Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term

Homiletic & Pastoral Review ^ | March 30, 2012 | REV. JOHN T. FORD CSC

[NYer]

Although papal infallibility is commonly found in popular conversation, how well the term is understood is another matter.

“Christ giving Peter the keys of the kingdom” by Pietro Perugino

As Danny Garland, Jr., pointed out in his recent article on “The Development of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility,” the term “papal infallibility” has a centuries-old history that stretches from Peter John Olivi, in the thirteenth century, through John Henry Newman, in the nineteenth century, and down to the present. ¹

In addition to being a well-known term with a lengthy history, “papal infallibility” is also highly symbolic: for Roman Catholics, it has often been a badge of self-identity—a way of distinguishing themselves from Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants. Simultaneously, the pope’s infallibility has been a counter-symbol to those Christians who do not recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Indeed, for many non-Catholic Christians, the term symbolizes everything that is wrong with Roman Catholicism.

Although papal infallibility is commonly found in popular conversation, how well the term is understood is another matter. One of the most entertaining discussions of the issue is found in a pub-scene in James Joyce’s Dubliners, where a group is stoutly discussing and strenuously defending the infallible teaching of the pope. In Joyce’s story, Mr. Cunningham summarized the doctrine with Hibernian exuberance: ‘But the astonishing thing is this: Not one of them (the popes), not the biggest drunkard, not the most . . . out-and-out ruffian, not one of them ever preached ex cathedra a word of false doctrine. Now isn’t that an astonishing thing?” ²

Cunningham went on to claim that one of the two prelates who voted against Pastor Aeternus at the Council was a German Cardinal, by the name of Dowling—presumably meaning Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799-1890), a German priest-professor at the University of Munich, who was not at Vatican I, but was excommunicated in 1871 for refusing to accept its teachings about infallibility. ³ Although Cunningham and companions can be credited for knowing the essentials of the doctrine, their theological method makes historians and theologians wince—at least if they know anything concerning the history and teaching of the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) about “infallibility.” As John Tracy Ellis once remarked: “It is doubtful that any event in the history of the modern Church ever gave rise to a greater flow of misinformation than the [First] Vatican Council.” ⁴

Unfortunately, Ellis was all too right. First of all, contrary to popular belief, Vatican I did not really define “infallibility,” at least, not in the sense of stating precisely what infallibility is. Rather, the Council described how infallibility is operative. What the Council actually did was to specify the conditions required for pope to exercise this authority of infallibility. He must: (1) Rely on the divine assistance promised to Peter; (2) Act as pastor and teacher of all Christians; and, (3) Invoke his supreme apostolic authority. In addition, the Council limited the type of teachings that can be taught infallibly to matters of faith and morals, held by the whole Church. Only if all these conditions are fulfilled, does the pope “enjoy” the infallibility given by Christ to the Church. Then, and only then, can such papal definitions be deemed “irreformable.” ⁵

Although the First Vatican Council did not give a precise definition of the nature of infallibility, its operative description suggests that the Council understood it to be an endowment or charism given by Christ to the Church, which can only be exercised by the pope under specific conditions. A charism ensures that the teaching of the pope, in a particular instance, is immune from error. In describing this divinely given gift of infallibility, the Council’s list of conditions serves a double purpose. First, the list specifies the conditions which must be fulfilled (i.e., if a pope truly wants to mandate a particular doctrine by using the charism of infallibility). Secondly, the list of conditions enables Christians to recognize when a particular teaching is being infallibly taught.

The fact that the vast majority of Church teachings are not taught under this charism does not mean that such teachings are unimportant. They do not have the same importance as teachings deemed infallible, which have a greater binding force, precisely because they are closely connected with the essentials of revelation. ⁶ Moreover, while teaching the Gospel is a daily responsibility of the Church, only rarely has the Church invoked infallibility in fulfilling its teaching mission. In fact, since Vatican I’s declaration on infallibility in 1870, there is only one clear-cut instance where a pope has taught infallibly: Pope Pius XII’s 1950 proclamation of Our Lady’s assumption. ⁷

Meaning of Infallibilitas
What is absolutely crucial to any discussion about “infallibility”—but all too often overlooked—is what the term actually means. In English, “infallibility” has simply been taken from the Latin, infallibilitas, without specifying its meaning. ⁸ As a result, many people use the term in a rather elastic sense—often meaning “immunity from error” or “inability of making fundamental mistakes in religious matters.” While such casual explanations may suffice for popular understandings, they have the potential for creating misunderstandings, among Catholics and other Christians.

