Posted on 07/05/2018 2:07:18 PM PDT by ebb tide
In view of the “paradigm shift” said to be taking place during this pontificate, one that critics say breaks with the Church’s teaching and tradition, how should a concerned Catholic respond? Is it legitimate, for example, to resist Church authority, including perhaps even the Pope, and if so, how?
Chilean author José Antonio Ureta offers some answers to these questions in his new book, Pope Francis’ Paradigm Shift: Continuity or Rupture in the Mission of the Church? — An Assessment of his Five-year Pontificate.
In this June 23 interview with the Register in Rome on the sidelines of a conference examining new and old modernism, Ureta explains where he and others believe that Pope Francis is erring, why resistance to error is an act of charity rather than dissent, and why he believes the term “paradigm shift” can only really apply to one event in the life of the Church: the Incarnation. The author also warns against the temptation to sedevacantism (the belief that the See of Peter is vacant), which he says is “no solution at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Not sure what you’re trying to get across here. Claiming that that Francis isn’t really Pope because of his wickedness?
I think ebb may be a Sedevacantist.
This point was brought out in an excellent debate I watched on youtube on sola scriptura.
***
Link?
IMPEACH 266!!
Thanks.
I’m happy with the Catholic Church, myself.
You may make all the false inferences you want to; I will not be responding to them, however.
“You. Have. No. Choice. But. To. Obey. Your. Pope.”
A) No Christian, Catholic or Protestant, is obliged by God to err.
B) Popes err.
Thus, we are not obliged to obey popes.
Ok, what part of this do you disagree with?
bump
>>“You. Have. No. Choice. But. To. Obey. Your. Pope.”<<
A) No Christian, Catholic or Protestant, is obliged by God to err.
B) Popes err. Thus, we are not obliged to obey popes.
Ok, what part of this do you disagree with?
This is a bull that has been cited by many, many Roman Catholics to tell Christians they have to be subject to the pope.
The question you as a Roman Catholic have to answer is the pope speaking ex cathedra in this situation?
If he is you have to obey it....if he is not then what's the point??
And for the record, Christians are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.
“What is the point?”
As Catholics, we do not “obey” the pope on matters he errs on. This papal bull, if truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, may call us to be led by the pope, but certainly does not call us to err.
It cannot, by definition. Part of the issue with modernity is that it often asserts God’s will/power is absolute. (Islam says this, BTW.) It is not. It is ordained. It is absolute only in how He proclaimed it in Scripture (which we interpret with the guidance of the Holy Spirit via tradition and reason). He cannot tell Christians to commit adultery, or to commit sin for it is good, for example. And He cannot tell us to go against Scripture, tradition, reason; He cannot lead us to err.
By what standard are you asserting the pope is in error?
How do you determine if the bull, unam sanctam, is or is not inspired?
I’ll summarize my point; this applies to the papal bull you reference and anything Francis says:
Catholics must not obey any pope on those occasions when his teachings are not in accord with Holy Scripture guided by tradition and reason.
Catholics and everyone else.
ff
However, Unam Sanctam does not allow the Roman Catholic that option.
Unam Sanctam was a far reaching power grab of the pope over all aspects of life.
Nor does the "ex cathedra" defense come into play in attempting to avoid the command of the bull.
You say the pope's teachings not in accord with Scripture guided by tradition and reason, are not to be followed.
However, there are examples in Roman Catholic history where the pope has issued statements that go beyond Scripture.
As the laity in Roman Catholicism cannot render their own judgment of either Scripture or the accuracy of a pope or "tradition".....how do you judge what your pope is saying and doing is wrong?
After all, if the integrity of "holy scripture" is no big deal, then certainly nothing else is.
Does that mean He didn't really order the extermination of eight separate nations because that would have been "mean?"
If you would give an example or examples of ex cathedra’s that went contrary to Scripture and established tradition, I will answer. Otherwise, we’re talking theory. And make sure the examples are not “theological”, but actually critically impact whether a soul would end up in a state of grace or not. Thank you.
‘Does that mean He didn’t really order the extermination of eight separate nations because that would have been “mean?”’
I assume you’re talking about the Old Testamnet. That was His will. If that makes no sense, it’s because the Incarnation and the new Covenant changed the human understanding and appearance of God’s will, from Jewish centered to all mankind. If that still makes no sense, that’s ok, because it’s in inspired Scripture, so we believe it.
You must have me confused with another poster. I have never denied wearing Our Lady’s scapular.
Another false assertion on your part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.