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.
Jesus' body carried God.He smote His Son on the cross with His wrath.
*********************************************************
Jesus on the cross was fully human. He felt the same pain, suffering and abondment as any other human. He was not yet with His Father.
Fascinating theology. May I ask in what ways you differ in belief from the Trinitarian formula developed through the fourth century?
lol. The "obsession" Calvin warns against belongs to Rome. Calvin was well-acquainted with Rome's propensity to turn every tenet of Christianity into some kind of idolatry. Calvin clearly states no one knows if Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born. As the excerpt from Calvin continues...
"What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity..." -- Calvin
Here Calvin speaks against referring to Mary as the "Mother of God." ...
"I do not doubt that there has been some ignorance in their having reproved this mode of speech, — that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God … I cannot dissemble that it is found to be a bad practice ordinarily to adopt this title in speaking of this Virgin: and, for my part, I cannot consider such language as good , proper, or suitable… for to say, the Mother of God for the Virgin Mary, can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstitions." - Calvin
Roman Catholic apologists pluck a stray sentence out of context and declare it to be Calvin's entire theology. In context, Calvin is saying something very different. Here is a great essay that reveals the lie that says Calvin agreed with Rome about Mary. Far far from it...
With extraordinary ignorance have the Papists, by an enchanter’s trick, changed this salutation into a prayer, and have carried their folly so far, that their preachers are not permitted, in the pulpit, to implore the grace of the Spirit, except through their Hail, Mary. But not only are these words a simple congratulation. They unwarrantably assume an office which does not belong to them, and which God committed to none but an angel. Their silly ambition leads them into a second blunder, for they salute a person who is absent..." - Calvin"Next comes the third clause, that she (Mary) is blessed among women. Blessing is here put down as the result and proof of the Divine kindness. The word Blessed does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy. Thus, Paul often supplicates for believers, first “grace” and then “peace,” (Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:2,) that is, every kind of blessings; implying that we shall then be truly happy and rich, when we are beloved by God, from whom all blessings proceed. But if Mary’s happiness, righteousness, and life, flow from the undeserved love of God, if her virtues and all her excellence are nothing more than the Divine kindness, it is the height of absurdity to tell us that we should seek from her what she derives from another quarter in the same manner as ourselves.
"Enchanter's trick."
Precisely.
Was it ceptripetal or centrigufal force that prevented you from answering a relatively simple question?
I'll bet with all of that you have the greenest lawn and biggest tomatos in town. How do you deal with the smell on hot wet days?
One need only pluck this one sentence from the dunghill to recognize Calvin's position on Mariology is nothing more than low grade fertilizer.
(note to mod; "dunghill" is in reference to Luke 14:35)
henceforth all generations shall call meblessedHappy.
Enchanting.
"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
And Rome (((shivers)))
So, does this mean that YOU don't know either? Because if you DO claim to know, do you have some Scripture that Calvin was unaware of?
"I do not doubt that there has been some ignorance in their having reproved this mode of speech, — that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God … I cannot dissemble that it is found to be a bad practice ordinarily to adopt this title in speaking of this Virgin: and, for my part, I cannot consider such language as good , proper, or suitable… for to say, the Mother of God for the Virgin Mary, can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstitions." - Calvin
First of all, do have have a source for this?
Secondly, WHY do you think Calvin refers to her a the Virgin Mary if he does not believe she remained one?
Finally, NOWHERE here does he reject the term Mother of God, he calls it "bad practice ordinarily," that IS NOT a rejection.
Roman Catholic apologists pluck a stray sentence out of context and declare it to be Calvin's entire theology. In context, Calvin is saying something very different.
On the contrary, Calvin says he DOES NOT KNOW and that NOBODY CAN and a great many Calvinists interpret this to mean that Calvin rejected the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.
Pity that RCs aren't content with that but instead seek to elevate a simple Jewish girl to the blasphemous titles of "co-mediator" and "co-redeemer."
More evidence revealing Christ is just not enough for Rome.
My link was correct. I remembered "unique theology" incorrectly when Mark said "fascinating theology"
Marks question concerned my statement concerning the pain and suffering of Jesus on the cross.
If you pay attention to the post in question you'll note that I said nothing concerning Trinity.
As is not uncommon with Mark, he branched off into a completely unrelated subject.
May I suggest your further questioning on the subject be with Mark?
PS: It is not correct to suggest that any Christian Church always believed in the Trinity.
so? read the beatitudes, they all begin with “blessed” meaning happy,and all in the kingdom are happy, or maybe for some there is no joy in Christ, who knows
“”I can’t imagine even Calvin himself getting this far off:””
I can. There are very stark similarities of Calvinism and the Valentinians that Saint Irenaues battled against
Here is an example...
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Demiurge.htm
The Valentinian Demiurge has very little leeway for truly independent activity. He is “submissive and obedient” (Gospel of Philip 60:24-31), a “servant” of the higher powers (Herakleon Fragment 48). He serves as Sophia’s “hand” in forming the creation (Tripartite Tractate 100:31-33). As Filoramo observes, “The true, if not only, protagonist has now become the Mother. The Demiurge appears, guided, so to speak, from within: as in a technically sophisticated robot, the program of creation is put into him via the abstract symbol of the idea “ (Filoramo 1990). He is “nothing but an unconscious puppet manipulated by the invisible strings of higher powers” (Filoramo 1990).
I have more comparisons like this,but am too busy to get t them right now
Better stop the presses.......we need to replace Schubert's "Ave Maria" with Bobby McFerrin's "Don't Worry, Be Happy". That's gonna mess up a lot of celebrity Christmas albums......(And I'm pretty sure Mary wasn't all that happy at the foot of the cross).
Okay I found it.
Marks question concerned my statement concerning the pain and suffering of Jesus on the cross.
AND the statement that Christ was not yet with the Father.
If you pay attention to the post in question you'll note that I said nothing concerning Trinity.
Perhaps not directly.
PS: It is not correct to suggest that any Christian Church always believed in the Trinity.
My statement was that the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestants have ALWAYS agreed on the Trinity and this is entirely true.
As for your statement that Christians haven't always believed in the Trinity, I think it is more appropriate to say that Christians haven't always UNDERSTOOD the Trinity. Before the formulation, there was no rejection of it, it had simply not yet understood.
Happy doesn't still mean happy either. Try to explain the wording in the Declaration of Independence in terms of some euphoric experience (and that was written in English less than 250 years ago).
I can’t read a blank mind, write what you are talking about
Not quite. According to your post of Calvin, your statement should be stated:
"All generations will call her happy and happy…"
Yep, there's the rub.
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.