Under God? Really?

[Chrysologus]

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?

[Winchester]

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.

[God Conquers]

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.

[Donna]

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.

[Winchester]

Donna,

Look for more letters. "On Religious Freedom" defines the difference, I think.

I'm at work, and haven't the book I need.

[Chrysologus]

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.

[mark4IHM]

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.

[hyperdulia again]

tradition is the living faith of dead people. traditionalism is the dead faith of living people.

[mark4IHM]

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?

[mark4IHM]

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.

[hyperdulia again]

louis xiv's france administered sanctifying grace?

[God Conquers]

ummm, wierd. I don't think that's right. The state could never administer grace, only Mary can do that, through Christ and with the Church. States can't give grace.

[jasJis]

mark4HIM,

Do you just not like me, or what? The topic asked if America was based on Christianity. My post stated that only some of the principles were Christian, albeit from Protestant denominations. I certainly wasn't making a claim of America being fundamentally Catholic.

Again, Truth is Truth, despite the source. Some facts of Natural Law are established by God and exist regardless of Catholic or Protestant denominations, though their effect and application exist in the Catholic religion. It's the prinicple of even a blind squirrel can find a nut, but the sighted squirell is fat all winter.

[Winchester]

The Church also administers Grace, from Christ through the Sacraments.

[God Conquers]

Ya, but the state can't, can it?

[Winchester]

It depends. A king is annointed. Kingship is sacred, ordained by God. I would look and see what the Church said at the time.

[Don John of Austria]

Okay well there must be flying pigs in a frozen Hell, because Friday is Right. No I am not saying I agree with him I am saying he is Objectively Right-- The USA was not founded as a Christian society it was founded as an expression of Masonic Will this is the same Will that beheadedA Catholic King in the following decade, Crucified preist on there Church Doors and made speacilized devises for choping of the heads of infants( because Noble CHildren where destine to be like their parents. Our Country was not founded as a Christian nation-- Jefferson rewrote the Gospel taking out all the preternatural accurances, making Christianity a Philosophy. That Adams was ever so slightly more frindly to Christianity than the rest does not mean much. The U.S. was founded as a secular state, Secularism is Evil, It has been condemned by the Church.

What is everyones fear of a Theocracy anyway, Why shouldn't we be ruled by Catholic Values and Catholic People.

MC_JUST I am with you-- VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!

[Chrysologus]

The state could never administer grace, only Mary can do that, through Christ and with the Church. States can't give grace.

At the risk of sounding like a fundamentalist, I must rebuke you for saying that only Mary can give sanctifying grace. Your statement truly appears like you have replaced God with Mary. Mary is full of grace, but it belongs to God and he gives to us. Yes, by her intercession and the intercession and sacraments of the church, but all grace comes from God through Jesus Christ by the working of the Holy Spirit. I found your statement quite scandalous and misleading.

[Donna]

Hey Chrysologus (try saying that 10 x's fast while chasing after your toddler!).

The last two posts... on Our Lady... I remembered something from a novena book I have. It is the Redemptorists "Prayers and Novenas To Our Mother of Perpetual Help". I looked it up. Here is the quote, page 19:

"O Mother of Perpetual Help, Thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made Thee so powerful, so rich and so bountiful..." (this is verbatim, including capitalizing "Thee" in referring to Mary Most Holy).

The way I took God Conquers' post was that Mary is the dispensor of all the merits of Christ. I looked up "administer" (American Heritage Dictionary). It says: 1). to direct; manage. 2). a. To give (a drug) remedially. b. To dispense (a sacrament). 3) To mete out. 4). To tender (an oath). 5). To manage or dispose of (an estate).

It's Catholic teaching that just as Jesus came through Mary, literally in the Incarnation, so does all grace. She is not the source or author of grace, but the holy vessel, as it were, which through grace (Jesus) comes.

[Winchester]

Don, you're late to the party.

And I alredy made the pig reference.