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

[JDZwiers19]

**Did I say it “disproved” the doctrine? I’m simply saying that it is vague, ill-defined, and there is a lot of disagreement and lack of cohesion when it comes to how the charism is applied, carried out, and actually what has been infallible. If you seriously think I’m damning the Catholic Church, you’re way out in left field. But that’s fine. You can believe what you want about me. I know that that is not how I feel about Catholicism. I don’t damn the Church or the papacy. If you follow my other posts and not snapshots, you’ll see that I feel the papacy is the best hope for the re-Christianization of Europe, the single most vital force on the world stage for restoration of traditional morality, and is still the world leader in evangelization and ministry. I still do not agree with your Trinity analogy. It’s apples and oranges IMO but you’re welcome to it. **

Fair enough. i am aware of your opinions of the Church. I’m not saying you are consciously damning the Church but if clarity and unanimous agreement is the definitive factor on deciding whether a doctrine is true then the Church would have failed from the get go. In fact the unanimous agreement of all the faithful was one of the innovations the east came up with in order to jestify their rejection of the councils of Lyon and Ferrara Florence which should have brought about reunification

 

[Nine_Two]

First we’re stagnant, and now we require unanimous agreement for something to pass? That certainly would be an innovation if we believed it.

I suggest learning a bit about the East before pronouncing against it.

 

[david_ruiz]

i don’t get it?

jesus speaks loud and clear from matthew 16 our king of kings and lord of lords building his church upon peter.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe they just can’t get past the long beards, incense, and levened bread

First we’re stagnant, and now we require unanimous agreement for something to pass? That certainly would be an innovation if we believed it.

I suggest learning a bit about the East before pronouncing against it.

 

[guanophore]

Then when one examines Matt 16, before any deciphering begins , Jesus or Peter could be the “rock” on which the church is built. Peter was Cephas before this ,was he not ? Not sure. Either way, with two "rocks "somebody better tell us which one it is .

Catholics don’t examine Scripture through “deciphering”, David. We read it from the point of view of those who wrote it. We examine it through the lens of Sacred Tradition, which enables us to understand what is written according to the faith of the authors.

Matt 16:15-20
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

This is the occasion upon which Christ renamed Simon bar Jonah to Cephas (Rock). If you are honest with yourself when you read all the times in scripture that God changed someone’s name it will become clear to you that every time He did this, it signified a drastic change in their identity and mission. On this occasion, Simon makes a “rocky” statement about Christ which was revealed to him by the Father. Jesus, the Rock of Ages, uses the rocky statement to rename the speaker to “Rock”.

These rocks cannot be separated or divided.

Not sure on this. He was baptized as he was told by fellow saints .Can not think what else Jesus did not tell him directly. Sorry ,I thought you said Peter was different from rest and all had to match or be in line with him. I am glad to see you think all the apostles , including Paul were equal in authenticating the gospel.

Both things are true. All the apostols authenticated the Gospel. All were in unity with Peter.

A theocracy is where God rules ,indeed thru the Holy Spirit as His vicar.It is if there were no earthly man as top dog) .Catholicism  may claim to have God as ruler ,but below Him is quite a totalitarian setup ,unlike biblical theocracy (Israel), or unlike the earliest catholic -universal church.

You have been misinformed about Catholicism, David, and about the identity of the Keys of David. I think if you are willing to look at the chief steward of the Davidic kingdom it will be clear that the nature of the vicar is not royal. He is a servant to the royal house.

 

[guanophore]

Sounds like you are backing up a bit .You said they were all of the same opinion regarding Peter as pope. Now it is a different “perspective.”

The papacy continued to develop after the Schism, so the early role of the primacy of Peter became much broader. You can see from the scripture above that Peter was given the Keys. None of the apostles were separated from him in faith or practice.

I believe you know what "above"means. It means that Peter positionally, was to lead the others. He was positioned by Christ to be greater,

I think Jesus was clear that He expected servant leadership, in humility. That means that the one with authority is among them as one who serves, not one who is “above”. The supremacy attitude is a worldly one.

but you are still top dog , universal bishop pope etc .You know .

No, I don’t know this at all. The commission of Jesus to Peter to care for His flock and feed His lambs has nothing that I can identify as “top dog”. As far as I can tell, this goes directly contrary to what Christ instructed.

This is what Ignatius does not allude to, this “position” or “Petrine gift” Indeed, so much so that I believe He did not make Peter Lord over anyone or the church , but maybe first among equals , most of the time.

I agree. I think it was clear to all the Apostles and their disciples that the role of Peter was one of servanthood, not “LORD OVER”. I think the Apostles made sure Jesus’ instructions on this point were included in their memoirs just for that reason.

I believe you inferred that “Patriarch” is not God’s plan in N.T.Perhaps ,but at least when you had 4 or 5, it is more old testament , early church , where bishops like tribal leaders ,were in charge of their territory .

No, I don’t think I inferred any such thing. The five patriarchies developed very quickly after the end of the Apostolic age.

