T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
It gets fairly confrontational in the Catholic News and World news forums, largely because of the subject matter. The Spirituality forum seems rather mild in tone.
- Status
V
Vouthon
Guest
DittoIt amazes me how much I agree with about everything you post.
I can totally see where you are coming on that section as well
Have you ever read De Pacei Fidei by the 15th century cardinal and mystic Nicholas of Cusa? It is essentially the same as what you are saying above. Pope emeritus Benedict XVI wrote quite extensively on Cusa.
Pope Eugene proclaimed the dogma that there is no salvation outside the church, that has always been taught by the church. He proclaimed it so vigorously, that he encountered some opposition. His chief defender was Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. He was like the Ratzinger of his time, when Pope emeritus Benedict XVI was Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Because of this Pope Eugene IV wanted to make him a Cardinal but Cusa declined. Later on the dying Pope Eugene IV basically told his close friend and defender to accept this honour, and so obediently did, upon which he became the Papacy’s right hand man - the highest ranking Cardinal in the entire Church at this time, to the extent that when the subsequent Pope Pius II wasn’t in Rome Cardinal Cusa ruled in his stead as de facto leader of the Church there. He was a Titan of the medieval church.
Yet Cusa did not see the dogma as meaning something “exclusive”. He saw it inclusively. The church was the universal sacrament of salvation but all who were not with her in body yet lived sincere lives were part of her in spirit and so saved in Christ. He embodied the characteristic Catholic both/and attitude ie Jesus is both human and divine.
. Here’s some words of Cardinal Cusa himself, his writings had the full patronage of Pope Eugene IV, Pope Nicholas and Pope Pius II:
V
Vouthon
Guest
And again:
Thus while Christ is the only Incarnation of God and the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, we as believers are no different to believers of other faiths as far as our comprehension of God goes. We all have not comprehended, individually nor as a corporate religious body, nor ever could comprehend, the truth fully. And therefore we are all united in our awesome unknowing before the majesty of the inexpressible God and can recognise elements of truth in all religions pointing towards that fullness of truth revealed in Christ yet which is the patrimony of no person or sole group.
L
Lisa1967
Guest
There was a post in the Water Cooler section that I was especially grateful for. A Catholic wanted to find out from Episcopalians more about the Episcopal Church. Although I have only attended that church a few times, and am not a member, I gave him some references and he thanked me. That was nice.
J
Julianna
Guest
littlenothing…totally agree
Word to the wise, stay out of the political forum if you are liberal, just left of center or a moderate. You will be lambasted (good word) for sure.
Word to the wise, stay out of the political forum if you are liberal, just left of center or a moderate. You will be lambasted (good word) for sure.
S
scipio337
Guest
If that leaning involves support for public figures who endorse abortion, gay marriage, and the violation of Catholic conscience, and on a Catholic forum, why would your opinion go unchallenged?littlenothing…totally agree
Word to the wise, stay out of the political forum if you are liberal, just left of center or a moderate. You will be lambasted (good word) for sure.
Because people are uncharitable?
J
Julianna
Guest
well, because it’s an “opinion”…everyone has one, everyone has the right to have one and each has the right to say so.If that leaning involves support for public figures who endorse abortion, gay marriage, and the violation of Catholic conscience, and on a Catholic forum, why would your opinion go unchallenged?
Because people are uncharitable?
In case you are curious, I am an independent/moderate. I dare to think for myself.
But in this case, I take queue from an old Kenny Rogers song. “know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away…” however, I never run. The Good Lord knows all, hears all. I know I don’t take a breath or walk a step unless he wills it so. He knows my heart and loves me just the same.
S
scipio337
Guest
And yet no one has the “right” to question the opinion, on a Catholic forum, and in relation to Catholic teaching?
I think most people do (think for themselves).
D
dshix
Guest
Heh, I’m always amused when I see people who think that somehow being an R or D means that you’re a brainless robot, and being an Independent somehow is the magic “I’m intelligent” pass.
meltzerboy
New member
I agree that such positions should not go unchallenged. However, challenge is not the same as confrontation and combativeness since the former can be done in a charitable way. That’s the one forum in which sparks often fly, not only against liberal policies–which is fine–but (not so fine) against liberal posters who support them.If that leaning involves support for public figures who endorse abortion, gay marriage, and the violation of Catholic conscience, and on a Catholic forum, why would your opinion go unchallenged?
