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

[david_ruiz]

**

So - you don’t think that God

 

[david_ruiz]

First of all – Augustine’s “Retractations” (NOT “Retractions”) was not a refutation of ANY of his previous sermons or writings. It was return to – a re-examination of them.

---

Augustine never recanted his statements about Peter OR the Papacy. I challenge you to provide proof of this.

O.K.I believe he did retract on Peter being rockmass.Wether he retracted or first said peter is the rock ,and then later sai,d he was not,it is the same revisiting or retracting .Will try to get more info.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi, david I can respect questions posed here about me personally, but your post #933 does not reflect such sentiments; “The Pope is vicar over the whole of Christendom,” per gabriel-thread 882 ".

I am not here to do insult or to attack anyone’s character, if this was displayed in my posts, please forgive me. My purpose here is to clarify and or correct any misunderstandings of my One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith in the hopes of sharing my Love of Christ during this process. I have pointed out to you some of the misunderstandings and conflicts you have when you take the Orthodox arguments that never mirror your protestant faith, thus making your arguments complicated and misunderstood “Thus Pope is Vicar over the whole of Christendom” is proof that you bring in chaos and conflict that need not be there, adding your third dimension to a Chapter in the Catholic Church that is close to being closed, yet your protestant views wants to bring in more wounds to the body of Christ that protestantism does not carry. Your undertaking here repeats true protestantism from the 16Th century, which reveals no reform but chaos and confusion.

I will be happy to entertain you with my limited knowledge to be able to share my Catholic faith with you and others here, in return I hope to learn of your faith foundation and understandings expressed from your protestantism, not from another foreign to yours, such as the Orthodox who maintain apostolic succession and a sacramental economy instituted by Jesus Christ himself as do we Catholics.

I read your responses, but fear they are not done in charity to learn from one another, I may be mistaken? Yet they; imply a response from me to argue two mindsets negatively one from an Orthodox position and two your protestant position holding to a Orthodox position that I find welcomes complications to our thoughts and confusion when you keep mixing your protestant theology expressions from an Orthodox position which does not exist, at least not to this Catholic.

This can be resolved if we both introduce our own positions to the subject first, before attaching an other’s opinions or views to the topic. As you have posted thus far, it lends to chaos and confusion. Forgive me if Iam not quick witted as you portray, listing multiple arguments one after another taking our original topic off topic.

I don’t understand what your anxious about here? when you begin to introduce opinion, mixed views deriving from multiple arguments from one subject being discussed, when the outcome (conclusion) of the first topic was not determined yet? Is it to share your faith position here? resist? deny? and or disprove the Apostolic Catholic faith? Or is it to learn why the Catholic Church has always taught and believed in Jesus building his church upon Peter? who is Vicar of Christ, and is protected from teaching error infallibly in the Holy Spirit when Peter (Popes) teaches from the revelations of Jesus on faith and morals?

That is why this forum is a blessing, so that we can find each other here and reveal our Christian expression of faith and come to an understanding of these ancient Catholic Apostolic teachings and difference between how Protestantism views them or has come to reject them.

I want to thank you for sharing here and hope to engage more with you about your faith as well as mine. I posted this in hopes to bring a halt to the confusion of my demeanor and response to your posts. In the end I hope you and I can gain a better understanding of my Catholic expression of Christianity and yours as well.

Peace be with you

That is why it was a question .Can a question be out of context ?

 

[shaky]

Your post said “we are all saints”. the Greek term, “hagios” means “holy one”. My contention is that SOME may be just that but others may not be.

---

Secondly, none of the verses you provided say that we are ALL saints. They are greetings to all of the saints (holy ones) in particular areas (Corinth, Philippi, etc.)

---

**Lastly, as for a canonization of a saint by the Pope – it is not **a declaration that somebody is holy – but that somebody is in heaven.

Hi elvisman

Do you mean all true christians in the church of christ are saints?

 

[elvisman]

Hi elvisman

Do you mean all true christians in the church of christ are saints?

