(rappels back down to answer inquiry)
It's technical.
(rappels back up, back up into the night...)
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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.
It’s
easy for . . . drum roll . . .
comedians.
Maybe he does it upside down.
Preach it, sister!
:-)
The more an individual performs like a 'meat computer' the more likely it seems that we will find something wrong. In his wonderful "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat" Oliver Sacks talks about two people (twins? I don't remember) who LOVED large prime numbers. He gained access to their circle by joining them with a book of primes, and by offering one in the next order of magnitude up from the ones they has been sharing with each other. They were silent for a long period and then looked happy and said, "Mmmmmmmmmmmmm."
IMHO materialism is incoherent. That is, if it is right, who cares? It is existentially boring (in the technical sense of boring.) Or to put it another way, if it is right, 'right' has no meaning. Heck, "meaning" has no meaning!
Thank you, BB, and thank ALL of you. This is a delightful conversation.
But really, I think he does very well.
But do remember what I said about fathers and doors. I think one thing we 'know' about God is that He doesn't even do 'one' the way we think of one. So it's a safe bet that He doesn't do 'changeless' the way we think of changeless.
But do remember what I said about fathers and doors. I think one thing we ‘know’ about God is that He doesn’t even do ‘one’ the way we think of one. So it’s a safe bet that He doesn’t do ‘changeless’ the way we think of changeless.
I think that says it better than my poor efforts.
Thx thx.
I think you are right, that my first response, at least rhetorically if not actually (but maybe actually as well) was too extreme.
But you are right. Yes, this is very much a pet subject of mine. I am no great athlete of reason. But the question of its relationship to what it is to be human and to how we can know (if at all, or maybe if one day) the divine is VERY important to me.
And that's true even though I'm the guy who says I'd rather look into my wife's eyes than think about her. But it's true that thinking about her does help me be a less totally useless husband.
(1.) Christ is God.
(2.) As the body is connected to the Head, so we will be like Christ.
(3.) We will be like God.
(4.) Ergo, we will be gods.
But that's not good reasoning. Just looking at the thing itself, we see that 'like' is an ambiguous term. It can be used to mean "Exactly like" or "somewhat" or "in many respects like."
Widening our view and looking at the entire data field, we find that our Lord (John 10:34 ff) seems to propose a radical interpretation of Psalm 82:6 "... 'You are gods ...'".
So we find a suggestion that saying we will be gods is not entirely off the wall, while from the very first verse of Genesis we 'know' that there is some unbridgeable difference.
So BOTH in the micro-sense of reason, in which something purportably able to be reduced to syllogisms is present, and in the macro-sense, which involves evaluating a conclusion in terms of the rest of what we know, that's not the best example to make your case, I think.
My curfew approaches, so I will say that this is BAD reasoning, and to the extent that errors and hubris can corrupt reason, I agree. It happens a lot. Especially it happens when people try to go for the simple answer. They don't check their work, and, even more important, they don't ask someone else to check their work.
And against your "reason must be set aside," I would say that reason rightly (and piously) used will reach a point at which it is speechless, and I refer to my earlier comments on the Trinity and the Chalcedonian Definition.
Reason, prompted and aided by grace, reaches a conclusion which, while not at all useless, is in some sense little more than a shrug, followed by a prostration.
Thank you SO MUCH for this conversation!
Oh! Quibbling footnote:
That presupposes the revelation to be true, which often is *not* the case. What you might believe is a misuse of reason, might well be a misuse of revelation.
The way I think (that's what we call it so as not to hurt my feelings) that's unclear. That is, the revelation is, by definition (yes?) true. But the use of it may be false. I think that may turn out to be an important difference.
Thanks again. I am thrilled to be trying to talk about this with such good minds.
not 1,500; and that’s my point, his church predates the Catholics by a few years....ya
no, I don’t think.....you’re right, christ lived 2000 yeRS gd and His church survived 1,500 years without the “protestants” deciding that it was somehow in error. The Catholic church dates from 2000 years ago, the protestants came along about 500 years ago......Johnny come latelys I’d say (the difference between 2,000 and 500 is l,500 Guess what, I’m right (as usual)) !!!!!!
Oh, SAY IT BROTHER!!!
You "nail the problem" on its very head!!!
Reason detached from its ground very quickly becomes unreasonable; that is to say, irrational....
(rappels back down to answer inquiry)
It's technical.
(rappels back up, back up into the night...)
I definitely follow you there, dear brother in Christ!
Oh, and: YES....
You need to pray for the scales to fall from your eyes as they did for Paul that you might see the Truth of Jesus and stop the sinful prideful private self serving interpretations which only serves the plan of the father of all lies.
A complete spiritual catharsis is the panacea for a renewal of a soul mired in the morass of sinful pride and presumption.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
I find them to be in opposition. That which can be reasoned to a conclusion no longer requires faith.
if it could then the Greeks by mortal reasoning could have known God.
There it is. "Mortal reasoning:"
I think the complimentary forces are reason and discernment. Raw reason is indeed, mortal. It is discernment, as the spiritual turbo-charger, that is bolted onto mortal reason's intake manifold. Without (spiritually supplied) discernment, mortal man cannot see the things of the spirit. As you had quoted,
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: (e-Sword: KJV)
Faith is complimentary to (and required for) discernment - And individual (and thereby collective) discernment is a franchise wholly owned by the Father, and operated by the Spirit.
Sorry if I seem to be picking nits, but I think it to be an important distinction to try to quantify.
Thanks for the reply.
Since he exists in this temporal world I don't see how he could NOT have temporal powers.
And what do you call a government ruled by one man “who holds full legislative, executive and judicial powers?”
A Monarchy, a corporation, a business, a home; I guess there are a lot of names for that sort of arrangement.
BTW, I hear mud is good for the complexion. LOLOL!
I don’t know about complexion . . . I do know it’s good for humility and improved reality testing!
I disagree. That which can be reasoned to a conclusion depends on faith — for there needs to be a standard by which conclusions can be reached/judged — that is, adjudged truthful and not otherwise.
If there is no firm criterion of judgment, there can be no truth.
Thus it follows that there is no criterion of truth without faith....
Well dear folks, anybody interested at least, try that idea on for size.... And get back to me if you feel like it.
Sounds pretty plausible.
However, am sleepy enough I wouldn’t guarantee it.
Heading to bed.
Thx thx.
Sleep tight, dear Quix!
I have grown accustomed to the beautiful testimony and insights of my dearest sister in Christ, betty boop, whenever the debate turned to faith and reason over the years. She has never disappointed me.
And I'm thrilled now to read your wonderful insights, dear Mad Dawg, and your enthusiasm for the subject matter! The next time betty boop and I are challenged by metaphysical naturalists, I would love to ping you to the debate.
The debate is on the front lines of the great spiritual battle. And the spirit of anti-Christ urgently wants men to rely on sensory perception and reasoning, i.e. to be skeptical of or even reject, spiritual revelations and insight.
And they most often do this by trying to control the rules of engagement, e.g. demand we accept their presupposition that God is a hypothesis, that the only acceptable evidence is that which can be observed by any man. These correspondents exclude "ears to hear" or spiritual discernment on principle.
Therefore, to deny them any traction from their rules of engagement, the first thing I offer is my testimony:
roamer_1, if all my sensory perception and reasoning are telling me to run but God is telling me to stay, I will stay.
Truly, it would be irrational for me to run since I am more aware of God and certain of Him than I am of anything I can physically see, hear, touch, smell or deduce.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16
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.