This as opposed to universal bishop-pope-, serving as head bishop over the entire church everywhere.(which has been said always by some not to be part of God’s N.T.plan)

There is not “opposition” between the the role of Peter and the other bishops. God designed His Church to work in perfect unity.

Not sure .I believe on Catholic radio they said he gave succession of bishops to three cities, one being Rome .Iraneus says Rome’s church was founded by Peter and Paul, then succeeded to Linus etc.

Peter started a line of bishops in Antioch early, before he ever went to Rome, which is why that line is the eldest. Peter sent Mark to Alexandria in Egypt, so that is considered an Apostolic See of the line of Peter as well.

As is clear in the letter of Paul to the Romans, the Church there was thriving before any apostle visited. It is believed that there were pilgrims from Rome present at Pentecost, or that some of those present later journeyed to Rome, or both. The Roman Church was already known throughout the world for their faith even before Peter and Paul went there.

Was Paul a pope according to Iraneus ,if indeed he is listing popes ,which I think he was NOT ?

No, Irenaeus was not listing popes, but combating heresies. The reason that the see of Rome was used as a plumbline is because both Peter and Paul labored together there, and doctrinally, it was well fortified by this.

Rome may have had pre-eminence , not because of Matt 16,or that Peter was pope , but because of the two most famous ,beloved  apostles put in it's foundation.

All of them are true.

 

[JDZwiers19]

The Orthodox Church is stagnate?

Funny, that’s what Protestants always say about the Catholic Church.

I guess that makes us the happy medium

 

[JDZwiers19]

First we’re stagnant, and now we require unanimous agreement for something to pass? That certainly would be an innovation if we believed it.

I suggest learning a bit about the East before pronouncing against it.

Oh don’t get me wrong, you were quite innovative before the schism. Didn’t I say it was the CC moving on without you that encouraged stagnation?

Maybe you should educate me as to why the two councils I mentioned where rejected because of popular opinion and political pressure? That is a sincere invitation. I am curious to hear it from the Orthodox perspective?

 

[Protestant101]

If someone honestly follows their conscience and never learns of the Church and is protected by an invincible ignorance do you not think the pope would consider that person a faithful subject?

The original statements leave room for further definition.

No one needs any Pope’s permission to be counted “faithful” or to be called one of Christ’s “faithful subjects.”

Jesus says “without Me ye can do nothing;” not without the Pope you can do nothing.

The obvious discordant views on this thread is all the evidence a Protestant needs to know that the Catholic doctrine of infallibility is indeed, very fallible. Of course, a certain forum member is bound to say something like “well, the doctrine is not defined by those who disagree on it or depart from it;” but one thing is for sure Catholics don’t even appear to understand this point. Could it be because it actually is not Biblical?

 

[david_ruiz]

Can you please explain what this means?

 

[JDZwiers19]

No one needs any Pope’s permission to be counted “faithful” or to be called one of Christ’s “faithful subjects.”

Jesus says “without Me ye can do nothing;” not without the Pope you can do nothing.

The obvious discordant views on this thread is all the evidence a Protestant needs to know that the Catholic doctrine of infallibility is indeed, very fallible. Of course, a certain forum member is bound to say something like “well, the doctrine is not defined by those who disagree on it or depart from it;” but one thing is for sure Catholics don’t even appear to understand this point. Could it be because it actually is not Biblical?

Christ also said “whoever hears you hears me” etc. Who was he talking about? Christ clearly taught that you need to listen to someone to be “faithful” and it isn’t Ellen White.

There is no disunity among faithful Catholics about the nature of papal infallibility. You cannot be one if you reject it.

Lets not forget Sola Scriptura’s track record at promoting unity.

 

[po18guy]

No one needs any Pope’s permission to be counted “faithful” or to be called one of Christ’s “faithful subjects.”

First, good to see you around here, my Adventist brother. But, I’m not going to let you get away with the standard and well-known SDA attacks on Catholicism. Now, onto the business of rhetorical questions: So, by whose authority are you “faithful” then? Who is the SDA “Paul” who teaches and reproves? You can’t use the bible, because Paul did not. Who is the SDA Paul?

Jesus says “without Me ye can do nothing;” not without the Pope you can do nothing.

Remember also that Jesus also said: “He who hears you hear Me”. He then sent them in His Name. Who was sent to the SDA?

The obvious discordant views on this thread is all the evidence a Protestant needs to know that the Catholic doctrine of infallibility is indeed, very fallible.

Au contraire! If some Catholics fail to understand it, that only means they haven’t been taught properly on this specific subject. I’m going to canvass a few SDA members I know. If I get “discordant views” the SDA church is therefore proved wrong, right?

You, 101, here and now, for all posterity, can make world history and demolish the doctrine of infallibility by simply proving an infallible declaration to be wrong. What you are left with is that you simply disagree. But, we knew that when you came here!

 

[Protestant101]

First, good to see you around here, my Adventist brother. But, I’m not going to let you get away with the standard and well-known SDA attacks on Catholicism. Now, onto the business of rhetorical questions: So, by whose authority are you “faithful” then?