Saints in the sense that they can be holy ones (hagios)?
Yes.
**“Church” - that is a topic for another thread . . .

 

[elvisman]

Please tell me what the davidic Kingdom is ? I do know some background to david being king of israel ,and from his seed,the messiah would reign and sit.I never took it to mean that it is eaxactly like david except it is Jeuss,with government and religious aspect being the same.The main thing i thought is that Jesus would be King of kings.I would not pidgeon hole the priesthood setup as being the same ,Hebrews says it will change .

Really***?***
The Davidic Kingdom was the Kingdom of David.
*The Jews looked forward to the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom which is the reason they rejected Christ. He didn’t deliver the way they *expected. **

---

Little did they know that he was perfecting the model.

 

[Good_Fella]

In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.

Pope Honorius’ confession of “one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” means that there was no opposing human will to the will of the Father, that our Lord’s human will was in complete conformity with his faultless divine will, when the divine Word assumed our humanity. In other words, our Lord’s human will was undivided, unlike ours, which tends to oppose the divine will of God out of selfishness and indifference. The Pontiff never espoused the Monothelite heresy; nor did he officially teach this corrupt doctrine. If he had, he wasn’t officially declaring it ex cathedra to begin with. So there’s no question of whether he officially taught heresy where the charism of infallibilty should apply according to Catholic belief and the criteria infallibly established by Vatican l Council. In a private capacity, such as in an individual theological work, a pope is fallible, like any theologian who speculates on undefined matters, but his errors do not contravene the basic tenets of orthodox Catholic belief to the extent that they border on heresy. Anyway, the Monothelites mistakenly took the Pontiff’s words out of context and tried to convince their opponents that the pope agreed with them and confirmed their belief as true.

Unfortunately there are Protestant apologists out there who sieze upon this chapter in the history of the Catholic Church, either out of ignorance of the full facts or deceitful intent, to ruin the credibilty of our Catholic belief in papal infallibilty, which in itself is not a special human attribute but a charism of the Holy Spirit, who is the infallible One. These same apologists overlook the fact that it was Pope Martin l who officially condemned the Monothelite heresy at the Lateran Synod of 649 A.D…Of course, this was not an ecumenical council, but only because the bishops of the Eastern Church who were absent were Monothelites themselves at the time and refused to attend. The Pontiff’s non-infallible pronouncement was eventually ratified by the decree of the Sixth General Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D., which in turn was confirmed in approval by Pope Leo ll at Rome.

And Jesus answering said to him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 16, 17

PAX :heaven:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Fella,

We’ve debated good ole’ Honorius to death on here. Just go check the archives. I know the argument well. One can make the argument that Honorius did indeed teach the Monothelite heresy by having his deacon, Gaius, go to the Synod of Cyprus with the express purpose of being a proponent of monothelitism. The biographies of Maximus the Confessor make it clear that Emperor Herakleus ruled in favor of monothelitism “and so with Honorius,” we says. Honorius and Sergius both sought the monothelite position at Cyprus, Honorius doing it through a legate. It’s the same as teaching it sending a representative to fight for it. It wasn’t just letters but a synodal advocacy.

Pope Honorius’ confession of “one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” means that there was no opposing human will to the will of the Father, that our Lord’s human will was in complete conformity with his faultless divine will, when the divine Word assumed our humanity. In other words, our Lord’s human will was undivided, unlike ours, which tends to oppose the divine will of God out of selfishness and indifference. The Pontiff never espoused the Monothelite heresy; nor did he officially teach this corrupt doctrine. If he had, he wasn’t officially declaring it ex cathedra to begin with. So there’s no question of whether he officially taught heresy where the charism of infallibilty should apply according to Catholic belief and the criteria infallibly established by Vatican l Council. In a private capacity, such as in an individual theological work, a pope is fallible, like any theologian who speculates on undefined matters, but his errors do not contravene the basic tenets of orthodox Catholic belief to the extent that they border on heresy. Anyway, the Monothelites mistakenly took the Pontiff’s words out of context and tried to convince their opponents that the pope agreed with them and confirmed their belief as true.

