Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Introduction: Heresy [The Great Heresies]
EWTN ^ | 1938 | Hilaire Belloc

Posted on 03/25/2011 11:20:21 AM PDT by WPaCon

What is a heresy, and what is the historical importance of such a thing?

Like most modern words, "Heresy" is used both vaguely and diversely. It is used vaguely because the modern mind is as averse to precision in ideas as it is enamored of precision in measurement. It is used diversely because, according to the man who uses it, it may represent any one of fifty things.

Today, with most people (of those who use the English language), the word "Heresy" connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, an old prejudice against rational examination. Heresy is therefore thought to be of no contemporary interest. Interest in it is dead, because it deals with matter no one now takes seriously. It is understood that a man may interest himself in a heresy from archaeological curiosity, but if he affirm that it has been of great effect on history and still is, today, of living contemporary moment, he will be hardly understood.

Yet the subject of heresy in general is of the highest importance to the individual and to society, and heresy in its particular meaning (which is that of heresy in Christian doctrine) is of special interest for anyone who would understand Europe: the character of Europe and the story of Europe. For the whole of that story, since the appearance of the Christian religion, has been the story of struggle and change, mainly preceded by, often, if not always, caused by, and certainly accompanying, diversities of religious doctrine. In other words, "the Christian heresy" is a special subject of the very first importance to the comprehension of European history, because, in company with Christian orthodoxy, it is the constant accompaniment and agent of European life.

We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.

Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein.

We mean by "a complete and self-supporting scheme" any system of affirmation in physics or mathematics or philosophy or what-not, the various parts of which are coherent and sustain each other.

For instance, the old scheme of physics, often called in England "Newtonian" as having been best defined by Newton, is a scheme of this kind. The various things asserted therein about the behaviour of matter, notably the law of gravity, are not isolated statements any one of which could be withdrawn at will without disarranging the rest; they are all the parts of one conception, or unity, such that if you but modify a part the whole scheme is put out of gear.

Another example of a similar system is our plane geometry, inherited through the Greeks and called by those who think (or hope) they have got hold of a new geometry "Euclidean." Every proposition in our plane geometry — that the internal angles of a plane triangle equal two right angles, that the angle contained in a semi-circle is a right angle, and so forth — is not only sustained by every other proposition in the scheme, but in its turn supports each other individual part of the whole.

Heresy means, then, the warping of a system by "Exception": by "Picking out" one part of the structure1 and implies that the scheme is marred by taking away one part of it, denying one part of it, and either leaving the void unfilled or filling it with some new affirmation. For instance, the nineteenth century completed a scheme of textual criticism for establishing the date of an ancient document. One of the principles in this scheme is this — that any statement of the marvellous is necessarily false. "When you find in any document a marvel, vouched for by the supposed author of that document, you have a right to conclude" (say the textual critics of the nineteenth century, all talking like one man) "that the document was not contemporary — was not of the date which it is claimed to be." There comes along a new and original critic who says, "I don't agree. I think that marvels happen and I also think that people tell lies." A man thus butting in is a heretic in relation to that particular orthodox system. Once you grant this exception a number of secure negatives become insecure.

You were certain, for instance, that the life of St. Martin of Tours, which professed to be by a contemporary witness, was not by a contemporary witness because of the marvels it recited. But if the new principle be admitted, it might be contemporary after all, and therefore something to which it bore witness, in no way marvellous but not found in any other document, may be accepted as historical.

You read in the life of a Thaumaturge that he raised a man from the dead in the basilica of Vienna in A.D. 500. The orthodox school of criticism would say that the whole story being obviously false, because marvellous, it is no evidence for the existence of a basilica in Vienna at that date. But your heretic, who disputes the orthodox canon of criticism, says, "It seems to me that the biographer of the Thaumaturge may have been telling lies, but that he would not have mentioned the basilica and the date unless contemporaries knew, as well as he did, that there was a basilica in Vienna at that date. One falsehood does not presuppose universal falsehood in a narrator." There might even come along a still bolder heretic who should say, "Not only is this passage perfectly good evidence for the existence of a basilica at Vienna in A.D. 500, but I think it possible that the man was raised from the dead." If you follow either of these critics you are upsetting a whole scheme of tests, whereby true history was sifted from false in the textual criticism of recent times.

