Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term

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

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). ↩

Never heard that stat but below is most of what i found as regards the West, while as the world population is increasing so should numbers of church members to keep up, but i do not think they are. Sadly, Mormons show the greatest growth but they count as member everyone baptized that is still living unless excommunicated.

The Catholic population of the United States had fallen by nearly 400,000 in 2007, and suffered a slight membership loss in 2009 but increased 1.49 percent in 2010. [U.S. population growth rate in 2008 was 0.9 percent, and 0.57 percent in 2011.]. From 2007 to 2008 Roman Catholics grew from 17.33 percent of the global population to 17.4 percent in 2008. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5753 http://www.ncccusa.org/news/100204yearbook2010.html; http://www.ncccusa.org/news/110210yearbook2011.html
2002 Statistics compiled by the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Hispanic Affairs reported that 71 percent of the U.S. Catholic population growth since 1960 was due to Hispanics. The statistics are taken from U.S. Census reports and recent surveys of Hispanics. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_15_36/ai_59607715/pg_3/
In 2008, 25:1% of respondents self-identified themselves as Catholic (versus 26.2 in 1990), with 50.9 belonging to Other Christian groups (from 60% in 1990). http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
24% of current “Nones” (not identifying with any religion) and 35% of 1st generation or "new" Nones) identified themselves being Catholic at age 12, 11% identified themselves as "Christian," 7% as Baptist, and 3% as Protestant. 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS); http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/NONES_08.pdf
According to the American Bishops' count (as reported in WP) in their Official Catholic Directory 2010, which primarily rests on the parish assessment tax which pastors evaluate yearly according to the number of registered members and contributors, Catholics in the United States represented 22% of the US population.
2010 reports show the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.) - ranked 24^th largest - increased 1.76 percent, and the Assemblies of God (9^th) grew 1.27 percent. The “Latter-day Saints” [cult] (ranked 4^th largest) grew 1.71 percent, the Jehovah's Witnesses [cult] (23^rd ) said they were up 2 percent http://www.ncccusa.org/news/100204yearbook2010.html
The Presbyterian Church (USA) shrank 3.3 percent Southern Baptist Convention, the largest denomination after Catholics, lost 0.24 percent of its membership and now stands at 16.2 million. It also declined in membership in the year prior. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_church_shows_robust_growth_in_u.s._membership_new_report_says/
In numbers (not percentage), Catholicism, which lists 68.1 million in the US, has experienced “the greatest net loss” of any major religious group. members. The 'had it' Catholics,” National Catholic Reporter ,Oct. 11, 2001, based on reports from the 2008 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey and the National Council of Churches’ 2010 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.
68% of those raised Roman Catholic still are Catholic (comparable with or better than the retention rates of other religious groups). 15% are now Protestant (9% evangelical); 14% are unaffiliated. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf
44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliations since childhood, mostly mainline Protestants. 7% who were raised Protestant are now unaffiliated; 15% now belong to a different Protestant faith. ^
80% of adults who were raised Protestant are still Protestant. ^
51% of Protestants from a different Protestant denomination cite a lack of spiritual fulfillment as a reason for leaving their childhood faith. 85% say they joined their current denominational faith because they enjoy the services and style of worship Only 15% left say they left because they stopped believing in its teachings. ^
Those who have left Catholicism outnumber those who have joined the Catholic Church by nearly a four-to-one margin. 10.1% have left the Catholic Church after having been raised Catholic, while only 2.6% of adults have become Catholic after having been raised in a different faith.
4% of Americans raised Catholic are now unaffiliated; 5% are now Protestant. ^
Over 75% of those who left Catholicism attended Mass at least once a week as children, versus 86% having done so who remain Catholics today.^
Regarding reasons for leaving Catholicism, less than 30% of former Catholics agreed that the clergy sexual abuse scandal played a role in their departure. ^
71% of Protestants converts from Catholicism said that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% of Evangelical Protestants concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated. ^
50% of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they stooped believing in Catholicism's teachings overall. Only 23% (20% now evangelical) were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion the liked more in Protestantism.
55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough.
81% of all Protestant converts from Catholicism said they enjoyed the service and worship of Protestant faith as a reason for joining a Protestant denomination, with 62% of all Protestants and 74% Evangelicals also saying that they felt God's call to do so. ^
