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.
Ohhh one more thing.. why waste your breath on debating doctrine with an acknowledged agnostic ? BTW EO’s are pretty much full Pelagians so they start out with a heretical view of the fall and sin
“”Why did God send His son Jesus into this world? Was it not that He should die for the sins of the world?””
It was a freely given act of love ,not an obligation to us undeserving sinners
Do you actually believe that Christ was obligated to mankind to die for our sins, thus meaning He OWED mankind the Crucifixion ?
It was man who crucified Christ, and MAN crucified Him of their OWN FREE WILL,BD. Christ did not crucify Himself for the sins he willed since God cannot will sin or God would be imperfect- The Crucifixion was for sins that we went AGAINST the will of God.
“”BTW EO’s are pretty much full Pelagians “”
You prove yourself time and time again to be in error on subjects you should not be guessing at.
Catholicism/Orthodoxy belief is synergism- where God ALWAYS makes the initiative
Perhaps you should read Saint John Cassian..
http://www.osb.org/lectio/cassian/conf/book2/conf13.html#13.13
How human efforts cannot be set against the grace of God.
AND so the grace of God always co-operates with our will for its advantage, and in all things assists, protects, and defends it, in such a way as sometimes even to require and look for some efforts of good will from it that it may not appear to confer its gifts on one who is asleep or relaxed in sluggish ease, as it seeks opportunities to show that as the torpor of man’s sluggishness is shaken off its bounty is not unreasonable, when it bestows it on account of some desire and efforts to gain it. And none the less does God’s grace continue to be free grace while in return for some small and trivial efforts it bestows with priceless bounty such glory of immortality, and such gifts of eternal bliss. For because the faith of the thief on the cross came as the first thing, no one would say that therefore the blessed abode of Paradise was not promised to him as a free gift, nor could we hold that it was the penitence of King David’s single word which he uttered: “I have sinned against the Lord,” and not rather the mercy of God which removed those two grievous sins of his, so that it was vouchsafed to him to hear from the prophet Nathan: “The Lord also hath put away thine iniquity: thou shalt not die.”[151] The fact then that he added murder to adultery, was certainly due to free will: but that he was reproved by the prophet, this was the grace of Divine Compassion. Again it was his own doing that he was humbled and acknowledged his guilt; but that in a very short interval of time he was granted pardon for such sins, this was the gift of the merciful Lord. And what shall we say of this brief confession and of the incomparable infinity of Divine reward, when it is easy to see what the blessed Apostle, as he fixes his gaze on the greatness of future remuneration, announced on those countless persecutions of his? “for,” says he, “our light affliction which is but for a moment worketh in us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,”[152] of which elsewhere he constantly affirms, saying that “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the future glory which shall be revealed in us.”[153] However much then human weakness may strive, it cannot come up to the future reward, nor by its efforts so take off from Divine grace that it should not always remain a free gift. And therefore the aforesaid teacher of the Gentiles, though he bears his witness that he had obtained the grade of the Apostolate by the grace of God, saying: “By the grace of God I am what I am,” yet also declares that he himself had corresponded to Divine Grace, where he says: “And His Grace in me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: and yet not I, but the Grace of God with me.”[154] For when he says: “I laboured,” he shows the effort of his own will; when he says: “yet not I, but the grace of God,” he points out the value of Divine protection; when he says: “with me,” he affirms that it cooperates with him when he was not idle or careless, but working and making an effort.
They deny original sin... so do you agree with them on that ?
“It was a freely given act of love”
For what purpose?
Did God send His only son into the world knowing that by doing so Jesus would be killed?
This is from Orthodox wiki
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin
Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience.
“BTW EO’s are pretty much full Pelagians so they start out with a heretical view of the fall and sin.”
R, do you honestly know and understand what Pelagianism is? Somehow I doubt it. Perhaps you know as much about Pelagaianism as you do about heresy?
The Protestant nonsense taught about Pelagius is nothing more than uninformed drivel, a cartoon version of what Blessed Augustine (wrongly) taught, used traditionally to discredit Roman Catholicism whence the Protestants learned to misunderstand many of the teachings of the Eastern Fathers.
So, R, why don’t you tell us all just what exactly Pelagianism is, who taught and teaches it, and what it was precisely which Pelagius taught which is heretical. Remember, these issues were settled long before anyone even dreamed of something like Rome’s offspring Protestantism...and that Pelagius, before he died, successfully defended himself in two trials before councils of The Church (both instigated by operatives of the Bishop of Rome).
For us to have a chance of Salvation that was not OWED to us but given to us out of Love
Did God send His only son into the world knowing that by doing so Jesus would be killed?
God does not stop, think, than act accordingly since He knows everything before Him as one Now.He does not wait for man to sin first and does not plan for sin since all our free choices to sin are known at once
Christ dying on the cross is an act of Love from all eternity
Are you suggesting that the death of Christ was not an act of love?
I'm checking out for awhile
I wish you a Blessed day!