The denial of a scheme wholesale is not heresy, and has not the creative power of a heresy. It is of the essence of heresy that it leaves standing a great part of the structure it attacks. On this account it can appeal to believers and continues to affect their lives through deflecting them from their original characters. Wherefore, it is said of heresies that "they survive by the truths they retain."

We must note that whether the complete scheme thus attacked be true or false is indifferent to the value of heresy as a department of historical study. What we are concerned with is the highly interesting truth that heresy originates a new life of its own and vitally affects the society it attacks. The reason that men combat heresy is not only, or principally, conservatism — a devotion to routine, a dislike of disturbance in their habits of thought — it is much more a perception that the heresy, in so far as it gains ground, will produce a way of living and a social character at issue with, irritating, and perhaps mortal to, the way of living and the social character produced by the old orthodox scheme.

So much for the general meaning and interest of that most pregnant word "Heresy."

Its particular meaning (the meaning in which it is used in this book) is the marring by exception of that complete scheme, the Christian religion.

For instance, that religion has for one essential part (though it is only a part) the statement that the individual soul is immortal — that personal conscience survives physical death. Now if people believe that, they look at the world and themselves in a certain way and go on in a certain way and are people of a certain sort. If they except, that is cut out, this one doctrine, they may continue to hold all the others, but the scheme is changed, the type of life and character and the rest become quite other. The man who is certain that he is going to die for good and for all may believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Very God of Very God, that God is Triune, that the Incarnation was accompanied by a Virgin Birth, that bread and wine are transformed by a particular formula; he may recite a great number of Christian prayers and admire and copy chosen Christian exemplars, but he will be quite a different man from the man who takes immortality for granted.

Because heresy, in this particular sense (the denial of an accepted Christian doctrine) thus affects the individual, it affects all society, and when you are examining a society formed by a particular religion you necessarily concern yourself to the utmost with the warping or diminishing of that religion. That is the historical interest of heresy. That is why anyone who wants to understand how Europe came to be, and how its changes have been caused, cannot afford to treat heresy as unimportant. The ecclesiastics who fought so furiously over the details of definition in the Eastern councils had far more historical sense and were far more in touch with reality than the French sceptics, familiar to English readers through their disciple Gibbon.

A man who thinks, for instance, that Arianism is a mere discussion of words, does not see that an Arian world would have been much more like a Mohammedan world than what the European world actually became. He is much less in touch with reality than was Athanasius when he affirmed the point of doctrine to be all important. That local council in Paris, which tipped the scale in favour of the Trinitarian tradition, was of as much effect as a decisive battle, and not to understand that is to be a poor historian.

It is no answer to such a thesis to say that both the orthodox and the heretic were suffering from illusion, that they were discussing matters which had no real existence and were not worth the trouble of debate. The point is that the doctrine (and its denial) were formative of the nature of men, and the nature so formed determined the future of the society made up of those men.

There is another consideration in this connection which is too often omitted in our time. It is this: That the sceptical attitude upon transcendental things cannot, for masses of men, endure. It has been the despair of many that this should be so. They deplore the despicable weakness of mankind which compels the acceptation of some philosophy or some religion in order to carry on life at all. But we have here a matter of positive and universal experience.

Indeed there is no denying it. It is mere fact. Human society cannot carry on without some creed, because a code and a character are the product of a creed. In point of fact though individuals, especially those who have led sheltered lives, can often carry on with a minimum of certitude or habit upon transcendental things, an organic human mass cannot so carry on. Thus a whole religion sustains modern England, the religion of patriotism. Destroy that in men by some heretical development, by "excepting" the doctrine that a man's prime duty is towards the political society to which he belongs, and England, as we know it, would gradually cease and become something other.