42% of those now unaffiliated stated they do not believe in God, or most religious teaching. ^
54% of “millennial generation” Catholics (born in 1982 or later) are Hispanics, while 39% are non-Hispanic whites. On the other hand, 76% of “pre-Vatican II generation” Catholics (born 1943 or earlier) are non-Hispanic whites, while 15% are Hispanics. Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, September, 2010 . http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/6850/Openers-More-evidence-of-the-browning-of-US-Cat.aspx
68% of all Latinos in the U.S. identify as Catholics. Changing Faiths: Latinos and the Transformation of American Religion http://pewforum.org/Changing-Faiths-Latinos-and-the-Transformation-of-American-Religion.aspx Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion - American Piety in the 21 Century – September 2006 . http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
Among Catholics under the age of 30, 47% are white, and 45% are Latino. In contrast, among Catholics over the age of 65, 82% are white (Pew Forum 2007, reported in http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf)
Latinos comprised 32 percent of all U.S. Catholics in 2008, versus to 20 percent in 1990. However, Catholic identification has slipped from 66 percent in 1990 to 60 percent in 2008. There has also been a significant rise in the number of Latinos who do not adhere to a religion. The longer a Latino has lived in the United States, the less likely he or she is to be Catholic. Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College, http://theamericano.com/2010/03/18/new-report-on-u-s-latino-religious-identification/
18% of all Latinos say they have either converted from one religion to another or to no religion at all. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/75.4.pdf
1,000 Mexicans left the Catholic Church every day between 2000 and 2010, a decline that has continued uninterrupted over the past 60 years, from 98.21 of the population to 83.9 percent today. Latin American Herald Tribune, March 10, 2011, based upon census data and study by sociologist and historian Roberto Blancarte of Colegio de Mexico and the National Autonomous University of Mexico
The percentage of of Protestants and Evangelicals rose from 1.28% in 1950 to close to 8% of the total population in 2010, (excluding so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons). 5.2 million say they profess no religion. ^
This decline is seen as extending across the region (Catholics represent between 55% to 73% in Central America, 70% in Brazil, 50% in Cuba and Uruguay).^
Almost 20% of all Latino American Catholics have left the Roman Catholicism, with 23 percent of second-generation Latino Americans doing so. http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
54% of Hispanic Catholics describe themselves as charismatic Christians. http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=75
51% of Hispanic Evangelicals are converts, and 43% are former Catholics. 82% of Hispanics cite the desire for a more direct, personal experience with God as the main reason for adopting a new faith. Among those who have become evangelicals, 90% say it was a spiritual search for a more direct, personal experience with God was the main reason that drove their conversion. Negative views of Catholicism do not appear to be a major reason for their conversion. ^
A study which broke down Mainline Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, and non-Hispanic Catholics into the three subgroups of traditionalists, centrists, and modernists, found that 5.3 percent of the respondents qualified as traditionalist Catholic, 5.4 percent as centrist Catholics, and 4.9 percent of respondents are modernist Catholics. The Henry Institute, A Pre-Election Analysis http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/survey_finds_some_catholics_looking_for_a_political_home
Latinos Catholics constituted 6.8 percent of the survey respondents. ^
About 68 percent of traditionalist Catholics opposed gays and lesbian marriage, versus 50% of centrist Catholics and 65 percent of modernist Catholics. ^
Traditionalist Catholics disagreed that “abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide” 71 to 21 percent, centrist Catholics agreed 54 to 40 percent, and modernist Catholics agreed 80-16 percent. ^
Catholic Latinos, overwhelmingly identify as Democratic, 57 percent to 15 percent. Religion and the 2008 Election: ^
99% of Protestant pastors who hold to very conservative theology strongly disagree that homosexual marriage should be legal, with 98% also describing themselves as pro-life, and of such 98 percent strongly agree with the statement "Our church considers Scripture to be the authority for our church and our lives." Among pastors who do not strongly disagree that gay marriage should be legal, 71 percent said they agreed with the above affirmation, as well as 65% of pro-choice pastors (three-fourths of all Protestant pastors surveyed said they are pro-life). LifeWay Research; http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-share-views-on-gay-marriage-abortion
Evangelical Protestants are the most politically conservative Christian tradition. Within each tradition, those with literal views of the Bible are more politically conservative than is their tradition overall. Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does. The Biblical literalist Catholic is as politically conservative as the Biblical literalist who is Evangelical (47.8%) or Mainline Protestant. (11.2%) American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

