Brian
Thank you for the response. From reading some of your past posts, it seems that you are very new to the faith. That’s OK we all start somewhere LOL. Your response is pretty much the “programmed” responses from the average American. We have all been indoctrinated from a young age to think “Jєωιѕн” on all sorts of issues. Today being the Feast of Christ the King, is a perfect day to get you reprogrammed in Christian thinking, and get the satanic doctrines flushed out. I appreciate your zeal, but it does need to be channeled correctly, please don’t give up, we need people like you in the world!!
At one time, I would have given the same reply you did, I actually served 3 years in the US Marine Corps making the world safe for Zionism LOL, of course I thought I was serving God & country, that the constitution was a divine docuмent, the founding fathers were above the Apostles etc. When the country started to rapidly disintegrate back in the 80s & 90s I couldn’t understand why. “If we just followed the divine principles of the constitution, everything would work out” was my thinking. But things kept getting worse & worse; when I discovered Tradition I started reading and studying the social teachings of the Church, much to my shock, I found that those “divine” principles in the constitution did not come from Christendom, but from the enemies of the Church.
Many books have been written on the Social Kingship of Christ. I suggest Father Denis Fahey, Tom Droleskey. You can also listen to Restoration Radio, that has many great shows on the topic.
I am going to briefly answer some of your comments: Your comment will be in bold, followed by my reply
Now I know why I have been meeting so many Communist Catholics lately. – This is an oxymoronic statement since one cannot be a Catholic and a communist. This conclusion of yours, I suspect, comes from your ignorance of Church teachings.
They(Meaning Traditional Catholics)
forgot and never learned why the Constitutional Republic in the US was created. This was an experiment in freedom that proved very successful, so much so, that several other countries adopted our framework. The opposition to this is primarily communist in nature. – This is a very poorly thought out statement. It’s more of a typical “kneejerk” American/ʝʊdɛօ statement. A whole book could be written in response, but I will keep it short lol.
The American Constitution is a ʝʊdɛօ/ Masonic docuмent, built on the тαℓмυdic principles coming out of the French Revolution. The main principle was to overthrow the existing Catholic Order made up of Monarchies, and to replace it with Atheistic/Naturalistic Governments. They came to the conclusion after trial & error (Communism, Democracy, Despotic Rule) that an, what I call, “Illusionary Democracy” to replace Christendom. This will transform to Jєωιѕн rule of terror sometime in the future.
As far as “Freedom” goes- Thomas Aquinas defined freedom (I’m paraphrasing) as being able to do the right thing. As long as you can practice the Faith without fear of persecution, you are Free. For the most part Americans are Free right now, although the grip is tightening every day. The “Freedom” you are expressing is the ʝʊdɛօ/Masonic version of Freedom, which is really the Satanic, “Do what thou wilt”. They (ʝʊdɛօ/Masons) are temporarily allowing this to destroy Christian morality, ethics and culture. Once this has been totally accomplished then they will take this bastard freedom away.
True Freedom only exists when the person,family,society,government embraces the Yoke of Christ. Examples of these societies existed in the past and has left us with beautiful Art, music, architecture etc.
The whole “your against the constitution, therefore you’re a communist” argument is laughable. You act like there are only two choices in the world!!! Actually so called free market capitalism & communism/socialism are two sides of the same coin. They both have the same result economically which is a very few at the top(the 1 %), control 95% of the wealth , and the 99% of the population fight over the crumbs. The Church teaches that the “means” of production to be spread as widely as possible, employee ownership of companies, just wages…..many books has been written on this subject notably by G.K. Chesterton , he called this system Distributionism. Of course there are other ideas on implementing Catholic Social teachings out there.
Central banks are the the super powers of the planet, and they seek communism because it helps to ensure they will rule for the future, without much opposition. Take away individual rights and make that the accepted paradigm and organization against tyranny becomes very difficult. – This is a much talked about issue that I believe I covered in my last comment on the economic teachings of the Church. You need to look at what group controls these Central Banks?? Overwhelmingly Jєωs of course. Who gave them this power?? It came with the idiotic Masonic Constitutions!!! It all comes full circle.