Heresy, then is not a fossil subject. It is a subject of permanent and vital interest to mankind because it is bound up with the subject of religion, without some form of which no human society ever has endured, or ever can endure. Those who think that the subject of heresy may be neglected because the term sounds to them old-fashioned and because it is connected with a number of disputes long abandoned, are making the common error of thinking in words instead of ideas. It is the same sort of error which contrasts America as a "republic" with England as "monarchy," whereas, of course, the Government of the United States is essentially monarchic and the Government of England is essentially republican and aristocratic. There is no end to the misunderstandings which arise from the uncertain use of words. But if we keep in mind the plain fact that a state, a human policy, or a general culture, must be inspired by some body of morals, and that there can be no body of morals without doctrine, and if we agree to call any consistent body of morals and doctrine a religion, then the importance of heresy as a subject will become clear, because heresy means nothing else than "the proposal of novelties in religion by picking out from what has been the accepted religion some point or other, denying the same or replacing it by another doctrine hitherto unfamiliar."

The study of successive Christian heresies, their characters and fates, has a special interest for all of us who belong to the European or Christian culture, and that is a reason that ought to be self-evident — our culture was made by a religion. Changes in, or deflections from, that religion necessarily affect our civilization as a whole.

The whole story of Europe, her various realms and states and general bodies during the last sixteen centuries has mainly turned upon the successive heresies arising in the Christian world.

We are what we are today mainly because no one of those heresies finally overset our ancestral religion, but we are also what we are because each of them profoundly affected our fathers for generations, each heresy left behind its traces, and one of them, the great Mohammedan movement, remains to this day in dogmatic force and preponderant over a great fraction of territory which was once wholly ours.

If one were to catalogue heresies marking the whole long story of Christendom the list would seem almost endless. They divide and subdivide, they are on every scale, they vary from the local to the general. Their lives extend from less than a generation to centuries. The best way of understanding the subject is to select a few prominent examples, and by the study of these to understand of what vast import heresy may be.

Such a study is the easier from the fact that our fathers recognized heresy for what it was, gave it in each case a particular name, subjected it to a definition and therefore to limits, and made its analysis the easier by such definition.

Unfortunately, in the modern world the habit of such a definition has been lost; the word "heresy" having come to connote something odd and old-fashioned, is no longer applied to cases which are clearly cases of heresy and ought to be treated as such.

For instance, there is abroad today a denial of what theologians call "dominion" — that is the right to own property. It is widely affirmed that laws permitting the private ownership of land and capital are immoral; that the soil of all goods which are productive should be communal and that any system leaving their control to individuals or families is wrong and therefore to be attacked and destroyed.

That doctrine, already very strong among us and increasing in strength and the number of its adherents, we do not call a heresy. We think of it only as a political or economic system, and when we speak of Communism our vocabulary does not suggest anything theological. But this is only because we have forgotten what the word theological means. Communism is as much a heresy as Manichaeism. It is the taking away from the moral scheme by which we have lived of a particular part, the denial of that part and the attempt to replace it by an innovation. The Communist retains much of the Christian scheme — human equality, the right to live, and so forth — he denies a part of it only.

The same is true of the attack on the indissolubility of marriage. No one calls the mass of modern practice and affirmation upon divorce a heresy, but a heresy it clearly is because its determining characteristic is the denial of the Christian doctrine of marriage and the substitution therefore of another doctrine, to wit, that marriage is but a contract and a terminable contract.

Equally, is it a heresy, a "change by exception," to affirm that nothing can be known upon divine things, that all is mere opinion and that therefore things made certain by the evidence of the senses and by experiment should be our only guides in arranging human affairs. Those who think thus may and commonly do retain much of Christian morals, but because they deny certitude from Authority, which doctrine is a part of Christian epistemology, they are heretical. It is not heresy to say that reality can be reached by experiment, by sensual perception and by deduction. It is heresy to say that reality can be attained from no other source.

We are living today under a regime of heresy with only this to distinguish it from the older periods of heresy, that the heretical spirit has become generalized and appears in various forms.

