FReepmail me to get on or off this list
Posted on 12/15/2004 10:54:42 PM PST by AskStPhilomena
Yes.
Is every aspect of a nation's life meant to permeated by Catholicism without any exception whatsoever?
Yes.
BUMP
Very nice, dovetails with some other discussions we have had the past few days. Even when the imbedded essay was written the author could tell the freemasonary inspired constitutional order was unsustainable and we are paying the price today. The only answer is the restoration of Christendom under the Social Reign of Christ the King.
FReepmail me to get on or off this list
You agree the Church should dictate government???
”The second stage in Protestantism is to reject, in matters of religion, the authority of the temporal government, and to subject religion to the control of the faithful. This is the full recognition in matters of religion of the democratic principle.”
You agree we should give up democratic principles???
”The third and last stage of Protestantism is Individualism.”
You agree we should give up individualism???
This is nothing more than Socialism wrapped in another bandage and was never what the church was intended to be. Reading about Augustine’s history I recall how he was fearful of going into a town for he feared the people would make him a bishop (which is what happened). The people decided who would be their bishop-not the Church.
”Orestes Brownson was correctly assessing the state of contemporary events and predicting what would happen in the future if the Catholic Faith was not recognized as the only basis of personal sanctity and hence of all social order.”
Please. Put away the piety. The author sounds like he longs for the medieval ages when the Church could interpret the scriptures to suit their “social order” or finance their schemes.
You make it sound like the medieval Church was always corrupt. In fact, it wasn't. The high point of corruption was during the Renaissance, NOT during the medieval ages.
Amen. Amen. Amen. Christ is King. Mary is Queen!
Of course not. I believe this particular one is a legend that got out of hand. I did some research on it, and some catholic scholars as well as one who was in charge of the shrine said that it wasn't true. Of course, the church sidelined the one. There is a book about it written by a catholic scholar and priest that I had on loan. I don't know what became of him.
I do think it is wrong to convert ignorant people using stories taken literally that probably aren't true. There are some serious questions and discrepancies about this particular catholic cult.
I don't know if the following one is really true or not either, but it did happen more recently:
This one has a little more credibility with me, but of course I don't know what really happened at Fatima:
This one would have involved the old mass, too.
I don't like to be a scoffer, but I am a stickler for the truth as best as I can determine what it is.
I don't know if I should leave that page up much longer. Hardly anybody ever looks at it, and I not much of a promoter of material I post on the net.
Some 'Catholic' scholars today say a lot of things.
If they have done serious research, I think they deserve consideration even if someone's ox gets gored.
I would rather face the truth about things, even if it makes people not like me or what I say. There are things I definitely believe, things I'm not sure about, and things I seriously doubt that have come down to us through tradition.
I don't know how Drolesky can put his name to something so ahistorical and meaningless.
At some point, militant triumphalism tips over into self-worship.
Aliska makes a good point. While I have not "extensive research" on this, I tend to believe the majority of it to be true.
But just like the Medjugorge chasers, if this were somehow proven NOT to be true or of divine origin, it shouldn't shake our Faith. One is private revelation, not binding on Catholics, but piously believed. The other is public revelation. Our Lady of Guadalupe, I believe, seems to fit well with the Kingship of Christ and Our Lady of Fatima, in my opinion.
We shouldn't be surprised that other Catholics, all orthodox, don't hold this worldview. But they should read Pius XI encyclicals on Christ's Kingship and on the Feast of the Kingship of Christ, as well as Leo XIII and others.
My point being, anyone can make any claims that they want to. How can we determine "If they have done serious research", when you have provided no names, (and therefore their qualifications and potential personal agendas cannot be determined), and no source to be evaluated, no evidence to back up the claims.
I'm not exactly what you mean as not being true. I think it is indisputably a supernatural event.
Are you aware that in the eyes of the Virgin imprinted on the tilma are the figures of everybody present when Juan Diego presented the tilma to the Bishop?
These figures can only be seen with the aid of modern scientific equipment, and could certainly not have been produced by hand at that time, or even at this time.
The fact that a simple impression on a cloak could produce hundreds of thousands of conversions speaks volumes for the case of a supernatural event rather than a case of fraud. True conversions are the work of the Holy Ghost, not a passing fancy of a picture.
I'm sure though that there are even Priests who would like to pass it off as fraud in order to damage the faith.
How is this ahistorical and meaningless?
Considering that it is infallible Catholic doctrine, sure. Every Catholic is supposed to know and believe this. It is merely a couple hundred year's worth of expanding Liberalism which has deceived them into believing otherwise. Or to tolerate it, ignore it, or to consider what God ordained to be no longer possible or reasonable.
I believe it. Not sure what everyone else's problem is.
"You agree we should give up democratic principles???"
Those principles are offensive to Christ and are in opposition to His Church.
"You agree we should give up individualism???"
Yes. Individualism is this: I will not serve. That's basically it in a nutshell. It is in conflict with the essence of man and family. It is evolutionary; it is self-seeking.
"This is nothing more than Socialism wrapped in another bandage and was never what the church was intended to be."
It is what the Church was intended to be. But nope, it ain't Socialism. In fact, it is Socialism's polar opposite. What we have right now... that's socialism. SocialismLite, but just wait around. It'll get worse. Anyone can see that it is getting worse.
"Please. Put away the piety."
No. Not if it is the real thing, no way. Piety means in Latin dutifulness; theologically it is fulfillment of duty to God, state, family, Faith. You want this stuff put away?
"The author sounds like he longs for the medieval ages when the Church could interpret the scriptures to suit their “social order” or finance their schemes.
That's just a little tricking wording on your part to make it appear as if the author is limited to choosing between two lousy candidates:
Choice A: ditch his disturbing thesis about Catholic monarchy, or
Choice B: ...or you'll just say he's a crooked schemer based on your own revisionist, liberal bluescreen you call "history".
I must admit that you are being true to American principle, though. After all, we have once again been subjected to the torturous rule of two, prefabricated, lousy stinking choices... lol.
Your post to HarleyD is right on.
Correct. The point was merely an used allegorically to prove a point. Those Catholics who are unfamiliar with approved Marian apparitions and the Church's process for approval or disapproval should not be "slammed" for questioning them. Even if it is approved, theologically, a Catholic is NOT bound to hold to it. However, that does not mean that they should not believe it, nor that it might be beneficial for the proper understanding of objectivity, world view and faith. Normally, approved Marian apparitions, if understood properly, will enhance one's faith and world view. My point is that some of the things surrounding the stories of apparitions may or may not be historically accurate. I personally believe Dr. Drolesky's article is a masterpiece. However, I don't expect all Catholics to understand it nor agree with it. We should carefully and charitably point them to authoritative Church teaching that confirms Christ's kingship and Mary's Queenship.
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.