Unless the pope is telling you to murder someone, you’re stuck.
What you’re talking about it not following the pope if he’s off base, but what is your criteria for being off based?
Some things are clear cut, like immorality. Others are not.
Seems like Luther at least, had clear cut immorality that he could look at. And he’s castigated for wanting the Catholic church to reform from that. And yet here we have Catholics talking about the same thing.
So what makes Luther so bad when he did it in light of clear cut immorality, and modern day Catholics OK when it’s not so clear cut?
Why is it fine for y’all these days to separate from the church over leadership issues and Luther not?
I see a huge double standard here.
But here’s the thing: I was only speaking of immorality.
The historical record, the Vincentian Canon and the law of non-contradiction. No pope can contradict a previous pope in matters of faith and morals.
"The Sources of Catholic Dogma"
http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Catholic-Dogma-Henry-Denzinger/dp/1489592199
"Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma"
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091
"...Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike..."
Tery; did any of those bad popes do their OWN killin'; or did minions do it?