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.
Thanks for another
100% inaccurate
pile of assertions.
I’m rather inclined to agree.
However, I’d rather leave the jerk face posts alone for the lurkers to see in all the smelly glory of such posts.
When the clear distinction is whether you believe The Gospel with no "ands", "buts", or "maybe's" the only thing left is to confuse the issue.
It was called to the attention of the people responding to it several times by several people, to no avail.
It looks like people will believe what they will believe, facts notwithstanding.
I said I have KNOWN such men, not that I hang out with them. Are you trying to be omniscient now?
It was my husband who led me back to my faith and to the reformed perspective of Christianity, as is his Godly responsibility. I thank God for him every day.
Perhaps he did, what I asked is how you could know for a certainty what is in his heart.
In your post you assume the OPC keeps membership records but you deny that Rome does. lol. Rome cannot count correctly. We've been told on these many threads by Roman Catholics that "once a RC, always a RC." Rome does not remove the names of baptized members from its membership rolls.
If it did, that "1.2 billion" would deflate fast.
You still have not addressed the FACT that ALL agencies that determine demographics agree on the number of Catholics and NONE of them are suggesting that they are simply going by what the Catholic Church claims.
It would be incredibly irresponsible for statistical agencies to simply accept the claims of the Catholic Church without verifying them, it's too many people and a false premise would throw off too many other statistics. For instance, let's say the Catholic Church was wrong about the 1.2 billion and it was only 600 million, that would mean that there are only 1.5 billion or so Christians in the world (since it is the 1.2 billion Catholics ADDED to the other Christians that result in the total of 2.1 billion Christians), then there would be a question about the beliefs of the other 600 million people.
Nevertheless, the FACT remains that you have yet to cite any credible group that has verifiable statistics showing that the number of Catholics is overstated.
Which is more credibility than you just established for yourself since the whole *Quix believes Jesus was bioengineered by space aliens* strawman has been thoroughly debunked several times already on this thread.
But if you wish, delude yourself. It seems to be going around amongst the Catholics on this thread. Only one so far has shown any immunity to it.
It's confusing when some who call themselves Protestants say that Unitarians and JWs who believe in the Gospel ARE Protestants and then others say that they aren't
Certainly, you can understand that organizations and individuals within, may have different beliefs.
Should, I judge the RCC on sedavacantism or liberal C and E catholics or traditionalist or Marian devotees beliefs?
Agreed, to a point, But since 1948 and 1967 things are moving faster and faster. sort of on an exponential curve.
B) "Open" is not the word I would use to describe a mind that believes this.
An open mind, IMHO, is one without preconceived notions. God's ways may not fit into our box.
It should be perfectly clear to you my explanation concerned the host only in order to justify the many years of offering the host exclusively. I said nothing about the wine.
Nobody has stated that Jesus was bioengineered by UFO”S as you are stating.... rather that the claim is out there that there are people who do belief this will happen in the future. That is not the same as you are stating.
It is concerning that you continue to post something which was not stated....further that you seemingly are using this to discredit another poster over and over again.
Many people have investigated the movement that is pushing this stuff...that does not mean they believe in what those people are saying. Rather that the fact those people do “believe” such things...and that belief is genuine.
Anyone can believe there are little men running around on the moon....it is a “belief”...that does not make it so. The concern is those people do “believe” and there are experiences they have, be it manufactured in their minds or presented by demonic forces....they ‘Believe” it fully.
It is a very difficult thing to help people understand when they are basing their reality on what they have “experienced”. We know without question the enemy of mens souls masquerades as an angel of light...and these people will often belief they have seen an entity in the form of aliens or Christ or God.....It is no different then those in the Catholic faith who consistantly report religious sightings of one for or another and cannot explain them away.
I think it is a dangerous thing to underestimate the whiles of the devil and what he does present to those who are not grounded in God's word...and furthermore I do believe there are people who witness to these people and try to help them come away from these.
The difference is when a catholic experiences these entities...it is treated quite seriously....anyone else it is considered madness. But there is really no difference at all.
Look, if you want to BEGIN to gt one corner of a clue about "Real Presence" you can start by grasping what "Realism" is. And one thing "Realism" is NOT is materialism.
