[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm far from an expert on this. I just know that many things which were popular "pious opinions" for many years, or even centuries, were not defined dogmas; and it's easy to mistake the overturn of an entrenched opinion, with the overturn of a dogma.

I mean, it's confusing enough even for Catholics, let alone our beloved separated brethren ;o)

You may enjoy this short (2 min) video, which explains Papal Infallibility (Link) --- quite accurately, BTW, and with an irresistable comic tickle.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I'm far from an expert on this. I just know that many things which were popular "pious opinions" for many years, or even centuries, were not defined dogmas; and it's easy to mistake the overturn of an entrenched opinion, with the overturn of a dogma.

I mean, it's confusing enough even for Catholics, let alone our beloved separated brethren ;o)

You may enjoy this short (2 min) video, which explains Papal Infallibility (Link) --- quite accurately, BTW, and with an irresistable comic tickle.

With all due respect, Mrs. Don-o, you are avoiding the issue. This is not about papal infallibility or its limits. Nor is this about "pious opinions." This is strictly about why you and so many other Catholics refuse to listen to science when it tells you that the "virginal conception" couldn't have happened but then turn right around and throw the first eleven chapters of Genesis out the window because those same scientists tell you that those events couldn't have happened, and for the very same reason: because "that's not how it happens now, so it couldn't have happened that way then."

This isn't funny, and it isn't humorous. Nor do I take kindly to your making light of my questions. Kindly go back to my last post to you and respond to the issues I raised or please leave me alone. As funny and inconsequential as this appears to you, it is not to me.