I want to do an overview of some of the more in-depth Roman apologist responses to non-RC objections, and anyone here to refute them or expound upon counter-arguments to what is presented. The Council of Nicaea says "cursed is he that innovateth/take away..." Romans respond that even though the council of Nicaea said not to innovate or take away, Roman apologists, holding to the doctrine of development, believe that, when the church added new things to their doctrine, they did not deny what had already been agreed upon at Nicaea, but simply added and clarified the parts that weren't discussed or declared with any certainty. They say since the church is the continuation of the Old Testament priesthood, and since in the OT the scriptures and nature of God were expounded on and revealed more over time, it would logically conclude that such is possible after the NT period. They also say much of what is added to doctrine in the RC is not really heresy but simply clarification and understanding of what's already stated. Dealing with Canon 6 Some Romans deal with Canon 6 as meaning that the churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction were only considered part of the church at all because they were in agreement with faith and morals. Any church outside of this spectrum was not in a spiritual sense part of the church that Rome was promised to represent and preserve from error, so spiritually all dissident churches are not technically the true church, and only Rome has done that. The Revelation of Papal Infallibility Romans who might accept that Papal infallibility was not an accepted dogma prior to Vatican I say that it was implied, and while certainly not believed firmly, it took a thousand or more years of infallible statements regarding faith and morals for the Holy Spirit to finally reveal it to the church in 1870 so they would know it was a miracle and not doubt it before it became codified, which means that even if it wasn't declared or required for belief at the time, nonetheless it was an ongoing phenomenon that was only recognized at the first Vatican council. Contradictions between Trent and Vatican II Notice that Vatican II/Lumen gentium, when speaking of salvation outside the church, dedicates paragraph 15 to everyone within the Christian spectrum. It says in a fairly strong sense that those within the Christian spectrum such as Protestants, Orthodox, etc. are surely bound to God in a very real way, even if they do not have the fullness of the faith provided by the Roman church. That's all. The paragraph after it, 16, deals almost entirely with everyone OUTSIDE of the Christian spectrum. It is the only one that speaks clearly regarding those who have no affiliation with a Christian church of any kind having some hope of salvation due to their ignorance. I heard an RC argument on this forum which says that Vatican II is only a pastoral statement, or more specifically, those who accept it's statement in these two paragraphs as being reconcilable with traditional teaching, such as Trent declaring that NO ONE outside the Roman church can be saved, tried to defend it in saying Trent's statements were also temporal and pastoral because doctrine was very well known at the time and it would've been hard to be ignorant of it and reject it, while Vatican II's statement was not declaring anything new, rather, it was simply clarifying what previous statements of that nature may have meant, and that it was meant to deal with a growing illiteracy of the modern age with church history and doctrine, a kind of shoddy argument considering the wide availability of the bible in the modern, post-V2 era, which itself encouraged people to read the bible for themselves, and a vernacular mass. I'm not sure I buy that. There's more to come. In the meantime, please discuss.