Papal Infallibility...AGAIN

Yep, I know what you're thinking: "NOT AGAIN".

Well, think "YES AGAIN" because that's what this questions about, lol

Can someone tell me the whole deal about Papal Infallibility? I've only been taught a biased view from Evangelical Christians. I've never heard it from Catholics. Also, how do you reconcile contradictory Papal Teachings and Popes (such as Honorius I) who were excommunicated?

Thanks in advance!

Can you show us the contradictory infallible statements so we can have a look?

geocajun said:

Can you show us the contradictory infallible statements so we can have a look?

Click to expand...

It was just an example - I wasn't suggesting that there were any.

WanderingKaiser said:

It was just an example - I wasn't suggesting that there were any.

Click to expand...

Look again, I think you were:

Also, how do you reconcile contradictory Papal Teachings and Popes (such as Honorius I) who were excommunicated?

Click to expand...

What is your actual question mate?

helenofbritain said:

What is your actual question mate?

Click to expand...

Without sounding too harsh or accusing, I was asking:

"Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible when some Popes were excommunicated?"

Also, I was asking for a summarization of the belief. I also think about Papal Infallibility and how it contradicts what some Catholics say when they say that Pope John Paul II was a "bad" Pope. I think "How can there be bad or good Popes when all of them are infallible?" which brings me back to excommunicated Popes.

WanderingKaiser said:

Yep, I know what you're thinking: "NOT AGAIN".

Well, think "YES AGAIN" because that's what this questions about, lol

Can someone tell me the whole deal about Papal Infallibility? I've only been taught a biased view from Evangelical Christians. I've never heard it from Catholics. Also, how do you reconcile contradictory Papal Teachings and Popes (such as Honorius I) who were excommunicated?

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

A: there was no controversial teaching and B, papal infallibility is this...

i say the sky is blue... I'm infallible. Not because I myself am but because i made a statement that is.

The sky is indeed blue so when I say it, i am infallible... Meaning I speak with out error and I certainly dd not make it up. The sky has been blue for eons.

When the popes speaks on matter pertaining to the faith and morals, it's the same... he does not speak errounously nor is what he says something new.

He in no way is making up new teachings. The teaching he speaks about have been with us since day one.

It was first delivered to the Saints, and preserved by the Church in each age... so when the pope speaks, he is only enforcing, transmitting and preserving what already was.

He is merely just defining something about it and developing our understanding, applying what it means to us in our era.

He was given a very special chrism of the Spirit by Christ to never transmit, enforce, preserve something about the deposit of faith incorrectly, so when he speaks, he's infallible, meaning he is not making a untrue statement.

WanderingKaiser said:

Without sounding too harsh or accusing, I was asking:

"Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible when some Popes were excommunicated?"

Also, I was asking for a summarization of the belief. I also think about Papal Infallibility and how it contradicts what some Catholics say when they say that Pope John Paul II was a "bad" Pope. I think "How can there be bad or good Popes when all of them are infallible?" which brings me back to excommunicated Popes.

Click to expand...

Give us some more to go on... no pope was ever excommunicated.

If you are referring to the eastern bishops? they had no power to excommunicate the pope, they only think they did.

Hi WanderingKaiser, welcome to OBOB

I think it's highly commendable to ask this question of Catholics because all too often nonCatholics do not explain it well or even fully understand it - fair enough too, it's not what they believe.

Basically papal infallibility is a special gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Pope so that the Church is protected from error. When it comes to matters of faith and morals it's important to get it right. We don't want to be teaching new Christians any falsehoods, and people can be drawn away from the Truth over time. The Pope's gift of infallibility means that if ever there is a disagreement within the Church on a matter of faith, the Pope can clear it up for us and we KNOW we can trust his word because Christ promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

His infallibility is only relevant when it comes to faith and morals (it doesn't apply to his opinions on science for example, or art) and it doesn't mean that he will always say the right thing at the right time, it only means that he will be prevented by the Holy Spirit from saying the wrong thing. It also doesn't mean he will lead a holy life or that he is perfect (that's impeccable, not infallible), many Popes have made mistakes, but the Holy Spirit prevented corruption from seeping into the teachings of the Church. The wayward Popes we've had were so busy being wayward that they never made any infallible statements.

There have never been any contradictory statements, the Church cannot change her doctrines - this is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church is the only Church never to change her teachings on contraception for example.

WanderingKaiser said:

Without sounding too harsh or accusing, I was asking:

"Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible when some Popes were excommunicated?"

Click to expand...

I've never heard of a Pope being excommunicated. There have been some antiPopes tho...

WanderingKaiser said:

Also, I was asking for a summarization of the belief. I also think about Papal Infallibility and how it contradicts what some Catholics say when they say that Pope John Paul II was a "bad" Pope. I think "How can there be bad or good Popes when all of them are infallible?" which brings me back to excommunicated Popes.

Click to expand...

Wow. I've never heard anyone say that JPII was a bad Pope, he is very much loved by everyone I know.

How can there be bad or good Popes when all of them are infallible? Great question. Infallibility has nothing to do with being bad or good. God will work through even the greatest sinner, and all the Popes have been sinners just like you and me and everyone else on the planet. Infallibility simply means that the Pope is unable to teach a falsehood. He can only teach the Truth of Christ.

Look at St Peter, he did the wrong thing by eating apart from the Gentiles and was rebuked for it by St Paul. He did the wrong thing, but he never taught the wrong thing. In fact, at the council of Jerusalem (in Acts) when James, the local Bishop, lead a council about circumcision (a not unrelated issue) he spoke the councils decision and referred to Scriptures AND St Peter's words on the subject.

Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, but he didn't say anyone would be perfect in this life.

Thanks for your responses! I understand Papal Infallibility now. Believe it or not, this was 99.9% of the reason why I, throughout my life, declined to become Roman Catholic.

WanderingKaiser said:

Thanks for your responses! I understand Papal Infallibility now. Believe it or not, this was 99.9% of the reason why I, throughout my life, declined to become Roman Catholic.

Click to expand...

Well, if your age is right, then you still have plenty of time, God willing, to come home.

Hi

Well, there are some things that need to be clarified about Pope Honorius l.

When there was an issue in defining 'one operation' or 'two operations' of Christ, the Pope did not speak in authority when he was consulted and he basically said to use caution when inferring either one or two operations.

Sergius took his response as agreement with his own.
[Altho the agreement was only in using caution per say]
However; no one could request a clarification from the Pope because he died before the matter was settled.

The Reply of Honorius



In What Sense was Honorius Condemned

Constans was murdered in 668. His successor, Constantine Pogonatus, probably did not trouble to enforce the Type, but East and West remained divided until his wars against the Saracens were over in 678, and he began to think of reunion. By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type, with Cyrus, Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power of deliberation to the council. The Easterns are to have the privilege of reunion by simply accepting his letter. He sent a book of testimonies from the Fathers, which were carefully verified. The Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, had been allowed to present other testimonies, which were examined and found to be incorrect.

Click to expand...

What is the Ecthesis??

Sergius, after receiving the pope's letter approving his recent cautiousness, composed an "Ecthesis", or exposition, which was issued by the emperor towards the end of 638. In conformity with the words of Honorius it orders all the subjects of Heraclius to confess one Will in our Lord, and to avoid the expressions "one operation" and "two operations". Before Sergius died, in December, he assembled a great synod at Constantinople, which accepted the Ecthesis as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching"; the letter from the Apostolic See was evidently the surety for this. Honorius was already dead, and had no opportunity of approving or disapproving the imperial document which had been based upon his letter.

So, Sergius pretty much took the cautionary letter from the Pope and ran with it to write on the letter without an affirmation or a denial of what Honorius meant, because he had died by that time.

"As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance."



CHARACTER AND WORK OF HONORIUS

Pope Honorius was much respected and died with an untarnished reputation. Few popes did more for the restoration and beautifying of churches of Rome, and he has left us his portrait in the apsidal mosaic of Sant Agnese fueri le mura. He cared also for the temporal needs of the Romans by repairing the aqueduct of Trajan. His extant letters show him engaged in much business. He supported the Lombard King Adalwald, who had been set aside as mad by an Arian rival. He succeeded, to some extent, with the emperor's assistance, in reuniting the schismatic metropolitan See of Aquileia to the Roman Church. He wrote to stir up the zeal of the bishops of Spain, and St. Braulio of Saragossa replied. His connexion with the British Isles is of interest. He sent St. Birinus to convert the West Saxons. In 634 he gave the pallium to St. Paulinus of York, as well as to Honorius of Canterbury, and he wrote a letter to King Edwin of Northumbria, which Bede has preserved. In 630 he urged the Irish bishops to keep Easter with the rest of Christendom, in consequence of which the Council of Magh Lene (Old Leighlin) was held; the Irish testified to their traditional devotion to the See of Peter, and sent a deputation to Rome "as children to their mother". On the return of these envoys, all Southern Ireland adopted the Roman use (633).

Jesus said to Peter (our first pope)

I give you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What you forgive on earth shall be forgiven in Heaven and what you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in Heaven.

This not only validates the Sacrament of Reconciliation but also speaks to the infalibility of the pope.

The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lay a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. "The Council accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered." Pope Agatho died during the Council and was succeeded by Leo II, who confirmed (683) the decrees against Monothelism, and expressed himself even more harshly than the council towards the memory of Honorius, though he laid stress chiefly on the neglect of that pope to set forth the traditional teaching of the Apostolic See, whose spotless faith he treasonably tried to overthrow.

AND now finally......
What does this mean and how does it coincide with infallibility?

Pope Honorius l did not speak 'ex cathedra' or as the Chair of Peter...and in doing so, he was harshly criticised by his predecessors...for NOT doing so and neglecting his duties.

So since he didnt actually speak in authority...he was guilty of neglecting his duty to do so.
His letter which did not teach one way or the other, but provides the use of caution did not condemn him...

It did not provide a tool of teaching for the whole Church so basically he did not define doctrine in infallible speaking.
[IE speaking the truth as it is]

So Honorius was not condemned, he was not condemned as a heretic, but he was admonished strongly for not speaking ex cathedra when the time required it.

Hope my final analysis helps you.

Infallibility is when the Pope speaks in ex cathedra for the teaching of the whole Church.

Can you now 'seperate' the issue in your mind and understand??

Technically the Pope is only infallible when speaking EX CATHEDRA on matter of faith and morals.
But there is not clarity of when he have done it and how many times in 2000 years.
Most time the Pope is obeyed just for discipline reasons.

resoto said:

Technically the Pope is only infallible when speaking EX CATHEDRA on matter of faith and morals.
But there is not clarity of when he have done it and how many times in 2000 years.
Most time the Pope is obeyed just for discipline reasons.

Click to expand...

No, there's the Ordinary Magisterium (every day stuff on faith a morals) and the Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra). BOTH types are infalliable.