It will be seen that I have, in the following pages, talked of "the modern attack" because some name must be given to a thing before one can discuss it at all, but the tide which threatens to overwhelm us is so diffuse that each must give it his own name; it has no common name as yet.

Perhaps that will come, but not until the conflict between that modern anti-Christian spirit and the permanent tradition of the Faith becomes acute through persecution and the triumph or defeat thereof. It will then perhaps be called anti-Christ.

* * *

Notes 1: The Word is derived from the Greek verb Haireo, which first meant "I grasp" or "I seize," and then came to mean "I take away."


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: belloc; catholic; heresy; islam
I'm going to post a chapter a day for the next few days.

This will be a series of seven posts.

Particularly interesting will be Monday's topic of Islam.

1 posted on 03/25/2011 11:20:28 AM PDT by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation

Ping


2 posted on 03/25/2011 11:22:35 AM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

I have read Belloc on this and many other topics.

He was brilliant,especially is his critique of the greed of democracy and false liberty


3 posted on 03/25/2011 11:52:52 AM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
When someone does a long explanation on something that's simple, it raises a big red flag, that says they are maneuverring around something that they can't say.That's what this thread article smells like to me.

from : MY CATHOLIC FAITH

71. Schism and Heresy

What is schism; and what is heresy? --Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope; heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith.

4 posted on 03/25/2011 11:53:51 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
CORRECTION:

When someone does a long explanation on something that's simple, it raises a big red flag, that says they are maneuvering around something that they can't say.That's what the posting of this threads long article smells like to me.

Why the long explanation?

5 posted on 03/25/2011 11:59:17 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon; All

In Islam, Heresy and blasphemy are very dangerous. In Pakistan 2 high level officials have been assassinated for attempting to eliminate or speaking against Pakistan’s severe blasphemy law.


6 posted on 03/25/2011 12:05:22 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verdugo; WPaCon
When someone does a long explanation on something that's simple, it raises a big red flag, that says they are maneuvering around something that they can't say.That's what the posting of this threads long article smells like to me.

Not all of the world's knowledge can be imparted to an individual while he stands on one foot. The Catechism is longer than a couple of paragraphs, you know. Was Belloc in schism with the Church because he knew better than the Church what was what? Or are you confusing Belloc with the likes of Mel Gibson?

One of the greatest wasters of effort is the fact that since we are dealing with writings thousands of years old and translated through several languages with incomplete documentation, we had better get our definitions straight. And leaning on SSPX misstatements is not the way to define Church teachings.

7 posted on 03/25/2011 12:30:22 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
re:Was Belloc in schism with the Church because he knew better than the Church what was what?

Know better than the Church? Give me a break. ONLY GOD KNOWS BETTER THAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! I've read all of Bellocs books. What exactly did he write that "knew better than the Church"?

My question was, why post such a long article for something that's defined by a few words in any Catholic dictionary?

You are an Eastern Orthodox if I remember correctly, is that why you jumped at my comment?

What is schism; and what is heresy? --Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope; heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith.

8 posted on 03/25/2011 12:45:30 PM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

In the section on Islam, Belloc argues that Islam is actually a Christian heresy, not that I necessarily agree with him.

It’s not about heresy in Islam, if that’s what you thought.

But yes, heresy and blasphemy can be very dangerous in Islam.


9 posted on 03/25/2011 12:52:06 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

I’m just posting each chapter of his book.

If you want to know why Belloc has such a detailed definition of heresy, you’d have to ask him.

Maybe he thought it important to give such a detailed description of heresy, because that is the topic of his whole book.

Or maybe he wouldn’t have much of a book if he used short definitions.

Verdugo, are you an SSPXer or sedevacantist?


10 posted on 03/25/2011 12:56:26 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

He is brilliant, and I do need to read more of him.

However, I’m not really inclined to agree with him on the whole distributism thingy.

Are there any subjects you’d disagree with him on?


