Posted on 11/11/2016 1:08:24 PM PST by jafojeffsurf
By popular liberty, we mean democracy; by democracy, we mean the democratic form of government; by the democratic form of government, we mean that form of government which vests the sovereignty in the people as population, and which is administered by the people, either in person or by their delegates. By sustaining popular liberty, we mean, not the introduction or institution of democracy, but preserving it when and where it is already introduced, and securing its free, orderly, and wholesome action. By Catholicity, we mean the Roman Catholic Church, faith, morals, and worship. The thesis we propose to maintain is, therefore, that without the Roman Catholic religion it is impossible to preserve a democratic government, and secure its free, orderly, and wholesome action. Infidelity, Protestantism, heathenism may institute a democracy, but only Catholicity can sustain it.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicism.org ...
Know this: Return to God, a Moral people and Christendom! Anything Else if for Not! When you see the reunification of Christians into the One True Faith the Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church the End to the Darkness will be Assured... Until then PRAY for All the Lost Souls!
God Bless
In before any Pope Francis quotes.
From the article :
The Roman Catholic religion, then, is necessary to sustain popular liberty, because popular liberty can be sustained only by a religion free from popular control, above the people, speaking from above and able to command them, — and such a religion is the Roman Catholic. It acknowledges no master but God, and depends only on the divine will in respect to what it shall teach, what it shall ordain, what it shall insist upon as truth, piety, moral and social virtue. It was made not by the people, but for them; is administered not by the people, but for them; is accountable not to the people, but to God. Not dependent on the people, it will not follow their passions; not subject to their control, it will not be their accomplice in iniquity; and speaking from God, it will teach them the truth, and command them to practice justice.
Thank you for posting_ you KNOW you are about to get flamed...
“Thank you for posting_ you KNOW you are about to get flamed...”
Yes Typical of those who do not want to think much.
When the Truth Hurts it means Your doing something Wrong, Thus You need to change Your ways to Conform to the Truth or Continue down that path to Darkness.
By the way you read that Article very quickly.
God Bless
Orestes Brownson was born in Vermont and into poverty. At a young age he moved with his family to Saratoga County, New York. There he was largely self-educated, but he still managed to memorize almost all of the Bible by the age of fourteen. For most of his youth he was an ardent and restless seeker after truth, never attaching himself for long to any one spiritual or political position.
By the time of his conversion to Catholicism in 1844, Brownson had been a Presbyterian, a minister in both the Universalist and Unitarian churches, a Transcendentalist, a militant atheist, and a devotee of the form of secular, utopian socialism taught by Robert Owen and Fanny Wright. He worked as a humanitarian political activist, belonged to the New York Workingman’s Party, and took to denouncing laissez-faire capitalism as worse than medieval serfdom.
Through all his religious and political peregrinations, Brownson wrote prolifically, and, especially prior to his journey to Rome, he was considered one of the leading thinkers in America.
Over the next few years, Brownson would conclude that man’s progress in history depends on his communion with, and the continuous action of, a Creator. He also concluded that belief in supernatural revelation and creation was not as incompatible with reason as he had once supposed.
Before long, Brownson had decided to convert to Roman Catholicism and was received into the Church by Bishop John B. Fitzpatrick of Boston in 1844.
[from "Orestes Brownson and the Truth About America", by Peter Lawler, First Things, December 2002]
He seems at first glance to have been rather brilliant but also strikingly odd. Yet, dang, I've always had a soft spot for converts, especially the oddballs.
I'll have to learn more about him.
Thanks, Interesting info...
God Bless
Just a little on him Orestes Brownson:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03001a.htm
Sounds like your fairly familiar with him Oratam...
God Bless
I ran across Brownson in high school and occasionally afterwards. He’s America’s answer to John Henry Newman . . . kinda. There were quite a few converts from prominent Protestant families in the nineteenth century. I think they did a lot to make Catholicism less threatening, which it is, to mainstream America.
Catholic ping!
The Catholic charities that supply sanctuary and support a pipeline of anchor bastards are not worthy of support
“The Catholic charities that supply sanctuary and support a pipeline of anchor bastards are not worthy of support”
Love thy Brother, Is that Love or Hate in your Heart?
