Barry Bigelow

A fight broke out during the Spurs-Thunder Game 6 between Spurs and Thunder fans. Sheesh, people, relax! #nba #porvida #sanantonio #thunderup #gospursgo (via IG craguilar)

Catholic apologists like @MrCasey62 claim that no pope has ever contradicted another pope when speaking infallibly. But that answer depends almost entirely on how narrowly Rome later defines the term ex cathedra. But, let us consider two historical examples. 1. John XXII, who reigned from 1316–1334, taught a disputed view of the beatific vision in sermons around 1331–1333 and withdrew the view shortly before his death in 1334. 2. In a more difficult case for Rome, Honorius I, pope from 625–638, was condemned in 681 by the Third Council of Constantinople in connection with the Monothelite controversy, and that condemnation was confirmed by Pope Leo II in 682. Yes, Catholic apologists will respond that neither case meets the later Vatican I definition of ex cathedra in 1870. Fair enough. But note the dates: roughly 550 years after John XXII and nearly 1,200 years after Honorius I. That is a very late framework being applied backward to much earlier papal controversies. And that is precisely the point. The historical record shows that the term ex cathedra was not being used in the later technical Vatican I sense at the time of Honorius I or John XXII. More importantly, papal infallibility did not exist as a formally defined dogma in the medieval church. It was dogmatized at Vatican I in 1870. So when later Catholic apologists apply the 1870 definition backward to earlier papal controversies, they are using a post-medieval framework to manage a much messier historical record. A later dogma, now said to bind the conscience of all Christians, developed over centuries and was not formally defined until the nineteenth century. Then that later definition is applied backward, as though earlier popes failed to meet rules that had not yet been articulated. On that basis, we are told they were not speaking ex cathedra. Maybe that argument is technically accurate under the 1870 definition. But it is also a clever way of avoiding the messiness of history rather than resolving it.

@mcuban @GovBillLee Or just let the free market compete and get the government out of Healthcare. A free market would inevitably lead to lower costs for consumers.

BREAKING: Officers who defended the U.S. Capitol from rioters sue to block payouts from the $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" IRS fund. apnews.com/article/irs-tr…