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.
Adam obviously wasn't perfect since he was corruptible. He was created ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil.
Of course I am..but I’m praying to Christ Himself..who has all power and authority to answer my prayer, not some image or staute depicting an idea of what a long departed saint or pope or any other person might look like... who has no authority whatsoever to answer.
Well, if the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t have it...
you do realise that these “traditions” you rail about are what some website or pastor fed you? And these are probably as correct as your link that said Pope Constantine V?
all sorts of Catholic out there now, channeling, prophesying, speaking in tongues-— so is any of it real?
LOL. The reformed, as Bible-believing Christians on this forum, continually offer evidence from the Gospels to refute the errors of Rome.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
And please provide us with the post that says the Gospels "don't even apply to Christians."
Ok D-fendr.....what do you see bowing before an image/idol as?
Two different things. It is "idol" that makes the difference, and understanding what makes an idol an idol (in the religious sense) is key.
But Lincoln and other statues like him are not bowed before or put into the sphere of religious worship..
Let's take the analogy a bit more. Yes, an idol would have to be in the sphere of religion. If we think Lincoln was a, let's say hero, in American political history, we could honor, revere, venerate, him without fear of idolatry. We could queue to pass in silence before their casket in the rotunda, bow our heads when their cortége passed
A giant of sports, we could do the same. Build statues of them in front of ball parks, place flowers on their grave, give out jerseys with their number, etc. If we play the sport we would study them, emulate them, learn from them more about the sport. Depending on the sphere, the honor may take different appropriate forms.
Now, what of heroes in the religious sphere? Must we not honor them? Should we not have heroes in the religious sphere? Should we not treat them at least the same as our heroes in other spheres? Can that honor take a different form than that of a giant of sports.
So we come to the term "worship". From the Catholic perspective, others have an on/off switch when it comes to honor. We see a notion in others that is odd to us: if you honor someone in the religious sphere, it's worship. For us there is a difference between honor, veneration and the worship of God. It's a source of great misunderstanding.
The concept of asking the heroes of the religious sphere to pray for us is another topic involving intercessory prayer and the Communion of Saints; but I've already gone on too long here.
Thanks very much for your courteous discussion.
Actually, no, the most growth is to traditionalist, orthodox groups within the Church. And we’ve been there before when The Church was threatened — right from Nero’s persecutions, to the attacks by the Muslims when they conquered Spain and Italy and Anatolia and threatened to control Europe, we’ve been there at the battle of Lepanto and the Seige of Vienna, we’ve been there when Lutheranism and Calvinism threatened to overrun the Christian world. And yet, the Church survived all of this and thrived, THANKS TO GOD’s Grace. And we will survive while your heresy dies out — remember that your own particular grouping is a sub-grouping of some other sub-grouping that had a half-life of a few decades to less than a hundred years. it will die out as it is planted on stone, not in the rich soil that is God’s grace, not permanent like Christ’s Church, the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. We’ve survived 2000 years and will survive past you, thank you
lol. The "argument" never worked for Rome. Coercion, fear and superstition worked for Rome.
As you rightly noted, less and less these days.
Amen.
I remember that. And the bizarre comments that followed.
No...the jury is still out on that one...so until I have further investigated the idea is there indeed was conflict in the catholic church about idol/image worship and their presence in the church. Be it disallowed, re-introduced or whatever. The fact that today it remains a great issue does say much in itslef..so likely will never be resolved in our lifetime as to which side of that truth one will stand on...but choose we do and I have found images/idols in most catholic churches overwhelming and not in a good way. For that matter even some of the protestant churches.
No, the scriptures are the arbitrator between God and men...
And who interprets the scriptures for me?
You did not address the argument I offered. Instead you offered a lot of information with Scriptural citations and quotes (and interestingly omitting Ps 8 with the "little lower than the angels" phrase).
Not a single one of these, not one, of these pieces of evidence 'goes' against my argument.
The closest you get to the issue is in your first paragraph and "God did not send a savior to reclaim the fallen angels. He shows them no grace and no mercy ."
But nothing in what I said implied or was based on the idea of God sending a savior to fallen angels.
So the only way I can sort of find something to 'grip' in your post is if I think that the term 'grace' is limited in meaning to the quality and family of mercies God shows to humans in Jesus Christ and through His work.
But I know of no reason to limit grace to that meaning. IF that is the meaning of grace, then by definition it is not given to angels because they are not human. And then we have to find another word to describe the favor God shows to the rest of creation and especially to the rest of the rational creatures in creation.
But 'grace' is a fine word, and there is some kind of favor (SKOF) appropriate to be shown by God to humans, by humans to humans, by humans to animals -- and even plants! And there is SKOF appropriate to be shown by God to angels.
Just on the basis of language it seems to me to be clearer to use 'grace' to mean SKOF, and then to subdivide grace as to from and to whom it is shown and so forth.
Or do you say that God shows no favor at all to angels? If you do, then how would you account for their gifts -- and their very existence? (I don't mean that confrontatively, I'm really asking.)
OK I give up. In some "alter world" 'presense' is a synonym for 'person'.
Old traditional Catholicism is dying. I wondered why I was seeing those big old traditional churches all across the country being sold off.
At any rate, back to my questions: which of them are correct? After all there's only one church, right? Not 140 million. Is all that prophesying and speaking in tongues real? They feel a freedom to interpret scripture themselves, claiming that they have the gift of the HS. Are they right?
Did the Holy Spirit get confused?
Do not confuse them with context ..Rome knows they can not handle it..so never does it
why is the church threatened? so you agree it is then. The popes approved of the Pentecostal movement, so were they wrong? Don’t they have the gift of the HS? They are supposed to be the HS on earth, as the Vicar of Christ.
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.