Replies

I provided some examples of requirements of obedience, but the reality is that there is conflict here, as in other things, and in which RCs interpret Rome differently, with some exhorting implicit obedience to all Rome teaches, and others restricting it to infallibly defined dogma, which is officially required, provided you can know the difference. And even then Ratzinger taught, "Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. “ (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.).

As regards changes, there can be validity to such, in which what was forbidden in past times might now be allowed now due to different circumstances, and there is a difference btwn dogma and church law (thus clerical celibacy could be changed, though RCs defend it as if it were immutable), and teachings of the supreme "infallible" magisterium versus the Ordinary (which some also divide into a General magisterium as well), into which the majority of RC teachings and practices are held to fall into, and in which some degree of dissent as well as interpretive disagreement is allowed, (which involves some interpretation as to which category teachings belong to, and how much one may dissent), in which area even RCAs disagree with each other . And with just the "Bulls" of the popes from 540 to 1857 behind said to fill 41 volumes, there is much to reconcile. In addition is the great liberty the RC has to interpret the Bible to support Rome, as few specific verses are held to have been infallible defined, although how many if any is a matter of some interpretation, as is things like whether the stamp protects from error.

But in many thing Rome has autocratically redefined what she meant, and is attacked from those in the Catholic sedevacantist schism, being her most acerbic critics outside some in Protestantism, even going so far as to deny the validity of Vatican 2. http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html

"But in many thing Rome has autocratically redefined what she meant,"

That is a mischaracterization at best. The Church has defined itself based upon its its interpretation of the Revealed Word and those who AGREE are in Communion with it and each other. It is completely voluntary as is evidenced by the many who proudly profess to not be in communion with it. To blindly (reluctantly, fearfully, and unwillingly) obey does not put one in Communion.

Those of us who are in communion have happily (blessed) chosen to be because we recognize the Church to represent the Truth.

So, why do so many of you obsess over the Church when your greatest indictment of Her is that Catholics love Christ imperfectly by your standards? With 2/3 of the world population still non-Christian wouldn't you better serve God fishing for souls in that lake and not sewing discord with Catholics?