Intended Catholic Dictatorship

You misrepresent the idea of papal infallibility, and you misrepresent what Cardinal Newman

First, to answer OR -> since the declaration, there has been only 1 instance of it's invocation, but if one takes this back in time as did Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz who made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

>> "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
>> Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
>> Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
>> Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
>> Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
>> Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
>> Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

Or, as outlined by the CDF (paragraph 11)

At no point does it mean that a Pope can tell us which hip hop artist will next grab a mic at the VMA (ok,I'm a few months late, but I just saw the youtube clip!).

In layman's terms papal infallibility is that, thanks to the grace of the Holy Spirit, when the Pope solemnly declares (after it has obtained approval in council) to The Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation, he, under the Holy Spirit's protection is preserved from even the possibility of theological, dogmatic error.

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question.

Even you point out bad popes, making the common mistake differentiating between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. What is extraordinary is that the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare

Some posters wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This is an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Some other non-Catholics think infallibility means some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

Some posters talk about Pope Honorius I. He became pope on October 27, 625, two days after the death of his predecessor, Boniface V. His pontificate was marked by considerable missionary work centered on England, especially Wessex.

A very clear note is that Honorius never issued a dogmatic decree in regards to the controversy of Christ's wills, remember what we said of "A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching" --> like any teacher who teaches

If you read any records, church or secular, you see that simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

In order for the case of Honorius to disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, it is not sufficient to claim the pope was a monothelite. It must be demonstrated (which it cannot) that the pope taught (note: taught, explicitly) heresy as defined by Vatican I (The pope must exercise his office as "teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," and he must define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be "held by the whole Church" (Pastor aeternus 4, iv, quoted in The Church Teaches, John F. Clarkson, S.J. et. al, ed., 102). .

Sergius wrote to Honorius to obtain not a dogmatic teaching but a rule of silence that Sergius misrepresented as necessary to end needless wrangling over disputed expressions. Honorius, without further investigation, accepted Sergius's presentation at face value, seeing the dispute as "an idle question" to be left to the "grammarians who sell formulae of their own invention" (Scripta fraternitatis vestrae, quoted by Fernand Hayward in A History of the Popes, 90). It is no surprise therefore, that Honorius wrote that, "on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man" (Scripta dilectissimi filii quoted by William Shaw Kerr in A Handbook on the Papacy 196, emphasis added).

These words make it clear Honorius did not address the nascent heresy as the "teacher of all Christians" defining what ought to be believed. On the contrary, the pope declines to define anything and merely follows Sergius's suggestion in saying neither expression should be spoken of.

The proper question is whether Honorius proclaimed a doctrine to be "held by the whole Church." The answer to this question is clearly "No." Honorius urged a rule of silence, not a rule of faith. His letters, which anathematized nothing, were intended for a few Eastern bishops and were unknown in the West until after his death. They were hardly the sort of documents with which a pope communicates his intent to bind the whole Church to a solemn dogmatic definition.

"Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin" (Scripta fraternitatis vestrae quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:453).

Though used by the monothelites, the expression "one will" also admits of an orthodox interpretation. In Ins letter to the Romans, Paul writes of two wills at work within man—the "inner being" which delights in the law of God on the one hand, and the "different law" at work in the body which makes one a prisoner to the law of sin on the other (cf. Romans 6:21-23). Such a conflict of wills within Jesus Christ's human nature is impossible, as Honorius explains, since God assumed that human nature that existed before the fall—"the nature which was created before sin"—and not the human nature that was corrupted by sin. Honorius uses "one will" in relation to Christ's human nature and not, as did the monothelites, to his person. If Honorius had denied a human will in Christ, there would have been no need to make such a distinction between the wills of pre- and post-fallen human nature.

The reasoning of the detractors is as follows: The monothelites cited Honorius therefore Honorius must be a monothelite. This is no proof at all. The monothelites cited not only Honorius, they—like heretics throughout the ages—cited various scriptures and Church fathers to support their position.

