Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Caminus on February 14, 2011, 07:46:37 PM
-
As I was reading the great tract titled "The Plot Against the Church" that circulated amongst the Council Fathers written under the pseudonym "Maurice Pinay" I came accross this strange opinion:
For only through the uniting of the peoples and the alliance of all religions can a coalition come into existence which is strong enough to save us and mankind from the Jєωιѕн-Communist slavery threatening us all to the same measure.
This great alliance can only be concluded, if a real feeling of brotherhood exists among the peoples and a respect of the natural right of each individual.
It would be fateful and catastrophic if the movements for freedom against Jєωιѕн Imperialism and its Communist revolution, which arise in different nations of the world, became Imperialist nationalisms. For then the defence of the peoples would be impossible, which at these moments is so necessary, in order to triumph over Jєωιѕн Imperialism. We would once again fail with this perhaps last opportunity, in order to save ourselves, for the Jєωs and their Freemasonic and Communist satellites would skilfully utilise every Imperialist tendency of an anti-Jєωιѕн liberation movement, in order to set the threatened peoples against it, just as was the case in the last world war.
This is a decisive moment in history, and we have only a few years to liberate ourselves from Jєωιѕн-Communist slavery. The liberation movements which in several countries fight against Jєωιѕн Imperialism, should understand that today such conduct is suicidal and should therefore zealously fight, not only to liberate their peoples from the Jєωs, but to also unite in a brotherly way with similar liberation movements, so that the whole of mankind can be freed, including naturally the unfortunate peoples, who are already subjected by Red totalitarianism. The Imperialist Jєωs would be defeated by a closely allied world. But their victory over a mankind split up on the political realm in national, racial or religious rivalries is certain.
National and racial rivalries should be laid aside by wav of peaceful negotiations. Differences of opinion in the religious domain should be decided in an honourable, peaceful, theological discussion, which in the long run gives the right to those who deserve it, but prevents that these antagonisms degenerate into religious wars or violent conflicts, which always make impossible a political uniting of the peoples, which is so neces-sary, in the first place to eliminate the threat by Jєωιѕн Imperialism and later to secure world peace, which is indis-pensable for the progress and maintenance of the human race.
:confused1:
-
Certainly there is nothing wrong with political alliance with other Christian sects and with Muslims against Zionist Imperialism.
Differences of opinion in the religious domain should be decided in an honourable, peaceful, theological discussion, which in the long run gives the right to those who deserve it, but prevents that these antagonisms degenerate into religious wars or violent conflicts, which always make impossible a political uniting of the peoples, which is so neces-sary, in the first place to eliminate the threat by Jєωιѕн Imperialism and later to secure world peace, which is indis-pensable for the progress and maintenance of the human race.
This goes too far.
-
Right, I was with him or "them" regarding political measures, but then it switched to the religious realm. Not good.
-
I remember being horrified by lots of sections of this book, but that was a while ago when I was more paranoid. I'd have to read it with fresh eyes, not just skim it like before, to see if "Maurice Pinay" is advocating a merely expedient, political detente with the Prots and other Christian sects, or if there is something more to it.
-
Yeah, my vague memory is that this book was very Vatican II-sounding and was suggesting some kind of religious union with Protestants. Don't hold me to that though.
Interestingly, Michael Hoffman, who is also fixated on the Jєωιѕн question, is all for religious liberty. Maybe hatred for the Jєωs, rather than simple realism about their anti-Christ activities in the world, blinds you. Or maybe there are infiltrators who portray themselves as anti-Jєω to win the confidence of certain Catholics, at which point they then slip them some misleading opinions.
-
Here is the Hoffman quote I was thinking of, from an interview with Kourosh Ziabari.
"I am writing a book on freedom of conscience. One of the findings has been that during the European wars of religion when Protestants and Catholics murdered, censored and defamed one another, a martyr to freedom of conscience was only considered as such by Protestants if he or she was one of the Protestants; by the same standard, Catholics regarded a person who was censored or killed for their faith only a martyr if they were of the Catholic faith." This mentality of religious hatred which occluded objective judgment has a long history in the West.
It is Hoffman who occludes objective judgment. The objective i.e. factual judgment is that the Catholic Church is the true Church and the only one that can trace its origins to Christ. So there is a difference between Catholics punishing heretics, and Protestants -- who are involved in a heretical sect -- persecuting Catholics. Yet you would never pick up on such a distinction reading this interview.
Even though the people of Europe, for example, are today mostly agnostic or atheist, they seem to have inherited this old criterion from the European wars of religion. Consequently, a Muslim who quits the faith and turns against it and is persecuted, is a martyr in the eyes of the West, but a Judaic who does the same with regard to Judaism is not a martyr but a psychologically troubled person, a "self-hating Jєω."
