Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: BillMcEnaney on December 03, 2019, 08:44:10 PM
-
Everyone here knows about Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical about the nature of liberty, Libertas praestantissimum, where that pope insists that Catholicism needs to be each society's State religion. In part 21 of that encyclical, he writes:
Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness — namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide — as they should do — with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.
So here's my question. To comply with what Pope Leo teaches, should Congress amend the Constitution to remove its religiously indifferentirst First Amendment and adopt Catholicism as the State religion? During a lecture I heard on YouTube, a hero of mine, Fr. Gregory Hesse says that America needs that amendment because in our religiously diverse country, everyone needs to get along. But I disagree because in a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics may practice their religions because it's immoral to force those people to become Catholic. Your thoughts?
-
Everyone here knows about Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical about the nature of liberty, Libertas praestantissimum, where that pope insists that Catholicism needs to be each society's State religion. In part 21 of that encyclical, he writes:
So here's my question. To comply with what Pope Leo teaches, should Congress amend the Constitution to remove its religiously indifferentirst First Amendment and adopt Catholicism as the State religion? During a lecture I heard on YouTube, a hero of mine, Fr. Gregory Hesse says that America needs that amendment because in our religiously diverse country, everyone needs to get along. But I disagree because in a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics may practice their religions because it's immoral to force those people to become Catholic. Your thoughts?
You wrote yourself the Question and Answer to #1:
Question : To comply with what Pope Leo teaches, should Congress amend the Constitution to remove its religiously indifferentirst First Amendment and adopt Catholicism as the State religion? Answer - Everyone here knows about Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical about the nature of liberty, Libertas praestantissimum, where that pope insists that Catholicism needs to be each society's State religion.
So I assume this is another question:
2) During a lecture I heard on YouTube, a hero of mine, Fr. Gregory Hesse says that America needs that amendment because in our religiously diverse country, everyone needs to get along. But I disagree because in a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics may practice their religions because it's immoral to force those people to become Catholic. Your thoughts?
As I understand you, your disagreement is with what Fr. Hesse said, you say they would not get along because the non-Catholics would still be allowed to practice their religions? You'll have to clear up what you are for and against. It appears that you are against Pope Leo XIII.
Just so you know how a Catholic confessional state worked in practice with the non-Catholic false religions, where the rubber meets the road, the Jews and Protestants for instance, were not permitted to evangelize in public, but they were allowed to meet in their meeting halls and ѕуηαgσgυєs, they just could not have public signs outside of the building to advertise the location.
The popes of Vatican II ordered all Catholic confessional states to remove Catholicism as the state religion from their constitution, a big indicator that the Vatican II church is a false religion.
-
Everyone here knows about Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical about the nature of liberty, Libertas praestantissimum, where that pope insists that Catholicism needs to be each society's State religion. In part 21 of that encyclical, he writes:
So here's my question. To comply with what Pope Leo teaches, should Congress amend the Constitution to remove its religiously indifferentirst First Amendment and adopt Catholicism as the State religion? During a lecture I heard on YouTube, a hero of mine, Fr. Gregory Hesse says that America needs that amendment because in our religiously diverse country, everyone needs to get along. But I disagree because in a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics may practice their religions because it's immoral to force those people to become Catholic. Your thoughts?
Do you think that is likely to happen?
I am concerned about the anti Catholic laws and regulations being promulgated by politicians and bureaucrats. That in California Catholic hospitals may be forced to perform abortions and sterilizations and participate in sex change operations. That pro-life organizations who dedicate themselves to helping pregnant women in distress may be required by the state to make abortion referrals.
Another anti Catholic attack is against the Hispanic people who wish to profess their faith by publicly wearing a Catholic rosary.
More anti Catholicism may be found in the public schools where the Faith is calumniated and ridiculed.
-
Poche, you cannot run away from the evidence that YOU ridicule the faith with your heresies and YOU are a serial habitual liar, even a Falsifier of Scripture.
