@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC 

				
User ID: 359


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
OracleOutlook


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 359


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I feel like people are responding to something I didn't say.


What I did say: I would be ok with paternity tests becoming common place and routine as just a normal part of a hospital birth.  In such a world, there is no reason to take offense.  But in this world, a specific husband asking his specific wife is obviously offensive to her.


What I am responding to is stuff like this comment, where people feel like every father should ask this of his wife at every birth before agreeing to be on the birth certificate, regardless of any evidence of cheating.


If you ask your wife for a paternity test... your relationship is going to have problems after.  So don't do it unless you already have problems.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The problem is your wife is suspecting you're unfaithful.  That is a problem!  Yes, once that problem is there, then you have no recourse but to solve it.


But in this thread it seems people are recommending men make a habit of asking their wives for paternity tests with every child even if there is no real reason to be suspicious.  And I can tell you, it would not go over well and neither should it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If I came out of a coma or had some head trauma that caused me to lose some time, and my husband earnestly presented a child to me as my own, then I would believe him.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I do not have a natural guarantee that my husband is faithful to me.  All I can guarantee is that I am faithful to him.


Also see my response here: https://www.themotte.org/post/3726/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/440420?context=8#context


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the wife seething in jealousy for months




But see!  This is the problem here.  It'd be a sign that your wife is currently seething in jealousy!  Your relationship is forever changed whether the test happens or not.


Let's look at the different worlds:


World 1: Wife does not ask for 'fidelity' test.


Possibilities:


    

  • Wife believes you are faithful and you are in a happy marriage
    • 

  • Wife doesn't believe you are faithful and your marriage is unhappy, but for some reason she does not request the test.  Maybe she doesn't want to rock the boat, maybe she doesn't mind as long as you pay the mortgage, etc.
    • 



World 2: Wife asks for "fidelity test"


Possibilities:


    

  • Wife doesn't believe you are faithful and your marriage is unhappy
    • 



The possibility where your marriage is happy is gone now.  Your marriage is different and you can't go back.


Given the responses from the Male Motte, the most I can say is that male and female intuitions on this topic are just diametrically opposed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Are you married?


Let's say there was a test with 99% accuracy that would determine if you have had sex with someone else (maybe a genital swab of you and your wife that would identify bacteria from another women.)  Your wife out of the blue demands that you take the test.  The implication is that she suspects you have been cheating on her.  You had a healthy relationship.  You thought she trusted you.  You never would even think of another woman.


Wouldn't this be off-putting to say the least?  You thought you had one kind of relationship, one where it was you two, forever together, just you and her til death.  And then suddenly it appears that she is in some other relationship, one in which you would cheat.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If my husband demanded a paternity test for our kids, I'd be very offended.  If he couldn't trust me that much, does he even want to be married?


But if it was just standard at every birth, I wouldn't care at all.


Maybe a state will normalize it for some reason and the rest will follow suit.


I suspect that we're moving in a different direction though.  Many states are making the spouse of the mother is listed on the birth certificate by default, even if they obviously are not the father.  For example, two lesbians end up on the birth certificate and that's affirming and cute under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA).  There seems to be a trend towards "intended parents" over genetic parent.


If intended parents matter more to the state than genetic parent, it doesn't make sense to start genetic testing.  It would just be a triggering reminder that two women can't actually make a baby on their own.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Better water and food quality.


Boron is mostly found in fruits and avocados, which are generally "middle-class and up fare" in America.  Silica is found in fancier mineral water.


Maybe I'm wrong here but I get the impression that nail quality is worse for people in the lower classes, which is why they love their press-ons. Meanwhile, I noticed my nails getting more brittle as I aged and started drinking Fiji water a couple times a week and now have great nails.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
For myself, getting nails done was a thing that went along with fancy/formal occasions.  We seldom went to a salon but we would make a big production of picking out nail polish that matched our dress and painting each other's toes/nails the day before a wedding or dance.


Someone who always has their nails done up strikes me as someone with too much time on their hands.  Whether that's because they are upper class or living off the dole, it could mean either.  Upper class people have more "taste" and make sure their nails don't clash.  They also probably get more silica/boron in their diet and have stronger nails to start with.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


No? Is this a common experience?




Yeah kinda.  A software developer who is ill fitted to their position changes gender and then for a year becomes unfire-able.


Am I just really unlucky here?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
How old is your family? What percentage is under 25 years old?


You've never even had a coworker change gender on you?


Four of my examples are from Washington State, but one is from Texas.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you have a large enough family, trans issues are going to happen to you at least once.


