Which shows the shallowness of the traditionalism. They won’t even muster the political clout to safeguard the moral’s they supposedly value.
Advertisement
by Lower Nubia » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:24 pm
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Hakons » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:29 pm
Lower Nubia wrote:Hakons wrote:
Lol, not sure why the smiley face was there.
So, once again, you're advocating that Catholics should have no place in a hostile public sphere? It is impermissible for Catholics to vote on Catholic issues but remain in a major party? If they don't remain in a major party, they wont be in the office by the next election. You're asking for a full surrender of the public sphere to people that would be even worse for the Church than a Catholic that votes Catholic sometimes but tows the party line on votes of confidence.
I’ve highlighted the key assumption. Since when have moral issues taken a back seat for political considerations? The ends do not justify the means.
by Lower Nubia » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:35 pm
Hakons wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
I’ve highlighted the key assumption. Since when have moral issues taken a back seat for political considerations? The ends do not justify the means.
I'm not justifying the means. Simply being in a party doesn't carry collective guilt, my goodness. If a Catholic politician votes for Catholic teaching while still remaining in a party that broadly doesn't follow Catholic teaching, they're still a Catholic in good standing trying to apply Catholic social teaching to the government. You still haven't answered to my criticism, where you effectively want to take all Christian influence out of politics. I find that unacceptable, and so does Catholic teaching, which calls Catholics to be engaged in public discourse and politics. You seem to be advocating for some kind of extreme purity, but avoiding political society altogether is expressly against Church teaching, and the near countless Christian politicians that have done many wonderful things to aid the Church and her mission run precisely contrary to your argument.
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Hakons » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:42 pm
Lower Nubia wrote:Hakons wrote:
I'm not justifying the means. Simply being in a party doesn't carry collective guilt, my goodness. If a Catholic politician votes for Catholic teaching while still remaining in a party that broadly doesn't follow Catholic teaching, they're still a Catholic in good standing trying to apply Catholic social teaching to the government. You still haven't answered to my criticism, where you effectively want to take all Christian influence out of politics. I find that unacceptable, and so does Catholic teaching, which calls Catholics to be engaged in public discourse and politics. You seem to be advocating for some kind of extreme purity, but avoiding political society altogether is expressly against Church teaching, and the near countless Christian politicians that have done many wonderful things to aid the Church and her mission run precisely contrary to your argument.
Until you factor in that if that party is not in good Catholic standings and that Catholic person is giving that government power, he implicitly becomes part of that party guilt. Your position otherwise is very 1 dimensional, that the collective and Individual actions are separate, but I believe that counters the definition of “party”: a collection of individuals.
You’re also making an unfair assumption for Mogg’s position. He’s isn’t surrendering the public sphere, the public sphere is already totally succumb to secularism. Mogg isn’t going to produce some top down affect, not without compromising Catholic doctrine elsewhere to maintain his collective responsibility as an indivifuall to his anti-Catholic moral party.
If you want change, it has to come from the bottom up, which is an issue with evangelism, not my position of separating the compromise effect that governance has on Christian morals for irrelevant “victories”.
by Lower Nubia » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:51 pm
Hakons wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
Until you factor in that if that party is not in good Catholic standings and that Catholic person is giving that government power, he implicitly becomes part of that party guilt. Your position otherwise is very 1 dimensional, that the collective and Individual actions are separate, but I believe that counters the definition of “party”: a collection of individuals.
You’re also making an unfair assumption for Mogg’s position. He’s isn’t surrendering the public sphere, the public sphere is already totally succumb to secularism. Mogg isn’t going to produce some top down affect, not without compromising Catholic doctrine elsewhere to maintain his collective responsibility as an indivifuall to his anti-Catholic moral party.
If you want change, it has to come from the bottom up, which is an issue with evangelism, not my position of separating the compromise effect that governance has on Christian morals for irrelevant “victories”.
So, once again, you're offering no political solution. The public isn't totally succumbed to secularism, since there are still obviously religious people. You seem to want religious people to roll over and let the secularist take control of government (which will make the society even more secular). Your position provides no defense for the Christian minority (though that in itself is dubious to assert that we're minority Christian). Christian political success isn't "irrelevant." Pro-life victories that save children from being killed isn't irrelevant. Stopping aggressive secularism in schools isn't irrelevant. Stopping anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination isn't irrelevant. We can't abandon the public sphere to follow your purity test, especially considering the Church doesn't even back your purity test.
