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.
ACCURATELY AND WELL PUT, imho.
Thx.
INDEED IT IS A STRUGGLE EVERY DAY.
And, I don’t think any of us win 100% in every area every day.
Yet, Jesus calls them to repentance. Let us hope they see the truth which is Jesus.
Hmmmmmm . . .
sooooooooo
training cats is difficult even for RC’s.
It IS quite difficult.
And then a trained cat still manages to be a cat in every area possible.
Usually they are better at training their people than their people are at training them.
I don't think the denial you attribute to Rome is there.
I also think that while the truth is simply it can still be oversimplified.
My citing of James was not intended as a nyah-nyah. It was more in the nature of a "consider by the bowels of Christ" it may not be quite as you say it is.
Your side seems to say that if WE say, "God will put the water in your mouth, but by the gifts He has given you, you must swallow if you want your thirst to be quenched," we are preaching salvation by works and giving grounds for pride and despair -- as if a man would think so much of the almost entirely involuntary swallowing that he would forget the person who gave the water!
I think a thoughtful man (especially one who had been around the sick and dying, would understand that the desire and the ability to swallow is also a gift. And so many of our prayers involve a plea "dignificare" to make us worthy. A simple understanding of "worthiness" is that it is intrinsic. But we ask for extrinsic and exogenous worthiness for the GIFT of merit. And we do not make this request in a corner or in the dark, but out for all to see. And they see, and still insist that we preach works-righteousness.
But I grieve a little because I DO believe this stuff, and I think you are missing out on a lot of totally wonderful graces and helps and benefits and consolation and even on a certain intellectual and moral clarity -- or, at least, great helps towards that clarity ( certainly a great many Catholics despise those helps ... . )
From you viewpoint, I can understand your sadness and I thank you for your thoughtful responses, and I sincerely mean no ill will or harshness, However, I cannot wrap my mind around needing a priest to channel "grace" from Mary, or Jesus to assist in justification/sanctification. I just dont see it in the scripture, in fact I see the opposite. "We can come boldly before the throne of Grace"!
I believe "ex opere operato" sacraments began as public confessions of faith (baptism), commemorations (Lords Supper), and benign rituals that were over many years deformed into "channels of grace" that were effective only thru a priesthood.
I dont see a gradual infused righteousness, but an instant imputation of Christ's Righteousness upon regeneration.
My take on the whole matter is that Catholics have embraced a return to the Law that gradually developed over many hundreds of years, most certainly side tracked by un-believers, "false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage".
I am sorry but when I read scripture, I do not see the RCC. Scripture brings us back to the foundations of Jesus and the Apostles. I think many RC's cling to novelties that appeard many hundreds of years that were unknown in the early church.
I can no longer assent to those things that I grew up with. I can only but agree with the psalmist, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."
"How long did it take you to ferret out their evil intent? After reading their replies for years one can see why religious wars occurred and Inquisitions were conducted.
God bless and remember Jesus came to save even these vile creatures."
I did NOT comment on something I know nothing about. I commented on the proposition that there is a difference (and, I think, an important one) between saying, "You lie," and "I don't believe you." I think I know almost as much as to be known about that.
Agreed, and the proposition was taken out of context.
I do not understand and cannot imagine what NL meant when he said you cannot buy an encyclical, I have bought several (and even read some.) Not understanding, I did not get involved.
Only when you understand what motivates a person to make hateful "shoot from the hip" remarks such as that will you understand what was meant.
When I don't understand, I tend to resort to the basics, such as the difference between a statement about my belief and a statement about somebody' intention.
Please understand I am well aware you are an honorable person and I am in no way questioning your integrity.
I simply believe you were off base in this instance.
Mt 21:12 and 10:14 and LK 9:5 demands that those who follow Jesus in truth rebuke those apostates, heretics, agnostics who would pervert the Will and Word of God. One must accomplish same in the Love that Paul explains in 1 Cor 13:4. When effected in this fashion one does the Word of the Savior to those who accept He is the Savior.
Praise Jesus
"Weirdos for Jesus"? Not quite "good" enough to be a fool but too goofy for the world? I can live with that.
To paraphrase St. Anthony "comes the time when people will behave like weirdos and if they see anybody who does not behave like them they will rebel against him and say 'You are a weirdo' because he is not like them."
Now if you as a Unitarian want to believe that, so be it, but if you then want to debate further Christian dogma, it's like someone arguing calculus when they do not agree that 1+1 = 2. Namely, it does not help those talking calculus and the topic goes on a nice merry-go-around.
It's like you or me getting on a thread between Mahayana and Hirayana Buddhism when we don't agree with their fundamental concept of rebirth.
If you as a Unitarian want to argue with us on the nature of the Trinity -- that's fair, just as you / I could argue over whether there is such a thing as rebirth with a Buddhist. But if we try to move further into various Buddhist theology, we are wasting everyone's time.
Elitist and Ignorance is a sad combination.
So then, what DOES an individual unitarian such as yourself believe? We do know what Unitarians ARE united by — that they do not believe in the Trinity.
Even though I was no doubt not even a feelthy papist when that happened, I feel sorry and all that. There is a lot of crappy catechesis going on through all Christianity as far as I can tell. I get a monthly newsletter from something called the Coming Home Network. it's MOSTLY about non-Catholic clergy who become Catholics, but sometimes the guy started out Catholic, then became a non-Catholic and a clergyD00d, and THEN came back.
