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.
I haven't followed the ongoing discussion, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the RCC does not teach RC's The Gospel. If it did they wouldn't think it's some kind of trick question.
ICor. 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness
To try and obfuscate the most basic tenant of Christianity only shows how they are lost and on the wrong side of the Cross.
Paul thanks God that he baptized "NONE OF YOU, but Crispus and Gaius...and I baptized also the household of Stephanas besides I KNOW NOT whither I baptized any other. For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but TO PREACH THE GOSPEL...." (1 Cor. 1:14, 16, 17).
Obviously, the gospel Paul preached was not the same as the one preached by Peter. Peter's included baptism for the remission of sins, and Paul states specifically that his gospel did NOT include baptism. (NOT to BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL.) If baptism was part of Paul's gospel, he would have baptized believers. Not only did he NOT, he THANKED GOD he did not. Peter and the 11 could NEVER have made that statement.
Paul preached the Gospel of the Grace of God, which was given to Paul by the risen Lord. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which WAS PREACHED OF ME is NOT AFTER MAN. For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT, but BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST." (Gal. 1:11,12). The gospel Paul taught was not taught by any other. He received it, not from men, not from Peter and the 11 or any other men, but directly from Jesus Christ Himself.
BTW, God WAITS for no one. It was God's Plan that was fulfilled. NOT Paul's.
I know it's difficult to read the Bible as IT IS WRITTEN, not as you would like it to be written, or as men have taught you it is written, but to read it just as it is. God means what He says and says what He means. It is our choice whether to believe His Word. It doesn't change the Truth of it.
That is simply brazenly false. That is fitting since the typical anti-Catholic UFO cultists present in the Religion Forum know nothing about the truth.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED!
Thanks for a refreshing voice of sanity and realism from your side.
Calvinists and Arminians have been demonstrating that for centuries--with Scripture.
Certainly the RCC has been demonstrating it for more centuries with fables, fantasies, questionable letters and even a mish-mash of stuff from early Christian writers.
The galling thing is the haughty pretense that it's all a seamless, homogeneous, 100% error free body of pure theological holiniess when it's much more the opposite.
.
What UNMITIGATED FANTASY!
Scripture ALONE has the least bit of integrity of those 3.
!!!!TRADITIONS!!!! OF MEN! are not reliable enough to direct much of anything theological more than 5 consecutive minutes running.
And the bureaucratic clique of self-serving, self-righteous, magicsterical power-mongers is even more unreliable. Greed, power-mongering and ignorance piled on top of greed, power-mongering, ignorance and personal turf, personal kingdom building. What a stench.
.
INDEED!
You run into a lot of that as you get into Protestant fringe or even some mainline sects. Without Paul they would have nothing, so they should really be considered Paulianinas. Most Protestants consider the Gospels "OT" anyway. It is no wonder that Valentius and Marcion favored the good old Saul over anything else. Obviously the Protestants find a lot in common with these and some Baptists even say they can trace their roots back to Maricon [empahsis added]:
On the subject regarding "Marcion's historical position," Adolf von Harnack stated: "It is understandable that Neander could call him {Marcion} the first Protestant. But we may go further. He not only took up again the work and the struggle of Paul, but he also did this in the apostle's understanding and consciousness of faith; for it was his intention to know nothing save Christ the crucified one" (ibid p. 124, 125)." [Marcion/Baptist History]
And how exactly does that isolate it? The scriptures are only excepted so far as they agree with the doctrine.. Tradition is actually SUPERIOR to the scriptures [IN RCC DOGMA AND REALITY] because Catholics interpret the scriptures through tradition , they take the traditions on faith alone, requiring no more evidence that they said so ...
HIDEOUSLY, HORRIBLY SO.
I can believe you, or I can believe God. [THANKFULLY], you lose
You do yourself a gross disservice by ignoring the blasphemous writings that were attributed to Ignatius, and to which I was replying.
If Ignatius really wrote that vile letter (which he probably didn’t) he most certainly was a lost soul!
.
The story is that when the world was made, the mountains heard that the Torah would be given from a mountain top. So this mountain, as it might be Everest, said, "It must be from me, because I am the biggest." Another, as it might be Shasta, said, "It will be from me because I am the most splendid." And the Matterhorn said, primly, "It will be from me because I am the most beautiful."You have to know I cringed when I heard PapaBenXIV had a thing for Pradas. Me, I'd like a nice pair of Bass Weejuns, or maybe a new pair of Red Wing boots. But then, my favorite footwear is my Teva Raptor sandals.And the Holy One, Blessed be He, said, "Behold this mountain, Sinai. It is small. It is unlovely. It is in no way remarkable. I will give my Torah from this mountain, because all the glory of the mountain will be in the Law given from it, and not in anything of its own."
And, while we will feebly protest about the comparative rate of sexually deviant clergy, teachers, weirdoes in the street, etc., the fact is we all ache with pain and simmer with anger at those doltish poltroons in diocesan offices (and the occasional palace!) who so wonderfully messed up on this.
If the Holy Father hauls out the tiara again, I will cringe again. If he ever does that thing where a dozen or so big guys carry the chair he's in, I will probably get sick.
