I know this has been discussed to death, but I wanted to be honest and say that papal infallibility, the way it's been defined, is a real phenomenon. The only question is whether or not it is theologically sound. One thing I want to mention is that Pastor Aeternus (the document defining it) says that it is a dogma divinely revealed and not something that everyone was aware of, but the phenomenon and points that were never contradicted in the criteria given were happening throughout history from the beginning. When it quotes the church fathers regarding the criteria for which the Bishop of Rome has supposedly been infallible, it does so in a historically accurate context, citing only their respect for Rome's early primacy. It does not say they knew the statements that fit the ex-cathedra definition would be the ones guided infallibly throughout history. -I am not sure if transubstantiation tries to claim what some accuse it of claiming. It seems to define more so the extent and duration to which the specimen will become the body and blood of Christ to address pastoral concerns about how it is to be handled, such as the question of when it starts/stops being the body and blood of Jesus. The whole mystery of what Christ's body and blood is really like and its mystery is probably not what is being addressed. I will have to clarify this later. -The Orthodox make one unsubstantiated claim against Rome's doctrine of the Assumption. They claim they teach dogmatically that Mary was kept alive and ascended physically without death but according to the catechism, whether she continued to live or died first is open to discussion. They never settled that point. It just says that when her earthly life was finished, she was ascended but it doesn't state whether that was in death or while alive. The Orthodox claim that it's more logical that Mary died since Christ died first, but like I said, this particular point is not part of the dogma taught by Rome about the assumption, just the assumption in general. -They say that different rites allow different rules of marriage for priests, and some can marry. The western rite, which is the most common that teaches celibacy, is modeled under the conditions they believe Paul suggested were ideal for men who would take up a celibate office, where as the Eastern one which allows married priests follows different rules and disciplines that accomodate a married priest. -Vatican II did not overturn the doctrines of Trent. I have seen quotations and articles from Trent's catechism that suggest that invincible ignorance outside of the church can save someone. Vatican II was pastoral, in that it was meant to address the current situation of the times in light of the church's already established moral and faith teachings. Lumen gentium teaches that Protestants and Orthodox are closer to communion with the church as far as their trinitarian baptism goes, and emphasizes this more strongly in that paragraph, in stark contrast to the following paragraph which speaks of everyone outside of the Christian spectrum. On that it mostly emphasizes the particular points of other religions that agree with Christianity and not every single thing they teach. When they say muslims worship the Abrahamic God, it seems to mean that they worship him only in an incomplete manner. They mention they believe in the Abrahamic God who will judge mankind on the last day, but leaves it open to discussion with them as to exactly how he will do that. This is because muslims believe that how involved they are in jihad will determine what God thinks of them at the end of the world on judgement day. Allah will send Jesus to kill people who worshiped him as something besides just a prophet. This is a crucial point, because it does not say they are right about this point, but if Christian-Muslim dialog were to occur, this would be important because it will help lead muslims away from their most vital practice and that is holy war. Someone mentioned that V2 was pastoral because in the past people were more educated on RC doctrine not to be ignorant, but by V2 came around, most people had lost touch so ecumenical relations was important in dialog with other religions and sects. -Irenaeus's rebuke of the Bishop of Rome (Victor) over the difference in holidays is not a matter of faith and morals since holidays are pastoral things that can be changed and not based in absolute faith and moral issues. -The development of doctrine could be defended in that the Old testament often had events taking place that did not become clear as to their meaning or why they happened until one prophet illuminated on it and explained why these things happened or their typology to explain why God allowed it before these patterns were explained as being important or having some meaning. So too do some say this about the patterns in the Roman church such as... -The idea that Peter founded multiple churches does not mean that every church he founded would end up infallible or preserved on some way or another, but just the fact that it had to be at least some kind of church founded by Peter. Jesus at the time did not explain the exact way it would be kept together. -Mary's immaculate conception does not necessarily require the idea that there had to be an unbroken chain of sinless women to give birth to a sinless woman and man. There are advocates who say that God did not need to keep Mary from Sin or her ancestors just to make Jesus sinless, but that he made Mary sinless as well as Christ to keep the Adam and Eve parallel consistent. She could've technically even given birth to children who had sin even if sinless herself. Again, it's about the parallel. -That the bible never explicitly says that Jesus is the only person without sin. They say Romans 3:23 cannot apply to all people because Jesus was both fully God and FULLY MAN. And, the verses that say Jesus is sinless say only that and that the sacrifice had to be sinless, and only the sinless sacrifice was among the sinless to be allowed to be worshiped. Angels and people in heaven are sinless yet we do not worship them. John the Baptist and Jeremiah are also cited as exceptional examples. -That we can't ask saints for intercession because they do not feel pain in heaven, yet God can feel a sense of righteous anger/sorrow and since their holiness is received and eminates from him, they too can feel a virtuous sense of sorrow or anger for the sufferings of people on earth. I also want to go into the counter points of Roman doctrine. There are certainly those, too. I just want to be honest. I've asked some questions about these things and people seem to brush them off like they don't matter. I hope we can get more in depth and understand the full scope of argumentation regarding this.