J - Pius V No. 31.jpg
1.9 MB
In 1569, Pope St. Pius V expelled the Jews from Papal States, warning Christians about their usurious practices, magic and superstition.
The holy saint and pope began with the following declaration, “The Jewish people, the only nation once chosen by the Lord, which was infused with divine utterances to be a partaker of the heavenly mysteries, as much as it excelled all others in grace and dignity, only afterwards, despised and neglected by the merit of its unbelief, deserved to be overthrown, because, when the fullness of time had come, it treacherously and ungratefully condemned its Redeemer to an unworthy and impious death.”
The holy saint and pope began with the following declaration, “The Jewish people, the only nation once chosen by the Lord, which was infused with divine utterances to be a partaker of the heavenly mysteries, as much as it excelled all others in grace and dignity, only afterwards, despised and neglected by the merit of its unbelief, deserved to be overthrown, because, when the fullness of time had come, it treacherously and ungratefully condemned its Redeemer to an unworthy and impious death.”
🔥28👍1
Ethnic Jews who have converted to Catholicism ought to refrain from speaking publicly on political matters, particularly when it comes to issues like immigration, national identity and economics. As a rule, barring some extraordinary exceptions, this should be enforced by Catholics, gently at first, then vigorously.
This can be proven in several ways, but common sense, practical experience and a working-knowledge of history are sufficient. For one, the unique racial character and disposition of the Jew is not immediately vitiated by his conversion and baptism. For two thousand years he has considered himself apart, certainly distinct from the gentiles and often above them. Assimilation in his host country, for him, means ethnic extinction and a renunciation of his special status, as chosen by God. There is a real tension in his person since he knows that, after the coming of Christ, the faithful Christian nations, no longer the Jews, are the chosen people. Yet it is hard for him to detach from his ethnic baggage, so-to-speak. It is not natural for that to happen immediately, and we ought not to be surprised when it, invariably, does not.
As Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, editor of La Civiltá Cattolica, observed in 1897, “The Jew always continues to be immutably Jewish in every place. His nationality is not in the soil where he was born, it is not in the language he speaks; it is in the seed, in the lineage and in that mixture of Bible, Talmud and Kabbalah, which he calls his history and his religion […] Everywhere he is a stranger to all, except those with whom he shares his origin and curse. Outside of his own interest, he has no other political aim, wherever he lives.”
In all of this, Catholics must not lose sight of the truth that we must presume sincerity on the part of the convert, whether he is an ethnic Jew or ethnic gentile. Charity and the Church demand that. However, we must not error into credulity, which is decidedly not a virtue. Presumption must give way to facts, to observable objective intentions, even if they are for ill—no, especially if they are for ill. The common good is at stake. Catholicism informs political thinking—that is, if the convert is sincere—but it takes time, particularly for the true outsider, the ethnic Jew.
Finally, a warning of St. Thomas, while not directly related to this issue of Jewish converts involving themselves in domestic politics, ought not to go unheeded. This principle, surely, can apply here, “[I]f foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers would occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.” (ST I-II, q. 105, a.3)
This can be proven in several ways, but common sense, practical experience and a working-knowledge of history are sufficient. For one, the unique racial character and disposition of the Jew is not immediately vitiated by his conversion and baptism. For two thousand years he has considered himself apart, certainly distinct from the gentiles and often above them. Assimilation in his host country, for him, means ethnic extinction and a renunciation of his special status, as chosen by God. There is a real tension in his person since he knows that, after the coming of Christ, the faithful Christian nations, no longer the Jews, are the chosen people. Yet it is hard for him to detach from his ethnic baggage, so-to-speak. It is not natural for that to happen immediately, and we ought not to be surprised when it, invariably, does not.
As Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, editor of La Civiltá Cattolica, observed in 1897, “The Jew always continues to be immutably Jewish in every place. His nationality is not in the soil where he was born, it is not in the language he speaks; it is in the seed, in the lineage and in that mixture of Bible, Talmud and Kabbalah, which he calls his history and his religion […] Everywhere he is a stranger to all, except those with whom he shares his origin and curse. Outside of his own interest, he has no other political aim, wherever he lives.”
In all of this, Catholics must not lose sight of the truth that we must presume sincerity on the part of the convert, whether he is an ethnic Jew or ethnic gentile. Charity and the Church demand that. However, we must not error into credulity, which is decidedly not a virtue. Presumption must give way to facts, to observable objective intentions, even if they are for ill—no, especially if they are for ill. The common good is at stake. Catholicism informs political thinking—that is, if the convert is sincere—but it takes time, particularly for the true outsider, the ethnic Jew.