Intellectuals who challenge the claims of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau are not regarded as martyrs to freedom of conscience when they are arrested, fined, beaten or jailed. They are like Catholics in Anglican England or Huguenots in Catholic France; they are of the devil's party and therefore freedom of speech does not apply to them; neither are they martyrs to freedom; only criminals."
Here he is equalizing Catholic martyrs and Protestants who die in religious conflicts. He is making anyone who is attacked for "free speech" into a martyr, basically. The emphasis is never on Catholicism, always on free speech. Perhaps he doesn't know what the Catholic Church teaches about free speech?
In the United States freedom of speech is guaranteed in the public sphere by virtue of the Founding Fathers who forbade the fratricidal wars of religion on American soil and banned the establishment of a state religion. Without a heritage of religiously demonizing adversaries in the war of ideas, Americans refused to permit the jailing of heretics.
He says this as if it's a good thing. Heretics are enemies of social order and of civilization itself. Then again, the US as we know it was founded by Freemasons who didn't seem to care much that being a Freemason meant automatic excommunication.
"There have been some exceptions to this: President John Adams jailed Congressman Matthew Lyon for "ѕєdιтισn." Abraham Lincoln jailed his opponents and closed newspapers. President Woodrow Wilson's administration locked up war critics such as Eugene Debs. But the American people never approved of this repression, it was viewed as something foreign - the despotism of kings. George W. Bush tried to alter that perception after the 9/11 attacks, when he and Vice President Cheney attempted to enact king-like powers for the Executive branch of government. It remains to be seen if, in the name of "National Security," Americans will surrender their birthright of freedom.
In Britain and Europe the slogan of the state church was "error has no rights." They were certain that the state, either in the person of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the pope of Rome, the Bourbon kings of France, the Lutheran establishment in Germany or Calvin's theocracy in Geneva, had the competence to legally decide and declare what thoughts were true and what was error. Though Europe today would scorn Calvin and the pope, many Europeans are dutiful sons and daughters of this dictatorship over the mind. Hence, when France and Germany declare that those skeptics who question the homicidal gas chambers have no rights, they are acting on behalf of a European religious mentality, as did their ancestors, only in the modern instance the mentality is not Catholicism or Calvinism, it is h0Ɩ0cαųstianity."
Make no mistake, he really is comparing the Pope ( and the Catholic kings of France ) to Elizabeth Tudor as a sort of tyrant. All of them are infringing on his precious liberty in one way or another, whether they be Catholic or Anglican.
Then again, when Chesterton can go around praising the most Satanic event in world history, the French Revolution, and still be treated like an uncanonized saint, it's no wonder this flies with certain people.
-
Chesterton shares his pro-Revolutionary philosophy with his friend Belloc. Neither are saints to me and some have suspected Belloc to be a member of Fabian Society-- despite his well know rancor with GB Shaw( or is HG Wells).
There were more than a few clerics who went along with the Rev at first-- not imaging how far it would go. Cambridge Modern History series and Louis Madelin's books on Fr Rev are Most Valuable.
I have read some of M Hoffman and it is enough. His unique version of Catholicism seems to deny Papal Primacy.
Is Raoul going to clarify his position on Pope Pius XII(XIII)?
-
I believe Pius XII is a true Pope, which I admit I doubted before -- that is why I thought I could get away with such vitriol against him, to me at the time he was practically in the same category as Ratzinger -- but that he was a pretty bad one.
I actually have a more elaborate theory about this now based on the Apocalypse but I will spare the site from that.
-
I believe that Belloc approved of reforms that were enacted through Aug 4 1789.
-
Yeah, my vague memory is that this book was very Vatican II-sounding and was suggesting some kind of religious union with Protestants. Don't hold me to that though.
Interestingly, Michael Hoffman, who is also fixated on the Jєωιѕн question, is all for religious liberty. Maybe hatred for the Jєωs, rather than simple realism about their anti-Christ activities in the world, blinds you. Or maybe there are infiltrators who portray themselves as anti-Jєω to win the confidence of certain Catholics, at which point they then slip them some misleading opinions.
I told him that by adopting such a philosophy, he unwittingly adopted a Masonic concept which is ironically attached to the Jєωs. What a tragedy to devote oneself to exposing this false sect only to end by adopting one of its most potent errors. His focus is too narrow and not sufficiently supernatural, thereby his work is not very effective as well.
-
Then again, when Chesterton can go around praising the most Satanic event in world history, the French Revolution, and still be treated like an uncanonized saint, it's no wonder this flies with certain people.
I find this very difficult to believe, given Chesteron's brilliant ability to see and explain true historical causes and effects of events and movements. Would you provide proof for this assertion? I'm fairly certain you either missed his point or some distinction which great minds are apt to make.
-
I believe that Belloc approved of reforms that were enacted through Aug 4 1789.
I don't really get the point of your post here. Care to elaborate?
