Did you know Vatican 2 would not have passed had Vatican 1 not been first passed? Vatican 1 is as bad as 2. They're both trash.
Also, if you think Vatican 2 is wrong since it only passed because the Pope was considered infallible for religious matters, then you're actually tacking a crack at Vatican 1 too. That's because for Vatican 2 to be bad, you'd have to believe the Pope made a mistake in allowing 2 thus the Pope isn't infallible and therefore Vatican 1 is logically proven wrong if 2 is wrong. You can't hate 2 without also hating 1.
If the pope in infallible then Vatican 2 wasn't a mistake. You'll either have to accept the pope is fallible and thus Vatican 1 was a mistake or 2 wasn't a mistake and you ought to listen to your infallible master.
Did you know Vatican 2 would not have passed had Vatican 1 not been first passed? Vatican 1 is as bad as 2. They're both trash.
Also, if you think Vatican 2 is wrong since it only passed because the Pope was considered infallible for religious matters, then you're actually tacking a crack at Vatican 1 too. That's because for Vatican 2 to be bad, you'd have to believe the Pope made a mistake in allowing 2 thus the Pope isn't infallible and therefore Vatican 1 is logically proven wrong if 2 is wrong. You can't hate 2 without also hating 1.
Not a Catholic so pardon my ignorance, but is Vatican 1 where the whole "the Pope can do no wrong" thing comes from?
Correct.
A "true" pope is infallible in terms of faith and morals because of the Holy Spirit.
Vatican 1 was approved by a "true" pope. Vatican 2 popes are fake and gay.
And true popes are fallible, so Vatican I was a mistake.
No
If the pope in infallible then Vatican 2 wasn't a mistake. You'll either have to accept the pope is fallible and thus Vatican 1 was a mistake or 2 wasn't a mistake and you ought to listen to your infallible master.