I'm going to leave this to Wolseley. He's our historian. But you must make sure that we're all talking apples here, and not apples, oranges, and horseshoes.
Gee, thanks, VOW.
I'll address the things on Evan's list, but I'm not going to get too in-depth.
For one thing, this is a Catholic forum, and I don't have to convince anybody here of the veracity of Catholicism, and for another, most of this stuff has already been addressed and debunked a hundred times.
Rome admits that, over the years, many errors have occurred.
I'll start out by asking for a cite for this first statement. Who said this, and where, pertaining to what?
For instance, in the 1960s, Paul VI "de-canonized" over three hundred saints, declaring them to be fraudulent and not to be prayed to.
Incorrect. What happened was that over three hundred saints were removed from the Church's liturgical calendar. Some of them were admitted to have more legendary features about them than hard historical evidence, but they were never "de-canonized" and there was certainly no injunction that they were not to be prayed to.
(Delaney, John J.,
Dictionary of Saints. New York: Doubleday, 1980. pp. 11-13.)
One such example was Saint Christopher, who was supposed to have carried the Christ child. Since Christopher is a Greek name, the question was raised: What was a Greek doing in a Jewish city in the first place? Because of this realization, Christopher was, as were many others, stripped of his holy title. Could it be concluded that for centuries, the Roman church was guilty of promoting idolatry in the form of prayer to false saints?
Ah, yes, St. Christopher; I remember when the secular media had a field day with him, and, as usual, they got the story wrong, just like they always do every time they try to report on anything Catholic. St. Christopher was another one that was never "de-canonized". But the media tried to make people think he had. Your last sentence shows a slight slip and a revealing of your agenda, Evan---but no, the Catholic Church does not make idols out of saints, legendary features or not. Nice try, though.
During the years of the Inquisition, many were tortured and put to death for the "blasphemous sin" of eating meat on Friday.
Cite?
One of the official pronouncements of Vatican II (1962-1965), however, was that it was no longer considered a sin against God to eat meat on Friay, although voluntary abstinence was suggested as a personal sacrifice. In this case, the papacy's error is inexcusable, for it was one that cost many innocent men their lives. Pope John Paul II went so far as to declare the Inquisition the "greatest error in Church history."
The question is, which Inquisition? The Roman one? The Spanish one? The pre-14th century one? The post-Reformation one?
As for meat on Friday, it was and is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine, and nowhere near a dogma or part of the original deposit of the Faith, and as such, it was not, nor is it now, any type of infallible teaching. Since it is not an infallible teaching, Papal changes or retractions to it have nothing to do with Papal infallibility.
Historical instances of obvious papal fallibility, such as those above, are available in abundance.
As I just explained, neither one has anything to do with infallibility.
Victor I (189-199) first approved of Montanism in 192, and then later condemned it.
Too lengthy to go into, but the main document is from Tertullian,
Ad Praxeam, I, and he does not name the pontiff; some think it was Victor, others Eleutherius. In any event, there is no evidence that the pontiff (whoever he was), ever projected the heresy of Montanism in an infallible statement. Popes make statements all the time, but that doesn't mean that every word out of their mouths
is infallible.
(Kelly, J.N.D.;
The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. New York: Oxford, 1986, pg. 12.
Kirsch, J.P.; "Victor I";
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.15. New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1912, pg. 408.)
Honorius (625-638) taught the heresy of Monothelism, which denied that Christ simultaneously possessed two separate natures -- human and divine. He was later condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680.
Again, it cannot be proven that this was ever formally made as an ifallible pronouncement. Honorius comes up every time infallibility is discussed, and all it amounts to is tha Honorius sent some hastily-produced letters to Bishop Sergius of Jerusalem expressing a personal opinion. It doesn't make it an infallible statement. Further, Honorius was never officially condemned with heresy, but merely with negligence in not being more careful. (Pope Agatho never confirmed the decrees of anathema of the 6th Council of Constantinople [
not the 3rd, as you erroneously cite]), and Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees but officially cleared Honorius. Again, too long to go into, but check the references below.
(Carroll, Warren.
The History of Christendom, Vol. 2.[/i] Front Royal, VA: Christendom College Press, 1987, pg. 254.
Kelly, pp. 70-71.
Madrid, Patrick.
Pope Fiction. San Diego, CA: Basilica Press, 1999, pp. 158-162.)
Marcellinus (296-304) entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the pagan goddess.
Yes he did. Under force from Diocletian's persecution. However, as with the "Paul rebuked Peter" debate, this is an example of
personal conduct; it has nothing to do with a teaching issued for the entire universal Church on a matter of faith or morals, and ergo, has nothing to do with infallibility.
(Kelly, pp. 24-25.)
Liberius (352-366) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, the "great defender of the Deity of Christ," and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from exile and reinstated in his seat.
