that horse is dead.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.
For those who claim to know all there is to know about Catholic teaching, the distinction between opinion and dogma is often overlooked. The emphasized words are important.
Interesting. You have no problem believing hearsay about those Baptists
that horse is dead. No it's not... it's resting.
I think that the, so to speak 'resolving trend' over time is that the idea of ONE Church and of its identity as body and bride of Christ purges Unam Sanctam of the sense that if one hasn't done homage to the pontiff one will become a crispy critter.
The OT is Gods revelation to the Jews.. It was never given to the church. It remains under the authority of the jewish people
The NT is Gods revelation to the church..
Rom 3:1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Exactly, Jesus confirmed that canon, and even today it remains Gods revelation to the jews..
Well, that was painful. Not much for conversation but very suited to expressing and effecting malice.
It's interesting, de Montfort and Mary are a big part of my 'spirituality' and yet I never, ever entertain the idea that in any radical sense Mary controls Jesus.
Your side seems to despise de Montfort and, well, indicates how some people cannot be understood unless they are loved.
I guess I need to love you all more, because I do not understand the seeming need to taunt, jab, poke, stab, and hurl mud.
I know many on my side, myself included, fail to exhibit love in our posts. An important difference is that, I THINK, we don't enjoy it. Many on your side seem unable to resist the urge to say something hurtful.
Oh well. I do not recognize myself in your description of Catholic devotion to Jesus. I have a devotion to the infant Jesus, but it is not exclusive or predominant in my prayers and thoughts.
Well that's good, but you did express a willingness to believe the above little baptist anecdote. It reminds me kind of the accusation that Jews ate litttle babies that was once made in Europe. I would never eat little babies except maybe in a Jonathan Swift sort of way
It is good to post the quotes in context....from your source
v • d • e Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the 24 books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. A popular former theory is that the Torah was canonized circa 400 BCE, the Prophets circa 200 BCE, and the Writings circa 100 CE,[1] perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia, but this position is increasingly rejected by modern scholars.
The Book of Deuteronomy includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting,[2][3] which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a "closed book," a prohibition against future scribal editing) or to the instruction received by Moses on Mt. Sinai.[4]
The Book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah (around 400 BCE) as having "founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings" (2:13-15). The Book of Nehemiah suggests that the priest-scribe Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple (8-9) around the same time period. Both 1 and 2 Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus (around 167 BCE) also collected sacred books (3:42-50, 2:13-15, 15:6-9), and some scholars argue that the "Jewish biblical canon" was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty.[5] However, these primary sources do not suggest that the canon was at that time closed; moreover, it is not clear that these particular books were identical in content to those that later became part of the Masoretic text. Today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set.
Primary sources for the "Hebrew Bible Canon" are listed in McDonald and Sanders's The Canon Debate, 2002, Appendix A.[6]
In other words Scripture tells us when there was a canon.. but scholars are disagreeing on it
I have learned the hard way that old age and senility do not work as excuses. :-)
Just got back from shopping and have a lot of cooking to do.
I Just wanted to let you know I saw the post and will get back to it later.
Is everything in the Bible inspired or not? It seems the statement "In him we live and move and have our being" would qualify as a spiritual revelation. And it seems that the author of Acts would find it worthy of being included among other inspired words. Or are you saying that parts of the Bible (which you hold to be the word of God) are profane?
Hideously disgusting.
I'm not seeing that in what you quote -- I see references to holy books (not listed) but no indication that the OT Jews even had a notion of canonicity in the required sense.
Mary's is nothing but creature, albeit redeemed. She is forever subordinate. She is "one of us" in a way different from the way Jesus is united to us, because while Jesus is the pioneer and perfecter, the first fruits of creation, He is also the Word by Whom all things were made. Mary, on the other hand, is one of the creatures, and she is foremost among recipients of grace - first of the second fruits.
So that can almost explain the light-hearted extravagance of praise heaped upon her. I think the undeserved reputation some non-Catholics have for gloominess is here deserved. They do not seem to be able to understand, accept, or enjoy the almost playful aspect of Marian language and devotion.
Look. A Sundae is a Sundae with or without a cherry on top. The cherry adds nothing to the way a Sundae can fill you up and make you "delight yourself in fatness." Jesus is my Sundae. By HIS extravagance, by the shaken down, pressed together, running over nature of His grace, He puts a cherry on top.
How ridiculous the cherry would be without the Sundae, underneath it. How even more than perfectly wonderful the whole thing is!
And despite the obvious pleasure your side takes in insulting her whom we love and us for loving her, I will still delight in the extravagance of the Love of God, who always gives more than we can desire or deserve and greater than we can imagine or pray for.
Matthew 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
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.