-
Fr Rev proceeded by steps. My understanding is that Belloc approved of the reforms( as he has interpreted them) enacted until that date. IOW-- a Constitutional Monarchy with the kings authority limited.
-
We would have to let Belloc clarify his stance on that. Although, I have not seen him on here in several weeks.
-
We would have to let Belloc clarify his stance on that. Although, I have not seen him on here in several weeks.
I am referring to the author-- not the poster. Mo re: the poster is Good Riddance.
-
Caminus said:
I find this very difficult to believe, given Chesteron's brilliant ability to see and explain true historical causes and effects of events and movements. Would you provide proof for this assertion? I'm fairly certain you either missed his point or some distinction which great minds are apt to make.
Moving on past the masterfully veiled insult ( my mind isn't subtle enough to comprehend GK Chesterton, which may be true, then again it isn't subtle enough to comprehend a lot of Vatican II "theologians" either like Hans urs von Balthasar )...
You didn't know he was pro-French Revolution? Maybe he changed his mind sometime during his life, but from the available evidence, he was relentless in this stance. It's the same with Hilaire Belloc, as roscoe, for once accurately, points out.
An Internet search will prove what I'm saying, it's no secret. This is from an essay called "The Red Reactionary."
"If the French democracy
actually desired every detail of the mediaeval monarchy, they could have
it. I do not think they will or should, but they could."
There's a beauty for you. He continues, in his proto-Vatican II way, to mix up concepts into his own peculiar blend of pompous and circuмstancial witticisms ( note the reference to Elgar, since both men had a very strange, very bloated, and very English take on the Catholic religion ).
"If another
Dauphin were actually crowned at Rheims; if another Joan of Arc actually
bore a miraculous banner before him; if mediaeval swords shook and.
blazed in every gauntlet; if the golden lilies glowed from every tapestry;
if this were really proved to be the will of France and the purpose of
Providence--such a scene would still be the lasting and final
justification of the French Revolution.
For no such scene could conceivably have happened under Louis XVI"
That's like saying praising Satan as the "lasting and final justification" for Christ's death on the Cross, for no such scene could have conceivably happened in the Garden of Eden... It is so backwards that it is mind-boggling.
It sounds clever, like so much of Chesterton, in the same way that a stand-up comic's jokes sound clever while really being gassbaggy and hollow... But in reality it makes no sense whatsoever. Joan of Arc "happened" under Charles VII, a Catholic king just like Louis XVI.
So a Joan of Arc figure could have easily happened under Louis XVI, if such were God's will, He could have raised a "Joan of Arc of the Vendee" who would have fought off the Revolutionary mob.
Here is something from a blog called First Principles --
"Surprisingly for the Catholic he was well on his way toward becoming, Chesterton also remained an apologist for the French Revolution. It was the great shining example of a patriotic spirit that could throw off the shackles of money and privilege, delivering common people from their bondage, granting them a social and political liberty theretofore unknown. Despite the carnage and blasphemy of the Reign of Terror, Chesterton hailed the French people for recovering a fundamental teaching of the Church that the Church itself had often neglected. By way of a triple theological, political, and visual pun—it occurs in his splendid book on his literary hero, Charles Dickens—Chesterton vividly stated the Christian premise undergirding democracy: “All men are equal as all pennies are equal, because the only value in any of them is that they bear the image of the King.”
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1283&theme=home&loc=b
This is to try to reconcile irreconciliables. I realize that no one is perfect, but to defend the French Revolution crosses the line HUGELY.
Granted, if you interviewed pretty much any American Catholic at that time they would have said the same thing, democracy was seen as an advance, it was in the air back then. The problem is that, as you say Caminus, Chesterton had the reputation of someone who was more perceptive about the real springs and motors of history. He wasn't supposed to follow the same shibboleths as everyone else. In this case, he did.
Lest you think this was a sin of youth, like The Man Who Was Thursday, I believe he maintained this position to the end, or at least I've never seen any proof that he retracted it. You can research it further if you're so inclined.
-
Raoul76 said:
Granted, if you interviewed pretty much any American Catholic at that time they would have said the same thing, democracy was seen as an advance, it was in the air back then. The problem is that, as you say Caminus, Chesterton had the reputation of someone who was more perceptive about the real springs and motors of history. He wasn't supposed to follow the same shibboleths as everyone else. In this case, he did.
Chicken or the egg question -- Did the Catholics who were pro-Masonic-democracy inspire the pundits like Chesterton, or was it the pundits like Chesterton who, using the mass media, shaped the minds of the masses to make them pro-Masonic-democracy?
You could ask the same question about Hollywood. Does Hollywood really put out what people want to see, or does it actively transform peoples' minds and TELL them what they want to see, making them think, through hypnotic suggestion, that this is what they really want?
Though we will never know, while still on this Earth, what was in Chesterton's heart, at best, he was a naive dupe on this subject.
