There was something about the 20th Century, something awful. Did Pope Leo have the answer?

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | March 29, 2012 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[stfassisi]

lik to society of Pope Leo XIII
http://www.hrcac.org.uk/h.h.-pope-leo-xiii.html

[WPaCon]

I’m not very knowledgeable about the intricacies of banking, so some of the material that I have read has gone over my head. But from what I understand, most banking these days is not actually usury—the prohibition against usury has never changed, but the nature of money has.

It also seems to me that capitalism without abuses and without mistaken notions about the nature of man and freedom is also fine.

I’d post some of the good articles I have read on the topic, but unfortunately, I can’t seem to find them right now.

[stpio]

Thank you, I didn’t know of the Society. What I have read
of Pope Leo XIII’s writings, they are so holy. You are drawn
to him.

He must be praying for us unceasingly, yes?

[stfassisi]

He must be praying for us unceasingly, yes?

I truly believe that he is with all my heart,dear friend

[stfassisi]

Capitalism does not survive without Usury ,dear friend

I suggest you read the following from Belloc

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/belloc2-2.htm

[dangus]

Actually, the Catholic dogma is subsidiarity. Distributism needs to be understood as a means to achieve that end. Many see government intervention as the fastest way to achieve distributist ends, or even implied in Chesterton’s writings. But distributism needs to be interpreted in light of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity is the notion that the smallest degrees of organization competent to achieve a task are the best. In America, this would be expressed by the notion that the federal government must yield to the states, except to prevent tyranny by the states, the states must yield to the counties, the counties to the villages, the villages to block associations, the block associations to the household.

But also, business must be disassembled in a similar manner, so distributism considers how small businesses can supplant corporate conglomerates. Certainly governmental policies can be changed to facilitate such a transformation, but is it really coercion and central control, for instance, if tax policies are changed to favor small business, rather than the current tax policies which, by favoring reinvestment over dividends, motivate corporations towards vertical integration and diversification?

If a current policy favors corporate conglomeration, is it really coercion and central control to replace that policy with one that favors small business? Yes, it’s government seeking to change things, and it’s a new stress placed on the existing systems, so in that sense it is experienced by the incumbent power bases as coercion. But does not that same “coercion” not liberate the far more numerous small businesses?

[ClearCase_guy]

Thanks. Good stuff.

I generally have a "small is beautiful" kind of view of things, so Subsidiarity/Distributism has aspects that appeal to me. Personally, I wouldn't mind living in a village and having a farm and a cow, and spending my evenings down at the tavern. That's me. For those folks who want a penthouse apartment in Manhattan and who want to spend their days engaged in international trade, I suppose the notions of Subsidiarity have less appeal. Some folks really want a Globalist "big is beautiful" life.

[nanetteclaret]

Hi, b –

Briefly, Arianism was a heresy in the 4th century, promulgated by Arius (A.D. 250-336), but which actually began with Paul of Samasota, who was excommunicated in +/- 265 AD. Arianism taught that Christ, while Divine, is not the Second Person of the Trinity, but rather was created by the Father and is not consubstantial with Him. Arius was declared a heretic at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD. This Council formulated the original Nicene Creed. Arianism is still around today, in Protestant groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians.

n

[darrellmaurina]

I didn't see a “caucus” line here, so may a Calvinist be allowed to add a few comments since Boxlunch asked if Arianism is the opposite of Calvinism or Reformed doctrine?

Roman Catholics, Calvinists, and nearly all evangelical Protestants are united in condemning Arianism.

Nanetteclaret is right in her post. Arianism and Arminianism are two entirely different issues.

Arianism is an early church heresy which has cropped up from time to time over the years. In addition to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unitarians mentioned by Nanetteclaret, modern groups advocating explicit Arianism include the Oneness Pentecostals. Most Pentecostals are not Arians; in fact, affirmation of the Trinity was an important factor in the early days of the organization of the Assemblies of God whose leaders wanted to distinguish themselves from a small group of Pentecostals who were not Trinitarian.

Arianism is a heresy for a number of reasons, but here's one of the easiest ways to explain the importance of the Trinity to people who are not theologically knowledgeable. If human sin is as bad as the Bible says it is — i.e., our sins against an infinite God deserve infinite punishment — we need a Savior who is fully God so he can be both all-powerful and all-good, but also fully man so he, unlike the bloody sacrifices of bulls and goats, can actually pay the penalty due for our own actual sins as well as the original sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve.

Of course, much more can be and has been said about why Arianism is wrong, but lots of people don't understand why the Trinity is central to Christian doctrine. That explanation typically shows people why it's not just a math game of one-in-three and three-in-one, but rather has eternal consequences for those who deny that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

Arminianism is an entirely different issue. The term comes from Jacob Arminius, a Dutch Reformed theology professor in the early 1600s who came to deny five key points of the Reformed or Calvinist position, namely, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. This is a Roman Catholic discussion so it would be inappropriate to debate the issue here, and I raise it merely to indicate that there is no essential connection between Arianism and Arminianism. The two sets of doctrines are on an entirely different level of seriousness — Arianism is heresy, but even many strict Calvinists regard Arminianism as an error rather than heresy, and the simple fact of the matter is that Arminianism is today the predominant theological viewpoint in American evangelical Christianity.

I hope that is of some help.

[boxlunch]

Thanks for that clarification. Yes I was thinking of Arminianism in my comment. Sorry for getting those two terms confused, I know better...

[darrellmaurina]

Glad to be of help, Boxlunch...