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

[ron77nyc]

I know the church taught this but I don’t think this was an infallible teaching/statement. Did the church ever declare this as an infallible teaching?

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“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.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

“This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."
MORTALIUM ANIMOS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928, and the sixth year of Our Pontificate.

 

[Louie1983]

I know the church taught this but I don’t think this was an infallible teaching/statement. Did the church ever declare this as an infallible teaching?

Silly question. They did.

 

[Louie1983]

I completely forgot about the infallible dogma nulla salus

Pius IX condemned the notion that those outside the Catholic Church have a good hope of eternal life.

Pius XI clarified that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church may still be saved, but this is a narrow exception to the divine rule.

Pius IX has told us that it is unlawful to proceed to further inquiry about the salvation of those outside the Church. Instead, we continue to labor in the harvest by planting the seed, and leave the growing to God

 

[ron77nyc]

Pius IX has told us that it is unlawful to proceed to further inquiry about the salvation of those outside the Church.

Well I guess I shouldn’t talk about it any more. I don’t want to get thrown in jail.
Does Pope Benedict know about this?

 

[Louie1983]

Well I guess I shouldn’t talk about it any more. I don’t want to get thrown in jail.

hahahahaha.

I can see how the Pope is correct by saying not to really delve too much into it. God works in mysterious ways it should be left to him.

 

[Louie1983]

Well I guess I shouldn’t talk about it any more. I don’t want to get thrown in jail.
Does Pope Benedict know about this?

I’m sure he does.

Given he was the head of the dogma of the faith.

I honestly think all this ecumenism and interreligious dialogue has had a more negative impact than positive.

It confuses a lot of people and leads to uneccesary questions that could throw people off.

 

[JDZwiers19]

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“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.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

“This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."
MORTALIUM ANIMOS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928, and the sixth year of Our Pontificate.

I personally believe that the hope of salvation for those outside the Church is slim. However if you read these quotes carefully none of them outright deny the idea of invincible ignorance. They leave room to define what is meant by “inside the Church”. The teaching of invincible ignorance has never been clearly defined or explained, therefore I see no reason that this should undermine the doctrine of papal infallibility.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Would you say the Orthodox have not had the truth revealed to them?

QUOTE

I would never make such a statement in regards to the apostolic revelations and teachings handed down to both East and Western Catholic Church’s. The Orthodox are Catholic and part of the body of Christ.

Although I have heard some “Western Orthodox Laity” who refuse communion with the Pope declare no such unity, but this opinion never carries any weight from the Western Catholic church, because no Bishop or Pope can seperate what God has joined together, especially through the sacraments. Yet time and time again I hear Orthodox make claims to refuse communion, or remove itself from the unity with the Popes ( Peter) and the other apostolic successors both East and West, they go as far as not even recognizing a valid baptism, now that is very extreme religion outside of Orthodoxy from the Early Church Fathers, when the Pope did not allow the Eastern Church’s to rebaptise the apostates back into the fold. How quickly pride forgets its history.

Where the “tear” begins deals with “authority” not necessarily the apostolic doctrines. Had the Pope and the Catholic Church revealed the Trinity after 1054 a.d instead the 4th century, these self proclaimed Orthodox would still protest the blessed Trinity revealed by the Pope and the magisterium. Again it is not necessarily the Apostolic revealed doctrine they object to (dealing with the leadership not the laity) it is by what authority which constituted the revealed Apostolic doctrines while they refused communion with the Chair of Peter which is never an Orthodox position from the Early church Fathers.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Let me put it this way: If an Eastern Orthodox or a Protestant missionary preaches the gospel to a group of people who have never heard the gospel and they repent, get baptized and live their life according to the teachings of the apostles as explained in the bible, without knowing anything at all about papal supremacy or any other teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, do they inherit eternal life?

Amen, as long as the baptism is valid. What you failed to mention is that the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant missionary recieved the Gospel message from Peter, or his successors, which they hand on.

