Americanism; is it Heresy?

Thank you, this was the answer I was looking for, although I object. Swords, in a spiritual context usually refer to the Word itself, when Jesus says he is not come to bring peace but a sword, he means he is bringing the Word of God.

Two swords would probably refer to Jesus' teachings and the OT. In fact, just a few verses down, one of those swords is used to cut off a servant's ear, and while elsewhere this is St. Peter's doing, in all cases, Jesus rejects the violence. So if one wants to make Luke 22:38 a justification for the Church's temporal power, I would personally say it is still unsupported, Christ himself rejected that sword in the same chapter. Matthew 26:52 refutes itself since all who take up the sword shall perish by the sword, unless the assumption is that the Church should take up the sword on my behalf, like the sword version of gun control because I can't handle myself, when I think what Christ is alluding to is what would later be called just war theory, something which was well understood even by the Roman pagans. (Can you believe that they conquered the world in self defense according to them? Really makes you think)

Yeah, this, we all ought to know that politics is the bathroom of civic life. But we've decided now that we don't need a kitchen at all and do nothing but order bad takeaway which clogs up the plumbing.

Thanks for the response, good analogy.

Attached: My Weed!.jpg (489x639, 97.33K)

Matthew 26:52 supports just war theory if one is willing to read "all who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" as "all who take up the sword [to start a conflict] shall perish by the sword." Which seems supportable by the context.

If you are Catholic, you cannot. This is dogmatic document. If not, then let's contuine:
Usually does not mean always. See Romans 13:4
That would be the one and the same sword. Theophanies were Christophanies .
Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52].
To quote Saint Leo: Our divine Saviour would not permit this apostle to continue in his pious zeal for the safety of his Master. He says to him: put up thy sword. For he could not be unwilling to die for the redemption of man, who chose to be born for that end alone. Now, therefore, he gives power to his implacable enemies to treat him in the most cruel manner, not willing that the triumph of the cross should be in the least deferred; the dominion of the devil and man's captivity in the least prolonged.
This was not to condemn the use of the sword, when employed on a just cause, or by lawful authority. Euthymius looks upon it as a prophecy that the Jews should perish by the sword of the Romans.
Both swords, the spiritual and the material sword, that is power and not weapon per se, are to be used by right authority the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers.
Divine author in 1 Macc 8:1-16 praise them justly.

This.
It's separation of church and state, not separation of state and church.

Americanism was sold as a separation of the powers of church and state. But as we've come to see, in practice, it's just a means for state to elevate itself above the church. It does this by indirectly financing attacks on religious institutions through the use of private organizations within and from outside the US, while it maintains plausible deniability for its role in this arrangement. Just trace the pursestrings of the ecumenicism movement and the damage it's wrought on seminary schools in the US.

Is there any reason marriage is governed by secular civil laws?

Well I'm not Catholic, Anglicanbut yes 1 Maccabees 8:1-16, the Romans were indeed an honourable pagan people and at other points they are commended for their actions and behaviour in the NT. (though I can't remember quite where).

I still don't get the purpose of the phrase "put up thy sword in thy scabbard." What of it? Does this mean in the view of Catholics that Peter gets the sword (that he used to cut off a man's ear) just like it is supposed that he got control of the keys?

Hmm, ok, I suppose there is some intent to spiritualize the two swords, I wonder what the Orthos have to say about this.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)

Catholic here.
What kind of retarded interpretation is that. Jesus simply told him that those who live by the sword die by it. It was written that Jesus should die like that.
And since his Master told him to stop, he told him to put the sword back to the scabbard.
What kind of other interpretation could there be?

It's literally "Pete, chill, I got this. It was meant to happen".
It was middle of the night, apostles were half-asleep and then Romans come. Some, probably one of Thunder-Brothers asked "Lord should we fight them?" and then Peter, who generally had hard time grasping the whole "man of sorrows" deal, and who in this week saw how Christ himself was zealous when cleaned the temple for the second time, did not waited for anserw and in his zeal striked the servant. So Jesus says to him to put his sword in his place since he did not given him permssion to fight and you could not really say to "lie my life himself" when there is a fight over if you should die.
Easterners due them being too close to Constantinople were saturated by Byzantine Civilisation and their caesaropapism and throwed principles of Famuli vestrae pietatis out of the window.

Ps: Peter gets the Keys because he was the only one who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah the Son of the Living God
Matthew 16:15-19
Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Thanks guys, I wanted to have my mind changed, as it is the correct thing to strive for. Unfortunately today I think I found that my aforementioned beliefs are mostly justified. I can warp neither Luke 22:38, Matthew 26:52 nor Romans 13:4 into a justification for the RCC.

Unam Sanctam interpretation I already gave. But I will give much, much older document that I already mentioned, Famuli vestrae pietatis or as it's commonly named, Duo Sunt.

There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these, that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.

If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion. Accordingly, just as there is no slight danger in the case of the priests if they refrain from speaking when the service of the divinity requires, so there is no little risk for those who disdain–which God forbid–when they should obey. And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that See which the Most High ordained to be above all others, and which is consequently dutifully honored by the devotion of the whole Church.

Also explained or at least tried to. But maybe words of greater mind will be better. So here have the Commentator, Cornelius a Lapide:
Ver. 52. Then Jesus saith to him, Put up again thy sword into his place. Christ here reproves Peter’s rashness in drawing his sword against His wish. Peter’s sin, then, was twofold: first in striking against Christ’s wish, and next, because this was an act not so much of defence as of revenge, which did not help to deliver Christ from the soldiers, but rather excited them the more against Him. But Peter, says S. Chrysostom, was hurried on by his eagerness to protect Christ, and did not think of this, but remembered rather His words, that Christ had ordered them to take two swords, inferring that it was for His defence. And accordingly he thought that in striking the servant he was acting according to the mind of Christ, “Let revenge cease, let patience be exhibited,” says the Interlinear Gloss.
Rest to read here, I recomend it: catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/26matth.htm
Material sword is given to Emperor. And to all lawful kings, senators, presidents - all lawful authority. But this sword is to be beared for the Church.

Yeah I get it, separation of Church and state has a long history since the Church was always an independent body, and that this is not to be confused with secularism. I don't disagree but the system of government Duo Sunt is referring to could never be revivified, simply because Niccolo Machiavelli tore apart the idea of exercising virtue in governing secular affairs. It was this premise that we should expect baseness in politics, stated the obvious and paved the way for modern forms of government which attempt to balance powers within the state. The good of this arrangement is that we don't have to live in fear of bad kings, the bad is that we never call upon our leaders to exercise restraint, which is a surefire way to ruin.

The question remains; has political restraint been fictitious?

Attached: Stupid Politicians.jpg (960x1024, 153.69K)

I've actually read Machiavelli, both the Prince and commentary on Roman history. Thing is that Machiavelli, probably due to Italian hate on Papacy that been a thing in Renaissance and lat, lat middle ages, completely ignored that there is something above state, that is the Church. He got a pretty good ideas but it's irrelevant to discussion, since he works from secular (or even worse, caesaropapist) worldview.

A code word for degeneracy and blasphemy.

The Church is not above the state, God alone is above the state. One owes loyalty to their nation before loyalty to their church.

Then you shall be judged as one of a nation before you are judged as a member of Christ's Church.

addendum: there is no second judgement btw

And this Americanism, heresy gotten from Byzantine Civilisation. via it's German branch, fought as far as end of fifth century:

And this is denial of fact that Christ is to come to "judge living and the death"

Both are worthy of condemnation.