Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

Interesting.

Interesting.

Yeah. It's so interesting that our English forbears came here principally to get away from the statist church and its Romanist roots. That this country was rooted in RCC doctrine? I don't think so. Another attempt to claim a nonexistent superiority of principle.

The most quoted book at the time of the American Revolution was the Bible. The most quoted man at the time of the Declaration of Independence was Montesquieu.

Montesquieu, born, baptized, schooled Catholic.

Of course the Declaration of Independence was influenced by Catholic thought. What made America different from all of the other New World Catholic influence, was English, German and Dutch practicality and discipline.

http://classroom.synonym.com/ways-did-baron-de-montesquieu-influence-constitution-united-states-12846.html

The United States was the only nation founded as largely a deliberate, non-Catholic Christian nation.

At the founding they were about .4% and mostly in Maryland, and were close to nonexistent until they started showing up in the 1840s, and in the 1850s reached 5% of the population, bringing in unionism and big city politics.

JFK devoted his life to getting in the 1965 Immigration Act, and since then, the democrats have imported 10s of millions of Catholics.

How many Catholics signed the Declaration of Independence?

Who was the first Catholic Bishop in America?

When did Catholics arrive in Florida? California?

Back in 1926 an Indianapolis parish priest, John C. Rager, demonstrated that the core of the Declaration of Independence has its roots in Catholic thought....The following comparisons, clause for clause, of the American Declaration of Independence and of excerpts from the political principles of [Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine], evidence striking similarity and identity of political principle.

LOL what a bunch of wishful hooey! Happy PRESBYTERIAN REBELLION DAY, everybody!

During the era of the American Revolution, King George III and his supporters perceived that the war was a "Presbyterian Rebellion." Why? The label "Presbyterian" was a much more ambiguous designation than it is at present. Employed broadly as a synonym for a Calvinist, a dissenter, or a republican, the term was used with considerable imprecision in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, it was used as a demagogic tool to inflame popular passions. The term Presbyterian carried with it the connotation of a fanatical, anti-monarchical rebel. Those who designated the war a Presbyterian Rebellion could be considered biased, partisan, and somewhat extreme....Calvinists and Calvinism permeated the American colonial milieu, and the king's friends did not wish for this fact to go unnoticed. This inconspicuous reality is one of the missing chapters in the conventional history of the genesis of the United States....
-- from the thread The Presbyterian Rebellion: An analysis of the perception

....we should not be surprised to find that the Calvinists took a very important part in American Revolution. Calvin emphasized that the sovereignty of God, when applied to the affairs of government proved to be crucial, because God as the Supreme Ruler had all ultimate authority vested in Him, and all other authority flowed from God, as it pleased Him to bestow it.
The Scriptures, God's special revelation of Himself to mankind, were taken as the final authority for all of life, as containing eternal principles, which were for all ages, and all peoples. Calvin based his views on these very Scriptures. As we read earlier, in Paul's letter to the Romans, God's Word declares the state to be a divinely established institution.
History is eloquent in declaring that the American republican democracy was born of Christianity and that form of Christianity was Calvinism. The great revolutionary conflict which resulted in the founding of this nation was carried out mainly by Calvinists--many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian college of Princeton....
....In fact, most of the early American culture was Reformed or tied strongly to it (just read the New England Primer). Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a Roman Catholic intellectual and National Review contributor, asserts: “If we call the American statesmen of the late eighteenth century the Founding Fathers of the United States, then the Pilgrims and Puritans were the grandfathers and Calvin the great-grandfather…”
-- from the thread John Calvin: Religious liberty and Political liberty

Without the Catholic input there would be no Declaration of Independence. It’s obvious who Jefferson got his ideas of freedom from. Now take your anti-Catholicism to a liberal board where it’ll be appreciated. Most on FR have had enough of your nonsense.

...the core of the Declaration of Independence has its roots in Catholic thought....The following comparisons, clause for clause, of the American Declaration of Independence and of excerpts from the political principles of [Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine], evidence striking similarity and identity of political principle.

So long as someone's going to argue along that line of thinking, let them work through the implications of this:

One of the most basic divisions in the intellectual life of the sixteenth century was the Catholic insistence on this "Both-And" approach to theology while the great Protestant reformers – Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Cramner – set out their theological challenge invoking "Either-Or" distinctions. The Reformation theologians insisted that it was grace, not nature, that perfected the human soul, that it was Scripture only, and not Tradition, that guaranteed the authenticity of the Church, and that it was faith, not works, which achieved salvation. The only counter-example I can think of was Luther’s famous observation that a Christian was "simul justus et peccator," at the same time justified yet still a sinner....
....Catholic theology, on the other hand, tries to see past the apparent differences to a common source. So, grace perfects nature in Catholic ethics, Scripture and Tradition both flow from the same font of revelation, and faith and works must go hand-in-hand....a fundamental intellectual disposition that has served Catholic theology well through the years seems to have found its way into this man’s head, and the reason is probably similar...After eight years in which George W. Bush has channeled that strange mixture of humility and ferocity that is at the heart of orthodox Calvinism, Obama’s pursuit of "Both-And" common ground, even when it is a little fuzzy, is a welcome tonic for a nation that has never been as divided as the political class would have you think it is.
-- from the thread Is Obama Thinking Like a Catholic?