The Catholic Church is against communism, which means it supports freedom. It is up to the individual to rule themselves when freedom abounds. This is not society's job. In communism, the fascists or corrupt government rules, and the individual has no right to practice any religion that is not aligned with the State – I already replied to the communist/freedom arguments. Now I will post some Magisterial Teachings to show that so called “Freedom of Religion “ and Establishment Clause has been condemned by the Church.
I’m posting this from this link, I invite you to read and study these concepts
http://christorchaos.com/ACatechismoftheSocialReignofChristtheKing.htm12) How can one define the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ?
The Social Kingship of Jesus Christ may be defined as the right of the Catholic Church to see to it that the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law are the basis of the actions of civil governance and that those who exercise civil power keep in mind man’s last end, confessionally recognizing the Catholic Church as the true Church founded by God Himself and having the right to reprimand and place interdicts upon those who issue edicts and ordinances contrary to God’s laws.
13) Are you saying that each civil state in the world has the obligation to recognize the Catholicism as the true religion?
It is not "my" teaching that I proclaim on this site but the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church that teaches that each civil state has the obligation to recognize her with the favor and the protection of the laws. Pope Leo XIII, writing to the American bishops in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, explained that the "separation of Church and State" that existed in the United States is not the model for the rest of the world:
Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circuмstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.
13) What passage from a papal encyclical letter best summarizes this teaching and that of the Social Reign of Christ the King:
The passage from a papal encyclical letter that best summarizes the Catholic Church's immutable teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King is found in Pope Saint Pius X'sVehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course.But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circuмstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error.
14) What other encyclical letters can you cite here can I find these points explained as part of the patrimony of the Catholic Church?
Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832; Pope Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863, and Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864; Pope Leo XIII'sHumanum Genus, August 20, 1884, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Libertas, June 20, 1888, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891;Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902; Pope Saint Pius X's Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906 and Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910; Pope Pius XI's Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929; Casti Connubii, December 31, 1931, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937, and Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937. A ready summary of key passages from some of these encyclical letters may be found at Sources for A Day with Christ the King and His Popes.
,
15) Can a Catholic dissent from the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the necessity of praying and working for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King?
No. One must adhere to everything contained in these encyclical letters. Pope Pius XI made this clear in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:
Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many docuмents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.
It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians iv, 14)
Pope Pius XII emphasized in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, that one is bound to accept the teaching contained in papal encyclical letters as such teaching is but a reiteration of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Pope Pius XII reiterated the immutable nature of Catholic Social Teaching in 1958, just three months before his death:
Assuming false and unjust premises, they are not afraid to take a position which would confine within a narrow scope the supreme teaching authority of the Church, claiming that there are certain questions -- such as those which concern social and economic matters -- in which Catholics may ignore the teachings and the directives of this Apostolic See.
This opinion -- it seems entirely unnecessary to demonstrate its existence -- is utterly false and full of error because, as We declared a few years ago to a special meeting of Our Venerable Brethren in the episcopacy:
"The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so-called 'strictly religious matters'; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation and application, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power.
"By God's appointment the observance of the natural law concerns the way by which man must strive toward his supernatural end. The Church shows the way and is the guide and guardian of men with respect to their supernatural end."
This truth had already been wisely explained by Our Predecessor St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari quadam of September 24, 1912, in which he made this statement: "All actions of a Christian man so far as they are morally either good or bad -- that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law -- fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church."
Moreover, even when those who arbitrarily set and defend these narrow limits profess a desire to obey the Roman Pontiff with regard to truths to be believed, and to observe what they call ecclesiastical directives, they proceed with such boldness that they refuse to obey the precise and definite prescriptions of the Holy See. They protest that these refer to political affairs because of a hidden meaning by the author, as if these prescriptions took their origin from some secret conspiracy against their own nation. (Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958.)
Topic: What do you tell your children? (Read 2566 times)