[Campion]

I said nothing about anything being "valid" or "binding". Don't put words in my mouth.

Why do you immediately jump from "not infallible" to "not valid or binding"?

(And btw, something can be "valid" but "not binding" quite easily. Clement XIV's decree suppressing the Jesuits was absolutely valid. It is not binding on me in any way; this is not the 18th century, and I am not a Jesuit.)

[ealgeone]

You’re attempting to try and word smith on this. The other writing of the pope are either valid or not. Call it infallible if you want to. They’re either correct or not.

[ealgeone]

I said nothing about anything being "valid" or "binding". Don't put words in my mouth.

Never said you did. I'm merely asking questions.

Why do you immediately jump from "not infallible" to "not valid or binding"?

As I noted a post or so ago....a teaching/ruling from the pope is either something the Roman Catholic has to follow or reject; if the later is possible.

One of the complaints of Roman Catholics against Christians is "everyone is their own pope.". Well, what it appears you are saying is every Roman Catholic is their own pope as well.

Not really seeing the difference.

(And btw, something can be "valid" but "not binding" quite easily. Clement XIV's decree suppressing the Jesuits was absolutely valid. It is not binding on me in any way; this is not the 18th century, and I am not a Jesuit.)

But why isn't it still valid or binding? Just because it was a couple of hundred years ago and you're not a Jesuit.