Ignore the
JERK!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.
Joe (jo kus)is a friend. He got sick of the "same ole" "same ole" on FR and stays mostly on christianforums.net.
I'll send him an email if you would like him to comment?
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." -- Matthew 6:5-8 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
A subjective feeling of the presence of God is worse than useless as a measure of anything. If we rely on that for confirmation of God’s love we are simply relying on physical sensation.
When the priest blesses us with ashes, in the form of the cross, he says either "Remember man, dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return" or another blessing.
Ash Wednesday marks the onset of the Lent, the 40-day period of fasting and abstinence. It is also known as the 'Day of Ashes'. So called because on that day at church the faithful have their foreheads marked with ashes in the shape of a cross.
The name 'Day of Ashes' comes from "Dies Cinerum" in the Roman Missal and is found in the earliest existing copies of the Gregorian Sacramentary. The concept originated by the Roman Catholics somewhere in the 6th century. Though the exact origin of the day is not clear, the custom of marking the head with ashes on this Day is said to have originated during the papacy of Gregory the Great (590-604).
In the Old Testament ashes were found to have used for two purposes: as a sign of humility and mortality; and as a sign of sorrow and repentance for sin. The Christian connotation for ashes in the liturgy of Ash Wednesday has also been taken from this Old Testament biblical custom.
Receiving ashes on the head as a reminder of mortality and a sign of sorrow for sin was a practice of the Anglo-Saxon church in the 10th century. It was made universal throughout the Western church at the Synod of Benevento in 1091.
Originally the use of ashes to betoken penance was a matter of private devotion. Later it became part of the official rite for reconciling public penitents. In this context, ashes on the penitent served as a motive for fellow Christians to pray for the returning sinner and to feel sympathy for him. Still later, the use of ashes passed into its present rite of beginning the penitential season of Lent on Ash Wednesday.
There can be no doubt that the custom of distributing the ashes to all the faithful arose from a devotional imitation of the practice observed in the case of public penitents. But this devotional usage, the reception of a sacramental which is full of the symbolism of penance (cf. the cor contritum quasi cinis of the "Dies Irae") is of earlier date than was formerly supposed. It is mentioned as of general observance for both clerics and faithful in the Synod of Beneventum, 1091 (Mansi, XX, 739), but nearly a hundred years earlier than this the Anglo-Saxon homilist Ælfric assumes that it applies to all classes of men.
Putting a 'cross' mark on the forehead was in imitation of the spiritual mark or seal that is put on a Christian in baptism. This is when the newly born Christian is delivered from slavery to sin and the devil, and made a slave of righteousness and Christ (Rom. 6:3-18).
This can also be held as an adoption of the way 'righteousness' are described in the book of Revelation, where we come to know about the servants of God. The reference to the sealing of the servants of God for their protection in Revelation is an allusion to a parallel passage in Ezekiel, where Ezekiel also sees a sealing of the servants of God for their protection:
"And the LORD said to him [one of the four cherubim], 'Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark [literally, "a tav"] upon the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.' And to the others he said in my hearing, 'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one upon whom is the mark. And begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the elders who were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:4-6)
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Holidays/Ash_Wednesday.htm
Your comment: ""Ashes on the forehead" is not self-denial but self-glorification. The soot says "Look how pious I am" is not applicable here.
We confess, publicly, with the ashes on the forehead, that we enter a period of fasting and mortification to express our sorrow for our sins and our love for Christ in the sight of the world. It is not an expression of piety, but of sorrow and love. Make fun of it all you wish.
Our circumcision is of the heart.
Rome continues to look downward to the material world when God is Spirit and truth is spiritually-discerned.
That means we are to use our heads to conceptualize God and His glory rather than as billboards for our own piety.
Not sure what your post is telling us, but Christians possess a mind renewed by the Holy Spirit to understand God and His free gift of salvation.
Clearly, Mother Teresa is to be pitied. Her mind had not been renewed by the truth of Christ risen. She was bereft and without the indwelling Holy Spirit, according to her own words for 50 years right up until her death.
Where is that written? False, again.
Our circumcision is of the heart.
Oh, really? I have seen no evidence of that. I mean, first I'd have to see evidence of hearts. So far, all I see is are empty brains.
Rome continues to look downward to the material world when God is Spirit and truth is spiritually-discerned.
Another statement, full of sound and fury, with no substance.
That means we are to use our heads to conceptualize God and His glory rather than as billboards for our own piety.
Oh, too right. The proddies use the Religion Forum as the billboard for their piety. What a joke!
A cross of ashes on our foreheads at the beginning of Lent is a very clear way of confessing Christ before men. Proddies can't handle the public confession.
Can you provide a source for that statement, or are you twisting people's words again?
Ignore the
JERK! JERK!The East is even more wary of Revelation than the West. And I agree that the Pentateuch and Revelation are difficult even for the learned.
IMO your list of "Saints" is purely a man made, imaginary list. None has been raised. Mary hasn't been raised. NONE!
The point of declaring Sainthood has nothing to do with raising.
Am I to assume the "list" of Saints is nothing but wallpaper?
No, why would you?
I am going nowhere with the list of Saints. I believe it is fictional. Do you?
No, of course not, any more than you would consider a list of temporal court decisions to be fictional.
We could concentrate more on the topic at hand, which is a fabricated smear of the Church, and the Pope.
Let's have the Scripture that tells us to conceptualize God. All you have posted is gibberish and doubletalk and hatred of Christianity.
Catholics are not afraid to preach Christ Crucified, Christ Risen and Christ Ascended. We are also not afraid to show the world that we acknowledge His death and descent to hell. We are not afraid to show the world that we understand that by His Sacrifice and Death, that man will also die, but with Him. And rise with Him. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. We proclaim Your Death, Lord Jesus until You come in Glory.
You should search the scriptures to find out if these things are so.
Why? Do I have choice? Did you?
If one honestly read the scriptures through a Reformed perspective
Why choose this perspective? What is the criteria for choosing one perspective over another?
The scriptures are not complicated in the Reformed light
Is "not complicated/simplicity" the basis for choosing a perspective? Why? What if it results in "very simple, but false"?
I would suggest an honest reading of the Gospel of John. If people would simply take the time and read this entire gospel through the outward and inward call of man perspective, they could come to no other conclusion then God chooses men.
What if it also results in a conclusion we know to be false? For example: what if "choosing to read through this perspective" results in the conclusion that "we did not choose to read through this perspective"?
Should we choose to accept or reject a conclusion even if that conclusion forces us to accept something we know is not true? Why? Is it because it makes scripture "less complicated"?
Follow along...
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
Human beings aren't just sensual, tactile beings. They've been given minds which can hold not just an image, as an animal sees, but an entire concept, an idea with all its ramifications.
And Paul tells us over and over that the Christian mind is capable of grasping the idea of God, as opposed to the mere experience of God. We know God, according to the spirit within us.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -- 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
As Paul confidently tells us, I know whom I have believed."
Thank you very much for the link, Dr. E. Much obliged.
Because there are only two perspective and you're reading it only from one perspective.
What if it also results in a conclusion we know to be false?
How can we arrive at a conclusion we know is false? With all due respects, it sounds to me like you're looking for excuses.
There are more than two, but assume there are two. What is the criteria for selecting between them? You indicated before it was a "not complicated" result. Is this the basis for judging which to use?
How can we arrive at a conclusion we know is false?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What if the perspective you choose results in a "not complicated" result (satisfying this critera), but also a know false necessary conclusion derived from it. Is this clearer?
What is your concept of God?
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.