President Obama suffered a humiliating defeat as all nine justices essentially threw his case out of the Supreme Court on its ear.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: This will buy us some precious time...
(The American Catholic) - As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a church school cannot be sued in court over an employee’s discrimination complaint.
In a unanimous decision SCOTUS overturned the earlier ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al which had allowed the lawsuit to move forward, saying the teacher’s work was more secular than religious.
The high court disagreed.
Consistent with precedent, SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of anti-discrimination laws when dealing with employees of religious institutions. SCOTUS also extended this precedent to include complaints of discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act....
The decision allows the Catholic Church, and other religious institutions, to freely practice religion in regards to clergy selection. The unanimous margin (9 to 0) by which the decision was made insures this will remain settled law (stare decisis) for some time. That's a very good thing, but we should not count on this remaining a permanent fixture of the American legal landscape. As we know, the Supreme Court does NOT write its decisions in stone. New presidents can nominate new supreme court justices, and new justices can overturn previous decisions. Therefore we should not get into the comfortable position of thinking the matter is settled. It is not.
What has been determined however is this. There are forces in this country (most recently concentrated in the Obama administration, but by no means limited to it) that are hell-bent on making sure churches are FORCED by law to hire female ministers. From a Catholic perspective this is particularly insidious, because if implemented it would mean the hand of the government is being used to interrupt authentic priestly ordinations and authentic apostolic secession. Nothing could make the devil happier!
The problem is not so much legal as it is cultural. Legal systems have existed in the Western World for centuries and we've never encountered a problem quite like this before. This kind of problem only arises when the culture itself is infected with the cancer of liberal Modernism. The only reason why the Obama administration was able to muster enough support to even put this case forward is because he was elected by a culture that tolerated what he said during the campaign and was pleased with the way he conducted himself in office. Indeed, had the culture been more 'christian' (small 'c' here) than a man like Obama would have never been elected in the first place. Then again, a man like John McCain would have never won the 2008 GOP primaries either.
In Europe the cultural problem is endemic to the whole region, save a few isolated spots here and there, with the nations of Hungary and Poland being exceptions for the time being. In the United States of America, things are a little different. For the most part, the entire Northern and Western portions of the United States have a similar problem as Europe, albeit not as severe yet, in that Christianity has been abandoned as a source of public moral guidance. In the Southern Midwest to Southeast (Old Dixieland) the problem still exists, but there is still a sizeable remnant that clings to the virtues of Christendom. Of course the biggest problem here is that most of those people are Evangelical Protestants and that makes them highly susceptible to change. The best thing that could happen to the American Southeast (Dixieland) right now would be for traditional Catholicism to move in and help crystallise the Dixieland tendency to cling to tradition. This would solidify the Old South's stand against Modernism.
I think perhaps what might have made this possible in Dixie is something really awful that may perhaps work its way out as a blessing in disguise. (God works all things together for good for those who love him.) I'm talking about the loss of the Civil War. You see, ever since the South lost the Civil War, it has to this day found itself subject to the ridicule and oppression of Northern (Yankee) culture. Southerners (Dixians) continue to be mocked for their language, accents, manners, morals and beliefs. This has caused some Dixians to embrace Yankee Modernism, but it has also cause a lot more to dig in their heels, galvanise and defiantly hold their ground throughout the decades. It is perhaps this very form of liberal Yankee persecution that has in effect made it possible for the South to still find herself a bastion of faith and culture while the rest of America has gone to hell in a hand basket.
So why am I bringing this up, and what does it have to do with the recent Supreme Court decision? Well, as I said above, this recent decision buys the U.S. Catholic Church some precious time, but it does not settle the matter. The liberal Modernists (Yankee style) will return and this issue will be revisited sooner or later. Nothing will really change until the culture changes, and the one place in America where the culture is most likely to change in the Church's favour is in the American Southeast -- Old Dixieland. Catholics should concentrate our efforts there, to help galvanise what is left of Christendom in this region. There we can take our stand against the corruption of liberal Modernism in the rest of America. I firmly believe the Old South, of all places ironically, is the one area that is most likely to restore Christendom to the rest of North America. Of course many people say Catholic New England is the key, others say the Catholic portions of the American Southwest are the key. I say none of the above. It's Dixie or nothing. You want to change the culture in America, than help make Dixie more Catholic, or else forget about it!
