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.
Oh, c’mon. They think the Roman Empire is the Holy Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire. They think the Roman Empire is taking over Europe even as we speak.
They are historically clueless.
They see the word "empire" and their next thought is evil Catholics trying to take over the world.
Thanks for that, I was in the middle of a reply that boiled down to "good grief you're an idiot" but I knew that wasn't going to work.
The emperor may have thought he was the head of the Church because he was the head of the state, but the emperors and the state are gone and the popes and the Church are still here. Rival claims to the same authority don't extinguish the legitimate claim.
He sure can. That's why God's word tells us to search the Scriptures and compare Scripture with Scripture "to see if these things be so."
To pluck a verse or passage from Scripture and claim "This is what God thinks" is infantile;
lol. No one randomly plucks anything. God's word is written in black and white and made knowable to men with eyes to see and ears to hear. Pray for God to gift you with some.
Scripture represents what God tells us
I thought you just said to believe that was foolish.
-- and he tells us different (and often apparently contradictory) things in different verses and passages.
LOLOL. The last refuge of the Biblically illiterate -- the Bible is too confusing and God is a really bad author so we need a bunch of old, fallible men to tell us what the Doofus is trying to say to us.
Even using the locution "God thinks" is, at the very least, taking unwarranted liberties. Kosta, can we even say "God thinks"?
LOLOL. This entire comment is a riot. You're asking a self-professed agnostic about the authority of Scripture???
AND you're expressing doubt that "God thinks."
lolol. Thanks. This has been fun.
Ridicule is the last refuge of the truly ignorant.
No ridicule. Just refutation.
We also need to realize that it was during this period that the Carolingian Empire (forerunner of the Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of France and other minor French and Italian kingdoms) was solidifying control over much of western Europe. Keep in mind that Charlemagne certainly recognized papal primacy when he first protected the Pope and later was crowne Emperor, he certainly wasn't operating under the belief that the Byzantine Emperor was in charge.
Now, the Carolingian emperors and the Byzantine emperors were certianly rivals, but there was never any direct conflict between them. However, there were definitely some tense periods.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that we are being asked to believe that the Byzantine emperors controlled the Church and VOLUNTARILY handed that control over to the Papacy (if it wasn't voluntary, we need to be told what specific event precipitated it). Now, why would a Byzantine Emperor give control to a Pope who was over A THOUSAND MILES AWAY? A Pope who was far more likely to take the side of western European rulers in any dispute. If the theory being offered was that the Byzantine Emperor ceded control to the Patriarch of Constantinople it MIGHT be believable, but not the Pope.
Refutation? That usually means some sort of argument, not mere assertion — however rib-tickling you may find it. You give every evidence that you don’t have the foggiest idea of what I was saying and, in any case, don’t seem inclined to discuss. So don’t.
But you've told us only the first four books of the NT matter to anything and the rest is superfluous to the truth.
Looks like RC apologists are the ones "eliminating NT Scripture."
Bible-believing Christians believe all of God's word.
The rest is subservient to the Gospels, not superfluous to them.
Let's check back with one another in about 3 decades. We should have conclusive information at that point.
I told you that without a subpoena, I didn’t feel compelled to accede to your demands. ;-D
Charlemagne wasn’t operating under the belief that the Pope was in charge either.
Is that what Mark posted, or did you twist the words?
Except the Gospels.
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.”
And Jesus did too.
Here are links to all the verses which contain *It is written* and *Scripture* in the New Testament alone.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=scripture%20&version1=31&searchtype=all
When did Jesus ever appeal to tradition to back Himself up? Jesus and those you call the church fathers appealed to Scripture to verify themselves.
Better watch it there. You’re treading on dangerous ground implying that those who appeal to the authority of Scripture are from Satan. The Pharisees called Jesus demon possessed as well.
And the quote you provided, which you didn’t even link to, is NOT Scripture. How in character.
Why am I not surprised?
Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
“”AND you’re expressing doubt that “God thinks.””
What is there for God to think about since He knows all things?
From Saint Thomas Aquinas..
“The infinite defies knowledge in so far as it defies counting. To count the parts of the infinite is an intrinsic impossibility, as involving a contradiction. To know a thing by enumeration of its parts is characteristic of a mind that knows part after part successively, not of a mind that comprehends the several parts together. Since then the divine mind knows all things together without succession, it has no more difficulty in knowing things infinite than in knowing things finite.”
What God "thinks" is not unknowable. God has revealed what He "thinks" in Scripture.
No, as I said, Bible-believing Christians believe all the Bible, which includes the Gospels.
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.