Posted on 06/18/2015 1:22:58 PM PDT by detective
Leaders of the Catholic Church in America took their “marching orders” from the Pope’s encyclical on Thursday, fanning out to Congress and the White House to push for action on climate change.
The high-level meetings offered a first glimpse of a vast and highly organised effort by the leadership of America’s nearly 80 million Catholics to turn the Pope’s moral call for action into reality.
“It is our marching orders for advocacy,” Joseph Kurtz, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Archbishop of Louisville, said. “It really brings about a new urgency for us.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Again, no matter how assert it, it is your judgment that Global Warming is a hoax, and that the encyclical contains religious language but it teaches nothing, versus the judgement of your vicar of Christ.
And no matter how much you protest it, you are acting contrary to Catholic teaching that i have supplied, despite your opinion of it, which broadly requires submission to public papal teaching, without making distinction, except for a higher level of assent for infallible teaching, and at the least forbids public dissent.
Another RC can follow your example and judge some other papal teaching as not being valid, as many do with aspects of V2. Do you hold hold all of that as requiring submission? When RCs can and must pick and choose btwn what in an encyclical of the like they need to submit to, then it is contrary to their invocation of papal leadership as being necessary to prevent believers choosing what to believe, and for unity.
Not at all. I pray for the Pope but he needs to be more careful who he chooses to advise him to say the least.
Nope.
“You need to correct that to state liberal Catholics - not all Catholics”.
Exactly. As a matter of a fact liberal Catholics are more protestant than Catholic because they believe in nothing that the Catholic Church stands for. Queer marriage, women in the priesthood, abortion, all this garbage they believe in is also believed by protestant faiths.
The LAW required a sin offering. Mary, being sinless, and a Jew, OBEYED THE LAW. Rituals are NOT personal proclamations of personal thoughts and feelings. They are carried out in obedience to LAW.
BTW: To my knowledge, a “hypocrite” is a sinner who conceals his sins. I’m not aware of the term’s ever being used to describe a person who fails to proclaim his innocence.
The Pope does not have the power to add entire categories of subject matter to the teaching of the Church.
If the Pope teaches something about the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the Sacraments, the Commandments, etc., then I am bound to listen to him.
The temperature of the Earth is not now, AND NEVER WILL BE, a subject about which the Church will have any teaching. No Pope will EVER have the authority to tell Catholics anything about the temperature of the Earth—what the temperature is, whether it is going up or down, whether it is “too high” or “too low.”
It is obvious that you are simply ignoring what I say, so goodbye. I am satisfied that I have prevented you from deceiving anyone with any intelligence.
Indeed, dearest sister in Christ, it’s like a madhouse and the madmen have the keys.
Sadly, many of the US bishops are doing just that. Political lobbying to implement the most radical possible interpretation of this encyclical.
Mark Mallet has a good article up on this and plans to write more. He is always balanced and faithful to the Teaching Magisterium when writing. Here’s an excerpt of his post yesterday:
“NOT since Humanae Vitae has there perhaps been an encyclical letter that has generated more angst, more concern, more anticipation than Laudato si’. I have printed it off and will spend the weekend reading and meditating upon it.
I sensed the Lord saying that the first thing He wants us to do with this teaching is to examine our own conscience. Put aside judgments, put aside one’s own filters, and let the word speak to your heart. And in this regard, it is a “word” from the mind of Christ. For Jesus said to the Apostles, and thus, their successors:
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
Here too, we must set aside Peter, “the man”, and listen to Peter, “the office.” If you flip to the back of the encyclical, you will see just under 180 footnotes of references to several popes, the Catechism, the Second Vatican Council, and other magisterial statements. This in itself is a witness to the perennial voice of the Church that is an unfolding echo from the first Peter whom Jesus commanded to “feed my sheep.” [1] It is this voice that builds upon its predecessors all the way back to Christ himself that sets the Catholic Church apart from every single denomination in the world. It is this “Living Tradition”, founded upon the rock of Peter, that itself causes me to love and worship Christ more than ever. Because our faith is not dependent upon mere men, but the Divine Man, Jesus Christ, who builds His Church upon the Office of Peter that He established. [2]”
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/listening-to-christ
If it is brought up (which it should NOT be...since the homily is to reflect the teaching of the days’s Gospel), simply pray for the priest and remain to receive the Eucharist. We are definitely going to need the power that comes from the Eucharist in the days ahead.
Actually, while you have expressed your opinions, i have provided teaching set forth by RCs themselves, with the only way out being to exclude the modern popes as being valid popes (and Dictatus papae [1075] states that "That he [the pope] himself may be judged by no one):
when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
Which is preceded by,
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.....
Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this...
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces.. .
