One of the big stories in the U.S. over the last week or so concerns the confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill for Circuit Court of Appeals judicial nominee Amy Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven.
At issue is the line of questioning directed at Mrs. Barrett courtesy of democrat senators who are concerned that her faith might influence her jurisprudence in such cases as those involving abortion and LGBT so-called “rights.”
The biggest offender was Senator Diane Feinstein who challenged Mrs. Barrett saying:
When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.
Senator Dick Durbin even went so far as to ask Mrs. Barrett:
Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?
The senators’ remarks elicited a great deal of outrage in Catholic media. Overlooked in the process almost entirely, however, is the testimony of the nominee.
Mrs. Barrett is a former law clerk of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (about whom I’ve written quite a bit on these pages); a “constitutional originalist” who believed that a judge can rule against the Divine Law (and hence, the Divine Lawgiver) and yet still lay claim to being a faithful Catholic.
Apparently, Mrs. Barrett holds a similar view as suggested by her response to Sen. Durbin:
If you’re asking whether I’m a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.
As was made perfectly plain in the aftermath of Justice Scalia’s death, this is what passes for devout, and even traditional, Catholicism in the United States these days; even by some who claim to be “traditionalists” and yet reverence the U.S. Constitution with an esteem that should be reserved for holy writ.
Speaking of the U.S. Constitution…
One of the more common themes present in the Catholic (and politically conservative) media’s coverage of Mrs. Barrett’s confirmation hearings concerns the Constitution’s so-called “No Religious Test” clause.
The neo-conservative organization Catholic Vote, for instance, complained:
Such bigotry has no place in our politics and reeks of an unconstitutional religious test for qualification to participate in the judiciary.
The clause itself (found in Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution) reads:
…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Even though the words “no religious test” do indeed appear in the text, the notion that the concept actually exists is a lie, which should come as little surprise given that the Constitution itself is constructed upon a lie – a religious lie.
How so?
The First Amendment of U.S. Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is the vaunted “first freedom” (the supposed right to religious liberty) that Americanist bishops like Charles Chaput and William Lori can’t preach enough.
Please allow me to translate the text according to a Catholic understanding:
In these United States, the legitimate civil authority is strictly forbidden by law to officially recognize Christ the King and His Sovereign authority over “all things in Heaven and on earth” (cf Matthew 28:18), which includes the singular authority and right to define what is objectively just, and moral, and what is not.
The government of this nation is likewise forbidden to acknowledge the objective truth that the Holy Catholic Church was established by Christ the King to speak in His name in such way that “He who hears the Church hears Christ, and he who rejects the Church rejects Christ and likewise rejects the ‘Creator’ (mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) who sent Him” (cf Luke 10:16).
The Constitution requires, by contrast, that the legitimate civil authority treat the various false religions and their false doctrines as if they are of equal stature under the law as the one true religion, and indeed Truth itself.
This is the so-called “Great Experiment” that anyone worthy of the name Catholic should readily recognize as nothing more than a “Great Lie,” and likewise, the claim that there is “no religious test” in this country.
In reality, there most certainly is a religious test that one must pass in order to serve in certain pubic offices, most notably the judiciary, and it’s a test that ultimately poses just one “yes/no” question – let’s call it the Constitutional Dubium:
In cases where a conflict arises between the Divine Law and the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King on the one hand, and the democratic process, states’ rights, and judicial precedent, etc., on the other, are you willing to deny Christ?
The rejoinder of those who view such things in an anthropocentric way, as we are seeing, is always the same: It’s unconstitutional!
Those who are willing and able to view the matter in a Christocentric way; i.e., in the light of Truth, however, recognize that the Constitution isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.
You see, as the First Amendment makes plain, such things as the democratic process, states’ rights, and judicial precedent, etc., are, and have been, established under the presumption (more accurately, the lie) that the one true religion and Truth itself are of no more value in civil society than the various false religions, their false gods, and all of their false doctrines.
Of course, the Devil (who has a hand in everything that stands in the way of Our Lord’s reign), is far too clever to urge men to ask so direct a question as, Are you willing to deny the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King?
And yet, for those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear, we know that another way of asking this very same question of a judicial nominee is simply this:
Do you solemnly pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution?
As such, like it or not, while Senators Feinstein and Durbin are reprehensible in many other ways, in the present case, they are simply being good little Americans.
Louie, as always, you make great points. However, is it logical to expect the US Constitution to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King, when the Vatican doesn’t. Unless you are a Catholic like Kennedy and Cuomo, you don’t stand a chance.
Louie, I do not doubt for one second that your thinking and conclusions point towards authentic Church doctrine. However, let us remember that Jesus also said to “Render unto Caeser what is Ceaser’s, but render unto God what is God’s.” That said, I spent thirty years of my life serving this great country wearing the uniform of the US Army. I swore to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic- an oath I will hold until I die (I am retired commissioned officer). Our great nation is not perfect, but it is the BEST Republic EVER established in the history of the world. I am not saying I think your commentary bashes the US. However, we need to keep everything in perspective. There is no other country in the world (save Vatican City- depending on who occupies the Throne of Peter) I would rather live. And, I thank God Almighty that He willed my birth and life to take place here. Our Founding Fathers did the best they could- and no one- NO ONE else has EVER come up with a better form of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
God Bless.
Catholic writer, Solange Strong Hertz, one of the first to speak out about the problems of Vatican II, wrote in her article “Democracy, Monarchy and the Fourth Commandment” (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/democ.htm) that “the Apostle St. Jude wrote about the first stirrings of the revolt against Christ the Universal King begun by men who ‘defile the flesh and despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.’ “He characterizes them as blaspheming ‘whatsoever things that know not; and what things soever they naturally know like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted…raging waves of the sea, foaming out their confusion, wandering stars; to whom the storm of darkness is reserved forever…These are murmurers full of complaints, walking according to their own desires, and their mouth speak proud things, admiring persons for gain’s sake.”
“St. Jude says that these rebels against God’s rule ‘have gone in the way of Cain’.
Further she writes: “The secular world government now in the making can trace its line of descent directly to Cain, who, even before murdering his brother Abel, had already declared his independence by opting to worship God in his own way, making an offering of ‘fruits of the earth’ to which God ‘had no respect’.”
“Cain proceeded to slaughter his brother and incurred God’s curse. The ‘culture of death’ had begun.”
Later she writes: “Under the name of democracy, the only political system the world has ever known which makes man his own sovereign by declaring him free and equal to all others, and thus able to exercise tyranny over everyone else” and thus, as Tage Lindborn in “The Myth of Democracy” puts it this way: ‘There is nothing a priori, nothing anterior to democratic power; no ideas of truth, no notions of good or bad, can bind the Popular Will. This ‘will’ is free in the sense that it stands above all notions of value, it is egalitarian because it is reared on arithmetic equality, in the traditional order there was a qualitative duality, because there was a divine Source of power, a higher Will that always allowed room for forgiveness, consolation, charity. The Popular Will knows none of this; its sentences are implacable. It is not open to any appeal, it listens to no demand for grace, no plea for compassion. Like the Sphinx, the Popular Will is immovable in its enigmatic silence. The democratic myth is now complete in its sham ‘trinitarian’ unity. Mankind is free, equal and almighty.”
Strong Hertz writes: “Today the universal acceptance of government separated from religion has spread Cain’s independent city over the whole earth. As we have seen, not only civil organizations, but the Holy Catholic Church herself has slipped within its political orbit now that two conciliar Popes, following the lead of the Second Vatican Council, have endorsed on three separate occasions the godless United Nations as an international authority. In none of these momentous declarations was the Universal Kingship of Christ, the King, ‘appointed heir of all things’ (Heb. 1:2), mentioned even in passing as a political factor, let alone acknowledged as the sole true hope of the world.”
Separation between Church and State:
The Separation of Church and State: its ideology and its consequences:
What ideology inspires those who work for the separation of Church and State? “There are (…) who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State.” [Leo XIII: Encyclical: Libertas, June 20, 1888 (PE 103; 18)] What principles push them towards a total and radical separation of Church and State? “Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs and laws, the offices of State, and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the Church than if she did not exist; and, at most, would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private if so minded.” [Leo XIII: Encyclical: Libertas, June 20, 1888 (PE 103; 39)] What are the political results of the separation of Church and State, in those countries where such is practised?
