[OLD REGGIE]

I do not object your motivation. But you said “Catholic perspective they put it out for a vote as to what dogma to believe”; would you either clarify that with an example of what you mean or retract this.

"In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father.30 This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the Early Church."

VOTE ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

[annalex]

Yes, I expected Harley to post something like this. Obviously, the opinion of the bishops is sought, and so votes are taken to learn what it is, but it would be a mistake to say that the dogma emerged democratically FROM the voting process. The dogma is proclaimed if in the eye of the Magisterium it has been the inchoate belief of the Church Catholic since the beggining of the Church. It is not created by voting in the same sense in which our government makes laws by voting.

Further, no one in the Catholic is free to choose "which dogma to believe".

These are things Harley should know because of all people he has put, he says, quite an investment of time in studying Catohlicism. So when he displays such ignorance of the magisterial process, it is frustrating, and I begin to wonder if his time would not be better spent arguing about monergism with his fellow Protestants.