Here is St. Paul teaching what I just revealed here; Apostolic magisterium (bishops, priests, deacons) successors are the leaders of the Church. There is no teaching against those who repeat what was handed down to us in every age from the Apostolic successors. It is the Catholic Church which can refute or declare valid an apostolic teaching. Sola fide, Sola scriptura is never an Apostolic revelation, these come from men not God.

Paul defines the New Testament people chosen to constitute the order of the leadership of the Church.

2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
Paul describes the “faithful people” who are to hand on God’s Revelation and carry on principal Church functions.
The first category of “faithful people” is episcopoi, bishops.

1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach

Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward must be blameless, … holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
The second category of “faithful people” is presbyteroi, the presbyters, priests, elders.

Tit 1:5-6
Appoint presbyters (presbyterois) in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.

1 Tim 5:17
Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.
The third category of “faithful people” is diaconoi, deacons.

1 Tim 4:6,13,16
If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister (diakonos) of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed. … Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Attend to yourself and to your teaching.

1 Tim 3:8-9
Similarly, deacons (diaconos) must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
It is clear from Paul’s writings that he and the Apostolic Church were aware that order in the Church was conferred by the imposition of hands.

2 Tim 1:6
For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.

1 Tim 4:14
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.
Paul reminds Timothy that the imposition of hands on another is not to be taken lightly.

1 Tim 5:22
Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins.
Paul himself was ordered or ordained by the leaders of the Church at Antioch.

Acts 13:2-3
While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.
The Acts of the Apostles testifies to the belief and practice of creating orders in the early Church.

Acts 14:23
They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith.

Acts 6:6
They presented these men (seven diaconoi) to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

Acts 8:17
Then they (Peter and John) laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.
The constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church affirm the role of Orders or Ordination in the sacramental system and in the life of the Church.

Didache, Ch 5, Syria, 70-110
Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, humble men and not covetous, and faithful and well tested; for they also serve you in the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Do not therefore despise them, for they are the honored men among you along with the prophets and teachers.

 

[guanophore]

I personally believe that the hope of salvation for those outside the Church is slim. However if you read these quotes carefully none of them outright deny the idea of invincible ignorance. They leave room to define what is meant by “inside the Church”. The teaching of invincible ignorance has never been clearly defined or explained, therefore I see no reason that this should undermine the doctrine of papal infallibility.

It was explained by St. Paul, and according to this inspired and inerrant teaching the Church has followed.

Rom 2:12-16

12 All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

God judges each person according to the degree of revelation they have.

There is no salvation outside the Church because there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Jesus, and He is the Head of the Church, which is His Body. All who come to salvation in Him are made members of His One Body, the Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

I personally believe that the hope of salvation for those outside the Church is slim.

These quotes don’t say slim. They say not at all.

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“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.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

However if you read these quotes carefully none of them outright deny the idea of invincible ignorance. They leave room to define what is meant by “inside the Church”.

I don’t see room enough for a germ to get in here. What am I missing?

"none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal;…
No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

The teaching of invincible ignorance has never been clearly defined or explained, therefore I see no reason that this should undermine the doctrine of papal infallibility.

I would think infants are invincibly ignorant but they were also excluded from heaven under the doctrine of limbo.

 

[ron77nyc]

Amen, as long as the baptism is valid. What you failed to mention is that the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant missionary recieved the Gospel message from Peter, or his successors, which they hand on.

According to Pope Eugene IV and Pope Boniface they are not part of the Church, so even if they and their followers do everything right but do not submit to the Roman Pontiff they can’t have eternal life.

