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

[shaky]

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.

Hi Gabrial

Where is say in timothy about somebody to become a bishop: Married only Once.
How Would this also Apply to a Person who has had his first marraige Annuled by The church?
Also how Would it Apply to a person whoes first wife died and he was married a second time?

 

[Nine_Two]

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?

I’m saying that Catholics refusing to say as much to Orthodox surprises me.

 

[josephdaniel29]

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.

How can you say the Orthodox Church is not evangelistic? How can a Church claim to be “Apostolic” if it does not send missionaries? How do you think Orthodoxy came to America? How did it come to Japan? How did it come to Tanzania?

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

He did, it was within days (possibly weeks, I forget) of being proclaimed Pope. He also said something about Protestants, I can’t remember what exactly so I won’t repeat, but it was quite a bit harsher. A protestant friend of mine showed me the article in question, taking great offense.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

They fell here from the sky apparently or just beamed in from the Enterprise!

How can you say the Orthodox Church is not evangelistic? How can a Church claim to be “Apostolic” if it does not send missionaries? How do you think Orthodoxy came to America? How did it come to Japan? How did it come to Tanzania?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re correct. He did indeed. And it made little sense to mention the “other lung” which I know the Orthodox HATE as a cliche and then on the other hand discredit them as defective LOL…It’s like saying, “love your hair and makeup! But boy you look like a blimp in those jeans! Have a nice day!”

He did, it was within days (possibly weeks, I forget) of being proclaimed Pope. He also said something about Protestants, I can’t remember what exactly so I won’t repeat, but it was quite a bit harsher. A protestant friend of mine showed me the article in question, taking great offense.

 

[Louie1983]

. Cop-out

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.

Cop-out? you saying you can judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

Paul is no liar, you just have an erroneous understanding of the faith.

“My” bible says

2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

 

[Louie1983]

I’m saying that Catholics refusing to say as much to Orthodox surprises me.

I’ve said it plenty of times, the only problem is when your trying to have an honest discussion with someone with straight forward points, one usually gets emotional/offended.

 

[Louie1983]

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.
Louie1983;7209466:
I know, just fooling around.

Hey I got no problem having that discussion with the orthodox, I’ve had plenty on here as well.

I remember one person basically ignoring me for it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I get ignored a lot by Dodgers fans! Maybe they weren’t ignoring you for your positions against Orthodoxy but because you like Men at Work?

gurneyhalleck1;7209499:

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.

I know, just fooling around.

Hey I got no problem having that discussion with the orthodox, I’ve had plenty on here as well.

I remember one person basically ignoring me for it.

 

[guanophore]

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.

No. the fact that all scripture is profitable for teaching does not mean that all teaching must be found in the scripture.

The Written Word and the Oral Word do not contradict each other, they complement one another.

Sacred Tradition’s primary purpose is to help us understand what is written from the point of view of those who wrote it. They never intended to produce a full compendium of the faith in the memoirs and letters.

 

[Louie1983]

I get ignored a lot by Dodgers fans! Maybe they weren’t ignoring you for your positions against Orthodoxy but because you like Men at Work?
Louie1983;7209578:
OK I have no idea what your on about here…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.)

While you have only “touched” on the subject that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The deep insights to this matter exceed the writings of these popes who have only repeated what was handed down to them. Now if you wish to discuss this without sounding to critical and see the deep revelations that deal with this topic of "no salvation outside the Catholic Church from scripture and apostolic Tradition would require another thread. Thus far your interjection does not do justice to this beautiful teaching of "no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Because the Orthodoxy’s who refuse communion with the rest of the Catholic Church’s both East and West, have an issue with authority, these individual Catholic Church’s possess valid sacraments and or valid Holy orders.

They do well to remain Orthodox in this way, because they themselves do not have the authority to define nor to clarify sacred scripture and sacred Tradition other than what has already been handed to them (such as the Trinitarian doctrine for example which is not recorded in scripture but taught by the apostles and revealed by Jesus). As time goes on and as they remain outside of communion with the rest of Catholicism, they are beginning to accept other liturgies into their Orthodoxy, is when they lost my respect for their Orthodoxy position, these also re baptise a valid baptised person, which is totally not Orthodoxy, these also have an accepted view of contraception and divorce. Either they maintain their Orthodoxy, or reunite quickly to the rest of the Catholic Community both Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholic Church before they head down the ever-changing road of protestantism.

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.