Mitt Romney leads the South Carolina Republican presidential primary with 29%. Newt Gingrich is in second place with 25% and Ron Paul is in third place with 20%.
Paul has gained the most and Rick Santorum has lost the most since the last American Research Group survey on January 4-5. In that survey, Paul was at 9% and Santorum was at 24%.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: There is a bitter sense of vindication that comes from this. Vindication because it proves that I was right. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that can beat Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Bitter because it appears that not enough people are seeing that now, and this will inevitably result in the re-election of Barack Obama in November.
I don't know if Ron Paul will surge enough on his own to win South Carolina. Certainly if Rick Santorum or Rick Perry dropped out right now, it would be 'game on' for Ron Paul winning South Carolina. To my fellow Catholic supporters of Santorum out there, did you really think the 'he's a good Catholic' line would play well in South Carolina which has one of the smallest Catholic populations in the entire United States? You have to understand, a large number of Evangelicals (most concentrated in South Carolina) really see no distinction between Catholics and Mormons. They are both viewed as a 'cult' by Evangelicals, and some might even see the Mormons as less threatening. Newt Gingrich's popularity there is mainly from name recognition and folks remembering his 'Contract with America' back in 1994. I dare say a good number of voters in South Carolina don't even know he's Catholic.
Santorum and Perry are finished. The best thing they could do is drop out and let their delegates go to Paul and Gingrich respectively, giving Romney a real run for his money. Alas, I fear they will continue to divide the conservative vote in the Republican Party, allowing Romney to skate right into the GOP convention with the most delegates this August.
A Romney victory in August spells an Obama victory in November.
Now that being said, and all rancour aside (my own included), let's analyse something a little more dispassionately. Regardless of what anyone says about this primary process, and regardless of whoever wins the GOP nomination, there is one thing that is absolutely clear and cannot be denied. Ron Paul has changed the face of the Republican Party -- forever.
What we have right now is an entire section of the Republican Party (about 20%) that has rejected the status quo precedents set by previous GOP administrations and congresses. What we have is a political party that is now about 20% more 'libertarian' than it was just ten years ago. We have a party that is 20% more likely to embrace a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. We have a party that is 20% more likely to want to abolish the Federal Reserve. We have a party that is 20% more likely to embrace states rights and decentralisation. This is why GOP icon Sarah Palin has warned Republicans not to alienate the Ron Paul supporters. For in alienating them, they risk the breakup of the Republican Party entirely. The only GOP candidate bringing in sizable numbers of young energetic voters right now is Ron Paul. It is clear, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the future of the Republican Party is going to reflect Ron Paul's thinking a lot more than any other political candidate. Paul has made his mark on the GOP, and it is a mark that is here to stay, unless of course the GOP rejects it. If they do that however, the GOP rejects its future and consigns itself to a generation of irrelevance.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: A reader of this blog recently asked what my views were on Hungary's newly adopted Constitution which not only acknowledges, but honour's and enforces, Hungary's Christian heritage. In my opinion, Hungary's new constitution is a good thing and a sign of things to come. While from a democratic standpoint this may seem extreme to some Americans, we have to remember that Hungary IS NOT a federal republic made up of multiple smaller republics (like the United States). Rather, it is a singular republic nation-state. Therefore, as a singular republic nation-state, it has the right to govern itself as it sees fit, and that would include protecting its historic Christian culture in a era where that is under siege by militant Secularism and Multiculturalism, which has resulted in the emergence of militant Islam knocking on their front door. While of course I think a return to the Hapsburg Dynasty, or some form of constitutional monarchy, is preferable, this is the next best thing.