“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.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her;"

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would say the answer is simple. Catholics in here like to point out how Protestants lack the fullness of truth and, as you said, they don’t have the truth revealed to them. Why is it any different for the Orthodox? Most Catholics will not drive down that road and say that to an Eastern Orthodox Christian’s “face” in here, no way. But the fact is, the logic says you must. They, like Protestants, lack the papacy. The papacy is the custodian of truth from your angle. They are infallible, protect and bring us the truth through the Holy Spirit, and they are what constitutes a valid Church. So, from your definition of how Truth is arrived at, the Orthodox lack this charism and only have some of the truth.

The reason Catholics are unwilling to say things like this to the Orthodox has several reasons. They are similar to Catholics apostolically, sacramentally, etc. They also are to be respected as they’ve gone a thousand years with no papacy and have fared better than the Catholics with little to no heretics, no Reformation, and wonderful preservation of their liturgy without the watered-down changes of a Vatican II. Also, Orthodox posters on here are formidable, bright, energetic, daunting debaters so few Catholics are willing to say what Benedict XVI said about Orthodoxy being “defective.” People skirt the issues and the silence is often deafening.

 

[david_ruiz]

Your new logic conflicts with sacred scripture;

Reform is not new. Quite a few Church fathers said Christ is the rock ,and make no mention of Peter .I am not denying that later Fathers (4th C. on) did put forth your argument.I have read that Catholics say Peter was made Vicar when the Holy Spirit revealed to Peter whom Jesus was. I am not sure they mean Jesus just happened to appoint Peter at that time ,or that was made in effect because of the revelation .If it was the latter , all the rest of the apostles had the same revelation from the Holy Spirit ,as do ALL believers.

He is also going to reveal all things from the Father and the Son to His Church those things revealed by Jesus that never got recorded in scripture thus Oral sacred Apostolic Tradition which the Catholic Church reveals and teaches.

[This sounds half gnostic ,you know "special revelation ",just for some(apostles) ,and definitely not recorded in scripture.This is very poor ,and church fathers (1st and 2nd C) are rolling over at such popycok -that there was not enough room to put it in "writing "-God’s mode of operating since the beginning. God always had "lag time between when it was oral to “writing” .That lag time was the least in the N.T. He certainly did not leave anything of significance OUT as you imply. The church is a reflector of truth , as are all saved souls.The church does not manufacture , nor interpret “truth”. She only can put it forth as God has put it forth. What was given orally was put it in writing…All scripture is profitable .It does not say with the churches aid ,as you insist.It does not say with the aid of tradition ,as you insist .It says ALL scripture.I am not denying the role of prophets and teachers and elders .I am saying faith comes by hearing ,and hearing the word of God .It does NOT say faith cometh by hearing ,and hearing by tradition and councils and magisteriums . I am saying , if a council councils, and a magisterium dictates, or a teacher teaches , let Him teach by the Word of God , for Paul says it is ALL profitable Your statement is contrary to Apostolic teaching .St Augustine ,who ironically laid foundation for much catholic structure ,still regarded scripture as authoratative , second to none, and that He teaches us (God himself)) , that scripture is accessible and understandable to all men.He does not say ,you can not read ,and bibles are scarce but listen to the church , we will guide you .He does not. He does say scripture is authoratative ,and his beloved catholic church put it forth and as did it’s teachers (Jerome)…more- The apostles twice argued amongst themselves as to who would sit where and who was greater in the kingdom to come- BOTH just after Jesus supposedly naming Peter top apostle .Revelations says TWELVE apostles are our foundation -no special mention of Peter. Jesus says the church would be different than earthly kingdoms with their rulers(yet the papacy looks “Roman”) etc. Remember the Jews wanted a king too,instead of an invisible God. .Jesus said I will be with you ,always -do you really believe it , even though He is invisible ? Would you make peter Vicar if Christ were still here visibly ? Where does He say in scripture , "I will be with you always ,through Peter ,and his successors " ? Where ? Why did Peter not chair the first council ? Why did Peter not make the first councils pronouncement ? Why did Paul rebuke Christ’s supposed Vicar ? Why did All the apostles forgive ,loose and bind . Why is it that Jesus has "the keys " in Revelations ? Are there two sets, one for Pope Clements (88-97 A.D.) and one for Jesus ? …There are plenty of scriptures and Fathers to aid this "new " heresy…But thank-you .I fully understand your position as stated .Obviously ,one of us is apostolic ,and the other a private interpreter. As Jesus taught , it is he who does that is better than one who says he will but does not, referencing to be weary of one who constantly must say , “we are one and holy and apostolic”

