[OLD REGGIE]

What exactly is it about the list of the Popes that makes you think that this historical fact is supposed to be a matter covered infallibly?

Where in the world do you get, or invent, the idea I think the "List of Popes" is claimed to be infallible? What historical fact? The fact there is no historical fact? The only "fact" is, there is no verifiable List of Popes. If I were a skeptic I'd say the list is fiction. I might go even further and suggest to Becky that Peter didn't know he was "Pope" because he wasn't during his lifetime. He was elected posthumously and he selected his "successor" posthumously.

[SoothingDave]

Where in the world do you get, or invent, the idea I think the "List of Popes" is claimed to be infallible?

You keep making a big deal about it, as if the lack of historical certainty somehow undermines the entire Catholic belief system. It's simply not important, and I wonder why you think it is so.

SD

[Havoc]

Where in the world do you get, or invent, the idea I think the "List of Popes" is claimed to be infallible? What historical fact? The fact there is no historical fact? The only "fact" is, there is no verifiable List of Popes. If I were a skeptic I'd say the list is fiction. I might go even further and suggest to Becky that Peter didn't know he was "Pope" because he wasn't during his lifetime. He was elected posthumously and he selected his "successor" posthumously.

Bingo! All "popes" prior to Nicholos I were selected and successors chosen, posthumously. The term and office did not exist until the time of the decretals. Much, in fact, of the 'early history' was fabricated by the decretals. And a good portion of that has never been renounced.

Truth is, if I had 1,000,000 bucks for every false or unproven claim they've made and every forgery and lie they've invoked to prop up those claims, I could buy out Bill Gates.