Finally, a warning of St. Thomas, while not directly related to this issue of Jewish converts involving themselves in domestic politics, ought not to go unheeded. This principle, surely, can apply here, “[I]f foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers would occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.” (ST I-II, q. 105, a.3)
❤28⚡5👍2👏1
A new Substack post will be released this week, likely Friday evening, critiquing the theory of separation of powers, fundamental to the American political system. The guide will be Msgr. Louis Taparelli, S.J., a counterrevolutionary philosopher who vigorously helped to revive Thomism in the Catholic Church.
In short, Montesquieu has it all wrong. Stay tuned.
If you have not already, subscribe to The Journal of American Reform
In short, Montesquieu has it all wrong. Stay tuned.
If you have not already, subscribe to The Journal of American Reform
Substack
The Journal of American Reform | Substack
Our journal is dedicated to the advancement of a truly Catholic political order, securing the existence and flourishing of our race and combatting the poison of liberalism—in all of its forms. Click to read The Journal of American Reform, a Substack publication…
🔥8👍3❤1
Q. In your view, how do you think we are going to get a true pope? If he’s based, will that be good enough?
A. It’s a good question and certainly worth answering.
For traditional Catholics that hold to The Cassiasiacum Thesis of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers (O.P.), like myself, to explain the crisis in Faith and Authority in the Church since Vatican II, the answer is yes, if the meaning of ‘based’ in the question is the abrogation of the Council and the subsequent reforms. Concretely, this continuation of the revolution of Vatican II was the impediment to Francis having received the form of the papacy, papal power. If this abrogation were to occur, it would be the objective criteria by which this conclave could produce a true pope. In human terms, this is extraordinarily unlikely, though, with God, all things are possible.
What needs to happen, what we are praying for, is a restoration of authority in the Roman See and for the man designated to be pope to intend, in an objective and habitual way, the good end of the Church—namely the Glory of God thorough the salvation of souls. Outside of that, the answer is no, for reasons which can be explained. The violent privation of authority in the Catholic Church needs to end, yet God has permitted this for His greater glory—however mysteriously it may seem.
In theological terms, the problem with Paul VI and his lawful successors, the ‘conciliar popes’, who have occupied the Roman See for the past ~60 years is their universal imposition of the heresies of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, salvation by means of non-Catholic sects, partial communion, Jews are no longer cursed, and other errors, too), which has truly been confirmed by the official doctrinal interpretation of the conciliar hierarchy. Those are the evident facts. This official doctrinal interpretation, rather than any private interpretation of the conciliar doctrines, however favorable (though, still not orthodox), is ultimately what matters. To the legislator, alone, belongs the right to interpret, clarify and implement laws, and this rule is no different when analyzing magisterial texts. The mind of the legislator, his objective intentions, distinct from the subjective ones, are what matter.
The indefectability of the Catholic Church means these errors of Vatican II cannot be ascribed to the Teaching Authority, otherwise the Gates of Hell would—blasphemously—prevail. So, faced with the possibility of the [apparent] Roman Pontiff—who has the assistance of the Holy Ghost and the Divine Promises in his capacity as pope—promulgating error and defection in official teaching, one must conclude he is not, in fact, the pope. In our present crisis, Paul VI and his lawful successors must lack the authority of Christ, despite any outward appearances. This is because they have objectively and habitually failed in situations whereby they should be preserved from teaching harmful error. In this case, promulgating heresy.
If this is the first time you have heard of The Thesis of Cassiasiacum (often called sedeprivationism), I would encourage you to study the position, by those who explain it best, not me. I will include links below to that end. Doubtless, you may initially disagree with the conclusion but it must be studied and properly understood if you want to critique it.
The mind who developed this theological position—as alluded to at the beginning of this post—was Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.. Prior to Vatican II he was a highly-esteemed Dominican theologian, one time confessor to Pius XII and later the author of the critique of the Mass of Paul VI, colloquially known as “The Ottaviani Intervention”. To date, his scholastic thesis of the present Crisis has never been refuted.
