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.
I couldn't believe it myself. Pretty weird. Double checking now everything.
1. In distinguishing between the beginning of faith (initium fidei) and the increase of faith (augmentum fidei), one may refer the former to the power of the free will, while the faith itself and its increase is absolutely dependent upon God;So that's semipelagianism, pelagianism itself is summarized as:
2. the gratuity of grace is to be maintained against Pelagius in so far as every strictly natural merit is excluded; this, however, does not prevent nature and its works from having a certain claim to grace;
3. as regards final perseverance in particular, it must not be regarded as a special gift of grace, since the justified man may of his own strength persevere to the end;
4. the granting or withholding of baptismal grace in the case of children depends on the Divine prescience of their future conditioned merits or misdeeds.
This fourth statement, which is of a highly absurd nature, has never been condemned as heresy; the three other propositions contain the whole essence of Semipelagianism.
1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.It was countered by the Council of Carthage with the following canons:
2. Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.
1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.I only throw this out there to point out that pelagianism and semipelagianism are often oversimplified to the point that they don't represent the actual condemned heresies.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
9. Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal life".
These clearly worded canons, which (except the last-named) afterwards came to be articles of faith binding on the universal Church, gave the death blow to Pelagianism; sooner or later it would bleed to death.
You don't seem to know what "dogmatic" means. Regardless, if the gathering of the Fathers is an Ecumenical Council then the consensus of those Fathers is an ecumenical proclamation.
Now you will do some Google or Wikipedia search and you will find that the pope can also proclaim dogma by bypassing the Synod (aka "College") of Cardinals. The East never accepted this 19th century Latin innovation, and such "powers" were unknown to the ancient Church in the first millennium.
But that won't stop you from telling me that's not true...LOL.
If you can't get this from Scripture and from the Christian Faith, perhaps this may be of help from someone who did. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation.html gives us this:
Imitation of Christ
Author: Thomas à Kempis (c. 1380-1471)
Description: For five hundred years, this gentle book, filled with the spirit of the love of God, has brought understanding and comfort to millions of readers in over fifty languages, and provided them with a source of heart-felt personal prayer. These meditations on the life and teachings of Jesus, written in times even more troubled and dangerous than our own, have become second only to the Bible as a guide and inspiration.
The First Chapter
Imitating Christ and Despising All Vanities on Earth
HE WHO follows Me, walks not in darkness,” says the Lord (John 8:12). By these words of Christ we are advised to imitate His life and habits, if we wish to be truly enlightened and free from all blindness of heart. Let our chief effort, therefore, be to study the life of Jesus Christ.
The teaching of Christ is more excellent than all the advice of the saints, and he who has His spirit will find in it a hidden manna. Now, there are many who hear the Gospel often but care little for it because they have not the spirit of Christ. Yet whoever wishes to understand fully the words of Christ must try to pattern his whole life on that of Christ.
What good does it do to speak learnedly about 2 the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.
This is the greatest wisdom—to seek the kingdom of heaven through contempt of the world. It is vanity, therefore, to seek and trust in riches that perish. It is vanity also to court honor and to be puffed up with pride. It is vanity to follow the lusts of the body and to desire things for which severe punishment later must come. It is vanity to wish for long life and to care little about a well-spent life. It is vanity to be concerned with the present only and not to make provision for things to come. It is vanity to love what passes quickly and not to look ahead where eternal joy abides.
Often recall the proverb: “The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear filled with hearing.”11 Eccles. 1:8. Try, moreover, to turn your heart from the love of things visible and bring yourself to things invisible. For they who follow their own evil passions stain their consciences and lose the grace of God.
....
I think that Thomas a Kempis had eyes that see and ears that hear. I think that that is something that every Christian needs to ask themselves regularly. How is my own personal imitation of Christ? If you wish, you can download this wonderful book for free in plain text from this site.
Ping to post.
Mark, the Eastern (ransom) atonement doctrine is as old as the Church itself because it is in the New Testament (just look up ransom), and was the only atonement doctrine of the Church for a whole millennium. This ended in thre 11th centry with Anselm, who proposed a new doctrine which was closer to the Frankish-minded western Church mindset.
I just don't understand how can Eastern Catholic Churches be in communion with Rome when they teach the ancient ransom doctrine, like the Orthodox do, while the Latins preach Anselm's doctrine! It stretches the definition of "communion" of faith beyond its limits.
Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience
Jesus offers himself to death as ransom for our freedom. He does not become guilty of our sin. He simply dies for them, which is what makes his death the ultimate injustice. (How could God be satisfied with ultimate injustice!?!)
A perfectly Innocent man dies for the sins of the world, and is offered to death in our stead. Death accepts, it releases humanity and takes on God, but then realizes it can't hold God, and becomes powerless. It can no longer hold those who are released and who cleave to God. The aim is not to please an angry God by (killing himself) but the make death powerless.
I'll give it the ole college try in a vague sort of way:)
If the vast majority of the Church(Bishops, etc) is in agreement on issues of "faith and morals" for a period of a hundred years the Church cannot be in error.Thus , certain teachings are infallible even without being declared infallible.Generally speaking(not always) there is usually growing heretical groups that forces the hand of the Church to declare dogmatic teaching,thus shutting the door forever on the heresies effecting the flock and gaining momentum again.
The deutercanonical books is an example of "vast majority agreement" through the centuries,thus is divinely revealed to the Church through Christ without error
This does not pertain to issues like limbo etc.. where there was NEVER vast agreement through centuries.
There are some very good things that came out of Vatican II even though many have trouble with it.
This is one of them from Dei Verbum
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2revel.htm
This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).
9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.
I Agree!IT is a must for every Christian-I treasure it and bring my book to Adoration almost always
If one were searching for truth, your post was certainly a blank.
.
Read the excerpt again. It does not go to the extent that Anselm proposed.
Jesus offers himself to death as ransom for our freedom. He does not become guilty of our sin. He simply dies for them, which is what makes his death the ultimate injustice. (How could God be satisfied with ultimate injustice!?!)
A perfectly Innocent man dies for the sins of the world, and is offered to death in our stead. Death accepts, it releases humanity and takes on God, but then realizes it can't hold God, and becomes powerless. It can no longer hold those who are released and who cleave to God. The aim is not to please an angry God by (killing himself) but the make death powerless.
True, the Catechism does not emphasize the powerlessness of death, yet, other than that from this excerpt, what is it missing? Emphasis? Just because it is missing here does not mean that it is missing in its entirety, or in other words. The Orthodox emphasize the powerlessness of death. The Catechism talks about the 'ladder of the cross' and the restoration of man to communion with God. I think that we talking two sides of the same coin - the two sides' meaning may be shaded, but I don't believe that the overall meaning is sufficiently different to cleave the Church.
The Latins have never said that Jesus became guilty of anything. The Catechism is very clear. In 603, it says that He did not experience reprobation as if He Himself had sinned. You may wish to head online and take a peek at it. I use the USCCB site; the Vatican has a good one, and so does the St Charles Borromeo site.
Ah, my friend, you surpass me. I must admit that my own imitation of Christ is not quite as successful as a paramecium imitating a human being.
“”It does not go to the extent that Anselm proposed.””
That is correct ,Mark..
The late theologian Fr William Most explained the church teaching on this wonderfully...
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=160
“The old theory of St. Anselm on the redemption unfortunately said God had to provide satisfaction for sin. Of course not! God does not have to do anything. Further, Anselm focused on the justice of God. Now that is not wrong, but the more basic consideration is His holiness, put in first place by the text of Paul VI. For if we center our thought on justice, some objectors may say: “When someone offends me, I do not always demand full justice. Why cannot God just be nice about it?” The answer is, that even though He could do that way, His love of what is objectively right urges Him to provide that rebalance.
So Paul VI continues:”For every sin brings with it a disturbance of the universal order, which God arranged in unspeakable wisdom and infinite love.” In other words, God being Holiness itself, loves everything that is right. This was a striking idea when it first broke on the world. For the gods of Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome were not just immoral but amoral - they acted as if there were no morality at all. But Psalm 11:7 told the world: “God is sadiq [morally righteous] and He loves the things that are morally right.” Hence the notion that sin is a debt which the Holiness of God wants paid.
Against this background Paul VI continued (p. 7): “Therefore it is necessary for the full remission and reparation of sins... not only that by a sincere conversion of mind friendship with God be restored, and that the offenses against His wisdom and goodness be expiated, but also that all the goods, both personal and social, which pertain to the universal order itself, which were diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully restored, either through voluntary reparation... or through enduring penalties established by the just and most holy Wisdom of God.”