LOL, Catholics could never have founded a United States.

The left counts on Catholic immigration, to erase America.

I thought it was Masonic?

Like I said go spew your anti-Catholicism somewhere else. Your act is old. No one gives a rats ass what you think about Catholics.

How about spewing your anti-Americanism another time instead of America’s July 4th?

You can wait for Mexico’s Independence day to cheer that Catholic nation.

Like I said go spew your anti-Catholicism somewhere else. Your act is old. No one gives a rats ass what you think about Catholics.

I'm continually amazed by the things that people will collect as a hobby! You must have accumulated a sizeable collection of rat's asses, if you haven't been giving them away.

The Catholic Church rejected religious freedom up to Vatican II and Dignitatis humanae. It's sort of difficult to wrap oneself in our nation's founding when that was the case.

"LOL, Catholics could never have founded a United States."

Your statement is rendered false in its entirety by the Catholic founding of Maryland, which was the model for the United States. Prosperous, well-managed, with religious liberty for all believers in the Trinity...Until Protestants burned half the place down and revoked the Toleration Act.

Pity, that.

I will leave with an excerpt from George Washington's letter to the Catholics of the United States. Sadly, it seems that General Washington spoke too soon in his presumption that Catholic contributions to the United States would be remembered.

"I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of their government; or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed."

It is amazing that someone would run an anti-American thread on for July 4th, but as immigration continues to overcome America, this is what the future will look like, as American history is erased, and replaced with a fake history, glorifying the European headquarters of the Catholic denomination.

http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/07/02/fortnight-for-freedom-the-catholic-roots-of-the-declaration-of-independence/

Read it again, real slow........maybe it’ll sink in.

Back in 1926 an Indianapolis parish priest, John C. Rager, demonstrated that the core of the Declaration of Independence has its roots in Catholic thought.

It will suffice for our purpose to consult, in detail, but two Catholic churchmen who stand out as leading lights for all time. The one is representative of medieval learning and thought, the other stood on the threshold of the medieval and modern world. They are St. Thomas Aquinas of the thirteenth century and the Blessed Cardinal Robert Bellarmine of the sixteenth century (1542-1621). The following comparisons, clause for clause, of the American Declaration of Independence and of excerpts from the political principles of these noted ecclesiastics, evidence striking similarity and identity of political principle.

Equality of man

Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

Bellarmine: All men are equal, not in wisdom or grace, but in the essence and nature of mankind (De Laicis, c.7) There is no reason why among equals one should rule rather than another (ibid.). Let rulers remember that they preside over men who are of the same nature as they themselves. (De Officus Princ. c. 22). Political right is immediately from God and necessarily inherent in the nature of man (De Laicis, c. 6, note 1).

St. Thomas: Nature made all men equal in liberty, though not in their natural perfections (II Sent., d. xliv, q. 1, a. 3. ad 1).

The function of government

Declaration of Independence: To secure these rights governments are instituted among men.

Bellarmine: It is impossible for men to live together without someone to care for the common good. Men must be governed by someone lest they be willing to perish (De Laicis, c. 6).

St. Thomas: To ordain anything for the common good belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people (Summa, la llae, q. 90, a. 3).

The source of power

Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Bellarmine: It depends upon the consent of the multitude to constitute over itself a king, consul, or other magistrate. This power is, indeed, from God, but vested in a particular ruler by the counsel and election of men (De Laicis, c. 6, notes 4 and 5). The people themselves immediately and directly hold the political power (De Clericis, c. 7).

St. Thomas: Therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people (Summa, la llae, q. 90, a. 3). The ruler has power and eminence from the subjects, and, in the event of his despising them, he sometimes loses both his power and position (De Erudit. Princ. Bk. I, c. 6).

The right to change the government

Declaration of Independence: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient reasons.

Bellarmine: For legitimate reasons the people can change the government to an aristocracy or a democracy or vice versa (De Laicis, c. 6). The people never transfers its powers to a king so completely but that it reserves to itself the right of receiving back this power (Recognitio de Laicis, c. 6).

St Thomas: If any society of people have a right of choosing a king, then the king so established can be deposed by them without injustice, or his power can be curbed, when by tyranny he abuses his regal power (De Rege et Regno, Bk. I, c. 6).

