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.
********************
LOL!
LOVE IT.
The best Yes Minister dialogue was about the gongs: CMG, KCMG and GCMG :)
QUIX HAS extremely infrequently been accused of being
ANYONE ELSE
all his 63 years.
QUIX HAS extremely infrequently been accused of being
ANYONE ELSE
all his 63 years.
FOR OBVIOUS AND VERY GOOD REASONS!
If I understood the RM’s guidance and my intent in the last post, expressed use of the familiar 2nd person in the posts to convey an adversarial position tends to make the post personal.
A similar meaning expressed in the 3rd person, impersonal formal, would not qualify as ‘making it personal’.
All well and good but you have had to make Mary the Holy Spirit to cram 4 personages into the Trinity
That’s right, Quix is the “Christian” who “believes in aliens from outer space.”
I don’t know, though. Your use of colored fonts really rivals classygreeneyedblonde. I understand it was a he, as well.
lol,lol. Many will choke to death on that steak
It takes some time and effort to abide by the excellent rule of the Religion Forum that stipulates we can discuss and criticize a faith, practice or belief, but not an individual FReeper. In a nutshell, that is a golden rule for this forum and for life in general. Following it even has made my life outside this forum easier. Arguments with husband and kids don't get out of hand. The argument remains focused on the "what" and not the "who."
In fact, the rule itself is quite Christian. Knowing we're all fallen, we speak against the sin, and not the sinner who we still hope will be turned toward the truth.
Being called a "liar" is as much a personal assault as any other pejorative. It's not difficult to abide by the rules and instead respond with "that statement is not accurate." As you have repeatedly said, it also goes to motive, and no one can know another's motive for certain.
We shouldn't expect the preaching of the Gospel to go unchallenged. But it needn't be uncivil.
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." -- Isaiah 40:8
Sidenote - did she sleep with Uncle Miltie, or was it Milton in drag?
What is that old saying about tv preachers, "the higher the hair the closer to heaven"
ok, so all members of Cvengr’s group are crazy, white-hanky worshippers of a monkey god and are not Christians. Don’t you think that is personal?
Doesn't it all come down to control? We will control what you post. We will control what you think. Disagree with us and we will get you evicted.
One poster sees nothing wrong with insulting Quix's Pentecostal religion yet screams to high heaven over white hankies. these threads are darn entertaining, i dont see what they get so upset about.
so you don’t celebrate on Sunday either?
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).or from Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).and Justin Martyr
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).however, let me repeat -- unless you knew of these scriptural reasons and also the historical proof that the earliest Christians celebrated on the Lord's day, Sunday, you could easily be misled as you were and as SeventhDay adventists are misled. Hence, a good question, but one that is easily answered by the above proofs, scriptural and historical --> do you have any proof that Sunday was not and is not the Lord's Day? Or is it something you just made up?
Christianity and Neo-Liberalism
The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond
by
Paul M. Elliott
The Trinity Foundation
This is a blockbuster of a book. One can only pray that its impact will, in God’s providence, live up to its potential. Not only is it well written, well researched, and well documented, but the author has a real sense of history, of church history that is. Back in the 1920’s, at the height of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the PCUSA, J. Gresham Machen, the leader of the conservatives wrote a book entitled, “Christianity and Liberalism.” In it he set forth and contrasted the theological beliefs of historic Christianity and of the liberals in the PCUSA. He convincingly argued the premise that liberals were not Christians and that modernism was another religion. Paul Elliott has taken that as his model and titled his book accordingly.
The author’s thesis is that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) is today exactly where the PCUSA was back then.
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.