Unfortunately there are Protestant apologists out there who sieze upon this chapter in the history of the Catholic Church, either out of ignorance of the full facts or deceitful intent, to ruin the credibilty of our Catholic belief in papal infallibilty, which in itself is not a special human attribute but a charism of the Holy Spirit, who is the infallible One. These same apologists overlook the fact that it was Pope Martin l who officially condemned the Monothelite heresy at the Lateran Synod of 649 A.D…Of course, this was not an ecumenical council, but only because the bishops of the Eastern Church who were absent were Monothelites themselves at the time and refused to attend. The Pontiff’s non-infallible pronouncement was eventually ratified by the decree of the Sixth General Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D., which in turn was confirmed in approval by Pope Leo ll at Rome.

And Jesus answering said to him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 16, 17

PAX :heaven:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

When Jesus speaks about building his church; Jesus does not say “upon me I will build my church”? How are you confuddled? Jesus states from scripture, “You are Cephas =Rock (Peter) and upon YOU (Cephas) I will build my church”. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation upon whom He builds His Church upon Peter (Cephas=Rock). You must of glossed over my paranthesis, reread my post without the paranthesis to see if that helps.

=david ruiz;7234523]A bit confusing .Perhaps you rushed Seems you say "Christ as the Rock to which Jesus builds His church .O.K. Did you mean Peter ,or his successor ? You were not speaking of the bishop of Rome ? I am confuddled !

What is revealed by Jesus is a visible (fully human) and invisible (fully divine) Church in His sacramental economy to begin with. Understanding this from sacred scripture and sacred Tradition will help you see and hear the teachings of Jesus.

Let us be clear it is not my belief (teachings) it is my faith in the revealed teachings (Catholic Church) of Jesus Christ handed down to us both written and Oral Tradition. I do not pretend to hold to new reforms of revelations or teachings outside of what Jesus has already revealed and built His Catholic church.

Peace be with you

No,just your interpretation of them ,as you protest against mine. What is revealed revelation ? Reminds me of Mark Twain who said, “There are idiots , then there is Congress, but I repeat myself”. I am not saying you are an idiot , but that it seems you repeat yourself with “revealed revelation”. Agreed ,because scripture can not lie, for the apostles (Cephas being one of them), and the prophets are our foundation, with Christ the chief cornerstone.That is plain English , with little need for further “revelation”,Thank-you .So true.It is your belief, emphasis on “your”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What you have stated here never negates Jesus teachings building his Church upon Peter, and Jesus never leaving Peter and His successors in the Popes nor His Church. You may have forgotten that Peter was the only human to walk on water with Jesus. Yet Peter was the only apostle recorded to deny Jesus 3 times. Jesus remained true to His Word and still does today in Peter and his successors in the Popes.

Your comment does not reflect what Jesus revealed in Peter and His successors, but only how man struggles to reject the teachings of Jesus Christ from a carnal knowledge that lends to misunderstandings of the great mercy and grace Christ has bestowed upon His Church.

=david ruiz;7234571]Sorry ,I did not know that when Orthodoxy says Rome believes the pope is Vicar over all Christendom, it really means the pope is a dictator. When a catholic says it, it means a benevolent shepherd/teacher . Do I have it right ?.. C.S.Lewis -“Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past”. Indeed, “recently” the Pope is quite benevolent ,etc…Almost makes one forget that indeed some popes were worse than dictators. Your 2000 years is a long, long time. Would I be wrong in saying sometimes your benevolent view is correct , but that Orthodoxy’s negative view has also sometimes been correct ? You can always say it was only a few bad popes ,and Orthodoxy can say many more .Then we can all settle for somewhere in the middle.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My Bible doesn’t have the word “you” in it “You are Kephas (the rock) and upon **this rock **I will build my Church.”

