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

[gurneyhalleck1]

But we got the really classy convicts.

And there were actually MORE British convicts sent to the Thirteen Colonies which became the USA, than the number of British convicts later sent to Australia.

 

[Petergee]

I’m not going to answer each one of these points, guanophore, as I have neither the will, time, or desire to debate into infinity. But I will sum things up like this with with some brevity:

I am not saying there is license to do carte blanche. I am saying that Catholics disagree as to what is infallible. I’m not sure why you equate my statement that there is disagreement about infallible proclamations to mean that I think Catholics are of a rebellious mind to do whatever they want? You’re arguing against a point I’m not making? I’m merely saying that there is widespread disagreement as to what is and is not infallible and de fide. I think that’s a fair statement. And I think the parameters are vague as to when popes have been speaking ex cathedra. Take Lumen Gentium. It says in Lumen Gentium 25 This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra. I’ve heard very intelligent Catholics in this forum say, “well heck, Lumen Gentium isn’t infallible so you don’t have to worry about that.” :banghead::hypno:

Well I’m sorry but such people cannoit be “very intelligent Catholics.” If you blatantly disobey the pope or reject the teaching of a pope or council, you are not a good Catholic.

Some Catholics think Lumen Gentium is hardcore infallible. Some say it’s not. Some say Humanae Vitae is. Some say no. Some say that Pope John Paul II closed the door to women’s ordination with the encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. And yet many say O.S. is not infallible either?

That’s even more wacky. Pope John Paul even went out of his way to use the precise words which Vatican I used when takling about infallible definitions of dogma.

And when it comes to Honorius, it’s not just the letters to Sergius, but the sending a legate to support Monothelitism that is trouble to many, including me. Letters are letters, surely not ex cathedra. But sending legates is different and makes for a more solid argument that he tried to teach from the Chair.

Neither the letters to Sergius nor the letter carried by the delegates **supported **monothelitism. They merely urged peace and an attempt to find a compromise form of words which could retain the Monthelitists in the fold. Similarly to John Paul’s own words and actions towards the supposedly Monophysite churches in the Middle east. John Paul was not a heretic, and neither was Honorius I.

One question which the anti-Catholics who claim that Honorius I was a heretic, and even that the Church later declared him to be a heretic , have never been able to answer, is: Why then did several subsequent popes centuries later deliberately choose to take the name Honorius upon ascending the chair of Peter? Very starange behviour if, as the anti-Catholics claim, the Church was supposedly embarrassed about Honorius I and wanted people to forget that he ever existed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Honorius was condemned and anathemized a heretic. You don’t get anathemized, smacked down spiritually after death and condemned for just ‘urging peace’

His name was taken out of the lectionary and his name considered anathema for centuries and centuries even by subsequent popes! He’s an embarrassment to this day.

Well you might not consider those folks “intelligent Catholics” who don’t think each encyclical is infallible, but it’s a fact that there are many varying opinions as to what is infallible and what is not. I know because I’ve spoken with not only a zillion people in this forum about it, I’ve heard the confusion on Catholic Answers for years about it, spoken with priests locally and online who all differ, and in books I’ve read constantly I read conflicting things. Seminaries are even teaching divergent thoughts on what is infallible and what is not…

Lumen Gentium is saying that a Catholic must surrender his intellect and will to the braintrust 100% even when the pope is not speaking, emphasis on NOT, speaking ex cathedra. And yet elsewhere we hear ONLY when he’s speaking ex cathedra…huh?

Well I’m sorry but such people cannoit be “very intelligent Catholics.” If you blatantly disobey the pope or reject the teaching of a pope or council, you are not a good Catholic.
That’s even more wacky. Pope John Paul even went out of his way to use the precise words which Vatican I used when takling about infallible definitions of dogma.

Neither the letters to Sergius nor the letter carried by the delegates **supported **monothelitism. They merely urged peace and an attempt to find a compromise form of words which could retain the Monthelitists in the fold. Similarly to John Paul’s own words and actions towards the supposedly Monophysite churches in the Middle east. John Paul was not a heretic, and neither was Honorius I.

One question which the anti-Catholics who claim that Honorius I was a heretic, and even that the Church later declared him to be a heretic , have never been able to answer, is: Why then did several subsequent popes centuries later deliberately choose to take the name Honorius upon ascending the chair of Peter? Very starange behviour if, as the anti-Catholics claim, the Church was supposedly embarrassed about Honorius I and wanted people to forget that he ever existed.

 

[Petergee]

But we got the really classy convicts.

Nah. It wasn’t until after 1776 that the Industrial revolution really kicked in and the populations of British cities started to really swell that many people were convicted of crimes basically becasue they were poor and unemployed, and, in many cases, Catholics. And as the Plantations/genocide in Ireland stepped up another notch and the Irish government was abolished subsequent to teh failed 1798 rebellion we got a lot of convictrs whose only crime essentially was being Irish and Catholic.

Before 1776, the transported convicts would have had a much higher proportion of genuine heavy career criminals.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And now in 2010 we have some of the cream of the crop of fellons and scum. Just watch Lockup on MSNBC! If there’s one thing that California can church out…we pump out the best fellons and prison trash in the world.

Nah. It wasn’t until after 1776 that the Industrial revolution really kicked in and the populations of British cities started to really swell that many people were convicted of crimes basically becasue they were poor and unemployed, and, in many cases, Catholics. And as the Plantations/genocide in Ireland stepped up another notch and the Irish government was abolished subsequent to teh failed 1798 rebellion we got a lot of convictrs whose only crime essentially was being Irish and Catholic.

