That is simply your interpretation. We are censured by RCs for engaging in such, for as VEHEMENTER NOS states, "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:
They are the ones who give and interpret RC teaching for you, including when the pope blesses a murderous prosodomite politician and treats such as members in life and in death. And as what we really believe is shown by what we do, (Ja. 2:18) it is not official teaching that manifests what Rome believers, but what she does and effects. Whether it be papal sanctioned torture and murder of theological opponents in one century, or sanctioning liberalism in another.
Note in that case you listed: Your above example is not a second baptism.
Never said it was. It distinctly says "a baptism reaffirmation."
What this might do would be to give scandal to those who have very sensitive conceptions of ritual and prayer.
What it means is that in one century it could result in a lively session with the Inquisitor and in another a little publicity.
But note above, if it is scandal, it does not invalidate the office.
Who said it did? It shows what the office can do. One pope can employ a murderous gang in seeking to secure his election to office and another can be an adulterer and another a benign ruler. Meanwhile, the distinct pastoral title of ordained priests was invalidated from the beginning of the church, while the office of a perpetuated Petrine papacy to whom all the church looked to as its supreme infallible head never existed .
None of your postings directly imply a change in doctrine either,
As said, paper doctrine does not constitute what you believe over actions and conveyance, and is seen in the majority of her members being liberal, vs Evangelicals , while as Rome clearly has contrasting teachings, but autocratically defines what reality is.
>>>That is simply your interpretation. We are censured by RCs for engaging in such, for as VEHEMENTER NOS states, “the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” - Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:<<<
I recognize those words, but I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. Led like a docile flock, does not mean we abandon the teaching of the Church or good sense. It means we act with patients and humility to understand and discern the truth presented to us in order to follow it with our whole heart.
When in the case I cited, nothing was presented to us to follow in by the example of leadership. Its a non-issue.
>>>They are the ones who give and interpret RC teaching for you, including when the pope blesses a murderous prosodomite politician and treats such as members in life and in death.<<<
Does Christ come to save and bless sinners or not? (Mark 2:17) Who is being placed under the power of whom in a blessing? the sinner seeking blessing or God? In this case the deed being done is not improper. So therefore, Jas 2:18 makes no sense. Blessings don’t mean “an agreement with belief.” It simply does not obtain that kind of condolence.
>>>Never said it was. It distinctly says “a baptism reaffirmation.”<<<
Which we can do at any time, to remind us of what we already have received. This is not inherently improper in any way.
>>>What it means is that in one century it could result in a lively session with the Inquisitor and in another a little publicity.<<<
An Inquisitor would also have more sense and knowledge over the operations of the actions involved. The fact that it is in the press and what is perceived are another matter entirely.