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.
Thanks for the laugh!
Yeah, they love ‘tradition’ but when they need a scapegoat they’ll grab at anything to hide behind.
Do I have to say again that the question asked for your view on the issue of scripture and Sabbath? I can't imagine that would do any good. Nor will pointing out the simple fact that you still haven't given your view in response to the question.
Ok. I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to assume you just cannot grasp the concept, or that for some reason you're not capable of understanding what "your view" means on this question. Or that something in the form of this particular question just cannot be understood by you. Whatever reason, there's something in answering it directly that you can't see or do.
My apologies for asking of you something you can't do. I wish you well and may God bless you and yours.
What? Can't you sell Catholicism on its own merits?
It sometimes seems like
scape goats, hatches, excuses, rationalizations, extrapolations to Alpha Centauri & back . . .
are engineered into every other paragraph of their primary documents.
Incredible.
Sounds like folks think that when they bear false witness with
“ONLY GOD”
watching vs the RM,
that they think they are home safe.
The only presumed consequence may be more white hankys.
Both are largely undefined - Evangelical much more so than Protestant - in terms of beliefs and practices. A dodge.
As far as your belief in the Gospel, if you get far beyond the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed (both of which Catholics and Orthodox also believe), you will find a great deal of disagreement.
I would include the Athenasian Creed as well, which deals out many people who have developed innovations over the last few centuries.
The beliefs are often quite conflicting and anything but unified. Would you care to explain how High Church Anglicans and Southern Baptists have "unified" beliefs about the Eucharist or Baptism?
They don't. Obviously not. They agree on some Scripture and some Christian beliefs, but as a unified group, they do not qualify.
Please don't. The good Quix ably demonstrates his attachment to Christianity on a constant basis, and by parading a donkey about on a conservative forum, he also more than adequately illustrates his other beliefs as well.
Quix knows what he is doing. Do not despair.
That kind of post says more about the poster than it does about the target. Ignore it.
Also, posters on a Religion Forum should be aware that when they falsely accuse another Freeper of telling a lie (or bearing false witness) then they are guilty of the exact same thing.
But RF posters should not be surprised when other posters tell them that if they don’t believe exactly the same way they do, then they’re doomed to hell. When one belief spawns from another, both typically condemn the other, i.e. apostate, anathema, cult, heretic, Satanic, etc.
It’s rough in the town square and that's why thin-skinned posters should IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to caucus, ecumenical, prayer or devotional threads.
Still accusing another poster individually of a sin is inflammatory. Telling another poster he is bearing a false witness may not sound so bad, but what if you had said “you are an adulterer?”
Religion Forum posters probably are much more sensitive to accusations of sin or moral failures. The accusation itself understandably can incite a flame war or cause resentment.
My thinking now is that accusing any Religion Forum poster individually of breaking any of the “ten commandments” or of hating God or other people should be considered “making it personal.”
That prohibition would not apply to deities, religious figures, religious authorities, authors or groups of believers. For instance, it would not be making it personal to say “Muslims are adulterers” or “Protestants bear false witness” or “Catholics worship idols”.
Mull this over and let me know what you think. I won't make a change until I get some feedback.
WORKS FOR ME.
Sounds like Holy Spirit’s wisdom.
I’m touched by Holy Spirit’s anointing in your life and ministry hereon
yet again.
I do have still a slight to moderate reservation . . . not sure how to put it and I think it’s probably inconsequential.
I suspect you probably answered it when you said to post Scripture and ignore it otherwise.
It just feels like it would be good to have a kosher short response to outrageously untrue assertions.
Maybe Mutley or some other fitting gif would work.
I respect the suggestion about responding with Scripture but plenty of Scriptures could be construed as in violation of the Rel Forum rules, too! LOL.
Maybe I’m making too much of such relentless outrageously, brazenly untrue posts.
Your proposed stance/rules adjustment sounds pretty workable, I think. Shoot. We should try it for 90 days and see.
MAY HE BLESS YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ABUNDANTLY.
Ok, let's see, I'm willing to give you another shot at it then. (It doesn't require you to "bow to Satan.")
Notice that it is so simple a question that "yes" or "no" is a valid answer to it, though feel free to elaborate afterward on your affirmative or negative response.
Remember, please, this is "in your view":
In your view: Does God’s word say you are violating the commandments by celebrating the Lord’s Day on Sunday?
Sounds good to me.
All right, that's enough. You're the one who started this by accusing me of not knowing Scripture in post #2390. Running on Empty correctly called you out on reading my mind in post #2401. All I've been doing since then is been responding to your jihad against anyone who would dare stand up to you and/or dare dispute your wacked-out rants, as you sound amply demonstrated when you lashed out against D-fendr in #2617. And when I post a graphic calling you out for your troll-like tactics, the "thin-skinned" accusations against me still continue!? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound!?
Do you have any idea how old a lot of those “ornate” churches are? You should see Houston’s First Baptist or Second Baptist. They are both rather large. Neither are so large as the House of Joel. First Methodist has a multi-campus spread.
Who are these people worshipping?
The "don't feed the trolls" cartoons serve no purpose if you ignore them, so ignore them.
Keeping on digging, buddy.
You have become too thin-skinned for this thread. Leave the thread.
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.