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.
Then it’s not in vain. 8~)
What do you think was being discussed?
The winner and new champ...15,000!
I do indeed know what Mark was talking about— why it’s difficult to believe that some are Christian. Have you forgotten? Do you need a refresher? I cannot imagine why you are trying to get me to state what has already been stated. Can you explain?
15,000? Oh, riiiiiiight.
It’s not hypothetical, nor as you accused, “my own concoction yet you attributed it to others.” I was trying to avoid the insults and discuss the content of the statement - unsuccessfully, here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2578704/posts?page=9171#9171
So, again, does this “gibberish” statement illustrate “an incorrect understanding of the Trinity.”
lol.
ROFL! Well done.
Perhaps Dr. E. can explain that.
I predict its gibberosity will suddenly disappear.
That statement doesn’t say anything about the Trinity which was the topic at hand. The reformed were accused of misunderstanding the Trinity.
You lose. Try again.
Why is it “well done?” How does that statement have anything to do with the Trinity? (Which is what was being discussed, just in case you didn’t have a clue.)
What was being discussed?
Well, that will happen anytime you get a post like 9171. And frankly it IS about the Trinity.
ROFL! I'm not doing your work for you. If you can't remember, just say so.
How is it about the Trinity?
You see nothing regarding an incorrect understanding of the Trinity in the statement:
““Jesus’ body carried God.”
Ok. Seems quite obvious to me there’s a major misunderstanding of the Triune God there. Perhaps we can revisit that.
Is it still gibberish?
Judith. I was discussing it. I know what was being discussed. You chimed in with nonsense and have yet to tell us what your nonsense means.
What was being discussed that you agree with Mark?
Metmom was discussing Mary and the RCC’s incorrect understanding of the Ark.
You somehow have extrapolated four words from those exchanges into a discussion of the Trinity.
Your error.
I agree with Mark’s post 10434. That’s nonsense? I am not the person slinging around the word “gibberish.”
“Jesus body carried God” is an obvious statement about the Son and therefore the Triune God.
As for discussing the Ark, if it is incorrect - or gibberish - it also fails on this point.
I should ask: Do you also believe “jesus body carried God” is a true statement about the Son and the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity?
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.