Posted on 05/23/2009 9:10:25 PM PDT by Quix
“Was that a factor in his premature departure?”
Huh? JPII is John Paul II - he wrote Centesimus Annus. He hardly departed prematurely.
Thanks for your kind words and amplifications and clarifications. Am happy to have read them. I’m encouraged by them.
Take your time.
I’m only half through with the document, myself.
I don’t think I’m going to get to any more of it tonight! LOL.
Prayers for your healing sleep toward wholeness and rejuvenation and a blessed Sunday to you and yours.
Sorry, I mix them up. My fault.
Welllll in terms of going through the doc . . .
LOL.
Someone sort of tossed it derisively-to-me in my lap. And, accused me of making things up about it.
And, I had posted a quote from it. So, it was only fitting that I go through it. Not done yet. LOL.
Well, I seem to remember a thread where you quoted something about it.
And, frankly, it is really good to read these documents. There's a lot of good information in them. You may accept some and reject other parts but still...
Let me give you a couple of other suggestions, considering your interest in these types of things:
Hopefully the above might give you some information that you might not have otherwise been aware of.
Have been aware of the Vatican’s wise antipathy toward such groups . . . it’s evidently a complex . . . set of stuff on all sides.
Thanks for the links.
That . . . aspect of the whole ball of wax is one of the more distasteful sides of it, to me. So I avoid it as much as I can.
Counseling clients dabbling in such were always the most troublesome to help get beyond demonic junk.
Bless you for your kind replies.
Thanks.
Interesting.
I wonder how long ago they were in the Southwest.
You wrote:
“Was that a factor in his premature departure?”
What? Paul VI was just six weeks shy of his 81st birthday when he died. 81 is premature in 1978? How do you figure that?
Do you mean John Paul II? He lived as pope from 1978 to 2005. How’s is that premature?
Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about?
My Wife’s family (mother’s side) have Creek blood.
The *creek* in Wolfcreek. is a reference to the tribe.
(I kind of snatched my Wife’s screen name when she quit spending much time online.) and (cause my middle name means Wolf)
IIRC There was a LOT of intrigue around the death of one of the John Paul’s. Wasn’t there one . . . or maybe . . . one of them was Pope a relatively short time?
Cute.
You wrote:
“IIRC There was a LOT of intrigue around the death of one of the John Paul’s. Wasn’t there one . . . or maybe . . . one of them was Pope a relatively short time?”
John Paul I was pope for all of about one month in 1978. There was exactly ZERO intrigue surrounding his death. ZERO. He stopped taking his heart medication and died. It was that simple. Since then, however, hundreds of authors have made up phony stories about his death to sell books. To me it’s the Catholic version of Loose Change or all the other 911 Truthers trying to sell books and DVDs. I guess it is much sexier to say a pope was murdered by [fill-in-the-blank] than to say a quiet, old Italian pope died of heart failure in his bed because he had been too pre-occupied to refill his prescription.
Quix,
I hope you’ll understand that I write this as a Catholic trying to acknowledge shortcomings of an historically important person, not to disparage him.
If ever there was a time when a pope needed more than holiness, but incredible intellectual talents, it was the time immediately following Vatican II. For whatever His purposes were, we got Pope Paul VI, instead. He was not a heretic, but seemed oblivious to the theat of all stripes of heretics. Like popes before him, he wrote in a style to establish truths for 1000 years. Unfortunately, the world was changing very rapidly, and his present-day audience needed guidance they did not receive.
>> In English, to Pentecostals it equals “END TIMES” and the Biblical signs thereof. I’d think, HOPE, that the Vatican translators would KNOW that. If they didn’t and it slipped through, then their scholarship is not very impressive. <<
Pope Paul VI is writing to a Catholic audience, who will read such phases with a Catholic understanding.
>> Hmmm... A new humanism. <<
Humanism, in the Catholic tradition, does not mean what secualr humanists use it to mean, meaning humans as opposed to God. We use it to refer to humanity as opposed to materialism.
>> [about private property ]
The weight of papal encyclicals in opposition to socialism is staggering, arguing precisely your points. However, this encylical was historically problemmatic. Offered to provide a little context and balance to other encyclicals which focused on the inalienable right to the rewards of one’s own labor, this did get seen as a shift towards socialism. What Paul VI did not foresee was that, in the context of the reforms following of Vatican II, the media would present this not as providing marginal qualification for the Church’s support of private ownership, but as a reversal of it. His following statements were ignored.
>> Population growth
This is another classic case of Paul being tone deaf to the fact that his audience is already confused by the post-Vatican reforms and drastic social upheaval. He worte that birth control was immoral, and the world exploded with rage at him, complaining that the Catholic Church was dooming the entire world to poverty and environmental devestation. Many Protestant authors insisted the real intent was to out-breed the rest of Christiandom. Here, Paul VI is only trying to correct the notion that Catholics are morally bound to be perpetually bearing kids. Abstinence can be virtuous. And so long as one is open to God giving them a child, family planning techniques which reduced birth rates are also permitted.