I support the Church’s Teaching for those wishing to immigrate they should fist follow the Law’s of the Nation they wish to Immigrate to. But nowhere does it say to Hate or Despise those wishing a better life, well except in the writings of Evil deeds. Treat them Respectfully and return them to their Mother country.
God Bless
Most places that are predominantly Catholic are also very Socialistic. Socialism is very unbiblical but is tolerated and often encouraged in the Roman Catholic Church.
There are some exceptions. These probably include Belize and Philippines. And both are very tolerant to Protestants.
America was less than 2% Catholic when we became a nation. The greater liberalization has happened as the percentage of Catholics increased. Today, almost a fourth of Americans identify as Catholic. This is the largest Christian denomination.
While I appreciate the political support of conservatives, regardless of their religious beliefs, I have to disagree that there is anything at all conservative about the Catholicization of the US.
“When you see the reunification of Christians into the One True Faith the Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church the End to the Darkness will be Assured”
Unfortunately, this is not what the apostles taught. They taught that there would be a great apostasy before Christ’s return, when He will bring justice and judgment to “end the darkness” as you put it. It’s going to get much worse before it gets better.
“What was the assumption of the Reformer? Was it not that Almighty God has failed to take care of his Church, that he had suffered it to become exceedingly corrupt and corrupting, so much as to have become a very Babylon, and to have ceased to be his Church? Was it not for this reason that they turned reformers, separated themselves from what had been the Church, and attempted, with such materials as they could command, to reconstruct the Church on its primitive foundation, and after the primitive model?”
The premise is wrong.
What is “Church”? It comes from the Bible where it means congregation or called-out people. The Church is PEOPLE. I cannot emphasize this enough. While the church (i.e. collective of the believers living on earth at any given time) may own buildings consecrated for church gatherings, they may own books, relics, etc. these things are NOT the CHURCH. These are external trappings.
True, God ordained authority in the Church, beginning with the apostles of Christ. But this authority is not conveyed without condition. That is, there is the possibility of authority of someone in the church being taken away. For example, Judas fell from his position as apostle, and the scriptures say, “his bishopric let another take”.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, recorded by John the apostle, also warns particular churches of the danger of being removed as churches. Churches are repeatedly called to repentance with this warning.
The Reformation was a period of cleansing of the Church of false doctrine and of leaders who had forfeited their moral authority to govern the people of God.
It does not mean that God abandoned the Church. Rather, it means He cared too deeply to allow the apostasy within the Church to continue unabated. Does it not say that “whom the Lord loves, He disciplines, and scourges every son He receives”?
It does not mean He left the Church without leadership either. Rather, He raised up new leads who had a heart for Him, just as He replaced King Saul with King David.
Some of the practices that caused the Reformation movement have been abandoned by the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, some have not. And these things require repentance, and repentance has never come. At least not within that Church. Resultantly God has led many to “come out from among them, and be ye separate, and I will receive you.”
And, as Peter told the religious leaders of his day, who had forfeited their moral authority even though it had at one time been given to them by God, “we ought to obey God rather than man.”
The world is full of false religion. It exists within non-Christian religion. It exists within Christian religion. It exists within Protestant churches. It exists within the Roman Catholic Church. The solution is not for everyone to submit to Rome. The solution is to submit God through faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It begins, not with a religion, but with a relationship based on the message of salvation found in the Gospel.
Bravo and AMEN!!
Unlearner you said “Socialism is very unbiblical”
Well I’ll agree Socialism is not in the bible per say, however you might want to reread Acts 4:32-37 and 5:1-11. The concept of Giving up things of this world to help your fellow brothers is pretty clear. Especially when One says they are giving to God but Lie to the Holy Spirit, Vicar of Christ, St Peter… Of course this is Giving from the Heart, Not By the State which is what Socialism Truly is…
So What you may call socialism in the Church is something very different than what it Truly is. This is not to say that there are individuals in the Church in Error for that is obvious the Church has Men in it thus we All Error and Sin, But we also Should recognize those Error and Sins and repent from them. Thus those calling for Government Socialism are in Error/Sin, but those reminding us of Giving up the things of this world are far from Error or Sin…
Now how does any of what you have questioned have to do with the Article posted? Can you specify what Orestes Brownson wrote that was Logically in Error?
