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.
“He [Plinio Correa de Oliveira] does not speak for the Church ...”
The there is nothing in the article that says he does; but, he certainly speaks for himself as a Catholic, and for all those Catholics who agree with him.
Hank
He was not a Catholic, he was a heretic who allowed his small group of followers to teach that his (Oliveira's) mother was a quasi-divine being and that he himself was a divine being (known as "The Axiological Principle").
Oliveira was, putting it mildly, a troubled individual.
But why stop at Oliveira?
There is a guy who lives in his mom's basement in Delia, KS named David Bawden. But he claims that he is Pope Michael I and that Benedict XVI is an impostor.
Why not cite him as a source, too?
I’m holding out for the Holy Baptist Empire to be headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Actually I am interested in why the Catholic Church is both a political system, with its own sovereign state, ambassadors, political leader, etc. and a religious system, with the same leader as its political leader. The only reason I can see is they want both political power and religious power in the world. WHich is exactly what Islam has.
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord,we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them that glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be be side ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that He died for all, that they which live not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by jesus Christ, and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconcilation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For He (God) hath made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:10-21)
Catholic monarchists are a bunch of loonies.
But still, they’re talking about a state church and not a theocracy.
The Protestants were the only ones who were really big on theocracy. Look at Calvin. Look at the English Puritans who overran the Anglicans (members of the state church). And it didn’t work for them either.
“Instead of fretting about the Holy Roman Empire which has about as much chance of returning as Babe Ruth has of suiting up for the Red Sox, you might want to give a thought to the coming marginalization and persecution of Christians in this country. That’s the real issue.”
I have.
Defending Christianity and Christians:
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/objectivism/three_books.php
Opposing the normalization of homosexuality
http://usabig.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=108
Hank
It is not a political system. Like any other church, even down to the Unitarians, the Catholic Church has its own internal laws and its moral laws.
The Catholic Church has never been the same as the civil ruler, and in fact, the reason that many Catholics died was because of the conflicts between the civil ruler and Church authorities.
Henry VIII tried to establish himself as both the civil and religious ruler, but that didn’t work because Christianity can’t work that way, so all he really did was make Anglicanism the state church with the king or queen of England as its head.
The Catholic Church has NO civil power. The only place it has any power is the Vatican, which is a tiny fictional state composed mainly of a handful of clergy and religious that was set up to defend Catholic sites - such as St Peter’s Basilica - from secular powers that were trying to absorb or even destroy them.
“you have to take my word for what I say”
Well, no, I don’t have to take anyone’s word about anything. I chose to take their word about what they believe they are over what you believe they are.
If you don’t see any difference between someone saying what their religion is and someone saying they are Emperor or North America, I think you have a problem.
Hank
;)
Wow, nice to know that the loons I encounter elsewhere are just as loony about Catholicism as they are about science!
Actually, give me ANY government which faithfully believes in the absolute sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
It's the "faithfully" part that's the difficulty...
It certainly sounds both political and religious to me.
I think Muslims and leftist Muslim defenders who are posting on FR to try to defend Islam by claiming that the Catholic Church is the same need to get a little knowledge under their ignorant belts. The only thing in the US that has even been remotely similar to Islam - because while the Puritans wanted to establish a theocracy, Roger Williams undid that and there has never been another mainstream Protestant attempt - is Mormonism.
And the Mormons were defeated by the US Army (under the Constitution based on the rights of man found in [Christian] natural law) and shaped up when they realized they couldn’t get away with a theocracy.
Interestingly, the colony founded by a Catholic, Maryland, specifically provided for freedom of religion. When Calvert’s grandson converted to Protestantism (because of his marriage), he denied freedom of religion and imposed an oath of adherance to his particular Protestant church.
Go and read up on history a bit, boyz.
The answer is simple.
When the Popes were political subjects instead of sovereigns, the political powers over them tried to force them to follow the dictates of the state.
As the elected monarch of a sovereign state that extends over six city blocks, he is not beholden to any politician.
The only reason I can see is they want both political power and religious power in the world.
When the Papacy was at the absolute zenith of its political and military power in the late Middle Ages, the area controlled by the Pope was slightly smaller than West Virginia - or about 3% of the Catholic world.
All this talk of the "Holy Roman Empire" is quite amusing, since anyone acquainted with the history of Europe knows that the emperors and the popes were in constant conflict with one another - and both were in constant conflict with the King of France.
No society in human history has ever been more politically pluralistic than the Catholic Christendom of the Middle Ages.
WHERE did you conclude that I was either a Muslim or a leftist Muslim defender? lol! Because I asked you a simple, provable question about the Catholic Church being both a political and religious system? You need to read your history. Especially Constantine. Perhaps you are just ignorant of the fact that this is true. There is no shame in ignorance. There is shame in attacking someone when you don’t like the truth they show you.
So you maintain that there is a difference between (a) someone saying that he is something he's not and (b) someone saying that he is something he's not.
Being a Catholic isn't a subjective matter where each individual gets to define their own version of what it means to be a Catholic.
It is an objective matter: you either accept what the Church teaches or you don't.
Thanks for the pleasant reply. What actual power/influence did Constantine, as emperor, have over the Church when he converted?
Yes we are. Completely bonkers usually. Mad as hatters on our good days.
He didn't interfere with the Church's teaching, but he really changed the day-to-day lives of pastors and most lay believers by legalizing Christianity.
It's hard for us to imagine today a shift from the psychological pressure of being hunted for one's beliefs to the relief of being welcomed and encouraged.
His influence was not direct, but it was enormous: there were now no new martyrs. There were plenty of places to meet and teach when before there were few. Christians who had to sacrifice their inheritances and livelihoods and social position no longer had to.
Probably there were many new converts who were not particularly sincere or committed, but who were motivated to get on the Emperor's good side.
He definitely changed the dynamic drastically.
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.