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.
Wellllllllll here’s what I found moderately quickly:
The Baptism of Christ by Aert de Gelder
Refs links:
Last one I found and bothered with posted first:
Finally one wherein some bits of white could rationally be called a dove because of the Biblical reference; construing it as such:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gelder,_Aert_de_-_The_Baptism_of_Christ_-_c._1710.jpg
However, the ‘bird’part is soooo miniscule compared to the oval ‘craft’ part . . . I find it hard to describe the oval as a “halo.” It seems just as logical to claim that the craft released a dove in the midst of shining a light on the baptism.
I certainly wasn’t there, of course. None of us were. Neither was Gelder. However, there are a fair number of Renaissance paintings with definite UFO type CRAFT in them. Gelder would not be alone nor odd in putting such in that type of painting. It was done a fair amount.
ASSERTS IT’S A UFO:
http://www.uforc.com/religion/AF_moviesUFO-content_p30.html
A very unique—to me fairly preposterous—claim that a craft shaped or with flight characteristics like a dove descended on Christ at Baptism and then literally drove/conveyed Him into the wilderness. Sheesh.
http://www.uforc.com/religion/page1.html
Similar claims:
http://www.karenlyster.com/jesusufo.html
Thanks.
Plausible, NL.
To me, it makes it more or less equally plausible . . . or maybe even 60%/40% in favor of your explanation.
It seems a bit of an odd way to emphasize the dove, however. I realize that’s a bit of an ironic thing for me to say. LOL.
The UFO’s in a number of other Renaissance paintings are clearly depicted as craft, in most cases, however.
Curious, anyway. Thanks for your enlightening comments.
For all of his talents there is a reason that de Gelder isn't considered one of the greats.
More than a plausible point, alright.
Thx.
A paragraph from the link by Lawrence Auster, quoted above on this thread by “Dr. Eckleburg.”
This writer is clearly racist, and it is clear why David Horowitz fired him from his magazine; furthermore, Dr. E’s statement that those who do not like Lawrence Auster are socialists (clearly not true.
In view of this, I would like to ask the RM to check out this source from the links given, and decide if it can be used as a source on FR. With no difficulty, I and others found blatant white supremicist type comments.
According to the latest article on the Papal Visit at the dailymail.co.uk:
The Pope flew home last night after a triumphant four-day state visit, declaring that Britons have a thirst for Christianity.
In a final attack on the atheists who tried to wreck the visit, Benedict XVI said that the country has become ‘a highly secularised environment’.
His speech was the culmination of a tour aimed at re-evangelising a country he believes has slipped away from its Christian roots.
The popularity of his visit confounded opponents who predicted thin congregations and empty parks.
Benedict’s speeches and homilies – which have confronted his own Nazi past – appear to have overshadowed the views of protesters, led by Stephen Fry and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell.
You are absolutely right. That is something the Church believed entirely de fide as a matter of tradition probably beginning with the 2nd century, along with the belief that she died and was assumed bodily into heaven on the third day (the Eastern Orthodox Feast of the Dormition of the Ever Virgin Mary dates to the earliest days of the Church).
Origen (late 2nd and early 3rd century eastern theologian) is credited as being the first among Christian apologists to actually use the term ever virgin for Mary (about the same time as Terrullian, in the west, coined the term Trinity).
The Creed also alters Pauline verse (1 Co 15:4) when it says "and rose on the third day according to the scriptures" rather than "was raised..."
Also, the original Nicene Creed does not really establish the co-equality of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. That is accomplished only at the Second Ecumenical Council few decades later, towards the end of the fourth century.
Immaculate Conception remains utterly unknown to the East.
Funny how those who scream like scalded cats when they think the rules are being violated are so silent and blind to their own transgressions.
They need a lot of prayer, in my opinion.
Mostly because they can.
Mostly because they can.
Calvin, much marginalized by today's culture, might have some redemptive value with the Gays and Islam. What say you about the trifecta of Calvin, Gays and Islam? Can a visionary like yourself divine any events by such a commingling of their combined assets?
Perhaps this would signal the long awaited and speculated arrival of the anti-christ longed for by the by the far out bible belt cults. Could Calvin be the anti-christ?
Helrey, I am pulling my hairs trying to understand this (seriosuly). If you cannot choose anything that would please God, then whose decision is it that you "abide in Him"?
