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.
Maybe the inability to see the work of the Holy Spirit and to insist that the Canon was put together hundreds of years after the fact is at the root of your doubts about Christianity. I suppose I would look at it the same way if I thought a bunch of guys put everything together.
The bad news is no lectionary. I found it wonderful to be challenged by readings I might never have preached on otherwise.
I also found the liturgical seasons really helpful. For example -- with the increasingly eschatological theme of the last weeks of Ordinary time, the climax of Christ the King, and then the chance to tie eschatology back to John the Baptist and Jesus ...
Ot try the segue from Epiphany with the theme of Christ as the revelation and the one revealing the Glory of God into the pinnacle of that revelation on Good Friday ... well, it was good for me, and maybe even for my poor auditors.
I hadn’t seen those.
WHEN GOD
HIMSELF, WALKING ISRAEL'S PATHS 2000 YEARS AGO
REPEATEDLY
REFERRED TO
"IT IS WRITTEN . . ."
AS HIS
POINT OF AUTHORITY denial of that is a
DENIAL OF GOD'S OWN EMPHASIS.
He did not even say:
"DADDY SAYS: . . . "
HE, CREATOR GOD, SAID
"IT IS WRITTEN . . . "
Papal Pontificators' STUBBORN, REBELLIOUS REFUSAL TO TAKE THOSE DECLARATIONS OF FINAL AUTHORITY FOR WHAT THEY ARE,
Is yet again a brazen addiction to idolizing an INSTITUTION, A DOGMA, ANOTHER GOSPEL, SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM AND OPPOSED TO GOD'S AUTHORITY.
There's no more charitable way to put the stark horrific truth.
Weasel words about the bureaucratic magicsterical power-mongers will not do.
Appeals to rubber 'Bibles' & rubber histories about Peter and the Vatican before it began in 300-400AD will not do.
The stark TRUTH IS
CREATOR GOD IN PERSON DECLARED
"IT IS WRITTEN . . . "
AS A POINT OF FINAL AUTHORITY.
REFUSAL TO TAKE CREATOR GOD'S OWN DECLARATIONS OF WHAT HE HIMSELF APPEALED TO AS THE FINAL AUTHORITY
IS BEYOND SUICIDALLY IGNORANT, REBELLIOUS IDIOTIC & STUPID.
IT IS STUBBORNLY REBELIOUS.
It is sticking an INSTITUTION'S FOSSILIZED GRANITE FINGER IN GOD'S EYE AND INSISTING THAT THE INSTITUTUION KNOWS BETTER THAN GOD.
HUBRIS TO THE MAX is an inadequate phrase by many orders of magnitude.
Catholics understand metaphors, similes, parables and allegory as well as reality. We don't just decide which is which based upon the Gestalt of the moment. We have a magisterium that does an exhaustive study of these things as a service to mankind so that we can arrive at a conclusion based upon more than whim. That contributes to what makes us Catholic.
I just don't know how you decide metaphor from parable, from simile, from allegory from reality. It appears that you apply a screening process based upon the utterances of a few Reformists of dubious character and motive and what makes sense in your native language. Watching Protestants clumsily attempt to reconcile Scripture with the Gospels is like studying the path of a ping pong ball. The direction and velocity of the discussion is not determined by some grand scriptural or dogmatic theme or context, it is determined by what ever obstacle was most recently encountered.
Suppose an unfriendly person recorded everything YOU said that they considered offensive, and then either posted it on their profile page, or retained it in a categorical manner to haul out every time you said something else on the subject, or indeed, whenever the subject came up? Would it be paranoid of you to have a minor issue with that?
I see you’ve visited the profile pages of Petronski, Cronos, and Hacksaw. To be sure, there are more (sandyeggo and TaxachusettsMan come to mind) but they’re not with us anymore.
Now, now, Alex,
You probably know . . .
The 2nd STATION OF THE WHITE HANKY IS THE:
2.BLACK/WHITE ICON OF DUPLICITY, DOUBLE STANDARD DANCE
Such duplicitous behavior & values are not only considered Roman Catholics’ exclusive RIGHT . . . they’re a virtual dogma, ritual, sacred duty.
Or so it would seem . . . given the relentless demonstrations hereon.
Actually, there are evidently literal books.
God seems to LIKE books.
Claiming that it was the work of the HS is a conjecture which in and of itself cannot be proven. Looking at the lack of uniformity and the variety of other books which were included in individual early church canons and lists of various Christian apologetics, it is oblivious that such a conjecture is patently false,unless of course we are willing to admit that there was either more than one "Holy Spirit" at work or that one Holy Spirit created many different "works".
As late as the middle of the 4th century, preserved codices of Christian books contain scrolls that are now considered profane (Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.). How can that be if this was the work of the HS?
The fact that most of the books of the NT were shared by most churches and apologetics does not in and of itself show the whole picture: the individual canons contained books that, somehow, the HS or whoever later decided were not fit for inclusion.
And, I have no doubts about Christianity. I merely see the less romantic view of it.
To be sure, there are more (sandyeggo and TaxachusettsMan come to mind) but they're not with us anymore.
Maybe they became Born Again Christians and were embarrassed by their prior behavior. We can hope!
Which Christ is it that you follow???
You know the answer to that one. I will say this much for non-Denom churches.... some of them have great house bands.
Do you stand behind your posts on FR?
Did others hack into your account and make those posts?
