The heresy of Americanism!
#51
Quote: Americans are uber-controlled by technology... It's a land of laws gone crazy, run by lawless banks and corporations and lobbies. She is overrun by illegal immigrants. (Dedicated to the great big sidereal garden in the sky, utopia, but too proud to tend to her own patch).

Many of her cities are more violent than Irak...

The system stinks...
  Crime is due to our large illegal immigration problem and the former slaves.  For the latter, that is what we get for practicing slavery.  Still, that population was ruined after the creation of the "war on poverty", made possible by a large Catholic vote and strongly supported by Catholic bishops spouting "social justice".  It is also unconstitutional, violating our requirement for subsidiarity.

We also have a large immoral jewish population.  They have a heavy concentration in the banking sector and in Hollywood.

The "uber-controlled by technology" is hilarious coming from a European.  Check out London, where you are spied upon.

America is crashing down.  In large part due to a Catholic Church that failed to fight, and even promoted marxism, even to this day.

Still it leads the pro-life fight, and is either first or second when it comes to the Traditional movement.

The other thing, the USA was never a Catholic country.  And the fact that we are the leaders in the pro-life movement and pro-marriage movement means Italians, the French, and Spaniards must hang their heads in shame.  Those were Catholic countries, and they turned their backs on Christ.  Shameful.
Reply
#52
(08-09-2012, 04:10 AM)Walty Wrote:
(08-09-2012, 03:58 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: There is nothing in the text of the Constitution--as an educated American would have interpreted it in the 1780s--that contradicts our faith.

Really?


42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers [Church and State], the civil law prevails.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

The above are just some of the condemned philosophies which can be found in the American Constitution.

Walty, you can't make the Syllabus into a super-dogma.  It was never intended to be so (read the Catholic encyclopedia's article on it). You have to go to the allocutions, etc. cited.  The Syllabus leaves each proposition at the same theological level it was in the original allocution.  For example, I'll let Cardinal Newman explain #77 (the CE articles gives other examples) (the emphasis is Newman's):

Newman Wrote:1. For instance, take his own 16th (the 77th of the "erroneous Propositions"), that, "It is no longer expedient that the Catholic Religion should be established to the exclusion of all others." When we turn to the Allocution, which is the ground of its being put into the Syllabus, what do we find there? First, that the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of "his wonder and distress." And again, taking the Pope's remonstrance as it stands, is it any great cause of complaint to Englishmen, who so lately were severe in their legislation upon Unitarians, Catholics, unbelievers, and others, that the Pope merely does not think it expedient for every state from this time forth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is all that he denies. As in the instance in the foregoing section, he does but deny a universal, which the "erroneous proposition" asserts without any explanation. {286}
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglic...tion7.html

#42 comes from an allocution dealing with an assertion that ultimately the state has supreme authority in ecclesiastical affairs (see also #41)--the Pope here is merely also denying a universal (see the link above, it is labeled the "10th error", since it was number 10 in Gladstones list of objections). Newman doesn't discuss #55, but this also deals with the erroneous idea that all ties and formal agreements and protections should always be completely done away with.

Reply
#53
Salve James02,

For the most part, I agree. We've all been liberalized, judaized, masonized and anglo-americanized. Kumbayah is a wonderful thing, but needs lots of orthodoxy to work... and that was cast away, consumed.

My point is that America with a pretty good Constitution has failed because her true religion "MONEY" has failed despite having near infinite resources, the best schools, the greatest technology, wonderful infrastructure.

She is a totalitarian two-party system in which the mere mention of real problems and their causes will get your butt kicked. Europe in many ways is worse, but whereas once there was America to look to, now we must set our eyes elswhere (or within).

There is no solution without repentance.

The worship of contentless Freedom must end.

Free has meant fatherless kids and jobs hurled overseas to where they still venerate the mummy of Humanity's N° killer.

