Edit: Started off strong, then immediately went into asshole mode. Bad me.
Blessings and speaking infallibly are two very separate things. Again, it’s only ever been done twice. You’re including extraneous information that does not help your case, because you are trying to sound smarter than you really are and not arguing within the confines of the argument. Leo is NOT speaking infallibly when he says no war is blessed. You have to go through a very long process to speak infallibly. That’s why Immaculate Conception and Assumption are the only ones.
You’re trying to recontextualize the rules, so that they fit your argument. Are you Western Christian perhaps?
You be ignorant, child.
edit: not blessings, but rather just speaking on what the Lord blesses is not considered infallible.
It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.
What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?
Man, if only I studied Latin for religious studies. Oh wait! I did! Speaking with Papal Infallibility is only done in specific vircumstances. Anything else can be considered possibly infallible. Fuck, y’all are dumb.
Edit: It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy” there’s a process you have to go through to speak from the chair. Same reason it hasn’t been done since 1950. You clearly know how to read and research, so just do it.
Edit: The church has rejected multiple declarations from Popes over the years. It means nothing!
It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy”
Which is funny to the audience because everyone knows that’s not how banking works. It took me a while to find out what exactly was missing because the definition - which is a translation of the original - is full of “term of art” hidden jargon. Easy traps for outsiders. I’m not trying to get out of being wrong btw, just saying that there is probably a reason this is a common misunderstanding and not a matter of being dumb.
Edit: Started off strong, then immediately went into asshole mode. Bad me.
Blessings and speaking infallibly are two very separate things. Again, it’s only ever been done twice. You’re including extraneous information that does not help your case, because you are trying to sound smarter than you really are and not arguing within the confines of the argument. Leo is NOT speaking infallibly when he says no war is blessed. You have to go through a very long process to speak infallibly. That’s why Immaculate Conception and Assumption are the only ones.
You’re trying to recontextualize the rules, so that they fit your argument. Are you Western Christian perhaps?
You be ignorant, child.
edit: not blessings, but rather just speaking on what the Lord blesses is not considered infallible.
Edit: I was wrong
Speaking infallibly can be done a number of ways, including the one which I literally quoted, from the Vatican council. This is not external information, this is catholic doctrine. You can find it on the official Vatican website, though only in Latin: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/i-vatican-council/documents/vat-i_const_18700718_pastor-aeternus_la.html
It is possible to establish doctrines a number of ways, including through long collegial processes as you describe. Those are simply not the only ways, and an ex-cathedra declaration is the prerogative of the pontiff alone.
What specific point are you disagreeing on with me here? How is the declaration from Pope Leo not ex-cathedra per Vatican I?
Edit: I am a supercilious fool.
Man, if only I studied Latin for religious studies. Oh wait! I did! Speaking with Papal Infallibility is only done in specific vircumstances. Anything else can be considered possibly infallible. Fuck, y’all are dumb.
Edit: It’s the same fucking reason Michael Scott isn’t bankrupt when he says, “I declare bankruptcy” there’s a process you have to go through to speak from the chair. Same reason it hasn’t been done since 1950. You clearly know how to read and research, so just do it.
Edit: The church has rejected multiple declarations from Popes over the years. It means nothing!
Which is funny to the audience because everyone knows that’s not how banking works. It took me a while to find out what exactly was missing because the definition - which is a translation of the original - is full of “term of art” hidden jargon. Easy traps for outsiders. I’m not trying to get out of being wrong btw, just saying that there is probably a reason this is a common misunderstanding and not a matter of being dumb.
Again, I am sorry. I would delete my comment, but I feel it is worthwhile to see our mistakes and be reminded, so we can further grow.
I was the supercilious one, not you. I am the dumb one. Knowledge is power and should shared in a pleasant way, not hatefully like I have.
Again, my sincerest apologies for my candour. It was detestable.