Before 1776, the transported convicts would have had a much higher proportion of genuine heavy career criminals.

 

[Petergee]

Honorius was condemned and anathemized a heretic. You don’t get anathemized, smacked down spiritually after death and condemned for just ‘urging peace’

Er, no, he wasn’t. An unauthorised Council called him a heretic, but neither the then pope nor any subsequent pope endorsed this claim. Any statement by a Council which is not formally ratified by a pope, is not binding on Catholics. You’ve got a copy of Lumen Gentium, look at the beginning. It’s ratified and issued by Pope Paul VI.

His name was taken out of the lectionary

His name was never in the lectionary. Only canonised saints have their names in the lectionary.

and his name considered anathema for centuries and centuries even by subsequent popes!

Apart from the fact that a name cannot be “anathema” (I guess you mean, " unspeakable"), how do you explain away popes Honorius II, III and IV?

He’s an embarrassment to this day.

He certainly doesn’t embarrass me and I’m certain he doesn’t embarrass Pope Benedict or any other informed Catholic. As far as the embarrassing popes of history go, Honorius I’s cowardice and dilatoriness (his “I’m just trying not to offend anybody” tone is strikingly reminiscent of many Church and civic leaders of our own time) is small potatoes indeed compared to the shockingly immoral activities of not a few subsequent popes.

Well you might not consider those folks “intelligent Catholics” who don’t think each encyclical is infallible, but it’s a fact that there are many varying opinions as to what is infallible and what is not. I know because I’ve spoken with not only a zillion people in this forum about it, I’ve heard the confusion on Catholic Answers for years about it, spoken with priests locally and online who all differ, and in books I’ve read constantly I read conflicting things. Seminaries are even teaching divergent thoughts on what is infallible and what is not…

I didn’t dispute that. But unless one is doing a higher degree in theology nobody needs to know whether a particular doctrine/statement is infallible. What I am rejecting is your claim that “very intelligent Catholics” think that they “don’t have to worry” about what Lumen Gentium or any other papal/Council statement says.

Lumen Gentium is saying that a Catholic must surrender his intellect and will to the braintrust 100%

Certainly not. LG says he must give “loyal submission of the mind and will”. You seem like a fairly intelligent fellow. Please don’t tell me you go in for this puerile “Catholics aren’t allowed to think for themselves” non-argument.

even when the pope is not speaking, emphasis on NOT, speaking ex cathedra. And yet elsewhere we hear ONLY when he’s speaking ex cathedra…huh?

Where? I have never seen a pope/Council state that Catholics must submit only to ex cathedra statements. Some anti-Catholics in the secular media and some high profile dissident Catholics might say this, but they are totally wrong.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes he was. Funny that that “unauthorized” council’s ruling was upheld for centuries in the Roman breviary and later popes condemned and trashed him!? :hypno:

Er, no, he wasn’t. An unauthorised Council called him a heretic, but neither the then pope nor any subsequent pope endorsed this claim. Any statement by a Council which is not formally ratified by a pope, is not binding on Catholics. You’ve got a copy of Lumen Gentium, look at the beginning. It’s ratified and issued by Pope Paul VI.
His name was never in the lectionary. Only canonised saints have their names in the lectionary. Apart from the fact that a name cannot be “anathema” (I guess you mean, " unspeakable"), how do you explain away popes Honorius II, III and IV? He certainly doesn’t embarrass me and I’m certain he doesn’t embarrass Pope Benedict or any other informed Catholic. As far as the embarrassing popes of history go, Honorius I’s cowardice and dilatoriness (his “I’m just trying not to offend anybody” tone is strikingly reminiscent of many Church and civic leaders of our own time) is small potatoes indeed compared to the shockingly immoral activities of not a few subsequent popes.
I didn’t dispute that. But unless one is doing a higher degree in theology nobody needs to know whether a particular doctrine/statement is infallible. What I am rejecting is your claim that “very intelligent Catholics” think that they “don’t have to worry” about what Lumen Gentium or any other papal/Council statement says.

**Nice one, Peter. Call me intelligent and yet imply that I’m not if I “go for” a certain point of view. Barnyard psychology! I actually do believe that Catholics cannot think for themselves in most areas. I don’t say it as an insult by by observation and the fact that the papacy, magisterium, and Church tell you what to think and you are to obey. If I, for example, look at contraception and think, believe, and conclude that it’s NOT intrinsically evil, is actually a good thing, and is perfectly moral, the Church tells me I will be in mortal sin, be condemned to hellfire, and cannot take communion. So how am I thinking for myself? There are plenty of these subjects in which you are forbidden to think for yourself. The Church is saying, in a way, you can think for yourself, as long as it’s what we say. When I was a Catholic, I was honest about the fact that I couldn’t think for myself. The catechism, pope, magisterium, bishops and cardinals, and rubrics, canon law, the whole nine yards, did it for me. And the fact that you reinforce the idea that not only ex cathedra statements are to be 100% obeyed, but every single thing the popes and Church teach at all only reinforces my point. Lumen Gentium completely rules out all doubt that Catholics are allowed to think for themselves it seems. **
Certainly not. LG says he must give “loyal submission of the mind and will”. You seem like a fairly intelligent fellow. Please don’t tell me you go in for this puerile “Catholics aren’t allowed to think for themselves” non-argument.
Where? I have never seen a pope/Council state that Catholics must submit only to ex cathedra statements. Some anti-Catholics in the secular media and some high profile dissident Catholics might say this, but they are totally wrong.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying this is an infallible statement?

Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

Infallible teaching relates to matters of doctrine. This statement is addressing a matter of practice/discipline, much like the fasting rules for Lent. Rules and disciplines change from age to age, culture to culture, where doctrine does not. Pastoral decisions such as this are based upon infallible Teaching, but are mutable.

 

[guanophore]

I am not saying there is license to do carte blanche. I am saying that Catholics disagree as to what is infallible. I’m not sure why you equate my statement that there is disagreement about infallible proclamations to mean that I think Catholics are of a rebellious mind to do whatever they want? You’re arguing against a point I’m not making? I’m merely saying that there is widespread disagreement as to what is and is not infallible and de fide. I think that’s a fair statement.

Indeed, it is a fair statement. No, I am not equating this statemetn with rampant disobedience to the faith.

You said that infallibility not being equated to impeccability makes it possible for the Pope to be as corrupt as he wants. This is contrary to the Catholic faith. Any person baptized Catholic who believes and practices such licentiousness has fallen away from the faith. By definition that person (whether a bishop or a layperson) is living in a state of mortal sin, and is separated from unity with Christ and his Church.

And I think the parameters are vague as to when popes have been speaking ex cathedra.  Take Lumen Gentium.  It says in Lumen Gentium 25 ***This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra***.  I've heard very intelligent Catholics in this forum say, "well heck, Lumen Gentium isn't infallible so you don't have to worry about that." :confused::banghead::hypno:

Yes, I read them.

If the Pope is writing from authentic teaching authority, then his writing will be a reflection f the beliefs of the Church. The doctrine of the faith comes from Jesus, and since we can trust the Source, we can have submission of the will and intellect to all that God gives us through the Church, of which He is the Head. This is not about trusting the Pope, but about Trusting the Cornerstone.

I undertsand that you consider this “blind faith”. When you accused me of having “blind faith” I realized that we have a different understanding of that term. For me, submission of the will and intellect comes very hard, and I tend to fight tooth and nail. It has taken decades for me to achieve the meek, humble, and loyal submission that is called for in Lumen Gentium. For me it has been the opposite of “blind”. However, I am willing to accep that when you use the term, it means something different to you.

So Lumen Gentium tells me I must submit my brains and will to the pope even when he’s NOT teaching ex cathedra yet other times the Church says we must only submit to him when he IS speaking ex cathedra

Perhaps you believe that submitting your “brains” means that you don’t get to think? Your problem in this is no different than the majority of American Latin Catholics who have this same reaction about birth control and abortion. When they react to the teaching of the Church, they insisst that the Pope has no business in their bedroom, or jurisdiciton over their sex life, etc, etc. But it is not really about the Pope at all. What it boils down to is that such persons do not want to submit their whole being to God. They want to claim they are devoted Christians, yet they say “God can have my Sunday mornings, but I want to keep my own Lordship over my sex life”.

If the Pope (or anyone else, for that matter) is speaking on behalf of God (like Moses did), then rebellion against such a person amounts to rebellion against God. Look at those Israelites who grumbled against Moses! God took it personally. Why? Because He chose to speak and work through Moses. In the same way, Jesus chose to speak and work through the Apostles. He said “he who rejects you, rejects me”.

and yet Lumen Gentium is NOT infallible according to some so I can ignore its admonition that I must follow the pope all the time because the document telling me that is fallible LOL…

I think it is a matter of meekness and obdeience that goes beyond this document, and even the concept of infallibility.

However, I will reiterate the point that it is not a majority opinion that makes a matter infallible. It does not matter if 89% of the church, as in the days of the Arian heresy, fall into error, the Truth does not change.

Some Catholics think Lumen Gentium is hardcore infallible. Some say it’s not. Some say Humanae Vitae is. Some say no. Some say that Pope John Paul II closed the door to women’s ordination with the encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. And yet many say O.S. is not infallible either?

Yes, but the “some” are not those that determine the infallible teachings. When these documents reflect the faith that was handed down to us from the Aposltes, they are promulgating infallible teaching. The same is true for the Fathers of the Church. There are parts that contain opinions, and parts that reflect the Apostolic teachings.

And when it comes to Honorius, it’s not just the letters to Sergius, but the sending a legate to support Monothelitism that is trouble to many, including me. Letters are letters, surely not ex cathedra. But sending legates is different and makes for a more solid argument that he tried to teach from the Chair.

Gotta run. Short for time.

No, teaching from “the Chair” is very restricted and has specific requirements that cannot be met by private letters. Letters are not “letters”. Personal correspondence, even over theological matters, does not equate to encyclicals or letters that are intended for the instruction of the whole church.

 

[guanophore]

As a soldier, it seems odd to me that you have so much trouble with this. I have never seen battle, but it is clear to me even as a reservist that the reason unquestioning obedience of my commanding officer is necessary is because I don’ t know all the facts, for one thing, and there are particulars about the battle that I am not privy. Also, if I fiddle around trying to decipher whether an order should apply to me or not, I will likely end up dead.

In order for the battle to go well, all the soldiers need to submit their mind and will to the higher authority. Yes, it is possible that he (or she, nowadays) may make a mistake, but the consequences of disobedience are potentially much higher.

Honorius was condemned and anathemized a heretic. You don't get anathemized, smacked down spiritually after death and condemned for just 'urging peace' :p:confused:

True, but you don’t have to be making infallible teachings, either.

Well you might not consider those folks “intelligent Catholics” who don’t think each encyclical is infallible, but it’s a fact that there are many varying opinions as to what is infallible and what is not.

Most encylicals are pastoral in nature, and therefore are connected to the time and culture in which they occur. Infallible Teachings, by definition, transcent culture and needs of the times.

