Well, he is a mortal man after all…popes can and do err. Pope John Paul II’s Assissi gatherings, for example. Or Pope Stephen VI’s cadaver synod. Or Pope St. Peter’s imprudence in Galatians. I’m sure there are many more examples. And if you think I was referring to Francis, I wasn’t. I was just generally referring to all popes. Past, present, and future.The only person “inflated” here is a lay person who thinks it’s his job to publicly criticize the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Desperately cherry picking a handful of examples (that aren’t even examples of error) out of the 2000 year history of unblemished orthodoxy of the successors of Saint Peter only reinforces that the Pope truly is divinely protected from error, and we should all humbly submit to his teachings.Well, he is a mortal man after all…popes can and do err. Pope John Paul II’s Assissi gatherings, for example. Or Pope Stephen VI’s cadaver synod. Or Pope St. Peter’s imprudence in Galatians. I’m sure there are many more examples. And if you think I was referring to Francis, I wasn’t. I was just generally referring to all popes. Past, present, and future.
Ummm, ok…I guess.Desperately cherry picking a handful of examples (that aren’t even examples of error) out of the 2000 year history of unblemished orthodoxy of the successors of Saint Peter only reinforces that the Pope truly is divinely protected from error, and we should all humbly submit to his teachings.
Agreed absolutely, we should not abandon the Pope, and nobody is suggesting anyone will on either side of the debate over the Catholic interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. But that still does not mean that everything he utters is infallible or binds Catholics to believe when he does not (or with the dubia, refuses to) speak ex cathedra.When the early church was overcome with gnosticism and adoptionism, what bishop remained orthodox and excommunicated the heretics? The Bishop of Rome.
When the early church was overcome by Arianism and semi-Arianism, what bishop remained orthodox and excommunicated the heretics? The Bishop of Rome.
When the post-Nicene church was overcome by Nestorianism and Eutychianism, what bishop remained orthodox and excommunicated the heretics? The Bishop of Rome.
When the later church was overcome by iconoclasm, what bishop remained orthodox? The Bishop of Rome.
When the post-Renaissance church was overwhelmed by modernist thinkers and intellectuals who tore whole countries from the body of Christ, what bishop remained orthodox and excommunicated the heretics? The Bishop of Rome.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1037146
It’s a dangerous world out there. I think I’ll stay on the solid rock of the successor to Saint Peter.
Later in her letter she continued:Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign….If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.
Strong stuff; much stronger language than the four Cardinals used in their “five dubia” letter to the Pope.Cursed be you, for time and power were entrusted to you and you did not use them!
Instead of proof-texting the most anti-Pope sentences you can find in all the letters of Saint Catherine, why not read the entirety of the single letter that supplies the supposedly anti-Pope proof-texts:Was St Catharine of Sienna not in good standing or “schismatic” when she wrote the following to Pope Gregory XI:
In the Name of Jesus Christ crucified and of sweet Mary:
Most holy and sweet father, your poor unworthy daughter Catherine in Christ sweet Jesus, commends herself to you in His precious Blood: with desire to see you a manly man, free from any fear or fleshly love toward yourself, or toward any creature related to you in the flesh; since I perceive in the sweet Presence of God that nothing so hinders your holy, good desire and so serves to hinder the honour of God and the exaltation and reform of Holy Church, as this. Therefore, my soul desires with immeasurable love that God by His infinite mercy may take from you all passion and lukewarmness of heart, and re-form you another man, by forming in you anew a burning and ardent desire; for in no other way could you fulfil the will of God and the desire of His servants. Alas, alas, sweetest “Babbo” mine, pardon my presumption in what I have said to you and am saying; I am constrained by the Sweet Primal Truth to say it. His will, father, is this, and thus demands of you. It demands that you execute justice on the abundance of many iniquities committed by those who are fed and pastured in the garden of Holy Church; declaring that brutes should not be fed with the food of men. Since He has given you authority and you have assumed it, you should use your virtue and power: and if you are not willing to use it, it would be better for you to resign what you have assumed; more honour to God and health to your soul would it be.