In contrast, German-speaking theologians have tried to translate the term. The most common translation has been Unfehlbarkeit—“inability of erring.” However, this term is not completely satisfactory, since it can have a pejorative connotation. Unfehlbar can describe a person who thinks that he is incapable of making mistakes, which is obviously not the case here. Accordingly, unfehlbar can make the not-too-subtle suggestion that it is humanly impossible for anyone, including the pope, to claim to exercise “infallibility.” Such a dismissive connotation underpinned Hans Küng’s attack on “infallibility” on the centennial of Vatican I in 1970. ⁹

Some German-speaking theologians, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, have opted for other understandings of infallibilitas, such as Letzverbindlichkeit, implying that a definitive response can be given to a specific doctrinal question. He states:

Heinrich Fries’ suggestion of Verbindlichkeit (binding power), which “at the highest level can become an ultimate binding power” (Letzverbindlichkeit) seems to me certainly worth considering. ¹⁰

The merit of interpreting infallibility as “ultimate binding power” or “judicial finality” is that a doctrinal decision pronounced under infallibility is final—at least, here and now, for this specific question, unless, and until, new questions are raised.

The understanding of “infallibility” as “judicial finality” has sometimes been popularized in American catechetics, comparing doctrinal declarations to decisions of the Supreme Court: whose decisions are judicially final as there is no higher court to which an appeal can be made. So, too, decisions under infallibility are ecclesially final, as a pope, or an ecumenical council, teaching with infallibility, has the definitive word about the specific doctrinal matter under discussion, with no further appeal possible. Nonetheless, change is possible in the future, that is, a new legal question may arise, resulting in the Supreme Court modifying a previous decision. Similarly, a new doctrinal question may be posed, resulting in a new doctrinal decision—not one contradicting the previous teaching, but one amplifying and developing it.¹¹

In other words, just as “judicial finality” does not preclude the possibility of the Supreme Court modifying a previous Supreme Court decision, infallibility does not exclude the possibility that a later pope, or later council, might amplify and develop it further, and in that sense, change the doctrinal decisions of their predecessors. In this respect, the answer to one doctrinal question sets the stage for further questions, and for further doctrinal decisions in the future. For example, the responses of the ecumenical councils of the early church to a series of Trinitarian and Christological controversies may be seen as instances of this continual dynamic of definitive decisions, followed by new doctrinal developments and consequent clarifications. 12

Papal Infallibility
While papal infallibility is routinely used, not only in common conversation, but also among theologians, it should be emphasized that the First Vatican Council did not use the term. In fact, Vatican I deliberately changed the heading of the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus. The original draft read: “the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff,” which was changed to: “the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.” The importance of this terminological shift is two-fold. First, it avoided the implication that the pope possesses infallibility in such a personal way that all his statements come under infallibility. While Catholics generally take this for granted today, at the time of the First Vatican Council, there were people who felt that any and every doctrinal statement by the pope was a matter of infallibility. The English theologian, W. G. Ward (1812-1882), for example, was famously reported as desiring a daily exercise of infallibility by the pope: “I should like a new Papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast.” 13

Secondly, the reason for preferring the term “infallible magisterium” is that infallibility can be exercised not only by the pope, but also by the college of bishops in union with him; as the Second Vatican Council taught:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. ¹⁴

Accordingly, just as Vatican I specified a list of conditions that the pope must follow in order to exercise the Church’s “infallible magisterium,” Vatican II indicated the conditions that the bishops must follow if their teaching is to be considered a collegial exercise of the Church’s “infallible magisterium.”