I

The Church needs a teacher to interpret what Jesus revealed both what is written and what was handed down by Oral Tradition from the apostles. These two pillars revealed by Jesus Christ from the foundation of TRUTH was placed upon Rock = Peter himself with the command to feed, teach and tend Jesus’ flock until He returns which can only be found in the 2000 year old Catholic Church which has unbroken succession to Peter and the apostles. Anything else outside of this revealed Pillar of Truth comes from men, not God.

Peace be with you

Thank-you for the lengthy explanation. Do you know when such an explanation was put forth (use of Peter as rock therefore pope over all) ? I have heard it was around 4th century .When did the Catholic church begin using this scripture to prove papacy ? Please correct my “hearing”. Why did the Council of Chalcedon issue a cannon giving primacy to Constantinople for the Eastern churches. It did not recognize Rome over all. Why ? Is that when Catholics started to say the East was heretical ?..

 

[Nine_Two]

few Catholics are willing to say what Benedict XVI said about Orthodoxy being “defective.” People skirt the issues and the silence is often deafening.

To be honest my entire time here I’ve always found this interesting. Orthodox, generally speaking, feel the same way toward the Catholic Church, so it isn’t like it is surprising.

 

[Louie1983]

I would say the answer is simple. Catholics in here like to point out how Protestants lack the fullness of truth and, as you said, they don’t have the truth revealed to them. Why is it any different for the Orthodox? Most Catholics will not drive down that road and say that to an Eastern Orthodox Christian’s “face” in here, no way. But the fact is, the logic says you must. They, like Protestants, lack the papacy. The papacy is the custodian of truth from your angle. They are infallible, protect and bring us the truth through the Holy Spirit, and they are what constitutes a valid Church. So, from your definition of how Truth is arrived at, the Orthodox lack this charism and only have some of the truth.

The reason Catholics are unwilling to say things like this to the Orthodox has several reasons. They are similar to Catholics apostolically, sacramentally, etc. They also are to be respected as they’ve gone a thousand years with no papacy and have fared better than the Catholics with little to no heretics, no Reformation, and wonderful preservation of their liturgy without the watered-down changes of a Vatican II. Also, Orthodox posters on here are formidable, bright, energetic, daunting debaters so few Catholics are willing to say what Benedict XVI said about Orthodoxy being “defective.” People skirt the issues and the silence is often deafening.
Gabriel of 12;7209081:
you calling us catholics dumbos gurney!!!:thumbsup:

 

[guanophore]

I would say the answer is simple. Catholics in here like to point out how Protestants lack the fullness of truth and, as you said, they don't have the truth revealed to them.  Why is it any different for the Orthodox?

Yes, very different. The Orthodox received the Apostolic faith, and did not invent new doctrines 1500 years after the fact. What they received has been faithfully handed down. The present day Protestants, for the most part, don’t even know that what has been handed down to them is a trucated version of the gospel. They think that the Catholics “added” to it! If they knew what the Orthodox believed, they would say the same thing.

Most Catholics will not drive down that road and say that to an Eastern Orthodox Christian’s “face” in here, no way. But the fact is, the logic says you must. They, like Protestants, lack the papacy. The papacy is the custodian of truth from your angle. They are infallible, protect and bring us the truth through the Holy Spirit, and they are what constitutes a valid Church. So, from your definition of how Truth is arrived at, the Orthodox lack this charism and only have some of the truth.