You willfully falsified the Matthew 16:18. You substituted "you" for "it" to bolster your equally phony contention about Jorge.
Quote from: poche on November 07, 2019, 04:55:39 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301)
"And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you" -Jesus to Peter
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301
Repeatedly you have partially quoted Pope St. Pius X to falsify his attitude toward the Jews. Representative examples: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367) https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407) You willfully omitted:
"We are unable to favor this [Zionist] movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people.... If you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with priests and churches to baptize all of you". (Pope St. Pius X)
You also lied when you claimed that Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) and that Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082)
Your father is the father of lies and murder and you do his work.
You have claimed that Jorge has “the same view” on the Jews as Pope St. Pius X. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367) Directly to their faces Pope St. Pius X told the Jews of Jesus Christ and their need to convert. Jorge is the diametric opposite, not “the same.” Jorge confirms тαℓмυdic Jews in their Faith and teaches their heretical dogmas to Catholics. Several examples here: http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#тαℓмυdicantipope (http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#тαℓмυdicantipope)
You are Satan's lying sack of dirt… again and again.
Here is Jorge's full allocution: https://zenit.org/articles/holy-father-continues-catecheses-on-acts-of-the-apostles/ (https://zenit.org/articles/holy-father-continues-catecheses-on-acts-of-the-apostles/)
First, there is not one word about the тαℓмυd, not one stinking word.
Second, contrary to your assertion that Jorge preached "how Christianity is distinct from the Jєωιѕн religion," https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) Jorge uses the metaphors of "the Open Door," "the common way," "synodality," Instead of making a distinction, Jorge proposes an indifferentist blend of Christ and Belial: "relation between faith in Christ and the observance of the Law of Moses." The only "relation" recognized by the perennial and infallible Magisterium is that the Law of Moses died with Christ on the Cross—and, as expected, that dogma is entirely missing in Jorge's subversion.
Third, Jorge cannot bring himself to teach de fide supersessionism, that the Law of Moses is dead, so instead he infers тαℓмυdic Noahidism (http://judaism.is/noahide-deceit.html): "ask them only to reject idolatry and all its expressions." So Jorge did not "preach against the тαℓмυd" as you claimed. Jorge did the exact opposite; he preached тαℓмυdic Noahidism.
"Funny how you" constructed three lies in your one run-on sentence!
Poche, you are a serial habitual liar, even a Falsifier of Scripture. Get thee behind me, Satan!
-
Repeatedly you have partially quoted Pope St. Pius X to falsify his attitude toward the Jews. Representative examples: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367) https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407) You willfully omitted:
"We are unable to favor this [Zionist] movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people.... If you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with priests and churches to baptize all of you". (Pope St. Pius X)
I don't believe that I partially quoted Pope St Pius X. Those are two separate issues. Pope St Pius X, along with a lot of other people, including many Jews of that day, chose to not support the Zionist movement.
Not supporting the Zionist movement does not equal hatred of or hostility to the Jews. Pope St Pius X said so himself when he said, that from his days at Mantua he always got along well with the Jews.
-
You also lied when you claimed that Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) and that Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082)
Just as we do not find the words, 'real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist,' or 'Transubstantiation' in the Sacred Scripture, so also it is not necessary to find the word 'тαℓмυd' when we hear Pope Francis preach against useless traditions or when he preaches on the theme of the Council of Jerusalem.
-
You also lied when you claimed that Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) and that Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082)
Just as we do not find the words, 'real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist,' or 'Transubstantiation' in the Sacred Scripture, so also it is not necessary to find the word 'тαℓмυd' when we hear Pope Francis preach against useless traditions or when he preaches on the theme of the Council of Jerusalem.
Pope Francis is a Modernist. Are you aware of that?
-
Poche, you cannot run away from the evidence that YOU ridicule the faith with your heresies and YOU are a serial habitual liar, even a Falsifier of Scripture.
You willfully falsified the Matthew 16:18. You substituted "you" for "it" to bolster your equally phony contention about Jorge.