Catholics like to pretend that they and the orthodox are the same except for the papacy
Not so
They reject the teachings of Augustine on original sin.. they do not believe that man is born with the sin or the guilt of the sin of Adam, only with the effects of the fall.
Ridiculous. Why do you make up silly things like this and then try to pass them off as truths? Is that typical Protestant behav... oh wait... it is, isn't it?
Are not Catholics seeking communion with the OE?
The Pope has made bringing the two lungs of the Church into communion once again one of his top priorities, but that has nothing to do with ridiculous head spinning statements such as "Catholics like to pretend that they and the orthodox are the same except for the papacy". Many of the differences have actually been brought up many times all over this thread.
Surely you have the ability to retain information long enough to remember stuff you've read in the last couple of days or months.
The OE have a very basic set of differences with the RC ...yet reading some of the threads here you would think that they could simply forget Purgatory, the difference in the sacraments or the different view of the fall.. looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine.. in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are
Ummmmm... Okay, chief. Whatever you say.
Ummmmm... Okay, chief. Whatever you say.
“...looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine.. in reality the EO are no closer to the Rc doctrinally than protestants are”
No, looking alike in worship does not mean the same as in doctrine... or dogma for that matter, but the remainder of your statement is absolute nonsense, R. The Latins and we Orthodox are all members of The Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, despite our dogmatic and doctrinal and ecclesiological differences which are manifested in the Schism between their hierarchs and ours. We have share valid sacraments, valid orders and hierarchs within the Apostolic Succession. You folks simply aren’t members at all, in any way at all.
And R, you protestants, being in fact the rebellious children of the Church of Rome, bear a striking resemblance to your Holy Mother the Latin Church.
To use your arguments, why would geoffmylawn listen to someone who is not either Catholic or Orthodox? Your comments suggest that in order to say what you said you have either never read what the EOC and the RCC teach on the intermediates state of the souls after physical death, or that you don't understand it, or both, but lack of understanding seems obvious.
The fact is that both Churches believer in the purification of the souls and offer prayers and services for the departed who died without repenting of all their sin, in order to ease their discomfort of standing naked before heavens with all their sins exposed.
The difference has to do with the definition of the "purifying fire." The EOC objected to the idea that this is "real fire" as the RCC mentioned in the historical course of church teachings. Somehow the idea, no matter how preposterous, that God cold be "roasting" unrepentant souls to his 'satisfaction" never cough on in the East.
But Catholic apologetics will actually tell you that this is not what the Church teaches, so chances are the East will find reconciliation with the West on that subject the least difficult.
The differences on Immaculate Conception are real and are tied to the western notion of the original sin. In the East, such a dogma makes no sense. But since the original sin is not a dogma, the East wold not have any problems with the West continuing to believe Immaculate Conception as a matter of de fide limited to the West, but would object to insisting that it be accepted in the East.
As regards the original sin, the East believes what the early Church believed. Augustinian teaching are alien to the East and as such rejected as a theologoumennon (religious hypothesis), not as doctrine or, worse, dogma. It was never declared dogma during the undivided Church of the first millennium.
However, the resolution of this conflict is not impossible either. The RCC does not teach that you are born with an actual sin, but with the stain (consequence) of sin, namely the propensity for sin. It is a condition, like a disease, passed on to all succeeding generations by parents to children, because it is the fallen human nature.
The EOC teaches that man is born innocent of any committed sin, but with a "sick" soul, or deformed will, in need of healing and divine Physician.
You also mention sacraments. Which sacraments are different in the east as opposed the West? Both Churches recognize the same seven sacraments, bot churches recognize each others' orders as valid orders, and apostolic succession as the source of apostolic authority.
A Catholic priest is received into the Orthodox Church without having to go back to the seminary. That is not the case with any of the non-Catholic "clergy."
In short everything you wrote is dead wrong. I wonder who or what is your source of misinformation. But he or it is not doing you any favor.
True, but the fact that we have to admit that "later teachings" even exist suggests that either St. Basil did not speak for the Church and should be quoted only when his teachings reflect consesus patrum, or that the Church did not have faith delivered once and believed everywhere and always. Take your pick.
Why the Cappadocians held the pedagogic evils notion is something I have never understood since it flies in the face of their teaching which says that God is not the cause of any evil.
For the same reason the Blessed Augustine had to write his Retractions at the end of his life—he was speculating! People forget that individual Fathers are not infallible individuals and that they searched for answers just like everyone else did and does. Some things they get right, others they get wrong.
Without the consensus of the Church as whole, such individual speculations lead into Protestant-like error, and when we quote early Church Fathers we should be careful to make sure what they say agrees with the consensus patrum, rather than present their individual opinions as authoritative one-man "dogma".
Seriously, what kind of a father would do that? And why didn't the Father die for the sins of the world? What kind of an example is that to imitate?
The Jewish God never taught such a thing! No wonder, the Jews would not hear any of it.
Why does Jesus need to be sanctified? Does that really make sense to you? Do you think Jesus was not holy but had to make himself holy?
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.