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 ...
I myself had no doubts that G-d can, and in these instances did, order the extermination of certain whole nations. My question was whether the Catholic Church did, or if, as with evolution, it has allowed its social prejudice against American "trailer trash" to alter its teachings.
The problem with your request is Roman Catholics disagree on which statements are ex cathedra.
Generally there are two that are accepted.
The Immaculate Conception (1854) and Assumption of Mary (1950).
The Roman Catholic has to believe these.
I could make a case for Unam Sanctam as Roman Catholics cite that as a case for having to be a member of the RCC in addition to being subject to the pope....unless they disagree with the pope.
But this illustrates my earlier point.
The laity in Roman Catholicism cannot determine what is or is not dogma. Only the pope can.
As has been illustrated on these threads Rome's dogmas have changed over time. So how can the Roman Catholic know which "tradition" is correct?
This is why the Bible should be the source of truth for a believer in Christ.
The other problem for the Roman Catholic is determining what a verse in Scripture means. Rome has, depending on the source, dogmatically defined between 7-15 verses.
The average member in Roman Catholicism is left with few options other than to believe what the pope is telling them is true. They really have no other option. Else, they are doing exactly what they condemn Luther for.
The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are ex cathedra, but are in total accord with Scripture, tradition, and reason. The Church has shown this over and over, and there are disproofs too that I can respect. But the main point is: if I assert this and “honor” Mary because of it, I am not caused to be in mortal sin.
Again, the point I’m making is, said in reverse: if a pope says something he claims is ex cathedra that causes people to be in mortal sin, we are not obligated to follow it. The mortal sin will be stark and obvious, because Scripture will be negated and centuries of tradition will have been reversed.
You dragged up a lot; but nowhere did I deny wearing a scapular.
False witness once again on display.
Yeah; they were too stupid to understand that the Bible is a book of myths and parables!
Oh but you did. That’s the purpose behind all that was posted. Now you’ve borne false witness twice. Keep digging.
Why don’t you two get on that thread?
I notice that neither you nor any other self-proclaimed "creationist Catholic" ever defends creation or criticizes your hypocritical evolutionist co-religionists.
The last real creationist Catholic on this forum was wideawake, who's been gone for over two years now. And he was not uneducated. He could have run circles around you or any of your evolutionist, higher critical brethren.
You have already apologized to me for falsely accusing me of supporting evolution. How quickly you have forgotten.
Nothing you have posted indicates I denied wearing a scapular.
Third false witness. Keep digging.
The Immaculate Conception is not found in nor supported by Scripture, the ECFs are in conflict over this. All the Roman Catholic is left with is "reason".
The Assumption is found no where in Scripture and again the ECFs are in disagreement over this.
You've yet to address my primary question.....how do you as a lay member of Roman Catholicism have the ability to determine what is or is not legitimate teaching?
And, on a lay person individual level, I have answered your question: use Scripture, under the guidance of tradition and reason. It’s a case-by-case basis.
Again, you need to give a specific example of a papal decree asking people to commit a mortal sin, if you want more specifics than the above. (Say what you will about them, but believing in the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception certainly does not detract from our state of grace or salvation.)
And, on a lay person individual level, I have answered your question: use Scripture, under the guidance of tradition and reason. It’s a case-by-case basis.
***
The reason that PFRotestants tend to get annoyed with that answer is that when WE use Scripture we get yelled at and told that we have no right to interpret Scripture for ourselves.
But that's the issue....the Roman Catholic has to believe in these. If you don't that's the mortal sin. That you have to believe this for your salvation is the mortal sin.
And, on a lay person individual level, I have answered your question: use Scripture, under the guidance of tradition and reason. It’s a case-by-case basis.
To Luircin's point....the laity in Roman Catholicism cannot understand Scripture on their own. We have been told that too many times on these threads. They are dependent upon a priest to interpret the Scripture for them. And that is going to be a problem for even the priest as the Vatican has only dogmatically ruled on only no more than 14 verses.
Scripture guided by tradition and reason. We are not on our own.
You're appealing to the same thing RCs condemn Luther for.
Which tradition is correct? The ECFs contradict each other.
Now you're left with your own reasoning......think about that.
They’ll never see it and if by some miracle they do, they won’t admit it.
Therefore the gates of hell have prevailed over the Catholic church.
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.