Quote from: poche on November 07, 2019, 04:55:39 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301)
"And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you" -Jesus to Peter
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301
Repeatedly you have partially quoted Pope St. Pius X to falsify his attitude toward the Jews. Representative examples: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367) https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407) You willfully omitted:
"We are unable to favor this [Zionist] movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people.... If you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with priests and churches to baptize all of you". (Pope St. Pius X)
You also lied when you claimed that Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) and that Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082)
Your father is the father of lies and murder and you do his work.
You have claimed that Jorge has “the same view” on the Jews as Pope St. Pius X. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367) Directly to their faces Pope St. Pius X told the Jews of Jesus Christ and their need to convert. Jorge is the diametric opposite, not “the same.” Jorge confirms тαℓмυdic Jews in their Faith and teaches their heretical dogmas to Catholics. Several examples here: http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#тαℓмυdicantipope (http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#тαℓмυdicantipope)
You are Satan's lying sack of dirt… again and again.
Here is Jorge's full allocution: https://zenit.org/articles/holy-father-continues-catecheses-on-acts-of-the-apostles/ (https://zenit.org/articles/holy-father-continues-catecheses-on-acts-of-the-apostles/)
First, there is not one word about the тαℓмυd, not one stinking word.
Second, contrary to your assertion that Jorge preached "how Christianity is distinct from the Jєωιѕн religion," https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) Jorge uses the metaphors of "the Open Door," "the common way," "synodality," Instead of making a distinction, Jorge proposes an indifferentist blend of Christ and Belial: "relation between faith in Christ and the observance of the Law of Moses." The only "relation" recognized by the perennial and infallible Magisterium is that the Law of Moses died with Christ on the Cross—and, as expected, that dogma is entirely missing in Jorge's subversion.
Third, Jorge cannot bring himself to teach de fide supersessionism, that the Law of Moses is dead, so instead he infers тαℓмυdic Noahidism (http://judaism.is/noahide-deceit.html): "ask them only to reject idolatry and all its expressions." So Jorge did not "preach against the тαℓмυd" as you claimed. Jorge did the exact opposite; he preached тαℓмυdic Noahidism.
"Funny how you" constructed three lies in your one run-on sentence!
Poche, you are a serial habitual liar, even a Falsifier of Scripture. Get thee behind me, Satan!
In speaking of the Jews, Pope St Pius X did say, "After all, there are other bonds than those of religion: courtesy and philanthropy." This sounds like a precursor to Pope Francis' "Open Door," and "the common way,"
-
In speaking of the Jews, Pope St Pius X did say, "After all, there are other bonds than those of religion: courtesy and philanthropy." This sounds like a precursor to Pope Francis' "Open Door," and "the common way,"
No, it does not. Pius X had a very different theological understanding of Jews and Judaism than that of Francis. There may be a superficial resemblance because Francis, as he typically does, uses ambiguous language that fosters error.
A person might genuinely be confused by this into thinking the positions are similar. You however have had this explained to you many times. You do not have the excuse of honest misunderstanding. It is willful blindness, a basic intellectual dishonesty.
-
You also lied when you claimed that Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) and that Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082)
Just as we do not find the words, 'real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist,' or 'Transubstantiation' in the Sacred Scripture, so also it is not necessary to find the word 'тαℓмυd' when we hear Pope Francis preach against useless traditions or when he preaches on the theme of the Council of Jerusalem.
This is not true at all. Francis simply refers to passages of Scripture that, when correctly understood, show what is wrong with the тαℓмυd. That is not preaching against it.
Those who are aware of the historic link between the sect of the Pharisees and modern тαℓмυdic Judaism can understand how Our Lord's condemnation of following the traditions of men rather than the law of God applies to the тαℓмυd. This, however, is not common knowledge like the dogma of the Real Presence.
