Liberation Theology

[Budge]

[quote]Yup. And keeping in mind that Liberation Theology spinning off of Marxist socialism, Pope Ben did address the errors of Marx and others in his last encyclical.[/quote]

If Benedict is so against Marx, why does he keep calling for the 'common good" and for "redistribution of the worlds wealth"?

[Galloglasses]

Source please.

And you do realise that socialism is founded on Judeo-Christian Principles only vilely twisted, don't you?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Budge' post='1564540' date='Jun 9 2008, 09:52 AM']If Benedict is so against Marx, why does he keep calling for the 'common good"...[/quote]

Are you serious? You are serious, aren't you? Seriously?!?!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1564542' date='Jun 9 2008, 09:56 AM']And you do realise that socialism is founded on Judeo-Christian Principles only vilely twisted, don't you?[/quote]

Repeat your statement, but replace the world 'socialism' with 'protestantism.' Funny trick, huh?

[curtins]

lib theo. has been condemned by pope john paul II when it was taking root in south america in the 80s.

Heres the basic problem with lib theo: The church exists primarily to save people's souls not to save their humanitarian condition.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='curtins' post='1564996' date='Jun 9 2008, 02:24 PM']Heres the basic problem with lib theo: The church exists primarily to save people's souls not to save their humanitarian condition.[/quote]

That's a very good point. Liberation Theology obfuscates the importance of the transcendant and instead brings a sometimes violent focus on the contemporary state of society/individual.

[Deb]

I thought this thread was about bras.

[Galloglasses]

No, that would only happened if it was titled 'Feminist' Theology.

The Church can do both, but its main focus should be on souls.

[Deb]

Is there feminist theology?

[Galloglasses]

Too much of it. Its whats behind all this 'Gaia Nuns' croutons we keep hearing about and a plethora of other New Age infestations in the Church. It got to work in the late 60s early 70s and had at least 15 years head start of Liberation theology. I read a book titled UnGodly Rage which went to extensive lengths to record the progression of Feminist Theology in the American Church. Scary as heck, but the woman who wrote it is devout to the Church, and by far she ends it off in a happy note. "This heresy shall rise up and be dashed against the rock of the Church" Needless to say that left me smiling. Such delightfully angry language. But she keeps a level head throughout.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1565103' date='Jun 9 2008, 03:54 PM']Too much of it. Its whats behind all this 'Gaia Nuns' croutons we keep hearing about and a plethora of other New Age infestations in the Church. It got to work in the late 60s early 70s and had at least 15 years head start of Liberation theology. I read a book titled UnGodly Rage which went to extensive lengths to record the progression of Feminist Theology in the American Church. Scary as heck, but the woman who wrote it is devout to the Church, and by far she ends it off in a happy note. "This heresy shall rise up and be dashed against the rock of the Church" Needless to say that left me smiling. Such delightfully angry language. But she keeps a level head throughout.[/quote]

Good call. We need a good weed-picking in the Catholic Church in America, I do think.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Budge' post='1564540' date='Jun 9 2008, 10:52 AM']If Benedict is so against Marx, why does he keep calling for the 'common good" and for "redistribution of the worlds wealth"?[/quote]

All heresy starts from a kernel of truth (or at least the "good" ones that the most people fall for).

Marx and Benedict agree that society must strive toward these things: the "common good" and the "redistribution of the world's wealth" (though I question heavily if the word "redistribution" is the exact right one for this usage). [b]Where Marx and Benedict differ is how they respond to it. [/b] This response is what constitutes the heresy, not the kernel of truth that the heresy started from.

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1564494' date='Jun 9 2008, 09:34 AM']Werd.
On another note, whats this Black Liberation Theology I hear about?[/quote]


It's a spin off of Liberation Theology. I think it has its start with a man by the name of Dr. Jim Cone. He wrote a book or two in the 1960's and now he teaches at Union Theological Seminary.....over on the East Coast. But the finger ispointed at him. I know Rev. Right keeps pointing the finger at him.

I could be wrong, but I think there is another spin off called "Feminist Liberation Theology".

It seems to be big in Liberal/modernist circles.




JNORM888

Edited June 11, 2008 by jnorm888

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Budge' post='1564540' date='Jun 9 2008, 09:52 AM']If Benedict is so against Marx, why does he keep calling for the 'common good" and for "redistribution of the worlds wealth"?[/quote]

Some Roman Catholics seem to be into something called "Distributism". As seen from this Roman Catholic blog, I sometimes visit.

The ChestorBelloc Mandate:

[url="http://www.distributist.blogspot.com/"]http://www.distributist.blogspot.com/[/url]


Now, I really don't know what Distributism is, but it seems interesting. I only brought this up because you might be confusing the two systems. I never knew "Distributism" ever existed until I went to that blogspot.


But anyway, eversince I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, I have been more and more intersted in the Socio/Political/ and economic context of the people group I wish to reach.

Hopefully oneday the Lord will grant me the oppurtinity to do missions in America's urban areas.




JNORM888

Edited June 11, 2008 by jnorm888

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='curtins' post='1564996' date='Jun 9 2008, 02:24 PM']lib theo. has been condemned by pope john paul II when it was taking root in south america in the 80s.

Heres the basic problem with lib theo: The church exists primarily to save people's souls not to save their humanitarian condition.[/quote]

I agree with you to a point, but I can't go all the way with you for Jesus told us to feed people, cloth people, and visit people in prison.

When Saint James spoke about "faith without works" as being dead. It was in regards to talking great things without living it. It was in regards to the lip service of "blessing" someone without actually "blessing" someone who is in need. Especaily if you have what they need.

A similar concept can be seen in one of the Epistles of Saint John, in regards to Loving our brother.


So I'm hesitant to go as far as you did. Our Souls, isn't the only thing that will be saved. That is somewhat neognostic. If our bodies will be raised from the dead, then that would mean that the whole man will be saved. The whole man......as in "Spirit, body, and Soul" or "Soul & body" depending on what tradition of anthropology one embraces.


It seems as if, When we are judged by God, that we will not only be judged by the first greatest commandment......which is: "loving God with all our heart, mind, and soul, but also with the second greatest commandment as well.

"Love our neighbor as ourselves". Part of the reason for some of us going to Hell has to do with how we treat our neighbor.

It seems as if the First Greatest commandment bleeds into the Second. For how can we say "we Love God, when we disobey Him in regards to Loving His fallen images?

If we can't love our neighbors, then we can't love the One who told us to Love them.




Do you see what I'm saying? What I'm getting at?



JNORM888

Edited June 11, 2008 by jnorm888