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.
And, they can THANK THEMSELVES for being responsible for me showing a LOT MORE of the hideocies of Ferraro's text openly for all to see.
TITLE PAGE FERRARO
NIHIL OBSTAT & CARDINAL CUSHING IMPRIMATUR
FERRARO P 32
FERRARO PP46-47
FERRARO PP50-51
FERRARO P81
FERRARO PP82-83
FERRARO PP90-91
FERRARO P93
FERRARO PP98-99
FERRARO P101
YUP.
MUCH MORE
NECESSARY
than the farcical assertions replied to.
OF course we know the difference...We also know that praying to a statue of Mary and asking that she give you grace, or that she keep you safe at night is not veneration...It’s worship...
Any other questions???
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
INDEED TO THE MAX.
Beautiful! And may God continue to bless him!
Then what explains this comment in this post? You just did what you claimed you never did.
maryz post 2206: My point was exactly that you don't elevate Christ nearly high enough! Few if any of the non-Catholics here seem to have any appreciation of the sheer wonder of the Divinity of Christ (even those who say they accept it). Maybe they just don't express themselves well, but they seem to have an extraordinarily limited concept of God at all -- they seem to see Him plodding along with the rest of us, bound by time (though they generously grant that He can see the future).
It's like someone locked in a room whose only concept of elevation is a ladder and no inkling of mountains and valleys and foothills!
Try to stay focused, this thread is about the misguided notion that the Catholic Church wants to bring back the Holy Roman Empire. Which is an incredibly absurd premise for anyone who knows anything about history because the TRUTH is that the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire had an incredibly antagonistic relationship with each other for centuries.
I prefer not respond to your 'show me' questions....these have been responded to and debated many times, by many posters, on religious threads and hardly comic-book articles, though as usual some of those trickle in.
Yes, the have been debated ad nauseam, still missing is any documentation that the Catholic Church has EVER taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary:
- Died for the sins of mankind.
- Was crucified.
- Was raised from the dead in bodily form.
- Is the hand that moves in our life today.
But what I woud say again is Clearly and most profoundly understood, that 'Christ' is to be worshiped above all others...and there is nothing in scripture that God elevates Mary to the extreme position the Catholic Church has.
Christ alone is worshipped. If what certain bigots claimed about Catholic Marian beliefs were true, there would be a problem; however, since the claims of these bigots are false, there is no problem.
I am not anti-catholic
I never suggested you were, though I have always found that denial prior to accusation is among the surest signs of guilt.
Perhaps you could offer a suggestion as to a fitting reply from Proddy’s perspective
to reply to the relentless grossly outrageous false assertions when even “false assertions” is an outrageously mild label????
I try to limit my replies at all to such clap trap. However, if one ignores the overwhelming abundance of such, it seems to me, there’s room for the enemy of our souls to persuade some lurkers that such an abundance of such horrific assertions haver merit, that there IS NO fitting response.
I do ignore a LOT of such posts because I ignore wholesale a list of such posters.
You don’t have much of a literary background, do you?
Show me where in the NT it says that Jesus is our Judge.
Funny, Catholics on this forum have told us that Catholics take the words of Jesus more seriously than the rest of the NT. So, I quote a passage with Jesus own words and it's now not good enough? Was He wrong? Did he lie?
And there is a general wholesale rejection of what Paul teaches. So, what part of the NT should I read? The part Paul wrote that Catholics dis? Or the rest of it, the few books left that he didn't write?
Quit making stuff up...I didn't condemn Mary to Hell...I don't condemn anyone to Hell...They condemn themselves...
Oh wait, you can provide a verse out of context and provide a private interpretation to validate you contention.
Ya, me and another couple hundred million other non Catholics take a verse out of context and interpret the same verses the same way...
Where's all that logic and common sense you guys claim you have???
You let a handful of corrupt men tell millions of Catholics what the scripture says and means...We, by the millions, actually read the scriptures and most generally come to the same conclusions, which almost always disagree with your handful of corrupters...
A rose by any other name.....
Making statues of people, lighting candles in front of them, praying to them, attributing special supernatural powers to them,... It's all worship.
Relating to them in the way that one should only relate to God is worship.
Game, set, and match.
Fail..... You proved nothing.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
Yes, I would agree with this...I like this part...”God makes those things “plain”...I sometimes think if we'd quite looking for scripture to support what we want to believe, and many do this of course. Rather, looking to scripture and let God tell us what we ARE to believe, we'd all fair much better in these debates.
I have noted on threads where people are seeking the truth everyone seems to use scripture more and dialog very well...even when passions rise somewhat...the topic does not get lost among the mishmash of ideas nor beliefs...their is a sense of wanting to understand...and most recognize we are ‘Students’ of Gods word for a lifetime...we'll never know all He has for us this side of heaven. So we surely learn from those posters and the rich dialog which ocurrs. The Calvin thread was as that...amazing and we all learned.
I said before...”Lawyers once were interested in revealing the truth when in the courts of justice....now it's only about the win regardless if a man's life hangs in the balance.”.....I am afraid some debaters are more interested in the win than the souls of those who might hang in the balance.
It takes two to tango (or tangle) ...
GROSLLY WRONG, YET AGAIN.
The problem here is that the issue isn't the meaning of “false,” but rather of “false witness,” or even "bearing false witness."
Several sources give this meaning:
Noun 1. false witness - a person who deliberately gives false testimony
perjurer
liar, prevaricator - a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly
Or, one may wish to look at the phrase, “bearing false witness.” Several sources give this meaning:
Definitions of bearing false witness on the Web:
* perjury: criminal offense of making false statements under oath
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Here is part of a legal definition of “perjury”:
In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm
And of course, the phrase derives from the Ten Commandments, where “You will not bear false witness against your neighbor” is colloquially taken to mean, “You will not lie.”
Indeed, the post that someone is “bearing false witness” means pretty much that the party said to be “bearing false witness” is lying.
sitetest
It doesn't strike me as any different than saying *I don't believe you*.
You seem to be OK with that. You've certainly used it enough yourself.
Why then, do you object then when someone casts doubt on YOUR credibility?
And why haven't you objected before when other Roman Catholics consistently say it to and about non-Catholics? Are you being a respecter of persons or shouldn't you, if you were being impartial, object no matter which side uses it?
Yes, and roamer is saying you’re in greivous error if you celebrate on a Sunday not a Saturday.
Certainly there is great merit in your suggestion that I could profitably apply in a lot of my responses.
However, I don’t think the issue, for me, at least, is
“when I feel wrongly accused.”
The issue is a LOT of outrageous assertions that are grossly wrong, inaccurate, false, lies, untrue, UnBiblical etc.
which could easily lead unthoughtful lurkers into believing that the wrong assertions had merit MERELY BECAUSE of their plentifulness and lack of substantive, impactful replies from the Proddys.
Perhaps I could find some brief Scripture from Proverbs or some such to routinely reply to such . . . would that be acceptable or do you have a better suggestion?
Not trying to be difficult here.
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.