“If in any State the Church retains her own agreement publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of the State. Their object in uttering this cry is to be able to violate unpunished their plighted faith, and in all things to have unchecked control. And as the Church, unable to abandon her chief and most sacred duties, cannot patiently put up with this, and asks that the pledge given to her be fully and scrupulously acted up to, contentions frequently arise between the ecclesiastical and the civil power, of which the issue commonly is that the weaker power yields to the one which is stronger in human resources. Accordingly, it has become the practice and determination under this condition of public policy (now so much admired by many) either to forbid the action of the Church altogether, or to keep her in check and bondage to the State. Public enactments are in great measure framed with this design. The drawing up of laws, the administration of State affairs, the godless education of youth, the spoliation and suppression of religious orders, the overthrow of the temporal power of the Roman Pontiff, all alike aim to this one end – to paralyse the action of Christian institutions, to cramp to the utmost the freedom of the Catholic Church, and to curtail her every single prerogative.” [Leo XIII: Encyclical: Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885 (PE 93; 27-29)] B. The Separation of Church and State: the Catholic position:
Has the need to separate Church and State been admitted by the Popes? No, it has been rejected by numerous Sovereign Pontiffs, notably such as: Gregory XVI: Encyclical: Mirari vos, Aug. 15, 1832. (PE 33; 20)
Pius IX: Allocution to the Consistory: Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852. Encyclical: Quanta cura, Dec. 8, 1864. (PE 63) Syllabus, Dec. 8, 1864: prop 55.
Leo XIII: Encyclical: Cum multa, Dec. 8, 1882. (PE 88) Encyclical: Humanum genus, April 20, 1884. (PE 91; 13 ff) Encyclical: Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885. (PE 93; 27 ff) Encyclical: Libertas, June 20, 1888. (PE 103; 18 ff) Encyclical: Au milieu des sollicitudes, Feb. 16, 1892. (PE 119; 28 ff) Letter Longinqua, Jan. 6, 1895. (PE 134; 3 ff)
Saint Pius X: Allocution to the Secret Consistory, Amplissimum coetum, March 27, 1905. Encyclical: Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906. (PE 169; 1 ff) Allocution to the Consistory: Gravissimum apostolici, Feb. 21, 1906. Encyclical: Gravissimo officii, Aug. 10, 1906. (PE 172; 1 ff) Letter: Le moment, May 17, 1908. Encyclical: Jamdudum, May 24, 1911. (PE 177; 2 ff)
Pius XI: Encyclical Maximam Gravissimamque, Jan. 18, 1924. (PE 196; 2 ff) Allocution: Jam annus, to the Secret Consistory, Dec. 14, 1925. Encyclical: Iniquis afflictisque, Nov. 18, 1926. (PE 200; 8 ff) Encyclical: Dilectissima Nobis, June 3, 1933. (PE 215; 6 ff)
Pius XII: Allocution to some Italian Catholic Jurists, Dec. 6, 1953. Why is the saying that the State and the Church must necessarily be separated a false and dangerous theory? There is a pernicious error in saying Church and State necessarily must function separately:
First reason: “Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognise any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honour Him.”
Second reason: “This thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the achievement of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this achievement, but must aid us in effecting it.”
Third reason: “The same thesis (…) upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, have in fact the same subjects, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these converging interests will spring the seeds of disputes which will become very conflicting on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise.”
Fourth reason: “This thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and duties of men.” [Pius X: Encyclical: Vehementer nos, Feb. 11, 1906. (PE 169; 3)] How can it be claimed that the separation of Church and State is absurd? “As soon as the State refuses to give to God what belongs to God, by a necessary consequence it refuses to give to citizens that to which, as men, they have a right; as, whether agreeable or not to accept, it cannot be denied that man’s rights spring from his duty toward God. Whence it follows that the State, by missing in this connection the principal object of its institution, finally becomes false to itself by denying that which is the reason of its own existence. These superior truths are so clearly proclaimed by the voice of even natural reason, that they force themselves upon all who are not blinded by the violence of passion.” [Leo XIII, Encyclical: Au milieu des sollicitudes, Feb. 16, 1892. (PE 119; 28)] C. Consequences resulting from the Catholic position concerning the separation of Church and State:
Following on the decisions of the Popes in this matter, what are the truths which every Catholic must hold on this question?
“From these pronouncements of the Popes it is evident that the origin of public power is to be sought for in God Himself, and not in the multitude, and it is repugnant to reason to allow free scope for sedition. Again, that it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favour different kinds of religion; that the unrestrained freedom of thinking and of openly making known one’s thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens, and is by no means to be reckoned worthy of favour and support. In like manner it is to be understood that the Church no less than the State itself is a society perfect in its own nature and its own right, and that those who exercise sovereignty ought not so to act as to compel the Church to become subservient or subject to them, or to hamper her liberty in the management of her own affairs, or to despoil her in any way of the other privileges conferred upon her by Jesus Christ. In matters, however, of mixed jurisdiction, it is in the highest degree consonant to nature, as also to the designs of God, that so far from one of the powers separating itself from the other, or still less coming into conflict with it, complete harmony, such as is suited to the end for which each power exists, should be preserved between them.” [Leo XIII, Encyclical: Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885. (PE 93 35)] How then is one to think of the reasoning of them that want to have Church and State separated?
“To have in public matters no care for religion, and in the arrangement and administration of civil affairs to have no more regard for God than if He did not exist, is a rashness unknown to the very pagans; for in their heart and soul the notion of a divinity and the need of public religion were so firmly fixed that they would have thought it easier to have a city without foundation than a city without God. Human society, indeed for which by nature we are formed, has been constituted by God the Author of nature; and from Him, as from their principle and source, flow in all their strength and permanence the countless benefits with which society abounds. As we are each of us admonished by the very voice of nature to worship God in piety and holiness, as the Giver unto us of life and of all that is good therein, so also and for the same reason, nations and States are bound to worship Him; and therefore it is clear that those who would absolve society from all religious duty act not only unjustly but also with ignorance and folly. “As men are by the will of God born for civil union and society, and as the power to rule is so necessary a bond of society that, if it be taken away, society must at once be broken up, it follows that from Him who is the Author of society has come also the authority to rule; so that whosoever rules, he is the minister of God. Wherefore, as the end and nature of human society so requires, it is right to obey the just commands of lawful authority, as it is right to obey God who ruleth all things; and it is most untrue that the people have it in their power to cast aside their obedience whensoever they please.” [Leo XIII, Encyclical: Humanum genus, April 20, 1884. (PE 91; 24-25)] D. What conclusions can we draw from this Catholic Teaching?
“The spiritual and temporal orders being, therefore, distinct in their origin and in their nature, should be conceived and judged of as such. For matters of the temporary order – however lawful, however important they be – do not extend, when considered in themselves, beyond the limits of that life which we live on this our earth. But religion, born of God, and referring all things to God, takes a higher flight and touches heaven. For its will, its wish, is to penetrate the soul, man’s best part, with the knowledge and the love of God and to lead in safety the whole human race to that City of the Future for which we seek..
“It is then right to look on religion, and whatever is connected by any particular bond with it, as belonging to a higher order. Hence, in the vicissitudes of human affairs, and even in the very revolutions in States, religion, which is the supreme good, should remain intact; for it embraces all times and all places. Men of opposite parties, though differing in all else, should be agreed unanimously in this: that in the State the Catholic religion should be preserved in all its integrity. To this noble and indispensable aim, all who love the Catholic religion ought, as if bound by a compact, to direct all their efforts; they should be somewhat silent about their various political opinions, which they are, however, at perfect liberty to ventilate in their proper place: for the Church is far from condemning such matters, when they are not opposed to religion or justice; apart and removed from all the turmoil of strife, she carries on her work of fostering the common weal, and of cherishing all men with the love of a mother, those particularly whose faith and piety are greatest.” [Leo XIII: Encyclical: Cum multa, Dec. 8, 1882 (PE 88; 8-9)]
Note: All the above texts cited have been drawn from the following book: The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen IHM, The Pierian Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1990. For easy reference, it has been abbreviated: PE, followed by the encyclical’s number and occasionally also the paragraph’s number.
The United Nations: Chief Instrument of Russia’s Errors
by Cornelia R. Ferreira
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/seperation.htm
THE STAIN ON OLD GLORY
The hatred and persecution of the Catholic Church in America
Taken and adapted from “A Neglected Glory, the Catholic Presence in America,”
by Frank Moriss
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/history/stain.htm
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The election of Donald Trump:
The crowd voted for what they believed to be the “lesser of the two evils” on Good Friday. They were even bribed to do so. And Pontius Pilate, much like the careerist Catholic politicians today, washed his hands of the decision of the “majority,” taking refuge in the “vote” of the “people.”
