J
justasking4
Guest
I suspect in some cases a very long time.
- Status
J
justasking4
Guest
No need to throw stones but to show what the history of the popes were like. Some of these popes were very evil.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
So. what is your problem? is it why you are not catholic?
S
steve_b
Guest
Wasn’t this already answered before?
Ignoring the answer over and over again isn’t making YOUR case.
Here again
are the requirements for a pope to speak infallibly on faith and morals according to the Church, NOT YOUR DEFINITION. If these requiremens aren’t met, then infallibility is not at issue. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3342061&postcount=85
The requirements for meeting the doctrine weren’t met.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3342554&postcount=106
G
guanophore
Guest
There were serious problems with Judas too, but that does not nullify the Teaching of Jesus. Personal errors do not affect infallibility. There were bishops in attendance at councils too that were less than honorable, and some of them were heretics, but the decisions of the councils are considered infallible.
This is a very risky statement to make, ja4. Only God can see the heart, and determine if one is “evil”. It would be safer to say that they engaged in evildoing, or that their acts were not in accordance of the Teaching of Jesus.
V
VARC
Guest
Pope John XXII even wrote a bull condemning papal infallibility.
Quia quorundam
On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that “It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, “ in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power,” it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth.
Quia quorundam
On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that “It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, “ in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power,” it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth.
S
steve_b
Guest
Mickey’s beef is with the doctrine of papal infallibility. The Church specifically defines what she means by a pope proclaiming doctrines on faith and morals infallibly. While Honorius was condemned 42 years after his death, for heresy, it was because of his inaction. For a doctrine to be Infallible the Church requires specific actions from the pope… A pope must
- define the doctrine to be believed
- teach the doctrine to be believed
- expect the Church Universal to believe it
Honorius didn’t do any of this… unfortunately he didn’t have a chance to defend himself, he was already dead for 42 years at the time of his trial.
A
anthony022071
Guest
That’s not a bull against papal infallibility.
The bull was written in response to those who claimed that popes had laid it down as a defined doctrine that the Friars Minor should observe the complete abdication of property rights.
< 2. However, in the confirmation of the rule of the Order of Friars Minor by Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, Nicholas III, Our predecessors the Supreme Pontiffs, they assert [that] these words are contained: “This is the evangelical rule of Christ, the imitator of the Apostles, who had nothing in this world [either] as their own or in common, but in [those] things which were used, [merely] the simplex usum facti.” presuming to add to these that the aforementioned Supreme Pontiffs and many general councils have defined it by the key of knowledge, that the poverty of Christ and the Apostles consisted in the perfect expropriation of whatever temporal dominion, civil and mundane, and that even their sustenance consisted solely and merely in the usus facti, from which they strive to conclude, that it has not been licit nor is it licit for their successors to change anything against the aforementioned things. And for that reason when Our constitution in the aforesaid doctrine defined (as they assert) things contrary to the definitions of Our aforesaid predecessors, they satisfy themselves to conclude, although falsely, that is was not lawful for us to declare or establish that Christ and the Apostles in those things, which they had, had not only the simplex usus facti, but [also] the usus faciendi of them, and that scripture testifies that they did those things, by declaring * heretical the pertinacious assertion of [those who] say that these same men did not have the least right of this kind, since [such ones] infer that the deeds of these men were not just—which is a wicked thing to say about Christ. >
< 3. However that which is put forth as the premise to support the aforesaid doctrine, namely, that in the confirmation and declaration of the rule of the Friars Minor of not a few of Our predecessors, namely Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, Nicholas III, words of this kind are contained: “This is the evangelical rule,” etc. put forward above, up to: “it is clear consisted even in the mere usus facti:” directly opposes the truth. Honorius indeed confirmed the aforementioned rule without any declaration, in confirmation of which no mention of the aforesaid words is had, so that to whomsoever considers [it] attentively he can dissolve a confirmation of this kind: except in so far as mention is made of the evangelical life there in the rule itself, as confirmed, when it says: “This is the rule of the Friars Minor, namely to observe the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by living in obedience, without anything of one’s own, and in chastity.” From which words it cannot be concluded that through that same predecessor of ours those things, which they themselves assert in [regards to] the aforesaid words, have been defined. >*
S
SiempreFiel
Guest
And let us not forget that I created my own little thread where I give the opportunity to any Orthodox Christian to prove papal infallibility wrong by using the case of Pope Honorius as proof.
So far, there has only been one attempt.
F
FaithofAbraham
Guest
If a Pope adopts someone else’s existing doctrine then it becomes a new doctrine of the Pope, and once taking the title of Pope he expects that the Church will believe what he says because the Church has already accepted him as their infallible leader.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Pope Agatho was dead.
Nicea condemned those bishops who followed Arius as much as it condemned Arius.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You’ve been given several, starting with the letters of the “whole Church” “rebuking” Pope Victor for attempting to excommunicate the Asian Church.
