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.
The difference is that if it took Rome 2000 years to declare it as Scriptural truth, then it obviously wasn't.
Nonsense, what's true is true regardless of when it is formally defined.
You wrote:
Mary did not ascend bodily into heaven at her death.
To which I responded:
The ONLY people who have EVER made this claim are anti-Catholic bigots trying to support their own evil agenda.
And your latest response to that:
lol. So all Protestants are "anti-Catholic bigots?"
Thanks for the candor. We figured as much.
Let's see.
FIRST of all you would need to find where the Catholic Church has EVER suggested that the Blessed Mother ascended into Heaven.
THEN you would have to deal with the reality that not all Protestants believe as you do. There are a great many Protestants who actually recognize the Assumption/Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Obviously there are some bigots who believe that denial of Marian teachings is a tenet of Protestantism, but they would be wrong.
Wow. Thanks for even more evidence Roman Catholics do not read their Bibles.
Egads! No wonder Roman Catholics deconstruct the grace of God and give His holy sovereignty to various fallible creatures. Rome actually believes men can be sinless. Astounding. So who needs Christ if sinlessness is a human ability which men can attain?
But you still haven't made any case that sinlessness equates divinity. Or does your sect believe that Adam and Eve were divine before the Fall?
I wrote:
Again, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS acknowledged that the Blessed Mother was saved by grace, the Church simply understands that she was protected from sin at the moment of her conception.
To which you responded:
Completely negated by Scripture. A fantasy of Rome's construction. It's just a continuation of the pagan myths of Isis and Cybele which Rome happily incorporated into its teachings.
"Negated" by Scripture? Where does Scripture say that this didn't happen?
The fact that anti-Catholics either cannot or will not accept the simplicity of the first chapter of the Gospel of Saint Luke is a shame.
To paraphrase Johnny Cash; "life ain't easy for a boy named Loraine". It probably explains his lying and hateful works. A good refutation of his works is found here:
No you are not. Don't try that bluffing and bluster with people who actually know better. That stuff may work amongst those "predestined" to hate everything Catholic and to accept any lies if it supports their hatred, but there are too many here who already know the truth. Those that don't have full access to it without relying on cartoon handouts and lying preachers. You are just making yourself look petty and foolish.
Oh, and by the way, neither the term "Alter Christus" nor "another Christ" appear anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That means you are either ignorant (you just didn't know) or lying (you knew but said it anyway). Only you know which, but neither are very flattering.
Also from Augustine, demonstrating Catholic UNITY with him.
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO* (354-430)
In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42)
Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.)
Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)
By golly - sounds like Sola Scripture to me.
lolol. Check the paintings posted this morning. And all the many RC statements that Mary's supposed bodily assumption into heaven is dogma of the RCC.
THEN you would have to deal with the reality that not all Protestants believe as you do. There are a great many Protestants who actually recognize the Assumption/Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Name them. Name all those Protestants who believe in the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.
Obviously there are some bigots who believe that denial of Marian teachings is a tenet of Protestantism, but they would be wrong.
Protestants deny Rome's Marian teaching. Period.
But you still haven't made any case that sinlessness equates divinity.
Since Scripture tells us all men are sinners and there is only one Christ who is sinless, it doesn't take a church council to understand that sinlessness is a divine attribute of Jesus Christ alone.
Or does your sect believe that Adam and Eve were divine before the Fall?
Adam and Eve were born with a sin nature, just like the rest of humanity. And thus, they sinned. Just like the rest of us.
There are no exceptions, except in Rome's blasphemous fiction.
Where does Scripture say that this didn't happen?
LOLOL. Thanks for yet another great example of Roman Catholic exegesis, such as it is. No one has to prove something "didn't happen." Men are called to prove what "did happen."
And Mary's assumption into heaven bodily did not happen.
Then thank God Augustine wasn't infallible!
Then what was the point of Jesus dying and being resurrected ? As the book of Hebrews states, He was made our forerunner, to go ahead of us, and pave the way. Why would you want to deny that any Christian, especially Mary, not follow in his footsteps?
Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
LOL. AMEN!
It's no coincidence RC apologists reference the early Augustine. But his faith deepened and his writings matured into a repudiation of the majority of Roman Catholic theology.
Actully, here is what you wrote in post #8628:
It was a recent and impious speculation that turned into RC doctrine just over a century [sic] ago.
Are you saying that over 500 years ago is "recent"?
It's no coincidence that artwork was created during the Reformation which worked to rid the church of such blasphemy.
Actually, it is a bit of a coincidence (nevermind the fact that Botticini's painting preceded the Reformation by about two generations and Titian's was painted at the very start of the Reformation), the reality is that these were painted during the Renaissance and there are very few paintings from before the Renaissance that are well-documented. There are icons that precede these by centuries.
However, it took Rome 2,000 years to declare that blasphemy as dogma.
First of all, it was more like 1900 years.
Secondly, the truth is the truth regardless of when it's defined (people know the dangers of falling long before Newton defined the Law of Gravity).
Finally, even if it is false, your use of the word blasphemy makes no sense. NOTHING in the definition of the Assumption suggested that the Blessed Mother was assumed by her own power or suggests that she is divine or shows any contempt of lack of reverence toward God, therefore it cannot be blasphemous. If you want to claim that it is blasphemous, please take actual statements from Munificentissimus Deus which meet the definition of blasphemy.
Again, I will point out that you have failed to address the FACT that the Dormition of the Theotokos (Assumption) is celebrated by the Orthodox Church and the Schism was in the middle of the 11th century. Why do they believe it's nothing more than "recent and impious speculation" by the Catholic Church.