Because people are uncharitable?
L
littlenothing
Guest
I guess we are about to prove Alan right…I don’t have a liberal bone in my body. And I really like you, Julianna. Thanks for the warning. I think folks in politics like to argue sometimes and I just don’t get into that kind of thing.littlenothing…totally agree
Word to the wise, stay out of the political forum if you are liberal, just left of center or a moderate. You will be lambasted (good word) for sure.
J
Julianna
Guest
Ah the beauty of being an independent/moderate is the ability not only to think for yourself, but also to avoid the folly of bandwagons. (speaking of politics) Never said I was looking for an “I’m intelligent” pass. I do not need someone to tell me what to do, how to think every waking moment in order to be in a special club. Each side D and R bring something valuable to the table. Once the shouting stops, maybe the two sides can sit and have a discussion. It is the extreme of anything that gets people into chaos.
In the realm of politics the discussion is not about what is best for our country (referring to America), it is now a select group of extremists who want to be “right”.
L
littlenothing
Guest
General Patton said “If everbodys thinking alike, somebody isn’t thinking”. Love that quote. I don’t get bandwagon thinking either. I hope that didn’t sound superior. I am nothing if not an ignoramus, but maybe this helps me stay away from groupthink.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I used to be staunch, vocal, Rush Limbaugh-Reagan conservative R. But I knew that listening to what filters through to the public media was smoke and mirrors, so to learn what was going on and get involved, my wife and I jumped in with both feet and got endorsed by the conservative pro-life KRA (Kansas Republican Assembly) and won the election for precinct committeeman and committeewoman positions, twice.
So I got to rub elbows, mostly with conservative and very conservative politicians at the local, county and state level – not so much federal but we did go to Todd Tiahrt’s first victory party so we got to see him and his family.
We found there are a very few really good people, a few OK people, and a lot who were not even close to somebody you’d want as a leader. And let me tell you, Dems do not have a corner on the immorality market. One so-called conservative R that we met (Roger Grund) was so slimy that I voted for his D opponent. Luckily for the voting public, he died soon after losing that election.
So I’m still registered as a Republican, but I’m wiser now and I know that many if not most politicians on both sides are scum, or just plain bunglers. That’s why they need the party line because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing so they all act as lemmings and follow in their party. Or the within-the-party faction leaders, more like. (We were in the KRA, conservative faction Kansas Republican Assembly. The Kansas moderates are members of the “GOP Club,” also based in Topeka.) And the national leaders of the parties are so out of touch and owned it’s ridiculous. I still vote, but it’s based on the smell test. I hated McCain so much and thought he would be so dangerous for foreign relations because he said stupid things practically every time he opened his mouth, and of course I couldn’t vote for Barry, so I voted Church Norris in 2012. Of course, in Kansas that means it was a vote for McCain, but it made me feel better.
Lately I’ve learned a little bit about why things are the way they are with party leaders, especially at the federal level. The top positions in both R and D parties are basically sock puppets. The puppeteers like it because all the sheeple watch the R-D show like a prize fight, whereas none of them would ever become candidates for president in either party if the likes of David Rockefeller didn’t want them to be. About 200 years ago, Mater Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, said, “give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws.” Nice. A few generations later, his descendants would be one of the families to own the Fed, a private bank to control the U.S. money supply. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and at least one other family convinced the politicians this was all a Good Thing, so in 1913 we gave up our right to make our own money and gave it to the bankers so now we ask them to make up some imaginary money and then lend it to us. It’s insane. Sure we print money but it only represents the imaginary money we borrowed from the Fed. Or China. Or whomever. I didn’t even realize the Fed was privately owned until only recently. This may cause eyes to roll, but I only found out about this by following up on some “conspiracy theory” people’s claims. Turns out there is a reason there are conspiracy theories; some of them are true.
Oh well I guess I ranted enough but yeah, the simplistic, dualistic, mentality that is R v D is exactly how the ultra-rich bankers such as Rockefellers and Rotschilds want Joe Six-Pack (to borrow a term from Bill Clinton) to spend time and energy watching, cheering, supporting, and basically keeping them busy so they don’t know they’re just pawns. It’s all a big show, intended for our consumption.
