American Revolution and Freemasonry
#31
I also keep this in mind:

But sedition and rebellion are illicit 1763, 1850, 1868, 1878, 2278; for the authority of the government in itself is given immediately by God 1856 f., 1868, 1934 (it does not arise from a contract 1856), and is even in a sinner 595, 597, 656.

See: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...3270621.0;

I do not argue an overthrow of the US gov't.
Reply
#32
And yet despite all the anti-Catholic bigots in the US, the minority of Catholics were protected equally under the law and Catholicism was allowed to thrive, while Catholics in other countries where they were the majority were persecuted.  So complain all you want, but the results speak for themselves.  The less government, the better. 
Reply
#33
(01-27-2012, 05:37 AM)PeterII Wrote: And yet despite all the anti-Catholic bigots in the US, the minority of Catholics were protected equally under the law and Catholicism was allowed to thrive, while Catholics in other countries where they were the majority were persecuted.  So complain all you want, but the results speak for themselves.  The less government, the better. 

That's interesting, because last I checked practicing Roman Catholics are about to be given the choice by Obama's HHS: subscribe to abortion and contraceptive services or pay with fines and/or jail time.

The United States was clearly founded on pretty viciously anti-Catholic principles, right from the start with the Pilgrims.  Eventually, this fringe Protestantism morphed into a sort of deism and 'pursuit of property' with neo-paganism mixed in for good measure.

The Quebec Acts were used to stir up people against their lawful ruler, King George III.  But it was not an underclass vs. the landed class fight.  Rather, the richest Americans tended to support the revolt while other economic and social groups were more split.  Remember over a third of America was loyalist and fought for or supported the King. 

This deification of the individual and rejection of leadership was the natural consequence to Protestantism of course.  Instead of seeing that the family has rights, selfish people wanted to throw off the ‘chains’ of their leader so that they could pursue arbitrary choices, that is a warped sense of liberty.

Many of the American Founders hated the Church and did cheer the revolt in France.  One need not be a Freemason to harbor these attitudes as we can see by assessing Thomas Jefferson’s various screeds.

Once Catholicism became more or less permitted in the United States, the hierarchy in America was constantly split between progressives (republican pluralists, who supported the notion of religious freedom) and those supporting the Church’s teachings (i.e., non-Catholics need to convert.)

Some things to point out about Papal praise of America.  First, context is critical: I think one Pope gave a line of praise when discussing the Barbary Pirates for example.

Beyond that, America was not even close to an immediate concern for Rome, so any commentary on the United States would have to be studied in much more depth than just one-liners.  And of course, Popes can be wrong about a lot of things.

The fact is that we need to transform America, not rediscover its dreamy colonial past of small farms, pilgrim hats, and innocent niceness.  Small farms existed, but that was about it.  America was, and is, deeply anti-Catholic.

And of course it is.  One cannot serve two masters and overwhelmingly America has chosen and chooses today to serve the Prince of the World.
Reply
#34
Louis XIV (yes !) and Lafayette were masons too.
Reply
#35
(01-27-2012, 08:42 AM)kingtheoden Wrote:
(01-27-2012, 05:37 AM)PeterII Wrote: And yet despite all the anti-Catholic bigots in the US, the minority of Catholics were protected equally under the law and Catholicism was allowed to thrive, while Catholics in other countries where they were the majority were persecuted.  So complain all you want, but the results speak for themselves.  The less government, the better. 

That's interesting, because last I checked practicing Roman Catholics are about to be given the choice by Obama's HHS: subscribe to abortion and contraceptive services or pay with fines and/or jail time.

The United States was clearly founded on pretty viciously anti-Catholic principles, right from the start with the Pilgrims.  Eventually, this fringe Protestantism morphed into a sort of deism and 'pursuit of property' with neo-paganism mixed in for good measure.

