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.
Bless you.
If a good, sound argument can be dismissed because it may also be a rationalization, then why make good sound arguments.
I might as well resort to insulting and degrading terms like white hanky and magicsterium and colored fonts.
Somebody asserted as fact what was not fact. Somebody claimed her experience as reason that those alleged facts should be thought of and acknowledged to be true.
Rather than say that the person lied, I said the experience was invalid as an indicator of truth -- it was poor teaching.
It seems to be , as I said, that that was a generous thing to say. I could have said, as you suggest, the person's memory was not functioning well in this instance. That would, of course, have been personal.
And I have seen very bad catechesis. So it seems to me a likely explanation.
EVEN if we stipulate that the rest of those scoundrels adduce poor catechesis unfairly, it is still the case that if someone claims authority on the grounds of his or her catechesis and insists that he be believed because of his catechesis in a matter in which he is clearly and demonstrably wrong, it is not a "rationalization" to call the quality of the catechesis into question.
And again, this is NOT about, "you'd have remained catholic if onyl you understood." It is about, "What you are saying indicates that you do not understand or are mistaken in our facts."
Where did anyone say that?
That’s one plausible
interpretation on the data.
However, unless serious authentic insanity is grossly evident,
OR
unless there’s serious evidence of a kind of duplicity where the talk is not walked . . . some serious denial is going on, not necessarily reaching the level of insanity,
THEN I’m very resistent to wholesale disregarding a person’s self-report of their EXPERIENCE.
I’ve demonstrated that a lot even toward some rabid clique types hereon.
THEIR EXPERIENCE IS AT LEAST THEIRS.
I may disagree with their labeling or their interpretations of THEIR EXPERIENCE, but it IS
AT LEAST
THEIR
EXPERIENCE and not mine.
DESCRIBING THEIR EXPERIENCE of RC education as extensive and reasonably good quality—regardless of exceptions, gaps, flaws—is for me—an easy thing to accept on the face of it.
We are not dealing with ignorant simpletons hereon.
These folks have sufficient mental horsepower and breadth of experience to know the difference between very low quality education vs very high quality or at least above average education.
To dismiss it with the blanket magical
“poorly catechized”
slam is just not logcial, not fitting, not accurate, to me . . . by a long shot.
That is simply a bogus characterization of my argument. We have not gotten to the point of discussing whether the doctrine is true. I'm trying to get across what it is, whether true or not.
Let's review: YOUR SIDE, in obvious ignorance of what we actually teach and in spite of links to the Summa on the topic and of frequent citations of hymns by Aquinas, insists that the doctrine necessitates a perceptible change in the "species."
Now let's stop right here. Does seeing the sunrise make the sun come up?
Nowhere did I say, not in one place, I defy you to show me a place where I said that believe made it true or made it happen. That is nonsense.
YOUR side repeatedly brought up the manner of "apprehending" the change, NOT of causing it or verifying it or of proving the doctrine.
The doctrine, whether true or not, teaches that the change is objective, but apprehended by faith alone. Faith does not MAKE the change, faith does not PROVE the change. The change, IF we are right, is only apprehended by faith. That is all I am saying.
Consequently so suggest that there is anything at all in my argument that says either that the change happens because of faith or that the doctrine is true because of faith is to demonstrate that the argument has not been understood -- WHETHER you agree with it or not.
I am astonished.
I have to get ready for Church.
That’s interesting.
Dr E said:
Are you able to grasp that someone disagreeing with you is not the same thing as someone not understanding you?
I replied with something that I thought it was deliberately kind, generous, magnanimous:
I believe he can grasp it.
I think in the heat of some discussions, he loses sight of it.
WE ARE ALL HUMAN. You are USUALLY one of the RC’s much better at noting that.
We ALL can easily lose sight of the distinction between agreement vs not understanding in the heat of emotional exchanges.
I just don’t understand your pique.
I’m sure there are valid cases for claiming
Poor catechsis sp?
To make it the 100% blanket explanation it has ALWAYS BEEN ON FR
IS ABSURD TO THE MAX, TO ME.
And, I think to most readers who are not awash in the biases.
As you know, sociologists and psychologists virtually never see
100% anything in relationships, human doings in life.
However, on FR, I cannot think of a single case on FR where that has NOT been the
FIERCE INSISTENCE of the RC’s hereon.
I bless you.
MD, YOU certainly are free to assume I stated this with you in mind...but you are mistaken...however if the shoe fits..as is said... My thoughts were of those in cults and false religions who "believe" in their stuff which is often grossly out of the sphere of reality..yet they genuinely believe it. When you posted to me at first...you stated '"Fire Away"...I ignored that remark in favor of dialog. An d know here you are assuming I was referenceing you in a post to another person..sheesh. I do not have time now to answer this post you responded with now as I have to go to work...but will return later. Hopefully by then MEtmom will have responded.
But one cannot ignore the fact that people can and do believe in that which is far from reality...(I cannot stress strong enough it is their belief)..and to them it is their reality no matter how another might argue or disprove what they are believing in is not reality. Belief might need a good descript at this juncture...because if one does not believe in whatever they have determined is reality...they simply and generally don't follow or practice that which is presented as real.
Obviously. Just ask any atheist about any religious belief!
Interestingly related to the "poorly catechized” remark, yesterday my husband and I took our stroke-survivor cousin (in a wheelchair) to her 65th class reunion. It is a Catholic school, the Priest knew them all and celebrated Mass before dinner.
Considering the "poorly catechized" remark and remembering that group last night, I really doubt that each and every one of them would be able to score 100% on a test even though they were raised in the Catholic faith and walked in it their entire lives.
But I imagine they'd all agree on the fundamentals. And I doubt anything they have failed to remember or remember incorrectly will be held against them when they graduate into the next life.
well he's a poet, she had probably just sent him a check as his patroness
What a terrible slur! ;-)
May The Lord Himself bless you with an intensified Love of His Truth and ways.
Are all Protestants now worshipping Elizabeth 1? Are we singing her praises, giving her the sceptre in heaven? Building shrines to her? Praying to her? Dispensing us graces? Ruling the demons? Most probably dont even know who she is.
PRAISE GOD FOR THAT!
THX THX.
sure like you dont know all literary people and artists dont have patrons
Doesn’t answer the question . . .
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.