No, let's get serious. The Catholic Church has been fooled in the past by fake miracles and then embarrassed when exposed. They have been fooled too by fake relics. That is the reason they rely on science today. They don't want more embarrassment.To those who believe, evidence is not necessary. To those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence will suffice. Validation through science is for unbelievers, not believers.
A tidy way of making a claim that lacks evidence.I don't create an entire off topic theology over one verse. Learn the difference between what is explicit and what is implicit. Infallibility is explicit, apostolic succession is implicit, as I explained.
The evidence, the first few councils, clearly shows development of doctrine. You just refuse to accept it. Trinitarian theology came into fuller bloom at the Council of Chalcedon. The doctrine of the Trinity was not invented, revised or redefined. That's just plain denial on your part.
The Catholic Church would say there was one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the Apostles, and there’s been no change in that, in terms of essence or substance; so the Catholic Church preserves that, and is the Guardian of it. But, on the other hand, there is a growth in depth of clarity, in the understanding of those truths, without essential change. In other words, the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. That’s the main distinction to keep in mind when one is talking about development.
Development of Doctrine (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)
So the essence "once delivered to the saints" was deemed inadequate and needed clarified.
It is a glaring contradiction to say something can be added to the original without changing anything.But you don't name these alleged "contradictory teachings", you just assert them, a straw man, and then you accuse me of a logical fallacy.
There ought not be one, if the current teaching about Apostolic succession is correct, so I'm waiting for evidence of a Pope having this ability to know what to do so future events turn out right.I'm waiting for you to give the expiry date for "things to come".
Off topic. Of course they did, but this isn't relevant to our discussion.The reformers trashed apostolic succession because it was politically expedient.
Sometime before the first Ecumenical Council since we see people with different views present. Some were bishops too.Yes, but again, you give no date when the Church ceased to teach without error. I submit you haven't a clue what infallibility means, nor do you understand apostolic succession.
The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic
APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION - Scripture Catholic
I have no idea what a bishop teaching ex cathedra means. I don't even know what it means for a Pope to do that. No one seems to know.Infallibility (teaching without error) has nothing to do with impeccability (living without sinning). Anti-Catholics constantly confuse the two, and so do you. Can you name ONE heretical bishop that taught ex cathedra? No, you can't, because it's IMPOSSIBLE.
I lack the time to read them all. Do any show evidenceRead the encyclicals of the last 100 years. The Papal Encyclicals Online
that the Holy Spirit revealed things to come to a Pope?
Good try, but Jesus wasn't talking to future generations of prophets and teachings in that verse. The claim is that bishops are successors of the Apostles and therefore that verse applies to them. Now you seem to trying to wiggle out of that by saying part of the verse applies to other people and not bishops.A picture of the Pope embracing the prophet isn't enough? Obviously you ignored the context that went with the picture. I can only spoon feed you so much without pasting walls of text that no one reads. Here it is the context, for the second time.
The Prophecy at Rome
Please stop asking questions on information you ignore.
Ephesians 4:11-16 lists 5 different functions. Popes, bishops, prophets, teachers etc. are DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS.
Some of the Apostles had it. If you want to "infer" that bishops inherited the "all truth" part, you should "infer" that they also would inherit the prophetic part. A shepherd needs to know where water is, where food is, where predators are. The earthly shepherd learns those things by experience; but a spiritual shepherd should have access to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters so he knows where potential dangers lie in the future so he can avoid them.You asked why there is no prophecy in the Catholic Church, and I proved otherwise. Now you are raising the bar because you have, again, been proven wrong. Prophecy is not a power, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who blows where He wills. There is nothing in Scripture that demands that prophecy accompanies ordination.
You are undermining yourself by saying no one can tell where the gift of prophecy may turn up. If that's the case, then consistency in logic would dictate that the ability to be guided into all truth could pop up anywhere too.