Infallible Statements
Another term, routinely used in discussions about infallibility, is the expression: “infallible statements.” Again, one must emphasize that this term was not used by Vatican I; rather, the Council used the term “irreformable definitions.” Many commentators on infallibility have ignored the difference, or have even claimed that the two expressions are equivalent. However, in addition to the need to respect the Church’s official terminology, a casual mixing of terms entails a number of philosophical and theological difficulties. For example, to speak of “infallible statements” suggests that such statements are absolute. In contrast, most philosophers insist that all statements are historically and culturally conditioned—expressions delimited by a particular time and place, and so not absolute, but relative. Similarly, many theologians today do not want to speak of “infallible statements” in order to avoid the doctrinal equivalent of “biblical literalism”: if God did not dictate the Bible word for word, why should one suggest that God dictates doctrinal decisions word for word?

Using terms, like “infallible statements” or “infallible teaching,” risks making the doctrine of infallibility both philosophically, and theologically, indefensible. It becomes an easy target for rejection. In effect, defenders of infallible statements, with the best of intentions, can inadvertently become the doctrine’s enemies, just as defenders of biblical literalism can unwittingly destroy the credibility of the Bible. In contrast, the expression “irreformable definitions” harmonizes readily with interpreting infallibility as “judicial finality” or “ultimate binding power” (Leztverbindlichkeit), as proposed by Hans Urs von Balthazar. ¹⁵ Key to this interpretation, however, is the meaning of “irreformable definitions”—which, at first glance, would seem to have the same meaning as “infallible statements” and, therefore, sharing the same philosophical and theological problems.

Why did the First Vatican Council use the term “irreformable definitions”? Apparently, the Council used this term as a way of rejecting Gallicanism—the seventeenth century doctrinal claim that all papal decisions are subject to the approval of local churches. According to the its proponents, no Vatican ecclesiastical decision could be considered authoritatively final unless, and until, it received the official approval of the Church in France. When Pastor Aeternus is read in the context of Gallicanism—an ecclesiological position well-known to the participants at Vatican I, though not so familiar today—the Council is effectively stating that definitions enunciated by the pope, when exercising infallibility, are not subject to any further approval or appeal. ¹⁶ In sum, “irreformable definitions” are not definitions that are philosophically “immutable” or theologically “unchangeable,” but decisions that are “judicially final.”

Lessons from History
The axiom that: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” has been repeatedly exemplified in the numerous discussions about infallibility in the half-century since Vatican II. There is not only a vast amount of material on the teaching of the two Vatican Councils about infallibility, but, unfortunately, many writers on infallibility have discussed what they presume the Church teaches, rather than carefully examining what the Church actually taught. ¹⁷ Sadly, there is a great deal that has been written about infallibility showing little or no familiarity with, much less critical analysis of, the texts of the two Vatican councils. Surprising as it may seem, some commentators have proposed interpretations about infallibility without analyzing the conciliar texts, much less studying the history of the Councils.

This failure to do the essential historical-theological homework means that many discussions of infallibility are like the conversation in Dubliners—eloquent and entertaining but exaggerated and often erroneous—leading some people to find “infallible statements” everywhere, while leading others to reject “infallibility” out of hand. Neither an outright denial of infallibility, nor an exaggerated extension of it to all church teachings, really serves anyone well. In effect, the many misconceptions about infallibility effectively distort the Church’s teaching, confuse believers, repel prospective converts, and create unnecessary ecumenical difficulties. ¹⁸

Pastoral Suggestions
Admittedly, changing terminology is always a difficult task. Like overcoming an addiction, one keeps falling back into accustomed habits of speech. Yet “papal infallibility” is one of those theological terms that has been misinterpreted so often that it might well be worth the effort to replace it with the terminology that Vatican I actually used: “the infallible magisterium of the pope.” Admittedly, this substitution requires a few more words, and people might be puzzled by the seemingly new terminology, but that reaction might be beneficial. This historical version might succeed in drawing people’s attention to what the two Vatican Councils actually taught, rather than what many people presume the Councils taught.

