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.
Maybe we Catholics over stress this, but it seems to me that the disagreements among the differing schools of thought which all claim to be "Scripture Alone" makes this the only possible conclusion. On the finer matters of prevenient grace and of the saint's participation, if any, in his salvation, it seems that the hermeneutic dominates, NOT Scripture Alone.
Me, myself, personally, I prick up my ears when anyone says "obviously". Usually it is not so obvious unless you share the speaker's assumptions.
“”I think that sin ‘offends’ God AND damages the sinner. So God somehow needs propitiating AND the sinner needs, uh, repair, cleaning up, something.””
Well said,dear friend. We can take that a step further and understand that sin also effects fellow man,so, sin goes beyond us just asking forgiveness. Reparation needs to be made for the offense we caused fellow man.(which in many cases causes them to sin because of our offense)
The Saints went beyond this and made reparation for others beyond their own sins and joined union with the sufferings of Christ out of love for Christ and others
There are common themes you find amongst the heretics such as valentinians,sethians,marcionites,bardaisans etc.. and Calvinism
Yes, the Calvinism exhibited here does sound like heresy piled upon heresy - and then folded back on itself.
One is God planned evil or created it,the other is free will is not understood properly and lastly there is misrepresentations of the Apostle Saint Paul.
Yep, yep and yep.
And I think this is an extremely important point to make. We can sit here and debate every little facet with which we disagree with one another and never get anywhere. The arguments never have resolution, always lead to additional arguments and endlessly continue for years. I try very hard to keep to the main point and that is, as you said, having to do with our salvation.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy discussing differences with the best of them, but when things get nasty - and they usually do when certain tender spots get touched - I know to just back off, to agree to disagree is sometimes the most mature and productive stance to take.
That is indisputable! ;-) One or the other pretty much exhausts the possibilities, huh?
But yeah, I was getting a hint.
The deal, for me -- or one of the deals -- is that if we are called in Christ, we have what Catholics call "an apostolate" of our own. So when I reflect on the bloodier parts of these threads, and on my snippier posts, I have to judge them by an evangelical standard: Would a 'gentile' seeing this say, "These Christians, how they love one another!"
I'm guessing, not so much.
Today I have the kind of cold that hurts. You know the kind I mean, the nose hurts, the throat and chest hurt, coughing hurts, not coughing hurts, blah blah blah.
To some extent this sharpens my focus. The issue, more and more obviously in an age in which a woman in an interview can calmly talk about smothering her child with a pillow, is perhaps even more important than whether Catholic theology and practice makes the non-Catholic cut.
The issue is can a woman with an unwanted pregnancy come to any one of these combatants confident that she will be treated with sacrificial mercy and understanding? Can she trust that a pedal-to-the-metal Calvinist and a guy like me could and would want to cooperate in DOING the Love of Christ for her and her child?
The differences are important. But the difficulty we have in resolving them should encourage us to turn to God and trust in Him to bring about reconciliation. I don't think we're going to get there OR to give this starving world the true bread by mocking each other or by being needlessly contentious.
If that means I'm thin-skinned, I'm okay with that.
Hebrews 4: 14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
More than a little exhausted.
Thanks for your fine reply.
Will try to get back to it after some sleep.
Luke 2:6&7 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.
It doesn't say *only* son, but *firstborn*.
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
It doesn't say Joseph NEVER having union with her. Nor does it state that she remained a virgin after Jesus's birth, which, if her continually remaining a virgin was sooooo important, Scripture should have and would have stated, since God makes sure to include important things in the Bible.
Matthew 13:54-56 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
And then there's this verse where Jesus' brothers are named BY NAME, JUST LIKE MARY. And the term *all* in reference to sisters, implies 3 or more. If it were one, it would be singular, if two the word *both* would have been used.
Those people knew who they were talking about and they knew who He was related to. If those children were not offspring of Mary and Joseph, then one of them committed adultery.
So again, the question arises.....WHY is it so important that Mary would have been perpetually a virgin? Once she delivered Jesus, the prophecy was fulfilled, that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. After that, there was no necessity for her to remain a virgin.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I’m sorry you both are feeling poorly. I’ll pray for you.
You must not be aware of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the many works it has produced.
I had to go back and pick up on this because it contradicts everything I've ever heard and seen. For 14 years my wife and I have worked with and been friends with priests and a common thread in all of our conversations about late night or emergency hospital runs is the overwhelming joy of reconciling someone to the Church at the deathbed and how frequently it happens. I'm not talking about a handful of cases, I'm talking about dozens if not hundreds of times hearing "it was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen".
Twice now I've been in a hospital expecting to die... clutching a rosary and calling for a priest. I wasn't afraid of dying, I wanted the bells and whistles to send me on my way (they didn't tell you about the whistle, oh no, I've said too much!). My confidence is in God... NOT myself. My trust is in Him, He won't let me down, He can't... I'm not unusual as a Catholic believing that.
No, theology is where I get my Christmas songs.
But there is no hint that Paul was discussing authority in any way, the context and the words he used do not point to such an interpretation against the established literal meaning and usage of “face” or “presence” for “prosopos”.
Furthermore you misunderstand what Chrysostom said:
Your comment was, “As St. John Chrysostom explain, he absolves him not in order to please the local priests but because that is the right thing to do, in Christ.”
But Chrysostom indicates just that, that Paul was simply trying to avoid producing hurt feeling because of some feeling overlooked.
Chrysostom:
“Then lest they should be hurt, as though overlooked, he adds, “for your sakes.” What then? Did he for men's sake pardon? No; for on this account he added, “In the person of Christ.”
And he asks, “What then? Did he for men's sake pardon?” and answers “No” even though that is exactly what Paul said he DID do! “..for your sakes forgave I it”.
But Chrysostom adds: “for on this account he added, “In the person of Christ.” which could indicate he thought Paul was imitating Christ in being forgiving.
But even here there is no discussion of Paul's authority to forgive or simply because “that is the right thing to do”.
Thag you bery mudge. By dose is stopped up.
No problem. I'll summon the Jesuit Ninja death squads. Every non-catholic who read that will "tell no tales" is you take my meaning.
The famous Joseph Heller quote from Catch-22 says; "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you". I am not frightened by anti-Catholicism but I am not ignorant enough to believe that it never existed and doesn't exist today. One need only read the postings on this thread by the morbidly anti-Catholics to see it is alive and well.
I thought the Calvinist definition was simply "happy". You guys need to huddle up and work this out between yourselves.
The beagle flies at midnight...
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.