Sadly, to some degree this type of means of punishing dissent (even if that was the norm of the age, and the Inquisitions could be more judicial then the regular courts), was something early Prots. had to unlearn.

Yet such was sanctioned from the very top in Rome, and her “apology” for such was for some of her children as i recall, as inferring less than the official sanction from the top which fostered it, while the latter unconditional censure of torture is certainly inconsistent.

It is fully in accordance with the nature of Faith that in religious matters every form of coercion by men should be excluded. — Dignitatis Humanae

In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstances’”. — Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech of 6 September 2007; Torture and corporal punishment as a problem in Catholic Theology, September 2005;

..the disciple of Christ rejects every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify, and by which the dignity of man is as much debased in the torturer as in his victim. . . — Pope John Paul II, Address to the International Red Cross (Geneva, June 15, 1982).

That it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics at the stake is condemned as false. (Pope Leo X, “Exsurge Domino,” 1520

Innocent’s Bull [Ad Extirpanda] prescribes that captured heretics, being “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb.” — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html

Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215:

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics.

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

It's been delightful to ignore posts such as yours, filled with error and defensive fabrication.

Ahhh, the smell of brimstone in the morning. No error, no fabrication. Just the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ as He instructed His Apostles and they have handed down the Faith to us.

The RCC is bleeding membership and the only thing keeping it afloat are immigrants, mostly illegals.

The Catholic Church is growing at a great rate worldwide. The horrid little small minded and putrefying cult known as the Orthodox Presbyterians are on the other hand withering just like the fig tree:

Mark 11: 12 And the next day when they came out from Bethania, he was hungry. 13 And when he had seen afar off a fig tree having leaves, he came if perhaps he might find any thing on it. And when he was come to it, he found nothing but leaves. For it was not the time for figs. 14 And answering he said to it: May no man hereafter eat fruit of thee any more for ever. And his disciples heard it.

No good has come of it. No good will come from it. And when the OPC goes in the next few decades, not even its fleas will mourn it.

As God wills.

The lord of this world shall not prevail; false cults of the devil will dry up and turn to dust as phone booth sized cults wither away and die.

Dozens of articles have been posted attesting to this fact. RCs would be wise not to ignore them the same way they ignore the Bible.

We don't ignore them. We just recognize that they come from their father, the devil. They are completely false. If the Catholic Church falls, all Christianity does. We believe in the promises of Christ; we do not believe in the promises of bloodthirsty tyrants of Geneva. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church - neither will the antiCatholic.

Just because a person doesn't like the facts doesn't mean they can change the facts, regardless how uncomfortable the truth may be. The RCC is in decline.

More false prattling. The statistics are true. The demographics are true. Comic book tracts distributed on windshields during Mass are not.

God is good. Truth prevails. One God; one Savior; one Christ; one Mediator; one Advocate.

This statement does not validate anything that the OPC preaches. Let us acknowledge that the second religion of hate postdated Mohammed by a century, and was filled with the same regard for humans and their souls.

Read your Bible. Mary was not sinless. She was a sinner until the day she died; just like the rest of us. And she was forgiven her sins, just like all believers, by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I've gone through the swamp that is the OPC website. Whatever it is that they believe, it bears resemblence to Christianity in name only. It does include contempt for the Mother of God.

As far as the false bishop of Rome in a party dress and Prada shoes is concerned, some adherents actually seem to enjoy being told a lie. No other way to explain the insanity.

Excellent opportunity to address lies. No true bishop of Rome has ever owned or worn Prada shoes or party dresses. I think that the lie is more in the wishful telling than in the fact.

ps - the vague and sparse Scripture you offer so seldom rarely has anything to do with the topic at hand. Do you close your eyes and point? I hear some RCs use that method of exegesis.

I don't doubt that you do not recognize Scripture for what it is - and the relevance to one's every day life.

Matthew 6:33 Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Those who wallow in their own self righteousness and santimonious shallow self interests are as the Pharisee who identified himself for salvation.

Luke 18: 9 And to some who trusted in themselves as just, and despised others, he spoke also this parable: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. 12 I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O god, be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather that the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.

The tax collector had a deep and abiding faith in God. And that faith, my good Dr. E. is not the faith the Reformation developed - the faith in the god in the mirror. It is not the faith of Luther's every milkmaid writing her own doctrines in the night. It is not the faith of Jean Cauvin's spies and death squads in Geneva which served as a model for the East German secret police. It is the faith in Jesus Christ, Saviour of the World. We Catholics do not prattle of self-salvation; we leave that to the pale and envious imitators.

Matthew 22: 15 Then the Pharisees going, consulted among themselves how to insnare him in his speech. 16 And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore what dost thou think, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny. 20 And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this? 21 They say to him: Caesar's. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's. 22 And hearing this they wondered, and leaving him, went their ways.

23 That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him, 24 Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. 26 In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her.

29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven. 31 And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 33 And the multitudes hearing it, were in admiration at his doctrine.

34 But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together: 35 And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: 36 Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

It is no love to preach the random destruction of all men. Neither is it love to self proclaim salvation along with one's family, dogs, cats, hamsters, fleas and nematodes. Further, it is no love to preach that Jesus was for the Jews only and it is to a misshapen and unrecognizable version of Paul to whom we must turn.

Flee the Pharasaical Reformation and Sadduccee-based Restoration and receive the love of Jesus Christ, who came for all men, not just the pinch-faced and haughty self-proclaimers of their own salvation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.