Then you haven’t read the Sixth Council.
It also seems pretty simple that the protests of, for instance Pope Leo, that despite his opposition even his own bishops recognized canon 28 of Chalcedon, should show that the Early Church had no Vatican I views.
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
That’s been discussed already.
Why do the EO insist on casting the first stone in these debates? I for one am sick and tired of seeing a thread about an unrelated topic go down the drain because someone feels the need to post something about the “innovation of papal infallibility”. It has been proven time and time again that the notion existed as an undefined doctrine for centuries before 1870. But I keep seeing people claim it was invented in 1870. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, by intent or idiocy.
M
Mickey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes. A Roman Catholic invention.
He was declared a heretic–and this was confirmed by every council and Pope thereafter. What more do you want. Sheesh! You can spin it any way you wish, but the man was a heretic.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes. But this strange doctrine would have been alien to the early Church Fathers and the undivided Church.
The ultra montanists would have loved for the doctrine to be defined and official well before 1870. The idea had been floating around since before the Council of Constance. But this strange innovation was not known in the early Church–the undivided Church. Pope Pius IX finally forced it through as dogma amidst much dissention in 1870.
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
Again, you are incorrect. The writings are there for all to see.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes they are. I urge you to study them.
While you are at it–study the Coucil of Basel and Constance and Vatican I.
You may not like what you find.
"I am Tradition!" (Pope Pius IX) :bigyikes:
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
I have, and they all point to Rome. Your books must have cut those parts out. You have no idea what I have studied.
Since this has degraded to an elementary school playground argument, I will not bother responding to your misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and outright lies any longer.
V
VARC
Guest
When the the Rule of Friars was changed by the pope, the franciscans protested saying …
**“It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, “ in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power,” **
The above statement is almost a mirror image of Pastor Aeterus. But John XXII condemned it as “directly contrary to the truth”. He gave his reasons why…
First, indeed following * these men, it is clear that the aforesaid assertors, who hold that the spiritual key is by no means knowledge, but a power of binding and loosing, by reckoning it to be knowledge, have erred. In favor of which is the definition of the “key”, which is given by the doctors [of theology]:** “The key is the special power of binding and loosing, with which the ecclesiastic as judge should receive the worthy into the Kingdom, and exclude the unworthy .” Likewise, since the keys, of which We speak, are conferred in the imposition of priestly orders, it is however well established that knowledge is not normally conferred upon the man ordained to the priesthood: wherefore, following [the argument of] these men, it seems that knowledge is not the key, but rather the ability to bind and loose should be said to be the key. Still following [the argument of] these men, they are evidently known to have erred, who reckon that one spiritual key is knowledge, and following [the argument of] these men, of which the authority to discern between [one] leper and another they assert to be a key, and the other [key is] the power of binding and loosing. For they substitute, by means of keys of this kind concerning those things, which are of the faith, and other [things], the ability to define [a matter] by means of any constitution. However the keys, which are conferred in priestly orders, by no means extend themselves to such matters, because according to the aforementioned [assertions] simple priests would be able to issue a constitution, which is evidently false. If however they maintain that those keys extend to the general authority, attributed to blessed Peter, and to his successors in the person of the same * in the entrusting of the pastoral office, by means of which it seems at least evident to themselves that they have conceded everything, without which one would be unable to exercise the care of the universal shepherd conveniently or exercise freely its office: besides it is clear that even they themselves have erred. For they say, those things, which are established by the key of knowledge, have one affect, and those things, which are established by the key of power, another, supposing that some things, by the key of knowledge, and others, by the key of power, have been determined or even defined, which is evidently false. ***For by means of the key of knowledge, or by the authority to discern or examine among [one] leper and another leper, (if We would call this a key), nothing other except the authority to examine [them] is attributed by means of it to him to which it has been given. However to him, to whom is given the authority of deciding concerning anything, there is not understood to have been given [the authority] to define [anything] concerning it. Wherefore it remains, that to establish anything conveniently, or to define it, each of the keys, namely, of examining and defining, is required as necessary; or that to only the key of power does it belong to establish [anything], and even to define [it]; but, just as the material light directs the key-bearer in the use of a material key, so likewise he obtains as much as regards this matter from knowledge instead of light. And this Our Savior in making the promise of the keys to blessed Peter seems to have understood expressly, when He immediately adds to that: “And whatever you will bind on earth, shall be bound even in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed even in heaven,” making no mention of knowledge.
John XXII condemned the idea that a pope cannot change a teaching of his predecessor (even a teaching of faith and morals) on the basis that the keys of St. Peter don’t grant knowlege only authority. On that basis, any pope could change the teaching of his predecessor because a pope could be wrong about an issue and the succeding pope has equal authority to correct him.
This is the first Roman Catholic document that mentions papal infallibility and the pope condemned the idea because he believed it limited his power.*
- Status