Christian rebellion

  • Thread starter Thread starter mariospeed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mariospeed

Guest
We have the Cristero rebellion, we have the Catholic rebellion in France as depicted by the movie, “War in the Verdee”, etc.

With so many saints and church heroes coming out of these events, it would lead one to believe that these rebellions would have been supported by the Church, like a “just war”. Certainly, the Church was under tremendous persecution in those times.

However in reading the CCC: newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm

or Augustyn’s Summa: newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm

it’s hard to see where a rebellion, including killing other people, would be justifiable. Are those who participate in the rebellion putting their souls at risk?
 
Certainly the use of violence must always be seen as a very last resort and the potential benefits must be weighed against the costs. There are also moral costs in refusing to act against tyranny.

Most of us would agree that Claus von Stauffenberg and his associates were justified in the use of force to attempt to overthrow the Nazi regime. Many would argue that they should have acted much sooner than they did.
 
The Cristero and the Vendee actions----were defensive actions. The Faith was being attacked by forces already in place. They were NOT “rebellions”! What these two actions were was push-back; they were defending their way of life from a new ideological invader. In the Cristero, it was Freemasonry and secularism that was attacking the old way of life. In France, in the Vendee, it was the atheistic ideology of the Enlightenment that was attacking the old way of life.

Don’t classify them as “rebellions” per se. They may be labelled that way as glib responses to history but in no way were they rebellions, i.e. revolutions. Both actions were about Defense of the Faith which is perfectly normal.

In LXX I Mac. 2:39-41 it says “fight or else be rooted out from the earth”. If you want to preserve your way of life, you have to pick up a weapon and defend it. There is an historical lesson that proves that point. In 7th century A.D., there were 500 bishoprics in North Africa. Just to put that into perspective, there is only 300 Bishoprics in America for 60 million Catholics. (There wasn’t that many in North Africa either but the amount of Bishoprics were impressive.) When Islam marched out of the Arabian peninsula, the religion was advanced by the point of the sword. No one knows what happened in North Africa, the Islamists wiped out all of North African Christianity! St. Augustine’s see? No more.

In French Indo-China, Catholics had to form militias to protect themselves from communists. And in Austria/Hungrary, Catholics formed home militias to protect themselves from communists.

“Fight or be rooted from the earth”.

In America, that would be impossible for European Catholics for there are no “Catholic” communities. There actually is no Catholic place in America to claim sovereignty of Faith for America is a secular country. Unless the Protestants do something but there is no unity of Faith for the Protestants. Many of them are liberal just like many Catholics are liberal. There is too much space in between traditionalist Christians to form communities and then to form a military/militia unit. America is too fragmented by race, religion, feeling to get anything accomplished anymore–and that is by plan by the elite running this country.

There can not be unity of action. In a homogeneous societies of Mexico and France, in both race and in religion, there can be resistance and unity of action. But in America, as a former military man, it is impossible. In order to form and conduct organized resistance, FIRST requires a homogenous body which would entail homogeneity of race and religion together. That has always been the case.
 
Certainly the use of violence must always be seen as a very last resort and the potential benefits must be weighed against the costs. There are also moral costs in refusing to act against tyranny.

Most of us would agree that Claus von Stauffenberg and his associates were justified in the use of force to attempt to overthrow the Nazi regime. Many would argue that they should have acted much sooner than they did.
So, at what point does the church and its members recognize a rebellion is needed? Obviously with Hitler they saw the need to act above and beyond simple prayers, strange that in todays world, no one seem to think similar actions are needed…??

I have a feeling too many people are far too concerned with mans laws, loosing their kushy lives, good jobs, cul de sac homes, kids soccer practice, etc versus doing something more for the greater good.
 
Can a group of Christians get together and fight physically against their appointed civil leaders, with Church approval? We have the two examples I mentioned, which I think seem to have received accolades from the Church in hindsight. Do we have moral license from the Church to physically fight back against atrocities (i.e. abortion)?
 
The question is how did you get to that position that you need to rebel. And then what is going to change after the rebellion? Reinstitute Americanism?

I believe that the flaws of the founders of this country are directly responsible for what is going on today.
 
The question is how did you get to that position that you need to rebel. And then what is going to change after the rebellion? Reinstitute Americanism?

I believe that the flaws of the founders of this country are directly responsible for what is going on today.
Well, just look at the results of past rebellions to figure out how they would end if happened today, no difference.

IMO, the point at which rebellion is needed should be based on the same things as it was in the past, why would it be any different in out times?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top