When Jesus speaks about building his church; Jesus does not say “upon me I will build my church”? How are you confuddled? Jesus states from scripture, “You are Cephas =Rock (Peter) and upon YOU (Cephas) I will build my church”. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation upon whom He builds His Church upon Peter (Cephas=Rock). You must of glossed over my paranthesis, reread my post without the paranthesis to see if that helps.

What is revealed by Jesus is a visible (fully human) and invisible (fully divine) Church in His sacramental economy to begin with. Understanding this from sacred scripture and sacred Tradition will help you see and hear the teachings of Jesus.

Let us be clear it is not my belief (teachings) it is my faith in the revealed teachings (Catholic Church) of Jesus Christ handed down to us both written and Oral Tradition. I do not pretend to hold to new reforms of revelations or teachings outside of what Jesus has already revealed and built His Catholic church.

Peace be with you

 

[elvisman]

My Bible doesn’t have the word “you” in it “You are Kephas (the rock) and upon **this rock **I will build my Church.”

Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic. Therefore, what Jesus actually told Simon is, “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church.” He clearly built it upon Peter.

**There is no differentiation between the use of the Aramaic word for stone here as in the Greek Petra (feminine) and Petros (masculine). As a matter of fact - scholars claims that the name Petros didn’t even exist before this event in Matt. 16. Matthew simply could not refer to Peter as “Petra”. **
That would be tantamount to calling him “Patty” or some other female name.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You have muddied your blasphemous charge that the “Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ” with scriptural subject matter that does not apply to this office of Vicar of Christ on earth. From your applied definition reveals how misunderstood Vicar of Christ is to you.

There is a difference between the actions of the Holy Spirit you described and the office in the Vicar of Christ, the two are not the same. You see; Jesus is the head of His body the Catholic church is His body. Jesus has placed Peter on earth to be His Vicar (see John 21:15-17) to feed his LAMBS (people) and tend and feed his SHEEP (magisterium). What Jesus did before He ascended into heaven was to make Peter His visible head if the Catholic church on earth acting for and in place of Christ.

Because Jesus reveals the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not make Him (the Holy Spirit is a person of the blessed Trinity in one God) a Vicar of Christ on earth as you mislead the Holy Spirits actions to be a Vicar of Christ on earth as head of his visible Church. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is lacking in any way, what Iam saying is that the Pope Vicar of Christ visible head of Christ on earth is never alone because the Pope has the Holy Spirit (promised by Jesus), the revelations of Jesus and Apostolic Oral Traditions, which allows him the protection from error when tending, feeding Christ’s Church on faith and morals, as the Holy Spirit enables the Pope to proclaim without error.

=david ruiz;7234818][Well, you challenge me .Thank-you .So, I had to look up vicar , in hopes of getting out of la-la land. Merriam says, “serving as agent”,“administrative deputy” -origen: 14th century, where we get our word vicarious -is that living through? I would say many things fit for vicar of Christ .I will try not to be blasphemous. Is not the Body of Christ His agent , His finger and voice, His light on this earth ? Have not all disciples been deputized ? Now, can the Holy Spirit ,said to be acting as an agent for Jesus , or the Godhead ? Is not Jesus acting "through “the Holy Spirit” in this period of dispensation ? Who is it that convicts me of sin ? Who is it that convicts of Christ’s righteousness ? Who is it that convicts me of judgement to come? .Who is it that baptizes me ,in power and truth ? Who is it that indwells me ? Who am I a temple for ? Whose image is the Holy Spirit conforming me to ? The Holy Spirit seems to be quite busy doing the Lord’s work. Of course they are one in the same ,as if Jesus never left .So, yes a pope can be a vicar ,as an elder in such and such church ,as any Christian could shining forth the Light, as could the Holy Spirit .,Yes, we are all one. Is that what is blasphemous ? That I and the Holy Spirit are one ? Me being deputized , is that blasphemous ? What does it mean to be an ambassador for Christ ? Do I need to go to seminary and be ordained ?

