[boatbums]

You thought the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was conceived in ignorance of the Paul’s correction Peter? A pope’s pronouncements are only infallible upon meeting highly stringent requirements. Look it up. Most popes never exercise their power of infallibility.

No, I understand what the Roman Catholic Church means by the term, but, in light of the authority enumerated and implied by saying someone is the "Vicar of Christ" and his representative on earth, obedience is demanded regardless of "highly stringent requirements" of ex-cathedra pronouncements. Just like the statements I quoted later where even if the Pope was Satan himself, a faithful Catholic should obey him. Don't you agree that is taking the idea a bit too far?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

want to take a crack at post #492, lutherans are losing 2-0.

[mas cerveza por favor]

I have already written in post 248 that the statement by St. Catherine of Siena was humble hyperbole from one of the most audacious papal critics in history herself. Like St. Paul, she succeeded in convincing the pope to make far-reaching and necessary reforms.

The council statement only recognizes that the papal office always retains some power, not that Catholics are obliged to obey a sinful command. They most certainly are not.

[impimp1]

My understaning is that you must have faith and believe all ex-cathedra pronouncements. Non-ex-cathedra pronouncements do not require faith, but still require obedience.

What is wrong with being obedient to a law that you have no faith in? Don’t you still pay taxes even though you think the rates are unjustly high? Same thing.

Can you give an example of a non-ex-cathedra Papal Bull that offends your sensibilities?