[monkfan]

Since the Orthodox Church considers Papal infallibility to be a heresy, so of course THEY consider Popes who believe in in fallibility to be heretics. But you are using the accusation that Popes have been heretics to prove your case that the Pope is not infallible. In other words, your support for your assertion that popes are fallible is nothing more than your assertion that popes are fallible.

Let's start with the well documented fact that Pope Honorius was condemned for heresy by the 6th Ecumenical Council. This was affirmed by every subsequent Pope until the 11th century. Now Rome would like to pretend it wasn't so. No doubt it undermines the infallibility claim. Additionally, we have the issue of Pope John VIII's condemnation of the Filioque, also reversed in the 11th century. Begs the question: "will the real infallible pope please stand up?" Fact is, there aren't any. Worse yet, that the Filioque has been formally condemned in an Ecumenical Council means that every single pope since then who affirms it is a heretic.

And if you will pardon my observation, by your own logic, your support for your assertion that popes are infallible is nothing more than your assertion that popes are infallible.

>>"First off, the assertion is already "out there" and is not mine, per se."<<

You wrote it; it is now your assertion. If you cannot support it, do not assert it. At best, stating information that you have no reason to believe is true is gossip; at worst, slander.

Yes, it is my assertion by adoption, not per se. Point being, my assertion is not some off-the-cuff, born-in-a-vaccuum, i-need-a-new-reason-to-hate-Rome-so-i'll-make-one-up accusation. A good deal has been written on this subject.

>>"I do not, at this moment, have any documentation in my possession that I can utilize to expedite your request." <<

Ya know what? I don't need documentation. I just need to know why you believe that. An apparently, it's more a lousy reason (as mentionned above.)

Ya. see above.

>>"I'm sure it's all just a misunderstanding." <<

No, it's not. It's an ugly slander, and I'm scandalized by the fact that there is an apostle of Christ who has incorporated vicious slander such as that into a sacrament.

Good grief. Don't let the sarcasm hit you on the way out, Sherlock.

>>"What appears to be a lot of shifting and hem-hawing (don't bother with a dictionary), about what has been stated infallibly and what has not, is less than completely helpful." <<

Whatever a dictionary stated, when the Church proclaimed the doctrine of infallibility, it did so by defining what they meant by infallibility. (Or, you might say, under what conditions infallibility was present.) It's not the Catholic Church's fault that her enemies promote lies about what the Catholic Church said; her statements are clear.

"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." - Vatican I

Is this the clear statement you refer to?

[dangus]

Councils did not condemn Pope Honorius for heresy, they condemned a doctrine he supposedly allowed to be taught as heresy. Huge difference. As for the slander about Pope Honorius, I refer you to the book "Pope Fiction," which explains what really happened. However, even if the slander against him were to be found true, I doubt anyone could seriously interpret this as being coveerd by the definition of infallible:

Even presuming the worst slander, Pope Honorius did not mandate that the false doctrine be held as true; he stated that it may be taught. This would have been done under severe duress, and with no intention of teaching the flock.

As for the condemnation of the Filioque, I believe you refer to a Pope who instructed that it not be said. This is quite a different thing than declaring that it is false; he did so in attempt to make peace with the schismatics who opposed it. Of course, the fact that those schismatics now use the olive branch to lash the papacy says much more about the schismatics than the papacy. Paul VI instructed that masses be ordinarily conducted in the vernacular; that doesn't mean that Latin masses were heretical.

And, um, yes, that is (part of) the definition of "infallible" to which I refer. Reads pretty clear to me that they did not mean "impeccable" or "inerrant." There's a little problemmatic fuzz as to how directly the Pope has to invoke infallibility. (i.e., is an encyclical automatically infallible, or does the Pope specifically need to say that the content of the encyclical states teachings which are obligatory for the faithful?)