Wudda, shudda. That's speculation. I'm not speculating.
So, it wasn't speculation when you said that "the Pope", referring back, would 'not refrain from doing so'? What was it, then?
Still, it's funny how your logic works: something did happen a few times therefore there is a reasonable certainty it will never happen again. May as well say that if I had flu only 2 times in my life it is reasonable to expect I will never have flu again. Strange logic indeed.
Except that I never claimed that it was impossible that a Pope would exercise ex cathedra ever again. Merely showed how it was exercised so rarely, and in almost all cases not exercised at all, as to eliminate the notion that it is practiced with no restraint on the Pope's part.
And I don't know why your posts have the tendency towards futurism :)
Your original quote said that the Pope "will not refrain" from using ex cathedra. That sounds like predicting the future to me, and pretty heavy at that. Especially how history shows it to be overwhelmingly wrong and misleading by an outright ridiculous
majority of cases.
Quoted from memory, so yes, there are differences, but not in the message.
Paraphrasings are usually not put in full quotation marks, for future reference.
Although I am disappointed how disingenuous your words are when you know I was right and yet you decide to play little language tricks.
Right about what? I pointed out two things wrong with your posts originally: your incorrect interpretation of the word "estimate", and the use of the words "will not refrain from doing so" (the bolded, obviously) when referring to the Pope's use of ex cathedra. Never once did I say that the Pope cannot change Catholic teaching, nor that it had never been done before. Though, on that note, 98% of Popes in history never did.
You could have simply acknowledged that you were wrong about what you said of Hoyle's quote and/or amended it to replace all adjectives meaning anything like 'precisely' 'or 'exactly' with words like 'vaguely' and 'basic', and also replaced 'will not refrain' to 'will almost always refrain from, and in 98% of cases always
refrain from' in the other quote, but no... this is the internet... admitting to having said something not absolutely true is a sign of weakness... let's spend three or more posts on the definiton of words like 'estimate', instead!
In fact, if you even attempted an honest debate you would have provided the quote yourself before I paraphrased it.
Yes, if I knew which quote it was
You, on the other hand, would have done better to go five seconds out of your way to make sure you quoted appropriately (i.e. copy and paste), if you were going to go ahead and provide a link anyway. I assume that you meant to provide a real link and not one to the forums, the latter being a simple mistake. Because, and speaking of language tricks, you lose credibility by getting it wrong when you have the correct version open in the next tab right in front of you; quote doctoring is frowned upon in journalism, let alone debates that are not one-sided. In short: you accuse me of dishonesty regarding your own quote where there not only was but could be none, after I assumed simple laziness on your part where dishonesty was quite plausible, and I'm
the one not attempting an honest debate?