Without any explanation of Our Lord's words, few are likely to understand them as a condemnation of the тαℓмυd. Protestants have historically used such passages erroneously to attack the Catholic Church. Or a person might very well have understood Francis as attacking traditional Catholics, given his known animosity toward us. Francis did not give the explanation required for his listeners to correctly understood the words of Our Lord. On the contrary, it was yet another example of Francis being unclear in a way that fosters error.
It is dishonest to call what Francis said "preaching against the тαℓмυd".
-
Not supporting the Zionist movement does not equal hatred of or hostility to the Jews. Pope St Pius X said so himself when he said, that from his days at Mantua he always got along well with the Jews.
You continually refer to St. Pius X getting along with Jews as a response to any criticisms or legitimate resentment of Jews expressed on this forum. Just as he was firmly against Zionism, we have issues on which we ought to take a stand. You have never, to my recollection, acknowledged the validity of any of our concerns about Jews, Judaism, and recent "Catholic" teaching on them. All you say is "get along" like Pius X.
There may be some here who go too far in expressing resentment. If there were, the first step would be to admit that it has a genuine basis. If you will not do that, then your refrain about "getting along" is simply another way of shutting down just criticisms (much like people use accusations of "anti-semitism).
-
So here's my question. To comply with what Pope Leo teaches, should Congress amend the Constitution to remove its religiously indifferentirst First Amendment and adopt Catholicism as the State religion? During a lecture I heard on YouTube, a hero of mine, Fr. Gregory Hesse says that America needs that amendment because in our religiously diverse country, everyone needs to get along. But I disagree because in a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics may practice their religions because it's immoral to force those people to become Catholic. Your thoughts?
In theory, America, like all countries, should have Catholicism as the state religion. The principle of separation of church and state is an error. Ideally the state should be run according to the true religion, i.e. Catholicism.
In practice, many, probably most, countries would not accept Catholicism as the state religion. This means tolerating a less than ideal situation.
Many Catholics (this seems to be Poche's view and perhaps Fr. Hesse's) think that we should encourage the separation of church and state because this works to the advantage of Catholics in non-Catholic countries. This is arguably the teaching of Vatican II. In effect, this view encourages people to believe an error in the hopes that Catholics will benefit.
This seems to me to be a case of doing evil that good may come of it. How could it be right to encourage people to believe a false principle? On the other hand, I can see making a case for the position that, if the state religion is not Catholicism, it is better to separate church and state.
-
Many Catholics (this seems to be Poche's view and perhaps Fr. Hesse's) think that we should encourage the separation of church and state because this works to the advantage of Catholics in non-Catholic countries. This is arguably the teaching of Vatican II. In effect, this view encourages people to believe an error in the hopes that Catholics will benefit.
This seems to me to be a case of doing evil that good may come of it. How could it be right to encourage people to believe a false principle? On the other hand, I can see making a case for the position that, if the state religion is not Catholicism, it is better to separate church and state.
The popes of Vatican II ordered all Catholic confessional states to remove Catholicism as the state religion from their constitution, a big indicator that the Vatican II church is a false religion.
-
The popes of Vatican II ordered all Catholic confessional states to remove Catholicism as the state religion from their constitution, a big indicator that the Vatican II church is a false religion.
It certainly is troubling. The defense I have heard for this was that it was a strategic move. By giving up Catholicism as a state religion in places where it was feasible, they intended to protect Catholics in Communist countries (who were subject to great persecution at the time.) But even if this were true, we can see in hindsight that its effect was to obscure the truth that error has no rights. Even among traditional Catholics we can find people who do not understand the traditional Catholic position.
What I suspect is that the modernists at the Council intended this result from Dignitatis Humanae but they were able to obtain support from non-modernists by presenting it as a beneficial strategy.
-
Poche, you cannot run away from the evidence that YOU ridicule the faith with your heresies and YOU are a serial habitual liar, even a Falsifier of Scripture.
You willfully falsified the Matthew 16:18. You substituted "you" for "it" to bolster your equally phony contention about Jorge.