Scripture teaches the Trinitarian concept where again? Where again does scripture teach sola scriptura? Or sola fide? Where again does scripture teach about the USA?
I say Roman Catholic apologists have little to base their hope on, so they fabricate straw men and congratulate themselves on knocking them over.
Perhaps this would signal the long awaited and speculated arrival of the anti-christ
Scripture tells us there are many anti-christs and one of them just passed through Britain.
Me too. But I had a thought. There may be a way to get there.
I don't agree with it, but Harley is, I believe, going to at least be consistent and thoughtful. I think there has to be a way to get there based on some premise.
What if you assume there are only two kinds of humans, an on/off. The first I would call worse-than-sociopaths. Imagine your worst movie evil guy. That's the first type. The second type is what I would call your-average-human.
Now, if, in Calvinism this defined the double predestination and we call the first group Totally Depraved, the second Irresistible Grace; Reprobate and Elect.
Then, if you were your-average-human and you could even conceive of doing "good," you must be elect. IOW, if you're not a worse-than-sociopath (Dirty Harry's Punk), you're elect, and everything follows. You have "free will to choose God" because you're elect - you know right from wrong. It doesn't seem like there's anything to the choice - right is right, you can't imagine it really even being a choice. You still screw up, but the choice is obvious in the larger sense.
Now, the difference, IMHO, is I don't believe totally evil people exist, and even if they do, they are not deprived of grace or the opportunity to respond.
What is described as the elect, I see as everyman, knowing good from evil, capable in every moment of making the choice of self or good, his will or God's will (as Harley described himself doing) guided by God. In Calvinism she/he is already saved, assured of it because they know "good," therefore must be elect - the reprobate is incapable of even this, or at least not in his being.
In the Church, this knowing is written in our hearts, all hearts, and theosis, growing in moral discernment, the Sacramental Life, purgation, illumination, etc. are the real story of salvation. In Calvinism this is only details in the lives of the already heaven-bound elect.
Anyway, although I think both double predestination and this on/off division of humans is in error, it is a way I can start to understand how it can make sense, given these assumptions.
Since I have evidence that Harley is no fool and that he's worked out the details to his own satisfaction using Calvinism, this is how I make some sense of it.
Harley, of course, can then tell me just how off base I am with it.
From the link you posted, I don't think Auster is a "white supremacist," as you labeled him. He's against affirmative action. But I am not about to defend Auster's comments on race because I haven't read enough of them to know where he stands. But people get fired for a variety of reasons. David Horowitz fired Alex Knepper for criticizing Ann Coulter who was herself fired from National Review Online.
Auster criticizes the Roman Catholic church, and thus he brings the wrath of Rome and its apologists down on his head.
Discuss the comments I posted by Auster. Stick to the topic and try not to make it personal.
Organizers now anticipate around 55,000 worshippers to gather for the beatification of Cardinal Newman Sunday in Birmingham, central England, compared to the 80,000 people originally expected. Fewer pilgrims are also expected at the open-air mass at Glasgow's Bellahouston Park than those who showed up at the venue for a mass given by Pope John Paul II there in 1982. This was not because of lack of interest, however, organizers said. "I think one of the problems is that quite a lot of the trees in the park have grown since then, which is a tendency which trees have, which has altered the sight lines," said Lord Chris Patten, who is heading the government's part of the visit. "Quite properly, welcoming as the citizens of Glasgow are, they don't want to cut down all their trees," he said. John Paul II was the first pope ever to set foot on English soil, and his visit came at the height of his popularity at the time. Benedict's visit, starting Thursday, has been overshadowed by the church's clerical sex abuse scandal. Smaller crowds than initially expected will attend events scheduled during Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said Tuesday.
Ah, yes, "those pesky trees." Pity all those evergreens and poplars keep growing "which is a tenancy which trees have," or so we're told.
But we all know how Rome operates. If there were three people there, the press release would say 300 showed up.
Just like when Ratzinger supposedly "walked out" on Sheik Tamiri in Jerusalem...until the film of the event revealed Ratzinger sitting politely through Tarmiri's entire 6-minute diatribe against the Jews, followed by Tamiri shaking hands with a smiling, convivial Ratzinger not once, but TWICE.
Rome lies.
You've made this crude and loony statement before, Mark. What could you possibly mean by it?
Or are you mind-reading again?
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.