It is not for nothing that a true champion of the Social Reign of Christ the King, Pope Pius IX, observed the following concerning the nature of the “universal franchise” that had come into vogue during his pontificate:
“To allow the masses, invariably uninformed and impulsive, to make decisions on the most serious matters, is this not to hand oneself over to chance and deliberately run towards the abyss? Yes, it would be more appropriate to call universal suffrage universal madness and, when the secret societies have taken control of it as is all too often the case, universal falsehood.” (Pope Pius IX, Statement to French pilgrims, May 5, 1874, cited by Abbe Georges de Nantes, CCR # 333, p. 24.)
“The men who founded the United States of America had a contempt for the “old ways” of Catholic Europe in the Middle Ages, believing themselves to be the evangelists, if you will, of what the gnostic political scientist Leo Strauss called “the new science of politics.” This “new science” was designed to blunt the force of the true Faith in public life by convincing one and all that it is “enough” to be “Americans” and that it is possible to pursue the common temporal good without reference to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they are explicated by Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, upon which rests the very fate of nations.
A system of false opposites has evolved over time that attempts to convince voters that they face “real” choices in every election, each of which is said to be the “most important election of our lifetimes,” when the fact is that adherents of the “left” and the “right” are in total agreement about the underlying premise of the American “experiment,” namely, that religious truth is a matter of complete indifference to the welfare of the “well-ordered” republic.”
Thomas A. Droleskey
Most Catholics in the United States of America were recruited by Antichrist to be his apologists precisely because of the “reconciliation” that Archbishop John Carroll and those who followed him made with the heresy of “religious liberty” as a “protection” of the life of the Catholic Church in a pluralistic society.
Most Catholics thus have been completely unaware that the very thing they exalted as a “protection” was, in truth, a trap to accustom them to think, speak and act as members of any Judeo-Masonic lodge, that is, naturalistically. And it was this very trap, which had different variations in Europe, of course, that helped to ensnare the minds of Modernists at home and abroad into becoming apologists of Judeo-Masonry in order to speak of that mythical “civilization of love” rather than to build up the Catholic City.
We are living in a time of fundamental apostasy, none of which can be issued by the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, mystical spouse of her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is not an “opinion.” This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Catholicism, nothing else. All must fall apart when men are divided over First and Last Things and spread error publicly while celebrating their “right” to do so.
The world of Modernity is premised upon the lie that it is possible for men to be well-ordered in their own personal lives that they can live within the framework of well-ordered republics. To profess believe in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ “personally” without acknowledging His Social Kingship over our nation is, to quote Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, the Bishop of Poitiers, France, from 1849 to 1880, is to say that He is not God.
Thomas A. Droleskey:
“The hatred of our founding fathers of the United States of America for Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His true Church should give all Catholic defenders of the American regime pause before they assert that these haters of God could serve as any sort of reliable guide whatsoever insofar as establishing and maintaining a just social order. These men rejected the Social Reign of Christ the King, positing instead the absolutely false belief that men could advance the common good without subordinating themselves in all that pertains to the good of souls to the Deposit of Faith that has been entrusted by God exclusively to the Catholic Church for its safekeeping and infallible explication and without a firm belief in, access to and cooperation with sanctifying grace in order to be virtuous and thus to scale the heights of sanctity.
Here are some of their anti-Catholic statements that offend God so much and wound His Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.”
Here is what John Adams had to say in his “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America”, 1787-1788:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of NATURE (my emphasis); and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstitition they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were man of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”
John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, 11 April, 1823, “Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J. Cappon, II, 594):
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding.”
John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 19 May 1821:
“Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?”
John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted in “200 Years of Disbelief” by James Hauck:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
James Madison, Letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June 1778:
“…Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.”
James Madison, “A Memoral and Remonstrance”, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstitition, bigotry, and persecution.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December, 1813:
“History, I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This markes the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Roger-Weigthman, June 24, 1826:
“May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”
Thomas A. Droleskey: “The anti-Incarnational lie of Americanism is the lie of Martin Luther and Judeo-Masonry all rolled into one, that is, the lie that the true Church must not be recognized by the civil state as its official religion.”
“To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and societies, is to say He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine.” —-Cardinal Pie of Poitiers
It isn’t any wonder that Catholics in America practice the religion of Americanism rather than Catholicism as the leaders here have led them to it.
The very first bishop in the U.S., the Jesuit-trained John Carroll (named in 1789), thought Holy Mass should be celebrated in English, and believed in the popular election of members of the episcopacy. He was also influential in the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is interpreted as guaranteeing separation of Church and state.
John Carrol’s cousin, Charles, the richest man in the Colonies when he signed the Declaration of Independence was a great champion of centralized government, the deadliest of enemies to true political freedom.
All 45 U.S. bishops, in Vatican I, opposed the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility. The majority of prelates from other parts of the world believed the definition necessary precisely in order to strengthen authoritative Church teaching against one of the liberal-democratic ideas that was foundational to the national ideology of the U.S., that of “freedom of conscience.”
Catholics in America, already used to hearing that the practice of the Faith, which requires doing the will of God, is perfectly compatible with liberal democracy’s tenet that the life of society should be governed according to the “will of the people” instead of God’s.
Then, naturally, the “seamless garment” theory of moral relativism naturally took hold when one’s conscience, formed in the heresy of Americanism, became the only moral authority and which, naturally, has led to “Catholics” leading the way to approval of abortion, sodomy, “same-sex marriage”, and other evils.
Well done Katherine (all of your posts collectively).
Al, and therein is the error. Its focus is Man and not God. Of the people, by the people, and for the people. I too used to admire these words until I came to understand the Kingship of Christ.
Simply awesome. Katherine. May I suggest at “seemless garment – {recall the one She made for Her Son, they caste lots for it] the apostate Romans wove moral relativism , marinated in heresy, formed in seminaries and protestant lairs, invited these satanic creatures to a wicked council. They called it progressive, ecumenical and these masons, tore down traditional virtues and released “new commandments” love, peace, flower power trending then to silence on abortion, gay friendly acts, and silence on pedastry, silence on heresy itself, most recent dubia territory a case in point. Fast posting the problem priest to another killing field of lambs and their children, empting the Church coffers in civil settlements and leaving Real Church buildings derelict pigeon roosts.[Chicago?]
This “new church” also marked its rounds by building satanic temples, like the one at Brescia, throne of the Beast – purporting to be dedicated to St Padre Pio – refer “Who is Fr Luigi Villa” page 57 by Dr Franco Adessa{Our Lady of Good Success Apostolate} The other throne is at UN HQ, that dark room below the Great Hall, where an altar dedicated to the Devil, spooked Ratzinger in short order when he went therein, on tour!
The roll out is “their Constitution of Apostate Rome” invalid and doubtful sacraments, vile pieces of paper with footnotes or love letters to you know who.
All of this sold to the unsuspecting as the “works of the Spirit” forging ahead into dare we say it, climate change and other tree hugging delusions.
Just as on balance an Ice Age or two, so must there be a Warm Age or three. Throwing cash into a game of chance, on a carbon credit money go round, is how casino operators make the House win.
His Humbleness wants the lambs to take him seriously, canonisations of the false high priests, ever heard of JP11’s Tale of OTTO and the lost sheep? He writes about it one of his volumes, fostering ecumenism and assorted blasphemies.
Its related to the breaking the hooves of the fat ones [clergy] and excessive travel [apostate “JP11” himself]. More on that later.
God have mercy on the good within this wicked generation, stay the hand of punishments as we watch for more Earthly groaning events and pray, shorten the days! Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum. St Padre Pio, ora pro nobis.
Simple Shepherd, you do have a way with words. All you wrote is true and so diabolically serious.
I imagine Louie will be attacked for exposing the truth that the U.S. Constitution is the “Great Lie” as there are so few Catholics who dare criticize this “great country.”
Rich, it is with sadness that any of those posts are necessary. Catholics in the U.S. have been brainwashed into defending the enemy and won’t wake up it seems until their own lives are destroyed.
Dearest Katherine,
And in the sense of their “own [ETERNAL] lives” being destroyed. The sorrow known is indeed quintessential and penultimate. In caritas.
“Mrs. Barrett holds a similar view as suggested by her response to Sen. Durbin:
If you’re asking whether I’m a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.”
