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.
Having determined the Bible to be the Word of God, I have an unswerving criteria. Therein is the truth, period. And I do not speak from faith. I KNOW (reasoned to a conclusion).
Part of what makes this challenging is different ideas of what reason is and how it works. You seem to say that you know because you reasoned to a conclusion. So, naturally, though formally, the question that pops into my alleged head is "from what premises." I would say that if the premises are true and the reasoning sound then the conclusion is sound. So to evaluate a claim of knowledge, I need to be able to evaluate the reasoning process AND the premises.
With respect to your comment about critics, I'd say that part of their problem is that they don't make their premises clear, perhaps because they aren't well aware of them, which suggests lousy reasoning.
For example, when I was in seminary it was assumed that Jesus wouldn't/couldn't do 'nature miracles' (like walking on water and stilling storms. But at least they were clear about that's being a premise. What they weren't clear about is how they could swallow the camel of the resurrection while straining out the gnat of walking on water (Paraphrase of C.S. Lewis.)
re: Atheists. There are two very fine books, Feser's The last Supersition and a Scott Hahn book I read in one weekend. It doesn't go for the "constructive" it just rips Dawkins to shreds. Having read these, I think most Atheists do not reason very well. I do think that a professor who makes a half-way plausible argument implying that uninhibited sex among the undergraduates is perfectly okay will rise in his profession, and I think that explains a lot of prominent atheist professors.
Me? Cynical? Why would you say THAT?
We're probably going to need to get clear on what 'discernment' is.
That which can be reasoned to a conclusion depends on faith — for there needs to be a standard by which conclusions can be reached/judged — that is, adjudged truthful and not otherwise.Like discernment, that word "faith" is going to get us into trouble. My GUESS is that roamer is using it in the fides quae sense.
If there is no firm criterion of judgment, there can be no truth.
Thus it follows that there is no criterion of truth without faith....
My comment starts small and grows. The small part is that we don't believe the 'articles' unless we have the gift of fides qua, of "openness to authentic being" (or some such new age psychobabble.)
The big part is this: Only in mathematical matters does one reason formally and with evident crispness. And when Math gets hairy and altitudinous, then it's best to have your work peer reviewed.
The really FUN reasoning happens in the reflection on the really fun truths. (By "fun truths" I means ones that are the opposite of "boring", that is, they pertain to meaning AND to "God, the universe, and everything.")
And how does that reasoning take place? In conversation, almost exclusively (if we let conversation include reading people who have been dead a long time.)
That ism, in theology, I read the Bible, I read what other people whom I trust have said. I form a notion or an argument. I let it roll around in my head and see if I can remember any texts of Scripture which seem to contradict it, or any texts of other books which might really pose difficulties. I also try remember stuff that seems to support what I've come up with.
Then I run it by some folks. And then some more folks.
The idea will rarely survive that process unchanged. It may not survive at all. It may need to have some steps rejiggered or some premises re-formed. It's "scope" may be restricted -- or enlarged?
Roamer_1 proposed an example of a bogus argument whose conclusion was the we would become gods.
Now in the most important sense that simply cannot be accepted at face value.
But then I remember Psalm 82:6 and Jesus' enigmatic suggestion in John 10 that somehow it may be right to call "those to whom the word came" gods. Even Lewis uses words like "god" to describe the blessed!
Then I go to the awesome "high Priestly prayer" in John 17 in which Jesus asks the Father that those for whom he prays may be 'in' Jesus and the Father as they are in one another -- and later that the Love the Father has for Jesus may be in them and that Jesus may be in them.
That may not be gods, but it's purt' 'near! But that little gap is of critical theological importance -- to distinguish us from pantheists, if for nothing else.
So, right away we are commanded (just about) to fall on our knees at the wonder of what God has done in Christ for us. But THEN we, or some of us, get out our theological fillet knives and go to and fro in Scripture and walk up and down in it. We're going to look at Psalm 82, at John 10, and all over.
We'll think of Revelation, of the Beatific Vision, of purity of heart, of John's saying "we will be like Him for we will see Him as He is," and 10-0 other things.
Now, to me, THAT's what reason is really like for the fun stuff. In other words, the actual doing of it is not working from assumption to conclusion, but a ranging activity in which assumptions, conclusions, and intermediate steps are examined, and recast and re-examined.
Yes, at some point, somebody may write a paper or a book, or the Summa. But that is not the whole of reason.
And so, for me, it turns out that while reason has a STRONG internal or even lonely aspect, it, and especially theological reason, is a communal activity, one done with the whole Church and with God.
FWIW
Am relieved and blessed to read that. It’s much in line, I think, with my own . . . uhhhh thinking.