 

[guanophore]

How can you say the Orthodox Church is not evangelistic? How can a Church claim to be “Apostolic” if it does not send missionaries? How do you think Orthodoxy came to America? How did it come to Japan? How did it come to Tanzania?

Sorry, it was a sweeping generalization. I think Orthodoxy came to America to serve the faithful Orthodox that came here. I don’t think they came here to convert people.

As a matter of fact, the Natives would have been spared a great deal of suffering if the Spanish Catholics had not come here to “convert” them.

I confess that I don’t know how Orthodoxy came to Japan. I have always presumed there were missionaries, but not on the scale of the Latin Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

He did, it was within days (possibly weeks, I forget) of being proclaimed Pope. He also said something about Protestants, I can’t remember what exactly so I won’t repeat, but it was quite a bit harsher. A protestant friend of mine showed me the article in question, taking great offense.

He did say that about Protestants. He explained why they are not considered true “churches”, and that is why they are called “ecclesial communities”. They lack the four marks of the Church, so cannot be considered “church”. This does not apply to Orthodox, who have the marks.

Benedict differentiates between them:

"Since the Second Vatican Council and thereafter the Catholic Church has entered into fraternal relations with all the Churches of the East and with the Ecclesial Communities of the West, in particular by organizing bilateral theological dialogues with most of them. "

Yes, I understand why it would be offensive to our separated brethren.

but rather, as is attested in conciliar and postconciliar teaching, they are “ecclesial Communities”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Louie, you don’t know how to quote someone on here, do you? LOL I notice you always keep the entire statement someone said without the quoting feature and just bold your statement at the bottom. Huh? LOL

I was kidding. Men at Work was an aussie group from the 80’s who made some great tunes. I thought maybe those posters were anti-Australian, not anti-you. Maybe they hate Men at Work or the Mad Max movies or vegemite? didn’t land…sorry!

gurneyhalleck1;7209601:

I get ignored a lot by Dodgers fans! Maybe they weren’t ignoring you for your positions against Orthodoxy but because you like Men at Work?

OK I have no idea what your on about here…

 

[guanophore]

You’re correct. He did indeed. And it made little sense to mention the “other lung” which I know the Orthodox HATE as a cliche and then on the other hand discredit them as defective LOL…It’s like saying, “love your hair and makeup! But boy you look like a blimp in those jeans! Have a nice day!”

Can you give a link to the document where he does this? I can’t seem to find anything like that.

Everything I have looked at refers only to Protestant communities as defective.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**We need some grammar-boosting here, Gabe. “The Orthodoxy’s?” “As does the popes today?” “fallacy’s” instead of “fallacies?” Hey, sorry, it’s the teacher in me; I can’t help it; I grade papers all day long!

It’s really late, my Giants clobbered the Rangers, and I’m in a great mood but TIRED! So I’ll try to reply to this succinctly and with some brevity. Thanks for your post.**

Because the Orthodoxy’s who refuse communion with the rest of the Catholic Church’s both East and West, have an issue with authority, these individual Catholic Church’s possess valid sacraments and or valid Holy orders.

**There were five patriarchates at the time of 1054: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome. From the Orthodox viewpoint, Rome walked away from the Church, not the antithesis. They believe on an ecumenical council has the right to define major dogma and Rome, having gone rogue from their point of view, has no authority to unilaterally declare doctrines just with cardinals of the West. So this argument doesn’t stimulate the Orthodox sensibilities much understandably. The Orthodox would tell you that it is Rome that allowed its corruption and false teachings to create the Reformation. They never had one. They would also tell you that the Thomist thinking and medievel slants on things as well as purgatory and indulgences and infallibility are innovative and totally unacceptable. The “changing road” you speak of from their standpoint is Rome. Orthodoxy hasn’t changed much at all. **
They do well to remain Orthodox in this way, because they themselves do not have the authority to define nor to clarify sacred scripture and sacred Tradition other than what has already been handed to them (such as the Trinitarian doctrine for example which is not recorded in scripture but taught by the apostles and revealed by Jesus). As time goes on and as they remain outside of communion with the rest of Catholicism, they are beginning to accept other liturgies into their Orthodoxy, is when they lost my respect for their Orthodoxy position, these also re baptise a valid baptised person, which is totally not Orthodoxy, these also have an accepted view of contraception and divorce. Either they maintain their Orthodoxy, or reunite quickly to the rest of the Catholic Community both Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholic Church before they head down the ever-changing road of protestantism.