‘The New Doctrine of Vatican II’ can be found here: thethesis.us/chapter-ii/
‘The General Overview’ of the position can be found here: thethesis.us
Finally, a very good theological and philosophical interview with GdL can be read here: https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/interview-bishop-guerard/
A. It’s a good question and certainly worth answering.
For traditional Catholics that hold to The Cassiasiacum Thesis of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers (O.P.), like myself, to explain the crisis in Faith and Authority in the Church since Vatican II, the answer is yes, if the meaning of ‘based’ in the question is the abrogation of the Council and the subsequent reforms. Concretely, this continuation of the revolution of Vatican II was the impediment to Francis having received the form of the papacy, papal power. If this abrogation were to occur, it would be the objective criteria by which this conclave could produce a true pope. In human terms, this is extraordinarily unlikely, though, with God, all things are possible.
What needs to happen, what we are praying for, is a restoration of authority in the Roman See and for the man designated to be pope to intend, in an objective and habitual way, the good end of the Church—namely the Glory of God thorough the salvation of souls. Outside of that, the answer is no, for reasons which can be explained. The violent privation of authority in the Catholic Church needs to end, yet God has permitted this for His greater glory—however mysteriously it may seem.
In theological terms, the problem with Paul VI and his lawful successors, the ‘conciliar popes’, who have occupied the Roman See for the past ~60 years is their universal imposition of the heresies of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, salvation by means of non-Catholic sects, partial communion, Jews are no longer cursed, and other errors, too), which has truly been confirmed by the official doctrinal interpretation of the conciliar hierarchy. Those are the evident facts. This official doctrinal interpretation, rather than any private interpretation of the conciliar doctrines, however favorable (though, still not orthodox), is ultimately what matters. To the legislator, alone, belongs the right to interpret, clarify and implement laws, and this rule is no different when analyzing magisterial texts. The mind of the legislator, his objective intentions, distinct from the subjective ones, are what matter.
The indefectability of the Catholic Church means these errors of Vatican II cannot be ascribed to the Teaching Authority, otherwise the Gates of Hell would—blasphemously—prevail. So, faced with the possibility of the [apparent] Roman Pontiff—who has the assistance of the Holy Ghost and the Divine Promises in his capacity as pope—promulgating error and defection in official teaching, one must conclude he is not, in fact, the pope. In our present crisis, Paul VI and his lawful successors must lack the authority of Christ, despite any outward appearances. This is because they have objectively and habitually failed in situations whereby they should be preserved from teaching harmful error. In this case, promulgating heresy.
If this is the first time you have heard of The Thesis of Cassiasiacum (often called sedeprivationism), I would encourage you to study the position, by those who explain it best, not me. I will include links below to that end. Doubtless, you may initially disagree with the conclusion but it must be studied and properly understood if you want to critique it.
The mind who developed this theological position—as alluded to at the beginning of this post—was Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.. Prior to Vatican II he was a highly-esteemed Dominican theologian, one time confessor to Pius XII and later the author of the critique of the Mass of Paul VI, colloquially known as “The Ottaviani Intervention”. To date, his scholastic thesis of the present Crisis has never been refuted.
‘The New Doctrine of Vatican II’ can be found here: thethesis.us/chapter-ii/
‘The General Overview’ of the position can be found here: thethesis.us
Finally, a very good theological and philosophical interview with GdL can be read here: https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/interview-bishop-guerard/
TheThesis.us
CHAPTER II: THE NEW DOCTRINE OF VATICAN II
This article establishes that Vatican II teaches errors against the Catholic Faith. Since the holiness and catholicity of the Church prevent her from ever teaching any errors against faith or morals…
🕊8👎5👏2👀1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
On a recent program of ‘What Catholics Believe’, a long-running and wonderful show hosted by Fr. William Jenkins (SSPV), a post I had written about the present conclave was brought up, read and further developed. See for yourself.
I never would have expected for my commentary to make it on his show. Gratifying, to say the least and also humorous since he asks, curiously, “Who is this ‘American Reform’ account?”
Thank you to one of my followers for bringing this clip to my attention. The original stream can be found here (29:38): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJnfG8dZkU
I never would have expected for my commentary to make it on his show. Gratifying, to say the least and also humorous since he asks, curiously, “Who is this ‘American Reform’ account?”
Thank you to one of my followers for bringing this clip to my attention. The original stream can be found here (29:38): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJnfG8dZkU
❤23🔥4👍1👏1
First official speech of Leo XIV calling for a “synodal church”.
Official translation from Vatican News: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/pope-leo-xvi-peace-be-with-you-first-words.html
Official translation from Vatican News: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/pope-leo-xvi-peace-be-with-you-first-words.html
🤮14❤1🥴1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
On April 18, 2022, then Robert Cardinal Prevost gave an interview to La República where he said, “Not personally, [but] the Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible.”
