Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does the Case of Pope Honorius Disprove Papal Infalliability?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One Bad Pig
    I'm not interested in joining this debate, but I'm interested in the criteria laid out by Vatican I for an infallible statement. Do you have a translation of the relevant material from Vatican archives you can share?

    ETA: [The thread to which TT is referring is here, though you'll have to wade through many posts on other topics to read the relevant conversation there.]
    Last edited by One Bad Pig; 09-27-2014, 09:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • 37818

    Would it be appropriate to your question to ask, the basis of "the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?" [The reason I ask, is from my point of view it has no basis.]

    If it is appropriate, please give the steps to come to its conclusion. The first step must be valid. Then the next. Etc.

    Leave a comment:

  • Does the Case of Pope Honorius Disprove Papal Infalliability?

    As a lot of people know, I debated this topic once before in another thread that I created, though, I felt that I didn't fully lay this issue to rest, so I'll do so now.

    As I already linked to it in the previously mentioned thread, this article: Does a valiant job at trying to prove its case that Honorius did not actually 'teach' the heresy, but simply let it be taught, and thus enabled it.

    However, with further consideration, I have to say that the documents of Honorius himself, and the Council do, in fact, state that Pope Honorius taught the heresy. Though, one has to know that while this certain Papal decree did address matters of doctrine, not every Papal statement in such matters is infallible, it must fulfill a certain set of criteria before it becomes infallible.

    Now the criteria officially stated in Vatican 1 is that the statement must be an official, carefully constructed, dogmatic statement concerning doctrine of faith or morals, meant to be binding to the whole Church, and it must be made ex cathedra. Though detractors will note that the Church did not actually have access to the Seat of Peter in the 6th century, and thus, this could not have been part of the criteria for an authoritative, infallible statement, this, is actually true. However, another criteria was used for the Pope to authoritatively addressing a doctrinal statement, so the question to ask is, did Pope Honorius' fulfill this criteria?

    The answer? No, he did not.

    The criteria the Popes of Honorius' days had to fulfill when making an authoritative, infallible, dogmatic doctrinal statement, was that:

    1) The Pope must call the Roman Synod to confirm the teaching with the Council, with the intention to define a dogmatic teaching to be held by the full Church.


    2) The Pope must verbally, clearly, and, with full intention, invoke his full apostolic authority of Saint Peter, to proclaim a dogmatic teaching to be held by the full Church.

    A simple reading of Pope Honorius' letter, and a simple look at the history behind the incident, shows that he did neither. Thus, this is not an issue that can be used against the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
    Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-10-2014, 06:39 PM.

Related Threads


Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 05-26-2022, 08:29 AM
15 responses
Last Post Thoughtful Monk