 I know because I've spoken with not only a zillion people in this forum about it, I've heard the confusion on Catholic Answers for years about it, spoken with priests locally and online who all differ, and in books I've read constantly I read conflicting things.  Seminaries are even teaching divergent thoughts on what is infallible and what is not...:confused:

I guess I am confused as to why this matters. It is like saying you polled all the young adults in America claiming to be Catholic, and the majority of them think that premarital sex is not a sin “if you love the person, or are planning to get married”. How is their opinion relevant at all?

 Lumen Gentium is saying that a Catholic must surrender his intellect and will to the braintrust 100% even when the pope is not speaking, emphasis on NOT, speaking ex cathedra.  And yet elsewhere we hear ONLY when he's speaking ex cathedra...huh? :confused:

I think this is a misrepresentation of the text, Gurney. The Catholic Church teaches against this notion. We are not allowed to “surrender to the braintrust”. We are required to study, to show ourselves approved, to learn, to wrestle through our contradictions in prayer and in faith. This is where I think your personal definition of these terms blocks you from understanding the Church teaching. Meekness and obedience do not equate to mindless robotic following without thinking.

Have you ever studied the use of the term “meek” in scripture? Do you think that Jesus, since He was meek, surrendered His intellect and will to a braintrust? You seem to be unaware of the great power within a person that must be brought into containment in order to be obedient.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**I don’t have trouble with authority. I have trouble trusting THIS authority. Catholics like yourself always assume, because someone doesn’t want to bow to the papacy and kiss the pope’s ring that they don’t have a sense of meekness, obedience, piety, or respect for authority, etc. When one reads the Fathers like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and the like we see that we ARE to submit to our bishop and the bishop is to be Christ for us. This kind of rebelliousness is not my aim and I think you know that. The Orthodox have plenty of obedience to authority and yet they don’t buy the papal product’s claims either? Why must not submitting to Rome always be akin to being a spiritual rebel? The Orthodox are such rebels and are not meek by your definition. I’m sure they’d beg to differ with you. So would Anglicans. My bishop, John-David Schofield, is very conservative, orthodox, strict, and old-school. You cannot equate the military to the Church. That’s about as good an analogy as those folks in my state who think we should “run the school system like a business” with the kids being a product and there being a bottom line. A state isn’t a business, the Church isn’t an army battalion. **

As a soldier, it seems odd to me that you have so much trouble with this. I have never seen battle, but it is clear to me even as a reservist that the reason unquestioning obedience of my commanding officer is necessary is because I don’ t know all the facts, for one thing, and there are particulars about the battle that I am not privy. Also, if I fiddle around trying to decipher whether an order should apply to me or not, I will likely end up dead.

In order for the battle to go well, all the soldiers need to submit their mind and will to the higher authority. Yes, it is possible that he (or she, nowadays) may make a mistake, but the consequences of disobedience are potentially much higher.

True, but you don’t have to be making infallible teachings, either.

Most encylicals are pastoral in nature, and therefore are connected to the time and culture in which they occur. Infallible Teachings, by definition, transcent culture and needs of the times.

**I am not saying it is. And maybe you should consider that the Church is doing a lousy job of getting out the Word of God and making it clear that these sexual activities ARE sinful, right? I know more Catholics living out of wedlock, having illicit sex, divorcing and remarrying, and using birth control than just about anyone. Perhaps the leadership you’re giving so much credit to is dropping the ball? Look at where my wife is from…the Philippines is a nation loaded to the hilt with out of wedlock pregnancies, splitting up and shacking up, homosexuality, etc. But they brag because they “don’t allow divorce.” Catholicism has been as ineffective in countries like Spain, Mexico, and Brazil at getting out the Gospel as the Anglicans have been in the now-atheistic England. **
I guess I am confused as to why this matters. It is like saying you polled all the young adults in America claiming to be Catholic, and the majority of them think that premarital sex is not a sin “if you love the person, or are planning to get married”. How is their opinion relevant at all?

**You can wrestle, read, analyze, ponder, pray, look up, down, left, and around, just as long as you do EXACTLY as the Church tells you to do. So, yes, you surrender to the braintrust. It’s their way or the highway. How is real authentic thinking allowed? “You may do whatever you want, as long as it’s what I say” is not a deep level of thinking, etc. **
I think this is a misrepresentation of the text, Gurney. The Catholic Church teaches against this notion. We are not allowed to “surrender to the braintrust”. We are required to study, to show ourselves approved, to learn, to wrestle through our contradictions in prayer and in faith. This is where I think your personal definition of these terms blocks you from understanding the Church teaching. Meekness and obedience do not equate to mindless robotic following without thinking.

**I seem to be unaware of the great power within a person that must be brought into containment in order to be obedient? Not at all. But I must trust the source first and ultimately you and every other Catholic, Guano, first must allow the pope to think for you. You made the decision to let him think for you. I’m not an undisciplined maniac with no sense of meekness or obedience or piety. I resent the implication that I never have been contemplative in my life enough to consider the importance of self-discipline, mastery of my own ego, and the need to obey Christ. I’m not a dullard. **
Have you ever studied the use of the term “meek” in scripture? Do you think that Jesus, since He was meek, surrendered His intellect and will to a braintrust? You seem to be unaware of the great power within a person that must be brought into containment in order to be obedient.

 

[shaky]

Hi Gabriel

 

[Protestant101]

Boy you really are confused about what Catholics belive about the pope. Be believe he is a human being. We don’t worship him as some sort of god!

Now I did not say that you worshiped the Pope…In fact I know from years of being on this forum that Catholics teach he is “human.”