You, 101, here and now, for all posterity, can make world history and demolish the doctrine of infallibility by simply proving an infallible declaration to be wrong. What you are left with is that you simply disagree. But, we knew that when you came here!

Ha ha! How are you my friend? Long time “no see!” You don’t have to let me “get away with anything!” I would be disappointed if you did.

I will say though, that you have provided some evidence how the Catholic Church can, in the end, only claim her own authority, and not Bible authority for some of their beliefs. Your own leaders will candidly admit that it is by reason of your Church’s perceived/claimed “authority” ONLY that you hold certain beliefs.

One of the reason I enjoy following Jesus; is because He is a Protestant. Jesus is my Protestant authority and rule of faith!! You have no way of proving me “wrong” because the word “Catholic” isn’t in the Bible either; but Jesus shows all the characteristics of a true Protestant.

About that “infallible declaration” you would like to see me “prove wrong.” How about showing me in official Catholic writings, a list of “infallible declarations,” and I will look them over and comment on one of them for you.

 

[ron77nyc]

The statement you are referring to says that all must be subject to the pontiff if I am not mistaken. Well what does the pontiff demand of his subjects? If someone honestly follows their conscience and never learns of the Church and is protected by an invincible ignorance do you not think the pope would consider that person a faithful subject? The original statements leave room for further definition. But now a pope says that a sincere person can be invisibly united with the Church as long as they do not reject the workings of the holy spirit. The Church has always taught that a person must consciously turn from God to merit eternal damnation. Someone cannot reject the Church if they do not know of it. This is a complicated matter that has never been made clear by the Church but I see no contradiction.

There is a contradiction because the rigorist/literal interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation) is still a valid position to take as well as the non-rigorist/literal interpretation.

“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 was Father Feeney’s position. It is the rigorist/literal interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation) It was the norm until the mid-20th century. It was absolutely necessary to be a baptized formal member of the Catholic Church. To reinforce this let’s remember what the Church taught about infants. They were not allowed to be in heaven because they were not baptized.

 

[Nine_Two]

Oh don’t get me wrong, you were quite innovative before the schism. Didn’t I say it was the CC moving on without you that encouraged stagnation?

Maybe you should educate me as to why the two councils I mentioned where rejected because of popular opinion and political pressure? That is a sincere invitation. I am curious to hear it from the Orthodox perspective?

That the laity must agree is not unanimity. We require consensus, the laity are traditionally more conservative and likely to reject new ideas out of nowhere. It protects us from our bishops coming up with foolish ideas, like one of them is infallible.

If you do not know the difference between unanimity and consensus, I suggest getting a dictionary.

 

[Nine_Two]

Christ also said “whoever hears you hears me” etc. Who was he talking about? Christ clearly taught that you need to listen to someone to be “faithful” and it isn’t Ellen White.

There is no disunity among faithful Catholics about the nature of papal infallibility. You cannot be one if you reject it.

Lets not forget Sola Scriptura’s track record at promoting unity.

Hold on, you siad there is no disunity among Catholics on Papal infallibility, yet you go after Gurney for being critical that he’s getting a million different answers on what it is? Clearly there is disunity there.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Too true; thanks for noticing! Proving my point!

Hold on, you siad there is no disunity among Catholics on Papal infallibility, yet you go after Gurney for being critical that he’s getting a million different answers on what it is? Clearly there is disunity there.

 

[shaky]

This is a very good point, and applies to all the mysteries of the faith such as baptism, Eucharist, the Trinity, etc. Some of these Truths are simply beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp.

For example, how is it that the Holy Bride of Christ is pure and yet, one person can join her member to a prostitute?

How can a council of Apostles meet, and emerge able to say “it seemed right to the HS and to us”?

I agree that this is not “loosy goosy”, but it is very mysterious and I agree with Gurney, hard to define.

Hi guanophore

When it comes to the sacrament of Confession and you confess you sins to a priest.
And he gives absolution saying your Sins are forgiven. Are there Instances or circumstances where the priest can say your Sins are not forgiven??

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Priests reserve the right to refuse absolution. I personally have never had it happen but the assistant priest at the parish here in town knows some priests in our diocese who regularly refuse absolution…

Hi guanophore

When it comes to the sacrament of Confession and you confess you sins to a priest.
And he gives absolution saying your Sins are forgiven. Are there Instances or circumstances where the priest can say your Sins are not forgiven??

 

[Hesychios]

Hi guanophore

When it comes to the sacrament of Confession and you confess you sins to a priest.
And he gives absolution saying your Sins are forgiven. Are there Instances or circumstances where the priest can say your Sins are not forgiven??

In Orthodoxy this can and does happen. I would assume that this is possible in the RC as well, but I would say it must be much harder to do when the penitent is anonymous and when most people are not consulting a regular confessor or spiritual director.

Beyond that, the confession must be made in good faith, this is a standard requirement. Pretending to be contrite in confession is an awesome sin directly against God, it is basically a bald-faced lie. God, who can see into anyone’s heart, would probably not be amused.