I'm not going to re-write a very succinct explanation of Catholic doctrine which you would do well to read before spouting off some juvenile rants against the Pontiff - here's the first three sections from an article on the topic:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Papal Infallibility


The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).



Vatican II’s Explanation


Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").



Based on Christ’s Mandate


Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).



Some Clarifications


An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
-------------------------------------


>> ^WaterDweller:
Same gal as last year: http://www.videosift.com/video/Person-charges-the-pope
Apparently she hasn't changed her clothes for a whole year. Or she just really likes red


In response to this comment below - yeah, it's like becoming an annual tradition or something.

Kind of hard to tell from the angle seen, but it looks like the Vatican Guards took her down before she got to B16, but they took him to the ground as well as a protective (over-reactive?) measure, at least that's how it seems to look. It would make sense to do that, anyway, cover him in case she's not attacking by herself, has explosives, etc.

Thanks. You ever see this doc? http://www.videosift.com/video/A-Place-Called-Chiapas

>> ^Throbbin:
http://www.videosift.com/video/CBC-s-The-Fifth-Estate-9-11-The-
Unofficial-Story
Congrats on the star dude.

Actually if I'm not mistaken this is The Fifth Estate's most recent report on 9/11 and conspiracy theories. They've done a few others in the past, already sifted I believe. But yeah, I agree - very compelling, while still being fairly objective.

>> ^Throbbin:
I see we were watching CBC at the same time last night EndAll. I thought about sifting this, then figured it must already be sifted (it's a few years old).
Compelling stuff.

Yeah, the game actually does have a console, dedicated server support and leaning. It's all been unlocked by hacking. There's some shoddy business decisions behind all of this. Problem now is, there's unofficial dedicated servers but no cheat protection.

In case anyone missed this, here is a link to the unofficial index to "Going Rogue."

In reply to this comment by acidSpine:
dang I wish i had my star so i could promote this. Still, is anyone else sick of these optimistic fifty something year olds pretending we can actually save the world?

Well I'm conducting an unofficial sift poll

How much longer do you think it will be before Earth is fucked mad max style?


dude you have to watch out, don't let people that are paid to scare you scare you. I'm dead serious here, you can't allow yourself to be a tool of these scaremongers.

dang I wish i had my star so i could promote this. Still, is anyone else sick of these optimistic fifty something year olds pretending we can actually save the world?

Well I'm conducting an unofficial sift poll

How much longer do you think it will be before Earth is fucked mad max style?

"We went to different schools together" ....

And they should have showed them the unofficial one: http://www.videosift.com/video/Sweet-Unofficial-MGMT-video-Kids

From Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land':

On the planet Terra the flapper system developed slowly. Time was when any Terran sovereign held public court so that the lowliest might come before him without intermediary. Traces of this persisted long after kings became scarce - an Englishman could "Cry Harold!" (although none did) and the smarter city bosses still left their doors open to any gandy dancer of bindlestiff far into the twentieth century. A remnant of the principle was embalmed in Amendments I and IX of the United States Constitution, although superseded by the Articles of World Federation.

By the time the Champion returned from Mars the principle of access to the sovereign was dead in fact, regardless of the nominal form of government, and the importance of a personage could be told by the layers of flappers cutting him off from the mob. They were known as executive assistants, private secretaries, secretaries to private secretaries, press secretaries, receptionists, appointment clerks, et cetera - but all were "flappers" as each held arbitrary veto over communication from the outside.

These webs of officials resulted in unofficials who flapped the Great Man without permission from official flappers, using social occasions, or back-door access, or unlisted telephone numbers. These unofficials were called: "golfing companion," "kitchen cabinet," "lobbyist," "elder statesman," "fiver-percenter," and so forth. The unofficials grew webs, too, until they were almost as hard to reach as the Great Man, and secondary unofficials sprang up to circumvent the flappers of primary unofficials. With a personage of foremost importance the maze of unofficials was as complex as the official phalanxes surrounding a person merely very important.