Quote from: poche on November 07, 2019, 04:55:39 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301)
"And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you" -Jesus to Peter
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301
Repeatedly you have partially quoted Pope St. Pius X to falsify his attitude toward the Jews. Representative examples: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367) https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/pius-xii-and-ww2-pius-the-liberal-and-roncalli-the-conservative/msg674407/#msg674407) You willfully omitted:
"We are unable to favor this [Zionist] movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jєωιѕн people.... If you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with priests and churches to baptize all of you". (Pope St. Pius X)
You also lied when you claimed that Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) and that Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082)
Your father is the father of lies and murder and you do his work.
You have claimed that Jorge has “the same view” on the Jews as Pope St. Pius X. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367) Directly to their faces Pope St. Pius X told the Jews of Jesus Christ and their need to convert. Jorge is the diametric opposite, not “the same.” Jorge confirms тαℓмυdic Jews in their Faith and teaches their heretical dogmas to Catholics. Several examples here: http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#тαℓмυdicantipope (http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#тαℓмυdicantipope)
You are Satan's lying sack of dirt… again and again.
Here is Jorge's full allocution: https://zenit.org/articles/holy-father-continues-catecheses-on-acts-of-the-apostles/ (https://zenit.org/articles/holy-father-continues-catecheses-on-acts-of-the-apostles/)
First, there is not one word about the тαℓмυd, not one stinking word.
Second, contrary to your assertion that Jorge preached "how Christianity is distinct from the Jєωιѕн religion," https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784) Jorge uses the metaphors of "the Open Door," "the common way," "synodality," Instead of making a distinction, Jorge proposes an indifferentist blend of Christ and Belial: "relation between faith in Christ and the observance of the Law of Moses." The only "relation" recognized by the perennial and infallible Magisterium is that the Law of Moses died with Christ on the Cross—and, as expected, that dogma is entirely missing in Jorge's subversion.
Third, Jorge cannot bring himself to teach de fide supersessionism, that the Law of Moses is dead, so instead he infers тαℓмυdic Noahidism (http://judaism.is/noahide-deceit.html): "ask them only to reject idolatry and all its expressions." So Jorge did not "preach against the тαℓмυd" as you claimed. Jorge did the exact opposite; he preached тαℓмυdic Noahidism.
"Funny how you" constructed three lies in your one run-on sentence!
Poche, you are a serial habitual liar, even a Falsifier of Scripture. Get thee behind me, Satan!
There is a separate thread about poche, so why comment this on every place poche is present? It detracts from the topic the OP posts about.
-
You wrote yourself the Question and Answer to #1:
Question : To comply with what Pope Leo teaches, should Congress amend the Constitution to remove its religiously indifferentirst First Amendment and adopt Catholicism as the State religion? Answer - Everyone here knows about Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical about the nature of liberty, Libertas praestantissimum, where that pope insists that Catholicism needs to be each society's State religion.
So I assume this is another question:
2) During a lecture I heard on YouTube, a hero of mine, Fr. Gregory Hesse says that America needs that amendment because in our religiously diverse country, everyone needs to get along. But I disagree because in a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics may practice their religions because it's immoral to force those people to become Catholic. Your thoughts?
As I understand you, your disagreement is with what Fr. Hesse said, you say they would not get along because the non-Catholics would still be allowed to practice their religions? You'll have to clear up what you are for and against. It appears that you are against Pope Leo XIII.
Just so you know how a Catholic confessional state worked in practice with the non-Catholic false religions, where the rubber meets the road, the Jews and Protestants for instance, were not permitted to evangelize in public, but they were allowed to meet in their meeting halls and ѕуηαgσgυєs, they just could not have public signs outside of the building to advertise the location.
The popes of Vatican II ordered all Catholic confessional states to remove Catholicism as the state religion from their constitution, a big indicator that the Vatican II church is a false religion.
I disagreed with Fr. Hesse because Catholic confessional states still let religious non-Catholics practice their religions in them. I seem to remember that for a country to become Catholic confessional, most people there would first need to be Catholic. Maybe this is just the wrong time for the U.S. to become Catholic. Most people think that ought implies can. But I wonder whether people are still obligated to do some things when current circuмstances prevent them from doing them.
