Post #1049 (Alamo-Girl)
The doctrine of "papal infallibility" is confusing to me. Perhaps you can help me understand?
Evidently "papal infallibility" became dogma in 1870 at the First Vatican Council. But obviously, by then, many "papal bulls" and such had already been written.
And it is apparent that some of those would be considered infallible whereas others would not be considered infallible.
The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that, in order to be considered infallibile, whatever it is must be a definitive statement.
Elsewhere in the same source (though I have lost the url) it mentioned that the use of the term "anathema" in the writings of the councils was a determining factor in what is to be considered infallible. But it did not indicate that such a word usage was conclusive in reference to papal infallibility.
Also, now that the term "anathema" no longer is used since Vatican II - it raises the question anew as to how one knows what is or is not infallible from the documents which may proceed in the future from such councils.
In short, is there any source out there which presents a thorough and official review of all the historical manuscripts to itemize what is included/excluded as infallible doctrine and the reasoning behind it and lays out for the interested observer (e.g. me) the means whereby such infallible doctrine will be conveyed in the future?
Any question? Is her post "general" or "specific"?
Once again we have the gambit of taking a response to one statement and saying, "But it doesn't apply to this other statement," while ignoring how it responds to the statement to which it was addressed.
Maybe you should make a concerted effort to stay on one topic at a time. Address that topic and move on.
I can multi-task to a limited extent but I cannot read your mind when you "mentally" change the topic.
I invite you to follow the individual posts back to #1049 and then tell me where I went off topic.
Further in 1069 you wrote:
There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.
I would characterize that as pretty much going astray from the particular issue of papal or conciliar infallibility. I doesn't advance the argument but it seems to be a restatement and a generalization of the thesis. It seems to me that to lash out in what pretends to be a discussion and then claim that that's not what you were talking about will tend to lead to misunderstanding.
This led to, and I think justified, my perception that you were attacking on two fronts, one limited to the question of infallibility and the other a general slam on a purportedly intentional ambiguity in catholic teaching.I understood the hockey rink metaphor as pertaining to the general assault.
I guess there is some rhetorical benefit in attacking on two fronts (if the goal is winning) because if an argument is addressed on one front one can claim it was intended for the other.
Shall we now go poison some more wells?