Take a look at the reaction of David Rockefeller, when he heard there was an R presidential candidate (Ron Paul) that was trying to get rid of the Fed. Let me assure you that once Rockefeller heard that, no way would Paul ever get on the presidential ballot no matter what party he was with. This is not an endorsement of Paul, because I know little about him other than this.
So yeah. I see the R v D show like one big prize fight, with audience participation. Engaging in that kind of debate is about as useful as playing video games all day. I feel absolutely nothing for either party, although I am still a registered Republican. If we want to see anything change, we need to quit watching the puppet show and start looking up toward the puppeteers. Honestly, I believe it may be too late to avoid some sort of major malfunction that everybody except the Big Bankers will hate. They just have too much power, and they are connected to other like-minded counterparts in other countries, across the globe. They are untouchable, almost like gods of this world. They have an organization called the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).
Extra credit: Early Feminism was successfully promoted and financed by the Rockefeller family. Can you name the top reasons the Rockefellers had for doing so? Those who saw this on another thread of mine, don’t give it away. Hint: it was not about equal opportunity or equal pay.
Alan
So I got to rub elbows, mostly with conservative and very conservative politicians at the local, county and state level – not so much federal but we did go to Todd Tiahrt’s first victory party so we got to see him and his family.
We found there are a very few really good people, a few OK people, and a lot who were not even close to somebody you’d want as a leader. And let me tell you, Dems do not have a corner on the immorality market. One so-called conservative R that we met (Roger Grund) was so slimy that I voted for his D opponent. Luckily for the voting public, he died soon after losing that election.
So I’m still registered as a Republican, but I’m wiser now and I know that many if not most politicians on both sides are scum, or just plain bunglers. That’s why they need the party line because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing so they all act as lemmings and follow in their party. Or the within-the-party faction leaders, more like. (We were in the KRA, conservative faction Kansas Republican Assembly. The Kansas moderates are members of the “GOP Club,” also based in Topeka.) And the national leaders of the parties are so out of touch and owned it’s ridiculous. I still vote, but it’s based on the smell test. I hated McCain so much and thought he would be so dangerous for foreign relations because he said stupid things practically every time he opened his mouth, and of course I couldn’t vote for Barry, so I voted Church Norris in 2012. Of course, in Kansas that means it was a vote for McCain, but it made me feel better.
Lately I’ve learned a little bit about why things are the way they are with party leaders, especially at the federal level. The top positions in both R and D parties are basically sock puppets. The puppeteers like it because all the sheeple watch the R-D show like a prize fight, whereas none of them would ever become candidates for president in either party if the likes of David Rockefeller didn’t want them to be. About 200 years ago, Mater Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, said, “give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws.” Nice. A few generations later, his descendants would be one of the families to own the Fed, a private bank to control the U.S. money supply. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and at least one other family convinced the politicians this was all a Good Thing, so in 1913 we gave up our right to make our own money and gave it to the bankers so now we ask them to make up some imaginary money and then lend it to us. It’s insane. Sure we print money but it only represents the imaginary money we borrowed from the Fed. Or China. Or whomever. I didn’t even realize the Fed was privately owned until only recently. This may cause eyes to roll, but I only found out about this by following up on some “conspiracy theory” people’s claims. Turns out there is a reason there are conspiracy theories; some of them are true.
Oh well I guess I ranted enough but yeah, the simplistic, dualistic, mentality that is R v D is exactly how the ultra-rich bankers such as Rockefellers and Rotschilds want Joe Six-Pack (to borrow a term from Bill Clinton) to spend time and energy watching, cheering, supporting, and basically keeping them busy so they don’t know they’re just pawns. It’s all a big show, intended for our consumption.
Take a look at the reaction of David Rockefeller, when he heard there was an R presidential candidate (Ron Paul) that was trying to get rid of the Fed. Let me assure you that once Rockefeller heard that, no way would Paul ever get on the presidential ballot no matter what party he was with. This is not an endorsement of Paul, because I know little about him other than this.
