D
devonsams
Guest
Pat condell makes his case patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/03/pat-condells-case-against-the-catholic-church/ comments on that please?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1
1ke
Guest
Well, primarily because this person doesn’t understand the words he is using.
The Church is infallible by the power of the Holy Spirit in teaching faith and morals, those things divinely revealed by Christ and necessary for our salvation.
That does not mean every action and statement of a person in the Church is infallible.
For example, the Pope cannot teach wrongly when speaking ex cathedra on church doctrine, nor can the Church Magesterium, when teaching together with the Pope on doctrine, error.
But, a Pope, bishop, you, me, etc, can get algebra problems wrong, spell something incorrectly, commit sins, and have opinions on things that are not doctrinal that differ or are wrong.
So, there is no contradiction at all. The infallibility of the Church as a whole and Pope/collge of bishops does not mean what this person is trying to say it means. And the Church has never made such claim.
The Church is infallible by the power of the Holy Spirit in teaching faith and morals, those things divinely revealed by Christ and necessary for our salvation.
That does not mean every action and statement of a person in the Church is infallible.
For example, the Pope cannot teach wrongly when speaking ex cathedra on church doctrine, nor can the Church Magesterium, when teaching together with the Pope on doctrine, error.
But, a Pope, bishop, you, me, etc, can get algebra problems wrong, spell something incorrectly, commit sins, and have opinions on things that are not doctrinal that differ or are wrong.
So, there is no contradiction at all. The infallibility of the Church as a whole and Pope/collge of bishops does not mean what this person is trying to say it means. And the Church has never made such claim.
P
philv
Guest
Totally agree. I like to be reminded of the disciples who were sinful themselves. Peter denied Christ three times, Judas betrayed Jesus, etc. Still, although we’re sinful, Christ entrusts his church to us. He sends the Holy Spirit to the Upper Room to teach the church in all things. That Holy Spirit is what’s infallible because it’s God. Although we’re sinful, Christ cleanses his church and continues on with the Holy Spirit. So, even as people can be sinful in the church, remember Peter and Judas, and remember the Holy Spirit who continued to teach through them.Well, primarily because this person doesn’t understand the words he is using.
The Church is infallible by the power of the Holy Spirit in teaching faith and morals, those things divinely revealed by Christ and necessary for our salvation.
That does not mean every action and statement of a person in the Church is infallible.
For example, the Pope cannot teach wrongly when speaking ex cathedra on church doctrine, nor can the Church Magesterium, when teaching together with the Pope on doctrine, error.
But, a Pope, bishop, you, me, etc, can get algebra problems wrong, spell something incorrectly, commit sins, and have opinions on things that are not doctrinal that differ or are wrong.
So, there is no contradiction at all. The infallibility of the Church as a whole and Pope/collge of bishops does not mean what this person is trying to say it means. And the Church has never made such claim.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
The Pope can also be wrong in matters of Faith and Morals if he is not exercising the Supreme Magisterium and teaching the Church Universal in these matters. For example if he is expressing a religious opinion in a private letter to another bishop.But, a Pope, bishop, you, me, etc, can get algebra problems wrong, spell something incorrectly, commit sins, and have opinions on things that are not doctrinal that differ or are wrong.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
A pope can even be a heretic. Four decades after his death, Pope Honorius-1 was declared a heretic by name (and anathematized) by the Ecumenical Third Council of Constantinople. Although he never taught on the subject as Pope, he clearly favored monothelitism (the belief that Jesus had only one divine will, and no human will). The belief would not be officially dispelled until Constantinople-3, so he didn’t believe anything contrary to Church teaching at the time, but his beliefs were later contradicted.
So even heretic Popes are prevented from formally teaching their errors.
So even heretic Popes are prevented from formally teaching their errors.
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
We are similar to the Church in the sense that we have a spiritual and human dimension. The spiritual part of us has the supernatural grace given to us by the Spirit in that we are sons and daughters of Jesus. Yet as St. Paul says he does the things he does not want to do. We have grace yet we still sin. That is the dichotomy that the Church and we both have.
A
Abu
Guest
The Council of Constantinople IV condemned Pope Honorius on certain teachings; Papal infallibility, as defined, was not involved here. Further, no decree of a council has effect unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope in the form that he confirms it. Pope St Leo II substantially modified the sense of the council’s decree on Honorius who was condemned for allowing a heresy to spread and grow.
Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D (EWTN) on Dec-27-1999:
Later Pope St. Leo II, on confirming the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 858, specifically declared that Pope Honorius was not guilty of heresy, but only of lack of action against heresy, “permitting the immaculate faith to be subverted.”
Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D (EWTN) on Dec-27-1999:
Later Pope St. Leo II, on confirming the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 858, specifically declared that Pope Honorius was not guilty of heresy, but only of lack of action against heresy, “permitting the immaculate faith to be subverted.”
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Dueling Councils. Pope Honorius-1 was declared a HERETIC (a decision accepted by Pope Agatho) in Constantinople-3. That Council got it right - the guy was a heretic.The Council of Constantinople IV condemned Pope Honorius on certain teachings; Papal infallibility, as defined, was not involved here. Further, no decree of a council has effect unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope in the form that he confirms it. Pope St Leo II substantially modified the sense of the council’s decree on Honorius who was condemned for allowing a heresy to spread and grow.