Isn’t this always the question and the answer given when a “Catholic” is being considered for any position of authority or power?
Of course no “faithful” Catholic would ever consider their religious belief has anything to do with serving in a public position. Why would they? Who are their shepherds?
A recent homily by a Novus Ordo Msgr. Charles Pope gives the answer (which I believe we already knew but it is nice to have it noted again, although it makes one soul sick to know it).
The question always is: “What of Catholic politicians and jurists who advance the availability of abortion and vote funding for it? He responded: “Most (but not all) bishops have made a prudential decision not to make use of this measure for Catholic politicians who support abortion (or same sex “marriage” for that matter). Most of them say that they are concerned that it would be perceived as a political act rather than a moral shepherding of these wayward souls, and because the action would likely be misinterpreted and falsely portrayed BY THE MEDIA (my emphasis), they consider it unwise to excommunicate.”
There you have it. The media controls the actions of the bishops. They have no fear of the Lord but definitely do fear the media.
What you say is true…
The American Constitution is the best method in the world…
But there should be a giant asterix there that assumes the following:
– That Objective Truth cannot be known.
– The God has not revealed Himself nor provided us any revelation about Him.
– God established no religion or visible authority.
It is a nation of and built for Enlightenment Freemasons and splintered Protestants.
And what you witness now is its inevitable collapse under the weight of its own errors and hypocrisy.
Just like sin and everything else, everything all feels great, fine and dandy for awhile… then eventually it all falls apart.
This is what we observe happening. America, like Rome, must fall. If there is to be any more ‘America’ it will only survive as a Catholic confessional State under a Monarchy. Where people once again put their entire trust in God to deliver them a leader rather than picking one themselves.
Only a miracle can save America from itself, especially it’s ‘people.’
It should also be added that the very idea of a truly democratic people never lasts, or is always a facade that pulls a curtain over the real reigns of power, where there is always a ruling class of people who will overrule the majority for either good or ill.
Nature is heirarchial. So is Heaven. People on Earth are the same way.
Rather than have a shadow government with a puppeted bi-party elections to provide the people with the illusion of control and choice, far better to have the truth openly acknowledged on the surface under a visible monarchy and ruling class.
A “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” has always been a farce, only really obtainable under subsidiarity and smaller states rather than the coast-to-coast nation we have today where there is centralized authority that now pressures the individual states.
The true concept of what America ought to have been was destroyed during the War of Succession aka the falsely named Civil War.
I believe once America falls, and Communism reigns worldwide, and the chastisement of fire, and following the Consecration of Russia, the prophecied monarchies will return.
Ideally things will begin again under the Clan system of patriarchy. Fathers who know what is good for their families and descendants ruling individual clans. Then coming together to have Holy Patriarchial Emperors. Anointed and crowned by the Pope, all under the recognition of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
———
A tale of King Canute, after much flattery by his court and yes-men…
“…at the summit of his power, he ordered a seat to be placed for him on the sea-shore when the tide was coming in; thus seated, he shouted to the flowing sea, “Thou, too, art subject to my command, as the land on which I am seated is mine; and no one has ever resisted my commands with impunity. I command you, then, not to flow over my land, nor presume to wet the feet and the robe of your lord.” The tide, however, continuing to rise as usual, dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person.
Then the king leaped backwards, saying: “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth and sea obey by eternal laws.” From thenceforth King Canute never wore his crown of gold, but placed it for a lasting memorial on the image of our Lord affixed to a cross, to the honour of God the almighty King: through whose mercy may the soul of Canute, the king, enjoy everlasting rest.”
– The Chronicle Of Henry Of Huntingdon,
edited and translated by Thomas Forester (1853), p. 199
Dearest Katherine,
We are indeed living in the last of time. That time when Lucifer has completed his summa and summit of deception, which has allowed for the very existential manifestation of the church of the Antichrist. This church of the Antichrist, the so called “conciliar church”, as the church of man, preaching the religion of man, for the flesh of man, while at once damning his soul into all eternity. Essentially all, but not all baptized Catholics in the world today, are in utter apostasy from the One True Faith without even knowing that they are. This has all been accomplished by receiving the Supernatural operation into the will, that operation spoken of from the inerrant word of God, from the mouth of Saint Paul in 2 Thess 2. Whereby, as they have no love for the Truth and as thus no zeal to know and to love Him, they receive the “operation of error”, in lieu of the grace which they freely reject by their lives as lived. By freely receiving this “operation of error” into their will, they have no recourse but to believe the lie as though it is the Truth. The reception of this operation of error will take them to an eternity in hell, if it remains in place as the last breath is drawn and the veil removed. This we know with divine certitude as it is spoken of in the Holy Writ.
This “operation of error” is the Supernatural operation which has allowed for the prophetic word of God to make Itself known in our time and space, as it is known from the Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, chapter 2. God allows for this operation of error, not in accordance with His Holy Will, rather in full accordance with the will of His miserable human creatures, as they fully reject Him, beginning here on earth then, their eternal isolation as desolation of self in hell, which as Heaven, begins here on earth, veiled as it is. By virtue of humanity receiving this “operation of error” writ large, we find ourselves now where we indeed must be. This is the modus operandi by which the Great Apostasy has found being in our time. Saint Paul tells us inerrantly that the time will come, as men believe the lie as the Truth, when “he who holdeth do hold…”, the Mystery of Iniquity from bringing forth the very person of the Antichrist, until “he be taken out of the way”, and then with all the power which God has allowed for as given to Satan, he will bring forth the very person of the Antichrist. The only “he” in the cosmos that can indeed be the “he” of whom Saint Paul speaks inerrantly, is the Holy Roman Pontiff and he has certainly “been taken out of the way” in our time; as the rotten fruits of this world speak, as does the utter heresy embraced and taught by the church of the Antichrist, while at once it poses as the Church of Jesus the Christ, His Mystical Body, and spotless Bride. This is the summa and summit of deception, while at once it is the “abomination of desolation”, this false church of Satan, which poses as the Church of the Son of God made Man.
Finally, with that as the foundation, so called “Monsignor” Pope and the so called “Bishops” of whom he speaks, have not received a change in their ontology as in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and as thus they are not priests, yet alone a monsignor and members of the Episcopate. The sodomite and Freemason, Giovanni Batista Montini, as so called “pope” Paul VI, changed the form of the sacraments and of course he did, as Almighty God will not be mocked in the “conciliar church” of the Antichrist. Montini’s “sacraments” are those of Satan and not the Son of God as Sacraments. The Church teaches infallibly, that in order for a sacrament to be confected as Sacrament, proper matter, proper form, and proper intent must be present, and as being cannot both be and not be at the same time, and under the same respect, Montini’s sacraments simply, utterly, and assuredly as with metaphysical certitude, CANNOT BE the Sacraments of Christ the King. The Truth is hard but He Is a divine Person as Jesus the Christ and as He commanded: You think I came to bring peace. I came to bring the sword, and in that understanding, it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. Son will turn against father and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law, brother against brother, and on… We are there, as we are here. The grace and peace of God the Father of our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours’. Amen. In caritas.
Al the Silent, be not disturbed by the replies you have received here. Everything you have said is true and based in real history. And Christ came to save men and women and children in the actual historical circumstances in which they are.
Instead of dealing with what is ahistorical, as most do in their replies to you, you have lived a life fulfilling your obligations to your fatherland and to Christ.
Contrary to what some responders have alleged, this polity is not a democracy (although globalist mega-financial nihilistic factions have been trying to undermine it with this emphasis for decades). It is a democratic republic.
And contrary to what some allege, like any past valid political regime it was created and designed so that actual flesh and blood men and women as they were in the context of its founding, along with its future generations, might flourish in liberty and serve the Creator.
It was not a ‘confessional state’ (a notion that arose with the Protestant reformers), but in a novel context sought to emulate certain medieval political principles, imperfectly as you say, yet still in a remarkably effective way.
While its principles preclude such, it was not founded to be anti-religious or anti-religion. However, it was to preserve a political space so that its peoples, its citizens, could work out their salvation and seek to persuade others of the truth that they assented to and knew to be certain.
As for hereditary monarchies, history doesn’t reveal them to have been impeccable or without flaws either, so it is silly to hold that form of regime up as impeccable and the only one capable of enabling citizens to truly be Christians.
You need to read Pope Leo XIII’s Testem Benevlentiae Nostrae. You don’t have to believe me or Katherine or In Caritas. But you do need to assent to Pope Leo XIII’s teaching.
