[Mad Dawg]

I don't put much stock in the "retroactive" definitions you are so happy to use.

With a little bit of effort, one can debunk nearly everything. The benefit is one has to make very few commitments and has few responsibilities. The penalty is one is left with little to believe in -- which is only a problem if it turns out that believing is the first step toward knowledge of that which makes eternal life worth living.

Of course your criticism of my use of the Catholic encyclopedia, once admitted, works both ways. No source NOT Catholic could possibly understand the issue well or have the love of truth necessary to pursue the matter down to its den.

It is of course just as silly to criticize papal infallibility by arguments irrelevant to the definition as it is to criticize transubstantiation because the consecrated elements do not look like flesh and blood. You are in the ridiculous position of saying, "If you'd said what I want you to have said, you'd have been wrong."

Yeah. Okay. I'll concede that.

But we didn't say the false thing you wish we had said so that you could call it false. And according to what we DID in FACT say. Honorius's posthumous verdict of heresy simply does not touch on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. So the persistent, albeit boring, effort to trap us in some inconsistency once again fails -- unless you get to write the rules, rules which have nothing to do with reason.

[OLD REGGIE]

I don't put much stock in the "retroactive" definitions you are so happy to use.

With a little bit of effort, one can debunk nearly everything. The benefit is one has to make very few commitments and has few responsibilities. The penalty is one is left with little to believe in -- which is only a problem if it turns out that believing is the first step toward knowledge of that which makes eternal life worth living.

Of course your criticism of my use of the Catholic encyclopedia, once admitted, works both ways. No source NOT Catholic could possibly understand the issue well or have the love of truth necessary to pursue the matter down to its den.

Assuming you have a modicum of understanding of the issue it's not necessary to understand the issue very well if the "talking points" are given to you. This is especially true if you are on the "payroll" so to speak.

It is of course just as silly to criticize papal infallibility by arguments irrelevant to the definition as it is to criticize transubstantiation because the consecrated elements do not look like flesh and blood. You are in the ridiculous position of saying, "If you'd said what I want you to have said, you'd have been wrong."

Your magic definition of infallibility didn't exist in the 7th century. How convenient it is to say "Honorius was not teaching Heresy by our recently developed, and retroactively applied, standards.

Yeah. Okay. I'll concede that.

But we didn't say the false thing you wish we had said so that you could call it false. And according to what we DID in FACT say. Honorius's posthumous verdict of heresy simply does not touch on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. So the persistent, albeit boring, effort to trap us in some inconsistency once again fails -- unless you get to write the rules, rules which have nothing to do with reason.

By it's very nature, the Council's delcaration of Herest was "infallible".