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.
"This altar whereat we stand is by nature only common stone, nothing different from other stones, whereof our walls are made and our pavements adorned; but after it is consecrated and dedicated to the service of God, it becomes a holy table, an immaculate altar."+Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110)
"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).Here are some hard proofs for you
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.
It is clear, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
No, it doesn't. It may be harder (and you could say reconciliation requires both sides), but we are absolutely enjoined to forgive. I read of a prayer used in the Middle Ages asking forgiveness for those sins we don't know we've committed. "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
‘”They changed the wording in the creed.””
I’m assuming you speaking of “Filioque”?
That has been clarified.
Excerpt from Vatican Document
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html
“Today we can thank the Lord that even on this point the true meaning of the formula is being clarified in the West and in the East”
I'm ignoring him for now because there is no substance in his post other than the "same ole ,same ole" and am not going to be detracted from more important issues and topics-work and attending Mass and Adoration.
Sometimes all we can do is pray for some people, I'm sure you pray for them as well
I think you’re forgetting the deep devotion to the following represented by these
Stations
of the Stations of The White Hanky:
4. ICON TO CHRONICALLY CHANGING THE SUBJECT
5. ICON OF OBFUSCATIONS TO THE SUPREME DEGREE
6. ICON OF THE RUBBER BIBLE
7. ICON OF THE RUBBER HISTORY TEXTS
8. ICON OF THE RUBBER DAFFYNITIONARY
9. ICON OF THE RUBBER LOGIC TEXT
10. ICON OF HUBRIS TO THE SUPREME DEGREE
11. GROPING FOR ANY EXPLANATION BUT THE TRUTH
12. ICON TO THE HOLY FLIP-FLOPS IN WORD MEANINGS AND ARGUMENTS
14. ICON TO THE FANTASIZED DIVINE RIGHT, TO BE CORRECT, PRISTINELY SANCTIFIED & PERFECTLY FLAWLESS IN ALL RESPECTS IN ALL CASES ALL THE TIME, REGARDLESS.
15. ICON TO CHRONIC & OBSESSIVE INCONSISTENCY.
17. ICON TO THE UNDIVINE RIGHT OF TERMINAL SNOOTINESS TO THE MAX.
18. ICON TO THE SELECTIVE-SLICE-N-DICE SAMBA READING OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS.
I agree.
Though it’s still fun to tease about the Prada shoes.
Well put.
What must I do to be saved is a biblical question...And it has a God breathed biblical answer...
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
I find it odd that you would not reveal this to people you preach to...You leave it to God to somehow secretly reveal to the individual how to get saved instead of bringing the word of God to them...
How can they have faith if you don't tell them the words they need to hear???
Well put.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Thanks for the UNPING
in your blast of me.
It’s great for illustrating the consistent attitudes and character involved.
Face it SMV,you have adapted marcionite heresies in usurping other Apostles in favor of Saint Paul.
Here are some excerpts of Tertullian against marcion
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-31.htm#P5303_1651791
“The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father.”
“the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, “lest he should run, or had been running in vain; “ in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of St. Luke himself desired the authority of his predecessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for Luke’s Gospel that which was necessary for the Gospel of his master.”
So, SMV,you’re not breaking new ground here,just resurrecting old heresies
Not only do these church fathers preach sola scripture, Basil it appears, acknowledges that Tradition is the product of (rightly or wrongly) interpreted scripture...And this Tradition does not and can not exhist outside of the scriptures...
Just as you say that +Ignatius is a lost soul because in his letter to the Magnesians he saidWhoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by the sin of being separated from the unity of Christ... but the Wrath of God rests upon him.
"This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her." Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.
.......
"He who does not have the church as his mother does not have God as his Father." .
.......
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church."
Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.
.......
"What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons."
Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.
.......
"Since by Christ's favor we are Catholic Christians:"
Letter to Vitalis, 217,5,16, 427 A.D.
.......
"The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority."
The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D.
.......
"What the soul is to man's body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.
The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of one body.
But see what you must beware of, see what you must take note of, see what you must fear.
It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away. And if a member be cut off, does the soul go with it?
When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too, a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member."
Sermons, 267, 4, 391-430 A.D.
“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).