I am not sure your response is to what I posted, but if it is, I can confirm that I have read it a few times.
Pope Leo was concerned throughout with insisting that the Church could not ever encourage an adulteration of its teachings on Faith and morals.
‘The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places. (VOL. XXIV-13.) The Church has, guided by her Divine Master, a kind and merciful spirit, for which reason from the very beginning she has been what St. Paul said of himself: “I became all things to all men that I might save all.”
History proves clearly that the Apostolic See, to which has been entrusted the mission not only of teaching but of governing the whole Church, has continued “in one and the same doctrine, one and the same sense, and one and the same judgment,” — Const. de fide, Chapter iv.
But in regard to ways of living she has been accustomed to so yield that, the divine principle of morals being kept intact, she has never neglected to accommodate herself to the character and genius of the nations which she embraces.’
However, he did not insist that every custom or style that predominated within the Church was necessarily to be conserved in order to achieve this objective.
What he did not say is just as important as what he actually said.
The only country created “by the people”, who rejected the truth that only Jesus Christ, ruler of Heaven of earth, is the Supreme Authority over man and as such, governments must recognize His authority and establish His Divine and Natural Laws as the basis of a political and social order.
The only country created “by the people” and “for the people” to legally and with impunity reject the Truth, spread errors and heresies that lead men to eternal damnation, and elevate man to the status of a god.
What country are you referring to? Any reflective study of the founding of these United States will reveal matters to be immensely more complex than what your statements imply.
I took the same oath to the constitution back in 1993 when I became a Newark NJ police officer. I was a 23 year old kid who didnt know my Faith back then. You and I both served, in different ways, our country. Like you, I am proud of my service, BUT I no longer defend what this country truly stands for.
Writing to the King of Cyprus on kingship, St. Thomas Aquinas forthrightly declared monarchy to be “the best of governments”, a pronouncement ratified by Pope Pius VI in the allocution he delivered on the occasion of the execution of Louis XVI of France. St. Thomas says that inasmuch as “the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society lies in the preservation of its unity, which is called “peace” and “it is manifest that what is itself one can more efficaciously bring about unity than several…therefore the rule of one man is more useful than the rule of many. Furthermore it is evident that several persons could by no means preserve the stability of the community if they totally disagreed…So one man rules better than several who come near to being one.
St. Thomas strengthens his case by pointing out that if it is the contrary of the best that is worst, it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government…for the same reasons that in a just government the government is better in proportion as the ruling power is one–thus monarchy is better than aristocracy and aristocracy better than polity—so the contrary will be true of an unjust government, namely, that the ruling power will be more harmful in proportion as it is more unitary…Danger thus lurks on every side. Either men are held by the fear of a tyrant and they miss the opportunity of having that very best government which is kingship: or they want a king and the kingly power turns into tyrannical wickedness. To be delivered from tyrants, the people must desist from sin, for it is by divine permission that wicked men receive power to rule as a punishment for sin.”
It is expected that like God His Father, God the Son would never delegate His power as Christ the King by way of popular election, but only by filiation, as His own power was received.
Christ the Universal King clearly manifested His will when He set up His temporal world government on a divinely instituted monarchy perpetuated through one family chosen on high to produce the world’s rulers.
This was the Holy Roman Empire of Christendom, now fallen for a time to its Satanic counterpart-Universal Democracy-which takes as its sole authority “We, the People” whom it has declared free, equal and independent of God.
–Solange Strong Hertz “Democracy, Monarchy and the Fourth Commandment”
Imprimi, as unique as our country has been in the annals of world history, we American Catholics should not turn a blind eye to very serious errors and conflicts between our form of government and the teachings of the Catholic Church on the social responsibilites of the state. Many of the major heresies of V2 emanate from an American view of ecumenism and religious liberty. Christ is King and all things should be ordered in relation to that fact. This simply isn’t so in America and that error will be her downfall. All man made organizations and societies that do not order their society with Christ as King will fall into tyranny. It is the natural consequence of being disordered.
There is nothing complex about the truth.
Re-read what Louie wrote. These few paragraphs point out the facts which are not complex at all:
“In these United States, the legitimate civil authority is strictly forbidden by law to officially recognize Christ the King and His Sovereign authority over “all things in Heaven and on earth” (cf Matthew 28:18), which includes the singular authority and right to define what is objectively just, and moral, and what is not.
The government of this nation is likewise forbidden to acknowledge the objective truth that the Holy Catholic Church was established by Christ the King to speak in His name in such way that “He who hears the Church hears Christ, and he who rejects the Church rejects Christ and likewise rejects the ‘Creator’ (mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) who sent Him” (cf Luke 10:16).
The Constitution requires, by contrast, that the legitimate civil authority treat the various false religions and their false doctrines as if they are of equal stature under the law as the one true religion, and indeed Truth itself.
This is the so-called “Great Experiment” that anyone worthy of the name Catholic should readily recognize as nothing more than a “Great Lie,” and likewise, the claim that there is “no religious test” in this country.”
Divine Truth is utterly simple. However, our comprehension, attainment, and articulation of certain truth(s) is complex.
Otherwise, one could not even explain how certain early controversies and heresies concerning the Trinity and Incarnation were Providentially permitted so that the Creeds could be articulated with greater precisions so that orthodoxy would be further clarified.
As for St. Thomas, that work was written for a specific audience and in a specific context, and it does refer to the perfections of the monarchical principle. However, he is not advocating an unqualified supremacy of hereditary monarchy, but rather that the ‘rule by one’ must be a component in any polity. And the nature of polities are conditioned by the temperament and character of peoples who comprise and form them to be durable and effective.
That is why he says in other places that what is most fundamental to political order is actualization of virtues since “citizens have diverse virtues according as they are well directed to diverse forms of government.” Summa theologiae, 1-2, 63, 4.
And he also insists that the naturally “ this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deuteronomy 1:15): “I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers”: so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratic government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Exodus 18:21): “Provide out of all the people wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 1:13): “Let me have from among you wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.” Ibid., 1-2, 105, 1.
The optimal polity involves mixing in appropriate ratios the monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic aspects. In this sense, the United States is, in its own way, a well-mixed polity in terms of its so-called ‘three branches’.
But the monarchical principle can be either hereditary or elected, and if the latter, it can be for life or for a lesser period, as in our Presidency.
Hereditary monarchy, like every form of governance, has strengths and weaknesses. This is why dynasties have fallen and literally died out.
As well, a democratic republic has its strengths and weaknesses as well. But if one wishes to lay blame for the poor state of present culture, it lies most of all on Catholic Christians, who supposedly claim to possessing allegiance to the true Faith and the Church’s teachings on morals as fulfilling not only natural law, but divine law as well, along with the claim that the Church supplies graces to live by such and communicate these truths to others.
To contrive ideological caricatures of the complex historical past and pretend that we can return to some fictional idyllic ‘golden age’ does not address how one presents the truth to ones actual contemporary human beings.
Yes, truth is simple; but our understanding of and historical attainment of certain truths is complex.
And just what might have occurred in the 18th century in those colonies, where the results of centuries of religious strife had been impressed on the memories of so many who were in these lands?
All too many ‘traditionalists’ seem only able to conjure simplistic depictions of the historical past that are romanticized to condemn those who are striving to here-and-now make things actually better.
The reasons others have not always, nor present as well, discern that the Church serves and promotes Christ and the Eternal Creator, is due to the fact that the members of the Church have not, and do not, always manifest this truth in their lives and dealings with others.
And just thinking that returning to ‘how’ things were done pre-Vatican ii is not a solution, otherwise, there were not have been the devolution of events that led to so many horrible wars and conditions that preceded that Council.
From what I recall, our Lord in no context ever appealed to the power of Caesar to impose belief in Him and the Truth He is, nor the truths He taught, on others.
Rather, He presented Himself and the truth to each person and allowed her or him to assent or fail to do so in liberty.
What I don’t understand is why Catholics think that “mother of seven” is somehow a plus for her being appointed to an important position in the legal field. This woman is in her early 40s which means she still has young children. Even if they are all in school at this point, children need their mother’s care regardless. A busy legal career does not go well with being a wife and mother. Shouldn’t this be of concern to the pro-life/pro-family Catholics that are so happy about her nomination? They claim to be fighting for the family, yet they support this woman having a busy career instead of devoting herself to the care of her family? Wouldn’t the latter be truly “pro-family?”
