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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gurneyhalleck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hoped to inform you that what you expressed here is a misunderstood and misinformed Orthodox view about the papacy. I never intended that you have a misinformed mind. Please don’t put words that I have never declared here; “stupid, easily duped” and never needing an education from me.
I’m appauled that you would declare I have a “misinformed mind” and that I have “fallen for” a pack of lies. So to review from your vantage point I’m misinformed, stupid, easily-duped, and in need of education from Gabriel of 12? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I referenced the Early Church Fathers because that was the topic of discussion, which made up the magisterium from antiquity, although it was not formallized as we have today, due to the persecutions which persisted against them limiting their interactions, but they ultimately knew who had the keys and who it was Jesus built his Church upon Peter as scripture dictate and multiple historical secular and religious examples record.
I am also perplexed that you chose not use the usual Catholic triad of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium? Instead you created a new one: Scripture, Tradition, and Early Fathers? That’s a new one…🤷 Apparently after arguing for the centrality (and yet not central?) of the papacy the early fathers have usurped the magisterium for prominence! 😛
Click to expand...
]
 
schaick said:
I never said that.

As a true Bible thumper, Bible the final authority type Christian I believe the Bible to be GOD’s infallible Word.

You have misunderstand what I was saying:

Almost all Catholics say it was the Catholic Church that decided the canon.

I was saying, In the “list” of infallible statements made by the Catholic Church there are only 2 statements listed as being infallible:
Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary

The canon of the Bible is not on the list.

***Actually the canonized list ***of what is Scripture is not recognized as an infallible statement by the Catholic Church, the canon is not on any list of infallible statements.
Click to expand...
The Church did not decide the canon - the Holy Spirit did. The Church declared this truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the Church would be guided into ALL truth was guaranteed by Jesus himself in John 16:12-15.

Secondly - your claim that Papal infallibility has been exercised only twice is a patently FALSE statement. They may be the only 2 infallible dogmatic declarations - but they are hardly the only 2 infallible declarations.

Every time the Pope declares the canonization of a saint - it is an infallible declaration. Whenever he states, “We define” or “I define” - he is exercising infallibility.

Finally - as I stated before - the written word of God is already infallible because it is God-breathed.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
He said that St Peter “represented” the whole Church, not that he ruled the Church or was infallible. Of course that’s saying nothing about the fact that Augustine was talking about St Peter personally, not the bishops of Rome exclusively. 👍

Try again. 🙂
Click to expand...
Congratulations! 👍
That is a perfect example of twisting perverting the words of a Church Father to fit your idea of what they meant.

It’s not a huge leap to see how you would do the same thing with the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16).
 
I think St. Augustine bishop of Hippo understood from his writings the difference between Peter the Popes who possessed the Keys of the Kingdom and the bishop of Rome his equal. Understanding St. Augustines mindset and writings from this perspective, his writings make perfect sense.
josephdaniel29 said:
Listen, we can play the St Augustine quote game all you want. He certainly made other statements about actual events that weren’t so flattering to the Bishop of Rome. 😉
And by the way, not one of those quotes says a word about the Bishop of Rome being infallible or having universal jurisdiction. St Augustine was a prolific writer; he had ample opportunity to express a belief in infallibly and universal jurisdiction but never did. 👍
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
schaick said:
There would be no Church without the message, the Good News, GOD’s Word and WORD. Absolutely no need for the Church Jesus built- we would be either jewish, pagans, whatever without the Good News message from GOD.

So actually the Church came after GOD’s message, Word. It is the Church that is based on the Word and WORD [Jesus] of GOD.

A person either heard or hears the WORD or Word believes- is called out and is baptized making what is called the ecclesia, the Church.

When you think about it **everything **came **after **and is based on GOD’S Word-

3 And God said, “Let there be light,”
Click to expand...
So many bible Christians have fallen prey to the spirit of reductionism, in watering the Word down to just that paper-thin and incomplete portion that was written by man. The Word is not some thing, it is someOne - Jesus Christ, in whatever manner He chooses to manifest Himself. The bible doesn’t save you. It merely tells a small portion of the story of someOne Who does. Delighted to have the bible, but it is neither the alpha nor the omega - only Jesus Christ is.

Should I live long enough to see Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven, I’ll roll my bible up and smoke it in celebration! As Saint Paul correctly says: “When the perfect comes, the imperfect passes away”. Until then, the bible remains a revered and important part of the deposit of faith, but is certainly not all of it.
 
elvisman said:
Congratulations! 👍
That is a perfect example of twisting perverting the words of a Church Father to fit your idea of what they meant.

It’s not a huge leap to see how you would do the same thing with the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16).
Click to expand...
It’s not twisting the words my friend, simply reading the plain meaning of the text without your Rome colored glasses. 👍
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
I think St. Augustine bishop of Hippo understood from his writings the difference between Peter the Popes who possessed the Keys of the Kingdom and the bishop of Rome his equal. Understanding St. Augustines mindset and writings from this perspective, his writings make perfect sense.
Click to expand...
St Augustine said a lot of things that don’t fit the modern Roman Catholic mindset at all. You can’t take every instance of him mentioning the Apostle Peter to equate to the modern Catholic notions of infallibility and universal jurisdiction, and to extend those notions exclusively to the bishops of Rome - especially in light of some of the less flattering things he had to say about the Bishop of Rome in real life situations, not just in flowery rhetoric about St Peter.