Here's the problem: There are lots of different kinds of sheep. And each individual ewe or ram is unique. But there is SOMETHING they share, or we wouldn't call them sheep. Also, we say, this sheep is a better than that one. It seems there is something which is not an instance or example of sheep by which we determine that this sheep is better than that one.
I judged a show once. I had to assess varieties of sheep and their excellences, and then I had to declare a 'best in show."
I could do this because I had an "idea" of a sheep. This is more than a "picture". I looked at the sheep, I felt them. I watched them move, I checked their hooves, smelled their breath -- all kinds of stuff.
None of the sheep were perfectly good exemplars either of "sheep" or of "Suffolk" "Churro" "Columbia" "Karakul". But there are all those "ideas" which I understood, if not well, at least well enough to be asked to judge.
PLEASE notice that an idea does not exist in my head. That is it's not, as I am using the term, possible for it to be "my idea." I am distinguishing between MY UNDERSTANDING and THE IDEA
So, now we can get going: Realism teaches that "ideas" are, um "real." That is, what some might call "the idea" of, say, triangularity is real and can be thought about without having to think about the examples or instances of triangularity. "Twoness" exists in a different way from any actual pairs of things. We can learn about arithmetic and numbers without having to use pairs of things, but only symbols.
I am using "idea" in this, though the term "form" is probably more usual. But I think for materialists, "form" is a confusing term.
Almost anything that is in a class of things, is in the class because it has a "idea" (NOT an 'appearance', a "idea" can be entirely without appearance THOUGH it is normally encountered at first through its instantiations.)
There is a "idea" therefore of animals, of sheep, of Lincoln Longwool Sheep. We can meaningfully speak of any of those classes.
There is a idea of humans, and a idea of each individual human. When the idea and the human body are separated, except by the grace of God, the human dies and you are not looking at a human, but merely at a human body.
In any event, the ideas exist in the mind of God, AND are manifested in members or instantiations of their class, and are perceived by the human mind. Because they exist in the mind of God, they are REAL.
A substance is an instantiation of a idea. Substance is NOT the equivalent of "material" -- at least not until the "enlightenment" when philosophy started getting incoherent.
A substance, the union of matter with its specifying "idea", is the what-it-isness of a thing -- its "quiddity". We are made of pretty much the same "material" as a sheep, but we are humans NOT JUST because that material is organized in a different way, but because we think and choose and do things which are in themselves esssentially immaterial.
Just as my understanding of the "idea" of sheep is imperfect, so my understanding of the "idea" of Jesus Christ is imperfect. But I can say that when that idea is instantiated, that is when it is "joined" to matter (whether "spiritual" or "natural" matter), I have before me Jesus Christ -- who, incidentally, does not come in pieces, because He is God and God has no parts.
So it is the "whatness" of Jesus with which God graciously replaces the "whatness" of the bread and the wine. In the normal case, without a further miracle, that's all that's done. (But it's a big 'all')
Most importantly, in the normal case the "accidents" (smell, taste, ability to make one drunk or fat, ability to trigger allergic reaction, and so forth) usually remain.
Almost done. We hold that, as "ideas" are real, so this change is real. It is true whether or not it is believed, whether or not it is perceived.
Quix, you asked for Realism 101. You got it. I'll send you a bill.
This was answered by me quite awhile ago.
Really what's not been acknowledged by any of the RC posters is that there is a unity among Christians which RC's don't participate in. This unity exists because we share a common belief in The Gospel with no "ands", "buts", or "maybe's" added to it. Instead, RC posters have focused on trying to "pick off" posters such as OLD REGGIE who has made his position very clear in his tag line.
The question that you have never answered is what's worse. The poster who makes his position clear in his tag line, or the poster who claims to be something they aren't.
Genesis 6 does not mention “demons who were fallen angels who lost their bodies in Noah’s flood.” or “fallen angels who fell with satan but did not lose their bodies are pretending to be citizens of distant planets as ET’s.”
Your UFO Bible must be a different translation from the “Vatican Rubber Bible.”
Matthew 26:
[26] Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
[27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Of course "Tradition" overules the words of Jesus.
I understood metmom’s accusation to be about what happens semper et ubique. So adducing one instance would have been enough, but I’m generous and, besides, I had lots of instances.
***100% inaccurate
pile of assertions.***
Just like yours ...
What do you men *What weasel words*?
I never used the term.
Who was this, um,... interesting post primarily addressed to?
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.