Tags
Benedict XVI, Bergoglian/Kasperian "hate theology done on the knees", Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Climate Hoax, communism, corrupt information, corruption, encyclical, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, intrinsic disorder, Intrinsically Immoral, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Laudato Sii, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, New Advent, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Peoples Liberation Front of Judea, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, s ABERRO AGENDA, Secret Synod 2014, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Synod of Bishops 2015, Tags "the new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II, Team Bergoglio, TeamBergoglio, Tradition, Vatican
With the date of the release of the papal encyclical regarding the climate change hoax just around the corner, the below is a description of the “encyclical”. (see here) The key in this below passage is the following:
As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.
Therefore, junk “science”, just like junk “theology” will not be able to withstand either the test of time, or the will of the Holy Ghost.
And not to mention the Catholic bloggers 🙂
FOR THE RECORD
According to its etymology, an encyclical (from the Greek egkyklios, kyklos meaning a circle) is nothing more than a circular letter. In modern times, usage has confined the term almost exclusively to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs, and which in their superscription are explicitly addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the Universal Church in communion with the Apostolic See. By exception, encyclicals are also sometimes addressed to the archbishops and bishops of a particular country. Thus this name is given to the letter of Pius X (6 Jan., 1907) to the bishops of France, in spite of the fact that it was published, not in Latin, but in French; while, on the other hand, the letter “Longinqua Oceani” (5 Jan., 1895) addressed by Leo XIII to the archbishops and bishops of the United States, is not styled an encyclical, although in all other respects it exactly observes the forms of one. From this and a number of similar facts we may probably infer that the precise designation used is not intended to be of any great significance. From the nature of the case encyclicals addressed to the bishops of the world are generally concerned with matters which affect the welfare of the Church at large. They condemn some prevalent form of error, point out dangers which threaten faith or morals, exhort the faithful to constancy, or prescribe remedies for evils foreseen or already existent. In form an encyclical at the present day begins thus — we may take the encyclical “Pascendi” on Modernism as a specimen: —
“Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Pii Divinâ Providentiâ Papæ X Litteræ Encyclicæ ad Patriarchas, Primates, Archiepiscopos, Episcopos aliosque locorum Ordinarios pacem et communionem cum Apostolicâ Sede habentes de Modernistarum Doctrinis. Ad Patriarchas, Primates, Archiepiscopos, Episcopos aliosque locorum Ordinarios, pacem et communionem cum Apostolicâ Sede habentes, Pius PP. X., Venerabiles Fratres, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Pascendi dominici gregis mandatum”, etc.
The conclusion takes the following form: — “Nos vero, pignus caritatis Nostræ divinique in adversis solatii, Apostolicam Benedictionem vobis, cleris, populisque vestris amantissime impertimus. Datum Romæ, apud Sanctum Petrum, die VIII Septembris MCMVII, Pontificatus Nostri anno quinto. Pius PP. X.”
Although it is only during the last three pontificates that the most important utterances of the Holy See have been given to the world in the shape of encyclicals, this form of Apostolic Letter has long been in occasional use. Almost the first document published by Benedict XIV after his election was an “Epistola encyclica et commonitoria” on the duties of the episcopal office (3 Dec., 1740). Under Pius IX many momentous utterances were presented in this shape. The famous pronouncement “Quanta cura” (8 Dec., 1864), which was accompanied by a Syllabus of eighty anathematized errors, was an encyclical. Another important encyclical of Pius IX, described as an “Encyclical of the Holy Office”, was that beginning “Supremæ” (4 Aug., 1856) in condemnation of Spiritualism. Leo XIII published a series of encyclicals on social and other questions which attracted universal attention. We may mention especially “Inscrutabilis” (21 April, 1878) on the evils of modern society; “Æterni Patris” (4 Aug., 1879) on St. Thomas Aquinas and Scholastic philosophy; “Arcanum divinæ sapientiæ” (10 Feb., 1880) on Christian marriage and family life; “Diuturnum illud” (29 June, 1881) on the origin of civil authority; “Immortale Dei” (1 Nov., 1885) on the Christian constitution of states; “Libertas præstantissimum” (20 June, 1888) on true liberty; “Rerum novarum” (16 May, 1891) on the labour question; “Providentissimus Deus” (18 Nov., 1893) on Holy Scripture; “Satis cognitum” (29 June, 1896) on religious unity. Pius X has shown the same favour for this form of document, e.g. in his earnest commendation of catechetical instruction “Acerbo nimis” (15 April, 1906) his address on the centenary of St. Gregory the Great (12 March, 1904), his first letter to the clergy and faithful of France, “Vehementer nos” (11 Feb., 1906), his instructions on intervention in politics to the people of Italy, and in the pronouncement on Modernism already mentioned.