    

  • 

    One of my cousins became trans in high school.  She didn't show any sign of being masculine as a child, was a very picky eater, wanted to marry a lead singer of a boy band to the point where she plotted killing his wife... and then a year later her mother was dying and she decided that men are better able to handle such awfulness and transitioned into a boy, hormones and all.
    

    • 

  • 

    We once pooled resources with my husband's friend to rent a house together and one of our friend's sons married a transwoman who dressed in a way that was really inappropriate all the time.
    

    • 

  • 

    Another of that friends' sons is super autistic, didn't finish high school, and decided recently that he's a woman.
    

    • 

  • 

    The last of that friend's children was raped as a teenager and decided to become a man in response.  All three of these young adults suffered obvious physical and mental health challenges that were exacerbated by their belief they could improve their lives by trying to live as another sex.
    

    • 

  • 

    Now I have a family reunion coming up on my husband's side, and my sister in law messaged our family to say that her oldest son was transitioning, that her husband still used masculine pronouns and my sister-in-law used female pronouns, my nephew was still using the same androgynous first name and was wearing androgynous clothes, and it was up to us how we want to prepare our children to see their cousin.
    

    • 



Trans people are everywhere and each individual has to figure out what to do about it.  How do you address them, do you encourage them or discourage them from transitioning, do you even feel a gender?  A small group of people can't just change how all of society thinks about sex and language and think, "Why do people keep talking about us?"


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, if five minutes after pressing the button 40% of the worlds population started dying of radiation sickness and over the course of weeks to a couple months everyone slowly died that would be a sign it was the button.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Why do you assume it's an instant death and not a slow drawn out painful death?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the difference is, a kid will see that a woodchipper is scary, but a kid might see a blue button as enticing.


I think most people who answer blue are thinking of children (maybe?) and most people who answer red assume children wouldnt' be asked.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There are two ways to phrase the question.  This way is phrased here basically demands Blue.


Rephrase it like this and I think there would be more Red pushers:




Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button.   Everyone who presses the red button will live with no risk of death.  If you press the blue button, you will die unless more than 50% of people also press the blue button.




Phrasing this way demonstrates that the blue button pressers are creating a risk of death which doesn't really need to be there.


But what about kids?  I think adding a (those who are incompetent or underage will have their button pushed by their parent/guardian) parenthetical would change it even more.


Because consider the parent now.  If you asked a parent, "Which button would you press for your kid, the one where they will always survive or the one where they might die?"  I think most parents would press the red button without a second thought.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They all preceded the formation of Christ's church as current constituted,




Why should this matter if the formulation is absolute the way it is interpreted?  They were Jews and they wouldn't have recognized themselves having any allegiance to a Pope in Rome.   Therefore, they will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.  That's what the phrase is interpreted to mean when people say that it excludes Protestants or basically everyone who does not consider themselves under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome.




If you can show me some Jews, pagans, heretics or schismatics who existed after the ascension of Christ who are uncontroversially saved, I am all ears.




While there are no dogmatic declarations like for Abraham, and sainthood is reserved for Christian role models, we do have records from the earliest times where people outside the church were considered to have been saved:


Acts of Paul and Thecla (c. AD 150) — A deceased non-Christian woman, Falconilla, appears in a dream to her mother Queen Tryphena, asking that the martyr Thecla pray for her soul’s transfer from suffering to happiness.


Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicity (AD 203) — Perpetua’s prison diary, one of the oldest surviving texts written by a woman, records two visions of her unbaptized younger brother Dinocrates: first in suffering, then in joyful refreshment after Perpetua prays for him.


**Pope St. Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel, 2:3 (540-604 AD): “**The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow… They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church.”


Abel is an interesting choice because he's not even part of the covenant with Abraham.


So that shows that at one time, Christians assumed that people who died without knowing Christ could be saved.  Augustine has compunctions on the case of poor Dinocrates and argues that he could have been baptized as an infant without anyone knowing, but even with that excuse it is still clear he died without being a practicing Catholic.


Though arguing this is perhaps that early Christians believed this, but were the early Christian's Catholic?  That's probably one of the points in contention.


I don't know what the authors of Florence read for sure, but I know for a fact that Saints Perpetua and Felicity held wide popularity and they had a publicly celebrated feast day up until the 14th century when Aquinas replaced their calendar day. The Acts of Paul and Thecla also have Latin copies found far and wide.


Ultimately I just don't know enough about what the signatories of Florence had in their libraries to argue too strongly.  Hopefully we can agree that Pope St. Gregory the Great was Catholic. Abraham is the better argument for me as his salvation is as assured as anything can be in the Bible.




