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.
Why bother? The SFS/OSAS will tell you this is taken out of context even though the verses are there in their entirety. The sentences, the very words of Jesus Christ our Saviour should not even be on the same page....
Do they not even know what they say? I imagine they do, they just don’t care.
Oh! One more whose self importance requires others to edit ping lists of posts to which they are responding in order to specifically remove your "name"?
Please be reasonable.
Signed
mom
2 John: 9 Anyone who is so "progressive" 7 as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. 10 8 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; 11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works. 12
The question was one of history, rather than of dogma, wasn't it? The Didache and Iraneus were adduced not to say, principally, what SHOULD be the case but what WAS the case.
Then, one could build an argument from their words, toward what these people seemed to be thinking.
Your side does a commendable job of constructing theory of an early Church history from the Bible alone. One of our objections to it is that, from our POV, the theory conflicts with the little we have written by the early Church.
So our argument does not hinge on whether the Didache and Ireneus were 'inspired'. The question, from our POV, is why should we accept your construction in the face of what might be construed as evidence to the contrary.
Also, there seem to me to be a lot of assumptions here. One is that we don't know about presybteros and hierous. And the other is that it is a slam dunk to reason form those words to the protestant or non-Catholic (We need a more economical term) understanding of ministry. There seems to be a kind of rush to judgment.
What is interesting in this passage it affirms preservation of the saints..
Heck, I'm invested!
Please, no diagnostic questions. I'm trying to be non-aggressive and discursive here.
LOL!
Finally, since according to the principle of proportionate causality, whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause (“eminently” if not “formally”), God as the cause of all possible good must have all possible good within Him, eminently if not formally.
What does he mean by "eminently"?
Challenge accepted!
Ok so, the premise is that an atheist received a sign from God because a teenager did a cartwheel based on the prompting of the Holy Ghost and this somehow legitimizes pentecostal gatherings? Seems to me that's taking the thing too far. If someone was in a strip club and said "God, I'll believe You're there if that girl puts her clothes back on" does that mean we're supposed to start meeting in the strip club during business hours?
Conversely suppose the same atheist in the strip club says "I'll believe in God if that girl takes her clothes off" I'd put that at about the same likelihood that someone is going to do a cartwheel across the stage at a pentecostal gathering; I'd be more surprised if it didn't happen than if it did. (There, snarky snipey provided as requested. I hope it was everything you expected. :))
Ok... yes I just compared attending pentecostal services to going to a strip club. I went there... er, to the analogy, not to the strip club. My point is only that the one thing doesn't necessarily legitimize the other.
I got a little distracted by this when I was writing my response. I was looking for the story of Alphonse Ratisbonne so I could point out that his "miraculous" conversion probably wouldn't convince you that Catholicism is legitimate either.
(Pssst! Gang! Settle down. She's gonna come up here ....)
I can believe this of Sweet Judith. I believe that she would be disruptive and I think that she would be unChristian.
Yep, that's what they are, Catholic ones. the future of the Catholic church, stamp of approval from 3 popes. The new converts ain't buying what you guys are trying to sell to them, let alone to us
I always ping properly, went to ping school. Graduated ping cum laude
The earlier OT refers to sons of men as simply mortal men. Ezekial uses it repeatedly as God applies it to him (Ezekial) as a humbling term.
Hebrews refers to Son of Man as a created being that God has given great favour to.
So in answer, Jesus was hacking them off; your emphasis on verse 65 refers to the people that would not believe then. For backup on this, let us look to: John 12:31 Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world 18 will be driven out. 32 And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself."
What Jesus says in Chapter 6 refers to the immediate disbelief of those who will walk away, but He also says in Chapter 12 that He will draw all men to Himself.
Matthew 13:
3 And he told them many things in parables, saying: "A sower went out to sow.
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"
13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
34 All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed he said nothing to them without a parable.
35 This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."
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.