During a discussion of "reform" a week ago, I made a comment about wny the Church always needs to be reformed, and why it needed to be reformed before Vatican II. fons&culmen provided the citations from Vatican II, where purify was substituted for reform, though reform was retained elsewhere..

After six days, you questioned my remarks because you use a definition of "reform" that doesnt match the way the church uses it. That lengthy pause is why I said you insist on your definition. If you can give another reason, I might accept that.

Your understanding of "reform" rests on a wholly negative understanding of the Reformation that really is not compatible with our faith. One of the major achievements of VII is our acceptance of the children of the Reformation as our brothers and sisters. It is your usage that is tone deaf, unable to hear the nuance in the Church's current position.