Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.
The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).
The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.
The Intentions Made Plain
The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:
|
"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization
"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.
"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.
"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.
"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.
|
Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.
This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!
In Their Own Words
The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.
[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]
Two Comments
First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.
This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.
Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.
I do not consider him as an infallible source.. But I will say that I have seen the saved die..and we do die well . Maybe sadness at the loss of life here.. but assurance and joy for what follows...
Nowhere does scripture teach that depression or doubt or fear of the loss of salvation cleanses the soul..
Life trials help us to grow in Christ if we turn to Him as our source... but the cleansing from sin was on the cross of Christ not St John of the cross
We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are….What God is in your mind you must accept.” (Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, p. 156)
Which is consistent to the universalist nature of Roman Catholicism. Just a casual reading of the RC Catechism will show that Heaven's gate is swung wide open to most, if not all religions.
GOOD POINTS.
THX FOR THE PING.
YUCK!
YUCK
There is no point in my responding to you beyond this.
I never said that St. John of the Cross was an
“infallible” source. However, he is every bit as much a teacher as any other Scriptural teacher. His prologue to his book “Ascent to Mt. Carmel” clearly states this:
“In discussing this dark night, therefore, I shall not rely on experience or science, for these can fail and deceive us. Although I shall not neglect whatever possible use I can make of them, my help in all that, with God’s favor, I shall say, will be Sacred Scripture, at least in the most important matters, or those which are difficult to understand. Taking Scripture as our guide we do not err, since the Holy Ghost speaks to us through it.”
His works “Ascent to Mt. Carmel” and “Dark Night” are not about “depression, doubt or fear”, so I would be inclined to think that you haven’t read them. Nor does he teach that these conditions “cleanse the soul”.
I never said that St. John of the Cross “cleansed anyone from sin.”
I’m beginning to consider that jumping to conclusions is a serious form of exercise.
I wonder how many Sean Penns, politicians, and other celebrities would have run to emulate her for a day or a week so they could relate “what I did on my summer vacation” if she preached Christ and Him crucified. Or if she had read any of the actual bible to them. the more I think about it, I think she’s a Beatle-— love, love, love, love is all you have
INDEED.
And the Nobel Peace Prize, lol, what Christian gets that? It’s the sign the elites and Universalists approve of you, like Obama.
Oh I see! Your history book is missing the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. How convenient.
That is why protestants take their bibles to church and keep them at hand when hearing a sermon or reading a book.. checking it against a known infallible source
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction
I never said that St. John of the Cross “cleansed anyone from sin.”
However you did present his work as truth, that the "dark night of the soul cleanses the soul.. ".. The cleansing of the soul is the work of the cross of Christ ..not our trials
yes, tell that to the suicided
•Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
•Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
•Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
•Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
•Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
•Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
•Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
•Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,
.
.
.
.
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Unam Sanctam
Infallible? If not, why not.
Time: And they should love Jesus too?
Mother Teresa: Naturally, if they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus. If people become better Hindus, better Moslems, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose.
Your conclusion: Poor thing things [thinks?]all gods are the same..so they get closer to their false gods that will never save
The quote without your emphases:
Time: And they should love Jesus too?
Mother Teresa: Naturally, if they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus. If people become better Hindus, better Moslems, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose.
Now let's look at what it says: First she says "If they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus."
THis does NOT mean that all religions are the same. If she thought that WHY would she say, ... let them find Jesus"? Wouldn't she say just let them practice their religion whatever it is?
Her If they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus cannot be easily reconciled with your forced interpretation. To get your interpretation one has to start with the edited version, probably produced by envious liars, and then be too proud to read the text and to see what it says.
WHY say "let them find Jesus," if she doesn't think Jesus is important? HOW can you say she thinks all gods are the same when she mentions only one as the answer to seeking for joy and peace?
That's enough to show that your construction does not suit the interview and that you have to reserve color for part of the quote to draw attention away from the part that shows that she thinks that to find Jesus is to find joy and peace.
Now, like it or not, the fact is that the average 'religious' person neither knows nor understands his religion very well. That means, as a rule, that they do not recognize either the good in it or the bad.
So the average Muslim can call Allah "The Merciful, the All-Compassionate" and never trouble himself with the unmerciful and, indeed, unjust treatment of women in his religion. If he becomes a "better" Muslim, he is more likely to confront the internal contradiction of Islam, it's destruction of thought, freedom, and life. If he stays asleep, that won't happen. No real choice has been made, and it can scarcely be made.
Similarly with the intolerable caste system of Hinduism. And likewise with the discontinuuity between the Mahayana and Vajrayana emphases on bodhicitta and on compassion and the disgraceful behavior of many Vajrayana adepts (at least in the US) and the usual toleration of sexual, social, and governmental injustice in Buddhist countries. Becoming a better Buddhist or Hindu will force a confrontation with these discontinuities. And then, as Mother Teresa says, the person will have to choose.
Being in a position to choose, seeing more clearly what choice must be made is a good.
And it is patently absurd both from common sense and from Scripture to suggest that every Christian must always preach. What are you doing having a secular job if what you say is true? Why aren't you out on the street corner?
Is it really yours idea that one can only fulfill one's Christian call by explicit verbal discourse and evangelizing?
How then will Christians eat? How study? Who will build the roads, bridges, and houses? Who will farm?
