Replies

Perhaps you are confused. The Church founded by Christ is headed by His Vicar on earth. No teachings have EVER changed.

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. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). (This means that Honorious made doctrinal statements which are contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.) He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have "infallible" popes condemning another "infallible" pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished "infallible" papal decrees and the decrees of two "infallible" councils.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption of Mary originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have "infallible" popes declaring a doctrine to be a heresy. Then on November 1, 1950, we have Pope Pius XII (another "infallible" pope) declaring the same doctrine to be official Roman Catholic doctrine, which all Catholics are required to believe.

So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of "infallible" declarations of popes). But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of the "infallible" declaration of Pope Pius XII).

In 1864, Pope Pius IX "infallibly" declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is "insanity," "evil," "depraved," and "reprobate". He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII "infallibly" declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong.

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled "Declaration on Religious Liberty" which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion.

Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the "infallible" declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of "heretics," the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of Protestants.

Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1988). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with "a just penalty" if they allow their children to "be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion". The reference to baptism shows that this refers to Christian religions which are not Roman Catholic.

Here the Catholic Church is on the horns of a dilemma. If it says that people have a right to freedom of religion, then it admits that it is not infallible. If it says that it is infallible, then it admits that it really does not believe that people have a right to freedom of religion.

Your limited understanding of the Christian faith comes from not accepting the fullness of Truth

Don't insult me with your lies and call me a friend, unless like "absolute" and "truth" your preferred definitions hold the opposite in meaning. I am willing to discuss spiritual things with those under the power of Rome, but at least provide some truth if yuour are going to criticize others for not holding on to truth.

I'd like to try to answer your post. I'm not an expert, some I have vague recollections from high school Church History, others I've had to google. Before I begin answering though, you need to understand there are relatively few "infallible pronouncements" by popes. For instance, our current pope will write a letter to a governor to spare a killer's life. We Catholics can agree or disagree - it is not a matter of doctrine. Certainly, two of the most obvious infallible doctrinal pronouncements are the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

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.

Pope Zosimus did reverse pronouncements. But before he spoke ex cathedra (i.e. infallibly) he reversed himself again. When he finally did speak with doctrinal authority, he concurred with the previous pope. Please see the Catholic encyclopedia's entry for Zosimus for a detailed explanation (www.newadvent.org).

Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). (This means that Honorious made doctrinal statements which are contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.)

Honorious was declared anathema not for teaching heresy, but for refusing to contradict the heresy taught by Sergius.

Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

Gelasius did not declare the assumption of Mary a heresy - he declared Gnostic writings, including the "Transitu Mariae". Hormisdas concurred that indeed the gnostics were heretics. JPII would agree.

I could find no records of infallible pronouncements by Pius IX or Leo XII.

DATE, ORIGIN, FOUNDERS OF VARIOUS CHURCHES
(adapted from The Faith of Millions)

Name Year Founder(s) Origin
Lutheran 1524 Martin Luther Germany
Episcopalian 1534 Henry VIII England
Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland

Baptist 1600 John Smyth Amsterdam
Congregational 1600 Robert Brown England
Methodist Episcopal 1739 John & England
Charles Wesley

United Brethen 1800 Phillip Otterbein
& Martin Boehm Maryland

Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alex-
ander Campbell Kentucky

Mormons 1830 Joseph Smith New York
Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London
Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston
Four Square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple
McPherson Los Angeles

Catholic 33 Jesus Christ Jerusalem

The claim of many Christians that it is the Bible which fully guides them and provides the final say in matters of their faith is inconsistent and cannot stand in the face of reason:
In fact … the Protestant had no conceivable right to base any arguments on the inspiration of the Bible, for the inspiration of the Bible was a doctrine which had been believed, before the Reformation, on the mere authority of the Church; it rested on exactly the same basis as the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Protestantism repudiated Transubstantiation, and in doing so repudiated the authority of the Church; and then, without a shred of logic, calmly went on believing in the inspiration of the Bible, as if nothing had happened! Did they suppose that Biblical inspiration was a self-evident fact, like the axioms of Euclid? (The Belief of Catholics,106).
As Knox indicates, not only does the Bible itself not teach that it is the final and sole authority in the Christian life, this belief ignores the historical facts as to how we received the Bible and by whose authority the canon of Scripture has been set. The Catholic Faith is a seamless garment which demands “all or nothing”; if someone accepts the authority of Scripture, it is logical that they, like Ronald Knox, must also accept the authority of the Catholic Church — it is both necessary and consistent.

(This article was originally published in a different form in the November/December 1999 This Rock, a publication of Catholic Answers: www.catholic.com.)

'Don't insult me with your lies and call me a friend, unless like "absolute" and "truth" your preferred definitions hold the opposite in meaning. I am willing to discuss spiritual things with those under the power of Rome, but at least provide some truth if yuour are going to criticize others for not holding on to truth.'

Unfortunately behavior often begets behavior. You Sir, are a liar. You intentionally distort history in an attempt to prove your a false premise.

Each of your examples is a distortion of reality. Perhaps you need to check some Catholic sources and fair minded non Catholic sources before you assert you professional anti Catholic bias.