The truth is, although monothelites such as Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, did cite Honorius after his death, the Pope had orthodox defenders who insisted upon his orthodoxy and rejected the attempts of heretics to misuse his words. Maximus the Confessor, who was martyred by the monothelites, wrote that heretics "lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause" (Ad Petrum illustrem, quoted in the online Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent). Pope John IV (640-642) defended Honorius, saying he meant only to deny, "contrary wills of mind and flesh" (Apologia pro Honorio Papa, quoted by Joseph Costanzo, S.J., in The Historical Credibility of Hans Kung, 105).

In his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho (678— 681), asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and all of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, "have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 328—339). Honorius did indeed resist the heresy insofar as he urged "silence" with regard to the expression "one operation," which he rightly considered Eutychian.

Though Agatho asserted the orthodoxy of all his predecessors and the infallibility of the apostolic see, he explicitly left open the possibility that a pope is nonetheless liable to judgment should he "neglect to preach the truth" to the faithful. Agatho thereby provided the tacit basis for the condemnation of Honorius on these grounds: that by neglecting to preach the truth, Honorius left the Lord's flock exposed to ravaging wolves, as indeed the monothelite Eastern Patriarchs were and under whom the faithful suffered for many years.

The council's judgment is consistent with Agatho's letter. It made a distinction between the fault of Sergius and Cyrus on the one hand and that of Honorius on the other. A reading of the condemnation reveals Honorius is neither grouped with nor shares the same fault of those "whose doctrines" were execrated—i.e., Sergius, Cyrus, etc. While Honorius is anathematized "with them"—that is, sharing a similar punishment—it is not because of any doctrine attributable to him. Honorius is condemned because of what the council "found written by him to Sergius;" in which letters Honorius "followed his [Sergius's] view" about keeping silent and thus "confirmed his [Sergius's] impious doctrines" (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 343).

Likewise, Pope Leo II (682-683) faulted Honorius because he "did not endeavor to preserve" the faith and for having "permitted" it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine (Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111-112). Elsewhere, Leo blames "Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence" (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added). In sum, Honorius failed to teach.

Honorius was condemned for negligence. Whether two or two thousand subsequent councils ratify that sentence is immaterial, since such a sentence is not incompatible with the doctrine of papal infallibility. With regard to the papal oath, it stated only that Honorius was condemned because he had "added fuel to their [the monothelites'] wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ibid., 455)—a charge which does not substantially differ from earlier statements that Honorius had fostered heresy by his negligence.

The sixth ecumenical council wrote to Agatho that its condemnations were in complete accordance with his letter— which, as seen above, stated all Agatho's predecessors were orthodox, none excepted. Therefore, the council, following Agatho, counted Honorius among orthodox believers.

The great Eastern anti-monothelite Maximus wrote that the apostolic see from Christ himself "received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world" (Ad Petrum illustrem, quoted in the online Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent; emphasis added). The Sixth Ecumenical Council, held in the East and comprised almost in its entirety of Eastern bishops, addressed Agatho as the "bishop of the first see of the Universal Church" and received his letter—and thus its claims—as "divinely written as by the chief of the apostles" (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 349-350).

As an aside, what IS Monothelism? It tries to understand how divine and human relate in the person of Jesus. It taught that Jesus had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the more common Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures.

What was the historical background? In the 5 century AD there were debates on the nature of Jesus Christ. Although the Church had already dogmatically defined that Christ was the Son of God, just what his exact nature was was open to debate. The Church had declared the notion that Jesus was not fully divine heretical in the 4th century during the debates over Arianism and had declared that he was God the Son become human. However, as he was both God and man, there now emerged a dispute over exactly how the human and divine natures of Christ actually existed within the person of Christ.

The Christological definition of Chalcedon, as accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran churches, is that Christ remains in two distinct natures, yet these two natures come together within His one hypostasis. This position was opposed by the Monophysites who held that Christ possessed one nature only. The term Monophysitism covered two specific versions of this form of Christology. The first, Eutychianism, held that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature. As described by Eutyches, his human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea", and therefore his nature was really divine.[2] The second is referred to as Miaphysitism, which contends that, after the union, Christ is in one theanthropic (human-divine) nature, which is generated from the union of two natures, the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. It is this version of Monophysitism to which the Oriental Orthodox churches currently adhere.