>> ^EmptyFriend:
so is it fixed or what? i went to amazon and searched for "origin of species" and the first result is still the ray comfort version is still the #1 result, but it has a 1 star rating, and shows that 20/21 reviews for it were all 1 star.
seems fixed.


The problem is only partially fixed. They have now assigned the right reviews to the right books, but one major problem remains, that when you are searching for "origin of species" the first result is this fake creationist version, deceivingly and mockingly titled "150th Anniversary Edition", the same as the real version with the Julian Huxley introduction. Even worse, the "Huxley version" is completely left off the results page!

Any honestly interested person wanting to familiarize themselves with Darwins masterpiece should not get this mockery of a book as their first result. It should be renamed "Unofficial Creationist Retard Edition", and be shuffled to the bottom of the deck.

Why do MS-DNC, CBS, CNN and ABC bother to stay separate? They all have the exact same biased left-wing message, hide the same facts, obey and prop up the Obama RED House and unofficially work for the taxocrat party. State-run media, just like in China!

Did you know before FOX and cable news there were only the Big 3 networks (+PBS)? All 3 were liberal and all 3 would deny it if queried. For 40 years they had a monopoly on the airwaves, yet liberalism still had to creep in under the radar to get where it is today.

Anger at FOX is unwarranted, the libs had their heyday. FOX could be anywhere from centrist-left to far right; they will always stand out because they're not part of the state-run media.

Someone should start upping the productivity in education, to keep up with the other sectors. if new technologies and techniques can be invented for everything else, why not schools? And I'm not talking about fancy virtual blackboards and telepresence; I'm thinking about the studies that say that homework, for instance, makes no difference to learning, but makes a huge negative difference by antagonizing kids from going to school.

Maybe someone could start an accredited university that only had exams, no classes, but unofficially expected students to download pirated MIT or Harvard lectures by P2P. just a half-baked idea, but inflated tuition fees are definitely an obstacle for this demographic.

Oh well, at least all the people who lose their jobs at the factory can become schoolteachers... "If you can't do, teach. And if you can't teach, teach Gym."

the video its set to (unofficially mind you) is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309566/

you might recognize the art if you have seen the feature length Fantastic Planet (La planète sauvage)

That was the best part of a great concert. Much love for Wil Wheaton. Gamers couldn't ask for a better spokesman, unofficial or otherwise.

I just hope he didn't catch the H1Nerd1 virus.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Personally, I feel that even if it's not considered a dupe in this case, it should be. This is a very specific case and apparently falls through a hole in the rules imo.
We're talking about a video of an audio song that has no visual component, so a slideshow was added to it. Alternatively it could've had a still image or an unrelated video added, but the visual component is pretty much random. It's the song that's of importance and that's being sifted.
Ok, so the slideshows could be quite different, fair enough. However, if we don't consider this a dupe, then there's nothing stopping people from looking for popular songs on here and then resifting the exact same songs, just with a different pseudo-visual component, such as a slideshow/scene from a movie/still image etc.
Of course, the added visual component could be of great quality, like setting a great song to a very fitting scene from a movie...things like that. It's a thin line that begs more discussion imo.
Stripping rasch of his dupeoff powers seems a bit much. Especially, like burdturgler pointed out, given how much effort he puts into maintaining the videos.


I think it should not. I would rather that the votes too care of those cases, because they are not duplicates, even if the songs are the same. I don't think we should analyze "what the video is about" so we can figure out if its a dupe or not - it should be relatively simple and if there are doubts, then I'd rather discuss it than throw another version out. If we've all seen a great version of X song with an unofficial music video, would the official music video be a dupe? Not at all, and it should not be that other way either - it's a whole package. The only grey area there is, is when the differences are trivial. That's my opinion anyway.

In any case, in spite of the enmity towards rasch from me, I still respect his tireless effort in dead fixes and dupeofs, with that many of them anyone can make a mistake. I would think it's just a slap on the wrist; there's no reason to cut off a working limb, so to speak.