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.
Experienced with the drug laws, are we?
. That absurd statement characterizes you as well as any that you have posted.
Ignorant of both Scripture and history, are we? Are there actually any stones turned in your quest for illumination?
If St. Paul had not mentioned "en prosopon Christou" the phrase would be misunderstood in the sense that he only pardons the transgressors in order to please the local church, "for their sake". This is in fact, your misunderstanding also, and it stems from the refusal to see that the authority of Christ is invoked by the finishing clause.
Listen carefully,dear ISC....God knows from all eternity who prays with sincerity and who does not,thus prayers answered or not answered are prayers known from all eternity all visible to God in one NOW.
The courts of Germany also agree with man-made global warming, the compatibility of Sharia law with a civilized society and affirms the right to assisted suicide. You sure you want to use them as a yardstick for your morality?
And, as so many threads have made so very evident, "They know not what they do." It is not SO hard to pray for mercy for them.
Agreed. And they're so cute when they stamp their little feet and whine and cry in protest against God and His Church. It's hard not to snicker when their mascara runs...
I always wondered what magic mushrooms looked like.
Perhaps some purveyor of pagan practices might score you some...
Gay or straight, Catholic or Protestant there was absolutely nothing noble about any of the nobility. Religion was merely another tool in their bag with which to exert more control and extract more wealth. (Oh, and by the way James I, like Edward II, was a flaming.)
In one of Cheech and Chong's best lines:
I used to be all messed up on drugs,
but now I'm all messed up on the Lord!
Exactly so. The KJV 1611 and its successors, as well as the WCF, were created to be political documents masquerading as religious ones, by the sovereign government of England.
(Oh, and by the way James I, like Edward II, was a flaming.)
An old tradition of European royalty, especially true in the days when women were looked upon as lesser beings and only to be tolerated in the quest for producing the heir to the throne or the estate. Hence Henry Tudor's irritation at a succession of wives, although there is nothing to suggest that he dabbled in any way...
The Ausburg confession is a pretty “Catholic” document. The issue was by that time more political than anything. They could have presented almost anything and have been rejected.
"Hey...I didn't know your name was Alex."
Your predetermined conclusion simply isn’t supported either by your own words or Scripture or the meaning of the Greek words Paul used.
It’s been interesting but it appears we’ve reached the heart of your argumentation so thank you and good night.
Eh, sorry. Prosopos IS face or person. The onus is on you to prove that all of a sudden here an exception should be made and “prosopos” translated “presence”. I explained why “person of Christ” is a necessary addition: because without this reference to authroity of Christ St. Paul appears to simply try to please the Corinthians.
Now let’s here your theory. Why, do you think, is it necessary to mention the presence of Christ if not to refer to the authority of Christ given St. Paul?
Scripture tells us if one chooses to live by the law, that they will then be judged by the law ..and no one can keep the law..so they would all be found guilty before God
And you knew their hearts how? Because you judged them according to Calvin? I’m sure you’ll will conjure some details to entertain us with.
What does the Reformist Bible say about judging people’s soul?
32Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34"Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread."
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Cracker? You call the body of Christ a cracker? Is this in your bible? Also note Christ taught in the synagogue.
Jesus told you when it began and you prefer the Catholic encyclopedia ..what can I say ?
A covenant has no value if it is never signed..
Hbr 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Wondrous words of Christ. No doubt they will be dismissed as not directed to Christians, or OT verses (even though the OT is second only to snippets of Paul to them), or some such.
Luke 22:7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
1 Corinthians 11: 23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
Crackers and grape juice? Or mindlessly eating and drinking judgement on themselves?
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.