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.
How does one know if a tradition is from God or men?
There's no disagreement there.
We do not get to interpret the scriptures to say what we want it to say.. That is Gods words and HE gets to say what it means ...
Nor there.
I do not conclude what you conclude from the same text. THAT's where the disagreement is.
And that's why this constant repetitive claim to Biblical authority and constant re-stating of your thesis is so tedious. To restate the thesis is not to advance it; to trumpet the areas of agreement as if it were there that the disagreement lies only confuses discourse.
And there is an assymetry. It SEEMS that I am expected to engage what you say, that is, to put down my conclusions and to try to enter into your POV as if it were my own, to examine it, so to speak, from the inside.
And yet when I advance a "constructive" it is NOT engaged, it is merely contradicted. So this is not really a conversation or even a debate, it is your tirade interrupted with what, since they are not taken as arguments, end up being nothing more than my protests.
Finally, this kind of thing is not persuasive. I become more hostile to your view and more inclined to think that it represents not an openness to truth but a flight from reason. That's an emotional response, so I try to keep it from controlling me, but, well, you're not helping this be anything that could be productive, as far as I can tell (which admittedly may not be very far.)
I have known for 38 years the the word hiereus does not appear as the designation of a role or office in the the NT Church. It is simply not news to me. and it should be obvious that I do not consider that to be a conclusive argument against the offices of elder and overseer developing a priestly function.
But the function is not based on the priesthood of the OT but on the, as we see it, identification of the Church with the body of Christ and on the understanding of Him as the "great High Priest." That is, in a nutshell (with all the inadequacies of nutshells) why your arguments, like cannonballs, fall short and do not breach my walls. Your side continually argue against what we do not believe.
Any particular color, pattern or fabric?
Simple. Don't make nutty statements in a PUBLIC forum.
Ummm you THINK they do things that only Christ can do..one more time..no biblical evidence of that
Nope. About all I know about the textual history of Ignatius and Irenaeus I learned here in the RF.
A seminary degree used to be called a B. Div., not an M. Div. and I always thought that was more appropriate because so much of what we learned was VERY Elementary -- and my interests were more in later Theology and clinical pastoral psych and maybe a little in Biblical languages.
Concur!
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that Scripture alone is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Ironically, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is disproved numerous times by Scripture alone.
Now, can you answer where in Scripture it says that Scripture is the only source of the Revealed Word of God?
See, you need to cover your exits when you type something like that, otherwise someone might say:
"Well you do chair the awards committee after all."
We wouldn't want anyone doing that.
I usually do not visit the home pages.. Alex, who knows ..one of those comments may have someone look to see if it is true.. and actually hear the gospel
And not one of them says to rely on "tradition" to be developed in the future.
IF that truly was a sincere attempt to communicate, then I regret my response.
Let me explain. I made a fun of my Church. In an analogy with fights among animals, that would be a submission posture. Such are USUALLY followed, among polite people, with a matching submission posture.
But, when I, as it were, extended my empty hand, you smacked it. Maybe I was mistaken, but it seemed like an ungracious but gratuitously hostile response. So I gave what I thought I got.
Alert -- self-deprecating joke ahead:
Now I have to go take my Midol.
Seriously, I'm stealing that for the weekend.
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of how much formal Bible Study is done in Catholic vs. Protestant Churches.
When a thing goes without saying, it is often not said.
But yet unanswered ..have you noticed the trend here? Every time I ask for some scripture that confirms that the practices in discussion , there is no answer, because none exists..
How do you know the difference between a man made tradition and a God made one?
The Faith was formulated by attention to and focusing on the Gospels; the 'Magisterium', or teaching authority, was formed in order to keept the human explanation first orthodox (remember that there were as many heresies in those days as there are today), and second consistent (there was to be one Faith, not myriad ones).
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.
The faith was largely formed in the first 100 years, with the exception of the big ticket items the formula of the Trinity, and the canon of Scripture. Certainly St. Paul make up a great deal of the Faith; yet I do not accept that when I present "Jesus said this" and am countered with "Paul said that", that is an effective counterargument. I consider it invalid simply because of the relative positions of Jesus and Paul. There was a Reformed claim yesterday that the Gospel could be summed up in five verses of Paul (listed). If that is to be accepted, then we run the risk of stepping right into full Paulianity and away from Christianity.
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.
If it were truly the Holy Spirit that men were listening to, there would be one Faith and no need for anybody having to teach it. However, the empirical proof is that without that Church that Jesus so painstakingly created and nurtured during His ministry, Luther's any milkmaid reigns supreme and not the Holy Spirit.
That is why it is “Sola-Fractional-Scriptura”
By "them" do you mean one of the selection of the "sacred" books you said in post 11,657 were the result of an arbitrary procedure and a choice made by men, not the Holy Spirit. Based upon that we can conclude that Tradition is equally both "sufficient" and worthwhile.
In view of the fact that Protestants, by and large, subscribe to sola Scriptura and Catholics don't, it would be shocking if more weren't done in Protestant churches. After all, to the man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the man equipped with wrenches, screwdrivers, air hoses, planes, putty knives, etc., in addition to hammers, problems present themselves differently.
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.