>> I recommend you look at Centessimus Annus which was the most recent social justice encyclical (circa 1990 Pope JPII). This document embraces capitalism and condemns socialism more than any other previous encyclical. It is a good read. <<
I have to disagree with the statement that it condemns socialism more than any other previous encyclical. Populorum Progressio (”Forward People”) puts some slight qualification on the explicit condemnation of socialism which previous encyclicals had made. Unfortunately, many liberals reported that Rerum Novarum (”New Things”), for instance, was written before Vatican II “changed everything.” In fact, Vatican II changed nothing. Rerum Novarum was in ways the most influential encyclical ever, forming the intellectual foundation of counter-socialism in Europe.
Centessimus Annus (”100 Years [since Rerum Novarum]”) restated Rerum Novarum’s criticism of socialism. If anything, it tried to strike a bit more balanced of a tone, to remind the middle classes of Europe and America (which scarcely existed when Rerum Novarum was published) that capitalism hasn’t fully addressed yet. But impimp is very correct when he asserts that Centessimus Annus boldly reasserted the Catholic Church’s opposition to socialism. Unfortunately, the mainstream media’s spin machine largely ignored that opposition.
Pope John Paul II: Capitalism isn’t perfect, but socialism is an unspeakable evil!
Socialist mainstream media: The Pope criticized capitalism!
Unfortunately Pope Paul VI’s intellectual failings helped foster within the American church a leftish presbyterate which did little to correct the MSM.
Much appreciate your contextual perspective.
I really have long recognized that the Vatican is . . .
a complex lot of things . . .
. . . bureaucratic, political, theological, sociological . . .
over a long period of time . . . in a changing world context . . .
with changing yet tradition . . . influenced personalities at the top.
As I’ve noted, I have not, per se [contrary to some attitudes on your side], been a chronic Vatican basher insisting that THE POPE WOULD BE THE ANTI-CHRIST etc. etc. etc.
It just hasn’t fit my understanding of Scripture nor of the world.
However, I have assumed, based, I think—on good Scriptural foundation—that
The Vatican LIKE ALL CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS in the END TIMES, WILL definitely fall under the Anti-Christ’s sway, influence, !!!!CONTROL!!!!
And, I have watched, off and on, somewhat keenly for signs of such globalist oligarchy influences. Because, certainly, they will NOT just wake up on a Monday morning and decide to gain control of the Vatican by Friday. They really have been working toward such for a very long time—very VERY methodically . . . and stealthily.
Certainly, as such a large, old, broadly spread Christian organization, the Vatican is a prime target and a prime example for monitoring such influences. It used to be said that what was good for GM was good for the USA. It’s not a big stretch to construe that whatever the globalist oligarchy does to and through the Vatican will not leave the rest of Christendom unscathed for long.
Therefore, it is worthwhile to monitor such influences on the Vatican.
Frankly, when I first read the Paul VI th’s quote in the list of quotes I came across, I was shocked then annoyed. I was shocked that he was so clearly on the side of the globalists that long ago. Then I was annoyed that they’d succeeded in such influence at such levels with the Vatican that long ago.
Now, I’m in the process of analyzing this encyclical to see just how true that seems to be, from my perspective.
I recognize that there are multiple keyword meanings regarding critical keywords.
However, I do not think that so many keywords implicating globalism’s influence ought to be glibly ignored—even by this Pope even this long ago. The themes are there. The memes are there. The influence of the globalists is obviously there, in the first half of the encyclical.
It is conceivable that a percentage of such things could be rationalized away due to various other contextual pressures and issues. It is not conceivable to me that one could accurately, honestly, objectively white-wash all such away. The evidence is too significant.
By that, I mean, that it is conceivable to me that some wordings and nuances could be laid at the feet of other non-globalist pressures—SOME. It is not conceivable to me, so far, to believe that there’s not a shred of real, genuine globalism represented in the document.
What it all means—to me, I’ll have to wait until I finish the 2nd half to comment on. However, the first half is disturbing enough, to me.
Certainly one issue would be . . . to what degree did Paul VI th consciously give voice and approval to globalist aims knowing they were oligarchic globalist aims? And to what degree did he go along with the successfully engineered—at those international leadership levels even back then—the growing ‘world community’ gestalt in some sort of rosey colored farcical propaganda sense so carefully constructed by the globalists. Disney’s IT’S A SMALL WORLD had certainly been cheerily singing the praises of such a meme for a long time by then. I don’t know that the encyclical will be able to shed definitive light on that question. But perhaps some inferences can be made.
Let’s assume for a moment that my darkest concerns are borne out by more than the encyclical and other data . . . Therefore, what.
As a watchman on the wall, my concern would be that Roman Catholics who are truly in Love with Jesus, Father, Spirit would cleave all the more to God and loosen maybe !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound affections and death-grips on an edifice that DEFINITELY WILL BE consumed by the growing engulfment from hell.
That, as MarkOMalley has somewhat hinted at, such authentically faithful-TO-GOD RC’s will prepare their hearts etc. for whatever period of underground Christian life may be possible . . . that they not be caught asleep and clueless as the darkness descends.