The devil for centuries has used the mass media to shape minds. I personally am very wary of anyone who attains any kind of celebrity at all, knowing who runs the media. This is not like the word-of-mouth celebrity of saints.
I don't see why I should put this man on a pedestal; for me there is a difference between famous and great; I don't like his smug tone and constant jokes; I think he was essentially the Stephen Colbert of his time, and there is something very troubling to me about a Catholic using a constant mask of humor and irony ( although Colbert is totally engulfed in irony to the point where he never says what he really thinks, while Chesterton would allow himself to be straightforward from time to time ).
-
We would have to let Belloc clarify his stance on that. Although, I have not seen him on here in several weeks.
I am referring to the author-- not the poster. Mo re: the poster is Good Riddance.
My mistake. As for the poster, think what you want, but he has been a big contributer to this forum since he first joined.
-
I really admire Hoffman for his prose and research but one thing that I find totally frustrating is his unwillingness to come out and just say "I'm a traditional Roman Catholic". He always has to dress it up in some hyper-elevated style of writing that leaves the reader wondering what exactly he wanted to say. Its as though he doesn't want to just come out and declare to his reader that he is a Catholic. If I didn't know otherwise, reading his books I would not be able to tell.
-
Differences of opinion in the religious domain should be decided in an honourable, peaceful, theological discussion, which in the long run gives the right to those who deserve it, but prevents that these antagonisms degenerate into religious wars or violent conflicts, which always make impossible a political uniting of the peoples, which is so neces-sary, in the first place to eliminate the threat by Jєωιѕн Imperialism and later to secure world peace, which is indis-pensable for the progress and maintenance of the human race.
This goes too far.
How so?
I do not necessarily disagree, as I understand English well enough, but would like to see someone dissect and present the heart of the problem/s. Thank you.
-
FWIW, it is possible that, in these wild days, we are naturally inclined to read something into this section that is not actually there. I may come to see what others now see, but, at the moment, I just see him saying, roughly:
"There is a common enemy that is about finish the job of enslaving all of us. We need to set aside various differences for the time being or we will all be toast. Yes, we have our differences, but acrimonious discussion of them does not help anyone at this late stage of the game -- as it unnecessarily exacerbates a division that the common enemy is using to conquer us all."
I am NOT saying this perspective is or is not the BEST approach -- but that this is how I read the portion in question. IOW, I see the advocating of mutual assistance on a temporal level in order to effectively resist a common enemy, but I do not see that the author is advocating any kind of religious union or cooperation. MP seems to be saying, "However substantially we disagree about certain things, we will all soon be toast if we do not work together in order to expel/eliminate the common threat."
I am quite open to being shown that my understanding of MP's meaning is wrong. Further, I totally understand that there really is no solution outside of that which the Church has always taught. Our MAIN problem IS, in fact, spiritual and, therefore, all other measures will, in the end, amount to nothing, should we fail to be converted in heart. In that sense, this passage might be tainted with a naturalistic perspective, but that is not the same as actually and openly advocating inter-religious dialog. One might argue that such a perspective is a step in that direction, but that does not equate to having already arrived at said destination.
-
FWIW, it is possible that, in these wild days, we are naturally inclined to read something into this section that is not actually there. I may come to see what others now see, but, at the moment, I just see him saying, roughly:
"There is a common enemy that is about finish the job of enslaving all of us. We need to set aside various differences for the time being or we will all be toast. Yes, we have our differences, but acrimonious discussion of them does not help anyone at this late stage of the game -- as it unnecessarily exacerbates a division that the common enemy is using to conquer us all."
I am NOT saying this perspective is or is not the BEST approach -- but that this is how I read the portion in question. IOW, I see the advocating of mutual assistance on a temporal level in order to effectively resist a common enemy, but I do not see that the author is advocating any kind of religious union or cooperation. MP seems to be saying, "However substantially we disagree about certain things, we will all soon be toast if we do not work together in order to expel/eliminate the common threat."
I am quite open to being shown that my understanding of MP's meaning is wrong. Further, I totally understand that there really is no solution outside of that which the Church has always taught. Our MAIN problem IS, in fact, spiritual and, therefore, all other measures will, in the end, amount to nothing, should we fail to be converted in heart. In that sense, this passage might be tainted with a naturalistic perspective, but that is not the same as actually and openly advocating inter-religious dialog. One might argue that such a perspective is a step in that direction, but that does not equate to having already arrived at said destination.
I have to disagree here; the quote (and I admit I'm reading it out of the context of whatever may surround it) reeks of the heresy of Americanism, which itself is a species of indifferentism. He's saying, it seems to me, that stark religious debate is a hindrance to the "political uniting of peoples." This erroneously presupposes that viable political unity between Catholics and people of other faiths is possible, especially in a level of equality. If there is something that the failed American experiment has taught us, it is this kind of silent apostasy for the sake of political expedience inevitably leads to the rise of secular political atheism, whose attacks are ever aimed at the Church and her immutable truths.
