Replies

Let's start here: why is my statement laughable?

Best summary: because the absence of depth was glaring; as a contribution to a substantial topic, it was out of place. It required no further thought, and I considered that to be humorous. I didn't (and don't) want to laugh at you, so I asked the questions.
I'm pleased to make your acquaintance pascendi. Sorry that time's up so to speak for FReeping this evening. Adios and Happy Easter!

"Best summary: because the absence of depth was glaring; as a contribution to a substantial topic, it was out of place."

Actually, I thought it rather efficient. Clarity inside three words. =)

"I'm pleased to make your acquaintance pascendi. Sorry that time's up so to speak for FReeping this evening. Adios and Happy Easter!"

Same, and same to you.

"Just type out the new teaching that is binding. Just one new doctrine will do. One little teentsy-weentsy doctrine. I'm still waiting very very patiently. It shouldn't be so hard for you to do. Tell us clearly and unambiguously what great truths were infallibly defined by Vatican II."

I've found this same question to be the most powerful unmasking strategy possible. There's absolutely no answer to it, and no answers will be forthcoming, ever, because Vatican II neither defined nor declared anything in the proper sense of those words.

It helps to actually know what a dogmatic definition is. Heck, it helps to have actually read the documents of the council themselves. You've read all the documents of Vatican II, right Shortstop?

People hear what they want to hear. Give them an ambiguity and they'll run with it.