Another demand that His will makes is this: He wills that you make peace with all Tuscany, with which you are at strife; securing from all your wicked sons who have rebelled against you whatever is possible to secure without war–but punishing them as a father ought to punish a son who has wronged him. Moreover, the sweet goodness of God demands from you that you give full authority to those who ask you to make ready for the Holy Crusade–that thing which appears impossible to you, and possible to the sweet goodness of God, who has ordained it, and wills that so it be. Beware, as you hold your life dear, that you commit no negligence in this, nor treat as jests the works of the Holy Spirit, which are demanded from you because you can do them. If you want justice, you can execute it. You can have peace, withdrawing from the perverse pomps and delights of the world, preserving only the honour of God and the due of Holy Church. Authority also you have to give peace to those who ask you for it. Then, since you are not poor but rich–you who bear in your hand the keys of Heaven, to whom you open it is open, and to whom you shut it is shut–if you do not do this, you would be rebuked by God. I, if I were in your place, should fear lest divine judgment come upon me. Therefore I beg you most gently on behalf of Christ crucified to be obedient to the will of God, for I know that you want and desire no other thing than to do His will, that this sharp rebuke fall not upon you: “Cursed be thou, for the time and the strength entrusted to thee thou hast not used.” I believe, father, by the goodness of God, and also taking hope from your holiness, that you will so act that this will not fall upon you.
Notice how reverent and submissive she is? Also notice the fact that she is directly communicating God’s will to the Pope, not chiming in with her personal opinion? And notice how the “curse” you quoted is not something she’s actually invoking against him, but something she is confident will not happen?I say no more. Pardon me, pardon me; for the great love which I bear to your salvation, and my great grief when I see the contrary, makes me speak so. Willingly would I have said it to your own person, fully to unburden my conscience. When it shall please your Holiness that I come to you, I will come willingly. So do that I may not appeal to Christ crucified from you; for to no other can I appeal, for there is no greater on earth. Remain in the holy and sweet grace of God. I ask you humbly for your benediction. Sweet Jesus, Jesus Love.
drawnbylove.com/Scudder%20letters.htm#2ReligiousmanBut you do not see what evil and what great misfortunes come from your obstinacy, and clinging fast to your resolution! Oh me, oh me! loose yourselves from the bond of pride, and bind you to the humble Lamb; and do not scorn or oppose His Vicar. No more thus! For the love of Christ crucified! Hold not His Blood cheap! That which has not been done in past time, do it now. Do not feel bitter or scornful should it seem to you that the Holy Father demanded what appeared very hard and impossible to do. Nevertheless he will not wish anything but what is possible to you. But he does as a true father, who beats his son when he does wrong. He reproves him very severely, to make him humble, and cognizant of his fault; and the true son does not grow angry with his father, for he sees that whatever he does is done for love of him; therefore the more the father drives him off, the more he returns to him, ever asking for mercy. So I tell you, on behalf of Christ crucified, that the more times you should be spurned by our father Christ on earth, so many times you are to flee to him. Let him do as he will, for he is right.
TO BROTHER ANTONIO OF NIZZA OF THE HERMIT BROTHERS OF SAINT AUGUSTINE AT THE CONVENT OF LECCETO NEAR SIENA
drawnbylove.com/Scudder%20letters.htm#2ReligiousmanIt appears, from the letter which Brother William has sent me, that neither he nor you is coming here. I do not intend to reply to this letter: but I grieve much over his simplicity, for little honour to God or edification to his neighbour results from it. For if he is unwilling to come from humility and fear of forfeiting his peace, he ought to exercise the virtue of humility, by asking permission from the Vicar of Christ humbly and with gentleness, entreating his Holiness graciously to permit him to stay in his wood, for his greater peace, nevertheless, as one truly obedient, submitting the matter to his will. Thus he would be more pleasing to God, and would secure his own good. But he seems to have done just the contrary, alleging that a person who is bound to divine obedience ought not to obey his fellow-creatures. As to other people, I should care very little; but that he should include the Vicar of Christ, this does grieve me much, to see him so discordant with truth. For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil. It appears from what he writes that two servants of God have had a great revelation, to the effect that Christ on earth, and whoever advised him to send for these servants of God, followed human and not divine counsel, and that it was rather the instigation of the devil than the inspiration of God that made them wish to drag their servants from their peace and consolations: adding that if you and the others came you would lose your spiritual life, and thus would be of no help in prayer, and unable to stand by the Holy Father in spirit. Now really, the spiritual life is quite too lightly held if it is lost by change of place. Apparently God is an acceptor of places, and is found only in a wood, and not elsewhere in time of need! Then what shall we say --we who, on the one hand, wish that the Church of God be reformed, the thorns uprooted, and the fragrant flowers the servants of God planted there; and, on the other hand, we are told that to send for them, and drag them from their mental peace and quiet in order that they may come to help that little Ship is a wile of the devil? At least, let a man speak for himself, and not speak of the other servants of God–for among the servants of the world we are not to count ourselves. Not thus have done Brother Andrea of Lucca, nor Brother Paolina, those great servants of God, old men and far from well, who have lived such a long time in their peace: but at once, with all their weariness and disabilities they put themselves on the road, and have come, and fulfilled their obedience: and although desire constrains them to return to their cells, they are not therefore willing to throw off the yoke, but say: “What I have said, be it unsaid!” --disregarding their self-will and their personal consolations. One comes here to endure: not for honours, but for the dignity of many labours, with tears, vigils and continual prayers; thus should one do. Now let us not weigh ourselves down with more words. May God by His mercy send us clear vision, and guide us in the way of truth, and give us true and perfect light, that we may never walk among shadows. I beg you, you and the Bachellor, and the other servants of God, to pray the Humble Lamb that He make me walk in His Way. Remain in the holy and sweet grace of God. Sweet Jesus, Jesus Love.