What you're neglecting to mention is that previous to this, Liberius had been been subjected to bribes, threats, and force from the agents of the pro-Arian Emperor, Constantius III, and after being exiled to Thrace, was constantly harassed by the local pro-Arian bishop in league with the Emperor. As a result of what we would today call brainwashing, he cracked and acquiesed. Fortunately, however, papal statements extracted by force or under other conditions of duress are not only not considered infallible, they're not even considered binding. It is also to be noted that before and after his imprisonment, Liberius was a champion of Nicene orthodoxy, and his acceptance of Arianism was made when he was not in his right mind, thereby negating it before it was even acted upon. There is also some historical evidence to indicate that Liberius never cracked at all, thus rendering the whole question moot.
(Kelly, pp. 30-31.
Madrid, pp. 141-147.)
In 1431, Eugene IV (1431-1447) declared Joan of Arc guilty of practicing witchcraft and condemned her to be burned at the stake. In 1919, however, Benedict XV (1914-1922) canonized her as a saint.
Joan's trial was conducted under the auspices of Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, not Pope Eugene IV. In any event, the trial was nullified by the Holy See 24 years later. Also, Joan was canonized in 1920,
not 1919.
(Delaney, pp. 312-313.
Thurston, Herbert. "Joan of Arc";
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, pp. 411-413.)
In 1633, the astronomer Galileo was brought to trial by the Jesuits for claiming that the earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun. An earlier papal decree entitled De Revolutionibus had denounced the heliocentric view as heretical and "utterly contrary to the Holy Scriptures." Galileo's claims were consequently condemned as heretical and dangerous, and he was tortured and imprisoned. The pope only just recently recanted Galileos condemnation.
Galileo was put on trial for erroneous theology, not for his scientific theories. Further, he was never imprisoned, and he was never tortured. He was under a loose form of house arrest while in Rome, and had excellent meals, every convenience, and a persoanl servant to wait on him hand and foot. Further, the document
De Revolutionibus was not a papal decree by any stretch of the imagination; it was a treatise written by Nicholas Copernicus and it was published a hundred years before Galileo's trial.
(Madrid, pp. 178-189.)
Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated.
Specific cites?
Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800=1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors. Clement XIV (1769-1774) abolished the order of the Jesuits; Paul III (1534-1549) permitted it and Pius VII re-established it.
And not a single one of these has a thing to do with papal infallibility. My general reaction to these charges is a shrug of the shoulders and an offhand, "So what?"
The list of such errors is much more, but the foregoing examples sufficiently prove the point.
Yes, they prove that the information behind them is completely erroneous, misinterpreted, misapplied, or fabricated.
Addressing the 85th General Congregation of the Vatican Council in 1870, in which Pius IV declared the papacy to be infallible, Bishop Joseph George Strossmayer of Germany, together with twenty-one archbishops and sixty-four bishops, announced, "Venerable brethren... history raises its voice to assure us that some popes have erred." When the above evidence is taken into consider, Strossmayer's words seem to have been somewhat of an understatement. He continued by saying, "Oh, venerable brethren, to maintain such an enormity would be to betray Christ worse than Judas. Let us turn to the teachings of the Apostles, since without them we have only error, darkness, and false tradition." As would be expected, Pius IV ordered Strossmayer to withdraw his "heretical" statements under the threat of excommunication of both and his supporters. Unfortunately, Strossmayer complied.
All of which is total and complete hogwash. Strossmayer never made any such declaration; the source of this nonsense is a forged anti-catholic document which appeared in the Italian press after the Council, and which was repudiated by Strossmayer, who declared he'd never had anything to do with it.
(Keating, Karl.
Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1988, pp. 34-35.
Madrid, pp. 259-271.)
A Catholic Bishop recently wrote, How could the Catholic Church faithfully, consistently and infallibly teach the same faith for 1900 years, and then suddenly propose, during the Second Vatican Council, false doctrines previously condemned by the past Popes and Councils (viz., ecumenism and religious liberty)? How could the Catholic Church continuously renew the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary in the Holy Mass and then abruptly substitute it with a Lutheran memorial of the Last Supper? How could the Catholic Church so firmly legislate in her laws against interfaith and intercommunion, as these would foster religious indifferentism, and then suddenly abrogate these laws and permits these undertakings?
Yet, it is primarily this issue of infallibility that divides those who call themselves traditional Catholics. Some traditional Catholics reject the errors of false ecumenism and religious liberty of the Second Vatican Council, the new Protestant memorial of the Last Supper the Novus Ordo Missae and the heresies of the New Code of Canon Law (1983) and yet insists that the very authors of these errors are still Christs representative here on earth. In reality, they say that the Living Magisterium of the Church has erred and has led the majority of Catholics into error, and continues to err. Such a conclusion is nothing more than to deny the infallibility of the Church.
The Catholic bishop you speak of is the late Marcel LeFebvre, a schismatic who was excommunicated from the Church by his defiance to the Holy See and formed his own home-made "Catholic church". While he was entitled to his views, he hardly spoke, then or now, for the Catholic Church.
All in all, a nice little laundry list, Evan, but it lacks verification. I would especially be careful of using the artificial "Strossmayer" speech, since it's a well-known peice of garbage that anti-catholics like to throw out as an accusation, but it doesn't have any more veracity than stuff published by Jack Chick.
Blessings,
---Wols.