11 posted on 03/25/2011 12:59:29 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

“”I’m not really inclined to agree with him on the whole distributism thingy.””

Many people don’t understand distributism,dear friend.It’s a far better moral system. The system we have in the USA is anti Catholic in many ways. The abusive usury that leads to greed is evil and anti Christian

Here is a great article for you
Part #1
http://distributist.blogspot.com/2005/03/distributist-apologetics-series-i.html

Part#2
http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/01/capitalism-and-catholic-economics-part.html


12 posted on 03/25/2011 1:18:52 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Thanks for the links.

I have to admit, I only have a very vague understanding of dstributism.

I don’t have the time to check out the links right now, but I’ll be sure to look at them later.

Here is my very undereducated take on distributism and free markets right now. Feel free to correct or dispute any of this:

1) Free market economies have been wildly successful, unlike anything ever seen before or since.

2) Distributism requires an authority to distribute the means of production, likely a government authority. I see that as a negative.

3) I love how in capitalism it is the free choice of people to give charitably. Charity is much more powerful when it is freely given. I am not saying that this is not a trait of distributism, either.

Have you read the book the Church and the Market by Thomas E. Woods?

http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Defense-Economics/dp/0739110365/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301085694&sr=8-1

I haven’t myself, but I’d be interested in your opinion on it if you have.

Have a nice day.


13 posted on 03/25/2011 1:50:02 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: verdugo
Know better than the Church? Give me a break. ONLY GOD KNOWS BETTER THAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! I've read all of Bellocs books. What exactly did he write that "knew better than the Church"?

If you reread my post, hopefully I was able to formulate a statement that attempted to portray Belloc as a loyal Catholic as opposed to those in willing schism with the Church - Gibson was my example; I suppose that Lefebvre is another.

My question was, why post such a long article for something that's defined by a few words in any Catholic dictionary?

In order to fully understand the history, significance, development and ramifications of the term.

You are an Eastern Orthodox if I remember correctly, is that why you jumped at my comment?

You remember improperly. I consider the Bishop of Rome to be my bishop.

Heresy is not doubt; heresy the proclamation of belief or doctrine at variance with the beliefs or doctrine of the Church. When the saints had doubts, they did not stray into heresy, they doubted, they did not stray into heresy. Private doubts or, in the case of Mother Teresa, a feeling of abandonment, is not heresy. I have a feeling that reaquaintance with the Catechism might do wonders.

14 posted on 03/25/2011 2:01:11 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

“”1) Free market economies have been wildly successful, unlike anything ever seen before or since.””

You might be able to say that 50 years ago but It has progressed into excessive greed in driving power into the hands of the immoral elite that have crushed the small and local businesses of commodities,etc... and consolidated certain industries to the rich where prices can be controlled unfairly to eliminate any competition and enslave the consumer.

“”2) Distributism requires an authority to distribute the means of production, likely a government authority. I see that as a negative.””

Capitalism require authority too,dear fried

You have an immoral authority right now with Capitalism that controls prices with corruption through politics etc..

Distributism goal is private ownership and breaks things down to supporting local business and communities with the moral authority being Church teaching on economics and morality based on love of neighbor where everyone works for a common moral good-which is opposite of the common good of types of socialism which is purely materialistic

I suggest you read Pope Leo XIII;s encyclical
RERUM NOVARUM. I think you will will agree with it

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CAPITAL AND LABOR

Excerpt..
Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. “It is lawful,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence.”” But if the question be asked: How must one’s possessions be used? - the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world... to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’”(12) True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.”(13) But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.”(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving - ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive”;(15) and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself - “As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me.”(16) To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God’s providence, for the benefit of others. “He that hath a talent,” said St. Gregory the Great, “let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor.”(17)


15 posted on 03/25/2011 2:53:23 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

“You might be able to say that 50 years ago but It has progressed into excessive greed in driving power into the hands of the immoral elite that have crushed the small and local businesses of commodities,etc... and consolidated certain industries to the rich where prices can be controlled unfairly to eliminate any competition and enslave the consumer.”