God Bless
“The Church is PEOPLE” Yes it is, but is it all people? Obviously not, Then what people is it? Those who decide on their own authority what is right and wrong? Sounds like original sin does it not, then it has to be those who follow the Teaching given to the Apostles to which the Authority was given to Teach his Sheep. Why did the Lord speak in parables? Because it was not for them to understand, but to You(the Apostles) it is to be revealed, and teach. Why was Judas replaced as an Apostle well after our Lord was Risen, if Authority was not necessary their would be no reason to do so. The Authority is their for one and all to see and track through history, However it is your choice to Reject that Authority and follow Chaos which is obviously evident just as Orestes and so many others have pointed out time and time again, How many Protestant denominations are there now? By logic as pointed out by Orestes there could only be one if it were a reform, however it was not it was a protest from truth and the beginning of an ever growing error which will destroy itself. The Fruits can be seen now well can they not? For there can be Only One Truth.
God Bless
“The Protestant religion is everywhere either an expression of the government or of the people, and must obey either the government or public opinion.”
The churches of the Bible, that is the local churches, such as the “church which is Ephesus” were governed by local bishops. There never was a hierarchal structure whereby decisions by the local church leaders were dictated by outside authorities.
During this time, apostles were available to consult about issues which had not been fully addressed in scripture (which had not been completed during the apostolic era). After the apostles were gone, the Bible preserved the instructions and authority of the apostles. We consult the apostles today by opening the word of God which was written by them concerning the church.
When Protestants came to this land to escape religious persecution from Catholics AND Protestants of different sects, they formed communities where the people shared common beliefs. This was very close to the pattern of the early Church. In such cases, the local authority of government worked hand in hand with the authority of the Church. This is an example, contrary to the premise of the article, of how Church and State can and should work cooperatively.
Further, this nation was formed by the uniting of many disparate groups of “Christians” who could at least agree on the premise of securing their common freedom and the right to worship God according to the dictates of their individual consciences.
However, the author of this article apparently thinks this accomplishment is a horrible thing. Make no mistake, the author thinks the foundational principles of this nation are tragic mistakes, contrary to Church authority.
Have we forgotten the REASON why religious liberty was established as the first liberty enumerated in our Constitution?
The article is far, far from the truth. Returning Christianity to the whims of a central, world-wide authority in Rome will NOT further the cause of Christ. Instead, it will harm it worse than ever it has in history, which is very greatly.
Freedom of religion. Local Church autonomy. Local governance for local matters. Federal government for protecting our nation militarily. Those are solid principles. Rome did not have any part in their formation. Rome will have no part in preserving or protecting them.
“When Protestants came to this land to escape religious persecution from Catholics AND Protestants of different sects, they formed communities where the people shared common beliefs. This was very close to the pattern of the early Church. In such cases, the local authority of government worked hand in hand with the authority of the Church. This is an example, contrary to the premise of the article, of how Church and State can and should work cooperatively.”
Actually it makes the point he was making. Are those communities you mention still of that one faith? Or as I asked previously are they not now in disarray of many more Protestant faiths, IE the Error/s compounding itself over time, Orestes Point.
“Further, this nation was formed by the uniting of many disparate groups of “Christians” who could at least agree on the premise of securing their common freedom and the right to worship God according to the dictates of their individual consciences.”
Again making Orestes Point, is their more unity or more disunity now? The further in time the Error grows greater, the Fruit of which I speak.
How can Your Truth be Equal or Greater than another denominates? What Authority do You have that is greater than another’s? and if there is No Authority then why do you bother to refute me and the Church?
God Bless
“The churches of the Bible, that is the local churches, such as the “church which is Ephesus” were governed by local bishops. There never was a hierarchal structure whereby decisions by the local church leaders were dictated by outside authorities.”
There was and is hierarchal structure here is a sample:
http://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2013/07/early-church-fathers-on-ordination-and.html
God Bless
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.