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.
If I may be forgiven an implied criticism of my Protestant brethren, I notice that in at least two battles of the spiritual warfare through the ages against the enemies of the faith, the Protestant weapon against the Catholic has been wrested from their hand and turned against them by the Secularists.Great stuff from an ex-atheist science fiction author turned Catholic.
First, had it not been for Protestant ‘Sola Scriptura’ replacing the authority of the Church with the authority of the Church’s books and lecture notes known as the Bible, Biblical Literalism would not have arisen, and this ridiculous alleged conflict between science and revelation, faith and reason, would have had no rhetorical force.
Second, had it not been for anti-catholic Protestant propaganda, the period of Late Antiquity after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, which was one of the greatest periods of technical and scientific advances in the history of world (equaled only by the marvels of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century) would not be dismissed as a period of Witch-hunting superstition and gross ignorance.
The Thirteenth Century, which the Church founded the modern University and Academic system still in use today, taught logic rather than Critical South American Lesbian Novella-Writers Studies of the Twentieth Century Body Image Gender Oppression Theory. The names of the logical forms and fallacies we still use today are based on Medieval mnemonics, and Latin, the language of Rome, is still the language of science.
Nonetheless, it aided the Protestant cause to depict themselves as the party of reason and scholarship, hence to condemn their fathers and grandfathers as ignorant and obscurantist; and when the newer schism of the secularist heresy arose in the modern world, lo and behold, having been told and taught that the most rational and rigorously logical thinkers of all history, the schoolmen of medieval Academia, where superstitious witch-hunters, the secularists now besmirched their Protestant fathers and grandfathers with the selfsame accusation.
Hence the alleged and entirely fictional war between Reason and Revelation, Church and Science was born.
Ask the person who made that claim.
Ask the person who made that claim.
Ask the person who made that claim.
You've seen the posts - the words of Paul are the ones to be believed - alone. We have progressed from a virtual dismissal of the Gospels by the Reformed, to the stated dismissal of the Gospels as an OT thing; only the death of Jesus is important and better explained by Paul than the Gospel writers anyway - as are all things.
Do they not even know what they say? I imagine they do, they just don’t care.
Mark 9: 17 Someone from the crowd answered him, "Teacher, I have brought to you my son possessed by a mute spirit. 18 Wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive it out, but they were unable to do so."
Jesus lets us know what to do:
Mark 9: 28 When he entered the house, his disciples asked him in private, "Why could we not drive it out?" 29 7 He said to them, "This kind can only come out through prayer."
Through prayer, my friend. Pray the Rosary that our antagonists will become Christian. The surest way to defeat your pagan enemies is to turn them into your Christian friends. Let their evil spirits go into the metaphorical Gadarene swine of the day and place.
And the 387 Bishops who attended?
Your imaginary "Pope" had no authority beyond Rome.
I hope I don’t answer incorrectly.
The 4 causes:
(1) Material cause: Why is that a baseball bat? Because it’s made of aluminum or ash wood. If it were made of foam rubber it would be a nerf ball bat.
(2) Formal Cause: A baseball bat must be of such and such a shape and material characteristics (hard — not soft, heavy — but able to be lifted and swung, has “Beat the Yankees” written on it — okay, I made that one up)
(3) Efficient cause: Somebody cut down a tree, sawed it up, aged it, shaped it into a bat shape on a lathe, smoothed it, finished it, wrote “Beat the Yankees” on it, so now it’s a baseball bat, before it was a chunk o’ wood, (or a sheet of aluminum).
(4) Final (teleological) cause: So we can play baseball — and beat the Yankees.
A thing’s formal cause, at the deepest level of understanding, is its essence or “substantial form”. God is the only instance of “godness” and indeed “godness” can admit of only one instance. You might say His formal cause is Himself, and you’d be right, but you’d get a lot of headaches along the way.
A cause is also said to be “formal” when it has the feature it causes, as red paint can cause a red barn, so the redness of the barn is caused by the redness of the paint, or the fire in the heater is caused by the fire in the match.
A cause is said to be “eminent” when the cause doesn’t have the thing(s) that are causing the effect do not themselves manifest the effect they cause. The indigo dye pot is a slimy green color, oxygen is colourless, but goods dipped in the dye pot and allowed to oxidize turn blue. Neither flint nor steel are on fire, but they can cause fire. So the dye pot (leave aside the preparation of indigo powder which is blue) or the flint and steel are “eminent” causes.
So I THINK he’s saying that God does not taste good (psalms aside for a minute here please) the way chocolate tastes good, but the goodness of chocolate is caused by Him, therefore it is caused “eminently.”
God speed
We’re all posting in the future!
I must proof every once in a while. This:
A cause is said to be “eminent” when the cause doesn’t have the thing(s) that are causing the effect do not themselves manifest the effect they cause.
should have been:
A cause is said to be “eminent” when the thing(s) that are causing the effect do not themselves manifest the quality they cause.
Of course no original documents exist, In the words of Ronald Reagan "Trust but verify".
Verify, for example, the authenticity of the Didache "found" in 1883.
SOME new converts. You ought to see the ones my parish is involved in.
In other news: What's "PFR"?
I gotta go to class. Darn!
For anything which is in any way composed of parts would be metaphysically less fundamental than those parts themselves, and would depend on some external principle to account for the parts being combined in the way they are. In that case, either the external principle itself (or perhaps some yet further principle) would have to be simple, and thus ultimate, and thus the truly divine reality; or there is no simple or non-composite first principle, and thus no metaphysically ultimate reality, and thus nothing strictly divine.In short, to deny divine simplicity is, for the classical theist, implicitly to deny the existence of God.
Actually, the major perpetrator was left off your post. I've not noticed 1000 to engage in such behaviour.
I ain't sayin', but if you watch "Undercover Boss" you have a clue
‘Twas thou, not Dr. E, that posteth the mendacity; why doest thou implicate another?
.
Backwards. Those persevere to the end will be saints. You must remain in the teaching. Those who reject the Faith are not saints, obviously.
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.