In addition, terms like “infallible statements” and “infallible teaching” might well be replaced with terms like “irreformable definitions” or “teachings of the Church’s infallible magisterium.” Again, such substitutions involve a few more words, but their use might prompt people to reflect on what the Church’s teaching really is. Last but not least, in explaining the doctrine of infallibility, it would seem not only appropriate, but extremely beneficial to use the short and succinct description of infallibility found in the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful.” ¹⁹

• Danny Garland, Jr., “The Development of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 111/9 (June/July, 2011): 48-54, at 50; hereafter cited: Garland, HPR 111/9. ↩
• James Joyce, Dubliners (New York: Penguin Books, 1967), 168. ↩
• Dubliners, 169-170. For a comparison of the views of Döllinger and Newman on infallibility, see Wolfgang Klausnitzer, Päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit bei Newman und Döllinger: Ein historisch‑systematischer Vergleich, Innsbrucker theologische Studien 6 (Innsbruck‑Vienna‑Munich: Tyrolia, 1980). ↩
• John Tracy Ellis, “The Church Faces the Modern World: The First Vatican Council,” in The General Council, edited by William McDonald (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 113‑145, at 135. ↩
• The First Vatican Council described conditions for papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus, in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum §3073-3075 at: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1957,_denziger,_enchiridion_symbolorum lt.pdf For English translation: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, 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 (mores) to be held (tenenda) 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 (pollere) 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.” ↩
• Although the prelates at Vatican I acknowledged that infallibility had been previously exercised by various popes, the Council did not provide a list of such teachings; accordingly, theologians differ about which papal decisions prior to Vatican I should be considered exercises of infallibility; for example, theologians disagree whether Unam Sanctam (1302) of Pope Boniface VIII should be considered an exercise of infallibility or not. ↩
• Although some theologians in the past considered canonizations an exercise of infallibility (e.g., Francis Kieda, “Infallibility of the Pope in His Decree of Canonization,” The Jurist 6 (1946): 401‑415), few do so today; this view in no way diminishes the importance of canonizations, but it does emphasize that the exercise of infallibility is limited to essential matters of Christian faith. ↩
• In fact, many theological terms in English have a Latin background: revelation, Trinity, magisterium, etc., however, if the meanings of revelation and Trinity are clear, some Latin terms, such as magisterium, have a spectrum of meanings in English. ↩
• Hans Küng, Infallible? An Inquiry, translated by Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971); unfortunately, the English translation did not always capture all the nuances of the German original. Among the numerous critiques of Küng’s Infallible?, see: Walter Brandmüller, “Hans Küng and Church History, Some Criti­cal Observations on ‘Infallible? An Inquiry’,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 72 (1972): 10‑24. ↩
• Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church, translated by Andrée Emery (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 221-222, cited by Garland, HPR 111/9: 52; the theological problem of translating infallibilitas into German is an often over-looked factor in the “infallibility debate” initiated by Hans Küng in 1970. ↩
• Like every comparison, this one has limitations; for example, Supreme Court decisions may effectively revoke laws (e.g., laws that formerly permitted slavery); in contrast, a new dogmatic decision can not contradict previous decisions, although it may significantly reinterpret previous doctrinal decisions. ↩
• John Henry Newman discussed the relationship between doctrinal continuity and change in his seminal work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (18461; 18783); for a comparative study of the differences between the first and third editions of Newman’s Essay, see: Gerard H. McCarren, “Development of Doctrine” in The Cambridge Companion to John Henry Newman, edited by Ian Ker and Terrence Merrigan (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 118-136. ↩
• Wilfrid Ward, Life of Cardinal Newman 2:213 (available at: http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter27.html). ↩
• Lumen Gentium § 25 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html . ↩
• Again, see Garland’s citation of von Balthasar, HPR 111/9: 52. ↩
• For a detailed study of the Gallican background of the First Vatican Council, see Richard F. Costigan, The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005). ↩
• See the now-dated survey of John T. Ford, “Infallibility: A Review of Recent Studies,” Theological Studies 40/2 (June, 1979): 273‑305. ↩
• See John T. Ford, “Differences about infallibility . . . too significant to be brushed aside as inconsequential,” in Church and Theology: Essays in Memory of Carl J. Peter, edited by Peter C. Phan (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995), 111‑160. ↩
• Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, at: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.shtml#I This description refers to §891 of the Catechism, and adds: “This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals” (§ 92). ↩

[daniel1212]

Which wish is simply a conformation of my premise, though when one presumes assuredly infallibility, then any verse they infallibly invoke, or even the lack thereof, will do!