I realize that there are RC’s hereon just as there are Penetcostals who think that their myopic constructions on Christian reality and the world at this time simply cannot conceive of such a thing being remotely possible. Some Pentecostals seem to think that nothing very significantly uncomfortable will occur to them prior to THE RAPTURE. Some RC’s are convinced that nothing will tarnish nor subsume the Vatican etc. etc. etc.
Scripture indicates otherwise.
I’m somewhat open to dialogue about a lot of this. However, a lot seems quite clearly set in Scripture—which for me equals set in stone. Certainly there is lack of specific clarity about a lot of things related thereto. However, the basic fact remains that the AC WILL BE in fairly thorough-going charge of the whole world—PARTICULARLY THE RELIGIOUS world for at least 3.5 years—and to some increasing degree for 7 years.
The degree of the oligarchy’s influence over the RELIGIOUS WORLD is already somewhat shocking when really looked at closely.
So, in a sense, I’m bothering THIS MUCH about this encyclical because I think it’s a good benchmark . . . a good mile post to examine regarding the above.
And, I think that looking at the seductive phrases used—whether intended as such by Paul VI th or taken on from the global gestalt of the time . . . looking at those phrases can be instructive for watching similar wordings increasingly descend on all of Christendom with increasing speed and weight.
I realize that some do and will always, short of a miracle, see me as a Vatican/RC hating basher. That will have to be their problem before God. God knows the truth is quite different—as do quite a number of RC’s.
I realize that some Prottys may be inclined to look down haughty RELIGIOUS noses and say—’Yeah, well, what can one expect of the RC’s, but such.’ They would be grossly in error and on thin ice with God to cop such an attitude. The same horrors are coming soon to a congregation near and hopefully dear to them, as well.
Anyway—back to the encyclical.
BLESSED BE THE BLOOD, THE FORGIVENESS, THE NAME, THE RESURRECTION LIFE AND WORD OF THE LORD.
I think I understand.
Thanks.
Was that channeled from Mary or Joseph?
With respect to "humanism":
I think this is a case where popular usage has drowned out a more precise technical usage. The popular usage I mean includes "secular humanism" or even "atheistic humanism."
Largely because of cruddy edumication, people aren't aware of the use of "humanism" to describe a kind of thinking that could be said to have begun to blossom around the 12th or 13th centuries and in response to some very inhumane sorts of thinking.
I do not mean by what follows to be defining humanism or even to be hitting its high points.
But suppose you have a bunch of people who think that humans are intrinsically evil and the such things are eating and sexual intercourse can never be less than so dreadfully evil that to be "perfect" one should abstain from both.
Or suppose you have a religion threatening Catholic Christendom from the east, the south, and the west. And suppose it teaches that the righteousness of God is so unrelated to our perception of righteousness, that our minds are so desperately far from any perception of the True and the Just, that God could command that one give oneself up to disobedience of him and to the consequent damnation, and that one would have a duty to obey that command, because God willed it. And suppose that both these groups taught that the idea of the Incarnation of God in human flesh was not only blasphemous but preposterous.
One response to those lines of thought would be to assert that, as part of Creation, man was good ab initio, and the by the Incarnation and the work of Christ generally man and all of creation had a hope of a future righteousness, goodness, and even holiness in which they (or some of them) participated on a very small and derivative scale right now.
And the response might also affirm that there was a real, valid, informative, and useful connection between the mental functioning of humans and the Truth of God, so that even the gentiles have SOME clue about what truly is beautiful, just, and good.
All these contentions work toward asserting a fundamental as well as eschatological dignity to mankind. Therefore, they are called "humanistic," although they hang on not only the law and the prophets, but also on the revelation of God in Christ, and in His Most Holy Word.
-- Man has a dignity (which he has mostly squandered) because God made him to have it. --
Now I will "work a problem" on the basis of Christian humanism:
Some years ago I drove into Charlottesville. A few minutes after I entered the bustling metropolis, the car in front of me swerved, and then continued on its way. This caused a little adrenaline dump and I was very alert, which is good, because a split second later I looked to my right and saw a toddler in nothing but pampers walking in the middle of a side street.
The question is what should I do? What does that toddler "deserve" and why?
What would you think of me if I said I was busy and went about my business. Or maybe I stopped at a pay phone (I didn't have a cell phone in those days.) Or maybe I called 911 from my cell -- as I could have done if this had happened less than a decade ago.
And if the toddler had been run down, well hey, I called 911, didn't I? Wasn't that above and beyond? It wasn't MY kid, after all ...
I would say that, unlike a squirrel or chipmunk, the right thing for me to do was to pull over and get that kid out of the street. And it was right because that kid, being made in the image of God, was due a kind of reverence, a kind of honor, a kind of care that was of a higher level and more demanding of me than what a chipmunk's "due" would be.
But if you answer that I am a sinful SOB and worse if I don't pick up that kid and get him off the street, then we have ethical problems and political problems that make my head spin.
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.