- Status
K
kim_zef
Guest
Oh heck I’m half German too. Germans say stupid stuff as much as anybodyI agree. I mean, not only is that insulting the pope, it’s also insulting Germans, of which I am one.
I’m glad it wasn’t the pope that called for a new world order… Those are simply the thoughts that went through my mind when I heard he did.
However, it seems that the pope or somebody with an orthodox head on their shoulders in the Vatican should be more careful about whatever c-rap gets spewed out into the media as papal wisdom. Seriously, if I had still been Protestant and heard that, I would have assumed the Church was indeed the great whore of Babylon.
BTW has the pope issued any retraction of all this? Are we entirely sure he’s not in agreement here? He’s only infallible in ex-cathedra dogmatic pronuncications, right? Thank God for that at least. I’ll never forget seeing pictures of JP2 kissing the Qu’ran. He was an awesome pope, but yeah—he totally messed up there.
I became a Catholic because of EWTN. Then I move to a town where the local Catholic college openly supports both abortion and gay marriage. Where is the policing of your own institutions O Great Magisterium? What about some of our own American bishops? And don’t get me started on many of the priests and sisters. You’d think the Catechism didn’t exist. Oh wait, why should I any of that bother me when the Vatican issues a statement calling for a one world order? Well hail to the new world order.
frustrated Seattle Catholic
Sorry folks, but I get damn frustrated and if comes out sounding a little disrespectful, so be it.
A
Abu
Guest
To repeat: “post #58 refers to the new reform of Curial procedure to avoid a repeat of the publication of such statements before proper review and certification for release.”
- Yes we are certain that the Holy Father knows precisely what he is talking about, and the Commission was in error:
Post #44 explains this: “Thus, a careful reading of Caritas in Veritate demonstrates that Benedict is not calling for a World State to fulfill functions that must come ultimately from the human heart. Q.E.D.” And that was in 2009. - traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A055rcKoran.htm
Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Raphael: “I affirmed that he was present when John Paul II kissed the Muslim ‘holy’ book:
“At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam.”
While the Pope’s action was not necessary, but a gesture of goodwill, an outright condemnation such as you are so quick to offer is not necessary either. It is a matter of prudence and wisdom.
A
Abu
Guest
With this type of sneer and lack of understanding in your false gripe about the “new world order”, after knowing the facts, nothing but a return to reality can help. Your post #59 quoting the confusion, misrepresentation and “end times” fantasies of some Protestant zealots merely confirms their inability to seek the facts. We don’t need such myopia.
Perhaps you are unaware that the Bishops are successors of the Apostles, and it is the Bishops who are responsible for the dioceses throughout the world. Perhaps you’ve never heard of Christ’s chosen Judas betraying Him. Perhaps you’ve never heard of the collapse after (not because of) the Ecumenical Council Vatican II (1963-1965).
The present Pope places Vatican II in its rightful place
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].
Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).
Not only in papal dogmas but in defined doctrines:
Vatican II, reiterated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility, and its documents are readily available [from the EWTN Library (http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp) or the Vatican Library].
Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus contains the dogma on papal infallibility: Chap 4, #9.
fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html
For infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.
Therefore only dogmas or definitive doctrinal teaching are infallible, not arguments nor any other declarations outside of definitive statements.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
The bishops are great. I thought they were “corrupt” or whatever mainly cuz of what people here wrote, but if you actually read what they propose, they do a great job. Plus they are the successors of the Apostles. And don’t swear.
Side note: How is it living in Seattle? I went there on vacation and it was nice, but is it good to live there? Cuz I might want to.
K
kim_zef
Guest
to ABu:
I live just outside Seattle in a mountainous suburb. It’s the most beautiful place I’ve ever lived. The whole Northwest is very green and beautiful. But it does rain a lot and the skies are grey a good bit of the time. That doesn’t bother me, but it bothers some people.
We now have assisted suicide and we’ll soon be getting gay marriage. Unfortunately many of the Catholics I know here think that’s ok.
I live just outside Seattle in a mountainous suburb. It’s the most beautiful place I’ve ever lived. The whole Northwest is very green and beautiful. But it does rain a lot and the skies are grey a good bit of the time. That doesn’t bother me, but it bothers some people.
We now have assisted suicide and we’ll soon be getting gay marriage. Unfortunately many of the Catholics I know here think that’s ok.
A
Abu
Guest
Why? Many may be lapsed, certainly absolutely wrong.