This internal division was dangerous for the Byzantine Empire, which was under constant threat from external enemies, especially as many of the areas most likely to be lost to the empire were the regions that were in favour of Monophysitism, and who considered the religious hierarchy at Constantinople to be heretics only interested in crushing their faith.[3] In these provinces, the Non-Chalcedonians were far more numerous than the Chalcedonians. In Egypt for instance, some 30,000 Greeks of Chalcedonian persuasion were ranged against some five million Coptic Non-Chalcedonians.[4] Meanwhile, Syria and Mesopotamia were divided between Nestorianism and Jacobitism, while the religion of Armenia was wholly Cyrilline Non-Chalcedonian. Consequently the Monothelite teaching emerged as a compromise position. The Byzantine emperor Heraclius tried to unite all of the various factions within the Empire with this new formula that was more inclusive and more elastic. This approach was needed to win over the Non-Chalcedonians, since they, already believing Christ possessed a single nature, necessarily also believed that he held a single will. But it was unclear whether the Chalcedonians should believe in Christ’s human and divine energy and/or will as well as his human and divine nature, because the Ecumenical Councils had made no ruling on this subject. A ruling in favour of this new doctrine would provide common ground for the Non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonians to come together, as the Non-Chalcedonians could agree that Jesus had two natures if he only had one will, and some Chalcedonians could agree that Jesus had one will if he had two natures.

Patriarch Sergius died by the end of 638, and his replacement Pyrrhus was also a devoted Monothelite and a close friend of Heraclius. The two remaining patriarchs in the east also gave their approval to the doctrine now referred to as Monothelitism, and so it looked as if Heraclius would finally heal the divisions in the Imperial church.[15] Unfortunately he hadn’t counted on the Popes at Rome. During that same year of 638, Pope Honorius I too had died. His successor Pope Severinus condemned the Ecthesis outright, and so was forbidden his seat until 640. His successor Pope John IV also rejected the doctrine completely, leading to a major schism between the eastern and western halves of the Chalcedonian Church. When news reach Heraclius of the Pope’s condemnation, he was already old and ill, and the news only hastened his death, declaring with his dying breath that the controversy was all due to Sergius, and that the Patriarch had pressured him to give his unwilling approval to the Ecthesis.

After all this going around the Third council of Constantinople in 680-681 FINALLY declared Monothelism heretical -- after nearly 80 years of back and forth!

Here's the problem (as I see it) in a nutshell. Within Catholicism, the definition of "outermost circle of Christianity" is the two-pronged "apostolic succession/papal submission" and "valid Eucharist" (transubstantiation). All other doctrinal issues, while not ignored, are secondary considerations.

That's fairly accurate, but I would say apostolic succession-valid Eucharist is one and the same category, as one cannot be without the other; and universal papal jurisdiction is the other.

In this mindset, if you're a "real" Christian you must be Catholic. And if you're not Catholic, you're at best a member of an "ecclesial community" (Protestants), of a "defective church" (Orthodox), or not a Christian at all.

Again, this is pretty close but not quite close enough. The Catholics are not denying that mainline Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox are "real" Christians. If you are baptized in the name of Trinity with triple pouring of the water, or triple submersion, then you are a "real" or Trinitarian Christian. Your Church may be "defective" or a "Christian assembly" rather than a church, but that's an ecclesial and theological issue.

Thus, the mindset of Catholicism towards the corporate exercise of Christianity is exclusivist by design. You're either (already) Catholic, or you're well outside the safety zone.

As far as the Church is concerned yes. You can't be Catholic "a little bit."

I myself can find fruitful, common ground with any and all Trinitarian Christians (Trinitarianism being my personal "outermost circle" for defining Christianity

The Founding Fathers, many of whom were Uniatrists or Deists, but also Catholics and Anglicans as well as mostly Protestants, found a way to include everyone in a fruitful, common groundwork although you had someone like Thomas Jefferson accuse Paul of being the corruptor of the teachings of Jesus or deny the divinity of Jesus and still be counted among "Christians."

