Was George Washington's Revolution Sinful?

[MissScripture]

I always thought the major issue was that Great Britain was doing all of this to the Colonies without allowing them to have any say in the matter. (Taxation without representation)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1112225' date='Nov 5 2006, 09:23 PM']
crazy rad-trads can by loyal to the Mageterium...
[/quote]
Not if by "rad-trad" you mean someone who rejects Vatican II or any of its teachings or disciplines.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1112263' date='Nov 5 2006, 09:54 PM']
That proposition was condemned and anathamatised by the Syllaubus of Errors which is a long list of errors that were condemned. It is like "CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.", but the anathema does not have to be attached to it beucase all the propositions in the document are anathamatised. If you'd like to read the whole Syllabus, then here it is:
[/quote]
Next time just leave a link.

[Winchester]

"it's" means "it is" It's a conjunction. "Its" is the possessive.

Good gravy.

[Fixxxer]

I feel dumb

[Winchester]

I'm a houstonian, too.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

well....

I think it was wrong to revolt against the legitimate rule of England. but at the same time i am happy that the US exists. Just to point out you have to judge a man by his time period, and religion. Washington was not catholic and would not have viewed these things like you do. It is also important to note that many Blacks ragg on him because he owned slaves. this is also wrong, because he was just a man of his time period, and this was not considered evil or wrong while he was living.


Also STM, there is som evidence that he converted to Catholicism on his deathbed!

[ardillacid]

Why is Washington being singled out, its not like he was the brains behind it or anything.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

hahaha thats true

[ardillacid]

I think its just the pc thing to knock him down a notch when the opportunity presents itself

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Not if by "rad-trad" you mean someone who rejects Vatican II or any of its teachings or disciplines.[/quote]

By rad-trad I mean someone who attends the Traditional Latin Mass or a Novus Ordo in Latin traditionally done (e. g. no EMHCs, ad oritenem, etc.), and who prefers the staightforewardness of the pre-Second Vatican Council documents to the ambiguaty of the Post-Second Vatican Council documents.

I believe in all the Dogmata and teachings of the Catholic Church and I obey all my lawful Pastors, espically the Pope who is currently HH Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time I am a traditionalist Catholic.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113247' date='Nov 6 2006, 09:38 PM']
By rad-trad I mean someone who attends the Traditional Latin Mass or a Novus Ordo in Latin traditionally done (e. g. no EMHCs, ad oritenem, etc.), and who prefers the staightforewardness of the pre-Second Vatican Council documents to the ambiguaty of the Post-Second Vatican Council documents.

I believe in all the Dogmata and teachings of the Catholic Church and I obey all my lawful Pastors, espically the Pope who is currently HH Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time I am a traditionalist Catholic.
[/quote]
The rest of the world seems to think that "rad-trad" means radical traditionalist. I think there's nothing wrong with being traditionalist in the sense of liking tradition over more novel approaches.

However, the Second Vatican Council documents, ambiguous though they may seem (I think they're quite clear, myself), are the logical continuation of pre-conciliar thought. Sacrosanctum Concilium mirrors Mediator Dei, for instance.

[Socrates]

America had a right to self-governance. It was a colony existing for the enrichment of a nation far across the Atlantic Ocean (which meant a lot more in the days of sailing ships), and could not even choose its own representatives in Parliament.

And it's interesting how none of the American "traditionalist" sorts on here who like to rail about how evil America is because of its rebellion against Good King George have made any serious efforts to move to England so they can live under the rightul authority of England.

[Resurrexi]

The land where I live doesn't belong to England, but to France.

[Socrates]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113303' date='Nov 6 2006, 10:39 PM']
The land where I live doesn't belong to England, but to France.
[/quote]
So would you rather be paying tribute to France?
(And France sold that land over 200 years ago!)

[ardillacid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113303' date='Nov 6 2006, 09:39 PM']
The land where I live doesn't belong to England, but to France.
[/quote]
No, it belongs to the native americans

[Resurrexi]

[quote]No, it belongs to the native americans happy.gif[/quote]

No it does not belong to the [i]indians[/i], for they had no right to own the land since they were not Christian.

[quote]So would you rather be paying tribute to France?[/quote]

Very much so. The French monarchy is Catholic, not Protstant.

[quote](And France sold that land over 200 years ago!)[/quote]

Napoleon was an imposter who had no divine right to reign, and therefore had no authority to sell Louisiana to the United States.

[Socrates]

[quote]No it does not belong to the indians, for they had no right to own the land since they were not Christian.[/quote]
So where in the Catechism does it say that only Christians have the right to own land??

[ardillacid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113389' date='Nov 6 2006, 10:40 PM']
No it does not belong to the [i]indians[/i], for they had no right to own the land since they were not Christian.
Very much so. The French monarchy is Catholic, not Protstant.
Napoleon was an imposter who had no divine right to reign, and therefore had no authority to sell Louisiana to the United States.
[/quote]
1) We are justified in taking any land that belongs to non-christians?
2) There is no French Monarchy
3) who decides what government is legit or not?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113303' date='Nov 6 2006, 09:39 PM']
The land where I live doesn't belong to England, but to France.
[/quote]
Not if France sells it.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113389' date='Nov 6 2006, 10:40 PM']
No it does not belong to the [i]indians[/i], for they had no right to own the land since they were not Christian.[/quote]
The Indians never occupied North America. They pretty much kept to south Asia.

Do you stay up nights thinking of this stuff or does it come to you in a brilliant flash of light?