Aloysius Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Non-Catholics have taken Pope Zosimus and tried to USE him to proove Infallibility wrong. Well then, let's discuss what really happened with Pope St. Zosimus (may he pray for us to God). This is the quote dairygirl4u2c asserted about Pope St. Zosimus [quote]The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made.[/quote] [b][u]Pope Zosimus[/u] [/b] It would be nice if this artical provided specifics to what it was mentioning. Well, perhaps it refers to the fact that Pope Innocent I condemned Coelestius, who was a pelagian. Coelestius made a confession of faith and claimed to accept the doctrine in Pope Innocent I's letter before Pope Zosimus. Based on this, Pope Zosimus declared that it was not certain whether or not Coelestius still believed false doctrines. This is an excerpt from the documentation of Coelestius's trial:[list] [*]"In the libellus which he gave at Rome when he had explained his faith from the Trinity to the Resurrection (about all of which no one had asked him, and as to which no question had been raised), when he arrived at the crucial question he said: 'If any questions have arisen beyond that which is of faith, about which there should be contention among many, I have not decided these matters with definite authority as the originator of any dogma, but what I have received from the fountain of the Prophets and Apostles, we offer to be approved by the judgment of your Apostleship; in order that if by chance any error of ignorance has crept in upon us being but men, it may be corrected by your decision.' Here you see that in this introduction he takes care that, if any error should be found, he may seem to have erred not in faith, but in questions which are beyond the faith." [/list]THIS is why Pope Zosimus said that Coelestius was no longer in heresy. Pope Zosimus did not err in declaring doctrine, but rather Coelestius lied to Pope Zosimus claiming to be in submission to the Church, and Pope Zosimus erred by believing him and declaring that he was no longer a heretic. So clearly this does not touch the infallibility of doctrine. Pope Zosimus erred by believing a liar and admitting him back into the Church. This had nothing to do with doctrine, St. Zosimus did not endorse Pelagianism which was already infallibly condemnd by Pope Innocent I. Perhaps this vague quote refers to when Pelagius formulated a deceiving confession of faith which convinced Pope Zosimus and an assembly he had called together that Pelagius had turned orthodox. This was only because Pelagius worded it to SOUND orthodox when in fact he remained clinging to his heresy regarding free will. Again, a sly tongue fooled Zosimus into accepting Pelagius as an orthodox person, when he was in fact not. Zosimus never condoned Pelagianism. Seeing as in neither of these cases Zosimus condoned Pelagianism, it is not a contradiction that in his Tractoria he renounced it as heresy. Here Pope St. Zosimus in not reversing any former teaching, but rather recognizing that Pelagius and Coelestius simply tricked him into thinking they had converted away from heresy. He did not reverse the teaching of Pope Innocent I, nor did he reverse his own teaching. He was actually a crucial player in the fight against pelegianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 9, 2004 Author Share Posted August 9, 2004 Bump, dairygirl, you put up an artical attempting to discredit Pope St. Zosimus. I here argue against the validity of those points. are you prepared to defend your artical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 10, 2004 Author Share Posted August 10, 2004 [color=blue][b]Bump. Claims were made against Pope St. Zosimus, either concede that he did not disgrace the chair of Peter or proove that he did somehow.[/b][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 I was never really trying to defend it, just looking into it. But I do agree with what you have to say so far. And if it makes you happy, I concede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 10, 2004 Author Share Posted August 10, 2004 thank you. i give you mad props for admitting that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Dairy Girl i must say this honestly i admired that you admit when a good case is made and sold. I wish i had the guts to do that many a time as well. Thats brave. -Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 (edited) [quote] The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. [/quote] for further defense against this claim, please see the following article: --[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm"][b]Pope Zosimus and Pelagianism[/b][/url] Edited August 10, 2004 by phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now