Made better

Irrelevant to this convo but whatever

you don't understand catholic conceptions of infallability

Apparently

when they say that the pope is infallable, it doesn't mean that literally whatever he says is ultimate truth

it means that the church is divinely guided just like the apostles were

The pope can however speak from infallibility

No?

he can

So if the pope spoke from infallibility and said "Vatican 2" is infallible

That would be truth according to them

And rejection of that would be heresy

For whatever reason

If the pope infallibly declared heresy, then the entire Catholic faith would be bunk

What I'm saying is it's impossible if Catholicism is true

If

Yes

And there have been no heretical infallible statements in church history

the thing that i don't understand here is how do you differentiate between infallible claims

and fallible ones

The church has defined them (orthos have bigger trouble identifying ecumenical councils)

could you give me examples

or just the definitions themselves

I am beginning to understand why there have been so many wars between Christian denominations

Ex Cathedra statements for example

There have been very few

> ur going to hell prot
> let's test that theory I'll take you with me

@Eoppa btw what the hell was the anti pope stuff

And if the current pope is fake where is the anti Pope

Or the legitimate one

There is no Pope right now

I'm a sedevacantist

could you explain to me

@Eoppa Why has no one bothered to eleect a real pope

when the current clergy became illegitimate

and by what action

this is what i don't get

Vatican II

Atleast during the anti pope era they had the balls to have a real claimed pope

and what decision there goes against catholic doctrine

That's because only the Pope was anathema back then