Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Left Wing, Right Wing, moderate, extreme
Topic Started: Tuesday, 1. June 2010, 12:27 (2,132 Views)
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 17:22
If these things are Catholic, then things their predecessors have said are not.

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.

Clare
 
I ask you again, does that make their predecessors unCatholic, do you think, Mairtin?

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Gerard
Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 19:05
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".
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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 18:26
I wouldn't dream of judging the words and theological decisions of any Pope or Cardinal as unCatholic.
No, but you'll happily say that they are wrong.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Clare
Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 20:49
There's no possibility that it might be the modern encyclicals that are "less than infallible" and "of their time", is there?

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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Gerard
Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 21:00
Clare
Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 20:49
There's no possibility that it might be the modern encyclicals that are "less than infallible" and "of their time", is there?

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 ;)
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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Wednesday, 9. June 2010, 21:26
You'll not be interested in what the early Christians did then, Gerry.
You mean things like Mass in the vernacular, Holy Communion in the hand, married priests, female deacons ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Gerard
Thursday, 10. June 2010, 09:18
... I am very interested in the early church. Closer to its foundations.
Ah but, those things were "of their time". We've moved on since then! You can't turn the clock back! :wh:
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Thursday, 10. June 2010, 10:31
Gerard
Thursday, 10. June 2010, 09:18
... I am very interested in the early church. Closer to its foundations.
Ah but, those things were "of their time". We've moved on since then! You can't turn the clock back! :wh:
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
An interesting article from The Distributist Review:

Quote:
 
The Superficiality of “Left” & “Right”
...The terms I refer to are those that classify all political and socio-economic positions along a unilinear spectrum from Right to Left, terms such as reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, and radical. These terms and the set of concepts that underlie them are not only illusory, but dangerous; they contribute, most notably, to the dichotomy that exists between those working for prolife and related causes and those working for economic justice. For instead of being the allies that they should be, these two movements too often view each other as, if not the enemy, at least in close alliance with the enemy. As a result, each of these causes is hindered in its work as well as intellectually discredited in the eyes of many
...
What do I object to in all this? Two things. First, this system of putting positions on a spectrum often puts together what do not logically belong together. Why, for example, are those who favor laws protecting the unborn also supposed to favor an unrestrained Capitalism that ignores or exploits the weak? Actually the opposite ought to be true, for the logic for linking a laissez-faire approach to both commercial and sexual matters is pretty strong, as libertarians bear witness. The same is true, in an opposite way, concerning the Left. If one sees that intervention is necessary in economic affairs to safeguard the poor and working people, then it is assumed that one favors the legality of abortion and pornography. But there is no logical connection between these positions, in fact often the opposite.
...
...
When someone of authentic Catholic principles enters such a political arena, he will find himself agreeing with the right-Lockeans on many things and with the left-Lockeans on many things, but sometimes disagreeing over means, sometimes over reasons, and of course often over ends with both sides. But the point is, such a Catholic simply cannot be placed on this right/left spectrum, the usefulness of which is limited to those of the same philosophical background. The failure of our political terminology is that it assumes all political discourse can be contained within the one Lockean tradition because it knows nothing outside it.
...
Now, given all this, are our present political terms and usage dangerous to Catholic political activity? As I said, if a Catholic looks at or takes part in political activity, at least in the U.S. and most English-speaking countries, he will find all political activity organized around a right/left Lockean perspective. People think of themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative; they form alliances and appeal to voters based on such perceptions; political commentators present all of our political life as existing within such a Lockean universe. And for most conventional American politicians this is adequate, though they should be aware that their universe is only the Lockean universe, not the entire cosmos. ...
... Thus Catholics who are concerned more with issues our society deems left will usually come to support the entire left program; similarly for those Catholics who are more concerned with issues our society puts on the Right. We Catholics, then, are made to serve others’ agendas and to subordinate a complete vision of Catholic political topics to a set of priorities that is not of our making and is even based on unreality.
We must discover that real Catholic politics are outside the Lockean spectrum, and we must learn to see ourselves as neither right nor left-Lockeans, but as Catholics, who ought to differ from one another only within the clear bounds of permissible Catholic teaching. When once we begin correctly to see ourselves for what we are, it will become harder for various self-interested parties to co-opt us for their own purposes as simply adjuncts of the Right or Left. There are enough Catholics in the U.S. and the world that if we were educated to understand what we are and what we stand for, then political commentators, not to speak of practicing politicians, would have to accommodate themselves to us, and at the same time to the real nature of things, as they realize that not everyone exists and thinks within a Lockean framework.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DannyD

Good grief, Clare, please stop posting articles (Distributist Review above) I agree with, it unnerves me! :rofl:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Frankly Clare's quotation is beyond me. I can't make head and tail of it. I must admire those who can!
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomais


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
tomais
Friday, 22. October 2010, 19:24
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
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:
Quote:
 
... There are enough Catholics in the U.S. and the world that if we were educated to understand what we are and what we stand for, then political commentators, not to speak of practicing politicians, would have to accommodate themselves to us,...
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply