[ansel12]

Actually I was saying that it appears from what Mrs. was saying, that when the Popes infallibly pass on God’s message, that it isn’t necessarily “infallible” until it is voted on, or in the case of canonizing people into Sainthood, that the individual Catholic can decide for himself if the Pope is putting out personal wishes, or is actually passing on what God told him.

[Legatus]

I don’t know how but you’ve got it all mixed up and this business about “God’s message” sounds like mormonism. God doesn’t speak to the pope and tell him “stuff”. He’s not an oracle.

And no, there is no voting on infallible statements, the pope is supreme.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Actually I was saying that it appears from what Mrs. was saying, that when the Popes infallibly pass on God’s message, that it isn’t necessarily “infallible” until it is voted on, or in the case of canonizing people into Sainthood, that the individual Catholic can decide for himself if the Pope is putting out personal wishes, or is actually passing on what God told him."

Ansel12, I said nothing of the kind. I don't think you'll listen to me here, but I'm just putting this on the thread so that regular readers and lurkers will have it underscored that you keep reverting to this "God told him" "God's message" stuff as if we were Mormons or something, and that is not AT ALL what infallibility is about.

I also didn't say anything about "voting" on infallible pronouncements. Not one word.

I also didn't say anything about the "individual Catholic deciding for himself." You got that all out of your own extrapolation or imagination, not from what I wrote.

You also completely ignored what I wrote about teachings of the Magisterium being authoritative even when they are not infallible.

I hate having to continuously refute absurd commentaries on things I never said in the first place. Your own imaginative reconstruction of Catholicism is not attractive; and, at this point, beyond tedious.