| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Left Wing, Right Wing, moderate, extreme | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 1. June 2010, 12:27 (2,132 Views) | |
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 18:26 Post #136 |
|
Or maybe you just don't understand them. If Popes and Cardinals regard these things as acceptable than that is more than good enough for me.
I wouldn't dream of judging the words and theological decisions of any Pope or Cardinal as unCatholic. If what they are saying or doing seemed unCatholic to me then I would assume that as a somebody not trained in theology, I'm misinterpreting it in some way. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 19:05 Post #137 |
|
Well I have seen enough extrcts from encyclicals denouncing things that we now approve (democracy, socialism, separation of church and state, etc, etc) to consider encyclicals less than infallible and more "of their time". Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 20:49 Post #138 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
There's no possibility that it might be the modern encyclicals that are "less than infallible" and "of their time", is there? Perhaps I'm ahead of my time in rejecting modern, less than infallible, doctrines. Incidentally, can you show me where the Church now approves of socialism, Gerry? |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 20:50 Post #139 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
No, but you'll happily say that they are wrong. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 21:00 Post #140 |
|
If the old ones were "of their time" then so must be the modern ones. Thing is, of course, we live in the modern time. Gerry Well, most of us
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 21:26 Post #141 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
You'll not be interested in what the early Christians did then, Gerry. I'd love to know where it says in Scripture or Tradition that we are to move with the times. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 10. June 2010, 00:10 Post #142 |
|
You mean things like Mass in the vernacular, Holy Communion in the hand, married priests, female deacons ? |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Thursday, 10. June 2010, 09:18 Post #143 |
|
Yes Clare, as Mairtin has pointed out, I am very interested in the early church. Closer to its foundations. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Thursday, 10. June 2010, 10:31 Post #144 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Ah but, those things were "of their time". We've moved on since then! You can't turn the clock back! |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 10. June 2010, 10:36 Post #145 |
|
Very few of us insist on an "all or nothing" approach to those types of thing, Clare; taking that approach is where the extremism comes in. |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Friday, 22. October 2010, 12:40 Post #146 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
An interesting article from The Distributist Review:
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| DannyD | Friday, 22. October 2010, 13:11 Post #147 |
|
Good grief, Clare, please stop posting articles (Distributist Review above) I agree with, it unnerves me!
|
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Friday, 22. October 2010, 15:26 Post #148 |
|
Frankly Clare's quotation is beyond me. I can't make head and tail of it. I must admire those who can! |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Friday, 22. October 2010, 19:24 Post #149 |
|
Clair please clarify your refernecs for Locke being left / right handed? Or what the two inferes ? If I write about the phiosophies of " common sense" would this have you running quickly back to your 4th year notes? Tom |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Friday, 22. October 2010, 22:04 Post #150 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Don't ask me! I didn't write the article I quoted! Someone called Thomas Storck did. Click on the link to The Distributist Review in my post above, and you can read the whole piece. He's just saying that Catholics should be beyond right and left. As he says near the end:
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |






7:53 PM Jul 11