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.
No, it every man's fault because every man's first father, Adam, sinned and in doing so, corrupted the nature of all his progeny. You and me.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" -- Romans 5:12
Why do you assume He didn't give it in abundance?
Right. If the horse doesn't drink we didn't give it enough water.
Either that or he has free will.
Get it?
That man doesn't have free will? How do you "get" something that you can see is false a hundred times a day?
Why did it take "much less" for God "to get your attention" than it did for God to get Paul's attention?
Why wasn't I thrown from a horse and blinded?.. I'm guessing because I'm not St. Paul and all that infers? I'm not drawing any relative merit from it one way or the other. It takes what it takes. Why do you think?
Now, if I follow your point here, it's important to you what it takes - and it must have taken more than being struck blind for you, in order for your sense of measure to be satisfied. So, please describe your experience for illustration.
No, as the Heidelberg Catechism reminds us, “The purpose of man is to glory God and enjoy Him forever.”
Do you ever think of your brother and sister that he condemned to eternal hell in the womb? Do you have compassion for them? They were in no pertinent way the slightest bit different from you?
How do you enjoy being with someone who could do that? Do you just block it out? Or do you tell yourself: they deserved it, I'm special?
It's Adam's fault then. But, who created Adam?
Whew, it's still not my fault if I sin, it's all God.
All things are under the control of the Creator. That's GOOD NEWS. That means Satan can tempt us, but he can never hurt us because Christ has told us He has overcome the world and the prince of this world. Satan has no power over the believer because we have the Holy Spirit, the Comforter who will guide and protect us.
The "deceived and the deceiver are His."
Once again we see evidence of Rome abandoning the orthodox Christian doctrine of original sin.
Pity.
Then show me where Unum Sanctum survived Vatican II.
Original or inherited sin is as far from double predestination as a just and loving God is from an unjust and hateful one.
I disagee. Using the criterion of this list, namely that if the "author does not mention the book at all," it "implies its rejection." From this, one would conclude that St. Ignatius (c. AD105) rejected half the of the Gospels and more than one half of Paul. He quotes only from Matthew and Luke, from five of Paul's thirteen Epistles!
St. Polycarp (d. AD155) does not quote from the Gospel of John, and only quotes from 10 Pauline Epistles. He also quotes form the book of Hebrews, I Peter, I John, and III John. Does that mean he rejected James, Philemon, Jude, the book of Revelation? Not really.
Perhaps he quoted form them but those manuscripts are lost. So, argument form absence is not valid. The only way we can know if someone rejected a specific book is if he says so outright.
Justin Martyr (c. AD150), for example quotes only from the four Gospels and the book of Revelation as far as we know. That doesn't mean he rejects the rest of the New Testament.
St. Irenaeus (end of 2nd century) quotes form all the NT books except Philemon, II Peter, III John, and Jude. He specifically states that I Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas (but not the Epistle of Barnabas) "of value."
However, he specifically condemns the Gnostic Gospel of Truth (Irenaues, Adversus Hæreses. 3.11.9).
Clement of Alexandria (contemporary of Irenaeus), quotes form all NT books but Philemon, James, II Peter, II John, and III John. However, he considered the following "of value:" Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Traditions of Matthias, Preaching of Peter, I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter.
Tertullian (AD155-220) leaves out only II Peter, James, II John, and III John of his canon, mentions Epistle of Barnabas as "of value" and condemns the whole book Acts of Paul as heretical (because it allowed women to baptize and teach!):
As for those (women) who [appeal to] the falsely written Acts of Paul [in order to] defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul, was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul (De Baptismo 17).
Origen (AD185-253/4) is already mentioned in your list but it doesn't mention that he considered the Gospel of Peter. the Gospel of Hebrews, Acts of Paul (which Tertullian rejected as heretical), I Clement, Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas, not only "of value" but actually divinely inspired; but he rejects (as unauthentic) The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the twelve, The Gospel of Basilides, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of Matthias, and Preaching of Peter.
The two highlighted in maroon are the same ones Clement of Alexandria considered "of value" in his church.
The Ethiopian Church considers (to this day) the Book of Enoch as divinely inspired.
Didymus the Blind (AD 313-398) only leaves out Philemon and III John form the NT, and lists I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache and Shepherd of Hermas as being "of value."
The Peshitta (Syriac translation of the Bible c. AD400) leaves out II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John.