Maybe someday when the time is right, liberal democracy, which I reject, could help, say, the U.S., become Catholic. Remember how Catholicism thrived in Salazar's Portugal and that in 2011, Hungary adopted generically Christian constitution.
[url[http://romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/2009/08/antonio-salazar.html[/url]
I'm a native-born American hereditary monarchist who wants to move to a kingdom where the sovereign rules. I'm counter-revolutionary reactionary who lets Catholicism decide my politics. Though I love my country, I'm eager to leave it. But if I emigrate, my anti-immigration might make me a hypocrite. If we talk about the economy, I'll sound like a conservative Republican. But I won't join any American political party.
Here's my favorite blog.
https://bonald.wordpress.com (https://bonald.wordpress.com)
-
Everyone here knows about Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical about the nature of liberty, Libertas praestantissimum, where that pope insists that Catholicism needs to be each society's State religion. In part 21 of that encyclical, he writes:
So here's my question. To comply with what Pope Leo teaches, should Congress amend the Constitution to remove its religiously indifferentirst First Amendment and adopt Catholicism as the State religion? During a lecture I heard on YouTube, a hero of mine, Fr. Gregory Hesse says that America needs that amendment because in our religiously diverse country, everyone needs to get along. But I disagree because in a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics may practice their religions because it's immoral to force those people to become Catholic. Your thoughts?
It would be right and proper, from a traditional Catholic perspective, to have a Catholic confessional state, where Catholicism is the professed religion. But as far as I can tell, Pope Leo didn't say that others cannot practice a religion different from the Catholic Faith in such a case. In times past, Catholic states/countries were professed to be Catholic, but other religions were allowed to be practiced, although privately, in that they were not allowed to publicly profess their faith, or to advertise it at all.
Pretty sure this won't ever work in the U.S. though, barring a miracle of some sort that would allow for a Catholic confessional state. But it's an interesting subject to consider.
-
Do you think that is likely to happen?
I am concerned about the anti Catholic laws and regulations being promulgated by politicians and bureaucrats. That in California Catholic hospitals may be forced to perform abortions and sterilizations and participate in sex change operations. That pro-life organizations who dedicate themselves to helping pregnant women in distress may be required by the state to make abortion referrals.
Another anti Catholic attack is against the Hispanic people who wish to profess their faith by publicly wearing a Catholic rosary.
More anti Catholicism may be found in the public schools where the Faith is calumniated and ridiculed.
No, I believe it's highly unlikely to happen. But I suggest that the country's religious indifferentism is partly to blame for the problems you describe. Most progressives support the immoral practices you describe probably are irreligious. Some secularists may support American religious liberty because they're libertarians. Maybe they would tell you, "Sure, practice any religion in our free country." While they say that, their unspoken belief may be, "Since each religion is false, it doesn't matter what, if any, religion anyone practices."
Irreligion is incompatible with what the Declaration of Independence says about our Creator who gave us inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My question for other Americans is this. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a Freemason and Fremasonry is religiously indifferent. Listen to John Salza's lectures about Masonry. He's tell you that while a lodge initiates a new recruit, a Mason will ask him what religion he professes. Whatever the candidate replies, the Mason will say, "Your faith is well founded." So do we know what or whom the word "Creator" signifies in the Declaration? In her book The Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism, Solange seems to think that word stands for the Masonic Grand Architect. But given Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's religious indifferentism, I want to know what or whom "Grand Architect" stands for.
Here's an excellent example of American religious indifferentism in our supposedly Christian country when I never hear what standards people use to tell whether America is Christian. In the Treaty of Tripoli, Artile 11 says:
Article 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
[url]https://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html[url]
-
It would be right and proper, from a traditional Catholic perspective, to have a Catholic confessional state, where Catholicism is the professed religion. But as far as I can tell, Pope Leo didn't say that others cannot practice a religion different from the Catholic Faith in such a case. In times past, Catholic states/countries were professed to be Catholic, but other religions were allowed to be practiced, although privately, in that they were not allowed to publicly profess their faith, or to advertise it at all.