Couldn’t this be solved by eliminating monopolies as is sometimes done already?

“Capitalism require authority too,dear fried

You have an immoral authority right now with Capitalism that controls prices with corruption through politics etc..”

I wouldn’t say government subsidies and taxes are part of capitalism. They are contrary to free markets, and I wouldn’t call our nation completely capitalist, especially now.

I read the excerpt Rerum Novarum, and from what I read, capitalism seems fine. I will take the time later to read the whole thing, and maybe it will seem more against capitalism. But, from what I have heard of Rerum Novarum, it is not totally against capitalism.

I’m not trying to be difficult arguing against you (especially since I know next to nothing about distributism), but instead just trying to understand the pros and cons of distributism and free markets.

Have you read the book from Thomas E. Woods? I may need to eventually, but it seems to say that free markets are fine and perfectly Catholic. Do you have any opinions on the book or Woods?

Thanks for your kind responses.


16 posted on 03/25/2011 3:47:19 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
Couldn’t this be solved by eliminating monopolies as is sometimes done already?

Of course,but the monopolies are so powerful now they control the political system

I wouldn’t say government subsidies and taxes are part of capitalism. They are contrary to free markets, and I wouldn’t call our nation completely capitalist, especially now.

The excess greed brought about by certain lack of immoralities allowed in Capitalism breed people with the power to corrupt government in their favor.

from what I have heard of Rerum Novarum, it is not totally against capitalism.

Nor am I per se. I am against what Capitalism becomes when it becomes a self centered sort of cult that allows mass wealth and power in the hands of evil people for love of money and control.

Have you read the book from Thomas E. Woods?

No, but i will add it to my list,thank you for recommending it

I wish you a Blessed Evening!

17 posted on 03/25/2011 5:25:02 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

“certain lack of immoralities allowed in Capitalism breed people with the power to corrupt government in their favor.”

What are these immoralities allowed in Capitalism?

“I am against what Capitalism becomes when it becomes a self centered sort of cult that allows mass wealth and power in the hands of evil people for love of money and control.”

Are you saying Capitalism causes people to become too materialistic? If so, aren’t people materialistic in every economic system? Because Capitalism causes virtually everyone to eventually be wealthy, wouldn’t people in a capitalist society be less focused on wealth than people who have to constantly worry about trying to get by?

“No, but i will add it to my list,thank you for recommending it”

I have to warn you that I have not read it and am not sure if it is any good. I was just wondering if you thought Woods’s conclusions in favor of free markets were wrong and if so, how.

“I wish you a Blessed Evening!”

You, too.

Thanks for the links. I’ll have some interesting reading to do this weekend.


18 posted on 03/25/2011 5:49:22 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
Introduction: Heresy [The Great Heresies]
The Great Heresies
John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Succumbs to Heresy
The Bishop Discovers Heresy?
From Orthodox to Heresy: The Secularizing of Catholic Universities
Progressivism/Liberalism is Heresy [Excellent read & reference]
Is heresy better than schism? [Ecumenical]
Modernism: The Modernist Heresy
THE GREAT HERESIES-THE MODERN PHASE

The Protestant Heresy
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
Americanism, Then and Now: Our Pet Heresy (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Plain Truth About The Baptist Bride Heresy
Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange (is it compatable with the Catholic faith?)
Know Your Heresies
The Rev. John Piper: an interesting look at "heresy vs. schism"
Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
Heresy
Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)

Catholic Discussion] Church group stays faithful (to heresy!)
An overview of modern anti-Trinitarian heresies
Where heresy and dissent abound [Minnesota]
Gnostic Gospels - the heresy entitled "Gnosticism."
Christian mavericks find affirmation in ancient heresies
The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy
Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors
Donatism (Know your heresies)
The Heresy of Mohammed (Chapter 4, The Great Heresies)
Father & Son Catholic Writers Tag-Team Old & New Heresies

19 posted on 03/25/2011 8:17:22 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
The Great Hershey's:


20 posted on 03/25/2011 8:22:38 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

“”What are these immoralities allowed in Capitalism?””

