Anti-Catholic Argument Using Vatican I

[YoungCatholic86]

I was recently watching a debate from years ago on youtube (though I have to say it wasn’t really a debate; it was more of a “let’s gang up of Fr. Pacwa and not let him speak” event) and I found a quote that has some merit to it. The protestant debater brought a quote from Vatican I out (32 minutes in) and he goes on and on listing examples of contradictory papal statements. Though I though Fr. Pacwa did an extremely good job most of the time, I didn’t find his answer satisfactory. It seems like Father just kept putting conditions down for it to be infallible to defend the inconsistencies.

Could anyone provide a more satisfactory answer (seeing as we don’t have a disrespectful talk show host to interrupt who ever wants to give an answer)? The link is below.

youtube.com/watch?v=E5VDG2nb5h0

 

[runningdude]

That is the answer. The pope is only infallible under certain conditions. The rest, it is his personal theological opinion.

Most of the contradictions dealt with in the video deal with temporal law. These laws are not theological, and therefore can be changed at the discretion of the lawful authorities. For instance, if Congress passes a law, it is not prohibited from repealing it the future. Neither is a future Pope forbidden from repealing a law or discipline enacted by a previous pope.

The ones dealing with heresies are more concerning, but are weak enough examples, that the guy spends tries to drown them out with the irrelevant contradictions. I don’t know enough about the context to dispel them here.