(June 11, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Cato Wrote: The fact is that as you bring up obvious changes in doctrine, the Catholic apologist will start narrowing the definition of doctrine until there is nothing left but believing in the divinity of Christ and that you can literally eat him after a man in a funny hat says some magic words over a plate of wafers.
It's best just to cut to the chase. Get their admission to the idea of Jesus as eternal smorgasbord, then point and laugh at the silly cunt.
Hehehe...Ah, I would have tried that myself only the automatic response is that I must be a hater and must have have daddy issues with Jesus.
So yeah, I was hoping to avoid the cracker jokes and try logic (I mean this is supposed to be a university) but...no luck.
(June 11, 2014 at 1:38 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: Hmmm. Is 1870s Papal Infallibility thing retroactive to past popes? If so, usurey and limbo and stuff were definitely infallible doctrines that have been revised/discarded.
Yes and no, proclamations like Boniface's "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" is, others like "Slavery is absolutely fine and natural" (Pius IX) are not. They're apparently only infallible if the Pope declares that he is defining a matter of faith and morals, if he's talking about faith or morality it's impossible for him to be wrong. I'm pretty sure all the Papal Bulls and Encyclicals are considered infallible.