But I mention this because the distinctive matters aside, it is REALLY rare (I think) that the unconditional, unmerited love of Christ is effectively conveyed to little ones.
I wish you guys would at least read the Cliff Notes to Dominus Iesus. And I wish I could convey the idea of "ordinarily necessary" (and kick in the butt my fellow catechists who gloss over the "ordinarily.")
I think all the ex opere operato stuff is right and true and good etc. I think it did arise almost for the reason you say -- the assertion that God's action is always primary. The sacrament doesn't "work" because of you or because of the priest, it "works" because of God and His fidelity and generosity.
But it's hard both for preachers and their hearers to convey that. When I preached, I made it a point that at least 9 out of 10 sermons had to be explicitly evangelical -- in the sense that they proclaimed and explained (at least a little) the primacy (in every sense) of Grace. When I had my radio show, for 4 years every 'talk' led to the conclusion that "God loves you."
And yet people who've known me for years react with surprise when I say that the first thing is the Love of God. I don't know what I could do that I am not doing.
Yes, I'm rambling. Sorry.
As to having to go through Mary, yatta yatta. Maybe there is SOME kind of necessity. If there is I am not clear on it. But it would not surprise me if, when I croak, Dominic said to me, "I've had you in my heart and in my intercessions since you were born." In other words, when Dominic was nothing to me but the church 'they' went to on Sunday, while we went to a proper church, he still may have been somehow involved with my life. And I'm utterly persuaded that Mary was.
So just as God's love does not depend on me, the intercession of the saints need not depend on my knowing about them or asking for it.
May I ask you to read with more precision and clarity than I just wrote this mess? I think I need a break.
In any event, let us resolve that neither of us knows as much as we should about the Love of God, yet both of us relies on it, and that therefore we are brethren, even if in some sense 'separated.'
It wouldn't be the first time.
In counselling and in the care and feeding of rugrats, there is what I call, "hooking the adult." It sometimes does wonders to suggest to the child or 'client' that they try using their rational minds, if any.
I'm not so sure how much it helps a fight to take a side. I MAY help to invite people to think.
Of course, when they would rather fight, "my work here is done."
AND when I see a principle being made victim to a fight -- when somebody attack the true principle rather than, say, it's less than true application, I will tend to go for defending the principle.
I felt like whatever else was going on, that was confusing to me, one thing I 'knew' was the difference between the two propositions.
In teaching the Evangelical / Fundamentalists this fall what posts should I focus on to demonstrate the love or lack thereof harbored by the unwashed who claim belief in Jesus? I am gravitating toward the UFO cartoon one since that one truly is the exemplification of the true mindset of some of the most notorious hateful individuals. What do you think?
Jesus saves all sinners.
Just about every document that comes out of Rome ends up being printed by the Daughters of St. Paul in booklet form. IIRC that’s the reason for their existence. I was a little surprised they were still doing it though since everything has been available for free on vatican.va for the last 10 years.
To my complete shock however, there’s a link on vatican.va to the Vatican Publishing house catalog and apparently they’re selling documents too, but good luck placing an order.
Now, why anyone under 50 would bother buying a dead tree version of anything anymore is simply beyond me and it strains credulity to the breaking point. That anyone actually using the internet would do so shatters credulity, throttles it, jumps up and down on it and roasts it for dinner.
As it happens however, my best friend is a priest in his early 30s and he’s one of those “gotta have it on paper” loons too. I’m a decade older (and apparently WISER) and use iPieta on my iphone IN CHURCH and divinumofficium.com on the Wii for the family to say Compline every night. So while I believe people exist who are unduly attached to dead trees I really have trouble believing anyone would spend actual money on something they didn’t hold in high regard when an online version was readily available.
Tell me you just bought a buggy whip for your Volkswagen and see how I react. If Natural Law said he’d just bought a hardcopy of Calvin’s Institutes I’d call for a mental health professional. Heh... NL and Quix sitting in a room arguing over who’s supposed to be on the couch, sorry, the LOLs are scaring my kids.
It seems clear to me that the natural world is formed and ordered by universals. The natural laws are universals. It just seems so unreasonable to me for atheists to stipulate that these very same laws are somehow the product of the natural world — which is composed of finite, contingent entities enveloped in a web or process of ceaseless change — which is structured by these laws in the first place, which do not themselves change. That is like saying the son is his own father....
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, appearing on Glenn Beck's show yesterday, had an incredibly astute observation about atheists. He said they were "parasites" — because they totally rely on the legacy they have received of great human achievements in the past, accumulated over many millennia of human thought and experience; and yet they add nothing to the magnificent corpus they inherit, do nothing to further inspirit it. Or words to that effect.
The problem is, in all of human history as far back as the records go, God has always been in the human picture; so much so that one can say man is "programmed" for God, that it is natural for man to see himself in relation to, not only the immanent processes in nature, but also in relation to their divine, transcendent ground. But atheists will have no truck with transcendence, with God.
But try to explain human history if you leave God out of it! For that matter, try to explain science if you leave God out of it. It simply cannot be done. Though atheists keep trying....
Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister!
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.