[metmom]

Sorry. I see damage control.

Free from error is free from error.

To say that the issue regarding faith and morals is divinely inspired and free from error, but error creeps in when it is transcribed, means that what the people are getting is NOT free from error.

At that point, it then becomes subject to interpretation and needing to be *correctly* interpreted.

At that point, there’s simply nothing that the pope can say, even ex cathedra, which can be trusted because nobody can know if it’s error free or where the error crept in.

[piusv]

That was always my understanding of infallible which is why I questioned Campion, but I am willing to accept that I may have been too stringent with the term.

Having said that, I have NEVER seen anyone ever pick apart pre-Vatican II infallible pronouncements for correct wording, etc. Of course all we see is such picking apart with Vatican II documents (but that’s another story).

So perhaps my original understanding of infallible is the correct one.

[CynicalBear]

>>At that point, there’s simply nothing that the pope can say, even ex cathedra, which can be trusted because nobody can know if it’s error free or where the error crept in.<<

And that is exactly the position Catholics find themselves in today.