Where did that anger come from, Natchez Hawk? The original post identifies men who abused the office of the Pope, and you're attacking as heretical those who follow Christ differently from the way you do? "Calamity"?
So you *do* argue that the Popes are infallible, without sin? Or do you agree with history that some of them were corrupt men?
Of course some of them were corrupt. All men are.
But the disappearance of Calvinism and Puritanism as paths that people follow show that ideas can be corrupt as well.
If you don't know what the word infallible means, why do you use it?
Your misunderstanding of “papal infallibility” negates your question. No one argues Popes are without sin.
This is the main inspiration for posts such as the OP: the mistaken belief that "infallibility"="impeccability", which it does not.
Each and every (honest) Catholic will admit that there have been plenty of sinful popes throughout the centuries, some maybe even in Hell. This fact should make one wonder then, "How can Catholics admit that, yet still believe the pope can be infallible?"
Unless one believes all Catholics are insane, then one must realize that there's a difference between "infallible" and "impeccable". The former is Catholic dogma, the latter is not. The former means, in Catholic dogma, that the pope is protected from making a mistake when teaching about matters of morals and faith, and no other time. It does *not* mean that the pope is guaranteed from being sinless; that's what "impeccable" means.
All of this has been explained before. But that doesn't stop the old canard of Boetner's "Roman Catholicism" being posted again and again from time to time, in different forms. Why it doesn't, I don't know, since it's a reasoned rebuttal to the entire OP.
Two different questions.
Do you equate the two?