VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|HarryR|DATE|1367839378|CONTENT|If the pope, whoever he is at any moment in time, is by definition correct on matters dogma, theological, how is it that the church&#039;s official view on things is claimed to have changed with the appointment of a new pope? At the very least commentators such as Pepinster and Longley claim the new pope is (even?) better than the previous pope whom they&#039;d also fulsomely praised. Why? Shouldn&#039;t each new pope just carry on doing the popey thing of asserting eternal catholic dogma?

If the claim of the catholic church is that the church is as it was created by jesus then should its claims and assertions have changed at all over 2000 years? And if they have, how does the RCC explain this, in its own terms?

The earliest pope I can remember at least being aware of as a child is Paul VI, the predecessor to JP 1 who was snuffed ( allegedly) to make way for JP 2 followed by Ratty and now the ever so humble and friend of the poor, Frankie.

Out of interest, does anyone know how the official, supposed beliefs of conformist catholics ought to have changed over the last 50 years with each new pope, if at all?|IP-ADDRESS|88.73.28.186|MODERATIONFLAG|