What about the bad decisions that the Popes made?

[TheBreak]

English is not my native language, I’m sorry for any misspellings.

There are Popes who made bad decisions like going to war or killing / jail someone and some group of people. What about these bad decisions? Does that contradicts the idea that the Pope is holy and can make no mistake??

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Church does not say that the Pope cannot make mistakes. He can make mistakes, and even be a grievous sinner.

What the Pope cannot do is teach error in his capacity as Pope (meaning, among other things, he makes a teaching that is intended for the world).

This situation is nothing new. Jesus told his followers the same thing:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat [we would say Peter’s seat]. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Matt 23:1-3]

We are to recognize the legitimate authority of Church leaders, even when they fall short of their own teaching.

By the way, the protection only applies to what the Pope actually teaches. It does not mean that the Pope will teach what needs to be taught, when it needs to be taught. A Pope may neglect his teaching responsibility, and God will not intervene.

 

[Robyn_p]

It’s only when the Pope is teaching on faith and morals as supreme leader of the Church that the Catholic Church says the Pope is preserved from error, by the Holy Spirit. The Church even specifically makes that distinction, between the pope’s teaching office and his individual person, in the official document on Papal infallibility from Vatican Council 1.
So he’s not preserved from making bad decisions or even from sinning. Just he can never lead God’s people astray from the truth.

I personally find it very powerful, that in all two thousand years of Church history, there never has been a Bishop of Rome who taught heresy. That’s very powerful, because when you look at other ancient sees, like Constantinople or Alexandria or Antioch, all of those have had heretical bishops, and who actively promoted their heresies. But you don’t find that with Rome. It’s very interesting to me. Not a proof necessarily of Papal infallibility, but a very strong indicator in my opinion. There’s really no human explanation for that kind of integrity of doctrine.

 

[Pilosopo]

It’s only when the Pope is teaching on faith and morals as supreme leader of the Church that the Catholic Church says the Pope is preserved from error, by the Holy Spirit. The Church even specifically makes that distinction, between the pope’s teaching office and his individual person, in the official document on Papal infallibility from Vatican Council 1.
So he’s not preserved from making bad decisions or even from sinning. Just he can never lead God’s people astray from the truth.

I personally find it very powerful, that in all two thousand years of Church history, there never has been a Bishop of Rome who taught heresy. That’s very powerful, because when you look at other ancient sees, like Constantinople or Alexandria or Antioch, all of those have had heretical bishops, and who actively promoted their heresies. But you don’t find that with Rome. It’s very interesting to me. Not a proof necessarily of Papal infallibility, but a very strong indicator in my opinion. There’s really no human explanation for that kind of integrity of doctrine.

I guess this depends a lot on who defines what is orthodox and what is heretical. Certainly as the Bishop of Rome, Pope, and with Magisterium, they are tasked to say who stays and who strays. Perhaps you’re referring to another standard from which to adjudicate what the Pope/Magisterium says/teaches is not heretical? Otherwise, it is rather circular.

In the end, really it is a matter of faith that we accept the Pope’s infallibility. Perhaps it is not of the same stature as our embrace of the the Holy Trinity, or transubstantiation of the host into the Body of Christ. Still, it is really quite significant, quite crucial, that I know, we know that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope, the Church.

The OP’s question is really fascinating…even if we make the distinction between, yes, he can make mistakes. but the moment he speaks ex cathedra, he cannot err.
Food for thought, Pope, now Blessed John Paul II, did make a mea culpa in 2000…
time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,40695,00.html

 

[DavidFilmer]

I guess this depends a lot on who defines what is orthodox and what is heretical.

Well, then, it might suffice to say that no Pope has ever countermanded orthodox Doctrine.

The highest judicial authority in the United States is the Supreme Court. This Court is supposed to be based upon its interpretation of the US Constitution (in a similar fashion, protestants base their religion on their interpretation of the Bible).

The US Supreme Court has reversed itself more than 200 times. Not amended, or tinkered with, but completely reversed itself. Dred Scott, anyone?

The United States of America is now 237 years old. The body that decides what is orthodox and what is heretical in US law completely reverses itself about once each year.

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old. How many times has She reversed Herself?

Zero.

 

[Transformer]

English is not my native language, I’m sorry for any misspellings.

There are Popes who made bad decisions like going to war or killing / jail someone and some group of people. What about these bad decisions? Does that contradicts the idea that the Pope is holy and can make no mistake??

As others have said, the answer is simply that no one thinks “the pope is holy and can make no mistakes.” No one has ever believed that. There have been a number of popes who were distinctly unholy and made horrible mistakes; this does not contradict any Catholic doctrine.

 

[JerryZ]

Well, then, it might suffice to say that no Pope has ever countermanded orthodox Doctrine.

