The heresy of Americanism!
#31
I believe they said the power to rule comes from God but Through the people.

tim
Reply
#32
(08-06-2012, 04:57 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote:
(08-06-2012, 01:12 PM)Tim Wrote: It's also obvious to me in the notion that commerce should not be morally regulated, or as they say greed is good. It's apparent in the federal government wanting to supplant the Church and it's mission to the poor and needy like Julian the Apostate. On the flip side the Deists and the Prots were opposed to Krazy King George, and all but one had a book written about this KK George and his Divine Right, which if I remember correctly was called Cathedra. In the book it was argued that KK George and Divine Right was phooey, and it was supported by the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Roberto Bellarmine, and Fr. Suaez. My point is there is some good in the Republic's founding documents, and they all shouldn't be tossed. What they need is more of the same.

tim 

Yes, the Divine Right of Kings is a Protestant ideology (not a Catholic social doctrine) that arose from their rejection of the papacy.  When you kick out Catholicism (which includes ultramontanism) all you have is whatever Protestant monarch you live under as a fellow Protestant.

The quoted Saints point out that a monarch has a duty to his people, and that abuse of his power and authority will lead to divine providence's retribution, which at times manifests itself as rebellion.  Though, those saints also pointed out the monarch is still the monarch, with his power and authority only present because of God giving them these things because of the good they will do with them or permitting them to have these things, though evil is done through them for a greater good later.

If the republics got anything right, they did so in aspects the Church ALREADY got right much earlier on. I don't know why "King" George was cited in this thread, though I am a Jacobite as far as the British throne goes.

You do know that the Church recognizes the House of Hanover, right?
Reply
#33
(08-06-2012, 11:54 AM)Walty Wrote:
(08-06-2012, 04:22 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: It would be better if the U.S. were officially protestant with tolerance for Catholics (as this is an error in fact), than the current situation today, wherein religious liberty is a fundamental principle (error in principle).

This.

At least Protestantism is still theism.  In fact, the Protestants still worship Jesus Christ and give Him due praise for being Our God and Our Savior.  The current setup in America is secularism and Enlightenment philosophy.  God is either irrelevant, faceless, and utterly transcendent or He doesn't exist at all.

Christ is the center of all good things.  The American government makes absolutely no mention of Christ. 

I agree with you on this, but if a Catholic were living in a state that had an established Protestant church, would he be allowed to support this? For instance, say that in this state there are two political factions: one in favor of the established church and the other in favor of disestablishment. Would a Catholic be able to vote in favor of the establishment party?
Reply
#34
(08-06-2012, 05:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-06-2012, 11:54 AM)Walty Wrote:
(08-06-2012, 04:22 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: It would be better if the U.S. were officially protestant with tolerance for Catholics (as this is an error in fact), than the current situation today, wherein religious liberty is a fundamental principle (error in principle).

This.

At least Protestantism is still theism.  In fact, the Protestants still worship Jesus Christ and give Him due praise for being Our God and Our Savior.  The current setup in America is secularism and Enlightenment philosophy.  God is either irrelevant, faceless, and utterly transcendent or He doesn't exist at all.

Christ is the center of all good things.  The American government makes absolutely no mention of Christ. 

I agree with you on this, but if a Catholic were living in a state that had an established Protestant church, would he be allowed to support this? For instance, say that in this state there are two political factions: one in favor of the established church and the other in favor of disestablishment. Would a Catholic be able to vote in favor of the establishment party?

I wonder how Catholics have felt and do feel about disestablishing the Church of England.
Reply
#35
It depends. If they were to disestablish the CofE in favor of atheism, indifferentism, or pluralism, I would be against it, as I think would any Catholic be before 1965.
Reply
#36
(08-06-2012, 06:29 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: It depends. If they were to disestablish the CofE in favor of atheism, indifferentism, or pluralism, I would be against it, as I think would any Catholic be before 1965.

This.

It's a matter of voting for the system that is better.  We cannot vote for something inherently evil, but we can vote for something that is deficient or less than ideal.
Reply
#37
(08-06-2012, 05:11 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(08-06-2012, 04:57 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote:
(08-06-2012, 01:12 PM)Tim Wrote: It's also obvious to me in the notion that commerce should not be morally regulated, or as they say greed is good. It's apparent in the federal government wanting to supplant the Church and it's mission to the poor and needy like Julian the Apostate. On the flip side the Deists and the Prots were opposed to Krazy King George, and all but one had a book written about this KK George and his Divine Right, which if I remember correctly was called Cathedra. In the book it was argued that KK George and Divine Right was phooey, and it was supported by the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Roberto Bellarmine, and Fr. Suaez. My point is there is some good in the Republic's founding documents, and they all shouldn't be tossed. What they need is more of the same.

tim 

Yes, the Divine Right of Kings is a Protestant ideology (not a Catholic social doctrine) that arose from their rejection of the papacy.  When you kick out Catholicism (which includes ultramontanism) all you have is whatever Protestant monarch you live under as a fellow Protestant.

The quoted Saints point out that a monarch has a duty to his people, and that abuse of his power and authority will lead to divine providence's retribution, which at times manifests itself as rebellion.  Though, those saints also pointed out the monarch is still the monarch, with his power and authority only present because of God giving them these things because of the good they will do with them or permitting them to have these things, though evil is done through them for a greater good later.

If the republics got anything right, they did so in aspects the Church ALREADY got right much earlier on. I don't know why "King" George was cited in this thread, though I am a Jacobite as far as the British throne goes.

You do know that the Church recognizes the House of Hanover, right?

Nope.  I doubt whatever it was constituted "the Church".
Reply
#38
(08-06-2012, 11:40 PM)LoneWolfRadTrad Wrote: Nope.  I doubt whatever it was constituted "the Church".

"Diplomatic relations were restored, under HM King George V, in 1914 with a ‘Special Mission to the Vatican’ which was renamed ‘His Majesty's Legation to the Holy See’ in 1923. The Mission was raised to full Ambassadorial status in 1982 in the Reign of HM Queen Elizabeth II and the Pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II."

"The Memorial  on "The Indispensable Necessity for the Holy See to Recognise the House of Stuart as the Only True and Legitimate Successors of the Kingdom of England" of His Most Eminent Royal Highness, Henry, Cardinal Duke of York to the Holy See imploring recognition of his brother, His Royal Highness Charles Edward Stuart as King of England:

http://jacobite.ca/documents/17650000.htm

The response of the Holy See, refusing to do so, thus recognising, de facto, the House of Hanover:

http://jacobite.ca/documents/17660114.htm"

------------------

See also:

http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2011/05/j...in-et.html
Reply
#39
Ah the Americanism charges here. I feel perfectly comfortable as a Catholic supporting our Constitution and constitutional government as was written. While I respect the monarchists, constitutional republicanism is not inherently anti-Catholic nor is it Americanism.
Reply
#40
(08-09-2012, 12:31 AM)vtcatholic Wrote: Ah the Americanism charges here. I feel perfectly comfortable as a Catholic supporting our Constitution and constitutional government as was written. While I respect the monarchists, constitutional republicanism is not inherently anti-Catholic nor is it Americanism.

Yes, but the US isn't simply a constitutional republic. The ideals and principles in the Constitution are inherently anti-Catholic and evil.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)