I do hope the emerging founding fathers of the renewed nation of Dixieland will look to Hungary as a model to consider when drafting a new constitution for the reborn Confederate States of Dixieland (CSD). That being said, we have to remember that a Confederate constitution need not be so strict because a revived Confederacy will be a composite of multiple sovereign states. Thus a Confederate constitution would only need to support those actions deemed necessary by the states. So for example, if the State of Alabama, for example, decided the best way to heal its own wounds inflicted by militant Secularism was to enact a constitution similar to the one in Hungary, but customised to address Southern issues, than the Confederate government's only responsibility would be to support that state's right to govern itself that way.
Our Lady of Fatima prophesied that entire nations would soon vanish as a result of this great Chastisement coming upon the earth and I am now convinced the United States is one of those nations. What replaces the former USA will likely be a Balkanised version of North America. My hope is that all of these newly formed nations will use Hungary's new constitution as a template to remodel their own governments as needed to address North American issues which thankfully are not nearly as severe as Europe's problems.
This new Hungarian constitution is a sign that the old order of militant Secularism and Multiculturalism has miserably failed. A growing number of the European population is striving for a return to something more traditional - something akin to Christendom. Our Catholic prophecies tell us they will, after much strife, eventually get what they want in the form of a new Holy Roman Empire. I think the Hungarian constitution is a sign of this, a precursor, and of course the Hungarians will likely have the least trouble integrating into the new Christendom when it comes, (that is assuming they survive the Chastisement to come), because they're government was already prepped for it.
I believe the time has come for Catholics all over the world, particularly here in North America, to abandon the militant Secularism and Multiculturalism that has brought the Western world to ruin - both socially and financially. I believe the time has come for Catholics to abandon those forms of government that are actively promoting militant Secularism and Multiculturalism. This would include, but is not limited to, the United States federal government (seated in Washington DC), the French Republic, the German Republic, the Russian Federation, and all monarchies that are no longer Catholic. When I say abandon these regimes, I am not talking about violent revolution, which contradicts our Christian virtues. Rather, we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, paying our taxes and obeying the laws, but all the while supporting alternate forms of government which may arise in their place, so long as those governments are friendly to the virtues of Christendom.
Considering everything that has happened, I believe this to be our religious duty as Catholics. In those places where some alternative form of government may exist in embryonic stage, which is friendly to Christendom, than that alternate form should be supported and embraced by Catholics, all within reason and civility. In those places where no such alternate government exists, than I believe it is incumbent upon Catholics to create one, all within reason and civility. The time to act is now! The Secularists and Multiculturalists have failed us. The time now has come for all good men to come together and save our civilisation from complete ruin. We should show our Secularist Multiculturalist governments a vote of 'no-confidence.'
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Mitt Romney has just won the New Hampshire primary on the heels of a very narrow victory in Iowa. Rick Santorum lost to Romney in Iowa by just eight votes but was soundly beaten by him in New Hampshire by 26 percentage points. Romney also bested Ron Paul by 12 percentage points. While a New Hampshire victory was predictable for Romney, it has reinforced the notion that he can easily carry all of the New England states in future primaries.
Rick Santorum's best chance at making a comeback is in South Carolina at the end of next week, where he trails Romney by an average of 10 percentage points, depending on which poll you believe. Even if Santorum manages to pull out a narrow victory in South Carolina, that victory will be short lived when Florida holds its primary ten days later, where Romney leads against Santorum by 20 percentage points and Gingrich by 10 percentage points. Then comes Nevada in February, followed by Main, Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, Michigan and Washington. Romney will win all of these states. By the time we get to March, Romney will have so much momentum behind him that he will be nearly invincible. Romney will have won every single primary, with perhaps only one exception (South Carolina), and that's only if Santorum is incredibly lucky. What we are witnessing is a repeat of 2008 but worse. Romney is going to skate into the convention with more delegates than anyone else, while Santorum and Gingrich battle it out for second place. Ron Paul, will not win a single primary, as expected and planned by those who control the type of candidates we get for the general election.
So the international corporate-money cartel wins again. Americans will choose between Romney and Obama in November. Both are corporate whores. Both serve the money cartels. Both will give us more of the same. There is your choice America. Enjoy.
