Posted on 07/30/2015 11:08:14 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Saving features: (1) he does admit that this is just "discussion", not "doctrine" (although in tone he's by turns dialoguing and pontificating), and (2) it's so internally twisty-tailed around I don't think it's going to get a wide readership.
As far as I can see, it's basically a hash of "United Religions" and "Agenda 21".
Being used by the Left? To the hilt, and apparently that's OK by him.
God save Pope Francis.
God save the Catholic Church.
I loved Benedict XVI. There was holiness in the man that was deep and wide and he brought the Church up, not down.
He was a teaching shepherd who tried to repair from V2.
Devout Catholics want to be led and taught. There are 2000 years to learn and to apply. There is no time for an administrative gadfly, we need a great shepherd who will fight Satan on his knees and take us through the battle with the Sacraments fully embraced and administered.
I appreciate your hard work, the effort you put into this, and your conclusions. I will contemplate your critique and if any specific comments or questions come to mind, post them.
Thank you and God bless you.
*8After some last-ditch prayers, I finally settled on an approach that I think is fully honest and makes sense to me. It focuses on the fact that less than half of this encyclical is actually part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and one must discern carefully between magisterial teachings and (ahem) the more debatable “prudential judgments”.**
Excellent approach.
Amen Times Ten.
Thanks. I had to sweat bullets over it. :o}
Adept (and tactful) analysis. Well done.
This is the sign of the Holy Spirit's presence.
Psalm 85:11
Love and truth will meet; justice and peace will kiss.
I had thought that Pope Francis was trying to make a misguided "missionary pitch" to the Left/seculars --- and that's part of it --- but now I see it is part of his pitch to the Orthodox and the Anglicans.
I am convinced this is strategically wrong, because nothing can be "strategically right" if it is dubious as per its practical judgments. In terms of papal diplomacy, this is disastrous, in my view --- especially if it succeeds --- because it will succeed in a destructive way, and for the wrong reasons.
I still credit the Pope with good intentions. I think he loves Our Lord. I fear he is (unintentionally, obliquely) helping the Left use God ---as if this were possible--- as an organizing tool.
God save Pope Francis.
God save the Church.
- but now I see it is part of his pitch to the Orthodox and the Anglicans.
I am not that involved, but you misread the article. His pitch is to the secularists through environmentalism(reaching the Godless and pagan). According to the article he is copying the Orthodox and Anglicans.
Thanks for the correction.
P.S. Pope Francis said once that for the Church to act like a NGO was "demonic". His word, not mine.
The problem here is not that we disrespect the authority of the successor of St. Peter, the problem is that he does not respect it.
So now we have faithful Catholic data mining this document for theological or moral truth, like digging through a manure pile looking for a shiny quarter.
You did the best you could and it was respectfully done. This paper (hesitating to call it an encyclical) has all the earmarks of a committee product with its internal inconsistencies — both substantively and in style. The Pope told us it was Turkson’s “team” on the first draft and, later, unnamed theologians on the third draft. Color coding? Not a bad idea; you could have colors for The Good, the Bad, and the Silly.
Overall the document is clearly buying into man-made global warming and in the background are the themes of liberation theology. The hands are the hands of Francis but the voice is the voice of Leonardo Boff (e.g., the “cry of the earth” is in the title of one of Boff’s books). This paper cites the Rio conference of 1992: that’s where they sang, “Were You There When the Crucified the Earth?”
After reading this far on this thread I can only think of one thing:
Let us pray.
Everyone is too busy thinking and talking and analyzing and —well, pontificating.
Let us pray.
Sometimes I am grateful that I am not learned. It gives me my best excuse for falling back on prayer in every time of doubt and need for spiritual discernment.
Jeremiah 30:28
Let us pray.
You cited Jeremiah 30:28. Jeremiah 30 just has 24 verses. Is this a typo? Please re-recommend that verse, I'd like to look it up.
It's half "Laudato Si" (and dedicated to God) and half "Mr. Bergoglio's Environmental Manifesto." He seemingly both doesn't want, and does want, the authority of the Laudato to bleed into the Manifesto.
What a hash. And it will have the longer-range effect --- I can see it now --- of undermining the dignity of the papacy.
What could a subsequent pope do about this? Repudiate it? Sort it into two piles and repudiate half of it?
And poor Benedict must be wringing his hands.
How I miss Benedict.
Its essence is anti-Catholic, with a few strategic fig leaves scattered throughout the eco-socialist rhetoric to assuage the credulous Catholic reader.
This paper cites the Rio conference of 1992: that’s where they sang, “Were You There When the Crucified the Earth?”
Disgusting.
There's no doubt this thing bifurcates on authors and on authority. (I like what you said about the hands vs the voice, like Esau/Jacob.) Not that I am an expert on the background documents--- I'm not --- but what I'm thinking is that the "business" end was written by somebody like Jeffrey Sachs and he just cut and pasted chunks from "Religions United" and "Agenda 21".
Why not? Pope Pius VI condemned an entire synod.
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.