Most of their theology is anti-Catholic YOPIOS. They believe that they speak for all Protestants when the reality is that they are a rather insignificant minority. Lutherans and Anglicans have definite theological differences with the Church, but they don’t teach that hatred of the Blessed Mother is one of those differences.
Wrong again.
“The priest on earth (is) another Christ.” -- The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism.
Apparently you're not familiar with Roman Catholic dogma or teaching...
“The priest is not just the cross, he is Christ Himself.” (The Lone Star Catholic, March 1, 1959) “To the carnal eye, the priest looks like other men, but to the eye of faith he is exalted above angels.” (Faith of our Fathers, Gibbons, Page 422) “Another grace of the synod [Synod of Bishops, October, 1990] was a new maturity in the way of looking at priestly service in the Church; and thus also of the personal life of each and every priest, that is to say, of each priest’s participation in the saving mystery of Christ: ‘Sacerdos Alter Christus.’” (Pope John Paul II, Letter to Catholic priests on the occasion of Holy Thursday, 1991). “The priest is given transcendent power to forgive sins, to administer the sacraments, but most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in which he becomes an ‘Alter Christus’” (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O’Conner.) “In the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the priest is a substitute of Christ Himself. As a result of his ordination, he is a true alter Christus.” (The Latin Mass: Chronicle of a Catholic Reform, Summer 1995 Issue. ) “Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed another Christ;” (Papal Encyclical ‘Ad Catholici Sacerdotii’ on the priesthood, Pope Pius XI, December 20, 1935) “In this moment, the priest quite literally becomes Christ Himself.” (This is the Mass, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Page 100)
At the ordination ceremony of the Roman Catholic priest, these men are explicitly told they are becoming an "alter Christus."
Lies. Blasphemous, God-denying, Christ-demeaning lies.
INDEED. INDEED.
I enjoy honey . . . even knowing what part of the insect’s anatomy it flows from.
Some pretenders seem to think that their fantasized theological dance through
the
Vatican’s Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling
produces similar goodies.
I guess their noses are broken.
wb:”FIRST of all you would need to find where the Catholic Church has EVER suggested that the Blessed Mother ascended into Heaven.”
The Feast of the Assumption
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
wb: “Again, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS acknowledged that the Blessed Mother was saved by grace, the Church simply understands that she was protected from sin at the moment of her conception.”
Where’s the Scripture that states that Mary was born without sin? Why was it necessary? Why couldn’t/wouldn’t God do that for the rest of the human race then?
If God could do it for Mary who was born of sinful parents, then He could have done it for Jesus even though He was born of a sinful woman.
Thanks for this link.
I had already looked it up myself some months ago when it was offered as recommended reading by one of the FReformed on this forum.
I also have experienced watershed from Boettner’s work: parishes in my area have been confronted with Missions to Catholics International people when leaving after Mass. We were yelled at that we were “going to hell in a bucket” and other such slogans, in Fred Phelps-like style. Our car windshields were littered with ugly and inflammatory pamphlets.
It was the harassment that parishes were experiencing that was the catalyst for the founding of Catholic Answers.
The Catholic practice of means that we look within Scripture for its meaning. This is in stark contrast with Calvinism which relies on "eisegesis">
Eisegesis is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their preexisting belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. Those who interpret the Bible this way are usually not willing to let the Bible speak for itself and or to entertain that there may possible be another way to look at it or interpret it. They start off with the upfront goal of trying to prove a point they already believe in, and everything they read and interpret is filtered through that paradigm. Stated another way, they engage in what the Bible refers to as "private interpretation".
I think it ties in with their absolute blind spot about love of neighbor: There is a hatred of humanity there which they imagine God, who is Love, shares. Except, of course, for them -- and that individually; no apparent awareness (apart from occasional apparent lip-service) that anyone but themselves is important. And to allow that God might "favor" anyone over them is unacceptable. Some of them insist on "equality" as if the U.S. Constitution is the ruling document in Heaven.
Me, I rejoice in goodness wherever I see it, and praise God for it.
Correct, that is what the Church has ALWAYS taught.
Then what was the point of Jesus dying and being resurrected? As the book of Hebrews states, He was made our forerunner, to go ahead of us, and pave the way. Why would you want to deny that any Christian, especially Mary, not follow in his footsteps?
The Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into Heaven by her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. She is in Heaven with Him.
Yes you are. All of those references, none of which are official Church doctrine, use the phrase alter Christus. No one is contesting that, but none affirm your twisted interpretation that there is "another Christ". All concur that the priest acts in the place of Christ.
Five hundred years is not 2000 years. Rome has permitted paganism to seep into its theology for centuries. The Marian doctrines are a prime example.
even if it is false, your use of the word blasphemy makes no sense. NOTHING in the definition of the Assumption suggested that the Blessed Mother was assumed by her own power or suggests that she is divine or shows any contempt of lack of reverence toward God, therefore it cannot be blasphemous. If you want to claim that it is blasphemous, please take actual statements from Munificentissimus Deus which meet the definition of blasphemy.
What a great example of misunderstanding life and salvation. The assumption of Mary bodily into heaven teaches that this act was possible because Mary was supposedly born, lived and died sinless.
And that is blasphemy by imparting divine characteristics and abilities to the creature when they belong to God alone.
Again, I will point out that you have failed to address the FACT that the Dormition of the Theotokos (Assumption) is celebrated by the Orthodox Church and the Schism was in the middle of the 11th century.
lol.
When the Orthodox consider themselves Protestant, you be sure to tell them. Do you think we've forgotten your statement? You wrote...
There are a great many Protestants who actually recognize the Assumption/Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
So as evidence for your goofy statement you offer the EO. Nope. Tell us what Protestants recognize as dogma the assumption of Mary.
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.