Scripture never teaches that the body of Christ is “independent” bodies, I am hoping you took gurney’s quote out of context here? The scriptures teach that the Body of Christ is made up of many members acting in different offices (prophets, teachers etc…) but the SAME BODY OF ONE, never “independent bodies”. These many members is what make up the body of Christ.

The Church of Jesus christ is not “a gathering of, functioning of believers”? How does a gathering of believers consitute the body of Christ? Please don’t argue “where two or more are gathered in my name”? We are defining the Church who and what it is, not ministry, please do not confuse the two. Secondly, how is that you can seperate the “Church AND Body of Christ” are two", and then place “in the same”?

The Apostles (hebrews) knew very well not to use their ancestory identity of “quahal” (this is your gathering of believers, but are limited) and introduce the word Church to identify the body of Christ = fully human and fully divine and all her members IS what make up the body of Christ. Now you cannot enter this mystery without 2 Peter 1:3 ( His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. 4 Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so **that through them you may come to share in the divine nature,)/**B]. Without these great promises that come to us from the sacramental economy that is lived out by both Catholics and Orthodoxy.

The “True Presence of Jesus Christ” body, blood soul and divinity is what makes the Catholic Church the body of Jesus Christ in and through the sacraments. Here in the body of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church there is never TWO as you exclaimed here but only ONE as scripture teaches.

Can you give me a scripture that teaches the body of Christ and the Church in scripture are two “in the same”? When one is baptised one comes to Jesus and enters into the Kingdom of God into the body of Christ when we become partakers of his divinity. There is no church that exists prior to coming into the body of Christ, how is it that you can draw such a conclusion that they are two? “Church AND body of Christ in the same”? Your definition is not biblical.

Man, what are you thinking now ,after all that? . A gathering of , functioning of believers.Church and Body of Christ are two in the same.according to the biblical definition? Gurney gave a great "picture 'of what it was in the beginning a few threads ago.(“independent” bodies).

It is ironic , but your insistence on what is “one” has led to “two”. Used to be simple , in that bible

cont;
[/quote]

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Now you go on a tangit here; First of all do you know the true apostolic teaching of the Immaculate conception from both scripture and sacred Tradition? Do you know the revelation and teaching from the scriptures in regards to the Assumption of Jesus Mother into heaven as fulfilled the commandment “honor your Father and Mother”? You have not revealed here that you understand the teaching of infallibility; before you began your protest against Jesus authority placed on earth. Easter is a day celebrated that the Lord has made in a new creation whereby all the cosmos of creation have a cooperation on this approved date set by the Pope and the magisterium successors to the Apostles.

These revelations from Jesus Christ did not come to bring peace but to divide the sheep from the goats. The Catholic Church has been given a divine sword; Here is Jesus speaking from Mt.10:34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. Here is Jesus again; Luke 12:51
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

Do not be afraid; these doctrines are for those already in the Kingdom of God and are binded and loosed for whoever accepts or denies these teachings once they gained full knowledge of them. These do not apply to you who argue against them from afar. Something to consider here about how the keys operate in the binding of loosing Jesus gave to Peter first alone and then to the other apostles including forgiving of sin. Yet I suppose you reject God did not place such power in men to forgive sin?

You are not left without a Vicar of Christ, you reject what has been given to us from God.

.

Now you have to go all the way to believing Mary is Immaculate and Assumed and the Pope is infallible to be “One”.You created division with Immaculate when there was unity before .You created division with Assumption when before we were still one . You created division when you insisted on infallibility ,when before there was peace. All the way back when Rome denied the East it’s apostolically founded day of Easter .Tragic. But alas ,you are "One’ shining triumphant, leaving us vicarless, forcing to rely again on the Good Shepherd ,as best we can ,looking so ununified, except that we have all come out of ,and somewhat reformed from our "past’

Jesus command is this; when he commissioned his church after his resurrection;
Matthew 28:18
11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, **baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, **20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 **And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” **

