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.
Maybe my need for a short kosher response to
—outrageously untrue things
—outrageously assaultive things
—outrageously preposterously unBiblical things to something to respond to
—outrageously mean-spirited etc. things
would be to resurrect my
“.”
As a symbol of one or more of such outrageousnesses . . . in the middle of the post with nothing else.
Unless you have a better idea.
LOL.
Do not post to someone who has been instructed to leave the thread.
That would essentially say that you read it and determined it wasn’t worth a reply. So if that is your meaning, then fine.
I didn’t see that, as it wasn’t on the last time I refreshed the thread and it was posted a mere 2 minutes before that post. But I will abide by your moderation from here on out on this thread.
Right.
Thx.
I could live with not ever again being called a *hater* just because I disagreed with some point of doctrine. Disagreeing with doctrinal issues does NOT by default make someone a *hater*. I wouldn’t even have a problem with applying that to groups of people even though you don’t consider that a personal attack, as it is nothing but inflammatory.
This is like trying to teach someone how to drive. You have the general rules of the road and there are always new situations encountered that require an application of those rules in new ways that you just can’t predict.
The problem for you is, there is no conceivable way to make up specific guidelines for every conceivable situation that may come up. And when you do, someone, somewhere will find a way to finesse the rules and they’ll retort with, *You didn’t say we couldn’t say ______*. Then we’ll be back to square one with you trying to figure out, yet again, how to moderate the RF and satisfy everyone.
Perhaps the best way to deal with the complaints is to determine whether there is a valid issue, or whether someone is just trying to control the discussion and shut the other person down, and then either amend the rules, yet again, or invite them to leave the thread if they are being that easily offended.
This is worse than trying to mediate a dispute between my kids. You don’t get paid enough.
Perhaps the best way to deal with the complaints is to determine whether there is a valid issue, or whether someone is just trying to control the discussion and shut the other person down, and then either amend the rules, yet again, or invite them to leave the thread if they are being that easily offended.
This is worse than trying to mediate a dispute between my kids. You don’t get paid enough.
INDEED TO THE MAX ON BOTH COUNTS! LOL.
The prohibition on accusing another Religion Forum poster of hate would apply regardless of the object because it would be "making it personal" to accuse the other poster of a sin.
For instance, "You hate God" "You hate Muslims" "You hate him" "You hate Mary" would all be making it personal.
But "Hindus hate Buddhists" "Scientists hate Fundamentalists" "Muslims hate Jews" would not be making it personal.
You didn’t ask me directly, but..
FWIW, I think the rules are fine as they are. There are more inflammatory posts possible within the rules and less inflammatory ones possible that violate the rules. Outlawing “bearing false witness” is ok, but I don’t think it would make much difference.
Effectiveness of the rules comes down to moderator judgement, and the current rules plus the catch-all tools of warnings, time-outs, banning, nuking the thread are sufficient when wisely used.
There was an “all” at the end of the ping list. Your opinions are welcome.
At my age, I'd take it as a compliment.
;-)
LOL
I think those kinds of elaborations, clarifications are wonderful.
Thx.
I assume that the group vs the individual personal stuff still applies?
That is, groups with unspecified members can be commented on while individual personal negative stuff cannot. Right?
I’ve worked in church nursery for years and encountered a lot of issues. The funniest, in a way, was a family who was having trouble leaving little Johnny in the nursery. He was constantly being aggressive with the other kids and his parents had a talk with him.
No hitting. No punching. No kicking. No spitting. Or else.
But they didn’t say he couldn’t throw the other child against the wall.....
You’re in the same position. You can only make rules about what has come up. It’s impossible to predict what MIGHT come up, and even if you made rules for that contingency, it’s always the thing you didn’t think of that someone else will.
Yes.
LOL
Conspiracy theories are great if you have competent conspirators. The catholic church is mired down in social justice dogma and it is not too big to fail. All big bureaucracies age and fail. Using the church as a straw man or pinata is at best low entertainment.
Reminds me of the old Dr Murray Banks [see youtube] joke . . .
A 92 year old Rabbi had not missed a single meeting of the local Rotary Club in 50 years. How’s that for an attendance record? This Rabbi was a special person—when he walked by, people bowed low to him—he was the highest in integrity and friendliness.
Suddenly, one week, the Rabbi completely disappeared. No one knew what happened.
A month later, the Rabbi calmly walked into the Rotary meeting and took his usual place.
The MC hit the gong, stopped the meeting and said Rabbi, for Heaven’s sake where have you been all month?
The Rabbi said, For a month, I’ve been sitting in jail.
You in Jail? You don’t harm anyone, why were you sitting in jail? What happened?
Well, I was getting ready to go into Radio City Music Hall and a beautiful woman walked up to me with a policeman and said:
HE DID IT!
To tell you the truth, I was so proud, I pleaded guilty.
Yeah, welllll . . .
some are not too proud to slum around for humor.
LOL.
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.