So the reevangelisation required of every Catholic towards others would require discussion, and provision of truth with apologetics back-up. The dangers to society through the deliberate taking of life and of the failure to strengthen marriage and procreation are already strikingly evident.
If not in place, a campaign to strengthen the Bishop’s action, homilies, and family and school formation would be wise
C
Captain_America
Guest
kim: many Catholics don’t know their faith or haven’t committed to this, but I think this holds true for just about any Christian denomination.
Life, of course, gets deeper and richer once you become Christian, particularly Catholic.
There are a number of factors here: one which goes unreported is how few mainline Protestants regularly attend church; this sort of sets the level of expectations in society. I think also the bad-mouthing of religion, “organized religion”, hurts, and for Catholics the whole sex scandal thing will resound for at least another generation or two.
What’s needed in the Catholic world are strong bishops, and bishops with some acumen in dealing with the real world.
With respect to the original posting, while a “new world economic order” sounds frightening to some and enlightening to others, I just think it’s unworkable. Perhaps the whole thing was an exercise in getting people to imagine a better future world.
Now the consequence of this is to feed the fantasies of those who still believe, in the year 2011, that the Pope wants to take over the world; Pope Benedict 16 as “Dr. Evil Mach 2”.
Life, of course, gets deeper and richer once you become Christian, particularly Catholic.
There are a number of factors here: one which goes unreported is how few mainline Protestants regularly attend church; this sort of sets the level of expectations in society. I think also the bad-mouthing of religion, “organized religion”, hurts, and for Catholics the whole sex scandal thing will resound for at least another generation or two.
What’s needed in the Catholic world are strong bishops, and bishops with some acumen in dealing with the real world.
With respect to the original posting, while a “new world economic order” sounds frightening to some and enlightening to others, I just think it’s unworkable. Perhaps the whole thing was an exercise in getting people to imagine a better future world.
Now the consequence of this is to feed the fantasies of those who still believe, in the year 2011, that the Pope wants to take over the world; Pope Benedict 16 as “Dr. Evil Mach 2”.
K
kim_zef
Guest
Tee hee hee.
LMAO
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Can you provide a citation for this alleged qoutation??? I seriously doubt the pope either said this or was saying what you are implying. All of Europe including Italy is “BIG GOVERNMENT” and there is nothing in Catholic doctrine to suggest a small government is preferred to a large government. Romans 13 implies the opposite as does CCC 1897-1936. So please provide the citation. Thank you
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Very good post! I would also like to add that what this board attributes to Marxist Socialism and Communism is NOT socialism. Socialism is the collective ownership of labor and Industry. What this board and right wingers often atttribute to socialism is a welfare state. A welfare state has NEVER been condemned by the Church. If it did the Church would be condemning the Scandanavian states as well as France and Germany.
In addition, a welfare state does not cause people to be unproductive, if it did then the US would have not initially awarded a multi billion dollar defense contract to Airbus over Boeing. It did because France could build their airbus fleet faster and cheaper then Boeing. Now this happened several years ago and Boeing has since won defense contracts but they remain in fierce competition with France over aircraft manufacturing orders. This couldn’t happen if “socialism” caused people to be sothful.
David
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, individual popes (e.g John Paul II) have condemned the welfare state. But what is meant by the welfare state is up for interpretation. I believe the state should work with private charities to provide welfare, and as long as subsidiarity is practiced, there is no problem. But I think many people are quick to condemn welfare altogether without realizing that welfare isn’t the problem, but not practicing subsidiarity with the local and federal governments is the problem. with that said, I’d say some countries that you mentioned like Germany practice subsidiarity quite well (at least from what I’ve read).
Sorry if I’m preaching to the choir, and sorry for rambling.
A
Abu
Guest
Everyone needs to know what Christ’s Church teaches, which includes the condemnation of the Welfare State.
From Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
#48. “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.
“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
In Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI stipulates that true world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (57).
F
freshair
Guest
What precisely is your problem with the Church’ teaching on private property?
The Church teaches that private property is all well and good up until someone exercises his rights over his property in a way that doesn’t contribute to the “common good”. That is economically ignorant. Private property by definition is owned and under the control of the individual, or individuals in association and confers rights on those individual(s), chiefly the right to exclude others. Ownership does not confer these rights on the collectiive. The purpose of private property is to allow the owner to exercise control over it in such a way that maximizes his return on investment or fulfill the stated goals for owning the private property be it real or intanglible property, not some nebulous collective “good”. When individuals seek to maximize returns, it does contribute to the common good. The concept of “common good” is either cryptic or loaded given the legacy of liberation theologists in the Vatican and elsewhere in the Church who do not believe in private property at all. This appears to be a watered down compromise statement which is ultimately confused and irritating.
