Whom do you call bretheren?

[Scott]

[quote:f14cf06906]
I agree there is no ecumenical compromise as Rome would have to give up her claim of authority, thus ceasing to be Rome. However, the other side of the coin is that we must be very intellectually honest in seeking the whole truth on Rome. I think that Rome feeds on the many straw men that those against them build.
[/quote:f14cf06906]

Not necessarily. The claim to papal infallibility was not officially recognized until 1870 or so (may not have the date exactly right). There are a number of other forms that the papacy could take, such as the pentarchy that was in placed for centuries, a conciliar model, a return to a pre-1870 style, etc. Some of these would mean Rome admitting that her decrees are reformable (which Rome should do).

 

[yeutter]

Vatican II did seems at times to say things that are mutually exclusive with what they said in Vatican I.

That is troublesome in that truth is no longer for Rome an absolute. They get around it by saying that Vatican II must be interpreted in light of Vatican I and all previous Councils. I wonder what St. Thomas Aquinas would say about such rubbish?

I still think Rome officially apostasized at Trent with her rejection of Sola Fides.