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.
REQUIRES?
Scripture says Christ is touched with the feelings of our infirmaties.
Was that thrown out of the Vatican rubber ‘Bible?’
I don’t have God in a box.
He never fit any of the boxes I tried to cram Him in.
I offer the info. Folks have to discern and make up their own minds before God.
Which makes sense because I've been thinking of Protestants as Christian Samaritans for some time. It's the only way I can reconcile it all without pretending they don't exist, which would be crazy...
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
I wish I could count the times you and other Catholics have demanded that if it ain't in the catechism, it ain't Catholic teaching...YOu guys do more flip flopping than a Mexican jumping bean...
Please note that there is a difference between what some Catholics say the Catechism of the Catholic church says and what the church in reality teaches.
One of the problems with the catechism, even the one found on vatican.va, is that you can find two contradictory comments. So, no matter what a non-Catholic says the official doctrine of the Catholic church teaches with cites from the Catechism itself, someone can come along and tell them they’re wrong, as we’re seeing right now and we’ve seen in the past.
The Catholic church has made religion too complicated.
I'm not making a doctrine from silence, I'm pointing out that the Catechism says that the birth of water and Spirit is necessary for salvation AND that Baptism brings this. The Church clearly recognizes that salvation can occur without traditional baptism as evidenced by the Holy Innocents.
The church clearly teaches that baptism is a necessity for salvation, which is why infants are baptized..
Again, the Church clearly teaches that birth of water and Spirit is necessary for salvation (this comes directly from the Gospel of John) AND the Church teaches that this birth IS brought about by Baptism. If the Catechism had said that the birth is ONLY brought about by Baptism it would be a different story, but it doesn't say that.
I grant that it was 7 or 8 years ago but it does stand out pretty clearly in my memory. That and the local preacher who was teaching adoptionism and that Christians would be adopted in the same way. So there was a lot of weirdness that I was combating.
Christ let the prostitute comfort and anoint him for burial.
I don’t see anything about Jesse comforting Christ that takes away from Christ’s deity or majesty at all.
I’d be sobered at masses of people refusing my salvation and going to hell needlessly, too.
I realize there’s tons of mystery and incomprehensible ‘excluded middle’ philosophical stuff we could boggle at.
I just try and take things at face value unless there’s serious UNBIBLICAL aspects obviously preventing that.
LOL..you are giving the predominate Catholic view of Protestantism, not the average view of Calvinist to their Arminian brethren
Most Calvinists were Arminians BEFORE they became Calvinists.. They became Calvinists because of their study..
I was saved as a Wesleyan, I am saved as a Calvinist... salvation is all of God not doctrine .
It is presumptuous for a catholic to speak for MANY Calvinists.
Catholics theologians debate the church fathers, and liberal Catholicism, and the traditions such as the way mass or communion should be done
Protestants debate scripture and doctrine..
true — that’s why the left first picked off the smaller groups — the ECUSA, ELCA,PCUSA, Methodists and now they want to hit the Mother Church. We won’t let them — let’s fight for kicking out the pinkos from the ELCA. The battle ends there on Lutheran turf — being “Lutheran” should not become “oh, you belong to that gay church”, like what’s happened to the Episcopalians.
Sure, sure, sure...We realize that you guys claim that a baptism of 'desire' is also acceptable...OR that a person would have intentions of getting baptized but failed to live long enough to get it...
It's still a matter of choice...A baby doesn't make a choice...Therefore, the baby baptism in itself is meaningless...
Sure, sure, sure...We realize that you guys claim that a baptism of 'desire' is also acceptable...OR that a person would have intentions of getting baptized but failed to live long enough to get it...
It's still a matter of choice...A baby doesn't make a choice...Therefore, the baby baptism in itself is meaningless...
That would have been a baptism BY BLOOD.. and covered by Catholic doctrine..
Why do Catholic priests baptize still born children or dead infants?? Because it assures heaven in Catholic doctrine... other wise, those infants might be in hell correct? Those children, born in sin might be subject to the JUSTICE of God correct?
It is kind of funny actually..Limbo was taught to comfort people as to the fate of the infants and unborn that die without baptism... As a Calvinist I believe that God is indeed merciful but I cling to the scripture 'Shall Not The Judge Of All The Earth Do Right?' because not one of us know the mind of God in this
Where does it say we are bound by the sacraments?
The holy mountain is considered the Temple. They also have a "holy rock" on it where they pray. Their schism with the exiled Jews goes back to the 5th century BC. If a Samaritan wants to "become" a Jew, he must renounce his belief in the holiness of Mt. Gerizim.
This fact makes John 4:20 a lot clearer. The Samartian woman tells Jesus:
Judaism treats Samartians as Jews where their beliefs and practcies coincide with thsoe of mainstream Judaism.
On the contrary, I am just reading what Calvinists were writing on the other thread, the words satanic and blasphemy were used multiple times. Did I miss the portion of that thread were Calvinists were admonishing the poster for what he wrote?
Most Calvinists were Arminians BEFORE they became Calvinists.. They became Calvinists because of their study..
Do you have anything to substantiate the claim of most or is it just many that you know?
I was saved as a Wesleyan, I am saved as a Calvinist... salvation is all of God not doctrine.
Do you believe that what you believed as a Wesleyan was satanic?
It is presumptuous for a Catholic to speak for MANY Calvinists.
Turnabout is fair play.
Catholics theologians debate the church fathers, and liberal Catholicism, and the traditions such as the way mass or communion should be done
Protestants debate scripture and doctrine..
Are you saying that what Catholics debate IS NOT Scripture and doctrine?
Of course there isn't, but every Papal Declaration can be judged against the criteria necessary for it to be deemed infallible. When this is done there has been only one instance; in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, had proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary an ex cathedra dogma in December 1854.
===========================================================
Interestingly, you said there was only one and listed two. Did you miss some others?
Catechism Of The Catholic Church
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
ORDINATIO SACERDATOLIS
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
Infallible? Why or why not?
=================================================================
UNAM SANCTAM
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Infallible? Why or why not?
==========================================================
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
You have already declared this to be Infallible so my only question would be why?
=========================================================
What is the distinguishing characteristics between the three (and there are more) I have listed which would determine the infallibility of either or all?
Excerpting scripture may be OK within your church but the Catechism cannot be read or understood outside the context of the entire work. You simply have no basis for authoratative statements regarding a subject about which you display so much ignorance. It says considerably more on the subject, much of which has been detailed within this thread. You are entitled to your own opinion about what it means, but not your own facts about what it actually says.
By “bound” by I mean we have to follow the rules God set for us... HE does not.
We have to obey the law of gravity, He doesn’t.
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.