Free has meant giving personhood to corporations and the profit-motive of very few over the well-being of the multitudes. It has meant focus on atomized human beings instead of families.

Reply
#54
Well said Jake the rake !!!

tim
Reply
#55
(08-09-2012, 07:47 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(08-09-2012, 04:10 AM)Walty Wrote:
(08-09-2012, 03:58 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: There is nothing in the text of the Constitution--as an educated American would have interpreted it in the 1780s--that contradicts our faith.

Really?


42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers [Church and State], the civil law prevails.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

The above are just some of the condemned philosophies which can be found in the American Constitution.

Walty, you can't make the Syllabus into a super-dogma. 

Oh, I've heard this argument before.

At any rate, I don't think I'm turning it into a super-dogma as much as I'm just not ignoring it.  I wonder how, if you reject the universal truth and application of these condemnations, you accept it at all.  And yet I'm the one who isn't approaching the authority of the documents correctly?
Reply
#56
(08-09-2012, 01:23 PM)Walty Wrote: Walty, you can't make the Syllabus into a super-dogma. 

Oh, I've heard this argument before.

At any rate, I don't think I'm turning it into a super-dogma as much as I'm just not ignoring it.  I wonder how, if you reject the universal truth and application of these condemnations, you accept it at all.  And yet I'm the one who isn't approaching the authority of the documents correctly?
[/quote]

Just as an FYI, the Syllabus contains the teachings of St. Thomas, and even St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom on religious liberty. No manual or orthodox theologian challenged this teaching before the Council. Pope Pius XII affirmed it in Ci Riesce, and so did Cardinal Ottaviani in his On the Relations between the Church and the State, and On Religious Tolerance.

All of this changed in the document Dignitatis Humanae, which Cardinal Bea supported, and John Courtney Murray wrote. However, now we have to start saying black is white, and have to follow the twisting and churning of Fr. Y. and Professor X. who somehow "save" the document, yet, none of the world's bishops nor the popes interpret the document in the way they do.
Reply
#57
Please excuse formatting errors in the above post.
Reply
#58
(08-09-2012, 01:23 PM)Walty Wrote: Oh, I've heard this argument before.

At any rate, I don't think I'm turning it into a super-dogma as much as I'm just not ignoring it.  I wonder how, if you reject the universal truth and application of these condemnations, you accept it at all.  And yet I'm the one who isn't approaching the authority of the documents correctly?

I'm not arguing that it needs to be ignored, just received at the level it should traditionally be and not misapplied (I would say the same thing to someone who tried to do the same with the CCC). I'm simply arguing here that the US Constitution isn't necessarily condemned by the propositions you cited.

Each proposition has different weight--the Syllabus is like a summary or index pointing you to the place where the error is dealt with.  It is not like condemned lists of errors like Exsurge Domine, Coelestis Pastor, Unigenitus, etc., etc..  Early drafts were actually like those documents, complete with theological notes attached to each proposition (the list of propositions was originally different as well), but the Pope replaced that drafting commission with another that produced the final text, replacing the theological notes with references to the original texts.  The Pope could have appears to have specifically chosen to merely re-present what he had said in past allocutions, etc. without any of the language traditionally used to denote definitive condemnations (although some of the individual sources do use such langauge; these should of course be treated as univerally definitive).

The source is especially key with the Syllabus because we are dealing with condemnations, many of which refer to erroneous books, etc. Traditionally, if the condemnation refers to a particular quote, it is only condemned in the sense of the original.  Furthermore, the traditional way of interpreting condemnations is that the Church believes a contradictory, not the contrary. When a universal and sweeping statement is condemned, it only implies the Church believes in at least one exeption to the universal statement, not that it believes the contrary universal statement.  Both of these rules are key, for example, when reconciling the anti-Pelagian condemnations of Innocent I, Zosimus, and Boniface II, with condemnations of 16th-18th century works of the Jansenists and others concerning various errors relating to grace and free will.