I feel the same way about myself
Ah, my friend, you surpass me
No, I don't surpass anyone-now I'm going to have to find that hair shirt again:0)
With thanks to Weird Al's Amish Paradise:
Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art
If you haven't watched the video, you're missing something, my friend.
Here is what The Church taught before +Anselm and his notions took over in the West. It is still to this day what The Church in the East teaches. Virtually every Orthodox Christian, from childhood, knows these words. We have known them for over 1700 years. We know them so well, they are so much a part of us, that we shout out verses of this sermon as the priest proclaims it after midnight on Pascha.
“Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.
He destroyed Hades when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
“You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below.”
Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?
Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!”
No Dagonesque divine monster whose wrath has been slaked by innocent blood is venerated here! Not by the Orthodox! From the oldest to the youngest, we proclaim God’s Victory!
Love it!
Perhaps we complicate things more than we should,dear brother
“Neither does grace. Supposedly, Paul would have you believe that somehow you are no longer a slave to sin, but sanctified (1 Cor 6:11),...”
What was a slave in Paul's day? Someone who was entirely under the control and authority of a master. Christians were no longer under that rule of their passions and whims so John makes a distinction between the practice of sin (1 John 3:4-9) as does Paul of the voluntary choice to sin (Heb. 10:26) and the sin due to simply being an imperfect human.
Paul uses a form of the word “hagiazo”, to sanctify, to make holy by setting aside for use connected with God. (1 Cor. 6:11)
Such were the Levite priests and particularly the High Priest sanctified or holy though there is no idea of them not sinning, in fact they had to offer sacrifices for their own sins. Christians too are set aside for a holy purpose by God's word. (John 17:16-19)
“No one before Paul came out with the idea that the Law condemns you. How can it condemn if it restores your soul?!? How can it be something bad when ti was given to God's own people, when ti was written by God to be observed forever?!?!?!”
Nay, not so. In Deuteronomy 9:4-6 God reminds the Israelites that is was not on account of their righteousness that He was driving the nations from the promised land but the because of the wickedness of those nations. If fact, in vs. 14 God says He will wipe out the Israelites and make Moses descendants into an even mightier and more populous nation than they.
Furthermore Deut. 11:26-32 shows they were to keep all the Law to avoid the malediction and receive the blessing, something none were able to do as evidenced by the need to make sacrifices for their sins.
And as James said,
“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
“How can it be something bad when ti was given to God's own people, when ti was written by God to be observed forever?!?!?!”
No one said the Law was bad, it was perfect and being perfect an imperfect people could not keep it perfectly, so it highlighted their sins by demanding sacrifices.
And if to be “observed forever” then observed by whom? If the Law covenant was fulfilled by Christ (Matt. 5:17) and as Jeremiah 31:31-34 records, God would conclude a new covenant with his people since they had broken the old one, how could that Law be observed “forever”?
James comment about breaking even the smallest point of the Law was to break all echoes Jesus’ words at Matt. 5:19 and goes on to show how one really could keep that Law, ending with,
“You must accordingly be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“Jesus never says about the law what Paul says about the Law. No Jew would say what Paul said about the Law. There is nothing more sacred and holy in the Keisha mind than the God;s own Law!”
What Paul preached he received from Jesus as did the other apostles.(Acts 9:15)
As to what Jews or someone else would say...well, I, unlike yourself, am not blessed with the ability to know what others would or would not say.
Certainly, it is a different focus; yet I would say that the focus is different; the Catechism does not go to the extent that Anselm proposed. Does that make it incompatible, or simply a different side of the coin? The legalistic side, as the Orthodox sometimes say?
“Does that make it incompatible, or simply a different side of the coin?”
My Metropolitan once said that the Latin Church is the Church of the Passion while the Orthodox Church is the Church of the Resurrection. Incompatible? Probably not. Different sides of the same coin, definitely not. There is a great chasm between the world views of our Churches which is not easy to bridge.
Hmm, I'm going to have to consider this. Never heard it put that way before. Does that make either wrong? Or just the emphasis on different things? Perhaps the (possibly) united Church might be modeled by a Venn diagram...
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.