The Church teaches that private property is all well and good up until someone exercises his rights over his property in a way that doesn’t contribute to the “common good”. That is economically ignorant. Private property by definition is owned and under the control of the individual, or individuals in association and confers rights on those individual(s), chiefly the right to exclude others. Ownership does not confer these rights on the collectiive. The purpose of private property is to allow the owner to exercise control over it in such a way that maximizes his return on investment or fulfill the stated goals for owning the private property be it real or intanglible property, not some nebulous collective “good”. When individuals seek to maximize returns, it does contribute to the common good. The concept of “common good” is either cryptic or loaded given the legacy of liberation theologists in the Vatican and elsewhere in the Church who do not believe in private property at all. This appears to be a watered down compromise statement which is ultimately confused and irritating.
A
Abu
Guest
You are woefully lacking in the Church’s teaching, including private property, and rush to critique that of which you know nothing, such as fantasies over one world government, and “liberation theologists in the Vatican” as though Vatican II is a mere theologians’ playground.
“Common good” you’d better believe. You’ll find the true teaching through the CCC 1905-1917. Note the references to Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
None of your citation shows that the Pope or the Church have condemned the welfare state. What it says is that in recent years the welfare state has been abusive by violating subsidiary. A welfare state is perfectly fine so as long as it does not violate subsidiary. The very begininng of your citation tells us the proper role of the state and individuals with respect to economic activity. Providing state benefits such as health and dental care does not qualify as violating subsidiary. The state controlling economic activity to an extreme point does. That is what was meant by the state not understanding its proper role.
Again let me point out that the best example of a welfare state we have are found in the scandinavian countries and yet the Church does not accuse or condemned them for violating subsidiary nor does it condemned them for their many state benefits they provide their citizens. Germany and France are another example yet the Church does not condemn these countries for the role they play on their human society. Nice try though.
David
F
freshair
Guest
How patronizing and rude. I don’t need to believe anything or follow any of this. And if the Catholic Church continues with its economic “teachings” based on nothing but the opinions of a few isolated bishops, they’re going to find it more difficult to evangelize anyone with a brain. As I wrote, and stand by, “common good” is either crpytic or loaded. It connotes a socialist workers paradise and I, my good sir, am not a socialist! Fantasies over one world government? Get your head out of the sand.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Here is what the Church teaches us about the common good:
**CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNITY
ARTICLE 2
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE
*1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15
By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.
1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.
1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17***
II. THE COMMON GOOD
1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:
Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25
1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:
1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27
1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28
1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.
1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.
1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."29
1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around."30 This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.
Now if you still think this is a socialist agenda that you refuse to follow then you have simply become another Protestant who thinks he knows better then the Church.
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Protestants base their belief’s on dispensationalism which has been condemned by the Church. Dispensationalism finds its origins in the mid 19th century. I would argue that the devil long ago corrupted the minds of Christians by leading them to believe this error so that when the future Pope called for a new world order (in itsproper context) it would not only make it more dificult for them to enter the Church but would cause Catholics to also abandon the Church. Throughout history we have had many new world orders. It is part of human cultural evolution.
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
This was a good post Swiss Guy! You touched on a couple of issues. What is meant by Welfare State? And subsidiary. A welfare state is a government which provides benefits such has health and dental care to its citizens by paying into it publicly. Social Security and Medicare in the US are elements of “welfare.” A Welfare state may also provide long term unemployment, death benefits, auto insurance, and centralize banking. None of this violates subsidiary and none of this constitutes socialism.If I’m not mistaken, individual popes (e.g John Paul II) have condemned the welfare state. But what is meant by the welfare state is up for interpretation. I believe the state should work with private charities to provide welfare, and as long as subsidiarity is practiced, there is no problem. But I think many people are quick to condemn welfare altogether without realizing that welfare isn’t the problem, but not practicing subsidiarity with the local and federal governments is the problem. with that said, I’d say some countries that you mentioned like Germany practice subsidiarity quite well (at least from what I’ve read).
Sorry if I’m preaching to the choir, and sorry for rambling.
David.
- Status