I used to love . . . in univ and still somewhat in the PhD program to hold forth with friends, classmates, profs in more . . . straight laced ways . . . .
On reflection . . . a LOT of that was intellectual grandstanding and one-ups-man-ship. I grew weary of that, over time. Not interested in going back.
CONVERSATIONS OF SHARING TOWARD GROWTH, LEARNING, INSIGHT . . . OCCASIONALLY BY HOLY SPIRIT’S AID EVEN ENLIGHTENMENT . . . THAT’S GREAT.
Jesus’s church started in the upper room.
you are absolutely correct.....and when He said “this is my body and this is my blood” He meant it....and ONLY the Catholic church remains observant of His teachin. I’m glad for you that you have finally awakened to the truth of scripture.The Catholic church wrote it, interpreted it, preserved it, protected it for 1500 years.....then, along came Luther, zwingly, henry VIII,Calvin,Joseph Smith,Hubbard, and whoever else thought that they could do better than Jesus in starting a religion.......thanks but I will stick with the religion founded personally by Jesus....that would, of course be Catholicism.
INDEED.
WELL PUT.
THX.
UNMITIGATED NONSENSE.
Yep. Friends are often people you can have a conversation with without someone 'winning.' Let me, let us all lose, and let the Truth win, that's what I hope for.
Yep. Friends are often people you can have a conversation with without someone ‘winning.’ Let me, let us all lose, and let the Truth win, that’s what I hope for.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
THX.
Roamer —> your statement must be rejected as a logical fallacy because it is begging the question.
So Unitarians such as yourself do not believe in the Trinity and deny the divinity of Christ? That is incorrect. Christ was God — why would you believe otherwise?
Pentecostals often remain in Pentecostalism despite many misgivings for one simple reason: the healings. They may admit that many of the practices and teachings are unbiblical. They may confess that there is rampant abuse and manipulation. But they shake off the doubts because they have seen so many supernatural events--people stand up out of wheelchairs, back pain healed, etc. And so they wonder, "If this is really so bad, why are so many people being healed? Isn't it all worth it if sick people are being restored to health?"However, Pentecostal church services are all about showmanship and appearance. It is surprisingly easy to fake healings, even to hold entire healing services in which people appear to be 'healed' all over the church and yet no one is really cured. How is this accomplished? The trick is usually, as Miracle Max said in the quote above, to focus on problems which can be resolved some way other than strictly supernaturally, to learn to 'heal' those who are only partly ill or can be made to seem well when they are not.Let's examine some of the most common 'healing' tricks in the Pentecostal experience:(a) Bigfoot Sightings. Perhaps the largest category of fake healings is what I call "Bigfoot Sightings", because, like the mythical Bigfoot, all that is known about these healings is that somebody else swears that they saw them and that they are real.
(b) "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Occasionally, 'healings' are fakes, plain and simple. Many evangelists believe that seeing people apparently get healed raises the level of faith of the parishioners and so opens the door for real healings. They use this as an excuse to orchestrate healing shows that are planned in advance simply to shock and amaze the crowd.
(c) MOSTLY disabled or ALL disabled? One of the most obvious and most popular techniques used by faith healers is based upon a popular misunderstanding of disabilities. When someone is in a wheelchair, people tend to assume that the person cannot walk AT ALL. This is rarely the case. Most people in wheelchairs can stand and even walk a little, just not far and not well. Likewise, when a person is said to be blind or deaf, people tend to assume that the person cannot see or hear AT ALL. Again, this is rarely the case. Most blind people can see a little, just not very well, and most people who are 'deaf' are really only partially deaf.
 to quote old Quix: INDEED to the MAX! |
SOP for some.
Better than the Benny Hinn Pentecoastal belief in 9 gods, eh?
You already know my affiliation(s).
As to proof, I have already invited Legatus to ask all he wanted:
If so, then I have made it about myself. [...] Knock yourself out (politely). src
I don't do pics, but my mother sure does.
Out of the mouth of two witnesses:
Pick two FReepers that we can agree upon, One of yours, and one of mine, folks of unquestioned honor, and I will reveal my identity to them as necessary - providing that they will not reveal who I am, or post the info I will send. I will supply them with the photos you request. I will even film my next walk, to prove that I am now becoming fully capable.
I will also supply the letters from Quix and marysecretary to them, to prove the veracity of my words.
Those two can stand as my witnesses.
HERE I AM.
Squirm as you need to. It doesn't change a thing. You called for proofs, and I have now given you two methods which do not compromise my anonymity (much). Put up or shut up, as the saying goes...
HERE I AM.
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.