My point is that something infallible cannot also be “human.”

I think Catholics have typically had troubles explaining this doctrine of Papal Infallibility to Protestants; and likely half the reason for this is how defensive Protestants can get when they are hit with this doctrine.

Maybe Catholics should look at calling this something else? The phrase Papal Infallibility does have the appearance of saying that the Pope himself is infallible; whereas, people should be getting the idea more clearly that Catholics believe and teach that the Pope’s “doctrinal pronouncements” when done in “ex-cathedra” are infallible. I believe this is how Catholics want us to see it. What puzzles me is why Catholic apologists continue to use phrases like “papal infallibility” when this is clearly not the case.

 

[Gibbs212521]

This one is classic, so if I may be given privilege to pass some scripture.
To say God sends one in twos and threes is backed up from Moses sending out spies (Not Moses) to Revelation. This is false though in the case of the Apostles, Prophets, and Moses (who by his lack of faith requested aid).
Also God rules us by a religious structure and a corporal structure (2 Chronicles 19:11) Always he has a head to his faithful with covenants and we could go over “interpretations” if Adam or Seth or Noah or etc were considered heads, but those counted God as their “master” or absolute Head as he always in his Bride. Moses, God wished to be his sole voice and 2 Chronicles 19:11 declares that in religious matters the high priest of God of the time is for faith as the king is for that of worldly ruling. So if you say Jesus is our High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek with no lesser voice to institute a Unified Obedience as of Old, then also declare since he is our King of Kings that not even should we obey our government’s voice.
“Oh but we should obey our superiors except when it defies God!”
That goes likewise for the Church as St. Ignatious of Antioch sooo bluntly puts in his epistle to St. Polycarp
Chapter 6
“Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!”
To prevent adding to the scripture Catholics use Sacred Tradition to prove the meaning of Scripture, not personal interpretations (2 Peter 1:16-21) "there is no Prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation " That is no speaking of what is Truth that is a matter of personal interpretation.
Now read the end of 1 Peter, you shall see Peter is the shepherd guiding the other shepherds. Even if he humbles himself to simple priesthood, which we know He is an Apostle (above episcopate)

DID YOU KNOW?
That there were only 4 Patriarchs: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome at the First Nicene Council?(325 AD) Which declared Rome the Prime amongst the 4 Patriarchs

It was not until the First Council of Constantinople that Constantinople was considered a Patriarch? (381 AD) The Pope disagreed to adding another Patriarch, since Patriarch was a title of Apostolic succession in the early church and declared unapostolic the attempt to make Constantinople the Prime amongst Patriarchs (“New Rome”) simply because the Emperor desired it and made it capital. The Pope declared Rome still “Rome” by its succession of Peter and that even the very apostolic teaching of the Council denounced the idea, “The anathema of those who worldly government influencing the church and those of religious orders seeking worldly government”
The Roman See also continues to assert primacy in the following councils if my memory serves right (it would take me a good 3-4 hours to skim through them so please forgive my lack of preciseness)

-Your history is wrong on the get go

The greatest tragedy would be Rome’s Error, since the Roman Rite has since Pope St. Clement I assuredly asserted to have a “Holy Father” that is the shepherd of the Church & Christ’s vicar. How terrible the thought that the St. Peter could have ruined it soo quickly on his own ordained priest. Note this is my prime reasoning in solid faith in Papal Infallibility, St. Ignatious’ letters about how the Holy Spirit will not err the Church enforce this. I can understand why only a small portion of other Sees stayed under the Pope when Constantinople and Rome had a jealous match… one pleading Government and Equality the other Apostolic Succession. Feel free to enlighten me anyone! give me material to read, I’m young and rash and need to be educated lol

So to sum this “soup salad” to a edge, Peter’s Chair is as Moses before Christ on Mount Sinai with Aaron and the elders behind him (Ex. 24) or one may liken Peter to Aaron, the voice of Moses… more theologically correct is Moses and Aaron are the type of the Pope and one can relate it soo far that only when Moses spoke through Aaron (like the Pope via Ex Cathedra) is it meant to be God’s public declarations. Though Israel was to respect Moses none the less as a judge of morality like we do the Pope unto even non-infallible statements. The prophets also like Elijah were at many times the only voice of God, as the entire “bride Israel” abandoned their Lord. The Apostles though alone had the grace to stay void of all errors of theology thus all Rites are null if they separate from the Apostolic. Hmm… So Extraordinary Magistrate does include the Pope by himself as it did Peter himself and as it does the Entire Church as one body by her self. All must be in union with the Priest the Lord has deigned for “Religious Affairs.” This Thread has gone into much detail, and this edge is still a “soup salad”
Jesus gave Peter the keys as Isaiah gives the type (Is. 22: 19-25) The Lord gives his own keys to a mere minister and that minister is soo loved by Christ that he will be given ability to close what can never be opened and open what can never be closed. That kinda sounds like closing open theologies that are expanding and open the world to what cannot be seen (such as the sins of the time and bring in holiness) these are the two infallibility qualifications our Pope can do. He must do it with those keys, with his Chair, with his Voice to the Church, how ever you wish to put it! Those keys are required for the kingdom to open or close anything, hence why the Councils are reliant on the Pope to be sealed as infallible, and that it why canons are declared infallible not the council nor foolish banters (which happen at every council one can be certain.) …
Lord forbid that I got off topic nor left you in confusion as I have tendency to do in ramblings…
God Bless & Ave Maria!

Papal = Papacy / Papacy = Rome’s Chair & See
Pope = Person

 

[guanophore]

 I don't have trouble with authority. I have trouble trusting THIS authority.

