Which historical version of the Catholic Church is infallibly correct?

[Mungo]

Alfred Persson
To get back to the topic.
Apart from your failed attempt with Peter have you any examples of wherethe Catholic Church has changed infallibly defined doctrines?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred Persson
To get back to the topic.
Apart from your failed attempt with Peter have you any examples of wherethe Catholic Church has changed infallibly defined doctrines?

Council of Constance, (1414–18), 16th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church. Following the election of two rival popes (Gregory XII in Rome and Benedict XIII in Avignon) in 1378 and the attempt at the Council of Pisa in 1409 to resolve the Great Schism by the election of a new pope, the church found itself with three popes instead of one.

Three infallible popes contradicting the others claims to be pope.

Some more context:

Council of Pisa, (1409), a council of the Roman Catholic Church convened with the intention of ending the Western (or Great) Schism, during which rival popes, each with his own Curia (bureaucracy), were set up in Rome and Avignon. This meeting, which was the result of concerted action by cardinals of both obediences, was well attended. It deposed the two existing pontiffs, who refused to cooperate, and elected a third, Alexander V. Western Christendom was therefore divided into three parties until the Council of Constance (1414–18), which forced the three contending popes to resign and elected Oddone Colonna, a Pisan cardinal, as Pope Martin V. The Council of Pisa has never been regarded as valid by canonists or theologians.

Of course they deny this council, like Putin denies any wrong.

 

[Mungo]

Council of Constance, (1414–18), 16th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church. Following the election of two rival popes (Gregory XII in Rome and Benedict XIII in Avignon) in 1378 and the attempt at the Council of Pisa in 1409 to resolve the Great Schism by the election of a new pope, the church found itself with three popes instead of one.

Three infallible popes contradicting the others claims to be pope.

Some more context:

Council of Pisa, (1409), a council of the Roman Catholic Church convened with the intention of ending the Western (or Great) Schism, during which rival popes, each with his own Curia (bureaucracy), were set up in Rome and Avignon. This meeting, which was the result of concerted action by cardinals of both obediences, was well attended. It deposed the two existing pontiffs, who refused to cooperate, and elected a third, Alexander V. Western Christendom was therefore divided into three parties until the Council of Constance (1414–18), which forced the three contending popes to resign and elected Oddone Colonna, a Pisan cardinal, as Pope Martin V. The Council of Pisa has never been regarded as valid by canonists or theologians.

Of course they deny this council, like Putin denies any wrong.

This claim fails for two reasons.

1. There were never three Popes. There were three claimants to the Papacy but claiming to be Pope doesn't mean they were the Pope. I could claim to be King of England but that doesn't mean I would be King of England.

2. Your original claim in the OP was that there were changes in doctrine.

There have been many changes in Catholic doctrine through the centuries.

I asked you - have you any examples of where the Catholic Church has changed infallibly defined doctrines?

Obviously you haven't.

 

[Alfred Persson]

This claim fails for two reasons.

1. There were never three Popes. There were three claimants to the Papacy but claiming to be Pope doesn't mean they were the Pope. I could claim to be King of England but that doesn't mean I would be King of England.

2. Your original claim in the OP was that there were changes in doctrine.


I asked you - have you any examples of where the Catholic Church has changed infallibly defined doctrines?

Obviously you haven't.

Vatican II was the 21st Council of the Catholic Church. Did ANY of these 21 Councils change doctrine?

The honest answer is "yes, changes were made".

 

[Mungo]

Vatican II was the 21st Council of the Catholic Church. Did ANY of these 21 Councils change doctrine?

The honest answer is "yes, changes were made".

But you can't give a single example.

 

[Alfred Persson]

But you can't give a single example.

I claimed 21 versions of Catholicism exist, pick any one of them as your example.

 

[Mungo]

I claimed 21 versions of Catholicism exist, pick any one of them as your example.

The you have 21 Councils to choose from to show a change of infallibly defined doctrine.
But you can't show a single example.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The you have 21 Councils to choose from to show a change of infallibly defined doctrine.
But you can't show a single example.

Are you serious? Vatican II made so many changes it caused schism in the Catholic Church.

Sedevacantism (Latin: Sedevacantismus) is a doctrinal position within traditionalist Catholicism,[1][2] which holds that the present occupier of the Holy See is not a valid pope due to the pope's espousal of one or more heresies and that therefore, for lack of a valid pope, the See of Rome is vacant.

The term sedevacantism is derived from the Latin phrase sede vacante, which means "with the chair [i.e. of the Bishop of Rome] being vacant".[3] The phrase is commonly used to refer specifically to a vacancy of the Holy See from the death, the resignation, the falling into insanity, or the public heresy of a pope to the election of his successor.

Among those who maintain that the see of Rome, occupied by what they declare to be an illegitimate pope, was really vacant, some have chosen an alternative pope of their own, thereby in their view ending the vacancy of the see; such are known sometimes as conclavists.[4]

The number of sedevacantists is unknown and difficult to measure; estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.[5]-Wikipedia


And that's just one of the 21. Each one caused schism by those rejecting the new version of Catholicism. Sometimes many rejected the changes, sometimes only a few forgotten by history. But no change was made without dissent.

 

[Mungo]

Are you serious? Vatican II made so many changes it caused schism in the Catholic Church.

Sedevacantism (Latin: Sedevacantismus) is a doctrinal position within traditionalist Catholicism,[1][2] which holds that the present occupier of the Holy See is not a valid pope due to the pope's espousal of one or more heresies and that therefore, for lack of a valid pope, the See of Rome is vacant.

The term sedevacantism is derived from the Latin phrase sede vacante, which means "with the chair [i.e. of the Bishop of Rome] being vacant".[3] The phrase is commonly used to refer specifically to a vacancy of the Holy See from the death, the resignation, the falling into insanity, or the public heresy of a pope to the election of his successor.

Among those who maintain that the see of Rome, occupied by what they declare to be an illegitimate pope, was really vacant, some have chosen an alternative pope of their own, thereby in their view ending the vacancy of the see; such are known sometimes as conclavists.[4]

The number of sedevacantists is unknown and difficult to measure; estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.[5]-Wikipedia


And that's just one of the 21. Each one caused schism by those rejecting the new version of Catholicism. Sometimes many rejected the changes, sometimes only a few forgotten by history. But no change was made without dissent.

Thank you but I know what sedevacantism is.
However you still haven't given an example of a change of infallibly defined doctrine.
Another fail on your part.