We the people of Dixieland (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia) do hereby declare ourselves a separate and distinct people from the rest of the United States of America. We come from diverse ethnic, religious and social groups, but we are united in language, culture and history. We repudiate the moral abominations of slavery and segregation that were thrust upon us by the prevailing political and economic forces of their time. We stand together in Christian fraternity and charity toward our fellow man. We pledge to each other our Christian faith, our undying loyalty and our sacred honour. For it is in this context alone that true and equal freedom enters into the lives of men.
For one and a half centuries our lives have been dominated by the prevailing influence of the United States federal government's imperial power. Upon exercising the rights defined under the U.S. Declaration of Independence, our ancestors were met with the most fiendish hostility perpetrated against our people by a government sworn to protect those rights. Never in the history of North America has such savagery been unleashed by the sons of European Christendom. Even the British showed far more civility when dealing with their rebel colonies. What followed this American apocalypse was a period of occupation, wherein the rights of our ancestors were stripped for a generation, and the ability to govern ourselves was made a mockery. What followed this was a century of repression that goes on to this day, wherein our history is maligned, our symbols outlawed, our language mocked and our children propagandised to despise their own heritage. These evils alone were insufficient to crush the tolerance of a Christian people. For over a hundred years we pledged our allegiance to the American empire, we raised her banner proudly to prove our patriotism, we sang her anthems and sent our sons to die in her wars. We have done everything humanly possible to demonstrate we are 'good Americans,' far more than any other quarter of the empire, and we have quietly dismissed the words of intolerance and mockery that have repeatedly been uttered against our people and our heritage. In every way imaginable, for one-hundred and fifty years, we have followed the command of our Lord and Saviour to 'turn the other cheek' and 'carry the cloak two miles instead of just one.' For this we were met with the following.
During the last generation the American empire, with its power seated in Washington DC, has levelled an absolute war of legal oppression against our Christian faith and our Dixieland culture. This warfare began in the federal courts, denying our children the right to pray in public schools. This later extended to the suppression of all religious expression on all government owned properties. Everywhere the government advanced, religion was forced to retreat, and so it seemed as time passed, the government was advancing everywhere. Then again in the federal courts, the government stripped our states of their right to regulate and prohibit infanticide in the form of surgical and chemical abortion. This has resulted in a holocaust of death that has most severely affected our black population in what can only be compared to a form of racial genocide. Under the guise of 'compassion' our people have been heavily taxed by this imperial regime, and their wealth 'redistributed' through government agencies, to create a welfare dependent class of people, which again has disproportionately affected our black population, re-enslaving them in what has come to be called the 'government plantation.' Through all of this, the churches have been robbed of their God-given commission to feed and care for the poor, relegating many of their religious duties to social events. This combined with the imperial regime's refusal to allow states to regulate profanity and obscenity on the public airwaves, has led to a moral and social decline that is unprecedented in Western history since the fall of the Roman Empire.
Now with all this under way, this imperial regime which reigns over us, with the threat of the most malignant force should we dare to assert our political independence again, has taken its warfare against our faith and culture to the most extreme levels. Under the auspices of 'tolerance' churches are forced to shut down their charitable programs. Christian pastors face the threat of prosecution for reading portions of the Bible that contradict this new government sponsored 'politically-correct' orthodoxy. Homosexuality is promoted as 'normal,' even 'desirable,' and those who protest are labelled 'intolerant' and 'hateful,' forced to fear government reprisals should they dare to resist. Public school children are suspended or expelled for expressing their Christian beliefs or cultural heritage, and these are just the beginning of human rights violations. Over the last half-century this American empire has become a worldwide superpower, and so has thrust its weight into the far corners of the earth. Today the empire heavily taxes her people, most especially the sons and daughters of Dixieland, to pay not only for its colossal welfare state, but also for its police actions around the world. What it lacks in tax revenue it supplements in money printing through the unelected and unaccountable Federal Reserve banking system. This creates inflation which acts as a double tax on our people, impoverishing us even further, and robbing our children of any hope for the future. With these revenues the empire intervenes in the affairs of other governments across the globe, inciting their hatred of us, and provoking their retaliation against our people, leaving us nothing to show for it but a massive national debt that can never be repaid.
