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 is based on the principle of two wrongs don't make a right.
If you have specific complaints, send me a Freepmail with the post numbers and a description of the complaint.
Thanks for posting this full text. I’m always grateful to see things “put aright” that have been, whether purposefully or not I cannot know, distorted or stripped of their authentic context.
As for the work Mother Theresa did among the poorest of the poor, I often recall the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus himself tells this teaching parable; the man left by the wayside, by those who professed a religious belief and custom, was ministered to by one who was not , by tradition, supposed to interact with him. Not only was he given salve for his wounds, but transport to a safe haven and money to cover his needs and the promise of a return to see his progress. There was no mention of what his religious beliefs were before he received the help that had been denied him by others.
You are right to ask: where does the good come from? And with whom was the Lord God more pleased?
It never surprises me when satan uses people to attack saintly people like Mother Teresa.These types can only be driven out by prayer and fasting and might even need an exorcism.
Let’s face it, in this present world, none of us knows who is in hell and who is not.
I believe that God meant what He said when He said: “Judge not.”
I also understand what St. Paul meant when he said: “I do not even judge myself.”
Mad Dawg wrote in connection with my contention that RC doctrine does not distinguish between justification and sanctification:
“That does not make contact with what I teach or what I hear taught. I would glibly say that justification is done for one, and sanctification is done in one. But the doer is God.”
This would make you a rather Gospel-oriented Roman Catholic, because you are distinguishing between the completed act of justification (and let us make it very clear that the root meaning of the Greek verb “dikaioo” is “to declare just/righteous”) and the on-going process that is sanctification. Justification, or the verb to justify, is a forensic term, and is commonly used that way even in English: “And he, seeking to justify himself ...”, that is, declare himself just or righteous. Yes, both are God’s doing, but justification is what initiates sanctification. For only faith, which is the gift of God not of works, justifies. And thereafter sanctification, which is also the work of God, but which involves the cooperation of the regenerate/reborn heart and thus faith, is begun. But at any and every stage of the way along the path of sanctification, or I-95 as you want to call it, justification is complete. And thus if the person should at any point die his salvation is assured. Only in this way can a person’s good works, that is, the fruit of his faith and the evidence of his sanctification, be truly good. For he does them not for himself, but rather selflessly for others purely out of gratitude to God for the gift of forgiveness, life, and salvation that justification has brought to him.
Mad Dawg also wrote in connection with my further contention that in RC theology the individual can never know when he has done enough to be saved:
“That does not make contact with what I believe and teach.”
Again, I am very glad to hear you say this, and that for two reasons: First, because you added later: “Jesus has done it all.” This again would make you an exceptionally Gospel-oriented Roman Catholic. Second, because it would seem from your language that you are one who holds some kind of official teaching position in the church. That would mean to me that people are hearing the Gospel from you on at least a fairly frequent basis. This is wonderful!
I would simply respond this way. When have we done enough? Never. But enough has been done in Christ that our salvation is certain. And I will spend my life serving my neighbor as my Lord would have me do. But at the end or at any point in between I will say, “I am an unprofitable servant,” Christ alone has secured my salvation. I simply believe what is true, and that only because God Himself gave me the faith to believe it.
Finally Mad Dawg concluded by saying:
“There is SOME way that it is right to speak of something lacking in the all sufficient merit of Christ.”
Here is where you lose me and lose Scriptural support. How can anything be lacking in the all sufficient merit of Christ? And why must anyone seek SOME way that is right to speak of something lacking? Why would you even want to do that? Better to say this, even if you do not understand how it can be: SOLI DEO GLORIA. God has said in His word that He has done all. So let it be. Amen and amen.
Actually, I know more of what the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches than the vast majority of “Catholics” in the world.
From my observations of and experiences with 100’s of RC’s, that wouldn’t be very difficult.
Great gif.
Thx.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
As usual, Rome misses the point.
= = =
Now now.
You should know . . .
the Vatican only uses points to jab Proddys.
There are NO acceptable points tolerated toward the Vatican and it’s faithful finger frothers.
I regreat that I’m not skilled in doing links. But for someone who will do it, at Zenit.org there is a September 2, 2010 interview with Fr. Joseph Langford, MC. He is the priest who together with Mother Teresa founded the priests of the Missionaries of Charity, her priestly congregation.
That interview should put some truth to the life, works and faith of Mother Teresa, and put to rest—at least for those who truly want to be reasonable—some of these unfounded and almost cruel comments about her life and work.
God have mercy.
Why would somebody want to lie about Mother Teresa and to take excerpts from what she said and present them out of context and then suggest they "prove" what the rest of the interview contradicts?
