LittleLes Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='May 17 2005, 07:32 PM'] He's just havving phun and treyeing to get we dum kathliks lurned and liburatid in thot. [/quote] Yea, Verily! And did you ever notice that some Catholics are far more infallible than the Pope ever was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 17 2005, 01:23 PM'] The English philosopher, John Stuart Mills, once observed that if all mankind were of one opinion and a single man of another, still they should consider his opinion. First of all, he might be right, but if not they will then have yet one more reason for believing that they are correct! I don't think everyone would argee that all of your beliefs are free from error. Granted, your belief system may not admit of any error, but errors might be evidenced to exist nonetheless. And as far a "not gonna change our minds," recognize that belief lies in the will, not the intellect. I might prove to you that two plus two equals four, but I can't make you accept it. LittleLes [/quote] First off, it is John Stuart Mill...not Mills. Secondly, his philosophy is based almost entirely on the idea that liberty must play a central role in society. This utilitarian philosophy isn't exactly defendable....and it is not compatible at all with Catholicism in the form that Mill puts forth, in [i]On Liberty[/i] and [i]Utilitarianism[/i]. Also his work on Religion is quite lacking as well. Modern philosophy isn't the best example to use when trying to argue against traditional Catholicism....they aren't compatible. Incidentally, subjectivism, which modern philosophy is based, is flawed from the get-go.... Just an observation... Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='Noel's angel' date='May 17 2005, 08:40 AM']I don't get it when people try and (using Socrates' word) 'debunk' Christianity. Why do they go to the bother of researching so much to try and prove us wrong when they know we are firstly not wrong and secondly, not gonna change our minds. I can't understand it.[/quote] Because they don't want to believe what we believe, they have to keep finding reasons to justify their denial. If they had any confidence in their own beliefs, they wouldn't bother with trying to debunk ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 ahhh, good observation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='May 17 2005, 09:16 PM'] Secondly, his philosophy is based almost entirely on the idea that liberty must play a central role in society. This utilitarian philosophy isn't exactly defendable....and it is not compatible at all with Catholicism in the form that Mill puts forth, in [i]On Liberty[/i] and [i]Utilitarianism[/i]. Cam [/quote] "Liberty must play a central role in society." And you say that this is not compatible at all with Catholicism? Obedience over liberty, is that what you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='Archangel' date='May 18 2005, 02:29 AM'] Because they don't want to believe what we believe, they have to keep finding reasons to justify their denial. If they had any confidence in their own beliefs, they wouldn't bother with trying to debunk ours. [/quote] "But it is part of the tragic and irreducibly obscure historicity of the Church that in both theory and practice it used bad arguments to defend moral mazims based on problematic, historically conditions pre-convictions, 'prejudices'...This dark tragedy of the Church's intellectually history is so burdensome, because we are dealing here, in all or very many cases, with questions which penetrate deeply into the concrete lives of human beings, because such false maxims, which were never objectively valid..placed burdens on people..that from the standpoint of the freedom of the Gospel were not legitmate." -Fr. Karl Rahner S.J. Errors which adversely affect the lives of people should be corrected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 18 2005, 08:22 AM'] "But it is part of the tragic and irreducibly obscure historicity of the Church that in both theory and practice it used bad arguments to defend moral mazims based on problematic, historically conditions pre-convictions, 'prejudices'...This dark tragedy of the Church's intellectually history is so burdensome, because we are dealing here, in all or very many cases, with questions which penetrate deeply into the concrete lives of human beings, because such false maxims, which were never objectively valid..placed burdens on people..that from the standpoint of the freedom of the Gospel were not legitmate." -Fr. Karl Rahner S.J. Errors which adversely affect the lives of people should be corrected! [/quote] Ho hum . . . Yeah, quoting a dissident heretical priest here is sure to win us over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='May 18 2005, 01:12 PM'] Ho hum . . . Yeah, quoting a dissident heretical priest here is sure to win us over! [/quote] I believe that Karl Rather, one of the major theologians of at Vatican II, remained a priest in good standing until his death. Which bishop declared him a heretic? Or is this just a term you apply to anything you don't like to hear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Domini Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote]I believe that Karl Rather, one of the major theologians of at Vatican II, remained a priest in good standing until his death.