7.10.17:
The preceding quote was taken from the story of Ignatius, who was "second in succession to Peter" in the early Church. He "outed" himself, as a leader of this rebellious sect, so as to be brought in front of the Emperor Trajan, to be judged and condemned to die. His execution was to be in the Coliseum, said Trajan himself, as a spectacle for the people of Rome. He was fed to the lions.
Why did Ignatius do this? As Bennett explained, it was because another heretical sect developed that was almost indistinguishable from the Christians. Moreover, these heretics were accommodating themselves to the Roman rulers by making their heresy acceptable to the Romans. Hence the Romans could accept the "Docetists" as they were called, but not the authentic Christians, who were true to the very letter and spirit of what Christ taught his disciples. The disciple John, who in turn, taught Ignatius.
John, you see, was a favorite of Jesus. Ignatius saw it as his duty to preserve what he was taught in the spirit in which it was taught, so he emulated what the master did. He allowed himself to be killed, and became a martyr, as Jesus.
But was he crazy? Well, would you remember the Docetists, or remember the Christians who were thrown to the lions? Ignatius is remembered, and what he taught, which was taught indirectly from Jesus himself, was also remembered. He was a "soldier of Christ" in the spirit of Christ. He took up not the sword, but the cross.
A lesson for the times? Could be. If the modernists are accommodating themselves to the rulers of the day in order to gain favor from them, then today's modernists are not so different from the Docetists of Roman times. Therefore, somebody has to step up to the plate, like Ignatius did.
7.9.17:
Just so I am not doubted on this, here's a quote from Rod Bennett's book about the early Christian Church:
"...to glorify Jesus Christ who has glorified you, so that you, fully trained in unanimous submission, may be submissive to the bishop, and the presbytery..."and
"These words seem strange to modern ears; especially in America, where we assign authority to our rulers from the bottom up, in a Jeffersonian "social contract".
In short, the Catholic Church does not allow their pope to be elected by the people, whereas, in America, we elected the POTUS.
The point to this post is that either way can lead to bad results, if the current situation is any indication.
the original post follows....
Well, I am perusing something in the book called Four Witnesses , brought to my attention courtesy of the writings of one Ann Barnhardt.
It does appear that there is a problems amongst Catholics with regard to freedom. Catholics may tend toward authoritarianism, if this book is any indication. I suspect that it is, since in practice, it has tended that way.
This brings up an old problem in all societies, which is the problem of succession. We are riled in a controversy in the United States on that very issue. That is to say, who is going to lead the country?
Democrats won't accept Trump. They will continue behaving as they do until he is no longer POTUS, which may take eight years.
The GOP didn't like Obama, but they didn't act like this. No, the popular vote doesn't matter because it isn't the legal basis of how the POTUS is chosen. If you are going to actually follow the rule of law, you have to accept the outcome even though it doesn't appear to be the outcome you would prefer.
If you follow the rule of law, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you will accept. You follow them, and use the rule of law itself to change the laws, if the laws are not giving acceptable results.
Therefore, I don't think there is a problem with the law, but with the people who won't obey it.
We have a way, within the rule of law, of choosing presidents. If the rule of law is going to prevail, then Trump will be POTUS. Whether or not Democrats like that outcome is irrelevant.
That doesn't mean that the selection will yield the best results. Maybe it will yield poor results. But it is a system.
If enough people don't like the current system, it may be changed. All of this can be done under the rule of law.
Therefore, under the rule of law, no violence is necessary. That is, unless you don't respect the rule of law, and wish to overthrow it.
Such people are traitors.. And that is a fact, jack.
If you want to overthrow the government in favor of a TOP DOWN system, in which leaders dictate to the people, then you get something that seems to happen in Catholic societies. Indeed, that seems to be what is advocated in this book.
Ironically, the majority of Catholics supported Trump, if I am not mistaken. Perhaps the Lord works in mysterious ways. Or maybe people are, on the whole, nuts. Pick your poison.
No comments:
Post a Comment