In the story by the news outlet, the prelate was described as follows, “Following the abuse suffered by a girl in the Lambayeque region, the bishop of the Diocese of Chiclayo, Monsignor Robert Prevost, rejected these violent acts that generated indignation among the population. However, he said that the Church does not accept the death penalty and proposes joint work to avoid similar situations and for justice to prevail.”
At the end of the video he can be heard saying, “But seeking blood for blood, for this is not an answer.”
🔗 on X
In the story by the news outlet, the prelate was described as follows, “Following the abuse suffered by a girl in the Lambayeque region, the bishop of the Diocese of Chiclayo, Monsignor Robert Prevost, rejected these violent acts that generated indignation among the population. However, he said that the Church does not accept the death penalty and proposes joint work to avoid similar situations and for justice to prevail.”
At the end of the video he can be heard saying, “But seeking blood for blood, for this is not an answer.”
🔗 on X
🥴11❤2👎2😭2
American Reform
On April 18, 2022, then Robert Cardinal Prevost gave an interview to La República where he said, “Not personally, [but] the Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible.” In the story by the news outlet, the prelate was described as follows, “Following…
This is very much keeping in line with the magisterial teaching of Francis I, as he promulgated in the CCC (no. 2267) the following doctrine, mind you, electing to have it judged against revelation, “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel [sic], that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”
In 2017, just one year earlier, he would clarify—preemptively—what was meant by the later official teaching, saying in an papal address, “It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se [sic] contrary to the Gospel [sic], because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.”
In an doctrinal declaration promulgated last year, in 2024, Francis relayed, “Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances. In this regard, we must recognize that ‘the firm rejection [sic] of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe.’” (Dignitatis Infinita, no. 34)
No doubt, the clear and unavoidable implication is that recourse to the death penalty is—in principle—illicit. In other words, the death penalty is intrinsically evil. The State cannot, in any circumstances, inflict death upon a criminal as his punishment. The official interpretation, outlined and witnessed to by the legislator, Francis I, is what must be adhered to.
However, in 1954 Pope Pius XII gave an address to Catholic jurists and said the following, “In accordance with Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Church did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies (see Gen 9:6; John 19:11; Rom 13:1-7; Innocent Ill, Professio fidei Waldensibus prenoscripta; Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 5, n. 4.”
In other words, the universal and ordinary magisterium, equally infallible as the solemn magisterium (Pastor Aeternus), had already taught that that, in principle, the death penalty was lawful. It *was* and *remains* perfectly consistent with justice.
In 2017, just one year earlier, he would clarify—preemptively—what was meant by the later official teaching, saying in an papal address, “It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se [sic] contrary to the Gospel [sic], because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.”
In an doctrinal declaration promulgated last year, in 2024, Francis relayed, “Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances. In this regard, we must recognize that ‘the firm rejection [sic] of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe.’” (Dignitatis Infinita, no. 34)
No doubt, the clear and unavoidable implication is that recourse to the death penalty is—in principle—illicit. In other words, the death penalty is intrinsically evil. The State cannot, in any circumstances, inflict death upon a criminal as his punishment. The official interpretation, outlined and witnessed to by the legislator, Francis I, is what must be adhered to.
However, in 1954 Pope Pius XII gave an address to Catholic jurists and said the following, “In accordance with Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Church did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies (see Gen 9:6; John 19:11; Rom 13:1-7; Innocent Ill, Professio fidei Waldensibus prenoscripta; Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 5, n. 4.”
In other words, the universal and ordinary magisterium, equally infallible as the solemn magisterium (Pastor Aeternus), had already taught that that, in principle, the death penalty was lawful. It *was* and *remains* perfectly consistent with justice.
❤20👏3
J - Cahill No. 32.jpg
1.1 MB
“The whole modern system of finance, upon which modern capitalism pivots, is practically a Jewish creation, and the world of finance is today almost completely dominated by the Jews.”
- Rev. Edward Cahill, S.J.
- Rev. Edward Cahill, S.J.
🔥26💯4
A timely critique of the now-universal political principle of 'Separation Powers', championed by Montesquieu is now available at The Journal of American Reform.
Fr. Louis Taparelli, S.J., a prominent scholastic thinker and philosopher in the 19th century is the author. To my knowledge, this critique is largely, if not entirely, unknown to the English-speaking world. Taparelli explains why men ought to strive for unity, rather than separation, in political power.
