Posted on 12/28/2014 9:06:22 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
Following a visit in March to Tacloban, the Philippine city devastated in 2012 by typhoon Haiyan, the pope will publish a rare encyclical on climate change and human ecology. Urging all Catholics to take action on moral and scientific grounds, the document will be sent to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 400,000 priests, who will distribute it to parishioners.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
No. But I’d rather be in one where the if the cleric didn’t know what he was talking about, he’d just shut-up.
I have never encountered a similar rule on any other forum. Perhaps your forum is more well known to the media though.
This is the link to the latest posts on the Religion Forum.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/religion-forum/index?tab=comments
A lot of media organizations have asked us to restrict the use of their material on Free Republic.
FR has quite an impact on issues at the forefront of the political arena.
In a Conservative vein.
See the following link
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm#copyright
I’ve never encountered such a link, on any forum.
Where would I find such a link—I mean, if you didn’t send it to me?
According to Saint Robert Bellarmine, a manifest heretic pope loses his office ipso facto. The heresy need not be formal, merely manifest (public).
This pope is manifestly Modernist. You yourself have said this. Most Catholics faithful to the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church who do not have their heads in the sand recognize this fact. Since Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies” and Francis is a flaming Modernist, then Francis is a manifest heretic. Francis can not be pope.
All we need is the Church to make it official and declare it so. The problem is that far too many cardinals are just like Francis. As a result, we must pray for their conversion to the Holy Catholic Faith.
How to post a thread and other interesting facts. (Welcome Newbies) (2-1-2006 edition)
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
Source for above links (and others):
Now having said that and not wanting to reignite a flame war, my initial comment was indeed snide and I apologize for it. But upon reading Arthur McGowan's home page I thought his screen name was not his but taken from a Catholic priest by that name. It is confusing.
While AGW is related to morals, as the more learned RCs may tell you, a Pope is not held as being infallible in all his laws, commands, statements, nor in his acts of state, as papal infallibility only is assured when the pope, who has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" (CCC 882) - definitively speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as the presumed pastor and teacher of all Christians, a doctrine of faith or morals (Divinely Revealed Truth) as binding on the universal Church. It is also held that his (autocratic) ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
That is the highest level of RC teaching, being referred to as a Solemn definition, while it is also held that the bishops can also teach Christ's doctrine infallibly when in unity among themselves, and with the successor of Peter, they concur in one teaching as the one which must be definitively held.
Thus Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Such teaching mandates sacred assent (theological assent or the "assent of faith"), while ordinary assent (religious submission of will and of mind) is to be given to non-infallible teachings that are purposed to lead to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals, (CCC 892) Although they may contain errors, they are not supposed to be disputed nor rejected publicly (but such censures have no teeth).
These ordinary teachings on faith and morals are taught by the "ordinary magisterium." A sub category of ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is seen inferred in Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis, and which commonly accepted by many theologians. (http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html)
The lay theologians such as seen here or typical Catholic sites are not held as having any official teaching authority.
Yet while "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident," - Code of Canon Law 749 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM how many infallible teachings there are, as well as what magisterial level others fall under (and thus what level of assent is mandated) is a matter of debate, as can be aspects of their meaning. There are RCs even here who reject aspects of Vatican two are being authentic RC teaching.
Of course, while Rome has infallibly defined herself as infallible, perpetual magisterial infallibility is an invention, a a novelty in the light of Scripture, which never exampled it, nor required it, but support for it is extrapolated out of the premise that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Cardinal Avery Dulles imagines,
"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. " - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html
Likewise the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Therefore it is also imagined,
“Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines until there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy...” — Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II, Dignity of Mary; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp
For rather than being the supreme assuredly infallible standard, then Scripture is subjugated to being a servant to support its autocratic Roman master, which imagines it owes its authority to, while "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law." (Providentissimus Deus)
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
However, the actual historical facts are that rather than an infallible magisterial office being essential in order to correctly discover the contents of revelation, and have assurance of what is of God, souls correctly discerned both men and writings of God as being so long before a church of Rome would presume assured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office.
And rather than Scripture being indebted to the church for its claim to authority, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture meaning that such it, the contrary is true as the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) H
Correct. See my last post .
Yes, the Catholic Church has problems, and in my opinion doesn’t get this issue right as well as others. Do you know of a Church that gets all the issues right
No, but her most fundamental premise as regards the basis for determination of Truth is false (see above post), along with much other deformation of the NT church.
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (Acts 3:19)
anyone who is ignorant of Islam is willfully ignorant at this point, the Pope included.
CWR: You were a witness to the 9-11 attacks in New York City. A decade later, in 2011, an Islamic cultural center opened two blocks from Ground Zero (the “Ground Zero mosque”). And, plans were submitted to demolish the site and build a much larger Islamic center. Do you think many of your fellow New Yorkers have failed to consider the role Islam played in the 9-11 attacks, and ongoing attacks on the West and Christians today?
Fr. Rutler: The World Trade Center was not destroyed by Presbyterians. Catholics are naïve if they try to ignore that the attackers were Muslim. As I said in one of my recent articles, society is in a similar place today as it was in regards to Hitler in the 1930s. People were accommodating themselves to National Socialism or Hitlerism because they thought it would bring down Marxism. The Nazis, in fact, presented themselves as the anti-Bolsheviks. But, they didn’t appreciate the disease they were unleashing on the world.
People who describe themselves as liberals today are often protective and defensive about Islam, despite the fact that it is so intrinsically opposed to what these progressives claim to represent. The only explanation I can come up with is that these Western socialists or progressives are hostile to Judeo-Christian civilization and see Muslims as an effective force against it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This is coupled with the fact that the secular media so often downplays or ignores the atrocities committed by Islamists. Just recently, for example, four Christian children were lined up by ISIS in Iraq and told to deny Christ and convert to Islam. When they refused, they were decapitated. I don’t recall seeing that in the New York Times.
~ Father George Rutler
Thank you for your reply.
I will look through the material later.
I am always willing to admit that I misspoke...
-Sol David
but the POPE is a commie and he proved it in argentina and encouraging Georgetown to undermine the catholic faith....he wears white but his heart is dark
If folks would just pray to Mary; everything would be all right again.
3 kids in Portugal said so...
Sounds like someone wants to be their OWN Pope!
Damped Protestants are influencing EVERYONE these days!
Dammit!
The sun revolves around the earth!
Wicked??
How judgmental!
Even hump little boys?
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.