We must labor in hope of peaceful solutions between men but we must not tolerate the pride that such peace comes from the natural works of man, nor suffer under the false desperation that Jєωιѕн imperialism, or any other philosophy, religion or institution will ever triumph over God or His Church in the final analysis, no matter how grave a threat it may temporarily represent. The endgame was written before the pillars of creation had yet been erected. In that context, we are obligated to establish the social reign of Christ the King in all lands, for all times, regardless of how politically inopportune it might seem. Cooperation among men comes first and only in establishing the political reality of Christianity as first and exclusive recognized by the temporal state, then allowing non-Christians limited worship in charity, while evangelizing them as we are able. That, as a matter of historical fact, is the only means of fostering the brotherhood, procuring the peace and stamping out those heresies that threaten the Church of Christ.
-
I have to disagree here...
I am glad you did, as I do not pretend to be certainly correct in my reading of the quote being examined.
-
We must labor in hope of peaceful solutions between men but we must not tolerate the pride that such peace comes from the natural works of man, nor suffer under the false desperation that Jєωιѕн imperialism, or any other philosophy, religion or institution will ever triumph over God or His Church in the final analysis, no matter how grave a threat it may temporarily represent.
Agreed. Based upon this point, I think it is fair to say that the portion quoted expresses a certain lack of supernatural faith and hope. However, that is not the same thing as advocating inter-religious dialog, which was the question in the OP.
-
In that context, we are obligated to establish the social reign of Christ the King in all lands, for all times, regardless of how politically inopportune it might seem.
There is no dispute that we are called to act toward this end. However, it is clear that there is not one nation that is currently even close to this ideal. What to do?
Cooperation among men comes first and only in establishing the political reality of Christianity as first and exclusive recognized by the temporal state, then allowing non-Christians limited worship in charity, while evangelizing them as we are able.
So, would you argue that we cannot be involved politically until Christ the King is ruler of the lands where we reside? Until the ideal is realized, what line/s of action would you counsel?
History shows that the right order observed during the XIII century grew organically from the inside out, so to speak. I am NOT saying the following is your meaning, but...To say we must have the right order before we can cooperate temporally (to any kind of merely useful degree) seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
-
We must labor in hope of peaceful solutions between men but we must not tolerate the pride that such peace comes from the natural works of man, nor suffer under the false desperation that Jєωιѕн imperialism, or any other philosophy, religion or institution will ever triumph over God or His Church in the final analysis, no matter how grave a threat it may temporarily represent.
Agreed. Based upon this point, I think it is fair to say that the portion quoted expresses a certain lack of supernatural faith and hope. However, that is not the same thing as advocating inter-religious dialog, which was the question in the OP.
While it does not promote religious dialogue in the sense of two disparate religions attempting to come to a common expression of faith, I would absolutely argue that the attempt at political unity between them is tantamount to the same thing. In doing so, the two religions are operating as tacit equals, as I sincerely doubt that one religion would be willing or content to operate in such an arrangement as being publicly held that it is false and perfidious by its political partner. If, in the case of the political partnering of Holy Church an a false religion, there is not an open and public affirmation that the Church does not and will never consider the latter to be other than a false religion, then the effect is analogous: it has provided, as much by silence as by any formal declaration, that false religions are arguably salvific, and especially that they should considered as being on equal footing, socially and philosophically, with the Immaculate Bride of Christ.
-
I would absolutely argue that the attempt at political unity between them is tantamount to the same thing.
Is it clear he is saying that the religious bodies, as bodies, should form some kind of political union? Does he say that Catholics who hold official positions, high or low, should, acting in their official capacity, form political unions with non-Catholics? I do not see it, but please show me that I am wrong, if I am.
FWIW, I am not defending MP, etc., just trying to make sure the actual meaning of the quoted passage is being properly understood.
-
I would absolutely argue that the attempt at political unity between them is tantamount to the same thing.
Is it clear he is saying that the religious bodies, as bodies, should form some kind of political union? I do not see it that way, but please show me that I am wrong, if I am.
Directly, no. However, can we reasonably assume that the only participation in this political union with non-Christians will be by laymen? If we accept that this writing was in fact circulated among the attendees of the Apostate Council, then we must assume by its content and audience that it intended such a political union to include members of the Church's hierarchy. Those aware of such participation would, barring an affirmation to the contrary, assume that such interaction had the blessing of the Church and that, as such, those non-Catholic partners were being recognized as having equivalent moral authority in seeking the redress of social wrongs. Also, the other party of the political union need not be a religious organization; those seeking the correction of social evils without appeal to or driven by Christian charity, including secular humanists and atheists, should not be treated with either. Such persons, who may support and agree with the Church in her battle with this enemy or that, and almost certainly as a means of self-preservation, would afterward contend with the Church in all things and deny her right to govern from a position of moral superiority. Such an association would, by guilt of silence and equivocation of authority, impugn the Church's own authority to reform those social virtues rightly informed by her inerrant teachings on faith and morals.