[daniel1212]

Praise God for what edifies, and for those who appreciate it.

[mitch5501]

"Praise God for what edifies..."

Amen! So true and so important!

1 Corinthians 14:12 - Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

Thankyou and God bless you.

[Natural Law]

"Which wish is simply a conformation of my premise,..."

This is an area where we have both absolute agreement and absolute disagreement. We agree that neither you or and of the fathers of the Reformation are infallible. We disagree that the Pope and Magisterium are and I am perfectly OK with that.

I don't expect that the doctrinal issues that separate us will be dissolved or disappear, but I don't accept that those should dominate our relationship. St. Thomas Aquinas defined Christian love as a mutual sharing of a love for Jesus that transcends all other concerns and loves. That is where we ought to put our thoughts and efforts. But a demand to consent to ecumenicalism as a form of negotiation or a capitulation of the Church's doctrines is not the ante to this relationship. All of this is secondary to the two greatest commandments and we best remember that.

As I see it, too often non-Catholic individuals and institutions are not looking simply for a peaceful coexistence with the Church. They demand more than a passive indifference, or strained tolerance and acceptance by the Church. They demand an endorsement from Catholics and the Church, even to the point of demanding that Church doctrines change to accommodate their needs and see an unwillingness to compromise as threatening and hostile and even damning.

What I have trouble understanding, and perhaps you can shed some light on this, is the preoccupation with the Catholic Church that you and so many seem to have. You (collectively) haunt Catholic topic threads and demand an endorsement of your exegesis and your new and often home-spin doctrines from the active Catholics, and ridicule, often very incorrectly, what you believe to be Catholic doctrine and dogma. I never see the same energy given to the issue of abortion. What have you personally done in your community to put an end to that abomination? Have you picket or prayed in front of a clinic? Have you reached out to pregnant women and pregnant children to assure them that they and their babies are loved and will be cared for? Have you confronted any politicians? Challenged any editorials, started any initiatives or petitions, funded any pro-life politicians or organizations? There is a reason Jesus was not born or crucified inside of a church.

While the millions of unborn every day and the entire Christian world is under attack by secular humanists, atheists, radical Islam and the like you (collectively) spend your every waking moment defending your doctrinal decisions vis-a-vis the Church and cementing divisions by what consequentially amounts to nothing more than biting at the ankles of what should be your biggest ally and champion.

Peace be to you.

[Cronos]

pnsm: ALL persons whether they read Scripture or not are fallible!

Well, the difference is that we Christians (whether Catholic or Orthodox or Prebystieran or Baptist or Evangelical or Pentecostal) don't consider the Koran to be scripture or the book of Mormon. But whatever rocks ya boat...

[metmom]

Well, the difference is that we Christians (whether Catholic or Orthodox or Prebystieran or Baptist or Evangelical or Pentecostal) don't consider the Koran to be scripture or the book of Mormon.

And that's got what to do with anything?

Is your position so weak that you have to pull some massive red herring like that out of thin air?

And for the record, we're not the ones whose church leaders are bowing to and kissing the Koran, nor do we consider their god to be our god by official decree. Catholics own that one.

[smvoice]

lol! That is ONE BIG red herring! I kept asking myself “what does it mean??”, then I realized it doesn’t mean anything...:)

[daniel1212]

St. Thomas Aquinas defined Christian love as a mutual sharing of a love for Jesus that transcends all other concerns and loves. That is where we ought to put our thoughts and efforts....

As I see it, too often non-Catholic individuals and institutions are not looking simply for a peaceful coexistence with the Church....They demand an endorsement from Catholics and the Church, even to the point of demanding that Church doctrines change to accommodate their needs and see an unwillingness to compromise as threatening and hostile and even damning...

You (collectively) haunt Catholic topic threads and demand an endorsement of your exegesis and your new and often home-spin doctrines from the active Catholics,..

While the millions of unborn every day and the entire Christian world is under attack by secular humanists, atheists, radical Islam and the like you (collectively) spend your every waking moment defending your doctrinal decisions vis-a-vis the Church and cementing divisions by what consequentially amounts to nothing more than biting at the ankles of what should be your biggest ally and champion.