I don’t mean that personally. By nature humans have problems with authority. It is part of our nature.

So, by “this authority”, you mean the successor of Peter?

If you were in Jerusalem on Pentecost, and were bapitized, and devoted yourself to the Apostles’ way of life and teachings, how is it that you would not have trouble with their authority?

Catholics like yourself always assume, because someone doesn’t want to bow to the papacy and kiss the pope’s ring that they don’t have a sense of meekness, obedience, piety, or respect for authority, etc.

No, not a bit. I have made the observation based upon reading your posts. although it is true that I do assume that all human beings have authority problems. There are as many of these who call themselves Catholics as not.

The way you phrase your objection - “bow to the papacy” says a lot. What exactly does such a phrase mean? I never met any Catholics who do this, so I am not sure.

Your comment of “kiss the ring” is one you have used before. It appears that you object to this practice. It is an ancient Egyptian custom that was imported into the Roman Empire. It is a custom of respect and obedience. In the East, they do not use this, but they use a very low bow in the oriental fashion. It is the same as a salute, or a gesture of respect to a superior officer.

My wonderment about your apparent lack of space in your theology for meekness and submission actually has to do with your reaction to the encylclical, and has nothing to do with nonverbal gestures toward the successor of Peter.

 When one reads the Fathers like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and the like we see that we ARE to submit to our bishop and the bishop is to be Christ for us. This kind of rebelliousness is not my aim and I think you know that.

You know, in spite of the rebellious tone of some of your posts, and seeming disdain for the authority of the successor of Peter, it is true that I have never considered you as reveling in rebellion as do many who share you sentiments. On the contrary, I see a person who is honestly struggling/grappling with coming into unity of the faith.

The Orthodox have plenty of obedience to authority and yet they don't buy the papal product's claims either?  Why must not submitting to Rome always be akin to being a spiritual rebel?

I don’t think it is always, but there is a spiritual element to all that we do. If one refuses to accept the authority that God has placed over them, there are spiritual consequences. If they do, there are special graces and spiritual benefites.

The Orthodox are such rebels and are not meek by your definition.

It is true, during my reversion to the faith I have read some Orthodox writings and you are right that there is some really rotten fruit festering. It would be prejudicial, though, to ascribe this to all Orthodox, just as it would be to all Anglicans.

I'm sure they'd beg to differ with you. So would Anglicans. My bishop, John-David Schofield, is very conservative, orthodox, strict, and old-school.

Is there something I said that gave you the impression I thought everyone who is not in union with the successor of Peter is separated due to rebellion?

You cannot equate the military to the Church. That's about as good an analogy as those folks in my state who think we should "run the school system like a business" with the kids being a product and there being a bottom line. A state isn't a business, the Church isn't an army battalion.

I am not sure if you are deliberately trying to avoid my point. I never attempted to equate the Church with the military. I find it incomprehensible that, as a person with some military experience, you would not understand or appreciate obedience to authority, even when one does not understand everything. The princple here is obedience to authority.
You say you have trouble trusting “this authority” (not sure what that is), and I wonder if you had so much trouble trusting a command.

Does a soldier let the commander think for him because he obeys without question?

It seems to me the soldiers that are valued most are those who are both obedient and can think well.

 

[guanophore]

Now I did not say that you worshiped the Pope...In fact I know from years of being on this forum that Catholics teach he is "human."

My point is that something infallible cannot also be “human.”

It is a good thing this is not true, or we would have no NT or no Church! On the contrary, God can, and does, work infallible acts through human beings. He has done this from the beginning of human history.

I think Catholics have typically had troubles explaining this doctrine of Papal Infallibility to Protestants; and likely half the reason for this is how defensive Protestants can get when they are hit with this doctrine.

And the other half is probably poorly catechized Catholics.

Maybe Catholics should look at calling this something else? The phrase Papal Infallibility does have the appearance of saying that the Pope himself is infallible; whereas, people should be getting the idea more clearly that Catholics believe and teach that the Pope’s “doctrinal pronouncements” when done in “ex-cathedra” are infallible. I believe this is how Catholics want us to see it. What puzzles me is why Catholic apologists continue to use phrases like “papal infallibility” when this is clearly not the case.

I think Gurney has made the point quite well that nothing about papal infallibility is “clearly the case”. But, I agree with you, much of it is semantics problems and the baggage from the past.

If I could erase the words “supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff” from history, I surely would. But, it is what it is, so we have to work with it.

 

[guanophore]

I am not saying it is. And maybe you should consider that the Church is doing a lousy job of getting out the Word of God and making it clear that these sexual activities ARE sinful, right?

I don’t lay the sins of men at the feet of Christ. this is like saying that something was wrong with Jesus’ teaching, because Judas was such a poor example. It is not right to judge the faith by those who depart from it.

That being said, I do agree that there is great room for improvement in catechesis. When I read your post about how you enrich your classroom with your faith, I found myself wishing every believer would do this. If we did, then the city would be on the hill. There would be no lights under a bushel. This is the kind of salt we are all called to be.

The duty to preach and teach belongs to the Bishops, as you observed above. There have been some that do not do well. I think we need to pray for them, support them, and do the work of the ministry. When I am doing what you are, living and teaching my faith every minute of every day, then I will be able to look for the speck in the eyes of those who fall short.

I know more Catholics living out of wedlock, having illicit sex, divorcing and remarrying, and using birth control than just about anyone. Perhaps the leadership you’re giving so much credit to is dropping the ball?