Jesus also states from John 3, “NO ONE CAN SEE NOR WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM” (how?) WITHOUT BEING BORN OF** WATER AND SPIRIT**. This is baptism, not an altar call. Infants are born with flesh and a soul. We fear God who can kill both the flesh and the soul in Ghenna, baptism washes the soul clean before God be it infant, mentally ill, old, dieing, and adults no one is ever left out from entering the Kingdom of God, only those who refuse. There is no such thing as spirit baptism, because no where in scripture does it reveal the spirit as being symbolic, the baptism must include water and spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God even just to see it.

You know ,I really do not know my cathechism on this .Paul says of some, “I am glad I did not baptize any of you” -that must be water baptize . Yet Jesus says we will be baptized with the Holy Ghost ".Paul says I came not to baptize but to preach the gospel (and by God’s grace this may lead to ones Spirit baptism.

You misinterpret when I quoted 1Tim. 3:15 as the Church being the pillar of Truth. When I stated not the bible, let it be clear that I meant 1Tim. 3:15 did not reveal the bible as being the pillar of Truth. For clarity here, it is the bible itself that records the Church is the pillar of the Truth. The Catholic church agrees with this scripture.

Do not try and misinterpret that I stated, that the bible is not Truth.

"You treat this quite shallowly .Perhaps for some ,but no worse than infant regeneration.Please, the story of blind now I see is HUGE…That is no small matter when one is indeed in the body ,or written in the book of life ,regenerated ,born again ,made new in Christ .right? . Do you see it , the incongruity ? The church is pillar of truth NOT the bible , then you say the bible reveals the church ? Who said anything about circular ? I believe you mean just what you said. Could I say why ? Should I not apply the church revelation to what church is ,as you do .I am not saying it may not be biblical , but should I not follow your example with emphasis on church revelation first, and “not the bible”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are correct, as I was recalling the quote from Tertullian to another poster we discussed earlier. But thanks for the clarity. Let’s make it official;

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
**I will give you **the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever **you bind **on earth shall be bound in heaven; and **whatever you **loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” NAB

Now if we can just translate Peter back into aramaic it = Rock = Kephas as you stated.

My Bible doesn’t have the word “you” in it "You are Kephas (the rock) and upon **this rock **

I will build my Church."

 

[Outback04]

In my discussions with critics of papal infallibility, Honorius I is always mentioned for the monothelite heresy and his part in it. I do not want to discuss Honorius. We’ve done that in depth. But what I’d like to discuss is the topic of other examples of popes making fallible decisions if papal infallibility is supposedly not true? Most people would point out that the papacy has an amazingly awesome track record of holy teachings, strong moral stances, and excellent theological guidance for the Church. Honorius is pretty much the only example that opponents of infallibility can point to and debate with some success. But I rarely hear other popes challenged as fallible. I’d love to hear everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughts on this. Blessings to all.

Well, aside from going in and out of the definition of infallibility, we can look at the many popes during the middle ages that were anything but examples of God. I think this in and of itself is a complete worthy subject to question the papacy at its very proclamation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Discrediting or the defacing of popes from the middle ages will never determine the case of infallibility pro or con. For the simple fact that what God has joined together let"no man" (not even Peter himself who did the greatest of sins by denying our dear Lord Jesus 3X’s) put asunder.

The great Popes who faced their martyrdoms for the Catholic faith and proclaimed Christ Crucified while facing their captures and death, along with those who engaged in political manuevers or proven to be bad popes of character only proves the Catholic Church contain both sinners and saints.

Also, it is not the character of the Popes which determines infallibility. Infallibility is a negative protection which prevents the Popes from teaching error in the area of faith and morals.

Jesus makes this known by revealing the Advocate will be with the apostles always which includes their successors.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,
17
**the Spirit of truth, **9 which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
26
**The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. **

John 16:13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.

