Not only is the teaching in the encyclical “non-infallible,” it has nothing to do with the Catholic Faith at all.
The teaching of the Catholic Church contains nothing about economic science and nothing about climate science.
The Earth has been cooling for 18 years and 6 months. Therefore, the Pope’s assertion that the Earth is warming is not merely an abuse of his office, it’s a hoax.
Nothing Pius X said about the teaching of the Pope or the bishops pertains to their opinions.
The Catholic Church is not the totalitarian, mind-controlling institution you like to pretend it is. This Pope has jumped the shark, and Catholics are perfectly at liberty to say so.
Wrong. Being non-infallible does not itself absolve you from the requirement of religious submission of mind and will, while it is absurd to assert that the pope wrote almost 44,000 words on issues that have nothing to do with the Catholic Faith at all.
Instead, the pope's teaching here is based upon Catholic teaching, which he cites as well as other popes. Francis first invokes Pope Saint John XXIII who fifty years ago wrote an Encyclical which addressed his message Pacem in Terris to the entire “Catholic world” and indeed “to all men and women of good will,” as a precedent for this Encyclical.
Next he invokes Pope Paul VI who in 1971 referred to the ecological concern as “a tragic consequence” of unchecked human activity:
Then Francis calls upon Saint John Paul II who In his first Encyclical warned that human beings frequently seem “to see no other meaning in their natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption”.
And next he cites predecessor Benedict XVI as having likewise proposed “eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.”
Then he enlists Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as speaking in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage.”
Next Saint Francis of Assisi is appealed to as the patron saint of all who study and work in the area of ecology,
Francis proceeds to invoke church teaching as foundational to his concerns.
The development of the Church’s social teaching represents such a synthesis with regard to social issues; this teaching is called to be enriched by taking up new challenges.
He next cites "THE WISDOM OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS" regarding about the relationship of human beings with the world, and as how the "originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual" (cf. Gen 3:17-19). And that "the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature...is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church."
He proceeds to invoke the story of Cain and Abel, and numerous other texts for support. And how "The work of the Church seeks not only to remind everyone of the duty to care for nature, but at the same time “she must above all protect mankind from self-destruction”"
And that "In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures are completely subordinated to the good of human beings, as if they have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish." And how The Catechism clearly and forcefully criticizes a distorted anthropocentrism...
Francis further calls upon Saint John Paul II as teaching, stating that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone”.
Moving on, under New biological technologies, he states that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only “if it remains within reasonable limits..." and goes on to "recall the balanced position of Saint John Paul II."
Francis does on to invoke Benedict XVI as affirming "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”
And how the Church set before the world the ideal of a “civilization of love”. And imagines "the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love.."
Finally, 172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support., encyclical
Yet nothing in this encyclical has anything at all to do with the Catholic Faith, according to those who reject what the pope says according to their judgment of what Catholic Faith entails. Which is just what other RCs criticize.
The Earth has been cooling for 18 years and 6 months. Therefore, the Pope’s assertion that the Earth is warming is not merely an abuse of his office, it’s a hoax.
Which presumes your judgment is superior to the pope's, the Vicar of Christ, written in an encyclical to the church and the entire world. When RCs can presumes that and engage in public dissent, which is disallowed even for non-infallible teaching, then it is no wonder they are called Prots by other brethren. For to personally ascertain the veracity of public papal and magisterial teaching, which invokes past teaching, by how you see it based upon your understanding of past teaching, is not essentially different from doing so based upon what you see Scripture saying. I see history, even from Catholic scholars, as denying that the 1st and 2nd century church saw Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads over the church universal, and that there was no historical warrant for the Assumption from the early centuries, but to which RCs will reply like Manning, that history is what Rome says it is. Likewise so is historical RC teaching combined.
Nothing Pius X said about the teaching of the Pope or the bishops pertains to their opinions.
Actually, nothing Pius X said about the following the Pope or the bishops rendered papal encyclicals or conciliar teaching to being opinions, and what Pius X said about the following the Pope rendered what he publicly taught to being far more than mere opinions.
The Catholic Church is not the totalitarian, mind-controlling institution you like to pretend it is
Actually, i do not pretend it is at all in reality, as in fact i document that what it really believes is that even proabortion/sodomy/Islam pols are members in life and in death, and both and she is an amalgam of conservatives and liberals. For what you do and effect is the evidence of what you really believe.
But i am responding to papal teaching and the argument by RCs that rather than judging what are valid Truths by personal examination of the basis for it, which leads to divisions (which Rome sees), following the pope and magisterium in each generation is the answer to such, and can supply such texts as i did in support. Yet unless they reject traditionalist RCs as being essentially Prots, then they are traditionalists who criticize Prots for judging what are valid Truth by personal examination of the basis for it, but do likewise when faced with certain modern RC teaching.
. This Pope has jumped the shark, and Catholics are perfectly at liberty to say so.
If you can judge the pope then so can I, but prove that you can publicly dissent from non-infallible teaching such as papal encyclicals. And if you can be right over the pope based upon evidence of historical teaching, why cannot a Prot?
Canon 752: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
Canon 753: “While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”