I agree with this author that nothing will change. However, I am curious, why does he peddle an incorrect notion of the teaching of papal infallibility? Most Catholics know that the pope is not infallible, and that only “ex cathedra” pronouncements are considered to be infallible by the church (and apparently there have been only three ever, the last being the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the 1800s). Even if they don’t understand the theology, Catholics know that the Catholic Church does not teach that the pope generally is infallible. Why continue to perpetuate the false premise that the Catholics view the pope himself as infallible in everything he teaches? Further, while I disagree with many church teachings, the author acts like it’s obvious that the church is wrong about nearly everything it teaches, but he presents it more like fact than opinion.
Feb 21 2013 - 10:44am