I must say, though, that I suggested to our oldest Friar that if the Student Group ever asked him to do "Mass on the Mountain" he should insist that they carry him up there on just such a chair. he looked like he was thinking it over ...
But all that is (to me) about how downright embarrassing Sinai looks. I sort of look at it and shudder and go "Okay, they're doing that weird stuff again ..."
But when I READ what these guys write (especially J2P2) I kind of quit caring about their footwear and means of conveyance.
And not only that, as I get to know more deeply some of the teaching, and to know about some of the great ones, I really quit caring about that other stuff altogether.
We all have our walks, and I cannot claim that mine is better than anyone else's. I simply do not have the information or the canon of judgment. And I hope that when I am in a position to know for sure, I won't be worrying a whole lot about that kind of thing.
It is not for the silliness of some of the Vatican ceremonial or for the excellence of some of the textiles (or the abysmal quality of most of the rest) ... tonight's hymns were maudlin and banal in the extreme! And
I DON'T CARE!
I was there for IHS, and IHS was whom I met there. What shall we swallow a stable and strain out polyester?
On a good day, yes, Peter was impressive. But what we note is that despite his frequently manifested wussiness, he was somehow at least primus inter pares among the twelve. He was Mt Sinai -- not much in himself, but still, glory and love were manifested there, and, Peter being the bozo he so often was, nobody who knew him said, "Well, Peter is special." They magnified the Lord.
> ES, on the other hand IS a Pantocoastal, and ES was the one who in post 10668 said “Benny Hinn’s theology is far more solid “
.
To set your hypocritical and ignorant post straight, I am NOT a Pentecostal.
Most here know that, but in view of the fact that most of your posts demonstrate the fact that you only read far enough to “ammo” for an intended attack on mainline Christianity, I’ll give you a pass on that fact.
I stand by my statement that Hinn is far more orthodox than any Catholic in his beliefs, and while I differ with his personal style of evengelism, I do not see anything on which I might solidly rebuke him. Catholics, on the other hand appear to essentially be lost as a group (and yes, I do know Catholics here that are definitely not lost).
Incorrect. The Vatican is not in Rome. It is, well, in Vatican City.
I am not afraid or ashamed to say that Christ paid the price for my sins.. Why would i ever deny the work of Christ . I am a begger trying to show other beggers were to find bead
Neither is any Catholic. Bead?
My friend I am sorry that I have made you so angry.. but if the gospel is correctly presented it will always made people angry ... It is just the flesh waring against the spirit..
My emotions are not the point. I believe that you do incorrectly present the Gospel. The Church does correctly present the Gospel; it is precisely the whims of the individual that can distort it.
Everything wrong on the surface, yet, we have the example of St. Peter. Fallible men, and infallible Church. May God bless us all.
I've always read the Bible. We had several about our Roman Catholic house growing up, and they were well worn from constant reading.
Your thesis is nullified.
Not at all..I think you are spiritually blind as well
Mat 13:1 ¶ The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
Mat 13:2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
Mat 13:4 And when he sowed, some [seeds] fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
Mat 13:5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
Mat 13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
Mat 13:7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
Mat 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
Mat 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mat 13:10 ¶ And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mat 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].
2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
All men are spiritually blind until God opens their eyes.. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.. In Gods time the eyes of the jews will be opened
We were discussing that extent of sola scriptura beliefs that are actually non scriptural. St. Thomas' story is one of the many. To the extent that the sola crowd actually deigns to address all of their non scriptural beliefs.
You will not find any Protestants appealing to the words of Thomas as scripture.. because it is NOT..
It's a shame that you are ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. "Without Paul, they would have nothing" seems so desperate. Funny, desperate is not a word I would choose for those who understand and can rightly divide God's word. SECURE is a better description. But I'm certain that isn't a word that comes up often in some circles. I'll leave it at that.
There are two choices to make in this present dispensaion. Either 1) tradition and doctrines of men, works of righteousness for justification and salvation, or (2. Paul's Epistles. One depends on works and the other depends on the finished work of Christ and the free gift of salvation, by grace through faith ONLY. God is either going to set aside Paul's Epistles in favor of tradition and doctrines of men, or He is going to uphold the ministry of Paul and the mission given to him by direct revelation of Jesus Christ and reject man's works for righteousness.
Romans through Philemon will tell you what God is doing until Christ returns. It's called 'forming a body, made of one new man, the Church the Body of Christ.' You will learn what it is, how to get into it, when it started, and how it is going to be completed. Or a person can depend on other men to tell them what God is doing until Christ returns. And be subject to deceit and false doctrines of fallible man..
> “Nowhere in Scripture are men instructed to claim that Scripture isn’t enough and to add their own traditions to it.”
.
True, in fact the Lord Jesus Christ roundly condemned the adhereance to oral traditions held by the Pharisees, and the only author in the NT that didn’t speak against “traditions” in every way, Paul (yes, the same Paul that most of our Catholic attack postors call ‘wacky’) said, in reference to the teachings in his, and others’ epistles, to “hold firm’ to the traditions they had been taught in one verse only.
From the misinterpretation of that one verse, we now have world wide Catholic apostasy.
.
Opps...bread ....
I was going to make a rosary joke..but that would have started the mary discussion all over again
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.