No, I dont’ think so. I can’t find anything in the Teachings of the Church that supports this. On the contrary, I see the successor of Peter over the last centrury laboring without ceasing to uphold the doctrine of the faith, and the purity of marriage.

Catholicism has been as ineffective in countries like Spain, Mexico, and Brazil at getting out the Gospel as the Anglicans have been in the now-atheistic England.

Yes, it is pathetic. However, this is not a failure of Catholicism, but a failure of those who profess it, and refuse to teach and practice what they claim to believe. There is no deficiency in the faith.

You can wrestle, read, analyze, ponder, pray, look up, down, left, and around, just as long as you do EXACTLY as the Church tells you to do. So, yes, you surrender to the braintrust.

Do you honestly think that the Apostles understood everything? I think they were just as confused and scandalized as all the other disciples in Jn. 6. The only reason they did not walk away is because they knew He had the words of eternal life. Not because they understood. I am also sure they were not keen about obeying his command to eat his body and drink his blood.

It is not a braintrust, Gurney, but a faith trust. We surrender because we can trust the Source, not because those appointed over us “know” more than we do. When you quoted Ignatius above about submission to the bishop, as he is to Christ, that is not about "brains’ but faith.

It's their way or the highway. How is real authentic thinking allowed? "You may do whatever you want, as long as it's what I say" is not a deep level of thinking, etc.

How does thinking have to interfere with obedience?

How is obeying something you can’t wrap your brain around harmful? Shoot, I cannot fathom the mystery of the Eucharist. If I waited until all my questions were answered, I would never obey! I have read so many documents and different opinions it makes my head spin.

Not at all. But I must trust the source first and ultimately you and every other Catholic, Guano, first must allow the pope to think for you.

I guess there is no way to pursuade you that this cannot happen. I rarely know the thoughts of the Pope. I read Scripture and the Liturgy of the Hours, and these form the bulk of my “mind”. I do read official documents, but they cannot “think” for me. No one can think for another person Gurney. That is the same as saying that I don’t really have my own faith in God, but I rely on the Pope to believe for me?

For the Catholic, Jesus is the Source. When we trust in Him, we are able to submit to the authorities that He has placed over us.

You made the decision to let him think for you.

This is a quirk in your thinking that I am at a loss to address. Apparently you equate submission of the will and intellect to “not thinking”. This is what makes me think that you dont understand the meaning of meekness. Here is a passage:

1 Peter 2:1-3
Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation — 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

This is the teachable attitude that the Apostles’ promote. The infant suckles peacefully at the breast. We know that Jesus is the Source of the pure, spiritual milk.

James 1:21

21 Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

It is the duty of the successor of Peter to “feed and care for the lambs”. From him we are to receive with meekness the implanted word. We are to be fruitful, receptive, well worked soil into which the seed can go to sprout quickly and bring forth fruit.

You seem to have an assumption that you are going to be fed sour milk and weed seeds.

 

[guanophore]

I'm not an undisciplined maniac with no sense of meekness or obedience or piety. I resent the implication that I never have been contemplative in my life enough to consider the importance of self-discipline, mastery of my own ego, and the need to obey Christ. I'm not a dullard.

I don’t believe that I implied any such thing. One can be rebellious and still be a disciplined. One can be very quietly rebellious - no mania evident.

I think if you did not have a value for meekness, obedience, and piety you would not be having this struggle right now. I this case, you are faced with the quandary of whether or not obeying Christ equates to obeying the successor of Peter. It is like Jesus putting mud on your eyes to make you see. It seems like it is opposite from what your senses tell you is right.

One of the reasons that the counterreformation was so successful was that it happened under obedience. Rebellion only foments more rebellion. The saints like Frances and Teresa of Avila that gave their lives to the Church struggled with much more corrupt popes and bishops then we see today. They were able to effect change because they were obedient during their objections. This is what purifies the church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not going to take the time to respond to this post primarily because The Giants Just Won the Pennant! and secondly, because I don’t have to defend my character. I try, if you notice, Guanophore, NOT to judge people’s character or personality. I have my own opinion about your posts and attitude and agenda but never say it. I like to just take the facts, take history, take theology, and discuss, not get personal. You get personal A LOT. And many posters have told me that that is a turn off for them when you engage them. My advice: don’t make it personal, keep it on the level. Using army references and trying to equate your appreciation for authority to being Catholic is not a poignant approach IMO. One could just as easily be a combat veteran who feels compelled to go to Orthodoxy and follow their chain of command rather than a Roman Catholic one. My rector’s son at the Anglican parish I attend is a combat veteran in the middle of blood and guts in Iraq. The kid’s dad is an Anglican priest and he reverently follows his Anglican faith. You usually claim your comments are general and not personal but they really seem personal and direct. I will say that I deeply, seriously, fundamentally object to your claim that I have this apparent disdain for meekness and obedience. Words cannot express how angry that makes me. I don’t appreciate it. It’s pharisaic and too amateur freud as well as disrespectful to a person who regularly posts here as you do and is on an honest search. Disagreements and divergent thinking doesn’t equate to a spiritual rebel. You’ll no doubt reply that that is not what you’re saying but it is. I don’t think you take note of how much I defend Catholicism with the Orthodox in here and with Anglicans or Protestants who say dishonest things about Catholicism. It gets me in trouble with both sides. I hate it when people trash Catholics or the pope or the Church in general. It’s a huge mistake to gauge people’s character this way. My wife and I have long conversations about going back to Catholicism. We’re working through it. Honestly I have a few friends on CAF who are right in my position and you don’t realize that some of these types of posts TURN THEM OFF and it’s like reverse-apologetics, Guanophore, no kidding…

And not every one of our posts has to be answered and rebutted and argued into infinity. So I recommend we take a breather here and you go and shadow someone else for a while …we’re getting nowhere fast. I have a good chance of being Catholic again but this honestly isn’t helping. The meekness litmus test really didn’t!

