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'm not sure what this comment has to do with anything. The commandment to worship only God clearly as two subparts: (a) not to make images of anything in the heavens or on earth or under the sea; and (b) not to worship such images. The Amish are the only group I know to take the whole commandment literally -- and they're not likely to be posting here to give their own view, since it would appear the Internet is rife with violations of the first subpart.
The Amish are consistent, and I can respect that (though not as much as I respect them for realizing they are bound to forgive the shooter of their children).
The Usual Suspects think that magically, they can tell the difference between idol worship and reverence due the Saints, but somehow, Catholics are unable to make that distinction.
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?
I am saying the exact opposite. We pray directly to the Father. As Jesus taught us to pray.
Jesus is the only mediator to the father. It seems to be fairly obvious from scripture.
Oh, well. In that case, what about Act 5:15? What about Acts 3:6? Is Peter a mediator?
7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son[b] into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.Confession is a necessary part
Romans 10: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be savedTrust is a necessary part
Romans 10:11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."Listening to the word of God is a necessary part
17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.When you say you are saved by faith you are allowing faith to become the source of salvation rather than simply seeing it as the tool or instrument to God, the Source of faith and love and Hope and The Word. Remember +Paul said “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” and +James “faith without works is dead” -- if you insist that you are saved by faith alone, then you also ascribe to +James and say that you are saved by works -- which is incorrect. The Church teaches that we are saved by GOD's grace. when you say you are saved by faith you give yourself the glory for believing in God.
Pope Gregory II died in 731. He was succeeded at once by Gregory III, who carried on the defence of holy images in exactly the spirit of his predecessor. The new pope sent a priest, George, with letters against Iconoclasm to Constantinople. But George when he arrived, was afraid to present them, and came back without having accomplished his mission. He was sent a second time on the same errand, but was arrested and imprisoned in Sicily by the imperial governor.Pope Constantine V? What kind of talk is that?! Constantine V was the son and successor of Leo III... The Emperor in Constantinople! Constantine V was not the pope because Gregory III was. The emperors were the iconoclasts against the popes. The council referred to was called by the emperor and NONE of the patriarchs were there. I think you're actually talking about the Robber Council of Hieria which is like citing the Democrat convention as proof that the Republicans nominated Jimmy Carter to the presidential ticket in 1980.
creepy
The Council of Chalcedon was held in the fifth century, not the eighth, and did not deal with sacred images at all. There was a synod around 753 that did deal with images, but in the first place, it was held in Constantinople, not Chalcedon. In the second place, while this synod was convened by a Constantine V, and while this Constantine V did oppose sacred images, he wasn’t a pope, or even a clergyman—he was the Byzantine emperor. There has never been a Pope Constantine V; only one pope has been named Constantine, and he died in 715.Now do you see why we say all that you think you hate about The Church is actually someone's idea of The Church?
The pope in 740 was St. Gregory III. It is emphatically not true that he condemned sacred images—on the contrary, he vigorously defended them. In 731 Gregory III held a synod in Rome which condemned the image-breaking heresy of Iconoclasm. In fact, Gregory III made a special point of honoring images and relics as a way of protesting Emperor Constantine V’s iconoclast efforts and persecution of those who honored sacred images. (Many devout Christians were put to death for refusing to desecrate sacred images.)
As for the so-called synod of Constantinople convened by Emperor Constantine, even before it was held it had already been rejected by the reigning pope as well as the Eastern patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. These patriarchs, together with the pope, refused to attend the emperor’s synod or to send legates in their places, since it was clear that the synod was merely a tool of the emperor and that the bishops were expected to simply endorse his iconoclast agenda.
Less than 50 years later, the seventh ecumenical council, Nicea II, which upheld the use of sacred images, rebutted this "mock synod" or "pseudo-synod."
The erroneous "facts" you mention can easily be "documented" from numerous anti-Catholic websites, all of which are merely repeating claims they’ve read from other anti-Catholics without having verified them first. In their zealous hostility against the Church, anti-Catholics often ride roughshod over the most basic historical and theological points, and constant vigilance is necessary to straighten out the facts before you can even begin to address underlying theological errors.
If you’re reading links saying that Constantine V was a pope rather than an emperor, or that Gregory condemned sacred images rather than defending them, don’t rely on anything that individual says. Do some homework, and don’t just take false claims like this.
