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 ...
Your argument falls apart on this point: Pius X had a right to demand assent to what he taught, because he taught the Catholic Faith. This new encyclical teaches nothing but Bergoglio's stupid, erroneous, gaseous opinions about the Global Warming Hoax and the nostrums of the pro-abortion, genocidal, totalitarian Left. Catholics have NO obligation to pay attention to any of Bergoglio's opinions. They have nothing to do with Catholicism.
Bingo. And the bishops who are most involved in Open Borders are pro-abortion, like O’Malley. If you doubt me, google around for his many photos slobbering on pro-aborts, giving them Communion, etc.
The Open Borders bishops knew perfectly well that immigrants vote 70-75% pro-abortion.
BTW: I was appalled that the March for Life invited him to be homilist at the Mass at the Shrine the night before the March this year. That was an obscenity.
New STORIES crop up. New CASES do not.
Oops. Ussher.
You are correct.
But I don’t recall any of the accused being found without direct guilt or knowledge of what was going on.
There have been some priests falsely accused.
There hasn’t been a NEW case of abuse of a minor by a priest in years. Everything has changed. PARENTS once protected priests! No more. An accusation nowadays, even a false one, is a death sentence.
About two-thirds of American bishops should have gone to prison. Of course, unlike priests, the bishops had access to a couple of billion dollars.
What they post about Catholicism says more about their own faith than it does Catholicism.
Oh really? Do you have statistical evidence of that or are you just making that up?
There, fixed it for you.
Mea culpa. I was wrong.
According to one Gallup poll, close to half of all evangelicals believe that the world is only 6000 years old. How I goofed that up, I’ll never know.
Why do you get so personally nasty so quickly?
Oh, that’s rich! Take a look in the frying pan and get back to me.
So the pope is the “vicar of Christ” except when he’s not?
Please show where I have made it personal as opposed to countering error within a religion.
Where did I make it personal? I quoted a Gallup poll.
Amen.
An accused priest who would be found falsely accused ought to be page 1 news.
Post 232 quote "You’re a fake Jew and people need to know it." Now you claim that was from "a Gallup poll"?
I have wondered that too. In fact, I think a few got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Some seem to be really grouchy.
Actually, it is your argument falls apart on this point, and confirms mine. As in order to escape from obeying the teaching of Pius X, in which the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors (and then there is the additional quote(, "we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority," then you must actually do the contrary, which is that of you deciding whether what the pope said is valid teaching, based upon your judgment of what that is.
Thus as said, other RCs accuse traditionalist RCs such as dissent from part of V2 as basically being Protestant. While traditionalist RCs dissent from certain modern RC teaching based upon their judgment of what valid RC teaching is in the light of certain historical RC teaching, Prots dissent from many RC teachings based upon their judgment of what valid teaching is in the light of what Scripture teaches and warrants.
I actually concur with traditionalist RCs that certain modern teachings stand in contrast with past teaching, however, a fundamental premise of RC teaching is that Scripture, history and tradition only validly consists and means what she says, and thus V2 can define what past valid teaching really was and meant.
As Manning asserted,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”
And you are to follow leadership versus being like Prots in seeking to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences. And at the least the flock is not to publicly dissent from even non-infallible teaching.
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.