So yeah. I see the R v D show like one big prize fight, with audience participation. Engaging in that kind of debate is about as useful as playing video games all day. I feel absolutely nothing for either party, although I am still a registered Republican. If we want to see anything change, we need to quit watching the puppet show and start looking up toward the puppeteers. Honestly, I believe it may be too late to avoid some sort of major malfunction that everybody except the Big Bankers will hate. They just have too much power, and they are connected to other like-minded counterparts in other countries, across the globe. They are untouchable, almost like gods of this world. They have an organization called the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).
Extra credit: Early Feminism was successfully promoted and financed by the Rockefeller family. Can you name the top reasons the Rockefellers had for doing so? Those who saw this on another thread of mine, don’t give it away. Hint: it was not about equal opportunity or equal pay.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Egad! 
I just realized how much of a grip politics still has on me, going off-topic with a long post, to bash the R’s and D’s.
Alan
I just realized how much of a grip politics still has on me, going off-topic with a long post, to bash the R’s and D’s.
Alan
S
saveusfromhell
Guest
CAF charitability improving? look like the answer is no
L
littlenothing
Guest
Was it so we’d all have to bring home the bacon and leave our kids to the government to raise and educate? Or to have fewer children overall? Fill us in, Alan! I didn’t see your other post!
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Yes, you are very close.
1.) before feminism, only half the population was being taxed so they wanted to fix that.
2.) they wanted to break children out of families and get them into the hands of the government.
So you can see why I smell something fishy when I hear of liberals in the government deporting homeschoolers as a priority over others who might be more expensive to keep around. Homeschooling is a threat to government indoctrination, which of course is why so many are doing it now.
If you have some time, here is a 1 1/2 hour interview video with the late producer Aaron Russo. Russo tells of what he learned, including the real reasons for feminism, from his friend Nicholas Rockefeller – the one who tried to get Russo to join the CFR. I’m still grappling with the 9/11 thing – it’s hard for me to believe we did it on purpose, but it was amazing how the USA Patriot Act was right there ready to be signed – by 98-1 in the senate. That one vote alone ought to scare everyone into looking for conspiracies.
That said, Russo was told-- prior to 9/11-- of plans to stage terror attacks, invade foreign nations, and kickstart a high-tech police state control grid that would track the populations’ every move with implantable RFID microchips. So far I’m willing to admit they were at least ready to pounce on the opportunity when it happened.
Alan
J
Julianna
Guest
Who are “they”? At what time (year) did feminism start?Yes, you are very close.
1.) before feminism, only half the population was being taxed so** they** wanted to fix that.
2.) they wanted to break children out of families and get them into the hands of the government.
So you can see why I smell something fishy when I hear of liberals in the government deporting homeschoolers as a priority over others who might be more expensive to keep around. Homeschooling is a threat to government indoctrination, which of course is why so many are doing it now.
If you have some time, here is a 1 1/2 hour interview video with the late producer Aaron Russo. Russo tells of what he learned, including the real reasons for feminism, from his friend Nicholas Rockefeller – the one who tried to get Russo to join the CFR. I’m still grappling with the 9/11 thing – it’s hard for me to believe we did it on purpose, but it was amazing how the USA Patriot Act was right there ready to be signed – by 98-1 in the senate. That one vote alone ought to scare everyone into looking for conspiracies.
That said, Russo was told-- prior to 9/11-- of plans to stage terror attacks, invade foreign nations, and kickstart a high-tech police state control grid that would track the populations’ every move with implantable RFID microchips. So far I’m willing to admit they were at least ready to pounce on the opportunity when it happened.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Although I understand there were many others and several organizations involved, by “they” I was referring specifically to the Rockefeller family who heavily funded early feminism, as explained by Nicholas Rockefeller and described in the video of Aaron Russo I linked.
I don’t know much history about it, but here’s a quote from Wikipedia:
French philosopher Charles Fourier is credited with having originated the word “feminism” in 1837.[3] The words “feminism” and “feminist” first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872,[4] Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910.,[5][6] and the Oxford English Dictionary lists 1894 as the year of the first appearance of “feminist” and 1895 for “feminism”.[7] Today the Oxford English Dictionary defines a feminist as “an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women”.[8]
I can’t tell you when and how the Rockefellers got tied up in it or when it got big in America, without doing more research. Like I say, this is all pretty new territory for me. Two years ago (I’m 53 now) I’d never heard of any of this stuff except a few “wacko” references I heard back when I was heavily involved in conservative politics.
Alan
- Status