Go here to read the article. Is there any evidence that Jefferson was familiar with this Catholic thought? There is. In his library at Monticello there is a volume entitled Patriarcha written by the court theologian of James I, Robert Filmer. In this book Filmer defended the divine right of kings and attacked Bellarmine. Karl Maurer gives us the details:

The most interesting aspect of Patriarcha from a Catholic perspective is that the first pages discredit and attack the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, who was one of the most eloquent and prolific defenders of freedom the Catholic Church has ever produced. It was customary that writers dealing with political and religious controversies begin their books by presenting their nemesis as an anti-thesis, which in Filmer’s case was Bellarmine’s position that political authority is vested in the people and that kings do not rule by divine right, but through the consent of the governed. This was a radical idea in the early 1600’s, though it is widely accepted today.

In Patriarcha, Filmer quotes Bellarmine directly as follows: “Secular or Civil authority (saith he) ‘is instituted by men; it is in the people unless they bestow it on a Prince. This Power is immediately in the Multitude, as in the subject of it; for this Power is in the Divine Law, but the Divine Law hath given this power to no particular man. If the Positive Law be taken away, there is left no Reason amongst the Multitude (who are Equal) one rather than another should bear the Rule over the Rest. Power is given to the multitude to one man, or to more, by the same Law of Nature; for the Commonwealth cannot exercise this Power, therefore it is bound to bestow it upon some One man or some Few. It depends upon the Consent of the multitude to ordain over themselves a King or other Magistrates, and if there be a lawful cause, the multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy’ (St. Robert Bellarmine, Book 3 De Laicis, Chapter 4). Thus far Bellarmine; in which passages are comprised the strength of all that I have read or heard produced for the Natural Liberty of the Subject.” (Patriarcha, page 5.)

Imagine what Jefferson must have been thinking as he read the opening paragraphs of Patriarcha, a direct assault on the Roman Catholic scholarship of Bellarmine:

“Since the time that school divinity (i.e. Catholic Universities) began to flourish, there hath been a common opinion maintained as well by the divines as by the divers of learned men which affirms: ‘Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at the first by human right bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude.’ This tenet was first hatched in the (Medieval Roman Catholic Universities), and hath been fostered by all succeeding papists for good divinity. The divines also of the reformed churches have entertained it, and the common people everywhere tenderly embrace it as being most plausible to flesh and blood, for that it prodigally distributes a portion of liberty to the meanest of the multitude, who magnify liberty as if the height of human felicity were only to be found in it — never remembering that the desire of liberty was the cause of the fall of Adam.”

There is no doubt that Jefferson, after reading Filmer, must have been struck by Bellarmine’s definition of individual freedom and popular sovereignty. It may come as a surprise to some, but a closer analysis of Bellarmine’s writing and Catholic Church history demonstrates that since 1200 AD, Catholic Church has defended individual rights and freedoms, which eventually led to the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and the rise of popular sovereignty at the expense of absolutist monarchs and tyrannical nobles.

Go here to read the rest. Each year in my family on the Fourth we read the Declaration. As I am doing so, I will recall that Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration was presenting arguments that Catholic thinkers had been raising for centuries against those who would transform rulers into tin gods on Earth.

Ping for later

It is amazing that someone would run an anti-American thread on for July 4th, but as immigration continues to overcome America, this is what the future will look like, as American history is erased, and replaced with a fake history, glorifying the European headquarters of the Catholic denomination.

Catholics are quick to whatever credit they can get for the founding of the United States, but they're in no hurry to take credit for the Catholic-majority governments that they already enjoy. I wonder why?

If any corner of the globe should bear the imprint of Catholic values, it’s Latin America. Catholicism has enjoyed a spiritual monopoly in the region for more than 500 years, and today almost half the 1.1 billion Catholics alive are Latin Americans. Moreover, Latin Americans take religion seriously; surveys show that belief in God, spirits and demons, the afterlife, and final judgment is near-universal. The sobering reality, however, is that these facts could actually support an “emperor has no clothes” accusation against the church. Latin America has been Catholic for five centuries, yet too often its societies are corrupt, violent, and underdeveloped. If Catholicism has had half a millennium to shape culture and this is the best it can do, one might be tempted to ask, is it really something to celebrate?
-- from the thread Why hasn't Catholicism had a more positive effect?
....Compare two lists: According to the USCCB, the five most Catholic states, in population, are: Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. According to the American Life League, the states with the most pro-life legislation (i.e., inhibiting abortion in various ways) are: Oklahoma, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Texas. This is a shocker. In short, there is no Catholic political impact in support of life in those states reportedly having the most Catholics. As Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia put it, after the 2008 election, “[w]e need to stop overcounting our numbers, our influence, our institutions, and our resources, because they are not real.”
— from the thread The Mythical Catholic Vote: The Harmful Consequences of Political Assimilation