I don't think you've
kissed the ring of my new identity,
yet.
.
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.
The posts on QUix’s pentos came after one got tired of QUix’s meandering multi-font attacks
And when to hit the scroll wheel.
And, are you even Presbyterian or Pentecosatl for that matter?
Amen. Just by reading what Rome says about Mary we learn she (supposedly) actively participates in saving the world and guides Christians throughout their lives and presents them to God at their death.
That's a mighty crowded cross.
Rome denies Christ His singular Lordship and completely usurps the role and purpose of the Holy Spirit. A two-fer.
From this self-deception it's easy to see how Rome further parcels out the glory of Christ and the grace of God by giving it to "another Christ."
"(The papacy's) lofty vaunting of the false teachers, who wished to be deemed the organs of the Holy Spirit, and assumed to themselves all the authority of God." -- John Calvin, Jer. III:203.
I really like this. This is wisdom
Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister has been one of my favorite shows since I discovered it on PBS in the late 80s. My wife gave me the dvd collections of both for Christmas a few years ago, I want to say it was the same year that we were absolutely gutted to find out that Nigel Hawthorne was both dead and gay. I think we were watching the necrology on the Oscars, my wife shouted “Sir Humphrey died!”. I googled around for a few minutes and said “well I have worse news”.
I have often been accused of being Sir Humphrey reborn because of what some people call my obfuscatory verbal perambulations, at least I hope that’s why.
There is a new series called the Thick Of It which is sort of billed as the Yes Minister of the 21st century. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone in this forum of course, but there have been many occasions when I’ve wanted to unleash Malcolm Tucker upon the assembled throngs. Then again, it’s one thing that has brought me closer to my evangelical family members. A few Sundays ago I stood outside a restaurant with my cousin’s husband, sharing a set of earbuds listening to a stream of creative verbal cursing as he took notes for the next church board meeting.
Which brings me back around to my point, somehow. I would rather be subjected to a vile stream of profane obscenities than some of the pious knife twisting that goes on in the religion forum. At least then I know what’s being said, and so does everyone else.
it appears you can spell when you want to
Considering there are more Protestants than Roman Catholics in this country, that's an enormously revealing statistic.
And most of those "evangelicals and fundamentalists who are considering entering the (RC) church" are no doubt non-RC spouses of Roman Catholics.
Thanks for your very well-done post on the Lord’s Day.
I’ve seen a range of beliefs on FR, at the other edge are the Messianic Jews. The difference between being Jews and being Christians of course goes back to the first council. If you have a Church with authority as existed at the first and future councils, then the issues can be decided, with authority.
However if all you have, after you leave the Church is sola scriptura, you have the scriptures of both Jews and only Christians. With individual interpretation and authority a wide range of mixtures can be expected. From the Messianic Jews who attempt to follow Judaism only with a Messiah (some hold Christ is divine, some not, some trinitarians, some not, etc.) to Roamer who chooses the Jewish Sabbath over the Lord’s Day. And everything in between - OPC-types who emphasize the harsher aspects of the OT over the “God loves you” message of Jesus for example.
It surprised me that the question was so difficult to answer for some. Perhaps it is because it is indicative of a foundational problem in sola scriptura.
Thanks again for your post.
Sorry, should have included you in the ping to my previous post.
but you have had to make Mary the Holy Spirit to cram 4 personages into the Trinity
ALL THE WHILE DENYING IT! LOL.
Tell me that post, while within the guidelines, was not intentionally inflammatory.
WRONG.
I don’t know WHERE the critters come from. I believe it is more as some more objective scientists have asserted—from a “spiritual” DIMENSION . . . which is congruent with their being fallen angels as
Guy Malone of
and his extensive panel of top flight experts asserts.
THX.
I do agree that Rome does states as you have written here....but I am not convinced all catholics have this extreme devotion to Mary that we see written in these books. Yes, it is beyond error in how she is depicted but in speaking with former Catholics and those current I have found many know of this but give it no great importance.
We see this similar lack of really believing... in that a church might have as their doctrine certain statements that many in the Christian/Protestant non-denominational congregations aren’t even aware fo let alone follow or put much weight in.
However, I am certainly stunned with what has been posted their literature ...and those who “sanctioned” it as allowable within the Catholic faith.
.
LOL
Yep...no doubt..does an exrodinary work maintaining these threads..has my respect as well.
It certainly can be. And it's disruptive even more when it's done with great repetition and size.
If the standard of violation is "inflammatory" then this can certainly be at the top of the scale. HOWEVER...
The question is how do you develop guidelines for "trash-talk." Font size, number, color, etc. were suggested. But I'd hate to be the one monitoring that, and what if the post itself were completely benign?
Again, I think it comes down to moderator judgement. If a poster adds almost nothing but flame bait and trash-talk, it's up to the moderator to determine the line and discipline, whether or not any guideline has been violated.
Here's how one Amazon book reviewer put it:
The Tragic (constrained) vision of human nature views man as possessing foibles, incentives, and the desire to act in his own self-interest. The Tragic "sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings."...The Utopian (unconstrained) vision holds that man has not yet achieved his full moral potential, and that that potential is essentially perfectible. It is "foolish and immoral choices explain the evils of the world - and that wiser or more moral and humane social policies are the solution."
These different "Visions", as Sowell calls them, are irreconcilable. Our Utopian Romanist FRiends believe that things should be moderated by "reason" as dictated by select elites. The Tragics here see the Utopians for what they are, Liberals.
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.