The highest judicial authority in the United States is the Supreme Court. This Court is supposed to be based upon its interpretation of the US Constitution (in a similar fashion, protestants base their religion on their interpretation of the Bible).

The US Supreme Court has reversed itself more than 200 times. Not amended, or tinkered with, but completely reversed itself. Dred Scott, anyone?

The United States of America is now 237 years old. The body that decides what is orthodox and what is heretical in US law completely reverses itself about once each year.

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old. How many times has She reversed Herself?

Zero.

 

[Classicist]

It is not entirely accurate to say that no popes ever taught, believed, or permitted heresy. Honorius I (625-638) was roundly anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Leo II assented to this condemnation of Honorius, within the decrees of the council.

All of this does not prove that Honorius ‘taught’ error, since almost everything he wrote was burned by the Council. Only a few fragments of letters survive. We must not put our trust in men, or believe popes are holy or can make no mistakes. This whole thread rests on a false but common assumption.

 

[snarflemike]

Did Peter sin? Did Peter make mistakes?

How does anybody familiar with the New Testament come up with the idea that popes commit no sin and make no mistakes?

 

[Pilosopo]

Well, then, it might suffice to say that no Pope has ever countermanded orthodox Doctrine.

The highest judicial authority in the United States is the Supreme Court. This Court is supposed to be based upon its interpretation of the US Constitution (in a similar fashion, protestants base their religion on their interpretation of the Bible).

The US Supreme Court has reversed itself more than 200 times. Not amended, or tinkered with, but completely reversed itself. Dred Scott, anyone?

The United States of America is now 237 years old. The body that decides what is orthodox and what is heretical in US law completely reverses itself about once each year.

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old. How many times has She reversed Herself?

Zero.

How do you interpret Blessed John Paul the Great’s “mea culpa”?
time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,40695,00.html

 

[JerryZ]

How do you interpret Blessed John Paul the Great’s “mea culpa”?
time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,40695,00.html

He asked forgiveness for any wrong doings that were commited by men (maybe well intentioned yet WRONG) in the name of the Church.

Zero relevance to the doctrine and the deposit of faith which as the other poster noted has never reversed itself.

 

[JerryZ]

It is not entirely accurate to say that no popes ever taught, believed, or permitted heresy. Honorius I (625-638) was roundly anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Leo II assented to this condemnation of Honorius, within the decrees of the council.

All of this does not prove that Honorius ‘taught’ error, since almost everything he wrote was burned by the Council. Only a few fragments of letters survive. We must not put our trust in men, or believe popes are holy or can make no mistakes. This whole thread rests on a false but common assumption.

Actually the letter by which he was judged as “heretic” is still available and it does not have the wording to make it an ex-cathedra statement by the pope.

From NewAdvent:
The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

So in other words He did not stamp out the heresy which in turn allowed it to fester but he did not directly taught it.
In fact this case was used extensively by the protestants during the reformation period to try and discredit the infallibility of the Pope.

 

[Classicist]

Actually the letter by which he was judged as “heretic” is still available and it does not have the wording to make it an ex-cathedra statement by the pope.

The canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council which condemns Honorius makes no reference to a specific letter or letters. They destroyed every one of his writings that they could find, so all we have is a few remnants.

If everything written by Pius XII was burned except a couple of letters and all of western civilization went into a time of profound loss of literature, future generations would have no idea that Pius XII had written Munificentissimus Deus, declaring the Assumption of Mary infallibly. They’d teach that Pius XII had never made an ex cathedra statement.

So in other words He did not stamp out the heresy which in turn allowed it to fester but he did not directly taught it.

Rather than using suppositious arguments, let’s just admit that we don’t know what he got up to that earned him anathema.

 

[Pilosopo]

He asked forgiveness for any wrong doings that were commited by men (maybe well intentioned yet WRONG) in the name of the Church.

Zero relevance to the doctrine and the deposit of faith which as the other poster noted has never reversed itself.

I beg to differ.

For one, the fact that popes are fallible (outside ex cathedra) makes it all the more precious that my (our) faith instructs us that they are never fallible ex cathedra (the doctrine of infallibility).

Also, the homily of Blessed John Paul the Great does in fact make reference to poor or not-as-careful theology, I quote (and the complete link follows):

“This appeal has prompted a thorough and fruitful reflection, which led to the publication several days ago of a document of the International Theological Commission, entitled: “Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past”. I thank everyone who helped to prepare this text. It is very useful for correctly understanding and carrying out the authentic request for pardon, based on the objective responsibility which Christians share as members of the Mystical Body, and which spurs today’s faithful to recognize, along with their own sins, the sins of yesterday’s Christians, in the light of careful historical and theological discernment.” [my emphasis]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon_en.html