[/quote] Rahner rather than Rather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 Lets compare the very early Christian communities, especially with the ones that Paul founded: Name(s): Messianic Jews, Sect called the Way, Nazarenes, (negative Judaziers) Members: Original Apostles and disciples of Jesus Place: Primarily Jerusalem Leader: James, the brother of Jesus Time of preeminence: 30 A.D to 135 A.D (ie. Roman conquest of Judea) Basis for Belief: The Torah, (Law, behavioral, and dietary codes) and teachings of the Apostles Condemned: Paul (as an apostate from the Law) Name(s) Pauline Christian Communities Members: Gentiles, Hellenists, some Jews Place: Mediterranean area ( except Jerusalem), Rome Leader: Paul Time of preeminence: 35 A.D. until the present Basis for Beliefs: Paul's "visions," later his writings. Developed set of doctines. Condemned: Nazarenes and Gnostics. Name(s) Gnostic Christian Communities Members: Many separate groups. Place: Primarily eastern Mediterranean area Leader: Each community had a teacher, like Marcion, Valentinus, and Carpocrates. Time of preeminence: Predates Christianity, became a Christian Gnostic movement from about 60 A.D to about 600 A.D. Basis of Beliefs: Special knowledge, Supreme Being, Demiurge, "the Logos" (or "Word"), and various powers. Condemned: None Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 18 2005, 08:09 AM'] "Liberty must play a central role in society." And you say that this is not compatible at all with Catholicism? Obedience over liberty, is that what you mean? [/quote] In the sense that Mill intended....no, it is not compatible. Try reading his stuff sometime....it is just subjective modernism....nothing more. That is totally incompatible with the Roman Catholic Church. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 18 2005, 02:13 PM'] I believe that Karl Rather, one of the major theologians of at Vatican II, remained a priest in good standing until his death. Which bishop declared him a heretic? Or is this just a term you apply to anything you don't like to hear? [/quote] Rahner was silenced.....I believe that it was John XXIII who silenced him. Paul VI rehabilitated him and he became heterodox again on matters of contraception and priestly ordination. He was then again silenced by the CDF, which has the right to do so, under the name of John Paul II. Since he was a Jebbie, he wasn't bound to a bishop. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Cam42' date='May 18 2005, 03:14 PM'] Rahner was silenced.....I believe that it was John XXIII who silenced him. Paul VI rehabilitated him and he became heterodox again on matters of contraception and priestly ordination. He was then again silenced by the CDF, which has the right to do so, under the name of John Paul II. Since he was a Jebbie, he wasn't bound to a bishop. Cam [/quote] So you agree that Socrates was wrong. Karl Rahner (thank you, Myles) was never declared to be a heretic. The really neat part of being a cleric with authority over others is that you can "silence" them if you disagree with them. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong. Edited May 18, 2005 by LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='May 18 2005, 03:24 PM'] So you agree that Socrates was wrong. Karl Rahner (thank you, Myles) was never declared to be a heretic. The really neat part of being a cleric with authority over others is that you can "silence" them if you disagree with them. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong. [/quote] The reason Rahner was silenced by the Church was for teaching heresy (teachings which go against the constant infallible teaching of the Church). Anyway, Rahner's words carry no authority with me, nor with any other "true-beleiving" (eg. loyal) Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='May 18 2005, 03:54 PM'] The reason Rahner was silenced by the Church was for teaching heresy (teachings which go against the constant infallible teaching of the Church). Anyway, Rahner's words carry no authority with me, nor with any other "true-beleiving" (eg. loyal) Catholic. [/quote] Are you repeating hearsay, or do you have any evidence to offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now