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.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Absolutely. Why, it’s educational just being on the same thread with her, even if she isn’t really a doctor.
there has been 3 instances in no pinging in a matter of less than ten posts, so it appears Dr. Eckleburg was correct
No we don’t. There is no talking to the SFS
and here’s another one, they multiply like rabbits in a hat
I appreciate that in your own reality the elect are not capable of actual sin. In Christian theology every sin is forgivable. However, in neither requires that we ignore or forget the sin.
Oh, well, if YOU’RE doing it, does it count?
kettle... pot....
I suppose it could be worse. I mean, it's not like I'm the Apostle Paul.
of course it counts, you didn’t put any restrictions on who or how, but your astuteness is admirable
Not only are you telling people false things about me, but you are not courteous enough to notify me that you doing so. For shame.
Luke 8:11 4 "This is the meaning of the parable. The seed is the word of God. 12 Those on the path are the ones who have heard, but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy, but they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time of trial. 14 As for the seed that fell among thorns, they are the ones who have heard, but as they go along, they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life, and they fail to produce mature fruit. 15 But as for the seed that fell on rich soil, they are the ones who, when they have heard the word, embrace it with a generous and good heart, and bear fruit through perseverance.
'Tis a thorny life in the OPC...
More fluff.
Me too... so you are assured in your salvation as I am?
You're more like the Adams family
"They're creepy and they're kooky
mysterious and spooky
Have you ever seen Matzo ?
The problem with the use of John 6 as a proof text for the bread being the actual flesh of Christ..is that it is taken completely out of context..
When was this discourse given.. on the way to celebrate the PASSOVER ..the prophetic meal celebrated by the jews.. that speaks not only of the event of God saving the jews from slavery , but also points directly to Christ as the true lamb of God..
Who was this discourse given to?
This was given to the crowd that He had fed with the loaves and the fishes the day before.. they had followed Him ,looking not for the Messiah ..but to have their stomachs filled..
What did Jesus do? He rebuked them
How did He do that ..He told them they only wanted food..when He was the real bread of life
Please note at the end of the chapter..PETER does not ask for bread.. instead He tells jesus that he has the WORDS of life..that is real food ..the word of God
No it was not taken out of context IT WAT CRYSTAL CLEAR TO THE PEOPLE WHO LEFT. Christ didn’t chase after them and say just joking. So selective.
wat = was
Agreed. Furthermore, the people who left were scandalized and offended, because of the implication of cannibalism. Christ did not, as you said, assure them it was a metaphor, instead He used a word that translates as “munch” or “chew.”
Absolutely not so. You could attend every Mass for 10 years and still not read/hear the entire Bible.
In chapter 11, Paul is writing to the Corinthians about the disorder in the church there. He is not addressing views on transubstantiation
Young' s literal translation from the greek says this
1Cr 11:29 for he who is eating and drinking unworthily, judgment to himself he doth eat and drink -- not discerning the body of the Lord.
The greek word "unworthily" is anaxiōs...which translates 1) in an unworthy manner
It is speaking of the way one receives it..not what you believe about it
Lets look at the context
1Cr 11:24 and having given thanks, he brake, and said, `Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me.' :25 In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;' 26 for as often as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the death of the Lord ye do shew forth -- till he may come; 27 so that whoever may eat this bread or may drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, guilty he shall be of the body and blood of the Lord: :28 and let a man be proving himself, and so of the bread let him eat, and of the cup let him drink; :29 for he who is eating and drinking unworthily, judgment to himself he doth eat and drink -- not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Because of this, among you many [are] weak and sickly, and sleep do many;
Paul is giving instructions on the correct way to celebrate the Lord table..
"Paul says, "Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not "body or blood," but "body and blood."
Any who takes the bread without the wine, or the wine without the bread, "unworthily" communicates, and so "is guilty of Christ's body and blood"; for he disobeys Christ's express command to partake of both.
A. R. FAUSSET
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.