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.
Hypocrites
God will not be mocked folks
My my, you certainly did grieve for a long time. But at last, you're back, working on converting those eeeeeeevil Catlicks.
Really? By whose definition? The noun charisma and the adjective charismatic existed long before 1905. Which, come to think of it, is a point in time longer than most Protestants have had their theologies fabricated...
But there are loads of fools and idiots that simply go around begging to be mocked.
You forgot "freaking".
I'm getting very uncomfortable with how everyone is writing everyone else out and off. I realize some of it is polemical/rhetorical, but it's still disturbing.
3 popes
So now, it's not just WHAT scriptures say, it's where they are located that matter to you. Is that what you are saying?
Just what exactly do you do with the Bible after John?
How about looking at the language that God chose for the scriptures
the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.
The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .
The greek have a couple words for priest
hiereus
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ
and archiereus
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.
Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..
Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin
He is now our High Priest..
The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
Even the Douay-Rheims Bible does not translate that as priests.
.
Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes, and ancients, and scribes, were gathered together in Jerusalem;
A poor translation from the greek, but non the less even they did not translate it as priest.
Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.
There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..
They ignore it when they do not like what it says ...so much for the inspired infallible word of God
You are SOOOO right... . :)
I would never use that in reference to the good Dr. E.
I'm getting very uncomfortable with how everyone is writing everyone else out and off. I realize some of it is polemical/rhetorical, but it's still disturbing.
Overall, I'd agree. There are many of the non Catholic folks that are reasonable and with whom I and the other Catholic apologists have serious and sometimes fruitful discussion rather than contentious confrontation, but their participation, and ours (to be fair) on that level is less than ideal.
Are you saying that 3 popes wrote all the heretical Protestant doctrine after 1905? Which popes would they be?
There is no priesthood AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT provided for in the NT Church. There is a priesthood.
:)
Show me ...
I think the thesis is that 3 popes have encouraged or endorsed some elements of the charismatic renewal, therefore the whole thing is legit in the eyes of the Church.
I'm not sure that the alleged "endorsements" are any more real than the "endorsement" of medjugorje by JPII.
They do not understand what it means that we have died and are vivified with Christ's Spirit. And they do not understand Christ, eternity, or infinity.
They read Paul -- who is certainly very great indeed -- but they do not understand his very practical mysticism. And lacking this understanding, they have to go to the times before Christ or to non-Christian religions for their notion of priesthood.
This is why, on the vexed matter of "alter Christus" they completely miss the boat. They cannot articulate what it is they argue against in a way which we recognize as having to do with what we profess. And so they hurl the same dicta at us over and over again and it makes absolutely no difference to what we believe.
Arguing with them is like fighting with phantoms, but they are always fighting not against the Catholic Church but against their own mistaken ideas of what we teach and believe. And when we point out the errors, they blame us.
When the conversation reaches this stage it's best to back off. When they want to learn what we teach, they will be taught. Until then let them repeat themselves. It does them no good and us no harm. And these matters are of too great consequence to waste much time in idle fencing. If Rnmomof7 prefers her idea of what we teach to the truth, it's okay. She's a good person; God is a gracious God; it'll all come out OK.
I find this very interesting. You say that without the Gospels, Scriptures are unsupportive. AND YET those same Gospels, that are evidently so revered and followed so fervently by Catholics, have absolutely NO words on Mary worship, (and yes, I can say WORSHIP since your own Pope referred it as worship), priests, praying for the dead, etc. NONE of it is found in the "Gospels".
I think the thesis is that 3 popes have encouraged or endorsed some elements of the charismatic renewal, therefore the whole thing is legit in the eyes of the Church.
I'm not sure that the alleged "endorsements" are any more real than the "endorsement" of medjugorje by JPII.
I see. No more endorsement than saying that the Church endorses the children of the Reformation by having them both agreeing on the name of Jesus...
ping to post
With all the writings posted to wade thru I do not see what Crones seems to see in them. The dots simply do not connect to Christ...but do appear to come predominately from catholic doctrine supported by various authors outside the scripture...which I understand, though not scripture, catholics believe are none the less reliable and true in their eyes.....but IMO does not hold to scripture teaching and the fact Jesus indeed was the last and great high Priest ....the Priesthood of men ended when the veil was rent.
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.