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.
Why else would you have brought it up?
And here I thought the argument was about language . . .
Nor do you know if he added the introduction to Elizabeth before or after he wrote it, and the truth of that is that he most likely added it after she gave him the pension, as a tribute to his sponsor.
This whole scenario of yours that he worshipped her is your fantasy, no one elses.
Talk about mind-reading! You’re not only mind-reading me, you’re mind-reading Spenser (not to mention inventing what you consider a likely scenario). I merely quoted his work and let it stand.
The truth is he went to court looking for a sponsor, deal with it
Maybe you've never studied a language in depth, but my own experience, when I was taking Hebrew, is that I tried from the beginning to think in Hebrew when I wrote an essay -- obviously, with more and more success as the years of study piled up. IMO, you can always tell someone who's mentally translating from his own language.
This may account for so many "poor" translations over the years.
Maybe I missed something, but the only "'poor' translations" I've seen referenced here are translations from the Latin.
So what?
Who's that clown? Never heard of 'im.
Do you hate the following prayer in Latin and does it irritate you?
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio; contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperat illi Deus; supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae coelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude.
Absurd hardly describes it.
I find it ludicrous that so many FRoman Catholics posting on FR who have made no claim to any advanced, seminary type training by and in the Catholic church would sit in judgment on their very own Catholic seminary educated priests and accuse THEM of also being *poorly catechized*.
For the record to all the Catholics, that term and accusation has been bandied about so much with so little provocation, that it has lost virtually all it's effectiveness. It has degenerated into a meaningless, knee jerk, one answer fits all response to anything that doesn't fit with the FRoman Catholics idea of what the Catholic church SHOULD be like, not even what in the real world, it IS like.
A newsflash for Catholics. What you want the Catholic church to represent and what you want the Catholic church to mean and what you want Catholics to believe is a fantasy fairy land compared to reality.
It is simply not what is occurring in the real world and when we point this out, we're mocked, ridiculed, derided, told we're poorly catechized, we're called *haters*, heretics, and anything else a warm, loving, charitable, Christlike, Catholic response can generate.
Goodness, there are even Catholics on this forum who recognize the problems within the Catholic church and acknowledge that what much of what the non-Catholics are saying and observing is true, and yet they're accepted and not given a dose of the same kind of Catholic *charity* the rest of us receive.
By the admission of some of the more reasonable Catholics on this forum, the Catholic church is in a world of hurt. It's priesthood is infiltrated with pedophiles, its leadership isn't appropriately dealing with it, its membership is voting highly liberal, Catholics can't even trust their own Catholic schools to give their kids a proper Catholic education, and yet they'll defend their church to the death. Admirable loyalty and devotion, but sadly misplaced at this point in time.
One of my favorites! (I usually say it in English, though, the way I first learned it.)
And yet that is how we're portrayed and treated.
The condescension demonstrated by the majority of the FRoman Catholics is palatable.
What a lunatic statement.
Firstly, the Romans were men of action - soldiers and engineers. Not effete academicians and half men who play with words, preferring that to the real world. Perhaps that is what irks.
Secondly, English up until 250 years ago was an irrelevant and unimportant regional language. Greek was the lingua franca of the world (incidentally the language that God gave us His word in - the NT certainly, and the OT Septuagint almost certainly) for most of a millennium, then Latin for a millennium, then French for 300 years. English is a bastardization of Norse, French, German and every other European language in a violent melange which has more exceptions than rules.
No doubt I will get in reply the riposte that if English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for us...
Absolutely.
GMTA
No doubt, only the FRoman Catholics, but not even many of them depending on which other of them was grading the paper. I've seem plenty of disagreement even amongst them.
Amen
I tried so hard to reconcile the gospel with the catholic church doctrine.. one does not leave a family tradition, the faith you were raised in, without considerable contemplation and some pain
I tried to stay, but the more I read scripture, the less I believed church teaching... finally one day I realized that I could not longer accept the doctrine as any manner of truth ..and so I left.
I had never heard of "sola scriptura" or "sola fide" .. alll I knew is that the bible did not support the doctrine I had grown up with ...I knew to be faithful to God, I had to leave and I did.That decision was not without cost, all of my friends were catholic.. they no longer talked to me. I lost ministries I loved, but as He did with Job, God restored what was lost with a far greater gain...Christ
“...accusation has been bandied about...”
There are numerous accusations in this post alone and they weren’t coming from a (”FR”) Roman Catholic.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
Christianity as a whole is fading in this world and grave sins have effected the protestant communities as well.
There are people who call themselves Christain's and act nothing like a Christian most of the time-so when I say Christianity is fading this is what I mean.
We(Catholics) defend dogmatic and infallible teaching on Faith and Morals that we believe comes from Christ. We do not or should not defend those who call themselves Catholic and reject these teachings ,especially when they know what the Church teaches and ignore it and do otherwise and teach otherwise.
Catholic's that are ignorant need to be corrected when they are shown they are in error.
So, when we defend the Church til death(as you say) We defend the teachings that come to us from Christ.
You obviously have decided to leave the Church and not believe this, but protestantism has not changed the world from slipping away and has infinite ideas of what Christianity actually IS in matters of faith and morals so it is divisive even with itself and pluralistic on faith and morals.It's read this book(The Bible with many versions that don't match in translations) and figure it out on your own, and once you think you know this book you can start your own church or even become your own personal church- the Church of self knowledge
Even the founder of protestantism(Luther) recognized this once he realized the mistake he made
A few quotes from Luther...
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet" De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
I 'm sure happy I stopped being protestant!
http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/biography.htm
By 1589 at the latest, Spenser appears to have made the acquaintance of Sir Walter Ralegh, at that time living on his Munster estate and serving as mayor of the city Yougal. It was Ralegh who, reading through Spenser's draft of The Faerie Queene, encouraged him to join him on a trip to London in 1590, where he presented the celebrated poet to the Queen. Spenser used his time in London to publish the first three books of The Faerie Queene, and seems to have attempted to secure enough court patronage to make it possible for him to remain in England. Although the Queen promised him a handsome pension for his labors, her generosity was questioned and moderated by the intercession of Lord Burghley, whom Spenser went on to lampoon in Complaints, printed and almost immediately suppressed (or 'called in') in 1591.
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.