-
When you have a chance, could you please address the questions I asked in my post at the bottom of page one? Naturally, there is neither obligation nor rush, but I would like to know your thoughts. Thank you.
-
When you have a chance, could you please address the questions I asked in my post at the bottom of page one? Naturally, there is neither obligation nor rush, but I would like to know your thoughts. Thank you.
Of course. My contention, one borne out by history, is that only a society and government that is united, materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ, has the right or ability to govern justly and to address threats to peace and order, whether internal or external. Those that adhere to false religions, while having to their merit the desire to see the peace secured and wrongs righted, do not have any moral authority from which to seek either.
In those cases, as you say pretty much all the world, where the social reign of Christ the King is denied by the naturalism and relativism of politicians, their is really only one course by which such a nation can prosper: evangelization. The Great Commission given to Peter and his bishops was not simply for the salvation of souls but for the establishment and preservation of Christian society, so that the rulers of the nations would be among the faithful and, in submission to the Church and her Pontiff, rule in her stead. This is especially necessary in representative republics as rulers are chosen from among the public. If evangelization be successful, order will by the grace and mercy of God spring up from every direction.
-
I do not think anyone here will argue against the ideal, nor that we are under an obligation to do what we can to realize it, but that vast majority of history involves nations that were very far from realizing, or even knowing, that ideal. Some prospered, at least to whatever degree they could -- full of imperfections as they were. Or, would you argue that there has been no real prosperity, even from a purely natural point of view, in any non-Catholic nation? Was the prosperity of Rome, for example, an illusion? Certainly, it was far from perfect, even in its better days, but does that mean the leadership of Rome did not even possess the "right or ability to govern justly"? St. Augustine posits the idea that the government of the world was given to the Romans as a reward for their truly notable virtue, limited to the natural sphere though it was.
I see this discussion as analogous, in some ways, to the discussion of the relationship between nature and grace. While grace is infinitely superior to nature, nature, even fallen nature, is not completely worthless, etc.
-
...but that vast majority of history involves nations that were very far from realizing, or even knowing, that ideal...
Please read, "...but the vast majority..." Thank you.
-
My contention, one borne out by history, is that only a society and government that is united, materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ, has the right or ability to govern justly and to address threats to peace and order, whether internal or external. Those that adhere to false religions, while having to their merit the desire to see the peace secured and wrongs righted, do not have any moral authority from which to seek either.
Rights and duties are correlative. Are you saying governments that are NOT united "materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ" have no duty to govern justly and seek peace?
-
My contention, one borne out by history, is that only a society and government that is united, materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ, has the right or ability to govern justly and to address threats to peace and order, whether internal or external. Those that adhere to false religions, while having to their merit the desire to see the peace secured and wrongs righted, do not have any moral authority from which to seek either.
Rights and duties are correlative. Are you saying governments that are NOT united "materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ" have no duty to govern justly and seek peace?
Of course not. A government, by at least ostensible definition, desires to do just that. I'm saying that by virtue of their rebellion against the Church of Christ, her spiritual governance and her immutable teaching on moral virtues, that they are each one doomed to fail in attaining those goals with any success. The purpose of a brain in principle is to direct the body; a brain malformed or lacking essential necessities may try to fulfill that role but cannot do so regardless of its own effort; disorder and death is the inevitable result.
-
I do not think anyone here will argue against the ideal, nor that we are under an obligation to do what we can to realize it, but that vast majority of history involves nations that were very far from realizing, or even knowing, that ideal. Some prospered, at least to whatever degree they could -- full of imperfections as they were. Or, would you argue that there has been no real prosperity, even from a purely natural point of view, in any non-Catholic nation? Was the prosperity of Rome, for example, an illusion? Certainly, it was far from perfect, even in its better days, but does that mean the leadership of Rome did not even possess the "right or ability to govern justly"? St. Augustine posits the idea that the government of the world was given to the Romans as a reward for their truly notable virtue, limited to the natural sphere though it was.
I see this discussion as analogous, in some ways, to the discussion of the relationship between nature and grace. While grace is infinitely superior to nature, nature, even fallen nature, is not completely worthless, etc.
An apt analogy! The nature of man is worthy only in those things that it does, or can do, to foster and uphold supernatural grace. Man suffers concupiscence because of the pride of our First Father which forever wounded our nature. Despite this, man's nature as a creature of flesh and spirit is to seek out his Creator, which is just. However it is nothing in man's nature, but the mercy of prevenient grace from Our Father that directs us to seek out and submit to his Church, if we are so unfortunate as to be born and raised outside of it. In this sense, yes, fallen nature can assist in the justification of man yet merit itself nothing.
