Vatican II is irreversible unless something infallible overturns the old stuff that's infallible

I was asking @SUPER MALE VITALITY™.

Ah ok

Vatican II is totally reversible, what are you talking about?

You're assuming the current doctrine is any better than tradprot doctrine

well it is, it's apostolic doctrine like what more do you want

The popes have gone so far off the rails there is definitely dialogue to be had

The popes arent the doctrine

the pope is a man

No. Dogmas are infallible. If you deny them, you cannot be a Catholic, period.

A lot of Luther's concerns were later addressed by the Catholic church proper

There is ground

No there isn't.

well, Luther died a heretic, in fact, a heresiarch

Accept the dogmas, or go to Hell (literally and figuratively).

fundamentally, if you go back to the basic most traditional protestant doctrines, it is still heresy

like not just schism, heresy

its in that name, protestant, you're protesting

Where would you say the prime points of heresy are? Beyond disagreement at least

Luther despised the Mass. I recall he referred to it as worse than a brothel. That in itself is totally uncompromisable heresy.

rejection of transubstantiation

I think that's not a fair asessment, he preserved the liturgy, he was speaking of the social aspect at the time

he preserved A liturgy which is not the mass

he hated the theology of the mass

No, he despised the Mass, and so did all of his students.

he understood liturgy, but he hated what the mass was and what was going on theologically

A Lutheran "priest" was executed in Rome for bursting in on a Mass and calling it the "whore of Babylon".

As far as I understand he also denied that priesthood leaves an indelible mark on the soul and said that a lay person could offer mass in an emergency

Said executed Lutheran spent a year with Robert fucking Belarmine, the greatest Church doctor of all time, and still refused to budge.

I guess transubstantiation has always been one of the prime points of contention, idk what's wrong witha lay person performing the mass in an emergency though. Doesn't seem in line with the nature of God to get hung up on that kind of detail in a situation where there is no other means

because a lay person is not able to transubstantiate

an ordained priest is ontologically different than a lay person

I thought that was Church doctrine, transubstantiation isn't a magic power it's the nature of the sacrament

yes, but who has the power to transubstantiate? Jesus

Transubstantiation is the greatest miracle in the world.

Can Jesus not work through a layman?

and Jesus delegated his priesthood to his apostles

He can, but a layman does not have the indelible mark of a priest.

But in an emergency, would that matter? I wouldn't see it as any different than David being given the bread of the host in the tabernacle to eat

What?

I eat the host at mass too