I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this!




The Church is the Body of Christ.  Christ is the bridegroom and we are the bride.  The Church is the New Israel.


All who are baptized with water in a Trinitarian formula are members of the Church.  All who are baptized by desire and wish they were members of the Church are members of the Church.  All who are baptized by blood and suffer for the Church are members of the Church.  This isn't a new teaching or a modern softening of things.  The Catholic Church has considered Orthodox sacraments perfectly valid, including and especially baptism.  Baptism can be conferred by anybody, even someone who is not a Christian.


I return to Gregory the Great's quote: "in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church."  With this in mind, consider this:


    

  1. God earnestly desires that all be saved.
    2. 

  2. Salvation only happens through Jesus, though being a member of His mystical body.
    3. 

  3. Hopefully God gets His wish and many are saved.
    4. 

  4. There are many who, through accidents of geography, inherited religious traditions, etc, who are not able to consciously choose to become a member of Christ's mystical body.
    5. 

  5. Jesus also says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like wheat and tares, or good fish and bad fish.  At some point they will be separated, but that point is not now.
    6. 



The Kingdom of Heaven is not just "a set of all those who are saved"/invisible church but instead we are told there are some bad people in it right now who will not be saved but nevertheless are considered in what I would call the Church.


But nevertheless there are some people who are not aware that the Pope in Rome has jurisdiction over them, who are also saved.  But all of them are saved through participation in Christ's Body.


Catholics believe the Pope has jurisdiction over the suffering Church on Earth, which would include everyone who is in Christ's Body.


So if I were to rephrase Florence to how I read it with the definitions I have:


Everyone who is saved is saved through a participation in Christ's Universal Church, which is under the jurisdiction of the Pope. This participation needs to happen sometime in their earthly life before their death.  They are not saved through merit found in their other faiths, but saved through Christ and His Church.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives") is damned to eternal fire, correct?




Yes, this is correct.  This does not contradict what I said and it does not contradict what the Church taught previously either.


So consider this - Moses, Elijah, Abraham, these people are uncontroversially saved, right?  That is official Church teaching, Abraham is in Heaven, this was known well before the council of Florence.  The people at the council of Florence would agree that Abraham is in Heaven and they still wrote what they wrote.


So from the start, we can tell that what Florence is saying here is completely different from how it's been interpreted by various groups (many of whom are Catholic unfortunately.)


What the Catholic Church believes herself to be is the most important obstacle to understanding what she means when she utters statements like this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
From your source:




Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.




But also I think your Catholic Encyclopedia source is just incorrect on some points, which an Encyclopedia is allowed to be.


And even granting that these anathemas were to excommunicate:


    

  1. 

    The penalty of excommunication applies to the present, it is not retroactive.  It is something faithful Catholics should keep in mind going forward and keep out of obedience, not something that condemns people in the past before the definition was made.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    It is a canonical penalty.  There are saints who died while excommunicated.  People who are excommunicated are still expected to meet the precepts of the Church, come to mass, etc.  It's not what people think it is.
    

    3. 



This also another area where I think it is important to recognize that Vatican I actually limited Papal authority. Now we have the tools to look back and assess what is morally/theologically certain, what are pious opinions, what are disciplines and canonical requirements.  And pious opinions and disciplines can change without impacting the veracity of dogma over time.




Florence explicitly say that "schismatics" are damned




Yes, schismatics are damned.  Schism is a damnable sin.  But how many people who believe themselves outside the Catholic Church are actually personally guilty of the sin of schism?  Not that many, especially centuries after the initial break.  A bishop who breaks away from the Church is guilty of schism and will be judged accordingly, but someone who follows their bishop all their life without knowing the difference is not guilty of schism.  An individual who breaks away from the Church on their own free choice is different from their great grand children who grew up without knowing the Church.  And so on.




As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,  knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.




English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Tt 3:10–11.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We are at war special military operation.  Doesn't have a ring to it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the part you skipped over has some important context that lay out the bones of his argument.  He put in two chapters to demonstrate that the Pope did have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, if you just skip past the part where he argues this you're ignoring his whole argument.


One of the things you miss is that he summarized the papal claims of Vatican I (page 16):




What we believe about the rights of the Pope is contained
in these four points: (1) The Pope is the chief bishop,
primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.
(2) He has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the
Church. (3) To be a member of the Catholic Church a man
must be in communion with the Pope. (4) The providential
guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit
the Church to error in any matter of religion.




