Your side so enjoys the outraged fulmination that it often overlooks a simple truth: If the devil is in the details, surely God has sent angels to contend with him there.
No one of average prudence would presume to evaluate this 14th century deprecation by John the xth (such that x is less than 23) without knowing the minutest detail.
I'm entirely serious. Having myself enjoyed the heady rage which comes from denouncing "Rome," I know its attractions.
But really, if we are going to be serious, we need to look at the documents and to go over them calmly. Reaching the verdict before we know the details is not exactly the highest of human functioning.
But really, if we are going to be serious, we need to look at the documents and to go over them calmly. Reaching the verdict before we know the details is not exactly the highest of human functioning.
Does the tiniest part of you believe the entire subject of Papal Infallibility was without controversy? Have you "calmly" reviewed the documents and come to the conclusion that the Bishops (etc) of the Catholic Church were unanimously in favor of the definition of Papal Infallibility? Does your "calm" review explain why approximately 170 Bishops connveniently 'took a hike' prior to the final vote?
Your side (seemingly a much used term of yours) might do well to make an effort to attempt to objectively examine the reading of history on the "other side".