The empire has also waged a war against small family-run business, granting favours to large corporations, thus destroying the very fabric of our independent economy. Our people have become 'wage-slaves' to large national and international corporations, that pay us barely enough to survive and place many of our people on government program dependency for food and medical necessities. To complain against these unfair business practices is to be told we are 'lazy,' as we are forced to send our wives and older children into the workplace just to keep our households solvent. Meanwhile the few good paying jobs that exist are exported overseas, as the empire tells us this is a 'good thing' for America citing reasons that are simply unintelligible to us. For all of our loyalty, for all of the imperial flags waved across Dixieland, for all the anthems we have sung and the pledges we have made, for all the blood spilled by our sons and daughters in the empire's endless international wars, we are left with this? This is our legacy? This is our inheritance? We are left struggling for financial solvency, apologising for our culture and fighting for our religion?
We are disgusted with the outcome of this venture into American imperialism and are forced to conclude, after a century and a half, that the surrender of the Army of Virginia at Appomattox was a mistake. We are left with the sad realisation that our people would have fared much better had General Robert E. Lee taken his troops into the hills and fought a perpetual conflict of guerrilla warfare, rather than surrender to superior Union fire power. We are heartbroken that after one-hundred and fifty years of promising and proving our fidelity to the empire, we have once again become her enemies, simply for being what we are and for no more than that.
Therefore, without resorting to acts of violence, which contradicts our Christian virtue, we individually and communally pledge to undertake the following measures...
We shall no more hide the symbols of our identity in shame. We adopt the Confederate Naval Jack as the symbol of our people and our struggle, pledging to display it whenever possible, in the most honourable and dignified way. This 'Christian Cross of St. Andrew' shall be the sign of our resistance.
We shall in every way identify our land as Dixie or Dixieland, and our people as Dixians, Dixons or as the citizens of our respective states, so as to separate ourselves from the directional designation of 'Southerners' which geographically ties us to the United States. We must in every way assert ourselves as a separate and distinct people.
We shall seek to restore the manners and chivalry of Christendom in our homes, neighbourhoods and religious congregations.
We shall endeavour to persuade our local and state elected officials to enact laws that enforce the virtues of Christian civility.
We shall likewise endeavour to persuade our local and state elected officials to unceasingly petition the empire (Washington DC) for provisional self-governance, with the long-term goal of full independence. This pressure must continuously be applied to the empire even if Washington's answer is always 'no.' Likewise, we should make sure this call for independence is well known in the United Nations and the international community, thus making our struggle an international embarrassment to the empire.
We shall culturally adjure the realm by cutting off our families from the popular media.
We shall remove our money from national and international banks, supporting local credit unions instead.
We shall refuse to shop at 'big box' superstores owned by massive corporations, endeavouring instead to keep our money local, finding locally owned, or worker-owned (cooperative) places to do our business.
We shall endeavour to press our local and state politicians to break up monopolies, allowing for cooperatively owned competition in energy production and manufacturing.
We shall in every way seek a return to a simpler way of life, honouring the religion of our antebellum ancestors, showing Christian charity toward our neighbours, impartial to race, colour or creed, as we attempt to restore a remnant of Christendom for ourselves and our posterity.
Gerald Celente has predicted that the European Union (EU) will suffer a catastrophic and total economic collapse by April 1st, 2012 (in less than 90 days).
The Catholic Knight does not know if this marks the beginning of the Chastisement prophesied by the Saints and Catholic prophets, but it does have some major similarities to the conditions described by them. See this link to review Catholic prophetical writings.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: There is a popular teaching in many Evangelical circles that is a regular source of irritation for me, namely because it demonstrates such a poor level of Biblical scholarship that it would almost be humorous were it not so intoxicating to the general Evangelical public. The error has to do with the identity of a group cited in the Book of Revelation as the 'Nicolaitans'...
But you have this in your favour: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. -- Revelation 2:5-7
Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. -- Revelation 2:14-16
These two passages are the full extend to which the Bible mentions the sect of the Nicolaitans. From these two passages, the Scriptures tell us only three things about them. The first is that one of the churches listed in the second chapter had members who embraced their teaching. The second is that one of the other churches hated the teachings of the Nicolaitans. The third is that God hated their teachings too. That's it. That's all we have from Scripture on this sect, nothing more and nothing less, yet from these two passages some modern Evangelicals have constructed a very elaborate explanation.