I view those government, especially those pagan governments before the Nativity of Our Lord as being that wounded and meritless part of ourselves that served a greater good until the greatest good could be established. Rome, for example, subjugated the known world of the time and at the same time created a society where the dissemination of knowledge and social philosophy was possible. I personally believe it no mere coincidence that Peter should set up his Seat in Rome; from there, once the Kingdom there took root, it could be spread to the whole world. Did they have some virtuous ideals? Arguably, but the greater truth, at least in my estimation, is that it had no merit of itself; it was merely the omniscience of God that permitted that its structure and character should cooperate with the establishment of Holy Church. The potential merit of such cooperation ended the day the Cross was hoisted on Golgotha; no government or society has the ability to blame their evil and lawlessness on ignorance.
-
My contention, one borne out by history, is that only a society and government that is united, materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ, has the right or ability to govern justly and to address threats to peace and order, whether internal or external. Those that adhere to false religions, while having to their merit the desire to see the peace secured and wrongs righted, do not have any moral authority from which to seek either.
Rights and duties are correlative. Are you saying governments that are NOT united "materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ" have no duty to govern justly and seek peace?
Of course not. A government, by at least ostensible definition, desires to do just that. I'm saying that by virtue of their rebellion against the Church of Christ, her spiritual governance and her immutable teaching on moral virtues, that they are each one doomed to fail in attaining those goals with any success. The purpose of a brain in principle is to direct the body; a brain malformed or lacking essential necessities may try to fulfill that role but cannot do so regardless of its own effort; disorder and death is the inevitable result.
Well then, they have the right and the duty.
-
My contention, one borne out by history, is that only a society and government that is united, materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ, has the right or ability to govern justly and to address threats to peace and order, whether internal or external. Those that adhere to false religions, while having to their merit the desire to see the peace secured and wrongs righted, do not have any moral authority from which to seek either.
Rights and duties are correlative. Are you saying governments that are NOT united "materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ" have no duty to govern justly and seek peace?
Of course not. A government, by at least ostensible definition, desires to do just that. I'm saying that by virtue of their rebellion against the Church of Christ, her spiritual governance and her immutable teaching on moral virtues, that they are each one doomed to fail in attaining those goals with any success. The purpose of a brain in principle is to direct the body; a brain malformed or lacking essential necessities may try to fulfill that role but cannot do so regardless of its own effort; disorder and death is the inevitable result.
Well then, they have the right and the duty.
I disagree. They have an obligation to operate according to the precepts of the Church; from this, and only this, does a government have the right (not the ability) to rule and do so justly. Without that they lack, as an institution informed by the Church and her morals, the right to exercise moral authority. That is not to say that they are powerless to do so; the U.S. government is capable of enforcing its will domestically while maintaining the heresy of a separation between Church and state. It does not do so by right, merely by social inculcation and the acceptance of the people that it governs. The right to correct evil must come from moral authority, which in turn must be derived from knowing and accepting universal moral truth. Physically a heretic is indistinguishable from a priest. Only the later, however, is capable of acting in a role of spiritual authority, because he accepts that first that the Church is the purveyor and interpreter of salvific truth (and by extension what is an objective good), and agrees to operate as an agent of that authority.
-
Did they have some virtuous ideals? Arguably, but the greater truth, at least in my estimation, is that it had no merit of itself; it was merely the omniscience of God that permitted that...
Merits are not limited to eternity, the supernatural order, etc. Acts of natural virtue have natural merit. There is no shame in saying so, as it is true.
-
They have an obligation to operate according to the precepts of the Church; from this, and only this, does a government have the right (not the ability) to rule and do so justly.
Would you agree that...
If they do not have a RIGHT to rule, I do NOT have a duty to obey?
If I DO have a duty to obey, whence is it derived, considering the "authority" I am bound to obey has no right to rule?
-
It does not do so by right, merely by social inculcation and the acceptance of the people that it governs.
So are you saying that, in such cases, JJ Rousseau's idea is, in fact, true? If not, please clarify.
-
They have an obligation to operate according to the precepts of the Church; from this, and only this, does a government have the right (not the ability) to rule and do so justly.
Would you agree that...
If they do not have a RIGHT to rule, I do NOT have a duty to obey?
That would depend on what you're obeying. At least in the abstract, I would argue that the faithful would not be bound to obey that government. In practice, that would depend of the situation. I would argue that it would be licit to follow those laws that are just, or that are in agreement with Catholic morality (prohibition against murder), and to disobey those laws that would be harmful to faith or that make us a party to sin (such as paying taxes to a statist government that use it to provide euthanasia, and chemical or surgical abortion). Moreover, Thomas Aquinas asserted that it is sometimes necessary to tolerate particular evils to prevent chaos, as it is for faithful Catholics who must live and operate in secular societies that grow more hostile toward the faith with each passing year. Acceptance of an unjust power's temporal authority for the sake of order, to suffer this while speaking against it peaceably is sometimes necessary; such is an example of the virtue of fortitude.
