Papal infallibility was an idea that cam from the Early Church.
False you already tried to prove this with your Catholic website which I’m guessing you didn’t read. The early church doesn’t not indicate papal infallibility. Hence even Peter being corrected by Paul in the Bible. Why would Paul have jurisdiction over Peter if Peter is infallible?
Just because Pope Honorius was a heretic doesn't make Papal Infallibility wrong.
Yes it does. You had a formally condemned pope,the gates of hell prevailed against your supreme pontiff even early on in the church.
We don’t even have to get into the child sex trafficking, money laundering for intelligence agencies, playing musical chairs with child abusers, tunnels under the Vatican to brothels, or any of the other examples of the gates of hell routinely prevailing over Rome. Maybe it’s a sign to come back to the faith of the early church.
You have a communist pope, you’ll figure it out when you’re ready.
Fraternal rebuke doesn't mean one has jurisdiction over another... We can all rebuke and admonish our superiors if they commit public sin.
The gates of Hell never prevailed because the Pope never changed Catholic teaching. The Pope has to OFFICIALLY change Catholic teaching in Faith or Morals for the Gates of Hell to prevail. This didn't happen with Popes Honorius, Vigilius, John XXII, nor the post Vat II Popes. They may say heretical things, but no heresy has been officially and formally promulgated.
Sergius promulgated the belief that Jesus Christ had two natures but one will, known as Monothelitism.
So you blame the pope for following the error of the patriarch of Constantinople. Why didn’t the pope decide if he’s supreme, why did he fall into the same error?
This is the difference we view the church as the pillar of truth not any fallible man.
False you already tried to prove this with your Catholic website which I’m guessing you didn’t read. The early church doesn’t not indicate papal infallibility. Hence even Peter being corrected by Paul in the Bible. Why would Paul have jurisdiction over Peter if Peter is infallible?
Yes it does. You had a formally condemned pope,the gates of hell prevailed against your supreme pontiff even early on in the church.
We don’t even have to get into the child sex trafficking, money laundering for intelligence agencies, playing musical chairs with child abusers, tunnels under the Vatican to brothels, or any of the other examples of the gates of hell routinely prevailing over Rome. Maybe it’s a sign to come back to the faith of the early church.
You have a communist pope, you’ll figure it out when you’re ready.
Fraternal rebuke doesn't mean one has jurisdiction over another... We can all rebuke and admonish our superiors if they commit public sin.
The gates of Hell never prevailed because the Pope never changed Catholic teaching. The Pope has to OFFICIALLY change Catholic teaching in Faith or Morals for the Gates of Hell to prevail. This didn't happen with Popes Honorius, Vigilius, John XXII, nor the post Vat II Popes. They may say heretical things, but no heresy has been officially and formally promulgated.
Why do you think Honorius got anathematized?
He taught the heresy of monothelitism and was posthumously anahematized for teaching improperly his whole career.
He literally got popped for changing Catholic teachings during his reign.
No, he was anathematized for allowing Sergius's heresy.
Monothelitism was never formally taught by Rome.
Sergius promulgated the belief that Jesus Christ had two natures but one will, known as Monothelitism.
So you blame the pope for following the error of the patriarch of Constantinople. Why didn’t the pope decide if he’s supreme, why did he fall into the same error?
This is the difference we view the church as the pillar of truth not any fallible man.