…to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations
…we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!
The Council says nothing about lame enforcement of correct doctrine. It says he was a HERETIC.Third Council of Constantinople, Session 8 & 9]
Listen, NEVER attempt to disavow or downplay ANYTHING in Catholic history that seems to disfavor the Church. EMBRACE IT. The Pope was a heretic, but he never promulgated heresy. That’s cool. It shows how the Holy Spirit protects the Doctrine of the Church, even from heretical Popes.
A
Abu
Guest
Guilty Only of Failure To Teach
This Rock, Catholic Answers, by Steven O’Reilly
Catholic Answers, Inc., October 2000
Extracts:
'The council professed its agreement with Agatho’s letter anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.
'Though Agatho asserted the orthodoxy of all his predecessors and the infallibility of the apostolic see, he explicitly left open the possibility that a pope is nonetheless liable to judgment should he “neglect to preach the truth” to the faithful. Agatho thereby provided the tacit basis for the condemnation of Honorius on these grounds: that by neglecting to preach the truth, Honorius left the Lord’s flock exposed to ravaging wolves, as indeed the monothelite Eastern Patriarchs were and under whom the faithful suffered for many years.
'The council’s judgment is consistent with Agatho’s letter. It made a distinction between the fault of Sergius and Cyrus on the one hand and that of Honorius on the other. A reading of the condemnation reveals Honorius is neither grouped with nor shares the same fault of those “whose doctrines” were execrated—i.e., Sergius, Cyrus, etc. While Honorius is anathematized “with them”—that is, sharing a similar punishment—it is not because of any doctrine attributable to him. Honorius is condemned because of what the council “found written by him to Sergius;” in which letters Honorius “followed his [Sergius’s] view” about keeping silent and thus “confirmed his [Sergius’s] impious doctrines” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 343).
'Likewise, Pope Leo II (682-683) faulted Honorius because he “did not endeavor to preserve” the faith and for having “permitted” it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine (Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111-112). Elsewhere, Leo blames “Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence” (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added). In sum, Honorius failed to teach.
‘With regard to the papal oath, it stated only that Honorius was condemned because he had "added fuel to their [the monothelites’] wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ibid., 455)—a charge which does not substantially differ from earlier statements that Honorius had fostered heresy by his negligence.’
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301
**Answer by Dr. William Carroll (EWTN) on 10-23-2001: **
Pope Honorius never actually taught heresy at all. It was all a misunderstanding, which is explained in full detail, fully documented, in the second volume of my history of Christendom, THE BUILDING OF CHRISTENDOM, pages 252-254.
Answer by Dr. William Carroll (EWTN) on 05-29-2002:
When Pope St. Leo II affirmed a council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, he specifically declared that Pope Honorius had not taught heresy, but had been condemned for failing to denounce it soon enough.
This Rock, Catholic Answers, by Steven O’Reilly
Catholic Answers, Inc., October 2000
Extracts:
'The council professed its agreement with Agatho’s letter anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.
'Though Agatho asserted the orthodoxy of all his predecessors and the infallibility of the apostolic see, he explicitly left open the possibility that a pope is nonetheless liable to judgment should he “neglect to preach the truth” to the faithful. Agatho thereby provided the tacit basis for the condemnation of Honorius on these grounds: that by neglecting to preach the truth, Honorius left the Lord’s flock exposed to ravaging wolves, as indeed the monothelite Eastern Patriarchs were and under whom the faithful suffered for many years.
'The council’s judgment is consistent with Agatho’s letter. It made a distinction between the fault of Sergius and Cyrus on the one hand and that of Honorius on the other. A reading of the condemnation reveals Honorius is neither grouped with nor shares the same fault of those “whose doctrines” were execrated—i.e., Sergius, Cyrus, etc. While Honorius is anathematized “with them”—that is, sharing a similar punishment—it is not because of any doctrine attributable to him. Honorius is condemned because of what the council “found written by him to Sergius;” in which letters Honorius “followed his [Sergius’s] view” about keeping silent and thus “confirmed his [Sergius’s] impious doctrines” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 343).
'Likewise, Pope Leo II (682-683) faulted Honorius because he “did not endeavor to preserve” the faith and for having “permitted” it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine (Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111-112). Elsewhere, Leo blames “Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence” (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added). In sum, Honorius failed to teach.
‘With regard to the papal oath, it stated only that Honorius was condemned because he had "added fuel to their [the monothelites’] wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ibid., 455)—a charge which does not substantially differ from earlier statements that Honorius had fostered heresy by his negligence.’
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301
**Answer by Dr. William Carroll (EWTN) on 10-23-2001: **
Pope Honorius never actually taught heresy at all. It was all a misunderstanding, which is explained in full detail, fully documented, in the second volume of my history of Christendom, THE BUILDING OF CHRISTENDOM, pages 252-254.
Answer by Dr. William Carroll (EWTN) on 05-29-2002:
When Pope St. Leo II affirmed a council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, he specifically declared that Pope Honorius had not taught heresy, but had been condemned for failing to denounce it soon enough.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.