I'm quite serious. This is so despicable it makes me question the value of these conversations. There is no real conversation, and now we have 'facts' being brought into evidence which, upon a chance enquiry, are shown to be distorted into falsehoods.
Almost the whole of the debate depends on your side saying things about our teaching which are false. When I finally gain a little bit of a hearing on what we actually mean by "real" I am invited to use this forum for an introductory course on Scholastic Realism and Aristotle's Metaphysics! Or the momentary glimpse of truth is immediately buried under a pile of abuse and further misrepresentations.
I am accustomed to that. Those who eagerly embrace falsehood, even for the best of motives, naturally and inevitably compromise their ability to perceive the truth.
But when lies (mostly of the form of sugestio falsi and suppressio veri by ripping quotes out of their context) are used to demean a charitable woman who is now dead, I am revolted.
I can quite understand your side's ignorance of the trials of the walk with Jesus. To love Him is, sooner or later to cry with Him, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" Your side belittles His generosity and thinks he merely imputes (λογιζομαι) righteousness, while you forget that His word is living and active and brings to pass what He says. So, if he imputes righteousness He will make it happen, real righteousness, not merely snow on a dung hill. And our Lord has shown, unforgettably, that the way of the Truth leads through torment and a sense of abandonment. And, because He loves us, He invites us to share His happiness, happiness so unlike the world's idea of happiness that to us it looks like a man being tortured to death.
So when Mother Teresa, Blessed (or, if you insist, blest -- the pronunciation does not affect the meaning) Mother Teresa, suffers the loving chastisement of God, a scourging with Dominical and Scriptural precedent, your side takes the Grace as proof of her unbelief, the blessing as evidence of damnation!
What remarkable blindness! What a triumph for Satan that those who consider themselves devoted to Jesus think it their duty to mock her whom God blessed and to despise her whom God refined in trial!
Our Lord is as clear as need be about judging the souls of others. But the spectacle of a woman who first embraces poverty which would make most of us weep, and then tolerates the uncomprehending admiration of fools to raise money for the desperately poor and to elevate the thoughts of those who grudgingly honor her while despising her religion -- this heroic work is met with your side's contempt. I say again, what remarkable blindness!
In a recent First Things someone wrote of watching a woman tune the blessed one out the minute she began pleading for the unborn. While Teresa pled, this woman made up her shopping list! Who needs to listen when we all know it's just a mass of tissue and abortion is a choice?
Your side also is so offended by a woman who gave her life to the stinking, purulent, and oozing poor, that no amount of careful cropping is enough to make sure her edited words can be used to discredit her.
When we both are dead, the Missionaries of Charity will be going into the foulest and most despairing corners of society to bring some small attention and respect to those who never heard of their own dignity. There will be problems. The order will go through one or more periods of laxity and indulgence, followed by a new reform.
No one will remember the words we spoke, the arguments we wrote in our petty and mendacious disputes. But centuries from now the order Mother Teresa founded will still remember their founder as my order remembers Dominic. As the great-great-grandchildren of our heirs squabble over their inheritances ("They've left grievin' and gone to grabbin'" a parishioner of mine said) while on the other side of the world someone will die, not filthy and alone but clean, embraced, and loved, because of the woman your side eagerly degrades.
I think I will take a couple of days off from this thread. Your side makes me sick. I am not yet as strong as Mother Teresa. May God forgive and strengthen me until I embrace the nausea triggered by such a disgusting hostility toward the good.
How ridiculous your side seems! A little Albanian woman, made mighty with the might of God, so terrifies you that you must pronounce her damned and adduce lies to justify your sentence.
Why?
Why would anyone attack a humble person like Mother Teresa who exuded Christian love in the first place ?
I will tell you why.... Love bothers them because they have not loved enough themselves and they are jealous of loving people who are Christlike.
Man made religion. Man will make up traditions and rituals and ignore what God says. Bad stuff— it leads to murder.
Exactly.
They who worship idols become like them.
FAR TOO TRUE!
Running On Empty wrote:
“I often recall the parable of the Good Samaritan ...”
In the parable from Luke 10, who is the Samaritan really? What was Jesus teaching the lawyer who sought to “justify himself,” that is, declare himself righteous? Look at the Good Samaritan closely, and recall what Jesus said to his disciples just before he told this parable: “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see ...” (Luke 10:23ff.)
“Then the Jews answered and said to Him, ‘Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a a demon?’ Jesus answered, ‘I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me ...” (John 8:48ff.) Look what charge He does not deny. Interesting, no?
“Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see ...”
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.