Paul,

"Issy, you bombed out on he infallibility line, see Toni's post. Shame on you."

What Toni posted was exactly what you should have posted, had you done any research;
you said, "On all religious matters the Pope is infallible, so teaches the Catholic Church."

Toni said, "... the correct answer is that the Pope is infallible when "he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

See the difference?

Are you going to do some research on your preposterous claim that "... the one true apostolic church, that being the Church of Rome", or will Toni have to rescue you again?

Issy, are you saying faith and morals are not a religious matter. Define religion; it is a system of faith and worship, it includes morality. If not what defines religion, what brand of alter wine to use. The religious sure spend a lot of time talking about faith and morals as a religious matter, including the Pope.

BTW; A Papal Bull is decree by the Pope on matters concerning the Catholic Church, and when doing so the Pope is speaking from a purely religious point of view, supposedly.

Again I am amused at what I read. The question is;Is freedom of speech being denied? The answer is, very obviously, YES! PC has been hi-jacked and massaged into a completely different meaning than when it was first spoken. PC came about so that people like pollies could say something yet carry a totally different meaning. (ie; lie) It was their way of 'pulling the wool over our eyes'. It had nothing to do with being respectful or not insulting anyone. The idea that you must not say something because it 'might' insult someone or 'hurt their feelings', is not acceptable or even allowed in a free and frank debate/discussion. I've said it before, if you succumb to the PC fallacy, you will be engaging in a fictional conversation not a factual one. Therefore the whole conversation is moot and therefore irrelevant. I cannot stress it enough, we must be honest when discussing/debating, and not allow emotions to contaminate the facts. It is a fact that by doing so WILL deliver a wrong outcome. I note that some people speak in defense of what they perceive as the mentally weaker/vulnerable. I understand. I also understand that in life their are many things that affect these people daily. By those of us not afflicted with this problem, not using PC is not going to help one way or another. We must not be swayed by these pro PC arguments. We must be true to the discussion and the pursuit of the truth, no matter who may feel a little discomfort along the way. Outlawing PC is the first step to regaining the right to freedom of speech.

Paul,

"Issy, are you saying faith and morals are not a religious matter"

I know that you are not so dumb as to think that all religious matters are to do with faith or morals; for example, when the Pope of the day decided that the Mass could be said in the language of the local people he was not speaking on a matter of faith or morals but on a matter of procedure, that was not binding on the whole Church but was, never-the-less a religious matter.

Q&A on the Catholic website;

Q, Why was the Latin Mass forbidden, but now allowed?

A, It was misinformation, Pope Benedict went out of his way to report that the old Missal was never forbidden.

Issy I also included the word worship, and clearly the language of the mass, the procedure, is covered by the broad term worship. Why did you leave out the word worship, didn't fit your argument.

As for a Papal Bull, such a document carries far less weight and authority today than it did a few hundred years ago. Then it was incontestable, it was binding on all Catholics, even kings, and failure to comply could lead to excommunication and death. On the positive side, for those that a Papal Bull was favourable to, it gave them authority to do as the Bull so dictated, with impunity.

Paul,

One difference between you and the Pope is that he issues Bulls but you just sprout bull.

What has 'worship' got to do with the fact that you got it wrong and Toni supplied you with the facts?
How are you going on "... the one true apostolic church, that being the Church of Rome"?

Found out where you are wrong yet?