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.
Let's hear Calvin's take on the verse...
This explanation contains a true, godly, and useful doctrine, that then only are the prophecies read profitably, when we renounce the mind and feelings of the flesh, and submit to the teaching of the Spirit; but that it is an impious profanation of it when we arrogantly rely on our own acumen, deeming that sufficient to enable us to understand it, though the mysteries contain things hidden to our flesh, and sublime treasures of life far surpassing our capacities. And this is what we have said, that the light which shines in it, comes to the humble alone. But the Papists are doubly foolish, when they conclude from this passage, that no interpretation of a private man ought to be deemed authoritative. For they pervert what Peter says, that they may claim for their own councils the chief right of interpreting Scripture; but in this they act indeed childishly; for Peter calls interpretation private, not that of every individual, in order to prohibit each one to interpret; but he shews that whatever men bring of their own is profane. Were, then, the whole world unanimous, and were the minds of all men united together, still what would proceed from them, would be private or their own; for the word is here set in opposition to divine revelation; so that the faithful, inwardly illuminated by the Holy Spirit, acknowledge nothing but what God says in his word. However, another sense seems to me more simple, that Peter says that Scripture came not from man, or through the suggestions of man. For thou wilt never come well prepared to read it, except thou bringest reverence, obedience, and docility; but a just reverence then only exists when we are convinced that God speaks to us, and not mortal men. Then Peter especially bids us to believe the prophecies as the indubitable oracles of God, because they have not emanated from men's own private suggestions. 20. Knowing this first - Here Peter begins to shew how our minds are to be prepared, if we really wish to make progress in scriptural knowledge. There may at the same time be two interpretations given, if you read ἐπηλύσεως as some do, which means occurrence, impulse; or, as I have rendered it, interpretation, ἐπιλύσεως. But almost all give this meaning, that we ought not to rush on headlong and rashly when we read Scripture, confiding in our own understanding. They think that a confirmation of this follows, because the Spirit, who spoke by the prophets, is the only true interpreter of himself.
Yes, some theologians did and those theologians were wrong.
Neither Christ nor the apostles taught the concept of limbo and the early church didn't believe it.
Rome pretends.
Discernment.
My question was not about the Mormons. I asked if Dr. E contends that non-Trinitarians such as Oneness Pentacostals and Unitarians are not Christians.
"And highly plausible, too." - Michael Keaton, "Multiplicity."
And you got the answer.
some hold that there are 3 in the one, but the 3 vary, even to being 4 and sometimes 5. Are there 3 persons, 4 persons, or 3 persons, one ghost and or one god who was a man, to men and a baby.
two
What do you then call the state that in which the souls of the Patriarchs were held, the Bosom of Abraham, while awaiting Christ's opening gates of Heaven?
Sinners.
The dirty little secret is that Rome has always cozied up to Islam because for centuries the muslims have been instrumental in destroying one of Rome’s primary adversaries — the Russian Orthodox church.
They believe he is their savior. The Bible says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." It doesn't say believe he is God equal and coeternal with the Father, just that God [sic] raised him: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
The Bible also says "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" or obey Jesus "And [Jesus] being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him," or keep his saying "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death" or just by his name "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [besides Jesus'] under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved," etc, etc. etc.
I did.
I did, but it was to a question I didn't ask.
and 1.5 million Armenian Christians
And Christ told them they could pass on the special gifts He gave for the foundation of the New Testament church where again?
Scripture teaches peters infallibility where again?
1000 silverlings: you posted that you would go “into a feral rage”
OK, upon reflection that was entirely too strong a term to use. There was a smiley just before it and a lol at the end of the description but obviously I failed to express myself clearly. I was attempting to briefly but forcefully answer a question without (and this is to laugh) going into too much detail.
Maybe I should have just responded by posting a link to this. For goodness sake don't read too much into it.
OLD REGGIE: Why would an individual expect to post highly unusual personal information without raising eyebrows and inviting questions?
I think I made it clear that I knew I was opening myself up to comments. People are allowed to make observations about me and at the same time I am allowed to express my disappointment at the nature of the responses.
It was a risk, I took it. The shift in focus from the issue to my person was annoying but it didn't actually damage me. I'll go back to my comments that OLD REGGIE found so condescending because I believe them: we can't call each other liars, we just treat each other like liars. We aren't allowed to "make it personal" so we strip the personhood from the people we're supposedly engaging.
One wonders why they hate Luther so much
Luk 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Isn't that what the pope believes?
So you want us to believe that the Holy Spirit indwells and speaks to every Protestant with absolute clarity and fidelity but not to the Pope? Right......
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.