:

Infallibility evolved because of the need to protect the Church from heresies.
Doctrines were developed to save the church from heresies.

What heresies existed that caused the Mary Dogmas to be developed?

Another that caused me to take notice:
Infallibility protects the church from making error.

How does the above statement fit in with the error of buying indulgences with money? Someone said it was an abuse - Is an abuse not an error?

Part of the rule of infallibility
His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.

The above allows the Pope to teaching something that was never taught officially or previously.

Infallible statements:
Immaculate Conception of Mary 1854
Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950

Papal Infallibility 1870 - I would think this would have to be declared an infallible statement at some point otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Might be an infallible act:
Canonizing a saint

Is the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ considered an infallible statement? If not why? A Catholic must believe that Mary was born immaculately but not that Christ has 2 natures? Or is it because we can read in Scripture that in fact Christ had 2 natures so an infallible statement is not needed?

I see alot of discussion on Vatican II whether it is infallible or not? Why is there an issue with it?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re taking me too seriously, Michael. I was joking about generalities and stereotypes, not legitimate historical narratives

Actually, many more Americans started out as indentured servants than as freemen like the Puritans, and many of those were ransomed from debtors prisons. (Then of course there was that enormous kidnapped population.)

Some say the loss of the north American colonies was one more good reason to start moving people to Australia.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Two observations here. The Church of Rome was esteemed for their faith prior to any Apostolic visit. We can see in Paul’s salutation to them in his letter that their faith is “esteemed throughout the world”.

The fame of the Apostolic see came into being because both Peter and Paul were there together, teaching and guiding before they were martryd. We see evidence of this in the early writings at least a century before Nicea.

The idea of the Roman See being “first among equals” was established because Peter was there, and Peter was considered “first among equals” in the Apostolic college.

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)

I think you are right on when you say that the role of the successor of Peter developed in response to heresies. The needs of the church also played a significant part in this development. An example is seen in the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. The Apostles did not originally provide any instructions with the gospel about diet or circumcision. When these issues began to cause conflict and division, the Apostles and disciples met, prayed, discussed, and made a ruling which was then communicated to the faithful. This is the method that has always been used.

What makes such actions infallible can be seen in the little phrase “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. It is not any successor of an apostle that makes pronouncements infallible, but the HS.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well this is the problem with impeccability vs. infallibility arguments that I see Catholics use in defending the papacy. Since one can always argue, “hey, the pope’s not impeccable, he’s infallible only when teaching moral dogma from the Chair,” then that gives him a license to do just about whatever he wants. He doesn’t have to behave or even be a good example or stand as a role model. All he has to do is let the Holy Spirit work through his “office” and he can be corrupt, manipulative in political affairs, have kids with mistresses, lie, cheat, and steal if he wishes. There’s no higher earthly office to do anything about it. So the office gets reduced to mere technicalities and legalisms, not substantive leadership. John Paul II’s come around once in a while and seem to be the WHOLE package. The man was a living saint. Amazing man. But we also have had the Borgia types, Medici popes, Honorius the heretic, and all sorts of interesting chaps. When they behave badly, corrupt the faith, etc. it’s chalked up to “impeccability, remember? They’re not impeccable!” And even when they do teach a heresy like Honorius did in letters and with legates they pull out the “impeccability vs. infallibility” argument again, which doesn’t apply there…I just don’t see the Holy Spirit in such a legalistic, loop-holish way?

And again, there is no list of infallible statements. Nobody can agree on them, not even popes, which gives me pause to ask why there is a charism that is so touted, so central, so important, so discussed, and yet not even understood by the folks that teach it and there is no real hard way to know when it has been proclaimed? Sometimes it sounds like it has to have anathemas and be official pronouncements along with cardinals and other times it could be an encyclical like Humanae Vitae and other times it’s NOT an encyclical. Moving goal posts. Drives me crazy. I feel your pain (Clinton-intonation included )

AND I got warned about being off topic!! LOL!!

I have read 2 things that cause me to take notice:

Infallibility evolved because of the need to protect the Church from heresies.
Doctrines were developed to save the church from heresies.

What heresies existed that caused the Mary Dogmas to be developed?

Another that caused me to take notice:
Infallibility protects the church from making error.

How does the above statement fit in with the error of buying indulgences with money? Someone said it was an abuse - Is an abuse not an error?

Part of the rule of infallibility
His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.

The above allows the Pope to teaching something that was never taught officially or previously.

Infallible statements:
Immaculate Conception of Mary 1854
Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950

Papal Infallibility 1870 - I would think this would have to be declared an infallible statement at some point otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Might be an infallible act:
Canonizing a saint

Is the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ considered an infallible statement? If not why? A Catholic must believe that Mary was born immaculately but not that Christ has 2 natures? Or is it because we can read in Scripture that in fact Christ had 2 natures so an infallible statement is not needed?

I see alot of discussion on Vatican II whether it is infallible or not? Why is there an issue with it?