“The division of powers is therefore in itself a social evil, and does not become a good unless it is necessary to prevent greater evils. Therefore all unnecessary division is pure evil, nor should it be admitted in a perfect political order, and if we have just agreed that human society does not exist without some division, this is precisely because the imperfection of humanity will never permit an absolutely perfect political order among men.”
Link to the post: https://open.substack.com/pub/americanreform/p/on-the-division-of-political-power?r=4n45yp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Fr. Louis Taparelli, S.J., a prominent scholastic thinker and philosopher in the 19th century is the author. To my knowledge, this critique is largely, if not entirely, unknown to the English-speaking world. Taparelli explains why men ought to strive for unity, rather than separation, in political power.
“The division of powers is therefore in itself a social evil, and does not become a good unless it is necessary to prevent greater evils. Therefore all unnecessary division is pure evil, nor should it be admitted in a perfect political order, and if we have just agreed that human society does not exist without some division, this is precisely because the imperfection of humanity will never permit an absolutely perfect political order among men.”
Link to the post: https://open.substack.com/pub/americanreform/p/on-the-division-of-political-power?r=4n45yp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
👍16💯4❤3
Q. What did Louis Cardinal Billot, brilliant theologian and arch-enemy of the modernists and modernizers, think about resuming Vatican Council 1870?
A. “Finally, here is the most serious reason, the one that seems to me to militate absolutely in favor of the negative. The resumption of the Council [Vatican I, interrupted in 1870] is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, that is to say by the modernists, who are already preparing, as the most certain indications attest, to take advantage of the general state of the Church to make the revolution, the new 1789, the object of their dreams and their hopes. Needless to say, they will not succeed, but we will see again the very sad days of the end of the pontificate of Leo XIII and the beginning of that of Pius X; we will see even worse, and it would be the annihilation of the happy fruits of the encyclical Pascendi, which had reduced them to silence.”
Prescient, to say the least.
Source in French (link):
A. “Finally, here is the most serious reason, the one that seems to me to militate absolutely in favor of the negative. The resumption of the Council [Vatican I, interrupted in 1870] is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, that is to say by the modernists, who are already preparing, as the most certain indications attest, to take advantage of the general state of the Church to make the revolution, the new 1789, the object of their dreams and their hopes. Needless to say, they will not succeed, but we will see again the very sad days of the end of the pontificate of Leo XIII and the beginning of that of Pius X; we will see even worse, and it would be the annihilation of the happy fruits of the encyclical Pascendi, which had reduced them to silence.”
Prescient, to say the least.
Source in French (link):
+†+Yesus Kristus azu+†+
Un auteur catholique à lire : le Cardinal Louis BILLOT (1846-1931), « Honneur de l’Église et de la France »
Accéder à notre bibliothèque en ligne : ici Notre site a déjà recommandé la lecture de plusieurs auteurs catholiques : saint Thomas d’Aquin (vers 1215-1974), saint Alphonse de Liguori (1696-1…
🔥14👍2👏1
Please, if you can spare a moment, pray for a friend who is having a crisis of Faith.
May Our Lord grant him the virtue of fortitude and keep him from despair.
May Our Lord grant him the virtue of fortitude and keep him from despair.
❤25🙏17👍1
“He [the Jew] aspires to covert, rather than overt, domination; but he does not aspire to it as a pasture for pride, but rather as an instrument of greed. In short, together with his people, wherever he is, he constitutes a nation in every nation, which organically exists nowhere, but sparsely exists everywhere.
Therefore the equalization, in civil rights, of the Jews with the nationals of the countries in which they are established, has sprouted the fruit that was already to be expected and feared: that is, the predominance, due to the two most powerful forces that dominate the world, the press and wealth; that means to this, which is their supreme end. And in fact, little by little, in most of Europe, they have taken it over; therefore they exert an influence on the economic, political and religious progress of today’s society which has now become unbearable.”
- Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, S.J., 1897
Full text, with more analysis, can be found (here)
Therefore the equalization, in civil rights, of the Jews with the nationals of the countries in which they are established, has sprouted the fruit that was already to be expected and feared: that is, the predominance, due to the two most powerful forces that dominate the world, the press and wealth; that means to this, which is their supreme end. And in fact, little by little, in most of Europe, they have taken it over; therefore they exert an influence on the economic, political and religious progress of today’s society which has now become unbearable.”
- Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, S.J., 1897
Full text, with more analysis, can be found (here)
Substack
The dispersion of Israel in the modern world — Ballerini, 1897
Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, S.J. outlines the modern dispersion of the Jews, their increasing domination over Christian societies and how their designs are to be legitimately opposed
❤18💯1
R - Taney No. 43.jpg
1.7 MB
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, ruled in 1857 that negroes, free or enslaved, could not be considered citizens of the United States and therefore did not have the right to sue in federal court.
Taney was the first Roman Catholic to serve on the United States Supreme Court, nominated by president Andrew Jackson in 1835.
This is not to say that Black Americans are not citizens today—they are and should be, and cannot be denied the legal rights of American citizens, just like Whites. Rather, it is to demonstrate that the determination of citizenship, with its accompanying rights and privileges, belongs to the public authority, the State, and is a matter of (positive) human law. In this case, civil law—as opposed to ecclesiastical law. This kind of law is fundamentally mutable, and must take into account changing circumstances. Just like every other type of law, the common good is the directing principle.
Yet, it is important to highlight that the majority opinion, authored by Taney, was deeply concerned (as it should have been) with the intention of the framers of the constitution. This intention of the legislator(s) is, ultimately, the rule by which to interpret and implement a law. Common sense confirms this principle and it is why the decision in 1857 was correct.
Taney was the first Roman Catholic to serve on the United States Supreme Court, nominated by president Andrew Jackson in 1835.
This is not to say that Black Americans are not citizens today—they are and should be, and cannot be denied the legal rights of American citizens, just like Whites. Rather, it is to demonstrate that the determination of citizenship, with its accompanying rights and privileges, belongs to the public authority, the State, and is a matter of (positive) human law. In this case, civil law—as opposed to ecclesiastical law. This kind of law is fundamentally mutable, and must take into account changing circumstances. Just like every other type of law, the common good is the directing principle.
Yet, it is important to highlight that the majority opinion, authored by Taney, was deeply concerned (as it should have been) with the intention of the framers of the constitution. This intention of the legislator(s) is, ultimately, the rule by which to interpret and implement a law. Common sense confirms this principle and it is why the decision in 1857 was correct.
👍19
L - Zigliara No. 18.jpg
1.7 MB
Therefore, just as every citizen, so too every society itself, insofar as it assumes the character of a moral person, is bound by the strictest command of nature to the duties of religion and true religion. But religion also implies external worship. Therefore, civil authority, whose duty it is to direct society, is most strictly bound to observe, inculcate, and promote it…
Therefore, to sanction freedom of worship is to sanction impiety.”
- Tommaso Cardinal Zigliara
Therefore, to sanction freedom of worship is to sanction impiety.”
- Tommaso Cardinal Zigliara
💯13👍1
Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamay, an Indian anchor-baby and practicing Hindu, does not want his prospective constituents to know about his positions on the 2020 ‘pandemic’:
https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1924133636699250946?s=46
https://x.com/americanreform_/status/1924133636699250946?s=46
🌚12👎4🤔1
V2 - Lumen Gentium No. 7.jpg
1.9 MB
Thesis
To deny the perfect and exclusive identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, as taught in Lumen Gentium no. 8, and confirmed in its official doctrinal interpretation (slide below), is heretical. The unity of the Church—a dogma—prevents a real distinction being made between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ, which, to the contrary, must have strict identity.
Catholic Doctrine
The Creed: Unam sanctum catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (no. 13): If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is [est] the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church—we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Christ—an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (no. 27): Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter [Mystici Corporis] of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.
Pope Pius IX, Jam vos Omnes (para. 3): [N]o one of these societies [heretical or schismatic cults] nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity.
Pope Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus (no. 3): The Church of Christ is one flock under one Supreme Pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.
Novel, ‘Communio’ Ecclesiological Principle
Paul VI, Lumen Gentium (no. 8): This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible structure.
To deny the perfect and exclusive identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, as taught in Lumen Gentium no. 8, and confirmed in its official doctrinal interpretation (slide below), is heretical. The unity of the Church—a dogma—prevents a real distinction being made between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ, which, to the contrary, must have strict identity.
Catholic Doctrine
The Creed: Unam sanctum catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (no. 13): If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is [est] the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church—we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Christ—an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (no. 27): Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter [Mystici Corporis] of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.
Pope Pius IX, Jam vos Omnes (para. 3): [N]o one of these societies [heretical or schismatic cults] nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity.
Pope Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus (no. 3): The Church of Christ is one flock under one Supreme Pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation.
Novel, ‘Communio’ Ecclesiological Principle
Paul VI, Lumen Gentium (no. 8): This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible structure.
🔥14👍4👎2😐1