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Salus Maior » Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:51 pm
Lower Nubia wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Ok, but I don't see how that makes him a charlatan.
And is there a significant party in Britain that is pro-life and does not run counter to Catholic doctrine in one way or another?
“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.
To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent: he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.
by Lower Nubia » Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:18 am
Salus Maior wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.
To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent: he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.
Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.
Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?
Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.
"A solution would be that your assessment of England is first poor. We are religious, but only as cultural Christians. We vote for what provides more money, not what provides moral integrity. Second even amongst Christians here, anti-catholic dogma is usually acceptable, even abortion has disturbingly high acceptance amongst these cultural Christians.
It is clear that secularism rules the land and populace, even of the allegedly religious of England. Not to mention that the fractured religious landscape of England means there is not one concerted Christian movement for morals.
There is no solution to this problem. Either you compromise values in Parliament, or you start a grassroots catholic movement to bring down secularism. One of those is likely impossible, the other is damaging to Catholic integrity."
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Luminesa » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:09 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.
To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent: he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.
Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.
Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?
Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.
by Diopolis » Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:25 pm
Luminesa wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.
Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?
Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.
I don’t think he’s implying anything about you at all. I don’t know much about Rees-Moog, but I do know that Catholics are called to hold Catholic politicians to a high standard. It’s kinda comparable to the situation of a Newt Gingrich or a Paul Ryan here (both being prominent Catholic politicians). If you’re a Catholic politician, you’re called to be Catholic first, and we have to examine these people to see if they uphold as many Catholic doctrines as a Catholic is called to uphold.
Rees-Moog is pro-life, that’s great! But does he see the humanity of immigrants coming to Britain? How does he feel on the death penalty? What does he feel about drug legalization? Being pro-life obviously is most important, but to be a truly life-affirming, Catholic candidate he should hold a pro-life view on all of those things. Ezekiel says we hold teachers and leaders in such a high regard and that their personal judgment will be particularly harsh if they do not teach as they should. Paul says the same thing. You uphold orthodox Catholic doctrine, so you represent your beliefs well and I imagine you care much for your co-workers, as you should. Rees-Moog is called to do the same thing and then some, because his burden is a unique and difficult one.
by Salus Maior » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:10 pm
Lower Nubia wrote:
It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:"A solution would be that your assessment of England is first poor. We are religious, but only as cultural Christians. We vote for what provides more money, not what provides moral integrity. Second even amongst Christians here, anti-catholic dogma is usually acceptable, even abortion has disturbingly high acceptance amongst these cultural Christians.
It is clear that secularism rules the land and populace, even of the allegedly religious of England. Not to mention that the fractured religious landscape of England means there is not one concerted Christian movement for morals.
There is no solution to this problem. Either you compromise values in Parliament, or you start a grassroots catholic movement to bring down secularism. One of those is likely impossible, the other is damaging to Catholic integrity."
I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.
You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.
by Jean-Paul Sartre » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:17 pm
by Tarsonis » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:18 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:
I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.
You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.
I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment.
Even men of compromised value if standing for some good things still do some good things. Take Constantine for instance,I don't think anyone can dismiss his contributions to the acceptance and growth of Christianity, in fact he is canonized for this. But as a man, he did a lot of immoral things, such as ordering his wife and her unborn baby killed for cheating on him, and exiling orthodox clergy and favoring Arianism (in fact, he was baptized by an Arian).
He was a Roman Emperor who worked in what I'm sure you would call a corrupt system, either as bad or worse than your Parliament. And I don't justify what Constantine did or whatever wrongs Mog did, but I also don't expect anyone in a political office to be pure, dogmatic Christians, but it's important if there are people who are or sympathize with Christianity and moral principles in political office because that's really the only substantial means of change.
by Diopolis » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:20 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment.
Even men of compromised value if standing for some good things still do some good things. Take Constantine for instance,I don't think anyone can dismiss his contributions to the acceptance and growth of Christianity, in fact he is canonized for this. But as a man, he did a lot of immoral things, such as ordering his wife and her unborn baby killed for cheating on him, and exiling orthodox clergy and favoring Arianism (in fact, he was baptized by an Arian).
He was a Roman Emperor who worked in what I'm sure you would call a corrupt system, either as bad or worse than your Parliament. And I don't justify what Constantine did or whatever wrongs Mog did, but I also don't expect anyone in a political office to be pure, dogmatic Christians, but it's important if there are people who are or sympathize with Christianity and moral principles in political office because that's really the only substantial means of change.
