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.
Replaces God is a good.
Could we say an idol is something (mistakenly) taken for God?
If we read the first part of the Decalogue, can we see that this is what it is about? Mistaking something or someone for God? In the case of a physical object, such as a painting of Jesus, we would be idolatrous if we thought the object was God.. as for example was done by pagans with golden calfs etc.
This would be a violation of the commandment of idolatry - even if the God were Jesus, if we mistake the object for the God. Mistaking the finite for the infinite.
This says it quite well I think....verses follow.....
In Hebrew the word for Idols is Elim , avodot zerah means foreign worship......... The Hebrew word for idolatry means to bow down or genuflect is to worship... Tishtacheweh.
..... To bow down or genuflect as an act of worship....shachah (shaw-khaw’);a primitive root; to depress, prostrate, especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God, bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.
Further scripture....supporting not to do this...
Deut. 4:16... “that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman” (NIV).
“Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image.. to bow down unto it.... Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord” (Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 27:15).
but we do make images formed like a man or woman that are not idols. Is it bowing that makes it an idol? No. Again, the statute of Lincoln example.
So these two requirements in isolation do not make an idol.
It is worship that is reserved for God alone that makes it an idol. If we do this (or worship another God) that violates the commandments.
Can we agree on this so far?
More.....
I do not think we are discussing as an idol something being ‘mistaken’ for God by any means. Rather a proxy for or in some cases when those who are praying to a departed saint do likewise. They view the image as a representation of God, or Christ, or a departed saint...which it is not but somehow even if they know this they never-the-less bow before it and pray to the image as representing whoever they are praying to. God says NO to images.
You recall even the golden snake the Israelites began praying to and worshipping and God had it destroyed even though He had them look upon it for their good initially. Once they began bowing to this image....He had it destoyed.
But of course we make them by the millions. Are those that do cursed? I hope we can agree they are not - by this act alone.
If we wish to follow the commandments, we must look for what is really being said - what is meant by the commandments.
You start well, but you sound like you're restricting the understanding to the physical "bowing" or "homage." Cowper means each reader to understand what his own "idols" are -- whether love of money, self-righteousness, the grudge we can't let go of, the innocent pleasure when it becomes more important than God -- the possibilities are pretty much endless. He may have been influenced in his word choice by Bacon's Four Idols, described in his Novum Organum, an enormously influential work.
Yet you have images.
Rather a proxy for or in some cases when those who are praying to a departed saint do likewise.
It would depend on the prayer. If I ask you to pray for me (by proxy) am I wrong? Do you believe in intercessory prayer?
But Lincoln and other statues like him are not bowed before or put into the sphere of religious worship.... so yes bowing before Lincoln would be idolatry if people did this.
There is a difference between honoring a countryman and praying to and bowing before departed saints. Two different actions.
The key in that verse is making for yourselfs an idol....and thereafter bowing to and or praying to.
...”It is worship that is reserved for God alone that makes it an idol. If we do this (or worship another God) that violates the commandments.”......
Well that statement could be misleading...because an individual can well worship God and also the image of another.
Have to leave for work soon, here on the east coast, so will come back to this later...thanks for conversation.
That’s really nice. I’ll bet it’s even been dusted!
AFAIK, the only Christian group that really takes this literally and absolutely is the Amish (haven't heard of others). Recall the horrendous shooting of the Amish schoolchildren a few years ago -- the press couldn't get pictures of the children because there were none, and none of the parents were willing to appear on TV -- images again.
And that seems to be largely how the Jews understood it (and the Muslims still do). Traditional Jewish art seems to center on such things as pomegranates (hugely popular); the only apparent exception (which I can't account for) is the frequency of Torah pointers ending in a hand with pointed finger.
I do find it curious, though, that some of those who insist that we are no longer under the Law when it comes to "And the second is like to it: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" and so are apparently free to ignore it, insist on the prohibition of images as if this is the one point of the Old Law that still obtains.
Angels and men are different creations.. scripture says nothing about angels be given grace ever
Oh not in a million years. I don't even listen to Lewis Black anymore. He was in my town recently and my wife wanted to buy tickets as a birthday present but I just couldn't imagine paying for and sitting through 2 hours of having everything I believe in mocked. I can get that here for free, granted he's much funnier about it.
Can one be saved because you do good works for them??
Rom 10:14 "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? ....."
Could you show me where I said that ? When was your last "confession"?
Here is an example...
Well, he is pretty much painting the picture we know from the Pauline Epistles and Synoptic Gospels, the examples of which are too numerous to cite here. So, what are we to make of that, especially in view of the fact that even Irenaues preached subordinationalist theology and called Mary the Paraclete?
My comment: This is the exact illustration why it is completely futile to attempt any discussion with the reformed. Not only do they fail to read before responding, they can’t understand the miniscule amound they DO read.
Excuse me, but Catholics all know that was taught by their church and they were running backwards from that teaching as fast as they could..pretending they never heard that...I guess I would call that a flat out lie if I were on a forum that allowed it..
Christ opening the "gates of heaven" was taught to generations of Catholics from APPROVED catechisms , only the attempt to sound more protestant finds newer material removing it.. yet it is still being taught and said by Catholics..
Catholics do not teach or believe that Jesus saved them, they believe he made them savable ..keep the OT laws and the laws of the church and do good deeds and God owes ya salvation
Strange that someone who has done much better in the past would resort to sophism of a high school philosophy newsletter to justify his own her own denial.
Are you saying Metmom lied?
I have read her posts and they indicate the same teaching I got in Catholic grade school, high school and college..
I do not think Catholics think of the statues as idols, in their head they are praying to the saint the statue represents.. however that does not matter at all..what matters is what what does God think ?
Reading the scripture tells us that ..He calls it idolatry and that is how it will be judged
Paul wrote all sorts of things to different crowds in order to be "all things to all men" and "John" is an interpolation, so I suggest you follow your own advice.
They were never thrown out of any synogogue
Christians were declare apostates by the rabbis in Jamnia by the end of the first century and were no longer considered Jews by official Judaism.
No doubt, Judaizing Christians continued to exist and worship in their own "synagogues" and still do to this day under the guise of "Messianic Jews."
In my church we have a large copy of an icon (I think it's contemporary or recent) of St. Dominic. Nobody thinks it looks like him, since it portrays an olive complexion and dark hair, while we know Dominic to have been fair with ginger hair.
So, since it wasn't made to look like him, it's not an idol as you defined idol. As far as I know I'm the only person who prays there.
On the other hand we have a barely tolerable statue of Thomas Aquinas which clearly was somebody's best guess at what he looked like -- he was a big guy with a big head -- so that would be an idol?
Or did you mean something more like "stands for" or "represents"?
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.