Posted on 06/17/2014 9:05:04 AM PDT by Gamecock
I am pretty sure the editors of the Wall Street Journal would be disinclined to endorse Pope Francis' call for international regulation of markets via state action, to promote impact investment. Yet, that is just what he called for yesterday in speaking to a meeting at the Vatican on the theme "Investing in the Poor," which was organized, in part, by the University of Notre Dame. The pope said:
No spinning that is there. I am sure our libertarian friends think this pope just keeps wandering down the road to serfdom.Advances in technology have increased the speed of financial transactions, but in the long run this is significant only to the extent that it better serves the common good. In this regard, speculation on food prices is a scandal which seriously compromises access to food on the part of the poorest members of our human family. It is urgent that governments throughout the world commit themselves to developing an international framework capable of promoting a market of high impact investments, and thus to combating an economy which excludes and discards.
Uh...
...by saying "Pretty Please" a lot?
One gal’s insights are another fella’s blind keyboardist’s rantings...
>> Do you know how governments around the world can create a framework that does not involve regulation? <<
THe following do not involve INCREASED regulation, or any regulation at all:
Trade treaties
Diplomacy
Multi-lateral cooperation
International banking policy
Exemptions from regulation
Please... everything a government ever does is inherently evil, including reforming itself by REDUCING regulation? Is that what you’re saying?Suddenly when it involves anti-Catholicism, must we sweep right past Republicanism, past Subsidiarism, past Constitutionalism, past Libertarianism and straight to anarchy?
“THe following do not involve INCREASED regulation, or any regulation at all:
Trade treaties
Diplomacy
Multi-lateral cooperation
International banking policy
Exemptions from regulation”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL of those increase regulation, usually by idiots who don’t know squat all about how to achieve anything!
“Suddenly when it involves anti-Catholicism, must we sweep right past Republicanism, past Subsidiarism, past Constitutionalism, past Libertarianism and straight to anarchy?”
I have not commented on Pope Peron’s theology. I have merely pointed out that he is clueless about economics and markets - and he is defended on FR ONLY because he is the Pope. If Barry Obama made the same statement, the Catholics would be all over him as an economic illiterate. The HONEST Catholics tend to say the same about the current Pope.
And BTW, I’ve been posting since 1998, and you won’t find me criticizing the previous popes. Pope Francis seems to me to be an exceptionally foolish fellow, with neither the experience nor the intelligence to understand the impact of what he blathers. He is an embarrassment to the Catholic Church - or ought to be!
Contrary to what Francis might believe, the Orthodox are not Catholic.
The context does not change the fact that he finds that while the dictum of Vincentius must be considered true in the abstract, "it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem."
For indeed, Catholic scholarship itself among others provides much testimony contrary to the propagandist RC version of history, and of the stipulated “unanimous consent ” of the fathers.
I'm not a member of St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church.
I forgot this: So they are not your brethren? Dulles even states that, “According to Vatican II, the communion of the church of Christ extends far beyond the visible borders of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council's teaching on this point was not a new departure, but an assertion of a very traditional position, held by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. All who have the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ's body, and therefore of the church.” (p. 59) — Cardinal Avery Dulles, A Church to Believe; In http://www.crowhill.net/journeyman/Vol1No3/dulles.html
I said "brethren," and while the OCA is an autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church, do you reject them as brethren? Meanwhile, they say that contrary to what you might believe, the Orthodox are the one true Catholic church, based not on SS but the same Tradition from whence comes the RC magisterium that declares she is the One True Church®
Yes, they are not my brethren. At best they are separated brethren, but not brethren.
LOLOL!
ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE 67. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority,...
Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties,...
The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity*, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.” *http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay. Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing, the cardinal said. - http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm
And where does this end? Rather than promoting private charity with the accountability to better oneself, the government provides all, which ends up punishing the industrious and rewarding indolence, but eventually with ideological strings attached.