Too many to mention, but once you have separation of Church and State it’s an open door to liberalism

Separation of Church and State is condemned as an anathema and is dogmatic Church teaching of the Catholic Church in the Syllabus of Errors
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

“”Are you saying Capitalism causes people to become too materialistic?””

Yes, but not everyone . You can clearly see that our society is materialistic,dear friend,not many people would deny this

“”Because Capitalism causes virtually everyone to eventually be wealthy, wouldn’t people in a capitalist society be less focused on wealth than people who have to constantly worry about trying to get by?””

If this were true everyone would be wealthy where there is Capitalism by now. Sorry ,It is not true and the corrupt wealthy are only concerned about the poor if they can gain something out of it.

I’m not saying there are not good loving people who are wealthy,but it’s not always a blessing from God to be wealthy like the Calvinists believe. The beatitudes suggests otherwise,dear friend

I’ll leave you with one more good article to read
http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/03/separation-of-church-and-state.html


21 posted on 03/26/2011 7:59:50 AM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Separation of Church and State is condemned as an anathema and is dogmatic Church teaching of the Catholic Church in the Syllabus of Errors

Not at all surprising, coming from a church that is a state.

22 posted on 03/26/2011 8:04:29 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; stfassisi

Remember, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not separation of church and state.

Stfassisi can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe freedom of religion was endorsed by Vatican II.


23 posted on 03/26/2011 11:15:28 AM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon; RegulatorCountry
Remember, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not separation of church and state.

Yes it does,but we don't seem to follow this anymore with the rogue court system theses day

but I believe freedom of religion was endorsed by Vatican II.

That is correct,it goes back further than that as well ans was taught by the Church Fathers

From Tertullian in the 2nd century..

It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion— to which free-will and not force should lead us— the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind. You will render no real service to your gods by compelling us to sacrifice. For they can have no desire of offerings from the unwilling.[

24 posted on 03/26/2011 11:32:02 AM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; WPaCon
It's a pity Tertullian's 2nd century admonition was apparently forgotten by the medieval era, then. Behavior was distinctly on the side of compulsion, once the shoe had been comfortably on the other foot for centuries.

A church to which I do not belong, having taxing authority over me? Why does this sound like nothing so much as paying the jizya under Islam?

25 posted on 03/26/2011 2:16:46 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; stfassisi

I’m not an historian, so I won’t get into the intricacies of the relationship between church and state, but I’d like to point out that jizya is only for non-Muslims.

Stfassisi, I’ve begun reading the distributist articles. I believe Woods may be one of the people that John Sharpe is arguing against. For one thing, he is in the Ludwig von Mises Institute and I believe he uses the Spanish Scholastics for support for his arguments. I’m going to continue reading up on distributism, although I must admit that I still remain a little skeptical of it.


26 posted on 03/26/2011 4:43:36 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

“It’s a pity Tertullian’s 2nd century admonition was apparently forgotten by the medieval era””

Church teaching did not change,some people felt they could ignore it and force others

There were great efforts to protect the innocent by those who followed Church teaching that goes unnoticed as well. Sadly, everyone focuses on the bad


27 posted on 03/26/2011 5:53:41 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

I suggest you read Belloc’s Survivals and New Arrivals.

Survivals and New Arrivals By Hilaire Belloc
http://www.onlygooddreams.com/articles/Belloc—Survivals-and-New-Arrivals.php#4

Belloc is not a fan of modern America because he understood the protestant roots of error. Belloc’s position on Islam is also close to his position on protestantism and it’s relation to modern america because they both have anti Catholic roots

Belloc is correct on this


28 posted on 03/26/2011 6:05:23 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

Here is the full link

http://www.onlygooddreams.com/articles/Belloc—Survivals-and-New-Arrivals.php#1


29 posted on 03/26/2011 6:08:37 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Thanks for the suggestion.


30 posted on 03/26/2011 6:09:28 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson