The Banned said:
AgLiving06 said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Faithful Ag said:
AgPrognosticator said:
I agree with everything you're saying, but it's probably pointless to argue this point. If Catholics today follow the pope's authority today after prior popes ordered heretics to burned at the stake, then their following a fallen human….
It's always been strange to me and always will be, but don't expect them to change their beliefs.
There is nothing that the church has ever taught dogmatically that has been in error. Nothing. And nothing that has ever been taught as dogma has been reversed. Disciplines are not Dogma, and the Pope is only infallible when defining dogma excathedra. In everything else the Pope does he is not infallible. We are trusting in and following Christ and his promise.
Can you explain this a little more to my slow, protestant brain?
I can summarize it for you...
The Church Rome has taught a lot of things wrong...but through revisionist history, they've determined that none of those were infallible statements and so even though they were absolutely in error, they weren't "infallible" statements.
Granted, there's no infallible document listing infallible statements by the Pope (Rome disagrees on the number of statements), so even that is subject to change.
However, the modern take is there's only been 2 "infallible" proclamations, both of which are outside of Scripture, and so they can kind of believe whatever they want.
So the reality is, Rome has been wrong a lot. but they created categories for themselves so they can be wrong, but still be right. It's a fun game.
In addition to being radically uncharitable, you continue to use vague references. "The councils contradict themselves". "Popes have changed teachings". Start citing examples
I've only been shown one debate on this topic and the only examples that were given of "changing the teaching" were incredibly weak. It was stuff like how purgatory works, which was never solidly defined and developed over time. Despite never actually changing or reversing a teaching, somehow this was supposed to count as proof.
Maybe you have some great examples I've never been shown.
It's not uncharitable to point out when a statement is incorrect. You and others love to claim everything you dislike is uncharitable, simply because it disagrees with you.
I'll again point out, based off of Exsurge Domine, that Rome called for the burning of heretics.
And your side has called me a heretic. I didn't see you rushing to say that was uncharitable. In fact, going back and checking, 5 people starred that post. Should I take that as at least 5 Roman Catholics believe I should be burned alive? That seems uncharitable.
--------------------
First, lets tackle the Popes. It's the easiest. And to be clear, I said "Rome has taught a lot of wrong things." You don't get to change my words.
First, as pointed out...Exsurge Domine suggests burning heretics is not against the Spirit. We know that's false and not taught today, especially by Francis.
Ed Feser is a pretty reliable Catholic right? He did a great job of compiling the list:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.htmlSome highlights
Quote:
Pope Liberius (352-366): With the Arian heresy having been endorsed by many bishops, and under pressure from the emperor, Pope Liberius acquiesced in the excommunication of the staunchly orthodox St. Athanasius and agreed to an ambiguous theological formula. He later repented of his weakness, but he would be the first pope not to be venerated as a saint.
So much for Eck and Rome standing up to Arius.
Quote:
Pope Honorius I (625-638): Pope Honorius at least implicitly accepted the Monothelite heresy, was condemned for this by his successor Pope St. Agatho, and criticized by Pope St. Leo for being at least negligent. Though his actions are in no way incompatible with papal infallibility -- Honorius was not putting forward a would-be ex cathedra definition -- they caused grave damage by providing fodder for critics of the papacy. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact…"
Quote:
Pope Stephen VI (896-897): In the notorious "cadaver synod" -- an event which some historians consider the low point of the papacy -- Pope Stephen exhumed the corpse of his predecessor Pope Formosus, dressed it in papal vestments and placed it on a throne, put it on trial for alleged violations of church law (see the illustration above), found it guilty and declared all of Formosus's acts while pope null and void, then had the corpse flung into the Tiber. Formosus's supporters later deposed Stephen and put him in jail, where he was strangled.
This is always a fun one. One Pope exhumes another Pope and outright declares all the previous Pope's actions null and void.
So on and so forth.
I won't mention the Popes that were married and/or had children.
-------------------
Now your response will be "those were infallible statements," but that is shifting the goalpost. These are examples of the Pope, as the claimed head of the church, teaching errors and being documented by Roman Catholics themselves.
What comfort do you offer to those who actually followed the popes words and burned heretics? Do we just say "oops sorry?" What about the heretics who were burned? The Pope as the head of the Church taught error. That is unavoidable. Whether you deem it to not be infallible, the proclaimed source of truth was wrong and has had to be corrected over and over.
It's not uncharitable to point these out either.
--------------------
This post is getting long enough, so I'll make a couple brief points on councils.
First, we have a whole subset of councils called "Robber Councils" for a reason. Sure the claim will be that those were all in error and that's why they were deemed what they are, but that's a lot like saying "The winners tell the history."
Second, the most obvious council that faces disagreement is Nicaea 2.
First, it's in opposition to the Council of Elvira (~305 AD).
Canon 36 say: "It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls."
Second, Nicaea 2 was actually a Council called in response to another council..The Council of Hieria. It's deemd uncanonical, though interestingly 338 Bishops attended. This wasn't some small council.
Third, The Council of Frankfurt repudiated Nicaea 2
(canons aren't online as far as I can find, but New Advent (which is as pro-Rome as possible) says the following):
Link:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06236a.htm"In the first of its fifty-six canons the council condemned
Adoptionism, and in the second repudiated the
Second Council of Nicaea (787), which, according to the faulty Latin translation of its Acts (see
CAROLINE BOOKS), seemed to
decree that the same kind of worship should be paid to images as to the
Blessed Trinity, though the Greek text clearly distinguishes between
latreia and
proskynesis. The remaining fifty-four canons dealt with
metropolitan jurisdiction,
monastic discipline,
superstition, etc."
Again, not going to be the only one showing his work, but these are clear examples that both the Popes taught errors and Councils contradict each other.