Pretty sure this won't ever work in the U.S. though, barring a miracle of some sort that would allow for a Catholic confessional state. But it's an interesting subject to consider.
Today, it wouldn't work in the U.S. That's partly why I think that for the country to become Catholic, most Americans would need to be Catholic.
I tike the idea that non-Catholics would need to practice their religions privately. But even a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics could still spread during private conversations. If a non-Catholic preached on a street corner, huge audiences may listen. So I wonder whether private conversations would spread more falsehoods than many may think they will.
-
It certainly is troubling. The defense I have heard for this was that it was a strategic move.
Nah, I don't believe this. I believe that this was done deliberately to destroy Catholic states. With Vatican II, the Jєωιѕн-Masonic fingerprints are all over it, and "an enemy hath done this."
Besides, has the Vatican EVEN ONCE asked Muslim countries to allow freedom of religion in their states?
-
It would be right and proper, from a traditional Catholic perspective, to have a Catholic confessional state, where Catholicism is the professed religion. But as far as I can tell, Pope Leo didn't say that others cannot practice a religion different from the Catholic Faith in such a case. In times past, Catholic states/countries were professed to be Catholic, but other religions were allowed to be practiced, although privately, in that they were not allowed to publicly profess their faith, or to advertise it at all.
Well, the trick with what you're saying is to define "privately". If by privately, you mean in the internal forum, then, of course, since the Church cannot know what exists in the internal forum only, and God has given every soul the freedom to reject His grace and His truth in that internal forum. So if that's what you mean by privately, then of course I agree. But should the Church allow a Jew to "privately" own a copy of the тαℓмυd? I don't believe so. If found, they could rightly be confiscated. Should a few Jews be able to gather at someone's home and celebrate Passover? No. As soon as something comes out from the internal forum into the external, the state has the authority to suppress it. This is in principle, of course, and as a practical matter prudence might suggest being more tolerant.
-
Do you think that is likely to happen?
I am concerned about the anti Catholic laws and regulations being promulgated by politicians and bureaucrats. That in California Catholic hospitals may be forced to perform abortions and sterilizations and participate in sex change operations. That pro-life organizations who dedicate themselves to helping pregnant women in distress may be required by the state to make abortion referrals.
Another anti Catholic attack is against the Hispanic people who wish to profess their faith by publicly wearing a Catholic rosary.
More anti Catholicism may be found in the public schools where the Faith is calumniated and ridiculed.
Poche, those problems worry me, too. So if I were, say, a hospital that some bureaucracy tried to coerce, I would need to close rather than abort the babies. Years ago, after eHarmony refused to match same-sex couples, it caved to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists by building another website at http://www.compatiblematch.com (http://www.compatiblematch.com). I'm not judging eHarmony. But I think it should have closed forever.
I remember an OBGYN doctor who closed his medical practice when he realized that artificial contraception is immoral. He didn't know what would happen after he did that. But opened a new office in another state where he delivered babies. Sometimes we need to beg God for the grace to live heroically to fight evil, even when we'll suffer for that. We can't compromise when compromise would kill unborn babies.
I love my country, but I don't love its government. I blame liberal democracy partly for the an evil law here in New York State where babies can be murdered legally after birth. I blame liberal democracy and the Democrat Party for partial-birth abortion.
Democrats and maybe most Americans ignore an important point John Vennari made when he lectured at a Catholic Family News Conference. Americans say that since they have rights, the also have duties. But Vennari, RIP, and I believe that our duties determine our rights. When you know what you're morally obligated to do, you can deduce your rights from your obligations. If I were a husband and a father, I would have the right to do each moral thing I would need to do to feed, shelter, clothe, and protect my wife and our children. What's more, the left needs to know that most rights presuppose the right to live because we need to be alive to do what we have a right to do.