Let’s allow these two men to speak for themselves:
“But some one will say perhaps, ‘Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church?’ Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alternation, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.” ~ St. Vincent of Lerins
...A true development, then, may be described as one which is conservative of the course of antecedent developments being really those antecedents and something besides them: it is an addition which illustrates, not obscures, corroborates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it proceeds; and this is its characteristic as contrasted with a corruption.” ~ Cardinal John Henry Newman
Where is the conflict?
:)
Any group which rejects the doctrine of papal primacy is obviously not Catholic.
Hehehe. Honest Catholics? Read post #13. But since you say exemptions from regulation are increases in regulation, there’s nothing left to say to you.
“But since you say exemptions from regulation are increases in regulation, there’s nothing left to say to you.”
Please do not make false claims. I pointed out that government interference with free markets always results in regulation. It must, because regulation is how a government enforces its policies.
When your pope writes: ““It is urgent that governments throughout the world commit themselves to developing an international framework capable of promoting a market of high impact investments...”, just how will that “framework” exist without regulation. Regulation IS framework by governments.
Your communist pope does not urge exemptions from regulations. He makes it clear governments must take action to enforce his ideas of what is good in a market - and that must mean regulation. He is unwilling to let people act freely in a manner they believe is right.
I like this post from another related thread:
To: Gamecock
What astonishing ignorance. Products would be more expensive without speculators. Oil is an easy example. I’m a producer. I don’t know if I can run a particular well as the cost is $92/barrel. Without a speculator I wouldn’t try. I might sit on the oil as I can’t afford to take the chance. But a speculator offers me $104/barrel for, say, 80,000 barrels. I pre-sell him the oil at that price. Then, when the time comes to deliver if the price is higher than $104/barrel the speculator made money. If it’s less, he lost money. But I sold the oil I pumped at a profit, albeit not as much if the price is higher than I sold it for, but I’m protected if the price has dropped to, say $89/barrel.
Speculators allow the markets to work efficiently. Without them there would be less of everything and everybody would be hurt.
12 posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:01:31 AM by Gen.Blather
Speculators are not evil. The do not control anything. They make guesses and risk money against those guesses. They sometimes come out ahead, and sometimes lose - but the economy gains. This is very unlike government agencies, which impose regulation to create ‘fairness’ that cannot be achieved by humans.
bttt
So I wasn't amazed at all that you didn't get a response.
Where? Well of course there can be none, since Rome alone can be correct in its "interpretation" of evidence. Vincent of Lerins operated out of the stated premise that catholic doctrine had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). This was the premise behind the V1 creed regarding scripture, "nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers."
However, Rome herself defines "unanimous" as to mean nonunanimous, and while this propaganda could be passed off the way it sounds in the past, in actual application it cannot in the light modern available research . .
Thus Newman had to work out of the premise of development of doctrine, the specious acorn to oak tree analogy, so that non only are the NT pastors of Scripture rendered into being a distinctive class of clergy NT, which etymological fallacy the Holy Spirit never engaged in, due to the premise that their main function was turning bread into human flesh to give souls spiritual life, but a non-existent assuredly infallible perpetual papacy autocratically (no one can depose him, unhindered power) reigning supreme over all the church, is extrapolated out of the street-level leadership of fallible Peter among brethren
Related to this, Congar for one admits,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level....One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its experience. - Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966),
More on ECFs and Mt. 16
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation. But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” (fn. 24) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70. More .
Which means unanimous and consent is whatever Rome says thy are.
Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.” — Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Her infallible magisterium is essential in order to discern which writings and men are of God, and to rightly understand them, and the same applies to Tradition and historians, dissent from whom is rebellion against God.
And under the premise that God is the author of church doctrine as well as Scripture, there simply can be no contradiction, as she defines what such are.
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church...it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which...is opposed to the doctrine of the Church. (Providentissimus Deus)
But as there are inconsistencies apart from spins, thus we have some conservative RCs rejecting V2 as binding due to its contradictions with past teaching.
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.