The Quebec Acts were used to stir up people against their lawful ruler, King George III.  But it was not an underclass vs. the landed class fight.  Rather, the richest Americans tended to support the revolt while other economic and social groups were more split.  Remember over a third of America was loyalist and fought for or supported the King. 

This deification of the individual and rejection of leadership was the natural consequence to Protestantism of course.  Instead of seeing that the family has rights, selfish people wanted to throw off the ‘chains’ of their leader so that they could pursue arbitrary choices, that is a warped sense of liberty.

Many of the American Founders hated the Church and did cheer the revolt in France.  One need not be a Freemason to harbor these attitudes as we can see by assessing Thomas Jefferson’s various screeds.

Once Catholicism became more or less permitted in the United States, the hierarchy in America was constantly split between progressives (republican pluralists, who supported the notion of religious freedom) and those supporting the Church’s teachings (i.e., non-Catholics need to convert.)

Some things to point out about Papal praise of America.  First, context is critical: I think one Pope gave a line of praise when discussing the Barbary Pirates for example.

Beyond that, America was not even close to an immediate concern for Rome, so any commentary on the United States would have to be studied in much more depth than just one-liners.  And of course, Popes can be wrong about a lot of things.

The fact is that we need to transform America, not rediscover its dreamy colonial past of small farms, pilgrim hats, and innocent niceness.  Small farms existed, but that was about it.  America was, and is, deeply anti-Catholic.

And of course it is.  One cannot serve two masters and overwhelmingly America has chosen and chooses today to serve the Prince of the World.

But family rights can only build off of the individual and property rights which the Americans fought for.  Family rights aren't going to mean much if you're a hungry slave. 

Quebec, once the poster child of the Social Reign of Christ the King in North America, is now a socialist utopia - which is a plague on the family.  That's what happens when you rely on government.
Reply
#36
(01-27-2012, 12:10 PM)maso Wrote: Louis XIV (yes !) (was a) mason() too.

Fascinating! How did they initiate his corpse, since he was dead two years before the first Lodge was established in England? Did they carry the body to England or did the Lodge send an initiation team to his gravesite?
Reply
#37
(01-27-2012, 03:18 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-27-2012, 12:10 PM)maso Wrote: Louis XIV (yes !) (was a) mason() too.

Fascinating! How did they initiate his corpse, since he was dead two years before the first Lodge was established in England? Did they carry the body to England or did the Lodge send an initiation team to his gravesite?

Despite apparently accurate claims that the organization did not even exist during Louis XIV's life, the Freemasons THEMSELVES claim otherwise, and say that they date back to Ancient Egypt. It is therefore POSSIBLE that Louis XVI may have joined the organization. Significtantly, our top researchers have NOT been able to DISPROVE Louis' membership in the Masons, and, most importantly, NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE.

(shamelessly stolen and altered from the Society of Saint Pius I: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-reli...6639/posts )
Reply
#38
(01-27-2012, 03:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-27-2012, 03:18 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-27-2012, 12:10 PM)maso Wrote: Louis XIV (yes !) (was a) mason() too.

Fascinating! How did they initiate his corpse, since he was dead two years before the first Lodge was established in England? Did they carry the body to England or did the Lodge send an initiation team to his gravesite?

Despite apparently accurate claims that the organization did not even exist during Louis XIV's life, the Freemasons THEMSELVES claim otherwise, and say that they date back to Ancient Egypt. It is therefore POSSIBLE that Louis XVI may have joined the organization. Significtantly, our top researchers have NOT been able to DISPROVE Louis' membership in the Masons, and, most importantly, NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE.

(shamelessly stolen and altered from the Society of Saint Pius I: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-reli...6639/posts )

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Reply
#39
What can be said about Quebec and govt can also be said about the Church. Laity and clergy of all levels simply obeyed, and look where we are now.

Just because the political structures of the US could be used for the benefit of Catholics does not mean they are good.
Reply
#40
On the other hand, nothing makes America look better than the countries of former Christendom...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)