FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Encyclical discussion for everyone else
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Quote from luvenalis:

"Quote from: AxxeArp
Point 1 - Humanism is a part of Catholicism. Man has dignity and is superior to all other created things simply because he is created in the image and likeness of God. To hate humanism is to hate God and His church. SECULAR humanism, the fundamental doctrine of the naturalists, is opposed to God and is NOT a part of Catholicism. There is nothing in this encyclical that I would call SECULAR humanism.
Yes, but why is this encyclical not secular in it's presentation?"

Secularism does not mean anti-religion. Secularism comes in many stripes. For example, materialist secularism that is anti-god, like Marxism, is Antichrist. American secularism is democratic yet not anti-religion, at least in principle. Caritas In Veritate is certainly God-centered, man-centered, even though it uses secular terms in its exposition.

The Church in the 21st century is involved in a dialogue with a de-facto secular world. Sadly the present world is deaf to the voice of a Christo-centric Church. However, even if they deny it, the world still finds the 'humanism' of the Church (its  corporeal works of mercy and its concerns for man) and its contrarian moral stands appealing. In other words, they do see the 'attributes' of God even if they identify them in humanistic terms. Also, they may not see their God in Christian terms. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the Church, in engaging the world, has remained true its Founder's mission even if it uses language resonating Christ's attributes more than its theological imports. Which is truer to the Christian spirit to engage your 'enemies' or to damn them? Even if we are not of the world, we in the world. Is it not the mission of the Church to remain a 'light to the nations'?
Haven't read the encyclical yet, but Baskerville, your post is just plain ignorant, and the tone of it justifies me (I hope) using the same kind of tone back to you. I'm all for people expressing their opinions on a forum, so I don't mind you having a crack, but my opinion of your post is that you might need to learn a bit more about a few things before you use words like "garbage", "dog's ass" and "no thank you Mr Pope you can go peddle your marxism elseware".

And even though I haven't read the encyclical yet, I have to say that the expression "saving souls" can and has been used in ways that are almost heretical. People aren't just souls, much as many would like them to be. There's a hell of a lot more to life than "saving souls", as important as that end is.
Quote:In the course of history, it was often maintained that the creation of institutions was sufficient to guarantee the fulfilment of humanity's right to development. Unfortunately, too much confidence was placed in those institutions, as if they were able to deliver the desired objective automatically. In reality, institutions by themselves are not enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation, and therefore it involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone. Moreover, such development requires a transcendent vision of the person, it needs God: without him, development is either denied, or entrusted exclusively to man, who falls into the trap of thinking he can bring about his own salvation, and ends up promoting a dehumanized form of development. Only through an encounter with God are we able to see in the other something more than just another creature, to recognize the divine image in the other, thus truly coming to discover him or her and to mature in a love that “becomes concern and care for the other.”

So you can have all the charitable contributions you want, but without God, it's all for naught.

Quote:In promoting development, the Christian faith does not rely on privilege or positions of power, nor even on the merits of Christians (even though these existed and continue to exist alongside their natural limitations), but only on Christ, to whom every authentic vocation to integral human development must be directed. The Gospel is fundamental for development, because in the Gospel, Christ, “in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals humanity to itself”. . . The Christian vocation to this development therefore applies to both the natural plane and the supernatural plane; which is why, “when God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the natural order, purpose and the ‘good' begins to wane."

The Gospel is fundamental to true development. As in, such development doesn't happen without it.

This is secular humanist, masonic stuff?
I admit I haven't read the encyclical yet. It's a lot to digest - especially over the Internet. I'll wait to get the hard copy too. But when I do read it, I'll be sure to keep in mind the Pope's introductory words:

Quote: Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity.

- Lisa
(07-16-2009, 03:54 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]Haven't read the encyclical yet, but Baskerville, your post is just plain ignorant, and the tone of it justifies me (I hope) using the same kind of tone back to you. I'm all for people expressing their opinions on a forum, so I don't mind you having a crack, but my opinion of your post is that you might need to learn a bit more about a few things before you use words like "garbage", "dog's ass" and "no thank you Mr Pope you can go peddle your marxism elseware".

And even though I haven't read the encyclical yet, I have to say that the expression "saving souls" can and has been used in ways that are almost heretical. People aren't just souls, much as many would like them to be. There's a hell of a lot more to life than "saving souls", as important as that end is.

Well get back to me when you read the encyclicle otherwise known as the Popes Marxist Manifesto. Seems to me that everyone who has read the encyclicle are incensed by it but those that havent read it condemn others for being ignorant well the height of ignorance is casting an opinion on something and someone elses opinion when you havent even read it. Though I admit it is hard reading Encyclicles they are a lot to digest particularly this piece of crap.
And Beeno I respect your opinion just respect mine. I stated my opinion very bluntly because I am done tiptoeing around the fact that this encyclicle is not worth lineing the outside of a cats litter box. Its Marxist one world new order garbage up to the hilt at least the second half is. The first half was written for Scott Hahn so that he can say "ah yes but the Pope spoke out against abortion". This is just my not so humble opinion on the document and I am sticking to it. I've read it and re-read it time and again. And there is just no way of squaring it with what the Church has always taught. And mark my words with the Conciliar Church hippies we will be hit over the head with this for years to come. :grandpa:
I'll give it a read this weekend. Sorry mate but you have to admit your post sounded pretty nasty. There are a couple of things about Benedict that worry me a little, and maybe this will be another, but I can't imagine describing it quite so strongly as you did! Any way, sorry for being rude - I regretted it afterward.
(07-17-2009, 02:29 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]I'll give it a read this weekend. Sorry mate but you have to admit your post sounded pretty nasty. There are a couple of things about Benedict that worry me a little, and maybe this will be another, but I can't imagine describing it quite so strongly as you did! Any way, sorry for being rude - I regretted it afterward.

No worries were just human perhaps I was...well I was a bit strong in my wording sorry if I caused offense but I think this document will prove to be not just the usual post council blah blah  but actually dangerous.
I'm pretty sure that something written in the 18th century could be construed as being in contradiction with something else written in the 12th. Sigh.
Pages: 1 2 3