I think to argue infallibility, one has to question the scriptures which authenticates the Church’s infallibility and Peter as possessor of the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, because this is where infallibility derives its source in the Word of God, not the characters action be it holy or unholy never determines infallibility.

Just food for thought?

=Outback04;7237522]Well, aside from going in and out of the definition of infallibility, we can look at the many popes during the middle ages that were anything but examples of God. I think this in and of itself is a complete worthy subject to question the papacy at its very proclamation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You actually had me, Gabe, until you started invoking matrimonial imagery that doesn’t belong!

Discrediting or the defacing of popes from the middle ages will never determine the case of infallibility pro or con. For the simple fact that what God has joined together let"no man" (not even Peter himself who did the greatest of sins by denying our dear Lord Jesus 3X’s) put asunder.

The great Popes who faced their martyrdoms for the Catholic faith and proclaimed Christ Crucified while facing their captures and death, along with those who engaged in political manuevers or proven to be bad popes of character only proves the Catholic Church contain both sinners and saints.

Also, it is not the character of the Popes which determines infallibility. Infallibility is a negative protection which prevents the Popes from teaching error in the area of faith and morals.

Jesus makes this known by revealing the Advocate will be with the apostles always which includes their successors.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,
17
**the Spirit of truth, **9 which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
26
**The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. **

John 16:13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.

I think to argue infallibility, one has to question the scriptures which authenticates the Church’s infallibility and Peter as possessor of the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, because this is where infallibility derives its source in the Word of God, not the characters action be it holy or unholy never determines infallibility.

Just food for thought?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Since we’re quoting folks tonight:

Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer–St. Augustine of Hippo…John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

Shortly afterward, after these words of his in which he approved of Peter’s faith and showed that it (his faith )was the rock, he began there and then to show his disciples that it would be necessary for him to come to Jerusalem, and suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the scribes and the priests, and be killed, and on the third day rise again.—St. Augustine of Hippo…John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/5, Sermon 183.14, p. 343.

and here’s a classic…

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ.—St. Augustine of Hippo…8A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

We know what rock is; and yet a hard and obstinate person is called a rock, and a solid, immovable person is called rock. In praise you take the rock’s solidity, in blame you take its hardness. We know the solidity of the rock, and we accept Christ as the rock: Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4)–St. Augustine of Hippo, 21John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Brooklyn: New City, 1990), Sermons, Volume III/1, Sermon 4.22, p. 197.

You are correct, as I was recalling the quote from Tertullian to another poster we discussed earlier. But thanks for the clarity. Let’s make it official;

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
**And so I say to you, you **are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
**I will give you **the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever **you bind **on earth shall be bound in heaven; and **whatever you **loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” NAB

Now if we can just translate Peter back into aramaic it = Rock = Kephas as you stated.

 

[Outback04]

Discrediting or the defacing of popes from the middle ages will never determine the case of infallibility pro or con. For the simple fact that what God has joined together let"no man" (not even Peter himself who did the greatest of sins by denying our dear Lord Jesus 3X’s) put asunder.

The great Popes who faced their martyrdoms for the Catholic faith and proclaimed Christ Crucified while facing their captures and death, along with those who engaged in political manuevers or proven to be bad popes of character only proves the Catholic Church contain both sinners and saints.

Also, it is not the character of the Popes which determines infallibility. Infallibility is a negative protection which prevents the Popes from teaching error in the area of faith and morals.

Jesus makes this known by revealing the Advocate will be with the apostles always which includes their successors.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,
17
**the Spirit of truth, **9 which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
26
**The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. **

John 16:13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.

I think to argue infallibility, one has to question the scriptures which authenticates the Church’s infallibility and Peter as possessor of the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, because this is where infallibility derives its source in the Word of God, not the characters action be it holy or unholy never determines infallibility.

Just food for thought?

Not to sound brash, but I don’t care about infallibility. Doing the will of God and following his word is much more important than anything else. This is where the popes mentioned in the middle ages did nothing of the such, infallible by Catholic church teaching or otherwise.