In Christ
Joe
 
po18guy said:
As Saint Paul correctly says: “When the perfect comes, the imperfect passes away”. Until then, the bible remains a revered and important part of the deposit of faith, but is certainly not all of it.
Click to expand...
Paul was not referring to the bible. He was talking about gifts of the spirit which by the way the early church had used when they gathered as the body of christ but no one teaches that anymore either.

Jesus said this:“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”
 
josephdaniel29 said:
It’s not twisting the words my friend, simply reading the plain meaning of the text without your Rome colored glasses. 👍
Click to expand...
On, no, my friend. It is you who read his statements with anti-Catholic glasses.
Your refusal to accept the truth (and those before you) of the Church is what led Augustine to write, “There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.”
As for the Primacy of Peter and the Popes - St. John Chrysostom echoes Augustine’s sentiments regarding of Peter’s office (Pope), "the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…"
Giles, E., ed. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. p. 126.
 
elvisman said:
On, no, my friend. It is you who read his statements with anti-Catholic glasses.
Your refusal to accept the truth (and those before you) of the Church is what led Augustine to write, “There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.”
As for the Primacy of Peter and the Popes - St. John Chrysostom echoes Augustine’s sentiments regarding of Peter’s office (Pope), "the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…"
Giles, E., ed. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. p. 126.
Click to expand...
Augustine was quite right.

I also suggest learning what the word “anti” means. It is as applicable to you as it is to Joseph, so stop being anti-Orthodox.
 
Nine_Two said:
Augustine was quite right.

I also suggest learning what the word “anti” means. It is as applicable to you as it is to Joseph, so stop being anti-Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Anti-Orthodox??
**HOW do you come to that conclusion?

Pro-Catholic is more like it, friend. 👍
 
elvisman said:
On, no, my friend. It is you who read his statements with anti-Catholic glasses.
Your refusal to accept the truth (and those before you) of the Church is what led Augustine to write, “There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.”
As for the Primacy of Peter and the Popes - St. John Chrysostom echoes Augustine’s sentiments regarding of Peter’s office (Pope), "the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…"
Giles, E., ed. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. p. 126.
Click to expand...
Putting aside the fact that St John Chrysostom was speaking about St Peter, not the pope; I though we were talking about St Augustine? I repeat my assertion: St Augustine never made a single statement in support of the universal jurisdiction of the pope or papal infallibility. In fact, he made a number of statements that clearly conflict with modern Roman Catholic teaching on the subject.

In Christ
Joe
 
elvisman said:
On, no, my friend. It is you who read his statements with anti-Catholic glasses.
Your refusal to accept the truth (and those before you) of the Church is what led Augustine to write, “There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.”
As for the Primacy of Peter and the Popes - St. John Chrysostom echoes Augustine’s sentiments regarding of Peter’s office (Pope), "the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…"
Giles, E., ed. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. p. 126.
Click to expand...
And I have to point out that St John Chrysostom had a number of things to say about St Peter and other Apostles that clearly contradict modern Catholic teaching. Of course those quotes are never cited by Catholic apologist. 😊
 
As the Church lady used to say on Saturday Night Live: “How conveeeeenient!”
josephdaniel29 said:
And I have to point out that St John Chrysostom had a number of things to say about St Peter and other Apostles that clearly contradict modern Catholic teaching. Of course those quotes are never cited by Catholic apologist. 😊
Click to expand...
 
Only Bruce Bochy makes infallible decisions. This has been shown time and time again. The fact that the ECFs don’t mention him CANNOT be used to refute this most obvious of facts.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
And I have to point out that St John Chrysostom had a number of things to say about St Peter and other Apostles that clearly contradict modern Catholic teaching. Of course those quotes are never cited by Catholic apologist. 😊
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that he was not in communion with Rome for much of his career, and it didn’t seem to be an impediment.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Putting aside the fact that St John Chrysostom was speaking about St Peter, not the pope; I though we were talking about St Augustine? I repeat my assertion: St Augustine never made a single statement in support of the universal jurisdiction of the pope or papal infallibility. In fact, he made a number of statements that clearly conflict with modern Roman Catholic teaching on the subject.

In Christ
Joe
Click to expand...
Actually - I already gave you statement from augustine about his belief in the global jurisdiction of the Peter - and his successors, whom he lists by name.

The fact that you reject this quote or can’t deal with it is your folly - not mine. :rolleyes:
 
josephdaniel29 said:
And I have to point out that St John Chrysostom had a number of things to say about St Peter and other Apostles that clearly contradict modern Catholic teaching. Of course those quotes are never cited by Catholic apologist. 😊
Click to expand...
Would an orthodox apologist ever mention someone who said things that conflicted with orthodoxy? 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top