You KNOW this is true interiorly, though exteriorly you deny it. At least I gave you the courtesy of not calling you a sock, but merely mentioned that you changed your identity. Virgil the Roman has done this legally, back and forth, and was never a sock. But let's move on to your allegations.
You gave the courtesy because you don't want another warning probably from accusing others. I always find it better to block such toxic types. Even though you continue to copy and paste my quotes from other peoples posts
desperate for some type of response from me.
We are adults here, correct?
"Since Vatican II is not a dogmatic council it must be read in light of all of the Church's documents."
That is totally incorrect. Have you read the statements of Pope Benedict XVI?
Have you read Pope Jon Paul XIII? Or his opening to the council? Probably not. Pope John XXIII himself stated in his Opening Address at the beginning of Vatican II that the Council was not intended to be a doctrinal council concerned with defining any articles of Faith; rather it was to be a “pastoral” council that was concerned with representing the Catholic Faith in a manner acceptable to the modern world. If you did any research you would know its was intentded as a pastoral and not a dogmatic council
[FONT="]“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” [/FONT]
The Pope specifically states that the defined doctrines the the Church are presented in other councils. So if one wants to study a specific doctrine like OCNS, they need to look at the dogmatic councils that make doctrinal statements.
You don't use the statements from Vatican II to try to disprove bulls or throw bulls or earlier statements under the rug. That is the complete opposite of what the council represents.Pope Paul VI had it read by the Council’s General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Council’s participants. It was intended to assure them that it was not an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar text, that on the Church, Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did).
[FONT="]
“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)[/FONT]
"I find it interesting how easily you disregard ex-cathedra statements."
I'll bet you do. Actually, it is NOT ex-cathedra. There were only two in all of church history.
\
Whenever the Church makes a definitive binding statement they state:
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce"
Whenever you see this statement before a pronouncement, you know the Pope is speaking on a binding doctrine
It is a defined doctrine and re-affirmed in,
Cantate Domino,
Super Quibusdam ,
Ubi Primum, Summo, Jugiter Studio,
Singulari Quidem ,
Annum Ingressi Sumus and around 5 others.
Now why would I want to debate a doctrine that is re-affirmed in around 12 other encyclicals and bulls? Vatican II tries to seek a deeper understanding, but it no way does it all change the doctrine of salvation outside the Church.
You are completely wrong. No Pope can bind another Pope in perpetuity, for it is the Holy Spirit who is the author of developing theology. Read Dei Verbum.
Honestly, I don't relish a debate with you, and perceive that it is going to be utterly fruitless.
Do you know how many encyclicals there are that that talk about doctrine being something that cannot change or be developed? Pope Pius X calls you a modernist for that view.
Doctrine doesn't "develop"(modernism). It is what it always has been. One can pronounce a deeper explanation regarding a doctrine, but it does not change or develop over time. I suggest you read
Lamentabili Sane Exitu and
Pascendi dominici gregis which both specifically state that doctrine does not "evolve" or develop
This is the task of the intellect, whose office it is to reflect and to analyse, and by means of which man first transforms into mental pictures the vital phenomena which arise within him, and then expresses them in words. Hence the common saying of Modernists: that the religious man must ponder his faith. - The intellect, then, encountering this sentiment directs itself upon it, and produces in it a work resembling that of a painter who restores and gives new life to a picture that has perished with age. The simile is that of one of the leaders of Modernism -
Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles - Pope Pius X
Similar to your concept that somehow earlier doctrine has "perished with age".
Like the Fourth Lateran Council? Which states:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
The fourth Lateran Council was a dogmatic council. Vatican II is a pastoral council which made no definitive doctrinal statements. You don't try to use pastoral councils to try to disprove dogmatic councils or Bulls. That was never the intention of Vatican II
You arent in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it. Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?
