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.
As I said, google pulls up a variety of numbers.
This WikiAnswers gives two estimates -- "986 million" and "over one billion."
One important reason why the numbers are all over the map is because Rome inflates the numbers of its members by including all those millions of men and women who have fled Rome for a faith founded on Scripture. While they are no longer Roman Catholics, Rome still counts them in their inaccurate tallies.
It is generally understood that omniscience is required to know for a certainty the truth of what is in another person's heart.
So not only have you broken the rules by falsely saying I believe myself to be "omniscient," but you now imply I think I know your heart.
However, the hearts of Roman Catholics are murky, at best. Their posts are so filled with Mary and their own good works that there seems to be little room left over for Christ. Therefore I wouldn't presume to know their hearts. We can only hope they do not mirror their posts.
Well put.
It seems to me, that
at a MINIMUM
the change
ought to be TANGIBLE.
And THAT all the more so, given that they are ranting and emphasizing EXTREMELY TO THE MAX
A TANGIBLE SORT OF PRESENCE.
IF it’s NOT TANGIBLE,
Then it ends up, it seems to me, being FUNCTIONALLY SYMBOLIC
. . . WHICH IS THE PRODDY PERSPECTIVE.
Sounds like the
2nd STATION OF THE STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY YET AGAIN:
2. THE BLACK/WHITE ICON OF DUPLICITY, THE DOUBLE STANDARD DOOFUS FLIP-FLOP DANCE
I see you doing that not only on FR but in REAL TIME too, you won’t stand for prissy anything ever anywhere, that’s who you are.
For some reason, that sentence hit me with new weight this time around.
THX THX for understanding and perceiving so accurately.
The accusation that I was poorly catechized, along with plenty of other former Catholics, is quite widespread. If you are complaining about being attacked for saying that, cannot the constant accusations be construed as an attack as well?
To the extent that I am complaining it is about the manner of the attack.
As I said, if YOU adduce your catechesis, your Catholic experience and education to lend authority to the accuracy of your claims, then it seems you have made it a part of the argument.
Then I may argue against it, and others may argue against my arguments.
But if the sum of those last arguments is that it is beneath me to make my arguments and somehow outrageous for me to do so, then I think that is illegitimate because you brought it up.
You say:
Catechism deals primarily church doctrine, not church history.
Stipulate that, (though I'd say that is one sense, and a limited one, of the term catechesis.) Then it is the responsibility of the one claiming his catechesis as authority for his remarks to confine himself to the area of his catechesis and to know those limits.
How you can say "the church has been so adamant about the celibacy of priests" in the face of so much evidence to the contrary escapes me. I would say the LATIN Church has held pretty firm, (though not with adamantine, or diamond-like, hardness), but in our lifetimes (and longer, and in other rites) exceptions have been made. I certainly understand one's carelessly forming the impression that the Church in every case prohibits married priests, but that opinion simply cannot claim GOOD catechesis as its authority. And if the claim is made, it is legitimately attacked. it's not YOUR fault your teaching was not good. It's not an attack on YOU until you claim authority for your teaching (and even then, it's an attack on the claim, not on your personally.)
You also said, disparagingly, that the Church does not permit religious brothers to be married. This is hard to understand. It is no more exigent than forbidding married people to be single. There are religious associations for married people. But one cannot want to be a monastic or a friar without wanting to be celibate, anymore than one can want to be married without that pesky spouse stuff. It's about the definition.
Moving on ...
You say:
It simply cannot be both ways. Either it is changed and verified by change in physical and chemical form, or it is symbolic as non-Catholics believe, representing a spiritual reality.
That is just a version of philosophy, which your side disparages as "vain wisdom of men." In the history of thought, leaving this question aside, to equate "real" with "physical" is a comparatively recent opinion, as is the equation of "substance" with "matter" or "material."
I have given many arguments to show that your side does not REALLY take so materialistic a view. TO repeat one: What is the physical and chemical change in a gold ring that makes it a wedding ring?
Or here's another: In books and movies, the bad guys say, "Pah! A treaty is just a piece of paper!" Well what physical and chemical difference is there between a "treaty" and "a bunch of ink on a piece of paper?"
Of course these are not conclusive, but even among people who are not Catholic, the idea that the what-it-is-ness of a thing can change without its physical properties changing is widely respected, even by those who do not agree with it.
So to assert one philosophical opinion as though it were unarguable no weight in itself. You can reasonably say, "I do not understand how it can be...." But to say "it simply cannot be ..." in the face of more than 2000 years of smart and good people holding (whether mistakenly or not) that it quite simply CAN be, takes the discussion nowhere.
You say:
Claiming that someone is poorly catechized seems to have turned into a catch all to every statement a former Catholic makes which FRoman Catholics disagree with. It's simply not true. Understanding of what Catholicism teaches is often the reason people leave the Catholic church.
That may be. It is certainly true that a true statement can be made falsely. We've seen lots of that lately in the conversation about 1st Amendment rights and the Ground Zero Mosque and the Koran burning threat. But the false use does not make the statement false any more than the Dear Leaders contradictory opinions about the 1st Amendment make it a bad amendment.
Also, I don't just say "So-and-so was poorly catechized," and stop. I usually go on to show in sometimes tedious detail how the proposition asserted is so clearly not true that only something like poor catechesis could explain it -- especially, as I say, when the person making the proposition cites his own Catholic experience as an argument that his opinion ABOUT what is actually the teaching of the Church is correct.
Of course. I have said so.
Can you?
On the contrary, it "essentially" calls them mistaken AND proposes an explanation for the error.
