[ealgeone]

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which...is opposed to the doctrine of the Church(Providentissimus Deus;;

Guess all that part about selling/buying indulgences was ok with Scriture? NOT!

Based on this alone the RCC declares its own teaching to be foolish and false.

[daniel1212]

Guess all that part about selling/buying indulgences was ok with Scripture? NOT!

Well, that example is where you get into what of officially taught versus implicitly sanctioned, as well as what is infallible versus non-binding, both of which is subject to variant interpretation.

But obedience to the pope in some centuries could require torturing and exterminating theological heretics, and in other one's it means holding torture as intrinsically evil, and upholding religious freedom. But some RCs hold that V2 is not binding, and those Prots must submit to the pope to be saved, and other lies.