- Did you read where I said I color-coded LS?
Yeah, I saw that.
It left me cold as stone (and a little hot under the collar, all at the same time...)
Didn't we just agree that syncretism was at work?
This latest encyclical, according to "Popes" themselves, is a teaching document that must be taken as "ordinary teaching authority".
The 'less than half of this particular encyclical' which 'deals with "faith and morals" as you put it, was described within the encyclical as matters which do attend to/intersect with --- faith and morals, and were very plainly ---even quite deliberately so--- fully enough (sad to say) entwined with faith and morals.
That is the syncretism which I was seeing, which you seemingly in reply #92 had just agreed was adopted as made part of "Ordinary Magisterium".
You had remarked in comment #73;
- "The encyclical itself states, more than once, by way of a disclaimer, that the Church has not got the authority nor the intention of replacing science and politics"
when the point was not that is was the [Roman Catholic] Church which was itself engaging in "science", yet still was inarguably putting forth sense that there was and is a call, even a moral responsibility for income disparity, coupled with environmental issues ----to be addressed, and those issues addressed, even politically.
Those sort of things were included among that which was said, while as you seemed to have acknowledged --- the handiwork, the "fingerprints" as it were, of World Religions and Agenda 21, said to have been ---- all over the document.
In my own view, that leaves the door propped WIDE OPEN for the furtherance of those same globalist-environmentalist agendas which I am not alone in being concerned that; in final result contributes to the way the entire world, as is even now presently being sought to be brought under singularly oppressive domination, has just had that very thing implicitly endorsed by the Vatican --- which oppressiveness will come first (as is demonstrated, already) through sundry bureaucracies, and then by whomever can seize control of those mechanisms...
After all is said --- and it has been said, the Encyclical has been published, no more second guessing as to what it would hold...
...yet still it is said; there are those things which still are to be done (?);
--- and who are you? Are you gonna' save us with a handful of highlighters? That would be nice, and although I do appreciate the effort, IF WISHES WERE FISHES IT WOULD BE A STINKY WORLD
Have you been commissioned to do this sifting & segregating of 'papal encyclical'?
How can anyone un-syncretize that which has just been inexorably entwined together --- without being either "cafeteria Catholic", or else more completely spurning papal 'authority' as true and binding in the first place?
I'm not at all buying that issues which were discussed in that papal letter can be so neatly segregated.
It may do for a this, or that individual's own perceptions ---- but ---- the Encyclical taken in aggregate, will be taken for 'signal' to those who are already on their own moralistic, save-the-earth crusades. Those individuals and groups thinking to themselves that doing all this 'saving' of the planet itself, will in some 'magic' way help bring peace, justice, and prosperity to suddenly break out ALL OVER THE WORLD.
They now have not merely their own consciences to comfort them while they go about forbidding (possibly any and all) human activities which they perceive harm the earth (the sky is not the limit there...it's included!) but now have the moral backing of the Western world's largest and most tightly wound religious organization (the very one which claims itself to be foremost authority --- over "All").
If others (not 'Catholic') brought in the not-so magic markers, picking and choosing, marking things up with highlighter;
then would not those individuals be mercilessly castigated (by some around here) for allegedly misrepresenting official RC "magisterial teaching"?
And that's just the beginning of sorrows, of course, for FR is just one small pond among larger ponds, lakes, rivers, estuaries & oceans, and so in the bigger scheme of things, in one sense (in light of objections towards whatever it is that comes out of the Vatican) scarcely matters, or so we here have been told repeatedly.
...Except for this Pope's wordy-wordiness(?)...then, well, everybody gets to have a go at whatever it is the guys says..? (he makes me appear brief and succinct, in comparison).
In regards to this latest Pope, Francis the Talking [fill-in-the-blank], it seems like it's ok for most anyone to ignore parts of what he says...if it's not dealt with by a "what he really meant to say was...", or else this artificial limiting, and walling off with "color-coding", portions of what he has signed off on from the rest of the other "teaching"--- all of which had indeed bundled issues together, relating them all together, in one holistic entirety.
Isn't that the very way which all other papal encyclicals ---it has now long been insisted must be how--- those sort of writings are to be understood?
The contents of the latest encyclical are not off-the-cuff remarks, it is not just as if the man was merely himself speaking his own mind, rather than as a 'pope' allegedly speaking the mind of God (at any given moment, in history)\.
- The[re] are parts of it which are rather wonderful.
Is there anything there among that which you said is 'rather wonderful', that is truly an original thought?
Must one wade through 34,000 words in order to find the few(?) concepts which are rather wonderful?
Larger, more complex mousetraps, are rarely a better mousetrap.
It is far easier to keep one's integrity intact while remaining still an intellectually honest
"As a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, and as a citizen," he added, "I cannot accept this doctrine." From the Roman Catholic viewing point he thereby became an heretic as he clearly and publicly denied a doctrine proposed by the Church Magisterium to be divinely revealed (de fide divina).