For the record he’s only a popular saint in the Latin Church, he’s not officially canonized as far as I can tell.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:23 pm
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:What do Christians here think of early offshoots/heresies (e.g. Nestorians, Gnostics, Marcion)?
by Tarsonis » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:27 pm
by Salus Maior » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:22 pm
Tarsonis wrote:
For the record he’s only a popular saint in the Latin Church, he’s not officially canonized as far as I can tell.
by Salus Maior » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:25 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Diopolis wrote:He is, however, canonized in various eastern rite churches in union with Rome, which is a pretty good argument for canonizations being fallible.
I would imagine it is, as none of us can pierce the veil to see whose in heaven or not. Given that canonization is largely influenced by popular support I’ve always viewed canonization as more speculative than firm. Obviously some are easy, St. Mary, the Apostles and martyrs sure. The popular saints though, are a bit more speculative. Can’t say I’m a fan of the two miracle rule. I could perform a thousand miracles and my time in purgatory would still about 85,000 years.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:28 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
I would imagine it is, as none of us can pierce the veil to see whose in heaven or not. Given that canonization is largely influenced by popular support I’ve always viewed canonization as more speculative than firm. Obviously some are easy, St. Mary, the Apostles and martyrs sure. The popular saints though, are a bit more speculative. Can’t say I’m a fan of the two miracle rule. I could perform a thousand miracles and my time in purgatory would still about 85,000 years.
Yeah, I kinda find how almost every post V2 Pope has been canonized to be a bit suspect.
I mean, I don't think most of them were more holy then many of the pre-conciliar Popes. And of course there's a lot of controversy involving them.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:29 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
For the record he’s only a popular saint in the Latin Church, he’s not officially canonized as far as I can tell.
I've had some discussions with our Orthodox regulars offsite and apparently he is canonized. But both me and them kinda question it.
Although it is worth noting that the Arian who baptized Constantine was technically still part of the canonical Church at the time so it's probably still valid.
by Salus Maior » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:41 pm
by Salus Maior » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:42 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
I've had some discussions with our Orthodox regulars offsite and apparently he is canonized. But both me and them kinda question it.
Although it is worth noting that the Arian who baptized Constantine was technically still part of the canonical Church at the time so it's probably still valid.
He’s canonizes in the Orthodox Church, but not formally in the Latin church.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:44 pm
by Salus Maior » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:50 pm
Tarsonis wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Wikipedia says he's canonized in the RCC as well.
I imagine his canonization happened pre-schism so it'd apply to everyone, because it says he's also canonized in Oriental Orthodoxy.
Wikipedia isn’t the greatest source. I saw that too but there’s no citation. Everything I’ve read on the matter from the church suggests he was never formally canonized because he was a heretic and baptized by a heretic.
by Napkizemlja » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:58 pm
Lower Nubia wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.
Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?
Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.
It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:"A solution would be that your assessment of England is first poor. We are religious, but only as cultural Christians. We vote for what provides more money, not what provides moral integrity. Second even amongst Christians here, anti-catholic dogma is usually acceptable, even abortion has disturbingly high acceptance amongst these cultural Christians.
It is clear that secularism rules the land and populace, even of the allegedly religious of England. Not to mention that the fractured religious landscape of England means there is not one concerted Christian movement for morals.
There is no solution to this problem. Either you compromise values in Parliament, or you start a grassroots catholic movement to bring down secularism. One of those is likely impossible, the other is damaging to Catholic integrity."
I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.
You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.
by Lower Nubia » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:04 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:
I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.
You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.
I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment.
Even men of compromised value if standing for some good things still do some good things. Take Constantine for instance,I don't think anyone can dismiss his contributions to the acceptance and growth of Christianity, in fact he is canonized for this. But as a man, he did a lot of immoral things, such as ordering his wife and her unborn baby killed for cheating on him, and exiling orthodox clergy and favoring Arianism (in fact, he was baptized by an Arian).
He was a Roman Emperor who worked in what I'm sure you would call a corrupt system, either as bad or worse than your Parliament. And I don't justify what Constantine did or whatever wrongs Mog did, but I also don't expect anyone in a political office to be pure, dogmatic Christians, but it's important if there are people who are or sympathize with Christianity and moral principles in political office because that's really the only substantial means of change.
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Castelia, Godular, Google [Bot], Pasong Tirad
Advertisement