Monday, January 16, 2017

Trumped Up Charges


 On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States of America, after the nastiest and most contentious election in U.S. history. He lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College, the method used to decide the president since this nation was founded. The reaction of the left-wing was disturbing, from signs proclaiming "He's not my president," to demonstrations planned for the Inauguration. Had this happened eight years ago when Obama was sworn in, there would have been cries of "racism" against any such protesters. (For the record, Obama was not the "first black president," he is bi-racial. He was, however, the first Communist in all but name). Trump is far from perfect, but the reactions of many (including members of the Vatican II sect), are outrageous. People are claiming it's their "right" not to recognize him as president and to oppose everything he does, regardless of the merits.

 What does the One True Church teach about the duties owed by citizens to the State? That is the topic to be covered in this post.


Catholic Principles on the Authority of the State and the Duties of Citizens

 I will turn to the most eloquent teacher on such principles, His Holiness Pope Leo XIII.

1. All authority comes from God, but the person invested with authority can be designated by the people by different methods at various times. 

" It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon."--Diuturnum # 6

"There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors."--Diuturnum # 6

2. Authority exists so that the common good (and the good of individuals) may be more easily and perfectly obtained.

"But in order that justice may be retained in government it is of the highest importance that those who rule States should understand that political power was not created for the advantage of any private individual; and that the administration of the State must be carried on to the profit of those who have been committed to their care, not to the profit of those to whom it has been committed."---Diuturnum # 16

3. Authority must be exercised with justice and in a fatherly manner for the advantage of all members of society.

"... God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race... They, therefore, who rule should rule with evenhanded justice, not as masters, but rather as fathers, for the rule of God over man is most just, and is tempered always with a father's kindness. Government should, moreover, be administered for the well-being of the citizens, because they who govern others possess authority solely for the welfare of the State. Furthermore, the civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual or of some few persons, inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all."---Immortale Dei # 4 and 5

4. Legitimate authority must be respected and obeyed conscientiously. 

"Whence it will behoove citizens to submit themselves and to be obedient to rulers, as to God, not so much through fear of punishment as through respect for their majesty; nor for the sake of pleasing, but through conscience, as doing their duty."---Diuturnum # 13

"Both the natural and the Christian law command us to revere those who in their various grades are shown above us in the State, and to submit ourselves to their just commands."---Graves de Communi Re # 9

5. If lawful authority commands anything contrary to natural and/or Divine Law, there is a duty not to obey the command (an intrinsically unjust law like abortion).

"The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated."---Diuturnum # 15 

Conclusion
Ask yourself, "Are the protesters against Donald Trump adhering to the principles defined by Pope Leo XIII?"  Traditionalists suffered through the presidency of Barack Obama without questioning his designation by the people to rule. We prayed and fought against his disastrous policies with dignity and in the manner consistent with Church teaching. We resisted in appropriate ways when sodomite "marriage" was foisted upon the nation with the help of two of his Supreme Court nominees, and when he declared that determining the humanity of unborn children was "above his pay grade." (Good thing Lincoln didn't think determining the humanity of slaves was above his pay grade, Mr. Obama). 

 Has the Vatican II sect admonished anyone for this unprincipled behavior? Perish the thought. Traditionalists should protest outside the Modernist Vatican with signs that read, "He's not my (or anyone else's) pope."

22 comments:

  1. I would say Franklin Roosevelt was our first communist president.
    I disliked Obama and went to a rally to oppose him.It doesn't bother me that white lesbians and illegal aliens dislike him.In fact its a good sign those 2 groups dislike him.
    Great article as usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, my friend; if people who do wrong dislike Trump he must be doing something right!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Off the wall question here but what is your opinion on Noah's 3 son's and the curse of his son who didn't cover his nakedness?
    (Without going into specifics as to not offend anyone)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your query involves the interpretation of Genesis chapter 9. According to Haydock, it was Ham’s mocking response of telling his brothers he saw his father naked that was wrong. Rather than respecting his father, Ham apparently took some delight in Noah’s lack of dignity at that moment. Think of it this way; if you saw your cousin or a close friend lying passed out, drunk, and naked in your backyard, would you call your siblings over to come take a look? Or out of decency would you at least wrap a blanket around him, and possibly even bring him into the house and put him on the couch? How much more respect should Ham have had for his father? So why did Noah curse Canaan (Ham's son) instead of Ham himself?

