Right.
He only assumed after he asked and you weaseled out of answering, just to keep the conversation moving…
…is the form I assume his reply will take, or some close variant thereof.
Ok then. But you cannot demand that I defend a claim I’m not making. I picked 2002 because the current reforms have their genesis there. I’m not defending earlier practices. If you’re attacking earlier practices, then I’m not your debate opponent.
Miss that post, did you?
And once again,
I’m not sure there is a debate, except possibly to the degree of how corrupt the RCC is.
Huh, you found an alternate response - simply ignore the obvious contradiction he pointed out (you saying “I assumed nothing” and “Assuming you meant”) and swat the ball back to him.
It;s an institution run by humans. Of course it has corruption issues.
Sure, but what makes this particular institution’s corruption more stark is that it claims to be receiving divine guidance as well as claiming to be the exclusive source of divine guidance. Unfortunately, over a billion people believe them for little reason other than they been taught to since childhood.
The Church also concedes that it is composed of humans and thus corruptible in some particulars. Therefore, the claims are not mutually exclusive, nor does one make the other more or less “stark.”
But if the President of the United States comes out and makes a policy decision based on what he says is The Voice Of God that spoke to him personally, I’m pretty sure all hell will break loose.
Well you gotta bear with us heathens on that one, chief. You guys might take this “100% godly but also at the same time 100% faillible man” shit in stride, it’s sort of built in, but we struggle with the absurd paradox still 
Tricky.
The Pope doesn’t say, “The Voice of God spoke to me personally,” either.
The Pope’s decisions are guided by the Holy Spirit, to be sure, and the entire governance structure of the Church is, according to Catholic belief, the result of Jesus’ assignment to Peter. That’s dramatically different from the structure of the United States, which derives from the former British colonies’ dissatisfaction with George III and then lesser dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation.
Therefore, we would expect a greater reason for the Church to mention the guiding spirit of the Almighty, all things considered.
But Presidents have certainly invoked God, if not explicitly His voice speaking to them personally, on many occasions.
So what makes your claim initially seem dramatic was the use of “Voice of God, personally” and I agree that a President who claimed to be guided by a literal voice of the Heavenly Father would be viewed with alarm. But neither does the Pope claim he’s hearing a literal voice, either.
“Stark” meaning obvious, striking, distinct… I stand by my use of that adjective. Metaphorically, something that purports to be pure white in purpose, origin and design has its black parts stand out more than a conventional object that settles for a casual grey, even if it’s black parts are just as black. Quibble away if you must, Bricker. I’d rather you addressed the “I never assumed / I assume” issue.
I agree it’s difficult to reconcile. But I’d also point out that at least part of your conceptual problem is the slight misstating of the Church’s claims. In his post above, Czarcasm did something similar by implication when he said, “But if the President of the United States comes out and makes a policy decision based on what he says is The Voice Of God that spoke to him personally, I’m pretty sure all hell will break loose.” That implies, of course, that the Pope does come out and make policy decisions based on what he says is The Voice Of God that spoke to him personally. As I pointed out above, the Pope doesn’t make that claim. Of course, you might object that the claim he does make is functionally identical. But if you do, then you lose the punchline, because American presidents have certainly invoked Divine guidance before, just obliquely, and not with claims of a literal voice.
You blur a similar distinction in your post. The Church doesn’t claim to be 100% godly. Where did you get that idea?
When I asked the question in post 222, I never assumed an answer one way or the other. It was that lack of assumption on my part that I was referring to in y reply. Subsequent to that post, and faced with a continued refusal to answer, I selected an option, identified it as an assumption, and answered it. At that point, I DID assume. As I explicitly said.
He shore do dance purdy, don’t he?
Does this response contain any substantive argument?
(Heaven forfend I should assume it does or does not.)
Do you think anyone bought your response? Why post an unnecessary “substantive argument” when a mocking brush off suits the bill just fine?
The RCC has taught **Bricker **well about responsibility avoidance. Or maybe that comes naturally too.