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.
You remember well. If God is unchangeable then he cannot be a moody individual subject to passions as described in anthropomorphic terms. Early Christian apologetics explained the OT language—describing essentially a Jewish version of Zeus—as "necessary" for "simple" people to relate to easier.
However, theologically, they never ascribe to God a change of mood, or passion (such as jealousy, anger, envy, etc.), because ontologically God is perfect and never changes. in addition to that, God reveals himself to the Church as Love and what else can love give but blessings!?
To ascribe anger to God is to admit that he is not in control, that he is frustrated, which is ontologically incompatible with a perfect divine being. Therefore, there is never a time when things do not God his way, so he continues to shine his radiance on the faithful and the unfaithful equally, and sends his blessings to the righteous and the unrightoeus.
To the faithful who hope in and love God, they are soothing, and to those who hate God they burn like fire. Nothing irks those who hate someone more then to find that the person they hate offers a loving gift in return.
Thus, in the Eastern tradition, God is Love and love doesn't change; how we experience God depends on our relationship with him.
As for our enemies, the love Christ commands the faithful feel for them has to do with the fact that even our enemies are created in God's image. The faithful are reminded to remember that even the enemies can be restored to the likeness of God and be saved by him.
As Adam's descendants, all humans are related and the life we have is the same life God gave to Adam. We are to approach each human being with that in mind even if they are our enemies, who have been misled and are kept in the darkness; which is why Jesus said "Father, forgive them for they don't know what they do."
Is this still about Christ opening the gates of heaven? I don't know how you aren't understanding this: That's not all there is to it. Our Lord did open the gates of heaven, but He didn't stop there. Some Catholics find the explanation given in the Baltimore Catechism deficient because the answer doesn't go far enough.
This business of conflating isolated (or at least unrelated) sentences into caricatures of doctrine really serves no useful purpose except for the confusion of the ignorant.
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
I don't know how you can write that with a straight face. You are introducing a false dichotomy there. What He makes savable, HE then saves.
Al: Satan, to start.
Rn:Angels and men are different creations.. scripture says nothing about angels be given grace ever
How does any creature live in the presence of God except through His grace?
Why would one who is predestined have to live the gospel?
When was your last "confession"?
I confess daily. Do those who are predestined need to bother with confessing?
Depends. The word itself (krino) is not really legalistic; it's primary meaning is to set aside, put asunder, whether it is for praise or for condemnation or for any other reason.
The problem is not so much with verse 18 but with verse 15, which has been corrupted (doctrinally altered) in later copies.
The verse thus reads "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" but the older copies read "so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."
Clearly, there is no judgment here but simply a consequence of one's faith: those who believe are promised a reward of eternal life in Christ.
Where did I say that? "Face" is acceptable translation nearly always. "Person" and "face" are homonymous in Greek, -- the Greek reader takes the meaning from context, for example, when "prosopos" is used in the strictly anatomical sense the reader understand it as "face", otherwise, as the entirety of the human individual.
"Presence" is at times acceptable but not in the verses such as Matt 22:16, Gal. 2:6, 2 Cor. 1:11, 2 Cor. 2:10. In either of these "presence" would be if not altogether absurd, a diluted meaning.
I don't disagree at all that the meaning of "person" in Matthew 22:16 is indeed what Thayer suggests. How does that alter the fact that "prosopos" is rightly translated as "person" in that case as well as in various others?
I think the angels did not, cannot earn that love. I don't see how any creature can 'earn' anything from God, since all it is and has is His.
Therefore, I think, it is a grace.
Therefore God gives grace to angels whether Scripture says so in so many words or not.
Thanks, kosta! :)
No that’s not what I mean..... But then you’re diverting the attention away from the subject,(people bowing down and praying to idols which the Bible opposes), not what the artists depiction might be. So what do you think of people bowing to man made religious idols depicted as people?
I really think a lot of this sort of confusion comes from CCD folk and other teachers trying to impart dogma in developmentally inappropriate ways.
It impresses me that ‘the Philosopher’ wrote that ethics cannot be taught to the young. I think when the Faith is taught to people too young for theology they end up with too mechanical and simplistic an understanding.
We are talking about the Love of a living God, far more alive and freer than our imaginations can conceive. But the depiction of our belief here is not one of heart in dialogue with Heart. It is not even one of Master taming beast. It is rather one of something like a vending machine.