NL, to use the phrase, what have you been smoking? First, this is not a Catholic caucus thread, but one of the multitudinous threads posting Roman Catholicism propaganda of self-proclaimed preeminence that would not get beyond one page if it were not for the contention it invites. When you assert unique supremacy and attack Protestant beliefs then you invite challenges, but Roman Catholics do the former and when reproved, resort to the victim-martyr complex!

Secondly, the idea that we demand affirmation by Rome is absurd. It is Rome who demands recognition of her supremacy, even to the point in the past of asserting that formal subjection to the pope is necessary for salvation (and sanctioning torture of questionable converts), including Aquinas, while yet disallowing evangelicals as belonging to churches, but which we do no need anymore than Paul did from false sources. (Acts 16:16-18) And frankly i find those who reject Protestant as Christians to be more representative of the classic Catholic stance then modern Catholic ecumenicism which based on varying interpretations of Rome. And 2 Jn. 1:11 forbids wishing a false preacher well.

Finally, i view with skepticism your own recent appeal to peace and love ecumenicism, and “lets fight abortion” as it is comes after being unable to show that Rome had an infallible, indisputable canon before Trent, and that being the instrument of conveying Divine truth makes one assuredly infallible as per Rome, and after your many harsh reactions attacking Protestant reprovers, including going after Protestants on open Protestant threads, as well as denigrating them as fabricators for posting actual Catholic material that impugned them, etc. Because of such you actually have a reputation as one of the more reactionary and unreasonable Catholic posters on FR.

And for your info, i also sometimes do things such as debate atheists (refuted one off last week), and homosexuality, etc., and personally sought to confront the governor right down the street (his aid intercepted me, but i had a “pro-abortion, pro-homosxuality, pro-death” sign which all saw). And i do some outreach as well, by God's grace, for both body and soul.

But as long as cults and Rome preach and exalt themselves as uniquely being the OTC, and teaches as doctrines traditions which do not come from Scripture, then she will be challenged by us who preach Christ, and salvation by coming to God as damned and destitute souls, and casting all their faith upon the mercy of God in the risen Christ for justification and regeneration by His sinless shed blood, with a faith that will follow Him, not at all trusting in infant sprinkling on proxy faith or in saints above or the power of Rome.

[metmom]

It didn’t MEAN anything.

All it was was a fairly lame attempt to change the subject.

[metmom]

Preach it, brother.

AMEN AND AMEN!

[caww]

Amen...

[metmom]

As I see it, too often non-Catholic individuals and institutions are not looking simply for a peaceful coexistence with the Church.

One word.....

Inquisition

Catholics and Catholicism have no grounds at all to issue any complaint in that area with their history in the treatment of those who it deemed heretics, which is those who disagreed with Rome, not those who disbelieved God.

In the Catholic mindset, peaceful co-existence with the Church means submission to it and acceptance of it's unscriptural doctrines ie. acceptance of *Holy Tradition*.

They demand more than a passive indifference, or strained tolerance and acceptance by the Church. They demand an endorsement from Catholics and the Church, even to the point of demanding that Church doctrines change to accommodate their needs and see an unwillingness to compromise as threatening and hostile and even damning.

Not a one of us has ever demanded an endorsement from the Roman Church. The RCC is free to hold its own doctrinal position, but has no basis for claiming authority over those who don't willingly submit to its authority. We do not see its unwillingness to compromise are threatening, hostile or damning. What they believe is their business and as long as they are not torturing and imprisoning those who disagree with them, they are certainly free to believe as they like.

And it's not a perception that their unwillingness to compromise is interpreted as damning, but rather clear and concise statements that if we don't become Catholics that we are damned, that others object to. Catholicism and Catholics have been quite clear about damning those who don't believe, even though they don't actually have that ability.

We recognize that they that they are just words and have no effect on anyone as GOD is the only one to make that determination.

In general, it is obvious that Catholics are much more easily offended by words than believers who recognize that they have no power over us.

[count-your-change]

Another word would be Waldenses, branded heretics by the Catholic church and at its instigation, hundreds of this group of primitive Christians were hunted down and murdered.