False. No Pope has ever “supported” heresy. Honorius I only taught orthodox doctrine, and commanded that the monothelite heresy not be taught in the Church:There have been popes who have supported heresy and popes who have signed onto ecumenical councils only upon force. Blind obedience to the pope isn’t a good thing. Or maybe we should all be monothelites.
Honorius was a heretic and he was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council and by subsequent popes. You can argue all day, but it will remain a fact that he was a heretic. He supported monothelitism.False. No Pope has ever “supported” heresy. Honorius I only taught orthodox doctrine, and commanded that the monothelite heresy not be taught in the Church:
books.google.com/books?id=N95DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA182&dq=Pope+honorius+letter+to+sergius&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j00ZUdDyHobs9AS8yYE4&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Pope%20honorius%20letter%20to%20sergius&f=false
The only Pope who could be considered to have signed onto an ecumenical “only upon force” might be Pope Vigilius, but that is simply an accusation without any evidence. In the first place, there were no doctrinal issues at stake in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but rather the appropriateness of condemning certain persons after their death, and after they had been readdmitted to the Church at the Council of Chalcedon. Once the condemnations regarding these persons were expressed in an appropriate manner, Pope Vigilius signed on. There is no evidence of “force”, only a statement that he would only be permitted to return to Rome after 8 years of being held in Constantinople. But Pope Vigilius signed on to the anathemas in December 553, but didn’t start returning to Rome until the spring of 555. So clearly it’s not as simple as the Pope being “forced” to do anything.
newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
And if you’re really looking at coercion regarding the appropriateness of condemnations relating to persons who were deceased as a justification for less than total obedience to Rome, that reflects a bad attitude, like you’re looking for reasons to not obey the Pope. We should all have the attitude of Saint Catherine of Sienna, and like little children devoutly submit to the judgment of our Holy Father in Rome.
Did you read the link I gave you to Hefele, which contains all the original documents in their Greek and Latin?Honorius was a heretic and he was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council and by subsequent popes. You can argue all day, but it will remain a fact that he was a heretic. He supported monothelitism.
Go to page 163No one who is subject to the Apostolic See, and faithful
in immaculate and sincere obedience, and not cut off from
the Body of Christ and the same Holy See by schism, can
obey commands, or precepts, or attempts of any description of
such a character as this, from whatever quarter they come,
even if it should be from the highest order of angels, but
must of necessity contradict and rebel against them with all
his strength. Therefore, reverend sirs, out of the debt of
obedience and fidelity by which I am bound to the Most
Holy Apostolic See, as to both my parents and by the love
of union with it in the Body of Christ, these things which
are contained in the said letter, because they most evidently
tend to the sin which I have mentioned, are most abominable to our Lord Jesus Christ, and most pernicious to the
human race, and are altogether opposed to the holiness of the Apostolic See, and are contrary to Catholic unity, I
filially and obediently disobey, contradict, and rebel against.
Nor can your wisdom institute harsh measures against me,
because every word and action of mine in the matter is
neither contradiction nor rebellion : but filial honour
due by Divine command to my (spiritual) father and
mother.