Essentially, they claim the word 'Nicolaitans' is itself a combination of two words. The first being 'nico' which has its root in the word 'to rule' or 'dominate' and the second is 'lait' from which the word 'laity' can be constructed. Therefore in this Evangelical explanation, the 'Nicolaitans' were those Christians who constructed a separation between the clergy and the laity. (Do you see where this is going?) The Evangelicals then triumphantly claim that God must hate the separation of clergy and laity, thus these passages are used as a vindication of Evangelicalism which has no clear distinction between clergy and laity (even though it really does, just in a more subtle way). By constructing this explanation, it gives Evangelical pastors (a type of subtle clergy by the way) an opportunity to bash Catholicism and traditional Protestantism as well, claiming that God hates the clerical system, thus God prefers Evangelicalism and hates Catholicism (and traditional Protestantism). Evangelicals generally fall for it, because the guy at the front of the chapel preaching it just happens to be wearing a common suit and looks a lot like the guys sitting in the pews next to them. 'Ah ha!' the Evangelical says; 'Here in our Evangelical church we are all equal because we all dress the same and there is no distinction between us.' Never mind the fact that the man preaching at the front of the chapel is functioning in the role of clergy in spite of how he is dressed, and the man who looks the same in the pew would be in for a rude awakening should he ever try to walk up to the front and preach in the pastor's place. Yes, Evangelicals make a very clear distinction between clergy and laity, but they just don't use clothing to define it. Rather the distinction is subtle, but it is there, and it is enforced fully in every way. When I was an Evangelical, I once witnessed an extreme example of this, where a man from the congregation tried to walk up to the front of the chapel and take the pastors place. That man was literally tackled by the ushers and dragged out of the chapel screaming. The poor fellow was probably a deranged lunatic and certainly needed to be stopped. I'm not criticising the ushers here. Their actions were justified. However, the point I'm trying to make is that there is a clear distinction between clergy and laity in Evangelical churches. They don't use clothing to define it, but they do most certainly enforce it. So when an Evangelical pastor uses these above verses to condemn clericalism, he does so hypocritically, because he himself functions as a cleric even though he may not dress as one or call himself one. Anyone who dares to take his place, without going through the proper channels, will be put down rather quickly and in some rare cases -- physically.
The problem here comes with the way Evangelicals often handle the Bible. They are trained by the most strict Protestant discipline to reject all traditional explanations for Scripture as the 'traditions of men' and try to extract from the very words of the Bible their own interpretation of the overall text. This is an admirable trait, up to a point, but the Bible was not written in a vacuum. It was written in an historical and cultural context, therefore, it should not be interpreted in a vacuum either. Rather it should be interpreted in the historical and cultural context in which it was written. Yes, there are many instances when we can extract from the words of Scripture themselves a deeper meaning to the overall text, but sometimes we need to look at the life and times of the people who wrote the text to get a better understanding. This is what is called 'contextual interpretation' of Scripture, and it stands in contrast to the 'literal interpretation' often employed by Evangelicals, or the 'allegorical interpretation' sometimes employed by Modernists. In the case of the Nicolaitans, because Scripture gives us no indication of who they were, it makes sense to look back into the context of history and culture to get some more information. Sadly, a good number of Evangelicals have never done this.
Who were the Nicolaitans? Multiple sources dating back to around the time of the early Church tell us the Nicolaitans were a Gnostic sect, founded by an apostate Church deacon named Nicholas. The name Nicholas itself simply means 'victorious over people,' which helps to explain the Evangelical interpretation error. This is recorded by Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret. (Since the name Nicholas was fairly common, we do not know if there is any relation to the deacon named Nicholas mentioned in Acts 6:5, though Irenaeus records that the Nicolaitans themselves claimed him as their founder.) The early Church historian Eusebius tells us this sect was short-lived. Irenaeus specifically tells us 'they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence.' (Adversus Haereses, i. 26, §3; iii. 11, §1.) The church historian, Venerable St. Bede, stated that Nicolas allowed other men to marry his wife. While Thomas Aquinas stated that Nicholas supported either polygamy or the holding of wives in common (group marriage).