To put it simply, if obeying an unjust or unlawful secular power does not require one to sin, or to be a party to sin, and to do so will maintain or improve the common good, then it can be considered just to do so. If rebellion against that power can be had with reasonable assurance of both success and that the common good would not be made worse by it, then I would argue that rebellion is just. If reasonable success of revolt is impossible, then to refuse to sin by following its precepts, suffering what punishment such refusal would engender, and to preach the truth of Christ against that unlawful power seems the most wise and just course.
-
It does not do so by right, merely by social inculcation and the acceptance of the people that it governs.
So are you saying that, in such cases, JJ Rousseau's idea is, in fact, true? If not, please clarify.
If you're referring to Rousseau's theory that societal submission to a generally-recognized authority is a means of both self-preservation and general license, then no, that was not my contention. I feel that Rousseau's social theory was predicated on notions of aristocracy that are absent in modern times. My statement dealt more with sociological moment and the forces of culturalism and nationalism by which unjust governments can obtain consent for actions that might otherwise provoke unrest.
-
That would depend on what you're obeying.
I disagree. The ruling body is either legit or it is not. The nuances of which you speak only come in AFTER it has been proved that the body has a RIGHT to rule. If that is not first established, there is no DUTY at all.
At least in the abstract, I would argue that the faithful would not be bound to obey that government. In practice, that would depend of the situation.
I mean no disrespect, but this sounds like so much nonsense. Either I have a duty to obey or I do not. If I do not, that is the end of it. If I DO, that is when any discussion of just versus unjust laws can begin -- and not one moment sooner.
-
As for JJ, I was referring to the Social Contract and the Sovereignty of the People.
-
I disagree. They have an obligation to operate according to the precepts of the Church; ...
They have a duty to operate according to the natural law first, something of which they are cannot be ignorant.
-
Can the natural law, the Ten Commandments, be distinct from God and the true Faith/the one Church?
-
Yes, the natural law is written on the hearts of all men, whether or not they know anything about the Faith and Holy Church. No one is bound to obey laws which they do not and cannot know exist.
-
Were there any peoples who were saved, in the OT
time, other than God's Chosen People?
If a code of conduct does not depend on an ultimate authority, and someone, inevitably, comes along and decides to change God's code, in what sense is that code, the natural law, written on his heart? Of what sin is he guilty?
-
FWIW, Job was not within the OT fold, yet he was clearly very pleasing to God. None of us can know who was or was not saved before or after the coming of Christ (outside of God telling us via some kind of revelation), but God is a just judge whose decisions are absolutely perfect. We do not need to know such things in order to play our own little parts, knowing that He alone is worthy of all honor, praise, and glory.
God is the sole, ultimate authority in any and all circuмstances and times. Even now, the Church merely acts as His minister upon earth. Men cannot erase or alter the law written upon their hearts, however much they may desire to do so.
-
Can the natural law, the Ten Commandments, be distinct from God and the true Faith/the one Church?
This may be of interest:
The ability of unaided human reason to know God is shown here in the definition from the Vatican Council, Sess. III, de Revel., can.i.:
“If anyone shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema.”
The proofs of this are shown in the New Testament, - Romans I, 18-20; culminating in verse 20: “For the invisible things of Him [God] from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”
In other words, God, Who is per se invisible, after some fashion becomes visible to human reason. Not by positive revelation, nor yet by the interior grace of faith; but solely by means of a natural revelation imbedded in the created world.
1. God has imprinted the natural law on the heart of every man; this forms the fundamental rule of human actions.
A young child who has done something wrong lied, perhaps, or committed a theft, feels uncomfortable, frightened, or ashamed; though it may never have heard of the Ten Commandments, it is conscious that it has done amiss. It is the same with the heathen who knows nothing about God's commandments. Hence we may conclude that there is a law of nature in every human heart, a law not written upon it, but inborn in it; an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong.
St. Paul declares that the Gentiles do by nature those things that are of the law (what the Ten commandments enjoin), and consequently they will be judged by God according to the natural law (Rom. ii. 14-16). The characters wherein this law is inscribed upon our hearts may be obscured but not obliterated; the Roman Catechism tells us no man can be unconscious of this law, divinely imprinted upon his understanding. This natural law teaches us the most important rules of morality, e.g., that homage is due to almighty God; that no man must willfully injure himself; that we must not do to others what we would not have others do to us; furthermore from this moral code certain inferences directly follow; these are the Ten Commandments of God (the observance of the Sabbath excepted).
Thus the natural law does not consist of a series of truths founded on reason, but is a definite expression of the will of God, which it is binding upon us to obey, and of which in individual cases we are made acquainted by means of reason. This consciousness of God’s will is conscience. Hence it is erroneous to say reason is itself the law.
-
Thank you, SJB and GV.