The Orthodox might and sometimes do argue that Peter cannot lead in a vacuum without the rest of the apostles either. From their point of view, the councils of Rome like Trent and Vatican I and II are not ecumenical so the pope is preaching in a vacuum unilaterally. So to them it’s moot.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

continued with Gabriel of 12

Interesting argument. You seem to argue against yourself here though. On one hand you’re saying Peter must have the rest of the apostles present in a true conciliar body to properly exercise his custodial declarations. Yet at the end you focus on how Peter alone is prayed for by Christ and protected and blessed and guided. This seems to suggest he is totally able to declare and teach and dictate dogma without the others? You don’t mention Christ praying for them all and the rest of the apostles so I’m assuming all your focus here is on Peter. What need is there for the others from this angle?
You are incorrect; my angle is the bishops world wide united with Peter the Pope who are successors to Peter and the apostles are custodians of the Truth revealed by Jesus himself. Peter alone maintains this unity from the Keys of the Kingdom of God, per Jesus Christ. That is why Jesus prayed for Peter alone, should any of Peter’s brethren fall, Peter is to go and lead them back. As does the Popes today.

.
Boy I’m Dr. Wrong tonight! You’re essentially saying that the Orthodox are religious scavengers living off the carcass of the old Church laid out with the pope at the helm. Since the pope left and they’re on their own, they live off the old carcass of the past and have nothing new under the sun, no real living, breathing, vibrant spirit-filled guidance but rather a sad attempt to preserve what the popes laid out. I wonder how they’d respond to that?

Wrong again; Orthodox derived its authenticity from when it was in full communion with the Popes. Orthodoxy do well to maintain what they have, and have no authority to clarify or define other than what has already been revealed to them. In other words their self proclaimed new definition of Orthodoxy does them well so long as they maintain to their Orthodoxy. They don’t lack some of the Truth because they have a valid Eucharist. What they lack is authority to bind all Christians to a doctrine world wide. Only the Popes and the magisterium in unity with the Pope can clarify, define, defend an already revealed apostolic revelation binding on all Christians. Or be anathema. Orthodoxy alone does not have such binding and loosing with the Keys of the Kingdom over the whole Church. Only their own Church communities can they exercise their binding and loosing. Just like any Bishop in the Western Church.

**And I respect yours as well. Why the “but” conjunction after a semicolon? And "All Church’s (why the apostrophe?) consists (why the s when it is modifying a plural?) See I’m being naughty again; sorry. My grammar and subject-verb agreement meter is on high alert today after grading a batch of essays! You actually lost me here a touch. You’re saying that Orthodoxy is lacking, incomplete, unfullfilled and defective as the pope says. It is yearning for leadership and right now full of truth yet no one legitimately being the overall shepherd. What I see is a series of churches that are often autocephalous and have strong national sentiment to them and yet, as Schlemann and Meyendorff are fond of pointing out, they have strong Eucharistic ecclesiology. They operate on the same conciliar model and respect for the equality of all bishops that the Early Church respected. They operate successfully and have survived Islam, Communism, and state persecution, tough times, etc. And through it all they haven’t changed an iota and in their liturgy it’s still rich, consistent, and unspoiled by innovators and hippies. Their theology is consistent as well. They possess a wealth of great apologists and historians themselves. I find much of their debate and talking points quite compelling at times. I think they’re a tough opponent. I wouldn’t say that guys like Nine Two and Hesychios in here are afraid to take you on Gabriel! Easy now, brother! **
Although I respect your opinion here; But it is a far cry from reality. All Church’s united with the Pope consists of many different peoples, tongues, nations and tribes that the Orthodox become very minute under a small management that can never compare to the Catholic Church Rites united with the Popes. You have no idea the great difference between a single community of believers in Orthodoxy and the great diverse communities, languages and peoples united with the Pope.

Your opinion only places a drop of paint on a large canvas that can barely be seen. In conclusion I hope you are not saying here that this Catholic fears to engage with the Orthodox community? This is not the type of talk I would expect from you. I hope I read your thoughts wrong on this particular topic. For the record, I have engaged many Orthodox here, and some have refused to engage me, and some have left me with no rebuttal, silence. I think the picture is bigger than you pretend it to be. No Catholic Should be feared or moved by the waves of men, while resting on Rock. This is my position.

**Blessings to you, have a great evening, take care! **