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.
You really need to read the Bible, Kosta. You’re exhibiting a petulance usually seen in high school sophomores when they first realize the entire world doesn’t live in the same suburb they do.
lol. thank you for admitting your rejection of a Scriptural understanding both Roman Catholics and Protestants share.
Agnostics do that, I’m told.
So, satan is God's loyal servant in your brand of "Christianity?" He is God's jail master who holds prisoners until someone pays God the ransom?
Wow.
The conundrum you're experiencing is answered by the fact that Satan was created by God and does not work with impunity. Rather, "all things" work according to the purpose of God. Therefore Satan tempts, but it is God who frees men from this temptation
So, satan's only one of many sons of God? How "Christian" is that?
"With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his." -- Job 12:16
Very "Christian," Dr. E, very "Christian."
Agnostics ask "why did this God whom I don't even believe in set things up this way?" Christians answer: for His glory and His good pleasure and the welfare of His family
Is that a fact? Or just a man-made belief?
Somehow you take exception to this. Who do you think Christ pays the ransom to? Who is Christ beholden to?
Christ didn't pay any ransom to anyone. He offered himself as ransom to death in exchange for many, knowing death couldn't hold him. If Christ paid the ransom he would be death's captive, which he is not, because he is God and death can not hold him, or so the story goes. Therefore, the devil did not get his ransom. Christ offered but never paid it.
Funny, I feel the same about Protestants, except a lot younger.
I see that some living beings are born better off than others. That's all.
Lots of things can be argued. Proving them is a different story.
Did God ordain that death?
Yes, God willed it according to the scriptures.
Why don’t you read post #15,511 to learn that the Roman Catholic church also teaches that Christ paid the ransom for our sins to God, just as smvoice and I have maintained according to Scripture
I am under no obligation to accept or believe an 11th century innovation of the Catholic Church. Scriptures don't say Christ paid anything, but rather that he was the ransom. Where do scriptures say Christ was the random to God?
Looks like you’re odd-man-out. Or would that be odd-agnostic-out?
Talk about sounding like a high school sophomore...
“”For some peculiar reason, you’ve put yourself outside of Rome AND historic, orthodox Christianity.””
Baloney!I understand it as a MYSTERY of unfathomable love that our finite humans minds cannot fully comprehend- which is in line with Church teaching and historical orthodox Christianity.
The new advent article shows opinions of the semantics of Atonement .There are many, from Aquinas to Scotus to Augustine etc...
It all boils down to God owed us NOTHING and His love conquers sin.
The following was written by Cardinal Ratzinger(Pope Benedict XVI)
For the believing Christian who sees in the cross not a historical accident but a real theological occurrence, these statements are not mere edifying commonplaces in terms of which one must refer to the historical realities. Rather these affirmations penetrate into the core of the matter. This core consists in the drama of human sin and divine love; human sin leads to God’s love for man assuming the figure of the cross. Thus on the one hand sin is responsible for the cross, but on the other, the cross is the overcoming of sin through God’s more powerful love. For this reason, beyond all questions of responsibility, the passage of the “Letter to the Hebrews” (12:24) has the last and most important word to say on this subject, namely, that the blood of Jesus speaks another — a better and stronger — language than the blood of Abel, than the blood of all those killed unjustly in the world. It does not cry for punishment but is itself atonement, reconciliation.
Well spoken.
“For the believing Christian who sees in the cross not a historical accident but a real theological occurrence, these statements are not mere edifying commonplaces in terms of which one must refer to the historical realities. Rather these affirmations penetrate into the core of the matter. This core consists in the drama of human sin and divine love; human sin leads to God’s love for man assuming the figure of the cross. Thus on the one hand sin is responsible for the cross, but on the other, the cross is the overcoming of sin through God’s more powerful love. For this reason, beyond all questions of responsibility, the passage of the “Letter to the Hebrews” (12:24) has the last and most important word to say on this subject, namely, that the blood of Jesus speaks another — a better and stronger — language than the blood of Abel, than the blood of all those killed unjustly in the world. It does not cry for punishment but is itself atonement, reconciliation.”
Every time I begin to get a bit disheartened by comments made by the Pope, I read something like this passage and my confidence in his fundamental Catholic Orthodoxy/orthodoxy is restored!
Some of us are neophytes in the Faith. Our catechism has been learned the hard way...
lol. And thus the exegesis of the agnostic -- "Beats me."
You're correcting Roman Catholics. You should be posting your correction to them.
Why is that? The luck of the draw?
RANSOM:
a) The release of property or a person in return for payment of a demanded price.
b) The price or payment paid for such release.
lol. No one says God "owed us" anything.
As New Advent made clear, Christ paid the ransom for our sins to the perfect judgment of God according to His mercy.
You should read the article, stfassisi. It's from your church. And it shows how wrong your assumptions are.
Better yet. Read the Bible.
That's right, sfa, that is the teaching of the Church. To imply that God owes something means that he is imperfect and to owe something to himself is outright insane. And such is the god of Calvin and his ilk.
Then you should be ashamed. For even an agnostic knows that God owes and pays no one any dues or he is no God. What is God, Dr. E? Do you even know?
It's not a correction but a hisotrical fact. Do you understand the difference?
Dr. E: Why is that? The luck of the draw?
It's an observed fact, Dr. E. Your question attempts to imply a cause when the cause is uncertain. Do you understand the difference?
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.