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.
Heh heh. What were those four amazing words, "Doc"?
Metmom, my sincere apologies. We are discussing a post of yours in the posts above this one and you should have been pinged.
What do you agree with in Mark’s post?
I’m off to sleep, friends.
Thanks for the discussion tonight.
Pleasant dreams and God bless..
Same here. But I predict the posts from our Calvinist friends will continue.
Your attempt to pluck out four words from a lengthy post to make some nonsense point has failed.
Do you also believe “jesus body carried God”
Is Jesus God?
See? Your point is meaningless.
And for the record, Mary is not the Ark. Mary has nothing to do with the Ark. As RnMomof7 wrote, "they cannot see the types and shadow of Christ, because they do not know who He is or how to find him."
Exactly. Instead they take the glory of God alone and give it to a creature. Rome's belligerent hubris knows no bounds.
Mary is not the ark.
Five words.
All of it.
Dream of them.
You agree with all of what in Mark’s post?
Where is your subpoena?
Gibberish.
Fine, let me be clear: I agree with Mark Bsnr’s post. All of it. I don’t feel compelled to discuss that with you, whether you command it (”You agree with all of what in Mark’s post?”) or request it.
You have declined to answer multiple questions on the thread, there is no reason for anyone to take your demands seriously.
It is lines like this that gnawed at me and finally led me to think that Calvinism, as popularly expressed -- or the line about a snow-covered dunghill, just weren't adequate to account for all that we find in Scripture.
I could say that the blessed may start out as snow-covered dunghills, but I don't think we can rest there, because here the snow-covered dunghill is told that it is called, and, if called, enabled -- somehow -- to make itself pure.
It is too bad we spend so much time at one another's throats. Calvin is good, and so is Luther, on the startling proclamation of the utterly free and completely unmerited gift of grace. They and their followers are often very good indeed on all the temptations to pride with which the enemy assails those who have thrown themselves on God's mercy. In a less bitter environment we could profit much from sharing our experience of living with grace, with the fact of grace.
And such an exchange could hardly be anything less than beneficial to all. Not only history but our own lives and our experience of one another testify to the way "kicking at the pricks" persists after we have been opened to the beginning of awareness of God's love. I could often be profitably rebuked by my non-Catholic friends that I have fallen back into thinking too much depends on me alone and graciously reminded that every good and perfect gift comes from above.
And perhaps we Catholics who wander through an enchanted forest where, as the trees in the fairy tale drip jewels, we find angel, saint, and sacrament shedding consolations -- perhaps we could also sometimes encourage our friends to look up and see, for our salvation is close at hand.
Truth be told, (that would be a nice change, huh?) we all face the problem of: Okay, I'm a Christian, now what? How does one, while remaining utterly dependent on God for every breath and every thought and intention, "make oneself pure, as He is pure?"
Let's pray for a time when we can put down the cudgels and assist one another along the way, across the river, and into the kingdom.
Since I don't know, (and don't care to spend the time finding out) I can just enjoy the crypto-Manichean qualities of this formulation. Loosely understood it's okay, but our bodies do not 'carry' our selves. Genesis 2:7.
And this formulation, in its potential errors, also helps display how the Chalcedonian Definition is important in preserving us from the error of thinking that God was in Christ somehow as if a puppet master were in one of the puppets.
And again, sir, you are incorrectly saying that the Gospels must trump the rest of scripture. Rather, what is true is that The Gospels are the main central point of scripture and the Epistles etc., “elaborate” on that — why? because the Gospels are the Words and Deeds of Christ and they were the testing stone used in the determination of canon.
And why should I believe you when you, unlike them, provide no evidence to support your disparaging judgments?
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.