Two officials presiding over separate bureaux still count it among their duties to aid the Holy Father in the drafting of his encyclical letters. These are the “Segretario dei brevi ai Principi” assisted by two minutanti, and the “Segretario delle lettere Latine” also with a minutante. But it was undoubtedly the habit of Leo XIII to write his own encyclicals, and it is plainly within the competence of the sovereign pontiff to dispense with the services of any subordinates.
As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters, but to certain letters emanating from bishops or archbishops and directed to their own flocks or to other bishops. Such letters addressed by a bishop to all his subjects in general are now commonly called pastorals. Amongst Anglicans, however, the name encyclical has recently been revived and applied, in imitation of papal usage, to circular letters issued by the English primates. Thus the reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the papal condemnation of Anglican Orders (this condemnation, “Apostolicæ Curæ”, took the form of a Bull) was styled by its authors the Encyclical “Sæpius officio”.
Sources
Little has been written professedly on the subject of encyclicals, which in treatises on canon law are generally grouped with other Apostolic Letters. The work of BENCINI, De Literis Encyclicis Dissertatio (Turin, 1728), deals almost exclusively with the early church documents which were so styled; see, however, HILGENREINER in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), I, 1310; and GOYAU, Le Vatican (Paris, 1898), p. 336; WYNNE, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII (New York. 1903); EYRE, The Pope and the People (London, 1897); and D’ ARROS, Léon XIII d’après ses Encycliques (Paris, 1902). On the authority of encyclicals and similar papal documents, see especially the very useful book of CHOUPIN, Valeur des Décisions Doctrinales et Disciplinaires du Saint-Siège (Paris, 1907); cf. BAINVEL, De Magisterio vivo et Traditione (Paris, 1905).
PR said:
Armaticus–Are you familiar with Randy Engel’s file on Acton’s “Fr” Sirico? If not, you may want to check it out. Keep up the good work. Na zdrowie!
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Dzieki for the tip.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Yep, that explains a lot.
I was wondering what the “libertarian” angle was all about. Thought it strange for a “catholic” priest to be pushing a ideology that completely ignores any notion of a Higher Being. But now it is patently obvious that the “libertarians” needed to get rid of natural moral law to promote their aberro agenda.
Just like “Fr.” Schockenhoff over at the German Bishops’ Conference, although one would definitely not lump him into the above category.
Funny how it all works out. Just like the old adage about the Model T, i.e. you can have any color you want, as long as it is black.
LikeLike
Foolishness said:
I think this is a mischaracterization of the Acton Institute and of Fr. Sirico. The Acton Institute is not libertarian in the sense of unbridled free markets and selfish autonomy and libertinism at all. It looks at both the importance of virtue—which is natural law based—and free markets, and how the two need to work together. In other words, without a virtuous people, no economic or political system will work well. Fr. Sirico is not pushing an ideology that ignores a higher being. Frankly, his view is much preferable to the statist, socialist models that so appeal to much of the Catholic hierarchy. And the other thing —t if Randy Engel’s allegations are true—-as far as I know they pertain to pre conversion, pre-priesthood activities. Do you not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to transform someone’s life? He is not promoting an aberro-agenda and I would urge the readers of this blog to be cautious about jumping to conclusions.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Dear F:
I do not know what lies inside of a man’s heart. Only God knows that.
What I find troubling is the blatant dishonesty. There are two aspects of this story that I find most troubling. First is a situation where a priest uses a congregation, i.e. the Paulists to become a priest and then leaves them proverbially high and dry once he attains this desired end. And this says nothing about the oratory in formation that somehow just can’t get formed over all these years.
The other aspect that is troubling is dishonest manner in which both the Fr. and the Paulists went about becoming him becoming a priest. It is just plain wrong, no matter how much I might agree with his “political/theological” approach more than I would the approach of a with a liberation theological Marxist.
S.A.
LikeLike
ColdStanding said:
June 18th, 2015 notable as the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.
Just say’n.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
Somehow I am very calm about this eco-nuttery. It will just compromise Francis even more than he is already. I can’t see how any of this will be taken seriously and the long term dissent will not have been worth the price of the cheap short term media buzz.
LikeLike
ColdStanding said:
I must admit that, having gotten as far as Benedict XIV in the project of reading papal encyclicals, I have pretty much given up on them. I know I am not alone in this. They are important, sure, but it just has never been a form I’ve cordoned on to.
I saw a set of 18 volumes of the public pronouncements of JP II and thought to myself, that’s just unfair to expect the faithful to stay abreast of all that.
The problem is the hay that the cottage industry of papal parsers will make of it.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
It’s just going to create more confusion on top of the FrancisConfusion to date. But the hippie church will soon go on to their just reward and in 10 or 20 years time, this eco-encyclical will be served up as an example of VII novelty along with universal salvation and the N.O. liturgy.
LikeLike