Indeed, who will pray if all that must be done is verbal evangelizing. Your argument is incoherent.
AND it also relies on selective textual citation from Scripture as well as from the words of Mother Teresa. Especially significant is the next question in the Romans 10 quote: and how can they preach UNLESS THEY ARE SENT [that is "apostled"]?
And Ephesians 4: SOME (not all] should be prophets, SOME evangelists, SOME pastors and teachers?
Yet you say that what she does is wrong. Did Paul mean these lists to be exhaustive? That's absurd. Your criticism of her service to the poorest is essentially that it is not some other ministry.
Mark 16:14-16 IN CONTEXT (something some of our opponents might try sometime -- emphasis added):
14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.
15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
It is NOT to every one in the Church that this mission of preaching the Gospel is given. it is to the Apostles.
So this provides the proper context for understanding Mother Teresa's sense of mission: She says that for her order works of love are the best evangelical means. Clearly as a Dominican I would not say they are objectively the best. and Neither she nor I would say our order's way is THE one and only way.
You want every part of the body to be the mouth. That is not the Scriptural description of the Church.
I think there's one more ... oh yes:
Heathens love and do good and kind works as well
Well, as a matter of fact, not so much, not in the history of the world. Of all the non-Christian Kings, only Ashoka the Buddhist is a shining example of a man given to good works and charity on a large scale. When the Gospel began to be preached, caring for the disabled, the alone, the sick, the dying, the abandoned neonate was just not a value. It was the Christians who took in the exposed child and derogated abortion. It was they who organized care of widows. And later they built universities unlike anything anywhere in the world.
It was Christians who developed the notions of international law and of the inherent rights of man. There were approximations of some of these things around the world. The Chinese civil service system is impressive. But it was formalized beyond usefulness and not so much for the service of the people as for the service of the government and the emperor.
And while the Chinese have an interesting and ancient system of medicine, the world sent medical students to Christian lands to study medicine, science, administration, all the underpinnings of charity on a large scale, while in the brief 'flowering' so-called of Islam the two faylasuf, Averroes and Avicenna, who had a prayer of encouraging that kind of thought that might have mitigated and humanized Islam a little were mostly in trouble for being unIslamic.
Aside from the silliness of criticizing a nurse because she is not a preacher, there is the evident (to someone who doesn't begin with the proposition "Catholics must be wrong") there is subtlety in, so to speak, 'leading' with spectacular sacrifice and good works:
There is no shortage in Calcutta of soi-disant holy men with some bogus gospel of redemption. They all seek to aggrandize, possible to enrich, themselves by amassing disciples. Indians have their sleeves plucked hourly by advocates of some new message, some new 'Way'.
So here comes someone who asks for nothing but the opportunity and the means to show some kindness to the utterly abandoned. She shows with deeds what love is. Of COURSE, at some point, the evangelizing must be 'perfected' with content. But while you may criticize the guy who pours the concrete foundation because he is not shingling the non-existent roof, I will admire his work and build upon it.
It is as I said, your side says works do not save, and then damns Mother Teresa because her works do not meet your standard. And, worse than that, your side foolishly thinks that building a house does not include laying a foundation, and so reserves praise for the finish carpenters and denies it to the masons and framers.
The presented criticism of this excerpt from an interview is responsibly tied neither to the text nor to the task of proclaiming the Gospel in the real world. And the trivialization, by misinterpretation and decontextualization of Mother Teresa's words simply does not stand up to examination. The whole argument depends on careless reading of Scripture and on petitio principii, and on a failure to appreciate what Paul says about the diversity of gifts.
I have to go reload my magazines. There are more targets in your post than I have cartridges.
That is pathetic MD.
What is pathetic is reading right past her evident humility and devotion to Jesus to cherry pick quotes amenable to being interpreted as though she thought all religions were equally good.
I wonder if the pastor ever asked your Dad why he didn't come in?
AND I wonder if, imagine, someone like me and some of my homies double-teamed your dad into a family intervention, a treatment facility, and then daily AA meetings until he was well enough to see what a sinner he was and finally was ready to open his heart to the Lord ... if that happened would we be dismissed by the pastor because we didn't actually preside over the conversion?
Again, I think pouring concrete is as much about building the house and shingling the roof. I'm learning that for others, the contractors who pay attention only to roofing are justified in saying "Well the house was predestined to fall," if no one lays a good foundation.
Different strokes. For me, I'd rather wait and see the house stand than have a good way of exonerating myself should it fall.
;-)
Wait, why am I smiling? This is pathetic, as someone said.
Ignorance does not save anyone..if it did we would not send missionaries . It was HER stated job to be a missionary..that means she should have explained the falseness of their faith and proclaimed the gospel
Ignorance is no excuse before the throne of God
What is pathetic is reading right past her evident humility and devotion to Jesus to cherry pick quotes amenable to being interpreted as though she thought all religions were equally good.
It is not humility to believe that your good works substitute for the gospel and the work of Christ..that is nothing but pride.
The old man went in. Then he went out. Finally he was baptized. Then sometimes he went in, sometimes he stayed out. It was his choice. Nobody, not even the pastor can do more for you than you are willing to do yourself. In the bible, neither Jesus or the apostles, or the disciples, ran after people and harrassed them.
Make the most of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.