      One explanation given by the theologians is Canaan was not only the father of the Canaanites, but also of the Amorites, Jebusites, Sidonians and the Phoenicians. All of these peoples would at some period in the future wage war against the descendants of Shem and (to a lesser extent) Japheth, and would also become grossly idolatrous. Noah may have been prophetically denouncing this departure from faith in the true and living God.

      I hope this helps!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yes it helps thank you God bless.

      Delete
    3. Sorry I have one more question.
      Would the curse have been lifted after the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
      I will stop at this because this could drag on to a much longer conversation.This is due to some saying a certain race of people are waging cultural war on Japheth's descendants via Usury and cultural corruption.

      Delete
    4. The misnomer "Curse of Ham," has been used to justify slavery and all forms of evil. Old Testament curses are not the same under the New Law of Christ. One cannot, for example, use the fact that the Jews are guilty of Deicide to promote violence and hatred against them. We are bound to convert them and show them the love of Christ which forgives ALL sin of those who repent. A Jew who is baptized in the Church is no longer guilty before God of Deicide. Do not allow evil men to use the Bible (and their warped interpretations of it) to justify their wicked ways.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Thank you Sir God bless you

      Delete
  3. Read the January 2017 Traditio.com post about Pius XII & John XXIII comparison.
    I have always stated & believed Pius XII was a modern liberal that hid behind externals.His record as pope is a destructive disaster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't deny that Pope Pius XII used poor judgement. Ironically, his act that is most lacking good judgement was making Roncalli a cardinal!

      I read the entry from "the Fathers" at Traditio. They conveniently omit serious problems with Roncalli. For a detailed assessment please read my post of August 31, 2015, "True And False Saints."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. I came to realize years ago that the Traditio fathers love Roncalli. They have been singing his praises for years. Just goes to show you how people see only what they want to see. I agree with their assessment of Pius XII however.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pope Pius XII was not the strongest of pontiffs, it's true. However, unlike Roncalli, he was really pope.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. This is not excusing the faults and blunders of Pius XII & John XXIII.
    Those men who lived in Europe during the 2 World Wars witnessed Human suffering,destruction,misery,and carnage on a massive devastating scale and a new unforgiving brutal type of warfare.Those generations didn't have a reference point for this type of suffering and brutality.
    Its my belief those unspeakable decades affected their lives,minds,and emotions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We're going to an Episcopal Consecration later in the year.
    Do you know what type of gloves would be a proper gift?
    (What color,style,are any symbols allowed on gloves,etc)Its a Sedevacantist consecration so its a supplied jurisdiction consecration.
    I'm asking various people who have knowledge of liturgy and rubrics.
    Thank you in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The gloves are Traditionally color of the day; but I don't have detailed rubrics regarding episcopal gloves. Check out susammaria.com for gloves. Perhaps you could email the website I listed.

      Good luck and God bless.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Is it possible to identify if the traditional or new rite of consecration is used in this clip?
    It's my understanding both rites were optional from July 1,1968-April 4,1969.
    The official promulgation was June,18,1968 for the new rites but they didn't start until July 1,1968.
    https://youtu.be/1MMPhZcXY6k
    If link dont work its called
    "Consecration of Bishops 1969"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The clip is very short and has no volume. I really can't tell.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. 10-4 Thank you
      Any suggestions on a book about understanding the holy sacrifice of the Mass & surrounding ceremonies?
      I want to learn about and understand liturgy,rubrics,history of the Church/Holy Mass,etc..

      Delete
    3. Did research on the true Catholic rite of Episcopal Consecration.
      If what I read is correct,the clip from Hungary Jan.1969 is the true traditional rite.

      Delete
    4. As to the Mass, the greatest book is
      "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Liturgically, Dogmatically and Ascetically Explained" by theologian Fr Nicholas Gihr. None better. Next Fr Martin VOn Cochem "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Explained" Excellent. You may be correct about the consecration rite.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. I have since learned the clip from Hungary 1969 is the new rite.
      One way to tell is the pontifical books are held above their heads.
      In the traditional rite the pontifical books are held on their shoulders and neck.
      Also,the traditional rite gives the newly consecrated Bishop's their own Episcopal gloves.
      The new rite omits Episcopal gloves.
      Its a shame the gloves were omitted in the new rite as they (gloves) are blessed with Holy Water.The Holy Water signifies their hands will now ordain,confirm,and consecrate.
      I hold the new rites to be severely doubtful.With that said and adding that I reject & boycott the Novus Ordo,its a crying shame Paul VI changed and mutilated Holy Orders. :(

      Delete