Sure, we might argue doctrine, we might argue about what are "doctrines of demons" or what is the "gospel of Satan", but those are inter-family squabbles as far as many of us are concerned. Catholicism and Orthodoxy cannot reach across the aisle and say the same, IMO.

Correct, because the Church never taught such things and will say that such "doctrines" are not apart of genuine ancient Christianity or tradition. The Orthodox, especially, are least interested in reaching across the aisle and corrupting what they see as the Church which followed a straight and narrow path even through unspeakable adversities.

Also, your statement on Limbo is historically and utterly wrong. In the Middle Ages theologians came up with the theological construct of limbo, which never has been a defined doctrine. Limbo does get around two sticking points: the absence of sanctifying grace, which implies no possibility of heaven, and the absence of personal guilt, which implies no hell. Unbaptized infants die with neither, so it might seem that they are destined neither for heaven nor hell.

the theory of limbo has never been a defined doctrine of the Church, the Church has never rejected it. The official teaching of the Church on the fate of unbaptized children is found in the Catechism:

"As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved and Jesus’ tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism" (CCC 1261).

What does Calvin say? He says that those unborn, unbaptised "elect" babies go to heaven. Does this mean that those killed in abortions are all, according to Calvin, "elect"? Does Calvinism them logically say that it should be wiser to "kill 'em all" since that would make them elect and go straight to heaven?

Now THAT is satanic

can you give any instance of ant protestant coming on an open catholic- noncatholic thread to dispute calvinist doctrine?

Calvin came down on the side that since it is God who determines the length of our days, time in the womb, time outside the womb, it is a benevolent and merciful perspective to believe that all babies who die go to heaven.

Including all babies killed by abortion?

Do note, I asked you to prove your statement that there are two contradictory comments in the catechism

You gave a link to one comment, not to anything that contradicts it. Please can you give an example to prove your statement that there are contradictory statements?

Keep in mind that EVERY time God changed a person's name in the Bible it was accompanied by a significant new leadership role. God only changed ONE name in the New Testament and that was Peter.

Abram = Abraham, Jacob = Israel, etc.

Nice try -- the link to the Times of london has no actual quotes from the Vatican, only a MainStreamMedia (MSM) spin. If the pope says he's going to clarify, the Times says "Oh, he's going to repeal a centuries old dogma" --> you do realise where the gay-friendly times is getting with this, right? First they make this false statement, then they would say "let's repeal the laws against gay marriages"

and you support them?

That is a promise that all believers cling to, as we pray for our children . But should it not be so, we know that God is the just Judge and we will be at peace with His judgement

So do you mean that in Calvinist thought it's possible that some aborted or miscarried babies are not "elect" and are going to burn in hell?

Does Calvinism them logically say that it should be wiser to "kill 'em all" since that would make them elect and go straight to heaven?

No, you just said it.

Now THAT is satanic

Then stop saying it.

I think you’ve got it, alex.

enlightening post.

And your tag is hilarious.

True — that is why the Aaronic line of priests was inaugurated — individual aaronics may have been bad or even evil, but the line was pure as ordained by God.

"A. Christ descended into Limbo to preach to the souls who were in prison -- that is, to announce to them the joyful tidings of their redemption. " --> That is the "limbo", the unknown place where the righteous who died were before Christ opened the gates of Heaven. This is separated from the "I don't know" place of unbaptised infants

The first "I don't know" place is because we do not believe that holy men like Samuel were/are in hell before Christ opened the gates of heaven and since Christ WENT there to preach to them, that was a definite "place". The second "I don't know" is to simply answer where do unbaptised infants go -- "I don't know, BUT I know that God is merciful and Kind and loves Children, so my belief is that they are in heaven"

Your post makes no sense.

It would be good if you actually did read the catholic encyclopedia on this:

The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

We do not define what "children's limbo" means because we "don't know" -- it may be anything, but we know that God is love, God loves Children and Children who die without sinning are only tainted with the sin of Adam, unlike the rest of us.

You said that some Calvinists believe that all unbaptised infants go to heaven as they are "elect", right? Or is that ALL Calvinists?

Calvinism then logically says that it should be wiser to "kill 'em all" since that would make them elect and go straight to heaven?