So, back to the issues at hand: the US Constitution.  The ideal is always that everyone should be Catholic and live in a political sitution where Church and State form essentially one society (ie where all subjects and rulers are also subjects of the Church and live and govern according to true justice, etc. and Church and state work closely together and support each other in mutual concord).  At the time the referenced allocutions were issued, such a situation (or at least as close as probably possible in our fallen world) was present in Spain and elsewhere.  And yet, there were those who argued that it was best for such situations to be done away with (St. Anthony Mary Claret's autobiography provides some first-hand insight on what was going on in Spain at the time).  That is what was being condemned.  The contrary, that no separation is ever legitimate, is not being asserted.  If a fellow Catholic tried to assert such a universal, I would not ignore the Syllabus, but defintely reference it in my attempted refutation, but I would not use it where it did not apply.

The US was and is a completely different situation--very diverse and with a minority Catholic population.

The CE notes the following:

Quote:If the modern claim of general separation between Church and State is rejected, as in thesis 55, it does not follow that separation is not permissible in any case. If it be false to say that matrimony by its very nature is subject to the civil power (thesis 74), it is not necessarily correct to assert that it is in no way subject to the State. While thesis 77 condemns the statement that in our time it is no longer expedient to consider the Catholic religion as the only State religion to the exclusion of all other cults, it follows merely that today also the exclusion of non-Catholic cults may prove expedient, if certain conditions be realized. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm
("separation" here is not meant to imply the government can legislate contrary to the natural law).

If those conditions are present anywhere, it's the US. 

At the time the Syllabus came out, there were some who were reading it as you do, both outside and inside the Church, especially in France.  Felix Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, intervened making the same argument I am trying to make (which was also made by Newman, Von Kettler, and others--none of these men were censured for it--quite the opposite--they received praise and honors from the Popes). Dupanloup's objectors made the same claim you are, that he was essentially neutering the Syllabus or even going contrary to it; on the other hand, Dupanloup received a letter of commendation from Bl. Pius IX for his interevention.  His intervention can be found here, albeit interspersed with the blog owners commentary. 
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/08/int...art-i.html







Reply
#59
(08-09-2012, 06:56 AM)James02 Wrote: Lack of a confessional state was the fatal flaw.  Abortion, paper money, and the growth of the nanny State all came about by unconstitutional actions.

The Supreme Court declaring something to be constitutional is not unconstitutional. For better or worse, it's part of the system, and is how "separate but equal" became "separate is inherently unequal." It happens in criminal law, too. See Fulminante v. Arizona.

Liberal and secular democracy is inherently flawed because it maintains things such as the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." When the legal system becomes divorced from God's eternal laws, this is what happens.
Reply
#60
(08-09-2012, 06:56 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: The Constitution is full of errors.

Why the need to exaggerate?  The only errors I can think of:
1.  Complete freedom of the press.
2.  Not a Catholic confessional State.
3.  Slavery is allowed.  Though it was allowed in many Catholic countries, the Church was against slavery.

Advantages:
1.  Subsidiarity
2.  Protections for citizens (these actually constitute many items in this list)
3.  Checks and balances
4.  Gold or silver money

The big problem came from amendments.   The biggest problem was the income tax, which was ratified in the early 20th century.  I'm hoping that the presence of a large Catholic immigration population did not have anything to do with it.  I've never studied it.

Lack of a confessional state was the fatal flaw.  Abortion, paper money, and the growth of the nanny State all came about by unconstitutional actions.

Abortion came about because the Catholic Church failed in her duty and did not fight it.  In over 50 years during this pro-life war, I don't think 1 politician has been excommunicated.

???

We don't have subsidiarity.  We have compartmentalization.

Protection for citizens?  That include protection of error, something a state should defend it's citizens from.  No dice.

Checks and balances?  On paper, not in practice.

We have no gold or silver, it's all fiat.  Fort Knox is probably empty, they refuse to do an audit.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)