Popes before Vatican II consistently taught that a woman’s role was in the home. For example, St. Pius X in an address given to a delegation of the Union of Italian Catholic Women in 1909 said: “Women in war or parliament are outside their proper sphere and their position. There would be the desperation and ruin of society.” In Casti Cannubi, Pius XI writes about the false emancipation of women, including: “…social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian.”
Unfortunately, most Catholics think that John Paul II’s feminism contains the Church’s teachings on woman’s role. Sorry, but no. His encyclicals and letters on woman’s role are the perfect example of how the Church should NOT engage with the world, that is, by simply integrating its false ideologies and giving them a Catholic polish.
Dear Maria Teresa,
Thank you for your words, which are hard for those in this world to hear, as they bear the signature of Truth, as the divine Person Whom He Is. As we know, He came to bring the sword, such that His Truth as Truth Himself would shine forth, Illuminating the world, as its Creator, its Master, and its King, Christ the King. His Illumination is infinite as it is at once perfect, causing the world to divide, perfectly distinguishing if you will, the wheat from the chaff. As you also know, it is the Evil One who brings the division, through his quintessential skill of proffering deception as reality, all the while in Christ Jesus we know with divine certitude reality as Reality. In caritas.
Imprimi, the Truth is simple. It is the lies and deceptions that are complex. Our understanding is only complex when we attempt to nuance and parse the simple clear teachings of Christ. He said He is the Only Way. Man makes this complex by contemplating various scenarios and wondering about all the “what ifs.” The Truth is simple, Christ is the only way. Since the US was not founded by men who professes this truth, their experiment in governing was bound to fail.
Dear Tom A: A few of your assertions do not at all indicate you have considered what I said.
To say that ‘x’ is the sole reason a political order fails or is vulnerable is truly simplistic when one reflects on all the causes that are involved in human history.
But given what you say, if that is essentially all that is involved, one would wonder why the reigns of Emperor Constantine, St. Louis ix of France, Emperor Charles v, Philip ii of Spain, not to mention many others, did not endure securely throughout or beyond their own lives and until this day.
Glasses of wine or water judged by some to be 3/4’s or 1/2 empty by some nonetheless remain 1/4 or 1/2 full nonetheless.
Imprimipotest: You’ve said much in your multiple posts, and being quite frank, I’m not sure I fully understand the specific point you are making. You may correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I can gather, the gist of your argument seems to be that you are taking issue with “traditional” Catholics who want to go back to “how” things were done before Vatican II”. And, indeed, there is certainly some truth to that. Traditional catholics, however, would simply say they want to return to the truth that was abandoned. But it is the basis of your argument that I find most disconcerting.
Specifically, the quote that seems to sum up your point, and the one that I found most disturbing, is as follows: “To contrive ideological caricatures of the complex historical past and pretend that we can return to some fictional idyllic ‘golden age’ does not address how one presents the truth to ones actual contemporary human beings.”
That is purely and simply, Modernism. That is the line of thinking that brought the Church to her knees. The quote could have been just as easily written by Cardinal Walter Kasper today, or Yves Congar or any other Modernist at an earlier time. This is the reasoning I expect to find in Commonweal or The Tablet whose writers are out and out Modernist professors and priests. To see it boldly set out in Louie’s blog is surprising.
The narrow issue Louie was making at this time relates to our Constitution. It is one that was succinctly summarized in a post to you by Katherine. So if your actual concern is that the Constitution should take precedence over the dogmatic truths of the Church, then I could actually sympathize with you––not agree, of course, but I do understand how it is difficult for some to come to grips with the fact that our Constitution is in direct conflict with the dogmatic teachings of our Church.
But if you are simply making the argument that the “presentation” of the teachings of the Church are outdated for this “contemporary” society, then that is Modernism. If I have mischaracterized what you have said, I apologize, and would stand to be corrected.
In caritas:
Definition of penultimate: second from last.
Are you sure the sorrow is quintessential and penultimate?
Hello Akita,
Interesting that you nuance the response. Good for you. While reflecting upon that particular choice of words, “penultimate”, as it was written, my reflection was focused upon, “the whom”, that it was written about, and in the broadest reflection, it is simply written about “the other” who resides in each, our own midst. As we reflect upon the reality as Reality, of our particular point in time and space which Almighty God has Willed each of us into existence, ex nihilo, we know perhaps the deepest of sorrows that mankind has heretofore known, as the Biblical and thus prophetic, “Great Apostasy”, in our midst. This Great Apostasy is the “penultimate sorrow”, preceding the “final” or “last sorrow” as the eternal sorrow, which each human person faces in his own Particular Judgment; that is for all of those countless souls, as they then forever leave the presence of the One Who Is Love, into each their own, eternity in hell. In caritas.
Dear Irishpol. What I have stated in my posts in no way implies compromising moral principles or right belief, orthodoxy. Rather, I have simply indicated that essentials concern exactly those primary referents, orthodoxy or right belief and right moral action, insisting on what is inherently good vs. evil, since orthodoxy and orthopraxy are two of the Church’s primary concerns in bring souls to Christ in this life.
My posts were in response to specific persons and what each said, so I find your sweeping me into the camp of ‘Modernism,’ which implies that one espouses adulterating orthodoxy and morality to be truly gratuitous on your part.
In no way did I say the Constitution ‘takes precedence over dogmatic truths,’ although I do insist that, properly understood and maintained, it does not necessarily imply any contradiction of those truths being imposed on anyone, nor does it preclude evangelizing persuasively others to assent to those truths.
That is, basically, what the non-establishment clause implies, neutrality concerning confessionality, but not anti-religious animus as such. That such has come to be very prevalent in this republic is due to the failures of many Catholics, both clergy and lay over many decades.
I stand firmly for translating and communicating truly the full implications of orthodoxy or right belief and morality, both natural law and all the profound refinements our Lord Jesus Christ has bequeathed.
However, translation and communication of the very same truths does not necessarily imply saying them or communicating them in exactly the same way as it was done previously. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, occasionally, the manner of signifying is distinct from the truth which is signified. The problem, however, is having persons of integrity who seek to continually say, signify, and live, the fullness of the truths that have always been signified.
A ‘Modernist,’ however, would say that it is the truths themselves that need to be adulterated, diminished, or altered within new contexts. That is not at all what I have implied.
Best regards.
To all who have written a response (negatively) to my earlier post: It almost sounds as if there is another country you would rather live. If so, please renounce your US citizenship and move. I will be that most of you will not! God calls us to cooperate in saving souls through our individual states in life- sacramental and otherwise- in order to get to Heaven. We do so within the time and era that God Almighty deigned from all eternity which includes the nation or country of our birth, life, and death. I agree, the US is not perfect, but it is the most perfect form of government devised by men. Not even the Roman Empire in all its glory could imagine a nation as great as the United States of America. We remain IN the world, but not OF the world. I never lost sight of that during my years in uniform. Thank you Impripotest for your kind and charitable remarks.
I couldn’t agree with you more Maria Teresa. Thank you so much for these quotes and speaking out on such a beautiful Truth! May God continue to bless you.
Thank you In Caritas for your answer.
Thank you In Caritas for your explanation of the second from last sorrow.
imprimipro: You highlighted only a couple paragraphs in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, in particular this one:
“But in regard to ways of living she has been accustomed to so yield that, the divine principle of morals being kept intact, she has never neglected to accommodate herself to the character and genius of the nations which she embraces.’”
Then you write: “What he did not say is just as important as what he actually said.” Since you skipped over posting the paragraphs-what he did say-that make the purpose of the encyclical clear-what was your point but to leave the impression that he approved of the “Americanism” that he was actually refuting?
These paragraphs come after the one you posted which makes it very clear what he was expressing:
“Who can doubt that she will act in this same spirit again if the salvation of souls requires it? In this matter the Church must be the judge, not private men who are often deceived by the appearance of right. In this, all who wish to escape the blame of our predecessor, Pius the Sixth, must concur. He condemned as injurious to the Church and the spirit of God who guides her the doctrine contained in proposition lxxviii of the Synod of Pistoia, “that the discipline made and approved by the Church should be submitted to examination, as if the Church could frame a code of laws useless or heavier than human liberty can bear.”
But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state.”
Yet, that is not all. Further he states: “It is well, then, to particularly direct attention to the opinion which serves as the argument in behalf of this greater liberty sought for and recommended to Catholics.
