I am trying to figure out why there is any controversy in the Pope resigning on 28 February? The fact that it has not been done in approximately 600 years should not matter. This man is old and has admitted that he does not have the strength to perform his Papal duties. I think he is being unselfish in relinguishing power and authroity.
As to Papal infalibility, it is simply a dogma of the Catholic Church that was first defined in the First Vatican Counsel that met in 1869-70 and before that time had never been defended. It means that the Pope is preserved from the possiblity of error when, in the exercise of his office as Shephard and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.
The dogma is very limited and does not mean that the Pope is right about everything. Essentially, he is the Supreme Court in matters of Church Doctrine and morality, a court of one of last resort on Earth. He decides what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Roman Catholic Church.
Constructive critism is not a bad thing, but denegrating the Pope with unfounded comments that he is a pedofile serves no purpose but to make this forum look bad and hurts everyone.
The thread was started to seek thoughts and comments about the first papal resignation in more than half a millenium. I hope that it can stay on track.