“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience”
How does one know it is a false oath seeing it is a secret oath and could not be affirmed by a member that had taken it? . This came from a congressional record
The letters of St. Ignatius are even more pointed concerning the role that a bishop ("overseer") held in the early Church. The modern reader may be startled at the degree to which these letters exalt the role of the bishop. "It is essential to act in no way without the bishop", Ignatius wrote to the Trallians. "... Obey the bishop as if he were Jesus Christ" (2:2,1). "Do nothing apart from the bishop", he wrote to the Philadelphians (7:2). To the Smyrnaeans, he gave the same advice: "You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father .... Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop's approval" (8:1).Enjoy!
The New Testament shows the apostles appointing others besides themselves to offices in the Church. Peter and the other apostles at Jerusalem very quickly decided to appoint deacons to assist them (cf. Acts 6: 1-6). Paul similarly placed someone in authority in the Churches he founded (cf. Acts 14:23; 2 Tim 1:6). These ecclesiastical appointments were carried out by means of a religious rite: the laying on of hands, either by those who already had authority conferred on them by Christ (the apostles) or those on whom they had conferred authority by the laying on of hands. These rites were sacramental ordinations (one of the Sacraments)
For a period of time in the early Church there seems to have been no entirely clear terminology designating these ordained Church officers or ministers. St. Paul spoke of bishops and deacons (Phil 1:1), though he also mentions other offices, such as apostles, prophets, and teachers (1 Cor 12:29). St. James spoke of elders (5:14). In the Acts of the Apostles (e.g., 11: 30), we hear many times of elders or presbyters. Sometimes the designations bishop and elder seem to have been used interchangeably.
In the course of the second half of the first century, however, a consistent terminology for these Church offices was becoming fixed. The letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch make clear that leadership in the Christian community, in all the Churches, is exercised by an order of "bishops, presbyters, and deacons" (To the Trallians 3:2, to Polycarp 6:1)). Of these designations, bishop comes from the Greek episkopos meaning meaning "overseer"; presbyter from the Greek presbyteros, "elder"; and deacon from the Greek diakonos, "servant" or "minister".
By the way, the term priest (Greek: hierus) does not seem to have been used at first for the Christian presbyter; the nonuse of this particular term in the earliest years of the Church was due to the need to distinguish the Christian priesthood of the new dispensation from the Jewish Temple priests, who were still functioning up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. After that time, the use of the word priest for those ordained in Christ began to be more and more common.
St. Ignatius of Antioch did not know of any such thing as a "Church" that was merely an assemblage of like-minded people who believed themselves to have been moved by the Spirit. The early Christians were moved by the Spirit to join the Church, the established visible, institutional, sacerdotal, and hierarchical Church-the only kind St. Ignatius of Antioch would ever have recognized as the Church.
And it was for this visible, institutional, sacerdotal, and hierarchical Church--an entity purveying both the word and sacraments of Jesus--that this early bishop was willing to give himself up to be torn apart by wild beasts in the arena. He wrote to St. Polycarp words that were also meant for the latter's flock in Smyrna: "Pay attention to the bishop so that God will pay attention to you. I give my life as a sacrifice (poor as it is) for those who are obedient to the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons" (6:1). To the Trallians he wrote: "You cannot have a Church without these" (3:2).
St. Ignatius certainly did not fail to recognize that, in one of today's popular but imprecise formulations, "the people are the Church." His letters were intended to teach, admonish, exhort, and encourage none other than "the people". But he also understood that each one of "the people" entered the Church through a sacred rite of baptism, and thereafter belonged to a group in which the bishop, in certain respects and for certain purposes, resembled, on the one hand, the father of a family and, on the other, a monarch--more than some democratically elected leaders.
Do you have any of the copies of the traditions that were written down??? What are some of these traditions that were written or spoken of by the Apostles???
It’s hard to that seriously.
“”Not only do these church fathers preach sola scripture, Basil it appears, acknowledges that Tradition is the product of (rightly or wrongly) interpreted scripture...And this Tradition does not and can not exhist outside of the scriptures... “””
Not only are you wrong,but you’re also wrong in your assessment of Saint Basil in regards to Holy tradition
From Saint Basil -”De Spiritu Sancto”
“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.”
“If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness” 1 Timothy 3:16 is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;— which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;— a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?”
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.