So he didn’t deny papal supremacy, yet resisted the popes erroneous commands… sounds familiar. And, his resistance had “partial success!” Even more incentive.…That he opposed to the utmost of his power the abuses of the papal administration is certain, but a study of his letters and writings should long ago have destroyed the myth that he disputed the plena potestas of the popes. This error, which has been common among non-Catholic writers from Wyclif till recent years, can partly, however, be explained by the exaggerations and inventions of Matthew Paris, and by a confusion of two men having the same name. The letter in which Grosseteste expressed most strongly his resistance to what he considered the unrighteous demands of the pope was addressed to “Master Innocent”. It was assumed even by Dr. Luard, the editor of Grosseteste’s letters, in the Rolls Series, that this correspondent was Innocent IV, whereas as a matter of fact he was one of the pope’s secretaries then resident in England. It is, however, admitted by all recent historians that Grosseteste never denied the pope’s authority as Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church. What he did maintain was that the power of the Holy See was “for edification and not for destruction”, that the commands of the pope could never transgress the limits laid down by the law of God, and that it was his duty, as bishop, to resist an order that was “for manifest destruction”. In such a case “out of filial reverence and obedience I disobey, resist, and rebel”. It is impossible to discuss here, or even to enumerate, the abuses which drew so strong an expression of his position from a man who had constantly shown his devotion to the papacy. The English people at large complained chiefly of the enormous revenue which the pope and the Italians drew from the country; Grosseteste, however, fully realized how necessary it was to support the papacy against the Emperor Frederick II, and his objection was chiefly to the manner in which much of this revenue was raised, the appointment of papal partisans in Italy to English benefices and preferments. Such a practice necessarily involved much spiritual damage, and was consistently resisted by the bishop. He felt, also, very deeply the abuses of the Curia, and the ease with which exemptions and privileges which counteracted his own reforms could be obtained from Rome by means of pecuniary supply. On the other hand, he himself constantly appealed to Rome, and frequently received papal support.
…The last case in which Grosseteste refused to obey a papal order called forth the letter to “Master Innocent” which has been already mentioned. In the last year of his life Grosseteste received a letter which notified him that the Holy See had conferred a vacant canonry at Lincoln on the pope’s nephew, Frederick di Lavagna, and had furthermore threatened excommunication against anyone who should oppose his installation. The bishop’s refusal to acknowledge the papal choice, and the terms in which it was expressed, led to the report, quite unfounded, that he had actually been excommunicated before his death; and to much fanciful history on the part of Matthew Paris. As a matter of fact the protest was partly successful; in November, 1253, Innocent IV issued a Bull, restoring to the English ecclesiastical authorities their full rights of election and presentation.
So even after being elected pope, he believed in his doctrine, which was error.In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
P.s. I think I may have a few more examples in my pocket of popes who have committed error in the past, words or action. But I think these should be enough. I really don’t think we should turn the Holy Father into a sinless, impeccable human. There is no such thing, except for Jesus and Mary.The deposit of the Faith is transmitted, and the acts of the Church Magisterium - either the supreme or the ordinary Magisterium - are inerrant to the degree that they conform to Catholic Tradition. The cases reported in this article demonstrate that a Pope is not impeccable and cannot pretend to be the owner of the Catholic Religion. He is an administrator (Tit 1: 7-9) who should remain within the limits of the norms for the exercise of his mandate. St. Paul lists these norms:
“To keep the deposit of the Faith” (1 Tim 6:20);
“Before all else, to transmit what he had received” (1 Cor 15:3);
“To edify and not destroy” (2 Cor 10:8);
“To keep the Traditions” (2 Tes 2:14);
“To withdraw from any brother who walks disorderly, not following the received tradition” (2 Thes 3:6);
“To show himself faithful as the dispenser of the Faith” (1 Cor 4:1-2).
Bishops and Popes, as successors of the Apostles and of the Prince of the Apostles, have a mission determined by the divine constitution of the Church. She must lead men to God, so that they may unite themselves with the Creator without impediments. The Church can never lose sight of this strictly religious and supernatural goal. The way the Church accomplishes this supernatural goal is indicated by Revelation itself. Hence, the obligation to follow Tradition, according to the precept of St. Paul given to the Galatians: “Even if we or an Angel from Heaven were to preach a Gospel to you different from what we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (1:8)