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, someone you worship?
Over the past several days, I posted several Scriptural refutations of Calvinist beliefs which have been met with a) silence or b) elimination of verses which provide context to Scripture.
It would seem that your statement applies very well to Calvinism. Thank you for pointing out the deficiencies of this very deficient theology.
There you go with the rope-a-dope again. Why don't you just use YOUR definition of worship?
Highly unlikely. Bribing them with a worthless Plenary Indulgence? Maybe.
I do not take or eschew action at the bidding of the likes of you.
Don’t call individual FReepers names.
I didn't in 11094, but as a reminder, since you seem to forget, I do not take or eschew action at the bidding of the likes of you.
Oh don't be silly. The proper term is venerate.
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.
You recall incorrectly. I have made a repeated point of saying that both of them were addressed to the crowds and have shown several times in both Luke and Matthew that the sermons were delivered to all the crowds. Is this yet another example of the distortion of the Faith that is required to believe Calvinism?
What is the Gospel, Mark? We've asked before and the answer always seems to allude you.
Maybe because you (using the Royal We) ignore posts written in reply to yours. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John constitute the Gospels. Please be as specific as you are capable of being.
Okay; Calvinism is unChristian, especially as specifically practiced on FR. If the Church found out that the various Calvinist religions believe in the same god that you guys specifically do, they'd probably re-evaluate their acceptance of Calvinist baptism and put it into the same specific bin as LDS baptism.
Next comes the criticism of some Roman Catholic “authority” urging bribing RCs to open up their Bibles at home and read them...
There. Fixed it for you.
You keep saying gibberish. Does that mean that you do not have a Scriptural answer found in your handy dandy Calvinist comeback book and you're helpless without it?
Ask Judith what? What her taste in harpies is? What she thinks the Republican majority will be in the House and Senate? What she thinks of Calvinists who post untruths?
I do appreciate how having little knowledge can make Calvinism more digestible.
"I have a family funeral today.."
My deepest sympathies. I certainly hope the deceased was not one of your Catholic relatives already condemned to hell because they believed in Christ differently than you. I will keep you and them in my prayers, if that does not offend you.
I was talking about the Alex part.
You bring up an excellent point. Calvinism, at least as it's portrayed on FR, is nothing more than a synthesis of Arianism, Nestorianism and various other gnostic heresies worshipping a "god" who appears to be straight out of a Wagnerian opera.
Yep. And the answer is...?
If your concern is getting the most amount of [Christian] scripture read in church, aren't you in the wrong church?
Or is this not your real concern?
It seems to me we just can't make a reliable guess about the 26 year old in this anecdote. God seems to be at once more exigent and FAR more gracious than we can imagine. And it hardly seems to me to be proper for any of us to say, "So and so won't make the cut."
I guess I'd argue about it more if I could get a clear notion of where the handles of the argument are. I do not so much think about my 'salvation." I do not go to Mass, haul out the Rosary, pray the Divine Office, or read my Bible with the intent of "getting saved" or enjoying "being saved already." It's to encounter Christ, to renew my offering of my miserable self to Him, to spend time in His company. I guess I think benefits follow or accompany these activities, but that's not what's on my mind. It's just to be with Jesus.
And people wander. God graciously runs us on a loose tether and lets us sample the poisonous grasses and toxic browse, and suffer the consequent colic. That is part of guiding and protecting us, of training us up.
Maybe this young man and his wife, in the experience of matrimony and parenthood will see how bankrupt life is without God's help, His Love. Maybe, like those who reject the Church for a while, their real longing is for the gracious Truth and their error is not rejecting God but rather seeking him as boldly as they know how. It is hard to see that in grouchy Miss So-and-So and hypocritical Mr. Whatsisname God is working His gracious purpose out. It is hard to remember that we see only the surface and that perhaps their ill-temper and unreliability are signs of a spiritual conflict whose greatness we cannot imagine.
Fr. Thomas Hopko, an Orthodox priest, once said that people often came to him saying, "I'm worried about my relationship with my spouse." His response was, "You worry about your spouse and the relationship will take care of itself.
I guess that's kind of how I think about whether or not I am saved. I will "worry about" Jesus, and I expect the relationship to take care of itself.
amen Dawgie
The real question is how much of the Gospels are read in the three year cycle. Since the Old Testament is the equivalent of the introduction of the Gospels and the Letters of Paul an epilogue they are relevant only in as much as they directly support or clarify the Gospels. You will find the number for the Gospels is well in excess of 90%.
But second, as that great thinker, moi, just said:
...we see the grudging parsimony of the other side. Our faith is rich in treasures, warmth and love. We hear a grandmother say,"I have a present for you, give me a kiss," and smile. They look at the same thing and say "tit-for-tat." We see gift piled on gift, and they see bribes. Perhaps we should not be surprised at their anger.
Gnosticism predates Christianity and even Judaism by thousands of years. It wasn't Christ they embraced it was the perception of some new special knowledge shared by Christ that they sought, not unlike the Reformation and its narrow interpretation of Scripture.
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.