Thanks. That is why I asked. I am an historian and really want to avoid my own biases, where possible. Since I am an uninformed observer it appears that Catholicism is faced with the dilemma of most faiths - whatever orthodoxy you chose can be the diffence between Heresy or faithfulness. It was blasphemous for centuries to disagree with a Papal Decree, which was amended to say when he speaks ex cathedra, but it appears that many Catholics still believe that any word that he speaks is infallible. Is that your take from a conservative point of view? Do you think that some strict adnerents would consider you heretical if you do not agree with them?
Just for the record...I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Christian...a follower of Jesus Christ.
Unam Sanctum's (1302 by Pope Boniface VIII) claim to absolute power in both the spiritual and temporal worlds is a problem for some in catholicism. Hence the amendment of this claim with the ex cathedra decree.
Unam Sanctum did not just limit the pope's power or authority to when only speaking from the "chair of Peter". He was staking out a claim for ultimate world authority.
the idea of papal infallibility is an interesting study. This link to the wikipedia article in an interesting read but is by no means the final say.
The intriguing thing about papal infallibility is so far no catholic has been able to produce a definitive list of every "ex cathedra" statement by the pope. One would think for the group that claims to be the official church the RCC would be able to say for sure when their leader has spoken "ex cathedra".
It leaves the individual catholic to decide what is authoritative in catholicism.
Contrast that with the writings of the NT which Christians consider to be all authoritative.
Do you think that some strict adnerents would consider you heretical if you do not agree with them?
I promise you...there are some on these threads who think far worse of me than that.