It is as if, were I to say, “When I kiss my wife she kisses me back,” they would then insist that I think I buy her kisses with mine. And once I say,”Well, sort of, in a way, I guess,” they triumphantly say, “See? Works righteousness!”
What exactly IS idolatry and how exactly does what we do fit that definition?
So what do you think of people bowing to man made religious idols depicted as people?
I'm not sure that the images I mentioned are idols and I'm not clear what 'bowing TO' them means. To me the question appears to assume that these issues have been settled.
I suppose if someone thought an image had been caused by man to be a locus of some kind of 'spiritual power' that would be idolatry.
But maryz, referring to Cowper, suggests that there are all too many instances of our truly worshipping creatures. The parent who puts all his hope for joy in his child, the politician who thinks power can bring true happiness, any one of us when we think that winning a huge lottery prize would 'solve all his problems, to me THESE are the folks with idolatry issues.
You’re welcome.
I'm almost afraid to admit it here, but I liked the Baltimore Catechisms. I think kids in general like the concrete (of course, you find adults who still cling to the "grievous matter" for mortal sin, utterly forgetting apparently the elements of knowledge and will). Anyway, it gave a basic framework -- much as memorizing all those dates in history helps keep things straight forever. Somewhere to "hang" later knowledge, so to speak.
And most of us get our earliest religious education from our parents, none of whom in my experience, at least, tend to take the catechism approach.
It impresses me that ‘the Philosopher’ wrote that ethics cannot be taught to the young. I think when the Faith is taught to people too young for theology they end up with too mechanical and simplistic an understanding.
Re ethics, I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis' observation that he'd rather play cards (were he given to that, which he wasn't) with a thoroughgoing reprobate who was brought up to believe that "Gentlemen do not cheat at cards" than a faultless moral theologian brought up among card sharks.
>/i>Gee whiz, no, that would be against the rules.
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 ?
Are YOU the arbiter of what God thinks? Will He allow YOU to insert yourself between me and Him? I don't THINK so.
This is completely ridiculous. Look at yourself.
There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God.
Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us?
Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
In describing how we should pray, Jesus gave us the template of the "Our Father".
Matt 6:7"And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done,....
So, you are saying that you can insert yourself between God and me? You are the arbiter of how He loves me, and how I love Him? You get to tell me when God will be pleased, and when He will not?
Baloney!
........”Pope Gregory III condemned the use of IMAGES in worship. .................Pope Constantine V, who ruled the church for almost sixty years, condemned the use of IMAGES of Christ as heretical because only Christ’s human nature could be depicted.................. A church council which met near Chalcedon on February 10, 753 (and lasted seven months), condemned the use of IMAGES in worship as being “idolatrous and heretical, a temptation to the faith that originated with the devil.” ...........( Philip E. Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870, p. 167. ) So much for the idea the unchanging church! The Bible is clear: idolatry is false worship.
(The opposition against using images/idols also runs thru the New Testament as follows:)
1 Cor 12:1-2... ...”I do not wish you to be ignorant... somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to DUMB IDOLS.2 Cor 6:16 (NIV)
Acts 15:20 .........“But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution’s of idols, ..”
I john 5:21...........”What agreement is there between the temple of God and IDOLS?.... For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”1 Jn 5:21
The Amish have nothing to do with catholic practices of bowing before images/idols. Having lived in Lancaster, Pa. I am quite familiar with the Amish.
Actually the early Popes condemed the use of images/idols.
........Pope Gregory III condemned the use of IMAGES in worship.
........Pope Constantine V, who ruled the church for almost sixty years, condemned the use of IMAGES of Christ as heretical because only Christ’s human nature could be depicted.
....... A church council which met near Chalcedon on February 10, 753 (and lasted seven months), condemned the use of IMAGES in worship as being “idolatrous and heretical, a temptation to the faith that originated with the devil.”
( Philip E. Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870, p. 167. )
So, are you telling us that YOU accept the Catholic Popes authority?
Then what are you doing here arguing? You should be studying the Catechism, and going to confession!
I have sincerely questioned why anyone would even imagine going to anyone other than the Christ....since He is in control of it all. In a real sense by doing so it would appear the individual "needs" more than Christ has to offer, which then dethrones Him from His rightful place.
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.