No, exactly the opposite. Not believing someone and accusing them of lying are two completely different things.
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.
FYI there is no such thing as a "Unitarian group member".
It's just that I thought you might have slipped into a different consciousness and was "speaking in tongues".
You do realise that there is no “alone” in God’s plan —> God performed miracles in different ways. The only ALONE is we in The Church believe in ONE God a Triune God (so then technically God is not “alone”). What is necessary is Grace AND Faith and love and..
Of course — I can say that I do not believe Old Reggie is a Unitarian Universalist and that I do not believe that OR believes in the Trinity, which is quite different from saying anyone is a liar. It’s the nuances of the language you know..
In the Bible, "tongues" always mean languages that really exist or existed. Only the apostles and some of those converted by their ministry spoke in tongues. Generally speaking, the sign-gifts are limited to the apostles (apart from the Lord, of course).In contrast, the strange noises made by various sham pent-e-coastl groups like oinks, gargling etc. are NOT languages of this world, most are made up, some sound demonic. How can you compare this sham "speaking in oinks" to true, Apostolic speaking in tongues?
Speaking in tongues is only described in the book of Acts, in the three times when new groups of believers were introduced into the Assembly (or Church) -- the Jews in ch. 2, the Gentiles in ch. 10, and the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:6. The apostles spoke in different LANGUAGES (actual human, understandable languages), without asking for it
ACTS 2
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.
Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?
Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?
Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome
(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"
Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"
I actually believe it's one of perception.
And.............that's a positive. There is still hope the eyes will open and the perception will change.
How much clearer can it be than their book saying the exact opposite of what scripture tells us ?
One book teaches us to love our neighbors the other tell them to kill all the Jews and Christians .
Do you think God plays dirty tricks on people to fool them into doing the opposite ?
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Make all the excuses you want . The fact is that you can’t really spin this around as not being official church doctrine.
So then, do you Unitarians believe in the Trinity?
Those who speak in tongues in a religious sense do so at the bequest of the Holy Spirit and not some psychological babble conjured up in their fanciful minds gleaned aboard some space ship by a self proclaimed space cadet.
Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior not a UFO.
If the "I don't believe you" charge is made directly and personally concerning a specific and personal claim by an individual you are calling that person a liar. There is no weasle wording around that.
I suggest a review of the posts in question is in order.
We are not speaking of a hypothetical here. We are speaking specifically.
Once again I ask, is English your native language?
Ah. It's been a while since I saw such a blatant 'shoot and move". Your original argument was against papal infallibility. Now it's about whether this is "official church doctrine." May I take the change of subject as an admission that your argument about papal infallibility was a lousy one?
Preferring victory to truth is a waste of time, IMHO.
As to "their book" saying this or that, I have heard plenty of Jews saying that the duty to "turn the other cheek" was not a duty for them. So how much of a disagreement leads to certainty that they worship a different god?
In a related argument, lots of non-Catholics here seem to suggest, if not state outright, that we Catholics worship a different god.
I don't think there is more than one God, myself. I think people can have very wrong ideas about Him. I think it at least possible that rather than worship a different God, they worship the same God very badly and think about him even more badly. Muslims say the god they worship is merciful and compassionate. They may have lousy ideas about what that means in their daily lives, but I will agree with them and even say that God is more merciful and compassionate than they know.
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.