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.
There's in important difference between going into Church history to find our what happened and going into it looking for gotchas. Everybody who has spent more than 5 minutes on it knows the iconoclastic controversy was complicated. We also know which side prevailed.
Your first clue that your source is biased is that it cites the conclusion of a NON-ecumenical (therefore not authoritative) council (and not a council, ether, but whatever -- it doesn't need to be true if it's anti-Catholic) as thought it were of more than merely historical interest.
Look here for more reliable info.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
You’ve likely never darkened the door of a real Christ centered church.
.
Are you readin Cronos' mind? That is against the rules.
You shouldn’t be praying for other people either, that is being the intercessor between that person and God.
Crones......I have not stated I hate the Popes, which has much to do with what catholics believe, even if their positions change from time to time. I do not however see them as an authority over the church in the way catholics do. The Pope is simply their leader for want of a better word...or head Pastor if you will. But not crowned by God to be His spokesman...Jesus fulfilled that in every way. The opposition to my reference is exactly why I don't use catholic history as references....rather posting scripture. because then the resource is always challenged and diverts from the topic...even if it's from a catholic source! Tha's because catholics and Popes do not always agree on their own history so then how does one determine the truth of that history? Thus the scripture seems much more to my preference. For that is where my standard of beliefs rest...as said before literature and History are "helps" but.... "the Word of God is settled in Heaven" So then who is to believe either side of the historical truth?
Oh, darn! How COULD I?
> “So which is it? Directly to the Father? Or with Jesus as Mediator?”
.
Is God’s word really that difficult for you to understand?
Praying to the Father in the name of Jesus is something you do not understand?
Or are you just trying to put up another smoke screen?
.
The "brotherhood of man" is not taught anywhere in scripture.. Adam was created perfect, and completely innocent , after the fall men are born with imperfect sinful natures looking like their sinful father Adam, while retaining some of the image of God, but no longer innocent and pure
God never changes, however God is the sum of all His attributes.. His attributes never change. All His attributes, unlike ours, are Holy and proceed from His righteous..
"Father, forgive them for they don't know what they do.
That is not a general call to the Father for ALL mankind.. it was specific to those that crucified Him and were mocking Him and gambling for His garments at the foot of the cross..
Please read scripture in context.. we can not apply the specific to the general
We're all just trying to understand what the heck the "Reformed" are talking about.
catholics pray to mary since she is the gateway to Christ. However, there’s 140 million and growing who are learning the difference
Old arguement Jaded....vast difference between praying to the risen Christ and obeying His word that He is our only intercessor...and that of praying to statues of various departed Prophets/Saints and the like who have no authority on earth.
Wow! Who KNEW? Is that in the BIBLE? REALLY?
Well, the jig is up then, isn't it.
Look, excuse the silliness. But isn't it silly to think that we don't know about this verse?
I don't know about you, but I managed to escape from high school 45 years ago. About halfway through my freshman year I realized that argument was better suited as a tool for friends to examine the truth in love than as a weapon with which to triumph over trumped up adversaries.
This particular verse and the argument which depends on it has been made at least dozens of times. And yet I still pray to Mary, Dominic, Terese, Katherine Laboure, and more. Read the preceding 5 verses and you'll get a hint as to why the argument is not persuasive.
> “You shouldn’t be praying for other people either, that is being the intercessor between that person and God.”
.
What not another shameless strawman from the Catholics; can it be?
To be the intercessor, the person would have to be praying to you, or under the ‘authority’ of your name.
Capiche?
What about the parable of the Good Samaritan? If I recall correctly, Christ told that in response to the question "Who is my brother?" In any case, that would show the brotherhood of man.
Oh! I forgot. The Gospels, and Christ's preaching, is not important to you.
What else did Jesus do? Does He save all men?
Thanks! I should have taken the time to look stuff up myself, knowing how utterly unreliable their sources typically are!
My understanding is the image/idol issue was introduced in the sixteenth century, better said re-introduced.
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.