What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Metis]

The Orthodox, like the Protestant denominations, caved in to pressure from its membership. Why? No pope.

Hardly a cave Randy, the Orthodox Church accepted contraception long before Protestantism even existed as it did Triadist divorce (that is, the ability to divorce and remarry in the Orthodox Church up to three times). It's Catholics who did a u-turn there as I'm sure any one of Father Seraphim's excellent apologetic sites can explain to you.

Nor would it be necessary. What you fail to recognized apparently is that while the ECF's were thoroughly Catholic (and this is undeniable), they were not individually infallible. Consequently, when an ECF errs here and there, the Church was able to discern that error and choose the correct path.

A.K.A: "We're making this up as we're going along". Randy, I've already given you an example about Papal statements being cherrypicked (remember I used decrees that "for now and all time" Jews should be persecuted?) based upon sheer fancy and what suits the political climate of the day.
Yeesh if you want a prime example of that look no further than Pius XII who wouldn't condemn Nazism until Hitler had actually died."The Church" is "whoever in the college of Cardinals happens to be the most cunning or rich". Do I need to copy/paste the colorful history of curial intrigue, simony and the murders within? I'd have assumed as an apologist you are already aware of them.

Nice example. Aquinas may have been right! The damage done by Martin Luther, for example, has been incalculable.

But no, we don't slaughter heretics anymore. Lucky you.  

While I can't say I believe in his ideas I must say I personally very much admire Martin Luther, proof in point of the impact one man can make on history, seeing as he more or less single handedly demolished Catholicism for all time in the Northern Western world.
Alas...Take heed everyone, Randy's good Catholic morality shines through again. Aquinas is right, it's good to kill heretics.
May I ask since why it is so important to your Gods nature to have humans defend his honor you no longer do it?

Or that contraception would not be permitted by Paul VI. Yep. Jesus said to Peter, "Whatever you bind...". Awesome authority that.

Oh I don't doubt that Randy, Pius IX and Pius XII both saw to the centeralization of Papal Power, that I don't doubt. What I do see however is that this power is a huge liability. Lets take Pius XII for instance, you recall how before his death he was planning to proclaim Mary "Medeatrix of All-Graces". Now for non-theologians here what this basically meant is that Mary would be ascribed divine powers of her own, she wouldn't be a goddness but she would have "an equal role to that of her son in the salvation plan for mankind". The only reason this didn't get pushed though is because Pius XII died before he managed it.

Now I know what Randy will say; "Proof of Papal Infalliability! God struck the heretic down!"....Well Randy, Achille Ratti (that's Pius XI) , Eugenio Pancelli's (Pius XII) predecessor was also preparing an encyclidical of his own, which he actually finished and was only prevented from being released to the world by his death. Do you know what it was? A full condemnation of Adolf Hitler and European Anti-Semitism.

Now, does God hate Jews so much he'd kill his Pope so that he couldn't prevent the Holocaust from happening? Please explain.

I'm sure some have felt that way. But the pope does have a lot of theological advisors.

Which as I've mentioned in the cases of Leo XIII, Pius XII and as well as in the cases of Paul VI, John Paul II and many others they don't listen to. Paul VI was warned by the curia and unanimously by his hand picked advisors that condemning artificial contraception would have "dire consequences" for Catholicism as well as his idea was based on faulty theology.
He ignored them, and pretty much destroyed Catholic observance in Europe and North America.

Sure. He is the the head of the Church established by God Himself.

Not even going there. You can't even get the Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East to agree with you on this one, you can't expect non-believers to take this seriously? There's just too much evidence against it.
Simplest briefest way I can put it....If the Pope was the big cheese right from the word go, how come all of the Early Church councils were conducted in Orthodox lands? Carthage, Nicea, Chalcedon...I don't see any Rome or Italian dioceses in there until considerably later, but I do so many historically powerful Orthodox bishophrics.

No, the Pope is LIMITED in what he can and cannot teach by doctrine that has already been established and by the Holy Spirit. So, the review of a pope comes from PAST popes, so to speak.

Which as I've demonstrated with the Jews he can ignore whenever he likes and just kick under the rug. "Oh, I was wrong, I guess that wasn't infallibly declared after all".

Where did you get your information?

Pope Honorius (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecumenical council in 680 for having, in a letter to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, smoothed over heretical teaching and failed to give a dogmatic decision.

Much money has been spent by various Protestant bodies in the attempt to find even one formal papal definition which has been proved wrong or to find where one pope, attempting to teach infallibly, contradicted another or an ecumenical council. The records have been diligently searched by brilliant minds. Nothing has been overlooked; not one minor detail has been ignored. The result has been the complete vindication of the Church and the pope.

Goodness, what a revisionist account of history. While it's a step up from Belloc or Chesterton (the usual Catholic Go to's) this really isn't the truth at all. Honorius was paid by the arian faction within the church to further their cause (so some nice simony in there too). May I suggest you don't look at right wing writers like Spencer and use more balanced accounts such as the very readable and multiple-viewpoint-sharing version of The Popes by Viscount John Julius Norwich?
He unlike Spencer actually knows what he's talking about, and is experienced in Vatican diplomatic matters himself.

I understand you need time to research some of your rebuttals Randy but you have skipped and avoided many of my points on this thread and others. I'm happy to wait, but it does give the impression I'm running rings around you.