More proof that Catholicism is true

[Jacob Harrison]

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility is misunderstood by non Catholics. They misinterpret it do mean that the Pope is a perfect being. That is not true. Papal infallibility is that the Pope "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 to be held by the whole Church." The last time Papal Infallibility was used was in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.

To test whether Papal Infallibility is true, you have to analyze if a Pope ever defined a doctrine concerning faith or morals that contradicts another Pope's defined doctrine concerning faith or morals. That would disprove Papal Infallibility. However, that has never happened throughout the 2000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church. It is miraculous considering all the Popes throughout history and all the doctrines concerning faith or morals that have been defined. It proves Papal Infallibility.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

[Jacob Harrison]

They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

[dpareja]

They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

[Jacob Harrison]

They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

[dpareja]

They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

See explanation above.

[Jacob Harrison]

They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

See explanation above.

Your explanation does not explain the cases before the First Vatican Council because before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined, there wouldn't be a need to check if their defining of doctrine concerning faith or morals contradicted other popes definitions of doctrine concerning faith or morals.

[dpareja]

They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

See explanation above.

Your explanation does not explain the cases before the First Vatican Council because before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined, there wouldn't be a need to check if their defining of doctrine concerning faith or morals contradicted other popes definitions of doctrine concerning faith or morals.

It would avoid embarrassment if someone should point out that Child Abuser in Chief X contradicted Child Abuser in Chief Y.

[Jacob Harrison]

They're creepy men-not time lords, it's not the same withered old sexist just because it's the same stupid hat!

But how do you explain that none of them contradicted each other over two thousand years when defining doctrines concerning faith or morals?

Because they have all that stuff documented and have tons of staff to check to make sure that none of what they're about to speak (supposedly) infallibly on contradicts what any other Child Abuser in Chief said?

Papal Infallibility was not dogmatically defined until the First Vatican Council in 1870 so how do you explain how Popes from before then did not contradict other Popes who defined doctrine concerning faith or morals.

See explanation above.

Your explanation does not explain the cases before the First Vatican Council because before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined, there wouldn't be a need to check if their defining of doctrine concerning faith or morals contradicted other popes definitions of doctrine concerning faith or morals.

It would avoid embarrassment if someone should point out that Child Abuser in Chief X contradicted Child Abuser in Chief Y.

Given that it is 2000 years and the tons of historical record's even the staff would be prone to making mistakes and could forget about a particular historical record that showed that the Pope is contradicting another Pope. And also, most Popes throughout the history of the church were not child abusers. The child abuse began in the 20th century. The Catholic Church was much more moral and holy during the Age of Christendom.

[dpareja]

Yes, because Roderic de Borja was so moral and upstanding with all his mistresses.

The Catholic Church is one of the oldest organized crime syndicates in the world.

[Jacob Harrison]

Yes, because Roderic de Borja was so moral and upstanding with all his mistresses.

The Catholic Church is one of the oldest organized crime syndicates in the world.

Yes there were Popes such as Alexander VI who had moral shortcomings, but overall, the Catholic Church was a moral holy institution that helped keep order in Europe, kept Kings in check, and contributed greatly to Western Civilization. For example they contributed greatly to modern science having “the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun.” https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/catholic-contributions/the-church-opposes-science-the-myth-of-catholic-irrationality.html

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

So they're a protection racket that rode on the coattails of those better and smarter than they, got it.

Who are you trying to convince Jacob. Seriously, why are you here?

[niam2023]

I'd point Jacob in the direction of the ridiculous and hilarious Cadaver Synod - where one Pope apparently so angered another Pope, the latter Pope did not let the passage of time and the former Pope's death stop him from trying the guy on all sorts of ridiculous offences. The dead Pope was apparently operated by an assistant who made the dead guy say "BECAUSE I'M EVIL!" whenever a question was asked about why he did something.