I don’t mean that personally. By nature humans have problems with authority. It is part of our nature.

So, by “this authority”, you mean the successor of Peter?

If you were in Jerusalem on Pentecost, and were bapitized, and devoted yourself to the Apostles’ way of life and teachings, how is it that you would not have trouble with their authority?

No, not a bit. I have made the observation based upon reading your posts. although it is true that I do assume that all human beings have authority problems. There are as many of these who call themselves Catholics as not.

The way you phrase your objection - “bow to the papacy” says a lot. What exactly does such a phrase mean? I never met any Catholics who do this, so I am not sure.

Your comment of “kiss the ring” is one you have used before. It appears that you object to this practice. It is an ancient Egyptian custom that was imported into the Roman Empire. It is a custom of respect and obedience. In the East, they do not use this, but they use a very low bow in the oriental fashion. It is the same as a salute, or a gesture of respect to a superior officer.

My wonderment about your apparent lack of space in your theology for meekness and submission actually has to do with your reaction to the encylclical, and has nothing to do with nonverbal gestures toward the successor of Peter.

You know, in spite of the rebellious tone of some of your posts, and seeming disdain for the authority of the successor of Peter, it is true that I have never considered you as reveling in rebellion as do many who share you sentiments. On the contrary, I see a person who is honestly struggling/grappling with coming into unity of the faith.

I don’t think it is always, but there is a spiritual element to all that we do. If one refuses to accept the authority that God has placed over them, there are spiritual consequences. If they do, there are special graces and spiritual benefites.

It is true, during my reversion to the faith I have read some Orthodox writings and you are right that there is some really rotten fruit festering. It would be prejudicial, though, to ascribe this to all Orthodox, just as it would be to all Anglicans.

Is there something I said that gave you the impression I thought everyone who is not in union with the successor of Peter is separated due to rebellion?

I am not sure if you are deliberately trying to avoid my point. I never attempted to equate the Church with the military. I find it incomprehensible that, as a person with some military experience, you would not understand or appreciate obedience to authority, even when one does not understand everything. The princple here is obedience to authority.
You say you have trouble trusting “this authority” (not sure what that is), and I wonder if you had so much trouble trusting a command.

Does a soldier let the commander think for him because he obeys without question?

It seems to me the soldiers that are valued most are those who are both obedient and can think well.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not going to keep this going…blessings, Guano.

I don’t lay the sins of men at the feet of Christ. this is like saying that something was wrong with Jesus’ teaching, because Judas was such a poor example. It is not right to judge the faith by those who depart from it.

That being said, I do agree that there is great room for improvement in catechesis. When I read your post about how you enrich your classroom with your faith, I found myself wishing every believer would do this. If we did, then the city would be on the hill. There would be no lights under a bushel. This is the kind of salt we are all called to be.

The duty to preach and teach belongs to the Bishops, as you observed above. There have been some that do not do well. I think we need to pray for them, support them, and do the work of the ministry. When I am doing what you are, living and teaching my faith every minute of every day, then I will be able to look for the speck in the eyes of those who fall short.

No, I dont’ think so. I can’t find anything in the Teachings of the Church that supports this. On the contrary, I see the successor of Peter over the last centrury laboring without ceasing to uphold the doctrine of the faith, and the purity of marriage.

Yes, it is pathetic. However, this is not a failure of Catholicism, but a failure of those who profess it, and refuse to teach and practice what they claim to believe. There is no deficiency in the faith.

Do you honestly think that the Apostles understood everything? I think they were just as confused and scandalized as all the other disciples in Jn. 6. The only reason they did not walk away is because they knew He had the words of eternal life. Not because they understood. I am also sure they were not keen about obeying his command to eat his body and drink his blood.

It is not a braintrust, Gurney, but a faith trust. We surrender because we can trust the Source, not because those appointed over us “know” more than we do. When you quoted Ignatius above about submission to the bishop, as he is to Christ, that is not about "brains’ but faith.

How does thinking have to interfere with obedience?

How is obeying something you can’t wrap your brain around harmful? Shoot, I cannot fathom the mystery of the Eucharist. If I waited until all my questions were answered, I would never obey! I have read so many documents and different opinions it makes my head spin.

I guess there is no way to pursuade you that this cannot happen. I rarely know the thoughts of the Pope. I read Scripture and the Liturgy of the Hours, and these form the bulk of my “mind”. I do read official documents, but they cannot “think” for me. No one can think for another person Gurney. That is the same as saying that I don’t really have my own faith in God, but I rely on the Pope to believe for me?

For the Catholic, Jesus is the Source. When we trust in Him, we are able to submit to the authorities that He has placed over us.

This is a quirk in your thinking that I am at a loss to address. Apparently you equate submission of the will and intellect to “not thinking”. This is what makes me think that you dont understand the meaning of meekness. Here is a passage:

1 Peter 2:1-3
Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation — 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

This is the teachable attitude that the Apostles’ promote. The infant suckles peacefully at the breast. We know that Jesus is the Source of the pure, spiritual milk.

James 1:21

21 Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

It is the duty of the successor of Peter to “feed and care for the lambs”. From him we are to receive with meekness the implanted word. We are to be fruitful, receptive, well worked soil into which the seed can go to sprout quickly and bring forth fruit.

You seem to have an assumption that you are going to be fed sour milk and weed seeds.