Next, bear in mind that I am no scholar. I am a street-fighting elk. For scholarship, try the other folks I have bumped here or maybe they will suggest others.
Next, I suspect that the Southern Baptists never held to racial segregation as a matter of theology but simply as a practice within the ciontext of a segregated society. It is a fact that those outside Catholicism suspect it of CHANGING doctrines. It does not. Truth does not change with time. Although you see things differently as to some doctrines, I think you must and will agree that truth does not change with time. If it were otherwise, your presumed belief in sola Scriptura (since the Scriptures do not change) would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I am not familiar with Unam Sanctam or Semper eadem. Vatican II is too broad a category to be compared to anything. It issued specific documents. They were approved by Paul VI. Many were somewhat ambiguous in language which has caused much consternation among Catholics as you have probably noticed. The Truth, in and event, always continues to be the Truth, unchanged and unchangeable. We may differ as to specifics, but I believe that we would both say that.
Papal infallibility is papal infallibility. It is doctrine. It is dogma. It is true. You disagree. I understand that you disagree. That is one reason but only one why you are not Catholic. I am.
No problem -- that's why I provide links to virtually everything I cite. You can look at Unam Sanctum and the specific Vatican II document on who is considered to be part of the church universal and who isn't.Many were somewhat ambiguous in language which has caused much consternation among Catholics as you have probably noticed. The Truth, in and event, always continues to be the Truth, unchanged and unchangeable. We may differ as to specifics, but I believe that we would both say that.
Yes, we do agree. However, I think that if you look at the language of the Vatican II document that I cited you to you will find that the language is very specific. Unam Sanctum and other earlier documents say that, to be Christian, one has to be subject to the Roman pontiff. Current RCC teaching is completely different. Either one is true or the other is true -- both cannot be true.Papal infallibility is papal infallibility. It is doctrine. It is dogma. It is true. You disagree. I understand that you disagree. That is one reason but only one why you are not Catholic. I am.
That's fine. I would just argue that papal infallibility runs into big trouble on this and other issues. One of the vexing problems of papal infallibility is that no one can produce an infallible list on how many times popes have spoken infallibly. Some say only half a dozen times while others say many more. The prophets and apostles didn't have that kind of ambiguity. When they said "thus saith the Lord" they meant it -- there was no debate afterwards about whether the prophet or apostle was really speaking the word of God or just expressing a personal opinion.These things don't matter that much though. The important thing is that all of us as Christians have a once-in-a-lifetime chance of witnessing to people through Mel Gibson's movie. I firmly believe that God will use this movie to plant some heavy-duty seeds. It will be our job to make sure that these seeds are watered, fertilized, and kept free of choking weeds.