The Orthodox have always believed in the gift of infalliblity. They have also believed that the successor of Peter was “first among equals”. They share the same underestanding we have that Jesus is the Head of the Church, and she is ensouled by the HS, and therefore, infallible. They still function under the same model we see in the book of Acts - “It seemed right to the HS and to us…”

The reason Catholics are unwilling to say things like this to the Orthodox has several reasons. They are similar to Catholics apostolically, sacramentally, etc.

More than similar - identical!

They also are to be respected as they’ve gone a thousand years with no papacy and have fared better than the Catholics with little to no heretics, no Reformation, and wonderful preservation of their liturgy without the watered-down changes of a Vatican II.

The other side of that is that the Church does not really grow, either. They are not evangelistic in the way the Latin Church is. They did not have a Reformation because they did not spread the faith. They have very little missionary work, and compared to the global presence of the Roman Church, have hardly budged since the schism. They add members primarily through members having babies, or bringing in those who are marrying members.

With regard to the preservation of the liturgy, you are leaving out the 22 sui juris Catholic Rites that were not affected by the liturgical changes to the Novus Ordo, since they don’t use it. I encourage you to participate in an Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy. Let me know after if you found it “watered down”.

Also, Orthodox posters on here are formidable, bright, energetic, daunting debaters so few Catholics are willing to say what Benedict XVI said about Orthodoxy being “defective.” People skirt the issues and the silence is often deafening.

Benedict said no such thing. The Orthodox are called the “other lung” of the CC, with valid sacraments, holy orders, and apostolic succession. They bear the four marks of the Church, unlike our separated brethren, who do not.

 

[david_ruiz]

=Louie1983;7208627]Don’t know.

The only who can answer that is God

. Cop-out

However we need to remember that not all truths are contained in the bible, there is oral tradition/truths that need to be considered as well.

Makes Paul a liar . He says all scripture is profitable for dogma .To infer there is something else , you must take away Paul’s “ALL”. Your bible must say , “All scripture is profitable for some dogma,the rest being being found by my oral traditions I taught you”…This is exactly the same mistake the Jews made ,the Jews who would end up crucifying the Truth.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Goodness no! I don’t meet a lot of “dumbos” in here, silly LOL…I’m just fascinated by how the Catholics never want to take on the Orthodox and use the “defective” monicker with them as the pope did and yet they’ll go to town on the “ecclesiastical communities” charges on Protestants.

gurneyhalleck1;7209403:

I would say the answer is simple. Catholics in here like to point out how Protestants lack the fullness of truth and, as you said, they don’t have the truth revealed to them. Why is it any different for the Orthodox? Most Catholics will not drive down that road and say that to an Eastern Orthodox Christian’s “face” in here, no way. But the fact is, the logic says you must. They, like Protestants, lack the papacy. The papacy is the custodian of truth from your angle. They are infallible, protect and bring us the truth through the Holy Spirit, and they are what constitutes a valid Church. So, from your definition of how Truth is arrived at, the Orthodox lack this charism and only have some of the truth.

The reason Catholics are unwilling to say things like this to the Orthodox has several reasons. They are similar to Catholics apostolically, sacramentally, etc. They also are to be respected as they’ve gone a thousand years with no papacy and have fared better than the Catholics with little to no heretics, no Reformation, and wonderful preservation of their liturgy without the watered-down changes of a Vatican II. Also, Orthodox posters on here are formidable, bright, energetic, daunting debaters so few Catholics are willing to say what Benedict XVI said about Orthodoxy being "defective."

People skirt the issues and the silence is often deafening.

you calling us catholics dumbos gurney!!!:thumbsup:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re saying most Orthodox view Catholics as defective and so it doesn’t surprise you? Or are you saying the fact they won’t back up what the pope says and debate you about it surprises you, Nine?

To be honest my entire time here I’ve always found this interesting. Orthodox, generally speaking, feel the same way toward the Catholic Church, so it isn’t like it is surprising.