CathInfo.com

R&R's who don't care what the Pope teaches are Old Catholics, change my mind.  :P

There's no doubt.  They differ only on their acceptance of Vatican I and therefore do believe that there are in some (according to them) very limited circuмstances, truths which are guaranteed a priori to be consistent with Tradition.

But the tenets of R&R are nearly verbatim the Old Catholic talking points.  Had they been around at the time of VI, they could just as easily have rejected the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility is in fact a very curious dogma.  It's truth depends on whether it's true.  In other words, if the Pope teaches infallibly, then infallibility must be true.  But if it's not true, then it's possible that the definition of infallibility was mistaken.  It's a bit of a conundrum.

So what guarantees it to be true?  It's actually the BROADER infallibility of the Church.  God would never allows His One True Church to corrupt the faith this way.  And yet R&R reject that principle, and do hold that it's possible for the faith to be corrupted.  Consequently, for them, the dogmatic definition of infallibility is build on a foundation of straw.

The True Story of the Vatican Council, by H. Manning is on the archives.  It is very good reading.  When Vatican I took place it was to define Papal Infallibility.  It is dogma but was not defined, really defined til Vatican I, and the definition is a 1 hour and 50 minute read.  I would like to read it.

Too bad you have so much self-love and care for human respect that you're hiding behind an anonymous post on a forum that already provides anonymity through pseudonyms.

Yes. I won't be responding to twenty anonymous posts, just to the guy who invoked private judgment, but, of course, never looked up the definition.

Here is the error of our Protestant friends. They recognize no distinction between reason and private judgement. Reason is common to all men; private judgement is the special act of an individual …. In all matters of this sort there is a criterion of certainty beyond the individual, and evidence is adducible which ought to convince the reason of every man, and which, when adduced, does convince every man of ordinary understanding, unless through his own fault. Private judgement is not so called … because it is a judgement of an individual, but because it is a judgement rendered by virtue of a private rule or principle of judgement …. The distinction here is sufficiently obvious, and from it we may conclude that nothing is to be termed ‘private judgement’ which is demonstrable from reason or provable from testimony.

(Brownson’s Quarterly Review, October 1852, p. 482-3. Emphasis added.)

I'll even add a bonus quote to prayerfully reflect upon.

For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, n. 8)