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.
lol. That's not what Christ says at all. Neither His parable nor His explanation was not heard by those not given ears to hear. And thus He didn't heal them.
This isn't rocket science. It's written in black and white. Doesn't it worry you that it seems to be more important not to agree with a Protestant than to actually understand Christ's words?
Sure I did. From Mark. You like Matthew. They match.
And you’re wrong. Christ was not gnostic. Nor were His teachings.
Again with the misquoting. I'm saying you're veering into gnosticism.
Yes, you have to read the New Testament — which is what is done each day in Church at mass.And, of course, you put your own YOPIOS on my text, which was a false one "bible read in it's entirety at mass each day" to think that we read the entire Bible instead of my text which clearly points out we read from the various books of the Bible (OT, Epistles, Gospels) in their entirety rather than in excerpts. Just like the errors you make in scripture, these all derive from reading and misinterpretation.
All clear so far? We read from the New Testament each day in mass -- if you are an ex-Catholic, you would know this
And, unlike some of your groupings, we read the NT, OT in their entirety
We read The Bible in it's entirety, not excerpts
— we read the Gospels, the Epistles, Revelation, we read psalms, the Pentateuch etc. all in mass
If you are an ex-Catholic and / or have ever attended Sunday mass, you will hear the singing of psalms, the readings from the Old Testament, the New Testament (Epistles, Revelation etc) and the Gospel. we read all of these during mass -- from the entire Bible, not excerpts, not focusing just on the epistles, but showing how the OT points to the Gospels and the Epistles point BACK to the Gospels, since the Gospels are the CRUX of the NT
—> we, Christ’s Church, the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church ARE the New Testament Church. This is evidenced in the reading of Acts, in the writings of First Century Christians (Didache, +Ireneus etc).
This is plainly obvious to anyone reading Early Christian text that the practises of the Early Christians, from the mass with the Eucharist to the apostolic succession etc. is the basis of Church tradition -- not only of the Catholic churches but also of our Oriental and Assyrian brethern who have been separated from us for centuries, a lot of the time by distance and hostile nations.
You’ve given zero evidence of understanding Christ’s teaching as to why He spoke in parables. Read the verses in Matthew. Hopefully, they’ll help you.
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."
No, that's what He did. Told a parable, they asked, He explained. Now both parable and explanation are there for us in Scripture. And further, Jesus revelation, written and not, is the Deposit of Faith of the Church.
Some can "hear" some can't. Some hear some, some hear more. Some don't hear today, but hear tomorrow. Grace, teaching, scripture, praxis, faith, the sacraments. Available for all, not secret.
Not some magic double predestined special coded gnosticism.
"There are not a few Catholics, men of talent and learning, who do devote themselves with ardor to the defense of the sacred writings and making them better known and understood. . . . We cannot but earnestly exhort others also, from whose skill and piety and learning we have a right to expect good results, to give themselves to the same praiseworthy work. It is our wish and fervent desire to see an increase in the number of the approved and persevering laborers for the cause of Holy Scripture" (PD 54).And, of course, we read the Bible at mass too -- just as it was done in the days before universal education (which to remind you is just a century or two old) when most folks couldnt read...
You given zero evidence of understanding as to why Christ spoke in parables. Read the Gospels. Hopefully, they’ll help you.
Because it is gibberish.
Lemme guess: That means He had picked out the lottery numbers of all humans ever to be born - odd: burn in hell; even - OPC and decoder rings.
But this argument (or this section of it) was about the practice of the early Church, and the Didache, etc. were adduced to address that argument.Exactly -- Those posts seem to want to say that someone 2000 years later knows more about the lives and practises of Early Christians than they (the Early Christians) themselves knew and wrote about!
If you want to say that it doesn't matter what the practice of the early church was, then it doesn't matter whether the Didache and Irenaeus were inspired or not.
If you want to say that the early Church went off the rails, then whatever the practices proved (or not) by the Didache and Ireneaus, they would be irrelevant.
If you want to say that you at almost 2000 years remove know more about what went on in the early Church than people far closer to it, then we have to assess the likelihood of that proposition.
But if all you want to do is to say that your way is right, and that's it, then what are we doing here?
"Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel" (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).And for your own purpose, this even talks about Apostolic Succession to ensure that we remain true to the teachings of Christ through His Apostles.
Perhaps what some believe they “hear” (that others predetermined can’t hear), hear it wrong.
Course that would shoot holes in their whole theory, but they would never know it. It’s all the others that don’t hear it, can’t hear it; it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That’s a good question, Cronos, but I suspect you’ll hear a “show me in scripture” from the same quarter pretty soon.
And yeah, the Gates of hell must have prevailed to support their theory.
Yep -- the cohanim, all those Cohens and Kahns and Kagans, etc. IIRC, a cohen is still not supposed to be in the same room with a dead body.
Good point — I wonder what Rn meant in that line?
In 1938, with the outbreak of violence that would come to be known as Kristallnacht, American Orthodox rabbi Menachem HaKohen Risikoff wrote about the central role he saw for Priests and Levites in terms of Jewish and world responses, in worship, liturgy, and teshuva, repentance. In הכהנים והלוים HaKohanim vHaLeviim(1940), The Priests and the Levites, he stressed that members of these groups exist in the realm between history (below) and redemption (above), and must act in a unique way to help move others to prayer and action, and help bring an end to suffering.
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.