Four questions for Christians

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think so too (although I doubt anything will change for several years on that topic).

But I also think the get out of jail clause of being able to retrospectively exonerate oneself from past decision is a bit of a cop out for the RCC. It wasn't a false belief up until V2, then it was. Although as a pragmatist I do appreciate when an organiastion is able to change and adapt to the societal status quo, although I don't much like the idea of being a de facto catholic regardless of what I actually [dont] believe.

The belief was very real with the Pope and among Christians, but it wasn't officially and infallibly set in stone until Vatican II. The Pope himself is fallible as a person, and he can only learn the doctrine the others learn and make his best possible ruling on it. But there are times when the Church comes together and the Pope and the bishops try to get things straight.

Well, again, as a pragmatist, I appreciate all attempts an organisation makes to ensure that it fits in with societal norms and the evolving status quo.

But equally I think an organisation such as the RCC, which after claims to have authority on all messages/directions of the divine, is in a catch-22 with the the evolving of it structures. I guess one could split the structure between temporal and supernatural, and I guess it would also be fair to say that may would feel that the temporal message/structure changes whilst the divine message does not. People's first interaction with the church (as children, say) is always the temporal message and the authoritative structure that it puts in place. I'm an advocate that children are born with no knowledge of any deity (I use myself as evidence as I've never believed in any god or gods), so its the temporal structure that gets one into believing in the divine one (the same of course is true of the bible).

So my point I suppose is why believe in anything the church says if the message it puts forward can be diluted? Again, I think it's good that the position shifts on things like inclusivism (although I wouldn't like to be thought of a catholic if i'm honest), but equally, it inevitably leads to schism and splits (most famously through the reformation and the crisis of dissolution I guess) as people become hard advocates of one message over another. this inevitably leads to even the divine message being disagreed upon (again, the reformation).

I must ask though, how anyone could know what 'Christians' thought prior to V2 on the subject of inclusivism. I would say it's impossible to know prior to the event, really.