It is alleged that now the Vatican decree concerning the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff having been proclaimed that nothing further on that score can give any solicitude, and accordingly, since that has been safeguarded and put beyond question a wider and freer field both for thought and action lies open to each one. But such reasoning is evidently faulty, since, if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all. And further, those who avail themselves of such a way of reasoning seem to depart seriously from the over-ruling wisdom of the Most High-which wisdom, since it was pleased to set forth by most solemn decision the authority and supreme teaching rights of this Apostolic See-willed that decision precisely in order to safeguard the minds of the Church’s children from the dangers of these present times.
These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.”
You are very welcome, Al. And thanks to you for your service to this country and to Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.
I too served 12 years active duty. It is the land of my birth that Providence deigned that I be born in that I love. It is my faith and my Lord that I love first and foremost. Our Lord asks us to leave all behind and follow Him. For some, the love of US of A may be too hard to give up. Like the rich man who had many possesions who was sad when Christ asked him to sell it all and follow Him. Many patriotic Catholics have their priorities out of order. I am not accusing Al or Imprimi of this, but I hope they too admit that Americanism is a problem and anti-thetical to the true Catholic faith.
Dear Katherine. Truly, it is impossible to equate the ‘Americanism’ Pope Leo was concerned with and addressing with the U.S. Constitution and this polity as such.
Rather, he was mainly focusing upon certain positions advocated by various Catholics that implied subverting the supremacy of contemplative over active life and truth to mere pragmatic utility.
However, the Constitution as such, does not necessarily imply such. For that to become prevalent the Constitution needed to be abused and misconstrued, as it has by various ideologues advocating sheer secularism, whether through judicial activism or over-extensions of executive power and legislative prerogatives.
But such need not have happened if Catholics (and others) had maintained sufficient diligence and vigilance concerning promoting truth and morals.
Why some of our predecessors (and we) have so miserably failed in these this is a different issue.
But the Constitution and Declaration, as such, are not of the same cloth as the ideological revolutionary movements that occurred in France and in other countries on the European continent during the 18th century.
There were, and are, profound historical differences between it and them, even though these have been eroded and compromised for some time now.
Best regards.
Since I am one of those who posted negatively to your earlier post, I will respond by saying there is no country in this world where a Catholic can truly give consent to its form of government as no government formed “by the people, for the people” is actually for the people and other governments are formed by violence, wars, military coups, and definite enemies of Christ. If a government was truly “for the people”, it would be thoroughly Catholic in every respect.
So I should get out because I refuse to support the principles of its founding which were those of the Revolution against the Catholic Church and Her teachings.
I would love to “get out” and reside in the Eternal home that God has prepared for those who love and follow Him. It is He who has my fidelity, it is He who is “great”, not the place in which I happened to be born.
Dear Tom A,
‘Americanism’, that nebulous and phanton-like ‘heresy’, as I briefly mentioned above (although keying reflections in on a computer often leads to overlooking words on screen that are repeated and should be edited out …) is NOT as such concerned with the U.S. Constitution/Declaration.
We have no lasting or eternal ‘home’ in this life, but Providence, as Al the Silent Crusader has said, permitted us to born, nurtured, and thrive in this republic and in this era.
We each have specific things to do and pray for to make actuality as we find it better and bring all things to Christ, inasmuch as we each are able, but I find it misguided to be semi-Manichean and view the unique political vessel into which I and many of my ancestors were so blessed to be able to survive, worship the Trinity, and aid others in need, is intrinsically evil.
On the other hand, except for misguided moments of Romantic nostalgia in my youth, I never have desired to live in any other era or within any other regime, including that of certain great Christian monarchs in the past.
The Creator did not intend that for me; and I assuredly would not have been able to survive or much less thrive in such eras.
Yet, I have known many, many holy and saintly persons in my life during these past decades in this republic. I have truly been blessed by being here and now, even though this is not my eternal home.
Such is sufficient for me. No regime was or is utterly perfect. Only this or that person strives to be perfect.
Of course, it would be preferable if all citizens explicitly and with integrity and sincerity sought to serve Christ as King of Creation. I have been blessed to know many who did just this throughout their lives while in this republic during these many past decades.
Best regards.
Maria Teresa, yes it IS that simple. That was my immediate thought and gut instinct upon hearing that she has 7 children. I’m glad that you mentioned what unfortunately is not so obvious to so many due to our brain washed unCatholiced brains. Searing simple truth. If only She realized her full potential. What a loss.
Thank you for your response to my observations, but you are unconvincing. You clearly do not believe you are a Modernist, yet, your answer is precisely that of a typical Modernist. No, you do not “openly” adulterate orthodoxy, but Modernists never do; they cleverly lay there heretical beliefs between the lines as you have done––even with your rebuttal to my original post.
You claim that you are not assigning the Constitution to a higher authority than the dogmatic truths of the Church, but then go right on to do precisely that––albeit through the back door, by claiming to “properly” interpret the teachings of the Church. That is Modernism!
You claim to uphold Catholic orthodoxy but you then go on to say “translation and communication of the very same truths does not necessarily imply saying them or communicating them in exactly the same way as it was done previously.” That is Modernism!
I could pick each line of your posts apart in the same way, but it would be a waste of both your time and mine. You are a Modernist whether you are aware of that fact or simply wish to hide it. Either way, there is no chance you will see it any differently.
Well said Irish. If one has to read and re-read someones post a few times to figure out what was written, one is either dealing with an idiot or a modernist. The idiot rambles incoherently while the modernist tries to sound hyper intelligent. But the end result is the same. Confusion. The idiots confusion is unintentional, he know no better. The modernist, on the other hand, knows full well the confusion he causes and the diabolical purposes it serves.
Dear Irispol. Do you realize that at the Council of Nicaea when confronting the Arian views the fathers ‘translated’ what had been believed concerning Jesus Christ as being the true Son of the Eternal Father they appropriated the Greek philosophical term ‘homooúsios’ to signify ‘consubstantial’, which until that time had not been utilized? Do you realized that, for example, St. Augustine carefully translated his totally orthodox views of reality and man into the terminology of Plotinus and to some degree Plato to better communicate them to his time? Do you realize that St. Thomas Aquinas appropriated a great number of notions from the newly recovered translated texts of Aristotle (and Neoplatonic sources other than Plotinus) to communicate the truths of the Church, Christ, and Salvation to his own era?
Where these instances of ‘Modernism’ by your definition? I have said nothing that can be said to differ essentially from these examples in the Church’s history, and others could be mentioned as well.
As for your allegation that I am presenting things ‘between the lines’, well, ironically only you seem able to detect such, and ironically, that is exactly the way a ‘Modernist’ would interpret not only Scripture (eisegesis, rather than accepting what is first of said literally in the text or testimony).
To ‘read between the lines’ is unjust to an author or speaker when he is speaking plainly in his lines or what he has articulated.
You accuse me of something that you imitate and this is utterly unjust, gratuitous, and unfounded.
In no way have I advocated anything that would adulterate right belief or right morals; on the contrary, what I have advocated, arguably, is what many great fathers and doctors have always done, as any first-hand knowledge of their works will show.
What you have alleged is uncharitable and unjust.
And the very lack of any (ANY) specific references or discussion on your part supports this conclusion.
What you have done, indeed, is fittingly complimented by someone who gratuitously calls someone he cannot comprehend (whether from lack of intelligence, lack of education, or lack of docility and honesty, I know not) ‘an idiot (who rambles incoherently) or a modernist (who tries to sound hyper-intelligent)’.
You really should be more selective in the company you keep.
Dear Irispol.
Do you realize that at the Council of Nicaea when confronting the Arian views the fathers ‘translated’ what had been believed concerning Jesus Christ as being the true Son of the Eternal Father by appropriating the Greek philosophical term ‘homooúsios’ to signify ‘consubstantial’, which until that time had not been utilized? Do you realized that, for example, St. Augustine carefully translated his totally orthodox views of reality and man into the terminology of Plotinus and to some degree Plato to better communicate them to his time? Do you realize that St. Thomas Aquinas appropriated a great number of notions from the newly recovered translated texts of Aristotle (and Neoplatonic sources other than Plotinus) to communicate the truths of the Church, Christ, and Salvation to his own era?
Were these instances of ‘Modernism’ by your definition? I have said nothing that can be said to differ essentially from these examples in the Church’s history, and others could be mentioned as well.
As for your allegation that I am presenting things ‘between the lines’, well, ironically only you seem able to detect such, and ironically, that is exactly the way a ‘Modernist’ would interpret not only Scripture (through ‘eisegesis’, rather than accepting what is first of said literally in the text or testimony or ‘exegesis’).
