[BlueDragon]

You said;

Daniel1212, everything you’ve stated may be accurate in terms of the information sources you’ve cited, but every point you’ve alluded to has also been contradicted countless times by countless Catholics for countless centuries. That is because, in the final analysis, the faithful will believe and do what their conscience, informed or otherwise, compels them to believe and do. And this is as it should be, thus the pastors of the Church throughout history have themselves, by their words and actions, contradicted one another innumerable times. And of course the informed laity has always been, to one degree or another, influenced by that undeniable fact.

Who said;

"...Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen."

[fortes fortuna juvat]

Yes, I clearly understand your point that Dan and I (and ML) are not in any serious disagreement on the matter of conscience, and I don’t recall implying in my previous posts that we are.

[daniel1212]

"...Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen."

If Luther did this post V2. As http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=jcls states,

the documents of Vatican II do not reduce the apparent ambiguity between the personal duty in the individual to form her or his own conscience and the individual's responsibility to listen to the Church, its tradition, and Magisterium. It is certainly correct to say that "the Council fathers... were willing to tolerate two different visions of the moral life." - Halstead, James., Conscience, the American Bishops and the Renewal of Moral Theology: The Notion of Conscience in the Pastoral Letters of the American Bishops(1986) p. 133,

Cardinal Ratzinger points to the conundrum when speaking of the two interpretations: One is a renewed understanding of the Catholic essence, which expounds Christian faith from the basis of freedom and as the very principle of freedom itself. The other is a superseded, 'pre- conciliar' model, which subjects Christian existence to 86 JOURNAL OF CATHOLIC LEGAL STUDIES [Vol. 47:69 authority, regulating life even in its most intimate preserves, and thereby attempts to maintain control over people's lives. Morality of conscience and morality of authority, as two opposing models, appear to be locked in struggle with each other. Accordingly, the freedom of the Christian would be rescued by appeal to the classical principle of moral tradition: that conscience is the highest norm that man is to follow, even in opposition to authority. Authority-in this case, the [M]agisterium-may well speak of matters moral, but only in the sense of presenting conscience with material for its own deliberation. Conscience would retain, however, the final word.

Some authors reduce conscience in this, its aspect of final arbiter to the formula conscience is infallible .... But .... if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth-at least not in moral or religious matters, which is to say, in the areas that constitute the very pillars of our existence. - JOSEPH RATZINGER, Conscience and Truth, in ON CONSCIENCE: Two ESSAYS 11, 11-12 (2007)