Their crime? They disagreed with Rome and wanted to worship in peace.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If a person or an entire religion like the RCC doesn't read the Bible, they will have little understanding of their anti-Scriptural, God-demeaning beliefs, such as the ludicrous idea of papal infallibility.

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." -- 2 Timothy 4:2-5

[Natural Law]

"One word.....

Inquisition

Sure, out of all of the injustices in human history you are obsessed with some 500 year old sins committed in the name of the Church. OK

[Natural Law]

"Secondly, the idea that we demand affirmation by Rome is absurd."

In a word ...bull! You demand daily that Catholics concede your spiritual superiority and admire the brilliance of your smug esigesis and your piety. To imply that you come to these threads to save the poor little pagan Catholic babies from hell fire is laughable. If this were really about Christ and His Word you would confine your arguments to the truth.

You can post in these threads for a hundred years and you will convert no one. Even if you can limit your posts to the truth you will still not convert anyone. That is only done by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is only served by Truth and Beatitude.

So it is plain that if you are not in these threads to save Catholics, which you cannot do, you are here to either address issues of inadequacy or to rally to give Patton-like pep talks to the modern soldiers of the Reformation. In either case, good luck and God bless.

[metmom]

Sure.

Blow off the atrocities perpetrated for centuries against those who disagreed with the Roman Catholic church in the name of Christ with the same callous disregard as those perpetrated by priests against children over the centuries.

Just where in Scripture that the Catholic church claims it wrote, is torturing and dismembering *heretics* by the clergy, on order of the self-proclaimed vicar of Christ, sanctioned?

Catholics oppose abortion on the grounds of the sanctity of life. How is what it ordered and condoned during the centuries of persecution it imposed on others any different than abortion that it currently condemns today?

Isn’t the church supposed to be the example of Christlike behavior to the world?

How Christlike was the Inquisition and why do present day Catholics dismiss it with a wave of their hand, as if it were meaningless, an anomaly of church behavior, which history demonstrates is really not out of the ordinary.

Catholics lose credibility by the truckload every time the dismiss the wrongs done by the church in the name of Christ or the church, instead of admitting to their wrongness. Denial of their history and diminishing the wrongs done only leads those outside to see the blindness and brainwashing that Catholicism imposes on its followers who cannot see the evil perpetrated by the Roman church for what it is.

The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Catholic church?

Evidence indicates otherwise.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The false bishop of Rome has declared all Protestant churches to be "defective."

And yet they still play the martyr card.

What a racket. They can't debate from Scripture so they whine.

Thankfully, for every one Protestant who converts to Rome, four RCs become Protestant.

God's inevitable progress.

[MarkBsnr]

The false bishop of Rome has declared all Protestant churches to be "defective."

So has the true bishop.

And yet they still play the martyr card.

Matthew 24: 4 And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: 5 For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. 6 And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes in places: 8 Now all these are the beginnings of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. 12 And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come.

What a racket. They can't debate from Scripture so they whine.

I've preached more Scripture to you over the years that you have never acknowledged than you have posted at all.

Thankfully, for every one Protestant who converts to Rome, four RCs become Protestant.

That's why the Catholic ranks are increasing and Protestants are decreasing, including the horrid Orthodox Presbyterians.

God's inevitable progress.

The rubble of the Reformation is becoming increasingly apparent.

[Natural Law]

"Blow off the atrocities perpetrated for centuries against those who disagreed with the Roman Catholic church in the name of Christ with the same callous disregard as those perpetrated by priests against children over the centuries."

If you can identify a single living Catholic guilty of the sins of the Inquisition I will condemn them but your claim to be able to cast the first stone is galling. I am confident that those who were involved in the Inquisition will be fairly judged by God if not by history or by you and those who have sinned will be held accountable. The same applies to those who have abused children, regardless of denomination or office. If Saul can become Paul and those who killed Jesus out of ignorance can be forgiven from the cross, those involved in crimes in the name of the Church are not beyond salvation or in need of our prayers and forgiveness.

I do pity those, though, who do not trust in God's judgment and have to reach back 30 generations into history to justify their present hatreds and that their trespasses be forgiven even if they do not find it in their hearts to forgive others.

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” - Luke 18:10-14