jasJis Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 I'm with IronMonk on this one. Unlike Mark4Him, I do have a broader view of what can possibly be Christian. Truth is the Truth, even if you drag in some erroneous baggage with it. The First Ammendment is always quoted out of context. Everyone ignores the part about Congress being restricted from making laws about the restriction of exercising our practice of religion. Think about the context of English politics even this day that prohibits any but Anglicans from being Prime Minister. Were all the principles establishing the US Christian principles? No. Were some of the principles establishing the US Christian principles? YES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted July 4, 2003 Author Share Posted July 4, 2003 I don't think anyone has denied that America was founded on some Christian principles. What I take issue with is the idea that America was founded upon Christian principles. When one says that America was founded upon Christian principles, that's usually followed up by something to the effect of: "It was once, it can be again." My point was that it wasn't once, so there is no precedent, and it's very unlikely that it will ever be a "Christian" nation in the future. I'm not even saying whether or not this is right or wrong. You can think it's a good or bad thing that America was founded upon primarily secular principles rather than Christian principles. I think there are some good and some bad fruits of that, as with most things. But that's not the issue here. The issue isn't whether it's good or bad; the issue is what actually happened. Was America actually founded upon Christian principles? I think it wasn't, based on the quotes I provided, which have yet to be refuted. The quotes provided here by others only pointed to the Deist God (with the exception of the quotes by George Washington), and if the quotes posted by those who would argue against me actually end up arguing for my argument, then I must be right this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 Mark, are you a traditionalist? Religious freedom is a good thing, as the Second Vatican Council stated. What the heck is masonry and why do you all think that it, like, controls the government? I think that you're all a bunch of conspiracy theorists. America was founded on the constitution, not the Bible, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, not the Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Religious freedom is not the same as religious liberty. America was founded on the constitution, not the Bible, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, More's the pity. The Supreme Court did not exist at the founding of America. Judicial Review is not constitutional, it's the result of a later power grab. Freemasonry was quite prevalent during the time of the founding of America, and was openly hostile to the Catholic Church in particular, and Christianity in general. Yes, we may be conspiracy theorists, but that doesn't make us wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodsThespianChic Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Wow...so didn't know this stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 OK, then what's the difference between religious freedom and religious liberty? I am under the impression, given to me by Merriam-Webster's thesaurus, that freedom and liberty are synonyms. What do Freemasons believe? I know that my old roommate's (who was an incredibly devout fundamentalist, though not anti-Catholic) grandparents were Freemasons and he said that it was harmless. How is it hostile to Christianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 That's because merriam-webster's is a very limited resource for philosophical and theological distinctions. I'll try to develop a good definition, but will take time. it's difficult, and I'd rather check my sources carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 A liberty is something you are allowed to do. Freedom is a state where you have the ability to choose what is right and to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Winchester, without re-checking any sources, I'm certain religious liberty and religious freedom are the same thing. Chrysologus, Pope Leo XIII wrote extensively on Freemasonry. You may want to check out "Humanum Genus", written in 1884. Basically, Freemasonry's hostility toward Church and State is manifested in the overturning of rightful order, or revolution . In the 18th and 19th centuries in particular this meant overturning "altar and throne", Christendom itself. As a "Traditionalist" (which seems to be anathema to some, why I do not know), I for one speak about Freemasmonry for several reasons: the only one I'll give here is that Pope Leo XIII himsself told the clergy to "tear the mask off" of Freemasonry. Obviously I'm not a priest (lol!), but perhaps Pope Leo will forgive me anyway. Nathan, good topic, and good last point, being is it possible to return to a Christian nation if as evidence strongly appears it never was? So ironic and heartbreaking! England, who left the Church, later "left" by the colonials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Donna, Look for more letters. "On Religious Freedom" defines the difference, I think. I'm at work, and haven't the book I need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysologus Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Traditionalism is "anathema" because it opposes Vatican II, and sometimes even calls John Paul II an anti-pope. Is that different from Protestants opposing Trent and "Roman popery"? Of course, you can call yourself a traditionalist and still accept Vatican II and love the Holy Father, but that hasn't been my experience. I'm just saying this because phatmass had some experience with traditionalism a while ago when some people were denouncing Vatican II. It was unpleasant and resulted in some people leaving the website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark4IHM Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Dear Chrysologus, You asked me a couple of questions I'll try to answer. First, unfortunately, Masonry is not a kooky hobby horse of conspiracy minded Catholics (and others). If it were, it would not have been so strongly condemned by a dozen popes in the last two hundred years. In fact, until the 1960's, for a Catholic to join a Masonic society was a sin that could only be absolved by the Holy See. When I entered the Church I couldn't understand why Catholics went on about Masons; I thought Masons were just Shriners. I've read some Church history since then, and now understand, and agree with, the papal anathemas against freemasonry. Am I a traditionalist? I'll answer to that name, but I prefer to call myself a practicing Roman Catholic. As for traditionalism being anathema, you are entitled to your opinion on this. I can tell you from personal experience, however, that traditionalists are not monolithic. They vary greatly in opinion, particularly concerning John Paul II and Vatican II. This is obviously a subject for another thread, so I'll close with some information. Traditionalists adhere to tradition, obviously, but to be specific, traditionalists on the whole adhere to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, the teaching Church, the dogmatic and doctrinal Church that began with the Apostles. Consequently, traditionalists tend to view present magisterial teachings in light of the entire Magisterium of the Church, which is, in fact, normal (or at least, it was); the general rule on the authority of ordinary magisterial teachings is to fit them in with the constant teaching of the Church. Traditionalists have difficulty reconciling a number of current magisterial teachings with the pre-1965 Magisterium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 tradition is the living faith of dead people. traditionalism is the dead faith of living people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark4IHM Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Dear jasJis, Re the distinction between a Catholic state and a purportedly Christian government formed by Protestants and Masons: I think the distinction is an essential one, and it is one that has been made by popes and saints. The proof is in the pudding. Catholic states were far from perfect, given original sin and other calamities. But they never legalized abortion, contraception, and sodomy. And since Catholic states were very liberal in administering sanctifying grace on a national level, I'm betting a lot more souls went to heaven as a result. And that's what counts, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark4IHM Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 tradition is the living faith of dead people. traditionalism is the dead faith of living people That's very clever, Hyper. Wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now