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.
enough not booze is world in this make to of thread sense There.
All those Catholic texts which insist that while one's conscience may be ill-formed and therefore a bad guide, it is ALWAYS a sin not to follow ones' conscience, I guess they were all the work of spies.
Oh my gracious. That's just embarrassing.
If it's not too personal, I'm guessing you weren't an art history major.
How is that not playing both sides against the middle?
(Are we done with the poorly catechized thing and with imputing to the minds of others things that we GUESS were there, but only KNOW to have been in our own minds?)
To all your questions about what's in the Bible I say yes. However they neglect other parts of the Bible and include one conclusion not necessarily implied by Scripture.
But if you think Augustine is denying the fallen nature of mankind, you are mistaken.
As the link explains...
Underlying this work is a consistent Christian optimism based on the sovereignty of God and an understanding of the radical dependency of evil upon the good that it perverts. Evil, writes Augustine, is finally a hopeless parasite: It does not exist in its own right, but only as a corruption of something good. He repeatedly claims that the vices of human life are “nothing but privations of natural good.” In fact, as long as something is in the process of being corrupted, we can be confident that it still has some good “of which it is being deprived.” Consequently, if corruption were complete in destroying all that is good in something, that thing and the corruption itself would disappear. So evil cannot last. In short, “nothing can be evil except something which is good,” in spite of the fact that good and evil are genuine contraries.
Are you understanding that? Augustine is saying that men were created good, and that evil, the result of the fall of Adam, corrupts all men. And yet, even that corruption is under the control of the sovereign God who has promised to return men to that original good by the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
In The Enchiridion, Augustine fully embraces the logical implications of his concept of evil: he asserts that even the life and vital power of wicked angels and wicked people depend on the continuing gifts of God. Obviously, he says, God’s purpose is to bring some great good out of evil; otherwise, he would not bother to sustain evil beings. In fact, God must think it is actually “better to bring good out of evil, than not to permit any evil to exist.” After all, the end result of redemption will be greater than the original creation, for in the next life we will have a “more perfect immortality” free, finally, from the very desire for sin. So by God’s sovereign grace, he concludes, our future is even better than our pristine beginning. The paradox Augustine develops here is the venerable doctrine of Creation and Fall that so defines our lives. The creation is good, and our sovereign God continues to sustain and control it well. Actually, only because God’s creatures are good can sin corrupt and pervert them. This Augustinian claim makes sin especially reprehensible—for it is the corruption of God’s very handiwork—while it makes redemption all the more believable—for God remains sovereign. By God’s grace, we can seek what is good as the satisfaction of our real present needs, and as the restoration of our ultimate human “health.”
LOL
Yes. He kissed the Koran. It's called manners. He knew the history of Islam.
Of course, PapaBenXIV was quoting in the statement you guys attribute to him. Fine. Whatever.
What Greek word, and who says it implies presence? You're disagreeing with the translators of the KJV?
Paul did not become Christ. The whole passage is concerning church discipline and of which Christ is the head of the church. Paul considered himself as acting under the authority of Christ, not being Christ.
Duh. Not unlike an agent or ambassador, or an "attorney." In fact entirely like an Apostle.
It is only your side which takes the phrase in persona Christi and assumes that it means anything other than what you just said.
Paul was not the head of the church.
Neither is the celebrant at the Mass or any priest, who is said to act "in persona Christi" just as Paul said, though some here must be outraged to learn of this, and who does not consider himself the head of the Church.
It used to be that there were some Protestants here not obsessed with cheap shots and bogus victories. I wonder where they went.
Protestants also acknowledge there was a purpose for the early councils which was to formulate doctrine and hold back heresy. Sometimes the councils succeeded and sometimes they didn't.
As the Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us...
IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4]
And you'll have to provide verification for that supposed prayer by Augustine regarding Mary for anyone to believe it wasn't spawned by Rome's wishful thinking.
LOL
We are offering resident-word-smith awards :-)
Reminds me—I miss Between-the-Lines, who hasn’t posted in a very long time
Ping
Then I think we have to admit that the word can mean person or SUGGEST presence because a prior meaning is face, or mask.
So it COULD mean, in Christ's presence, since that's one meaning of "before the face of Christ" (Though I'm not confident about 'εν' meaning "before.)
But is AT LEAST AS LIKELY that it suggest "in Christ's stead" because one of the vibes to people for whom both words (persona and προσωπον) were everyday words was "mask". I do this In Christ's mask -- that is, standing in for Him.
I like this because it gives a visual parallel to the concept of apostle -- an agent with full discretion, by whose determinations the one he represents commits himself to be bound.1000 silverings, you may think I am being tendentious, but I had done this work, and with an ache in the pit of my stomach, had found that the Catholic Church was MORE in tune with what the Bible said than those who experience knotted knickers because of "in persona Christi."
My experience was the deeper I went into the Bible, the closer I came to the Catholic Church.
It was AFTER these discoveries that I swam the Tiber. I didn't swim and then find, I found and then swam.
God did not pause at Adam and eve and than create everyone else differently or God can be moved from perfection.Thus God would lack perfection from eternity
That means that men by free will become evil since God from created all things good,thus putting an end to Calvin's theory of God predestining people to hell and man having no free will.
Check mate !... end of story!
Augustine would despise calvin and calvinism on Eucharist alone!
LOL
That would be an awesome Disney satire.
Legatus — unmasked as Yoda’s sock-puppet!
εν προσςπς
should be
εν προσωπων. I don't know why they make the 'v' be an omega and the 'w' be a terminal sigma but I goof a lot.
They went to LOURDES!
Or then again maybe it was Fatima...
Anyhow I saw them go, they loaded up in a big bus and drove right off the pier into the Atlantic.
Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Salvation is not in error since you can most likely come back
LOL. So what "just penalty" do you desire for those who have shaken the dust of Rome off their feet?
Will the RCC send them to bed with no supper? Burn them at the stake? Or maybe the RCC thinks it will withhold its sacrilegious sacraments from them. Which would proves once again that "all things work for the good of those who are the called according to His purpose" since God would then be restraining them from partaking in the idolatry of the eucharistic mass and assorted other inventions of Rome.
Salvation was wrong. Ex-Roman Catholics are not still Roman Catholic. Many are, by the grace of God alone, now Bible-believing Christians.
No icons without nametags!
LOL!
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.