Ultimately, the dead guy was found guilty, and rather than put him to death (which would've just created an unkillable zombie Pope) they hacked off the fingers he used to bless people, and every act of his papacy was declared null and void. Then they reburied him. Then they un-reburied him and tossed him in a river.

Then another Pope later on decided Pope Formosus had not suffered enough, and so managed to find that fucking corpse, try it AGAIN and then behead the dead body (savvy fucker, chopping off the head).

[dpareja]

Child Abuser-on-Child Abuser violence?

EDIT: Also, the second trial probably didn't happen. The first one did, though.

[Jacob Harrison]

I'd point Jacob in the direction of the ridiculous and hilarious Cadaver Synod - where one Pope apparently so angered another Pope, the latter Pope did not let the passage of time and the former Pope's death stop him from trying the guy on all sorts of ridiculous offences. The dead Pope was apparently operated by an assistant who made the dead guy say "BECAUSE I'M EVIL!" whenever a question was asked about why he did something.

Ultimately, the dead guy was found guilty, and rather than put him to death (which would've just created an unkillable zombie Pope) they hacked off the fingers he used to bless people, and every act of his papacy was declared null and void. Then they reburied him. Then they un-reburied him and tossed him in a river.

Then another Pope later on decided Pope Formosus had not suffered enough, and so managed to find that fucking corpse, try it AGAIN and then behead the dead body (savvy fucker, chopping off the head).

This is from Catholic.com

Not surprisingly, anti-infallibilists have held up the case of Formosus as a contradiction of the doctrine of papal infallibility. The case was raised last century by Ignaz von Döllinger and more recently by former Catholic priest Peter de Rosa (Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy) and by Fundamentalist apologist Dave Hunt (A Woman Rides the Beast). It is alleged the case involves a series of contradictory ex cathedra declarations made by successive popes regarding Formosus’s guilt and the validity of his ordinations. Further, Hunt argues the "nullification" of Formosus’s ordinations has resulted in the interruption of apostolic succession for those "ordained" in line from Formosus. As a consequence, Hunt says, the validity of Catholic sacraments is thrown into doubt, since one cannot be sure which priests or bishops administering the sacraments to the Catholic faithful derive their "null" orders by succession from Formosus. Such is the ominous shadow the case of Formosus is said to cast upon the doctrine of papal infallibility, apostolic succession, and the Catholic sacraments.

To respond to the anti-infallibilist, it is important to recall what an ex cathedra declaration is and what it is not. For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are not only rare, but in scope they exclude a great deal. Dr. Hergenroth, in his book on Vatican I, noted that "Not every papal expression, still less action, can be taken to be a definitio ex cathedra. Mere mandates of the pope for special cases, and for particular persons; judgments on individuals resting on the testimony of third persons, and in general on human evidence; declarations and answers to the inquiries of individuals; private expressions in learned works, and in confidential letters—even mere disciplinary decrees—belong not to this category." The essential question is: Do the declarations regarding Formosus’s guilt and the nullity of his ordinations meet the criteria to be considered ex cathedra?

According to historian J. N. D. Kelly, Formosus was found guilty by Stephen VI of "perjury, violating the canons prohibiting the translation of bishops, and coveting the papacy." He was not accused of professing or teaching a heretical doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith. The main charge of those brought against Formosus was the ostensible violation of the fifteenth canon of the Council of Nicaea, which forbade the translation or transfer of a bishop from one see to another, as occurred upon his election to the papacy.

The wording of the canon at the center of the dispute makes it clear that the transfer of bishops involved no irreformable doctrine of faith and morals. Rather, this custom was quite mutable and reformable. In adopting the canon, the council fathers at Nicaea noted the transfer of bishops was a hitherto accepted custom, even as they outlawed future instances. Even after the Council, dispensations from the canon were granted and recognized, proving that the canon was never considered by the Church to be an irreformable dogmatic one. Since the verdicts involved judgments related to a reformable ecclesiastical rule and not a matter of faith and morals, they cannot be considered to have been made ex cathedra.