If by chance there should be in the ranks of the episcopate a bishop not sufficiently mindful of his dignity and apparently unfaithful to one of his sacred obligations, in spite of this he would lose nothing of his power, and, so long as he remained in communion with the Roman Pontiff, it would certainly not be permitted to anyone to relax in any detail the respect and obedience which are due his authority. On the other hand, to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. At the same time, when the faithful have grave cause for complaint, they are allowed to put the whole matter before the Roman Pontiff, provided always that, safeguarding prudence and the moderation counseled by concern for the common good, they do not give vent to outcries and recriminations which contribute rather to the rise of divisions and ill-feeling, or certainly increase them. These fundamental principles, which cannot be gainsaid without bringing in their wake confusion and ruin in the government of the Church , We have many, many times been careful to recall and to inculcate... (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x Which provides details behind the broad submission of in VEHEMENTER NOS, "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),
The FACTS are what is PRINTED; not ASSUMED by Rome!
Are you assuming that Mary meant, "Let's go home now"?
The context doesn't indicate that.
When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”"Why do you involve me?"“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
IOW, it's like saying in modern phraseology, "what do you want me to do about it?"
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”Mary's statement makes sense if she expects Jesus to "do something about it."
And then Jesus does something about it.
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.+ + +Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
If the Bible is the ultimate rule of faith, why are we arguing about this?
You don't need my interpretation of Scripture and I don't need yours, right?
Am I missing something in Luther's human tradition of Sola Scriptura?
1) The stuff you’ve copied-and-pasted was written when clericalism was at a high-water mark. There is no subject on which some clerics are as likely to wax rhapsodic as the respect and submission that are owed to clerics. All their moral capital was squandered a long time ago. No Catholic is bound by the outbursts of every hyper-emotional Italian.
2) In apparitions APPROVED BY THE CHURCH, our Blessed Mother speaks emphatically about BAD BISHOPS, BAD CARDINALS, and even a BAD POPE. It would be nonsensical for Mary to warn us about bad hierarchs if we were FORBIDDEN TO DISCERN which hierarchs ARE bad and which ones ARE faithful.
3) At this point, I invite you to take up your beef with Mary, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of the Angels, Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix of All Graces, about her disrespect for the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops of the Church.
You continue to evidence that you have no read much of the encyclical, as it addresses more than Global Warming. Francis (whom you call by his birth name, indicating you do not recognize him as pope) judges the claims of AGW scientists as valid, and provides the Catholic response to it as well other issues. Moreover, there was a time the Cath. church did not magisterially address other things as well, but once it does then assent to what is says is binding.
The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states,
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. …
Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it. - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
While the doctrinal weight varies, depending upon factors, and one can internally disagree with non-infallible teaching, yet,
They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2037.
The pope certainly has a right and function to discern new developments and to teach what Catholic teaching is in the light of social developments, including ecological damage and economy. The pope can address what Catholic teaching is regarding determining a just wage, as Pope John XXIII did in Mater et magistra.
Yet you judge the pope as being in error on AGW, and thus reject the entire encyclical as having nothing to do with the Catholic faith! And if you can do so judge the pope regarding social teaching then so can everyone else.
Catholic Austrian, William Luckey stated,
The fact that Catholic economic teaching, put forth as unchanging and required of belief, did not square with what Austrian economists know to be true, has created an agonizing crisis of conscience for such economists.
Which is what other RCs address, who oppose RCs as you:
While one is hardly surprised to find dissent from Catholic teaching among liberal Catholics, it is just as common to find it among conservative Catholics. These latter, however, since they see themselves as faithful adherents to Catholic doctrine, necessarily must create some strategy of disguising their dissent from Catholic teaching. - http://distributistreview.com/mag/2011/08/three-strategies-for-evasion/
It is obvious that you are simply ignoring what I say, so goodbye. I am satisfied that I have prevented you from deceiving anyone with any intelligence.
Rather, what is obvious is that all you have is opinions on why you can dismiss an entire encyclical as having nothing to do with Catholic teaching and thus dismiss it. And instead of you are simply ignoring what you say, your assertions have been preceded by and responded to with Catholic teaching, as is evident to anyone with eyes and intelligence. So can say bye. We can be satisfied that once again the specious nature of an RC polemic has been exposed, and the variant nature of RC unity. May all find union with the Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine Son of God, by faith in Him to save on His expense and merit, by His sinless shed blood.
It’s evident that the pope is the “vicar of Christ” except when he isn’t per Catholics.
Why is the “vicar of a Christ” wrong on so much?
“3) At this point, I invite you to take up your beef with Mary, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of the Angels, Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix of All Graces, about her disrespect for the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops of the Church.”
A good example of idolatry and paganism by a catholic priest.
What it isn’t is Christian. You did get her actual name, Mary, correct. The rest was from the pit.
Because Christ is NOT the one he is "vicar" of.
Their own personal opinion on whether the pope is really the pope.
Seems that they are saying the the college of cardinals was wrong in picking the new pope.
They have a dilemma here. Did the Holy Spirit lead them in the choice or not?
Do they submit to the leadership of their hierarchy, believing that it’s God’s will for the moment or not?
That Mary is not the Mary of Scripture.
We'll pass on getting involved with the demonic, thank you.
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.