Posted on 12/30/2014 10:59:59 AM PST by BlatherNaut
Pope Francis' recent leftist statements should trouble Catholics and non-Catholics alike, but even more disturbing are the pope's latest declarations on the dramatic action needed to fight climate change...
...What climate-change action will the Vatican endorse? Almost all the leading anti-climate-change initiatives endorsed by the Green Movement — cap and trade, carbon taxes, regulations against using abundant fossil fuels — are merely regressive taxes that hurt the poor the most. What is the ethical and moral basis for going to poor villages and telling those living at subsistence levels that they have an obligation to save the planet by staying poor and using less energy? Cheap and affordable electric power is the best antidote for extreme poverty, disease, malnutrition and human deprivation....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Is it possible you have been so many years a participant in the FR Religion Forum and do not yet know what papal infallibility is?
To equate environmentalist goals with a transcendent soteriology --- even an erroneous one --- would be, I think, a category mistake.
If that is their primary motivation --- all others being, as a you say, a distant second --- perhaps you could supply a quote or link or two which would show this interest in salvation through ecological works?
It is because I know what Papal Infallibility is, that I posted it...making sure to disagree with it. If Papal Infallibility were true, Paul would not have corrected Peter to his face in Galatians 2:11-18.
The faults, failings, idiocies and sins of particular Apostles and their successors has nothing to do with the doctrines of the Church.
The pope having an erroneous opinion on climate science is like the pope having an erroneous opinion on the causes and cures of allergies. I mean, the man may have allergies but the rest of us don't have to sneeze.
Not a lot of time to research, but saw some interesting analysis of this in the results of a google search on “collective salvation through environmentalism”
No.
But there's this.
How To Explain Papal Infallibility in Under Two Minutes (YouTube Link)
It's worth the click. Enjoy!
But this is silly on stilts.
Papal infallibility pertains only to dogmatic definitions of faith and morals, intended to be binding (de fide) on the entire church, made by the Pope by virtue of his official capacity (ex cathedra)as leader of the Universal Church.
Peter's cowardice and snobbery with regard to table fellowship with the uncircumcised fulfilled none of these requirements.
So you are quite mistaken. Peter's personal fault-- which Blessed Paul sharply corrected, and was right to do so --- had neither the intention, the form nor the matter of an exercise of infallibility.
If you knew anything about the history of the Catholic Church, you would know that the correction of the erroneous opinions or faulty behavior of popes, is an acknowledged and never-ending task.
I know you and I do not agree 100% but on this we totally agree! Dear God, please be merciful on us.
Add another item to the growing list of “fails” by this socialist pope.
Certain posters speak of “erroneous opinions” on non-faith and morals topics. It is true that popes can have such erroneous positions and Catholics are not expected to follow suit.
Having said that, has a pope ever written an ENCYCLICAL solely about such an erroneous position? And pretty please with sugar on top, give me a pre-Vatican II pope. I expect post-Vatican II popes to do any sort of nonsense.
BTW post #51 is meant for anyone who knows the answer.
The Mask is coming off. I had high hopes, not so much any more!
The problem with the Pope going green is that it is an appropriate message for 2nd and 3rd world countries being industrialized. But the top tier Western Civilization industrialized nations have already have had their environmental moment or movement in the 60’s and 70’s that succeeded politically. Whats is now reigning in the West for the environmental movement is now radical and anti-humanist.
So while the Pope’s forthcoming approval of being a steward of the earth and its resources might be fine and dandy. What he is really doing is empowering the West,and its well funded anti-humanist green movements to now go evangelize in 2nd/3rd world countries politically. This has been going on already in the population control arena with the UN, World Bank, US and Europe saying to third world countries enact these measures and laws favorably toward contraception, abortion, sterilization or you wont get cooperation, loans, $$, etc from us.
Radical environmental orgs. are the new Nazi’s, the Brown Shirts, the SS. Organized, political clout, anti-humanist(Stalin, Mao, etc), did I say immoral and disregarding of human life, and with big plans.
Great response!
IIRC, the only thing I am aware of disagreeing with you on is the threshold for sedevacantism. And I think it’s mostly a matter of “How are you going to make it stick in the real world?”
If you knew anything about the history of the Catholic Church, you would know that the correction of the erroneous opinions or faulty behavior of popes, is an acknowledged and never-ending task.
Papal infallibility nor papal authority came from God, or the church or even the early Catholic church...
In addition to the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The following is a sample of Thomas’ argumentation for the papacy using the spurious quotations from the Thesaurus:
Donation of Constantine
The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope.
Doesn't look too good for the authenticity of your Church...
Back in 1870, the First Vatican Council defined the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
Ever since, millions of people have gone about proclaiming: “I reject Papal Infallibility because...”—and citing reasons that prove they have no clue what it is.
The sins of Popes, the opinions of Popes, the stupidity of Popes, etc., etc., etc., have absolutely nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.
It’s been since 1870. Do you think that sometime in the next 144 years, you might find the time (30 seconds at the outside) needed to read the definition of Papal Infallibility?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error “When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”
You are trying to call into question Papal Infallibility.
But you posted material relating to “Papal Primacy” in the political realm.
The material you posted is entirely irrelevant. It’s not about Papal Infallibility at all.
Though you’d like to know.
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.