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.
>>> It’s “What’s in it for me?” as the primary motivation for Christianity.
What’s in it for me — and not for thee.
“If you don’t Buy Calvin™, you don’t have ears to hear.”
Now you are starting to get it. Catholicism is not about Bibliolotry, it is about Christianity. Its message is pure and simple and preached such that a child can understand it and live it. It was introduced to and for the disenfranchised, the excluded, the throw-away of the world, the simple, and the pure. It is not the complex legal code developed by a French sodomite shyster or his predecessor Mohammud.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all state that "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.".
Oh, well.
One big Gotcha Investment down the tubes.
Being Catholic, I have to ask -- Is that in the Old Testament or the New?
Sheesh. Why do you deny the plain reading and meaning of Scripture and then make up your own fairy tales about how God must do things and pass those off as valid?
I guess you’ve learned your Catholicism well.
Actually, as a Catholic I SHOULD have said the Epistle of Saint James, while a Protestant would typically call it the Book of James.
>>>Has Jesus sat on the Throne and Judged you yet?
“Yes He certainly has.”
Never been wrong?
Or could God “change his mind” about you?
:)
Because, as the anti-Catholics keep explaining, word choice is critical. Since I am not blessed with the hyper-Calvinism decoder ring or cipher codes to tell me what the wording "really" means and when it means it I have to ask. So I'll ask again, is there a "book" or was that symbolic?
That’s an interesting cultural usage. Here a lot of Catholics also use the “book of” expression.
I was a lector in the pepsicola church from the age of 10, so I was programmed to be precise, “The Book of the Prophet X,” “The epistle General of James,” “The Second Epistle of st. Paul to the Corinthians,” blah blah.
This is a side note. I recently started listening to the Gospels read aloud (you can find various sites online that provide this).
The early Christians did this, listened to them read, and so it’s more similar to the medium for which they were written. It’s very different than reading them yourself, much different than cross-referencing study, just hearing the story unfold, told as it was centuries ago - worth a try for anyone interested. I just finished listening to Mark and recommend it for a start.
If someone that you ABSOLUTELY TRUSTED said to you, "Unless you eat this, you WILL NOT have life in you." What would you think is the "plain reading" of that?
That sounds great!
It means eat a soda cracker, duh.
The definition of profanity is to treat with contempt or irreverence for which is sacred. It would seem that the conservanator holds the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, in low regard. It seems odd that a forum such as this would permit actual profanity but would ban "potty language" words used by toddlers.
The good news is that an anti-Catholic calling the Eucharist a soda cracker doesn't make it one. There is no opposite process to transubstantiation. It only blackens the soul of those saying it.
Hold your fire, conservonator is on our side, the “duh” indicated sarcasm.
Jesus is incapable of teaching the Gospel - but it takes only five verses of Paul to do so? No wonder your theology differs so significantly from Christianity.
I thought he was just being sarcastic. His other comments do not indicate that he is an anti-Catholic. It appears he is Catholic.
My apologies. There is a fine line between sarcasm and insult and I was too quick or defensive to realize it. Call it a Pavlovian response.
A stalking horse? Perhaps he does, but I don't sense the vindictiveness that we get out of the various anti Catholic Reformed Chuckies that wander the FR RF.
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.
Or the Norse pantheon - appropriate since the Reformed seem to believe in an array of gods. What difference in behaviour does the Reformed God manifest that is apparent when compared to Odin? Other than the names?
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.