Imho: 1. NONE of us could remotely survive with any face, sanctity, reputation etc. intact were a technological record of ALL WE’D SAID, WRITTEN AND DONE BE POSTED ON THE NET. 2. NONE of us could remotely dare to show our faces on the planet again many times over if ALL our thoughts were so displayed. NONE of us could survive with smug self-righteous smiles and noses in the air the kind of scrutiny the likes of B Hinn et al face on FR 24/7. 3. Christ made it abundantly clear that carnal, fleshy, critical spirit human judgment was DEADLY—eternally deadly. It must be repented of, avoided, forsaken. 4. A number of RC’s on FR, instead, seem to make it a RELIGIOUS RITUAL, A RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION, an added golden bead to their Rosary, worth at least a new box of white hankys. And we Proddys are not as immune as we might think, on occasion, either. 5. There IS a FITTING exhortation to judge rightly by Holy Spirit’s knowledge and wisdom . . . between right and wrong . . . to declare the right and to reach out toward a brother headed toward or in the ditch . . . to exhort, warn, discipline the wayward and evil doers. 6. And, certainly bias and perspective can readily tend to confuse #4 above for #5. HOWEVER, GOD IS NOT CONFUSED. GOD IS NOT FOOLED. HIS TOTALLY ACCURATE AND TOTALLY COMPLETE RECORDS ARE FLAWLESS WITH ALL THE FLAWLESS WEIGHTING OF HIS PERFECT KNOWLEDGE AND HIS PERFECT JUSTICE. 7. Folks on public forums are foolish, if not ignorant, stupid and childish to think that they will not be held accountable for even their temporary silly brain burp errors. THAT’S THE NATURE of the public mentality and a diverse mix of many people. 8. Open threads are NOT for the thin skinned. They are rarely ordered away—though one would think that purported Christians of repeatedly demonstrated thin-skins—if they had any integrity would keep themselves away as an honorable principle. 9. Trouble is, it’s usually the most thin skinned who MOST enjoy being prickly, feisty, and particularly who MOST ENJOY WAILING, WHINING, BLAMING AND POINTING THE HAUGHTY SMUG FINGER at other Freepers. 10. God have mercy.
I am very sorry to hear that. I'm in the same boat so I suppose when I said I was "well" it was a relative term. :) I'll be praying for you. Economically, I sure have hope for a change in two and a half weeks and in two years. Just got my newly-turned-18 y.o. daughter registered. We'll show 'em how to rock the vote. :)
FK: But the vast majority of the rest of the NT (if not all of it), especially Paul's epistles serve as clarification and explanation of the Gospel books. I don't see how one can read the more specific THROUGH the (in many cases) less specific.
Christianity began, not with the Latin Church's interpretation of anything, rather, the Jerusalem Church's interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus and the creation of a variety of documents with which they continued the teachings. Initially there was little documentation - most Christians were illiterate, with the exception of the educated Jews and the occasional individual such as Luke - and such as it was would have been overshadowed by the Jewish oral tradition, which was among the best and most complete in the world.
I would see the oral transmission of the literal life and teachings of Christ AS the Gospel books. Eyewitnesses, or those close, spoke of and then wrote down what they saw, etc. The Gospel books read very often as a matter-of-fact narrative. However, of course interpretation is also frequently needed, such as with parables, etc. So, for example, I don't see how one can read a commentary explaining a parable THROUGH the parable itself. When Jesus explained the parable of the seeds (Mark 4:13-20), it doesn't occur to me to nuance Jesus' explanation through His original words. It's just the opposite. The original words stand, unchanged. They are understood through clarification, context, reference, or explanation, etc. But when I see "read through the Gospels" I get the impression that it is the human explanation that is unchanging and that the original words are nuanced to match it.
There is God's word and then there is the Word of God.
Yes, I always use "word of God" (God's word) to mean scripture and "Word of God" to mean Christ.
The writings of Paul are largely instructions to his flock, but they only have reflected light shining from the Gospels - they mean nothing on their own. Without the Gospels, of what use is Paul? Or Peter? Or James?
I fully agree. They would have no authority without the information in the Gospel books. But this would seem to support my position that the natural flow would be to start with the firm foundation of the Gospels, and then come to greater understanding THROUGH clarification, context, reference, or explanation, etc. Since Paul is also Biblical authority, it wouldn't seem correct to me to "change" his explanation based on the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Gospels that I follow. I would think that Paul's interpretation of the Gospels would trump several Christians' writings about it many many years after the Apostolic age.
FK: I don't understand why the CCC would need to be read through anything at all. With the scriptures we take them as we get them.
The point is how do you get them? The Lutherans get them one way; the various Reformed get them in various Reformed ways; the Methodists get them in another way; and each non denominational pastor or Baptist minister has his own interpretation as well.
I just meant that we all get them from God, as the CCC says. We all get interpretations from various sources, however .............
The Church, as outlined very greatly in Scripture, is a teaching authority, among other responsibilities. The Church is not charged with throwing snippets of Scripture into the air and having people pick up whatever they find in whatever order they find.
Scripture is very clear that THE ultimate teaching authority is Holy Spirit:
I suppose it boils down again to whom is meant by "The Church" and whether it makes sense that God would only send information and reminding to a select few for further re-interpretation, or does God actually want a personal relationship with each of His children via personal spiritual communication.
For them, the next book after John is James...
The same can probably be said for some brothels.
So evidently there is no biblical president for a NT church priesthood.. so the claim that the Roman church is the church founded by God in the NT is obviously false..
Crying "uncle" is always tough huh?
The scriptures are the infallible record of the foundation of the NT church.. and those records make Rome a false church ...
To be sure, there are more (sandyeggo and TaxachusettsMan come to mind) but they're not with us anymore.
Maybe they became Born Again Christians and were embarrassed by their prior behavior. We can hope!
Excellent illustration.
Again, you twist the original point so as not to have to actually answer the difficult question. I asked a very specific question; Where in Scripture does it say that 100% of the Revealed Word is contained in Scripture?
As for where in Scripture the precedent (not president) is found for a New Testament priesthood read 2 Peter.
I suppose the president would be Christ?
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.