To ‘read between the lines’ is unjust to an author or speaker when he is speaking plainly in his lines or what he has articulated.
You accuse me of something that you imitate and this is utterly unjust, gratuitous, and unfounded.
In no way have I advocated anything that would adulterate right belief or right morals; on the contrary, what I have advocated, arguably, is what many great fathers and doctors have always done, as any first-hand knowledge of their works will show.
What you have alleged is uncharitable and unjust.
And the very lack of any (ANY) specific references or discussion on your part supports this conclusion.
What you have done, indeed, is fittingly complemented by someone who gratuitously calls someone he cannot comprehend (whether from lack of intelligence, lack of education, or lack of docility and honesty, I know not) ‘an idiot (who rambles incoherently) or a modernist (who tries to sound hyper-intelligent)’.
You really should be more selective in the company you keep.
Imprimipotest, as Christ said, “let your yes be yes and your no be no.” While we can argue subjectively about the pros and cons of various forms of govt, this will get us nowhere. Objectively speaking, no one can disagree that the US Constitution does not consider the Catholic faith as the one true faith. It simply says Congress will not establish a state religion. This on of itself does not address what it will or will not tolerate. And since it does not confess Christ as Lord above all, it must be looked on as being against the true faith. For he that does not gather, scatters. Only a confessional state, that recognizes the Kingship of Christ is pleasing to God. The men that serve that state may destroy it through disobedience, but all things must be ordered towards Christ to be pleasing to Him.
Imprimipotest:
So you say I misjudged you, as you claim not to be a Modernist despite the fact that your writings have the fingerprints of Modernism all over them. Okay, I’ll back off and admit I have may have misinterpreted what you have written if you will just tell me where you stand on Vatican II. Modernists are very comfortable with the Council’s teachings, while Catholics are not.
There are many issues that could be raised with respect to the Council, but I’ll just ask you for your position on three. Specifically, do you believe the Council re-defined the doctrine of Religious Liberty, or not? That is, do you believe that anyone has a right to publicly practice any religion they wish––such as is provided in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution? With respect to Nostra Aetate, do you believe that the Jews have a separate pathway to heaven and that there is no need for them to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to reach eternal salvation? And finally, do you believe that Collegiality and the expanded authority and responsibilities of the episcopal conferences was a positive or negative step for the Church?
Good Sunday afternoon imprimipotest,
You can rest assured that there are others reading this blog, who in your jargon, “seem able to detect such”, as it relates your veiled as duplicitous manner of writing. And so it is irishpol who, in your estimation imprimipotest, “…really should be more selective in the company you [he] keep [s].”, as if irishpol has some “magical” capacity to effect precisely whom (as you elude to Tom A, who is by the way a clear thinker as writer) reads what he writes here and acknowledges it as true. In an attempt to add to the dossier which irishpol has so eloquently as precisely placed, in this space regarding you, may it be suggested that you proffer reality as deception in contradistinction to reality as Reality and this to be known as res ipsa loquitur in your comment about “the company” which irishpol keeps.
You had this to say to irishpol:
“In no way have I advocated anything that would adulterate right belief or right morals; on the contrary, what I have advocated, arguably, is what many great fathers and doctors have always done, as any first-hand knowledge of their works will show.”
So imprimipotest, you favor yourself to be as the likes of “many great fathers and doctors” as clearly understood from the context of this comment of yours as quoted. May the utter lack of humility now be added to your dossier as Modernist, which is a trait to be understood as a sine quo non, while at once the coup de grace.
Lastly, you seem to be just a touch sensitive, perhaps over-the-top in your defense. If you are so certain of your position, imprimipotest, perhaps your position should speak for itself, and indeed it does, as res ipsa loquitur, and as thus your gratuitous condescension towards irishpol and Tom A. I pray this admonition as admonition helps. In caritas.
Thank you for your eloquent defense, In caritas. It would appear that Imprimipotest has elected to stand silent, reminding me of the Modernist movement silenced for a while by St Pope Pius X in the early 20th century. The Modernists of that day did not change their views, but only slid behind some rock to lick their wounds and wait for a more propitious opportunity to spread their lies. That opportunity presented itself at Vatican II which spawned the modern-day Modernists, such as Imprimipotest. The tragedy, of course, is that the creatures that did re-emerge are even more virulent than before. Nevertheless, so long as we hold fast to the true teachings of the Catholic Church, Modernism will not prevail. Thank you, again.
Dear irishpol,
The grace and peace of God the Father of our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, be with you and yours’. In caritas.
Darkness must yield to light, just like lies must yield to Truth. The reason there is so much confusion in the conciliar church and those who believe the conciliar church is Catholic, is because they lack the Light of Truth. They wander hopelessly and aimlessly because they are operating on error. Without the Light of Christ and the traditional teachings of Holy Mother Church, I too would still be lost in the morass that is conciliarism. Modernism cannot withstand the sharp point of reason and logic. It must yield, it can do nothing other. Modernism is successful when its victims are timid and willing to accept a lie for some convenience or affirmation of a lifetime invested in a belief pattern. These folks are deceived, as In Caritas says, because they do not have zeal for Truth. Christ wants zealots. He prefers those who are hot or cold and vomits out the lukewarm. If one puts Truth above all else, human respect, financial security, and even physical well being, that one will receive grace rather than the operation of error.
Yes, I have chosen to disengage since not a single person here has addressed any specific historical point I have mentioned; nor has anyone here done anything except hurl epithets.
Finally, in spite of the absolutely unjust accusations not a one here has indicated any thing I have said as contradicting the dogmas and Creed(s) of the Church, nor concerning morality in terms of divine and natural law.
Rather, you hide behind distortions of what was said and unsaid by me and make calumnious and unfounded assertions about my person.
Why would anyone bother to have civil exchange or discussion when all that is advocated here is a monologue in which no reflection or analysis is permitted.
Rather, it is an atmosphere that is the mirror-image of an ideologically inspired Orwellian atmosphere.
Or course, you are right. Anyone does not parrot verbatim the clichés you each tout is necessarily a heretic, a ‘Modernist’, unchristian, and damned.
“… omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, est a spiritu sancto sicut ab infundente naturale lumen, et movente ad intelligendum et loquendum veritatem. Non autem sicut ab inhabitante per gratiam gratum facientem, vel sicut a largiente aliquod habituale donum naturae superadditum, sed hoc solum est in quibusdam veris cognoscendis et loquendis; et maxime in illis quae pertinent ad fidem, de quibus apostolus loquebatur.”
St. Thomas, Summa theologiae, 1-2, 109, ad 1.
A cowardly response, for sure, but really not a surprising one. Our exchange began, you will recall, when I accused you of being a Modernist because of your writings. Nevertheless, I agreed to retract my accusations if you simply confirmed your alleged anti-Modernist beliefs by answering three very straightforward questions in the way any faithful Catholic would answer them. Of course the 16 Council documents contain many instances of heretical teachings, but I only focused on three––and I didn’t even mention false ecumenism (which I am also certain you support). But instead of answering the questions you complained that you are being mistreated by even being asked to respond to these questions.
You mentioned in your last response that no one has pinned you down as saying anything that directly contradicted dogmatic teaching or divine and natural law. Bingo! That is the mantra of Modernism. That is precisely how they have been able to sell their evil over the last 125 or so years. They rarely directly contradict dogma, but rather, lay it between the lines by claiming only to “properly define” it in a way that is “consistent with our modern society”. Unfortunately, and most tragically, most of the uninformed Novus Ordo Catholics (now there’s a redundancy) are unable to recognize the falsities that you Modernists spew out and are happily led down the road to perdition.
It is unlikely that you even realize you are a Modernist, much less how you, managed to drift into that diabolic world. But if I were to guess I’d say that you were or are a professor at some “formerly” Catholic university (i.e. before the Land O’ Lakes accords), where your only exposure has been Modernism. You’ve really never heard the truth. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if you a graduate of one of those institutions as well. For those reasons, the chances of your ever realizing just how far you’ve drifted from the true teachings of the Catholic Church is close to zero. Nevertheless, I’ll say a special prayer for you this evening that a day will come when you will truly experience that epiphany.
Excellent Irish! Well said. Those are exactly the tricks and sleight of hand that modernists use to spread their poison. They can in no wise ever answer a question with just a yes or no. I’ll answer your questions. Yes, No, and Negative. See how easy that was. But then, I’m not a modernist.
Thank you, Tom, I genuinely appreciate your thoughts..