-
Today, it wouldn't work in the U.S. That's partly why I think that for the country to become Catholic, most Americans would need to be Catholic.
I tike the idea that non-Catholics would need to practice their religions privately. But even a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics could still spread during private conversations. If a non-Catholic preached on a street corner, huge audiences may listen. So I wonder whether private conversations would spread more falsehoods than many may think they will.
I think that that is the way that it used to work in, say, the countries in South America. Non-Catholics had to practice their faith privately. It doesn't mean that they couldn't have buildings where they met. I wouldn't think that this would include preaching on street corners. But the Church and State can't control what people say in private conversations, and I don't think that the Church has ever wanted that level of control. That would be somewhat Marxist. Though there was one Pope who did go overboard in censoring what others talked about. I don't recall his name just now.
Those who were found guilty of heresy in times past, and sentenced to imprisonment or death (mainly by the state) were found guilty of publicly professing against the Catholic Faith. They were not found guilty, for the most part, for having private conversations about non-Catholic faiths.
The Church does not force anyone to convert to the Catholic Faith. We have free will. But the best form of government would be one that is centered on God through the Catholic Faith, which would be concerned about the salvation of souls. But which Catholic Faith? The conciliar church would hardly be an example for a government to follow, since a Modernist sect now controls the Church.
-
Well, the trick with what you're saying is to define "privately". If by privately, you mean in the internal forum, then, of course, since the Church cannot know what exists in the internal forum only, and God has given every soul the freedom to reject His grace and His truth in that internal forum. So if that's what you mean by privately, then of course I agree. But should the Church allow a Jew to "privately" own a copy of the тαℓмυd? I don't believe so. If found, they could rightly be confiscated. Should a few Jews be able to gather at someone's home and celebrate Passover? No. As soon as something comes out from the internal forum into the external, the state has the authority to suppress it. This is in principle, of course, and as a practical matter prudence might suggest being more tolerant.
Like I said in the first posting after the OP, and this is the actual way it was done in Brazil as told to me by a Brazilian (and I assume it was the same in all the other Catholic confessional states):
Last Tradhican said:
Just so you know how a Catholic confessional state worked in practice with the non-Catholic false religions, where the rubber meets the road, the Jews and Protestants for instance, were not permitted to evangelize in public, but they were allowed to meet in their meeting halls and ѕуηαgσgυєs, they just could not have public signs outside of the building to advertise the location.
-
Well, the trick with what you're saying is to define "privately". If by privately, you mean in the internal forum, then, of course, since the Church cannot know what exists in the internal forum only, and God has given every soul the freedom to reject His grace and His truth in that internal forum. So if that's what you mean by privately, then of course I agree. But should the Church allow a Jew to "privately" own a copy of the тαℓмυd? I don't believe so. If found, they could rightly be confiscated. Should a few Jews be able to gather at someone's home and celebrate Passover? No. As soon as something comes out from the internal forum into the external, the state has the authority to suppress it. This is in principle, of course, and as a practical matter prudence might suggest being more tolerant.
Then there would be a major problem today. People could a copy of the тαℓмυd in a library and online. Happily, it's a multivolume work that many probably can't afford. Sure, confiscate private copies of it. But ѕуηαgσgυєs probably own copies of it to let congregants study it.
-
Meg, than you for the excellent point about Marxism because it wouldn't have occurred to me,
I wouldn't want a Catholic confessional state to adopt Vatican II's novelties. So it seems to me that for societies to become genuinely Catholic confessional ones, we'll need to wait until Our Lady of Fatima's Immaculate Heart to triumphs. Someday, I pray, a pope will rule that Vatican II was a robber council and vindicate trads who know that it's deeply flawed. In a lecture, Fr. Hesse said that he would make a video where he would tear Vatican II apart and put it where it belongs, in the trash can. So I wonder what theologically neoconservative apostolates like EWTN are doing now when even Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Archbishop Vigano know that there's a rupture between Vatican II and what the Church taught before that disastrous council that began when I was about a year old.