SOMEHOW,
I think I missed this post the first go around.
I loved this paragraph.
A substance is an instantiation of a idea. Substance is NOT the equivalent of “material” — at least not until the “enlightenment” when philosophy started getting incoherent.
BTW, I understood all that before you laid it out. My literary and classics exposure is not THAT deficient.
I was thinking that you must be talking of something mysteriously BEYOND that.
GUY MALONE’S PANELS OF HIGH QUALITY BIBLICAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, ANTHROPOLOGICAL, LINGUISTIC, PHILOSOPHICAL EXPERTS
TAKE 6-10 HOURS ON DVD’S TO OUTLINE THE BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR SUCH A PERSPECTIVE
BEGINNING
in Genesis 6.
I have no intereste in trying to make horses or mules drink.
I’ve pointed to the water trough for those seriously interested in THE TRUTH on the matter.
Don’t leave your day job.
I think many are starting to fantasize that they are employed in
THE MATRIX . . .
I originally wrote (with emphasis to highlight the misquotenessitude (as we scholastics say - ;-) ) )
"I remember so well it's almost as if He were with me again -- no, he IS with me!"
But you quoted (with pizzazz added for the same reason)
"I guess I can only respond that we have a very rich 'sense' of remembrance. "I remember so well it's almost as if He were with me again -- so, he IS with me!"
I am not arguing that "faith" or "belief" MAKES the Sacrament real or proves that it is real.
Your side has talked about "experience" or what might be called "sensible perception" as parts of our teaching (or inplications, or things that SHOULD be part, or something.) I was clarifying, not arguing. Aquinas (and repeatedly) clearly says that the manner of perception is by faith, NOT by something else. That's All is was doing.
As to the AV-aids (as I disrespectfully call them) we are talking about giving communion to several hundred folks. It takes time. So rather than just crying babies, we have three hymns during that period. Some I sing, some I don't. usually they are of the less bouncy variety of hymn so as not to disturb the private devotions (you know, vain repeptions, etc.) of those who want to, as you say, be still and know that he is God.
Thanks for this exchange. I hope it continues.
UNMITIGATED NONSENSE.
=====================
GIVEN the chronic and relentless convoluted swill spewed by the RC rabid cliques hereon,
PRODDYS ROUTINELY
"TAKE IT"
flick the gnats away and continue sipping lemonade by the pool.
BTW, ON OUR PLANET, IN EDUCATED SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY IN TRULY SPIRITUAL CIRCLES . . .
There's a well known truth and principle that
WHAT PEOPLE SAY
USUALLY DOES NOT MATCH UP WELL, IF AT ALL, WITH
WHAT THEY DO!
Proddys do not need binoculars nor microscopes to observe such in so many RC's. OF COURSE, we ALSO realize that the river in Rome is really NOT the Tiber but DENIAL.
Well, formally, of course it cain't be knowledge if it ain't so.
I think the falsehood is able to masquerade as knowledge because people are intellectually lazy, frankly, and gullible.
It is somehow so rewarding to disparage the Catholic Church. Scholars, academics, journalists of opinion, and so forth do so without batting an eye. And certainly sometimes we need a little disparaging.
It takes persistent discipline to more the number of times we advance as certainties what are in fact mere opinions. And the more we do that, the harder it is to remember, "Hey, I might want to check that."
Incidentally, today I am 'FEELING' like the Church is not on my side. Pancake breakfast! NOT health food!
=====
There's no accounting for taste nor ignorance, it seems.
I'm not responsible for the absolutely gross amount of ignorance on that topic amongst so many RC's hereon.
One would think that with Fatima being so obviously full of rather common UFO event features, that more RC's would be a LITTLE more aware. But Nooooooooooooooooooo! That would evidently be expecting too much fair-mindedness . . . or maybe too much mindedness of any kind.
nice.
I never said it did.
Tasting, and seeing do not cause the thing tasted or seen (or whatever.)
Troo dat! So inaccurate as to make me double-check anything else the person would say!
You seem to have harumphed over that, glossed over that, over glibly somehow . . . in spite of the REALISM 101 mini-lecture etc.
I don’t actually see that
THE SHEEPNESS issue/quality/state/reality
solves the REAL PRESENCE issue at all.
THAT ISSUE . . . even as well and masterfully, very eruditely, loftily laid out by you . . .
merely makes the weasel words more academically toned and lofty sounding.
There are not a lot of options, it seems to me.
EITHER the bread and wine are symbolic
OR
they are literal.
Slicing and dicing the uhhhhhh “REALITIES”
with Greek loftiness doesn’t seem to me to change a thing.
It merely sounds like the RC position is to say—standing on the Greeks, therefore, that,
THE REAL PRESENCE IS LITERAL
EXCEPT WHEN IT’S NOT—WHICH IS—
ANY TIME IT’S TASTED, TOUCHED, SMELLED OR ANALYZED
—WHICH PRETTY MUCH DOES AWAY WITH ANY COMMON NOTIONS OF . . .
DRUM ROLL . . .
LITERAL!
I'm beyond doctorate level in folly. I got a fellowship!
“However, the hearts of Roman Catholics are murky at best.”
There is no practical, factual reason for this comment.
“Their posts are so filled with Mary and their own good works that there seems to be little room left over for Christ. “
Simply a blanket, one-size-fits-all, “drive-by” comment that is not true.
“Therefore I wouldn’t presume to know their hearts.”
You just said their hearts are murky.
“We can only hope they do not mirror their posts.”
It’s reasonable to think that one would have that hope about other posters on this forum.
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.