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.
As a resut of what Mark???
Read the words Mark...they did not leave when He spoke of bread...just like men today...they walked away when Jesus taught election.
What was their former way of life Mark? THE LAW ..salvation by the law.. .... they liked being in charge of their own salvation... men hate to have to let God be God. Just like eve, they want a piece of the divine action ...
AMEN!
When presented with the clear, unambiguous Scriptural truth, you would think people would give up their misconceptions and happily embrace it.
Don't they hear the words?
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." -- Galatians 3:28-29"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Yup.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, too.
However, nowhere in my post did I assert that the cartwheels legitimized anything per se.
I believe Holy Spirit was in that sequence of things.
I have experienced and observed Holy Spirit do wonderous things in some of our services.
I’ll leave it at that.
I think that’s a good point.
Like in many foreign countries where folks are quite familiar with overt demonization . . .
they aren’t any longer willing to put up with
A FORM OF RELIGION
BUT DENYING THE POWER [OF GOD] THEREOF.
I think that’s a good point.
Like in many foreign countries where folks are quite familiar with overt demonization . . .
they aren’t any longer willing to put up with
A FORM OF RELIGION
BUT DENYING THE POWER [OF GOD] THEREOF.
ERRR 11,042
Try to follow the rules, Mark. Don’t call individual FReepers names.
Calling another FReeper “untruthful” is against the FR RF rules.
Now you have really created a conundrum for yourself and Calvinism. You have to decide if it was Rome (not the Catholic Church, but the real Rome) that destroyed the temple or if it was God. That presents a problem, because it was also Rome (not the Catholic Church, but the real Rome) that crucified Jesus. So, was Imperial Rome an instrument of God or was it a collection of unrepentant sinners who chose to sin? If they were merely instruments of God's will then are they in any way responsible for their sins?
Lastly, since Reformists assert that Imperial Rome' lives on as the Catholic Church is the Church still an instrument of God's plan or is it a collection of unrepentant sinners? You can't have it both ways.
Wow. That's fascinating, Mark. IIRC, not too long ago you were insistent that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered only to Christ's apostles and not to the believing crowds who listened to Him. You made quite a point of it, saying Jesus moved away from the crowds and talked only to His disciples.
I'm glad you realize now that Christ did indeed address the multitude of believers during His Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus spends a lot of painstaking time addressing the crowds in both Matthew and Luke and you say it is not the Gospel?
What is the Gospel, Mark? We've asked before and the answer always seems to allude you.
Please be as specific as you are capable of being.
Meant to ping you to 11,150, too. No doubt you’re as eager as I am to hear what Mark believes to be the Gospel (which he earlier attributed to the Sermon on the Mount.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2578704/posts?page=11150#11150
Your post is gibberish. Ask Judith.
Are you seriously equating Imperial Rome with the Catholic Church? Do you know nothing of history?
I have. One of my favorite verses from Scripture comes in Haggai. We heard a sermon on it a few months ago...
"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts." -- Haggai 2:23
With this foundation, eisogesis is presented as the plain meaning of the text which, it is asserted, was believed by the true believers from the beginning despite the absence of evidence.
The persistence of the Church despite the massive and obvious sinfulness and incompetence of her leaders is not viewed as a miraculous sign of God's favor but is used as an excuse for the absence of supporting evidence for the invisible thread of true believers, who are now Arminian, now Calvinist, now Pentecostals, now Sabbatarians, yet are all united in certainty that the Catholic Church ain't it.
To assent to their ecclesiology one has to find unity where there is no agreement in doctrine, discipline, or worship -- from the stolid (and charming) rhyming Psalters of the Presbyterians to the cartwheels and electric guitars and snare drums of the Pentecostals, from the cold rationalism of Calvin to the warm affections of the Arminians, from the elaborate schema of the dispensationalists and the ever-evolving timetables of the Adventists to the Bible-dipping of the country Baptist, all are one, and all trace their descent along an invisible line.
Spattered with the mud of our various shames, wounded by but inured to the contempt of our fellow Christians, constantly falling but ever, by the grace of God, falling forward, we limp along, with tawdry canopies, brass monstrances, cheap incense, polyester vestments, poorly remembered and even more poorly sung plainchant, but ever close to the Lord, who chooses to shame the proud with the humble, and to strengthen us by confronting us daily with our inadequacies.
What led to my involvement in these threads was my chancing on an outrageously incompetent account of our beliefs. I simply could not believe, in my naivete, that some would prefer shadow boxing against their own fantasies, which they blame on us, to the Truth.
What I have found in the Church is a casting off of so many things so that I can enjoy more than ever my walk with Jesus. And the chief problem with trying to make that case here is that some prize falsehood more than truth. Whatever the cause of the spite, its effect is that they would rather throw falsehoods at us than understand (whether they agree or not) what we profess.
This is exactly why it wouldn't hurt to offer at least a decade of every Rosary for our assailants. Aslan could not open the eyes of the dwarves to reality, but maybe the Holy Spirit has tricks that Lewis could not imagine.
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.
Exactly correct. Strange, isn't it, that Rome seems to elevate (literally) the Lord's Supper and yet it only presents the wafers and not the wine to its congregations?
You have posted that word about a dozen times in the last 24 hours. Did you just learn it? Perhaps you didn't know that it actually has multiple meanings. It means either an unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing or a highly technical or esoteric language. In Mark's case I say it is the latter.
I also noticed that you referenced another Freeper without a courtesy ping. Do you believe that the rules don't apply equally to you?
Not much to brag about there.
I’d really like to see some Roman Catholic “authority” urging RCs to open up their Bibles at home and read them.
I guess that’s against the rules. Wouldn’t want any of those “good and pure consciences” to get confused.
LOVE IT!!! =)
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.