[Governor Dinwiddie]

My example was not about the right or wrong of dogma so much as to point out that if a dogma is in error, Roman Church polity makes it very hard to correct.

In any organization it is prudent to have a mechanism that allows for correction of official policy, such as the U.S. Constitution which has an amendment process.

As for the validity of any particular dogma, there have been hundreds of published volumes with pros and cons of each and they would be a better source for those interested in the topic than an Internet blog.

I certainly respect all those who believe this particular dogma, and I am in no position to judge anyone. Lord knows I have more than enough on my own plate.
 

[Mrs. Don-o]

I get your point, and I agree to this extent: even papal "wackadoo opinions" are pretty had to get rid of, just because of the prestige of the papacy (dogmatic definitions aside.)

That's why the correct understanding of infallibility is so important. "Infallibility" does not mean anything positive, like "the Pope is guaranteed to teach the right thing at the right time in the right manner." It is a negative guarantee: that the Pope is not going to be able to impose an error and declare it binding "de fide" on the whole Church.

It's essentially a protection against wackadoo papal opinions.

But dogmas are a different story. Properly speaking, dogmas, like diamonds, are forever.

[Mrs. Don-o]

`

Explain Papal Infallibility in Two Minutes

Watch this, you'll laugh (YouTube link).