The first point he takes as manifestly obvious because the Anglicans of his time would agree with the statement "The Bishop of Rome is the First Bishop of Christendom."  But to back it up he says, "What it comes
to in practice is this: The Bishop of Rome is the right person to
take the lead in any common action of the whole Church;
particularly it is his right to summon a general council, to
preside at it, either himself or by his legate, to confirm its
decisions."  So basically this is demonstrated in Church history through the Pope's authority over councils.  But also demonstrated elsewhere.  St. Vincent says:




Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost




Yes, he goes on to say, "that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads."


If you think this part of St. Vincent shows something different than what Catholics believe you are mistaken.  The Pope can only be infallible to the degree he does not contradict prior Church teaching.  He prunes branches, he doesn't create them.  The Pope didn't make the Assumption a long-standing mystery of the Rosary, that was part of the "sense of the faithful" for ages before a formal declaration was made.


Anyways, he goes on to show the Pope has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.  For example, in the letter of Clement, Clement acts as if he can boss around the Corinthians.  "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger."  The Bishop of Rome steps into a large number of early controversies and commands things. Victor of Rome did the same with the Quartodecimans. St. Ignatius argued against Victor, so maybe that sounds like a case against it, but if you read his letter to Victor all his arguments show he believes Victor has this authority, he's just hoping Victor doesn't use it. And so on and so forth.  Chapter V is pretty rich in examples.


Next he goes into his third point, "To be a member of the Catholic Church a man
must be in communion with the Pope."  This is just the logical inverse of point number 2 - if the Pope has jurisdiction over the whole Church, to be in the Church is to have the Pope as one of your leaders.  Fortescue of course offers various prooftexts but I don't think I need to get into them here.


The fourth point is similarly a logical consequence of the above points.  You say that St. Vincent argues for the infallibility of the Church.  Well said.  Now, what does that infallibility mean for the Pope?  If the Pope is the head of the infallible Church, responsible for every member of the Church, can he lead the whole Church into error?  God forbid!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I guess where I run into issues is where protestants disagree on matters of necessity.  Joe Heshmeyer (apparently one of my top two apologists) made a good video where he listed out ten doctrines.  For each doctrine, he found two opposing Protestant pastors and theologians who do not just disagree on the doctrine, but who disagree if that same doctrine is essential for salvation or not.


Many Protestant pastors and theologians disagree about what you need to do and believe to be saved.  What doctrines are essential? Disagreement isn't the problem, it's the fact that these people generally all have similar hermenutics and ways of trying to answer the questions, and then all get different answers on matters that impact their salvation.  Is it possible to be saved by just being smart enough?  William Lane Craig is very smart but doesn't see baptism as essential.  Many other smart people think baptism is absolutely essential.


Have you figured out a consistent system that includes everything essential and excludes everything not essential?  If so, good for you and I guess you're better off than myself.  But as for me, I'll stick to Catholicism which on its own provides so much spiritual depth and less anxiety about trying to solve for every intellectual problem myself. (Maybe most protestants don't feel that anxiety but I'm obviously autistic by virtue of being here so I would totally be anxious about not having definitive definitions.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Or do you disagree with my assertion that Munificentissimus Deus and Ineffabilis Deus are the only two uncontested instances of papal infallibility?




Yes, I disagree that those are the only two uncontested instances of papal infallibility.  There's about 200 or so.


The doctrine of papal infallibility is not an innovation.  The four definitions put out by Vatican 1 were present in the early Church, see https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858047945971&view=1up&seq=1 for an argument for this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


For instance, my understanding is that Nicaea 2 anathematizes iconoclasts




Anathematizisation is not Excommunication.  You have to go to the specific document that is anathematizing, but every one I've seen is a big list saying at the end, "Some of these are heresy, some of these are impious, some of these might cause scandal.  I'm not going to say which is which, just don't do them."


The Church does not "claim that [our] denomination is the only path to salvation."  We say that outside the Church there is no salvation, that all who are saved will be saved through the Church Jesus established, including many people who are surprised to discover that this Church was the Catholic Church all along.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There are cases of ecumenical councils erring and Pope's preventing the error. The biggest one happened during the rise of Arianism:


If it were up to a majoritarian vote, we would not teach that Jesus was "God from God, Begotten not made." Council of Rimini in 359 had over 400 bishops in attendance. This council produced and agreed to the Arian formulas that, "the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures" and "the Son is not a creature like other creatures." (but still a creature) Pope Liberius recognized this as an attempt from Arians to lead to statements that Jesus is not God Begotten and rejected the council. Many who signed the council documents then repudiated it. In view of the lack of approbation by the Holy See, it had no universal authority. We see Papal Authority win out over Concilliar Authority.