[Nicolas] had an attractive wife, and had refrained from intercourse as though in imitation of those whom he saw to be devoted to God. He endured this for a while but in the end could not bear to control his incontinence.... But because he was ashamed of his defeat and suspected that he had been found out, he ventured to say, 'Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life.'
-- Epiphanius, Panarion, 25, 1
Here the early Church Father Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis (a city on the Island of Cyprus) gives us a good deal of information on how the sect of the Nicolaitans was understood in the late 4th century. We can get a lot from this citation. Apparently Nicholas was a deacon (possibly the native from Antioch mentioned in Acts 6:5, who was ordained by the apostles in Jerusalem in 33AD, but we cannot say that with certainty), who admired the discipline of celibacy practised by many clergy within the early Church.
Note; here we have yet more evidence of celibacy practised by early Church leadership. St. Paul mentions this many times in Holy Writ. However, Deacon Nicholas was married, as were many deacons and priests (presbyters) as well. The practice of clerical chastity in the early Church is nearly identical to how it is practised today. Whatever you enter the ministry as is what you stay. If you enter the ministry married, you stay married of course, but that's it. You accept the life (and the wife) that God has given you. You are faithful and loyal to her, denying her neither affection nor children. If she should die before you, than that's it, you accept the lot that God has given you and you move on into full celibate service of the Lord. Likewise, should you ender the ministry as an unmarried celibate man, than an unmarried celibate man you shall stay in full service to the Lord. All of this is outlined in St. Paul's writings (1st Corinthians 7). The Biblical teaching was the one kept by the early Church. Remain as you are, married or single, if you can when you enter the ministry, for this is the path the Lord has chosen for you.
However, based on Epiphanius citation of Deacon Nicholas, it would appear that he made a common mistake often duplicated by many lay Catholics today, with the false assumption that celibacy somehow makes one 'more holy.' This is a totally false assumption and flies in the face of official Catholic teaching, but it is a fairly common mistake. The Catholic Church's teachings on marriage are outlined in 1st Corinthians 7, and basically state that marriage is a holy sacrament, equal to holy orders (the ministry), and married men may become ministers (deacons and priests) provided they are married BEFORE they enter the ministry. (The only exception to this is in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, one of 23 rites actually, which only admits unmarried men into the priesthood, with only rare exception.) After they enter the ministry they should accept the marital state God has placed them in (wither married or single). Deacon Nicholas apparently committed the error of thinking celibacy made him a better Christian, and in doing so he denied his own needs and the needs of his wife. Other sources tell us he initially gave his wife away in marriage to another man, but then later could not stand to be without her. Thus he rekindled the marriage with her, while she was married to the other man, and in doing so Deacon Nicholas concocted the doctrine of polygamy or polyamory (group marriage) to justify his actions. His followers then did the same with their wives, and before long the whole thing degenerated into multiple-partner group marriages for everyone! Family households became polyamorous as we see demonstrated in this video documenting the modern equivalent....
So there you have it. While it is likely that the Nicolaitans also taught various doctrines of 'secret knowledge' necessary for salvation, as was common among Gnostic sects, it is likely this marital practice that singled them out individually for their namesake.
The Nicolaitans likely justified their behaviour under the grace of God, assuming that because Jesus died for our sins, it's okay to go ahead and sin as you please, so long as it's all done in a spirit of brotherly love. It's sort of like Calvinism (the teaching of 'once saved always saved') abused and run amok, but in a way that neither John Calvin nor his followers would ever condone. Based on Church history, and the writings of the people who lived closest to the time, this is the most accurate understanding of the teaching and deeds of the Nicolaitans. Outside of this historical understanding we should not tread, for to do so is to risk twisting the Scriptures into something they were never intended to say.