It is clear, therefore, that various churches had different canons and books of value (which can only mean "for doctrine"), the way the Catholic Church draws the perpetual virginity of Mary from the non-canonical Protoevangelium of James, a 2nd century Infancy work. It is also clear that some have had a number of Gnostic works which they treated either as divinely inspired (Origen) or of value (Clement of Alexandria). It is therefore clear that churches differed theologically and doctrinally based on the differences in their individual canon, just as modern Churches do (i.e. those with and those with the so-called "Apocrypha").
It is also well documented that many churches read the Book of Enoch, which was immensely popular in the pre-Nicene Church, and that it was not without influence in the Christian psyche.
St. Igantius states that where the catholic church is where the bishop is. The bishop determined what is to be read and what was not to be read. The bishop determined the canon of his church, not the congregation. neither were there sufficient number of copies available nor was there sufficient literacy and education for the congregation to read and understand scriptures, especially among non-Greek speaking converts.
Therefore canonization did not take place "smoothly" as you seem to imply but rather after some 350 years of "doctrinal development" and struggle, amid rampant heterodoxy.
Yep, once again. All sin is at God’s door.
All God or All Man is the Calvinist dichotomy. You made your bed, you have to lie in it.
Ping
I assume you believe God sends men to hell. Do you think He's unjust? Cruel?
do you tell yourself: they deserved it, I'm special?
No, you're defining the Romanist and the Arminian who presume their good works have gotten them into heaven, and that somehow they are more pious, more intelligent than the guy next door who doesn't believe.
Perhaps God didn't have to nudge them like He did Paul. They must have been paying closer attention than Paul. Like you said you were.
The Calvinist realizes that ALL MEN are equally fallen. Equally deserving of condemnation.
Why He chooses some to save and some to leave in their sins is not ours to know. But that ignorance does not negate the fact that this is what the Bible tells us occurs.
Read your Bible.
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
No wonder RC apologists hate Paul so ferociously these days. Paul contradicts their errors time and again.
Here’s Calvinist logic on the issue:
Man sins.
If God did not want sin and did not want man to sin, sin would not exist and man would not sin.
Therefore God wants sin and wants man to sin.
We trust the words of the FATHERS ,not INDIVIDUAL Church father when they are not in agreement with the consensus patrum or magisterium.
The key words are "Church Fathers"-meaning UNITED fathers,NOT INDIVIDUAL FATHER UN UNITED
So, your assessment is wrong that we don't trust the Church Fathers conveniently . We do trust them when they are united and don't trust them when they are not united with the teachings of the Church
Your snickering dog act shows weakness and lack of humility.
You ought to consider that strength comes from being humble, not from being silly and condescending in your snickering dog act for attention
You confuse quoting a book with listing it. If someone lists the books approved for reading as scripture in the church, then not being on the list IS a rejection of its authority.
And the Reformers rejected the Apocrypha as scripture, but still said it was ‘of value’ for public reading. I consider CS Lewis to be ‘of value’, but not scripture.
So on a list of scripture, being called ‘of value’ or not mentioned is the same as rejection as scripture.
Post 4757 was in response to a comment about priests being married.
What I’m looking for is somewhere where someone may have thought I said that married priests were not allowed in the Catholic church. That wasn’t what the question was.
The question was.....”So, all the priests can now go out and get married? And priests entering the priesthood can get married and do not have to take a vow of celibacy?”
The question is dealing with whether or not the Catholic church allows priests to marry. It doesn’t, which is not the same thing as allowing, under certain extenuating circumstances, married men to become priests.
FWIW, one of the priests I know who left the priesthood to become married because the Catholic church would not permit him to marry as a priest, is a relative of mine.
If you can find where I ever said that the Catholic church never permitted married priests, be my guest. Show me the post.
Are you denying that the Catholic church requires a celibate priesthood?
Since they are equally deserving, my goodness they haven't even been born yet, we know it has nothing to do with justice, nothing to do with anything they did or wanted or thought - they're condemned to hell before any of this is possible.
God is neither cruel nor unjust.
You just described why he is in Calvinism.
That may be you but the world is not made according to you. I have to go by what the Christian world did and history doesn't support your claim.
Origen taught universal salvation and pre-existence of the souls, among other things, from his library of Gnostic books (obviously his collection of the NT did not prevent him from considering Gnostic books inspired).
The other historical example is the fact that RCC does not consider Protoevnagelium as scripture, yet derives dogmatic teaching regarding Mary's perpetual virginity from it, etc.
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.