When taking this verse in contest you will see that Peter and John had just previously been before the Sanhedrin and following their release they prayed with other believers...
. ......"Now Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness....Stretch our YOUR hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your Holy servant Jesus".....following this the meeting was shaken and the Holy Spirit empowered them. Acts 4:29-31.
We then see in chpt.5:15 they indeed 'performed many signs and wonders' among the people as a RESULT people brought the sick into the streets so that at least Peter's "shadow" might fall on them as He passed by."
To them they were looking for a healing, for signs and wonders...which for a time these were done by the Apostles as means of confirming their authority given by God. So no...Peter's shadow was not an intercession nor were they worshiping an idol...they were indeed seeking a healing.
Jesus Himself spoke of people seeking signs and wonders...not in a favorable way I might add. He did say if they couldn't believe then at least believe what He was doing....healing etc. Further he consistently said they were stiff-necked regardless of what they saw and heard...because even with all these many still would not believe....... "blessed is he who believes without seeing"
Course this might be too preachy for you Judith since you seem to oppose that....sufficient for me that these events were not even close to that of worshiping images/idols....though if they had been able to keep Pauls's handkerchief they'd likely had made that an idol of some sort....at least a relic.
Where on earth do you get your facts?
There has only been ONE Pope Constantine, not five (that's what the "V" after the name means if you don't know).
Pope Constantine was pope from March, 708 to April, 715 -- that is just over SEVEN YEARS, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to construe this as "almost sixty years."
If you expect to be taken seriously, you might start with basic facts.
The Council of Chalcedon was held in the fifth century, not the eighth, and did not deal with sacred images at all. There was a synod around 753 that did deal with images, but in the first place, it was held in Constantinople, not Chalcedon. In the second place, while this synod was convened by a Constantine V, and while this Constantine V did oppose sacred images, he wasn’t a pope, or even a clergyman—he was the Byzantine emperor. There has never been a Pope Constantine V; only one pope has been named Constantine, and he died in 715.Now do you see why we say all that you think you hate about The Church is actually someone's idea of The Church?
The pope in 740 was St. Gregory III. It is emphatically not true that he condemned sacred images—on the contrary, he vigorously defended them. In 731 Gregory III held a synod in Rome which condemned the image-breaking heresy of Iconoclasm. In fact, Gregory III made a special point of honoring images and relics as a way of protesting Emperor Constantine V’s iconoclast efforts and persecution of those who honored sacred images. (Many devout Christians were put to death for refusing to desecrate sacred images.)
As for the so-called synod of Constantinople convened by Emperor Constantine, even before it was held it had already been rejected by the reigning pope as well as the Eastern patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. These patriarchs, together with the pope, refused to attend the emperor’s synod or to send legates in their places, since it was clear that the synod was merely a tool of the emperor and that the bishops were expected to simply endorse his iconoclast agenda.
Less than 50 years later, the seventh ecumenical council, Nicea II, which upheld the use of sacred images, rebutted this "mock synod" or "pseudo-synod."
The erroneous "facts" you mention can easily be "documented" from numerous anti-Catholic websites, all of which are merely repeating claims they’ve read from other anti-Catholics without having verified them first. In their zealous hostility against the Church, anti-Catholics often ride roughshod over the most basic historical and theological points, and constant vigilance is necessary to straighten out the facts before you can even begin to address underlying theological errors.
If you’re reading links saying that Constantine V was a pope rather than an emperor, or that Gregory condemned sacred images rather than defending them, don’t rely on anything that individual says. Do some homework, and don’t just take false claims like this.
Patience is a virtue.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
But all of that is just YOUR interpretation. Are you Pope CAWW I? Oh, I forgot. You all are your own pope. No wonder Reformers can’t agree on anything.
This is correct , the church in the beginning never did the things they were delivered from. But like Israel certain practices that were not commanded by God were accepted. 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.That's from http://www.letusreason.org/rc2.htm
And it's so completely screwed up it's crazy. It's the product of someone who is either dangerously ignorant or maliciously deceptive and the proof of it being dangerous is that it's being used as proof of something.
Where do we find that rule MD??
That’s actually funny. Thanks!
So which is it? Directly to the Father? Or with Jesus as Mediator?
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.