Switching gears for a moment, let's go back to the popular Evangelical interpretation of this passage, which is a vain attempt at condemning clericalism. As I pointed out above, when Evangelical pastors do this, they do so hypocritically, because they themselves function as clergy even though they refuse to dress or identify as such. This notion that there is no hierarchy within the Church is not Christian in origin. For from the very beginning, we see that Jesus himself set up a hierarchy structure even among his apostles. This translated into the clergy in the Book of Acts, as the apostles separately ordained bishops and deacons, the deacons holding a lesser ministerial role than the bishops. Gradually, over the first twenty years or so, the early Church separated the office of bishop into two clerical positions, one lesser than the other, the bishop and the priest. This is alluded in the Scriptures as the term 'presbyter' appears in the New Testament to describe bishop-like clergy who are not fully bishops.
All of this comes from the Biblical concept of ordination, of which the Greek words cheirotonia and cheirothesia are used, meaning 'the laying on of hands.' This comes to the Church through the Jewish custom by the Hebrew word semichut. The scriptural concept of ordination is a transferring of the character of one's office. Case in point; when a Jewish priest ordained a man to the priesthood, that man took on the full authority and religious character of the one who ordained him. The ordination was full and complete. The ordained possessed all the powers of the ordainer -- unless the ordainer intentionally specified to only share some of his ministerial powers. In this latter case, the ordained could receive only part of the powers given by the ordainer.
Now as this practice translated to the early Church, we have Jesus Christ himself, who is both God and the promised Messiah. He is both the ultimate High Priest, and the King of kings. Jesus ordained his apostles, and in doing so he shared many (but not all) of his ministerial powers with them. Then he instructed them to go out and make disciples of the whole world. To do this, these apostles ordained other men as bishops (meaning 'elder' or 'overseer'), and gave them their full apostolic authority. As these men ministered in the areas the apostles left behind, they shared part of their ministerial powers with other men who would help them administer the Church in that area. Those ordained as presbyters were given all the powers of the bishop, minus the ability to ordain others, and minus authority over other ordained persons. Those ordained as deacons were given many of the authorities needed to help the presbyters, but not the full ministerial authority of a presbyter. This was the primitive hierarchy of the early Church, and this hierarchy continued to develop over the centuries. There is nothing wrong with this, and in fact, it was a pattern modelled by Jesus and the apostles themselves. In all human endeavours, some kind of authority structure is needed, and God understands this. He understood it in the Old Testament, and he understood it in the New Testament. The Church's hierarchy structures we see today are the natural progression of this.
So where does the occasional Evangelical pastor get off by teaching that God hates the clerical structure (even though he himself is technically part of it). The notion comes not from Christianity but from Freemasonry (the Masonic Lodge), where men are taught that they are all equals and not one of them has authority over the other. Their leadership rotates based on elections, and any man is eligible to become the 'Worshipful Master' in time as the elected rotation progresses. Thus there is no clerical separation in the Lodge. Religious rituals (and yes they are 'religious' in nature) are carried out in the lodge by those in elected authority, and those people rotate every so many years, so no one man holds the same office for very long. Thus all are 'equal' and there is no 'separation' between members. This is where the warped interpretation of Nicolaitans likely comes from, and in some Protestant sects (especially during the 18th and 19th centuries) the notion of elected clergy became in vogue. Some modern Evangelical and Pentecostal sects continue with a slightly reduced version of this today, wherein a 'board of elders' is elected and rotates every so many years, while the pastor is often interviewed and hired by this board. All of this comes from Freemasonry's influence on Protestantism over the last few-hundred years. That's not to say that every Evangelical who preaches the anti-clerical version of the Nicholaitans is a Freemason or has some connection to the Lodge. Far from it! I've personally heard some Evangelical preachers condemn clericalism and Freemasonry in almost the same breath! These pastors may be anti-Mason in their beliefs, but they promote Masonic teaching unwittingly in their actions; by preaching a Masonic interpretation of the Nicolaitans and practising the Masonic tradition of electing elders and hiring pastors.
Remember that next time some Evangelical tells you that God hates clericalism and that it's in the Book of Revelation. The only thing God hates is wife-swapping (Nicolaitanism), and those who say God hates clericalism are actually promoting a Masonic concept which in itself is something else God hates.
