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.
When one is persistently and aggressively part of a group, one is routinely seen
AS PART OF THAT GROUP.
This is not REALLY PhD level sociology here.
What's with the personal remarks? Flattery is probably worse for this vain soul that abuse.
But I'll bite, to say a language is, "arrogant, condescending, obscuring, obsfucating, haughty, cheeky and elitist," is to say that, to the person speaking, someone else's use of the language makes him feel condescended to, looked down upon, uncertain as to meaning, victimized by an intended lack of clarity, insulted, and excluded."
The honorable way to quote would be to quote that whole sentence.
It makes no accurate sense otherwise.
I have studied the topic since 1961-62.
I have become convinced of a few things.
It is evidently true that the shadow government forces were in contact with at least the craft if not the critters as early as the 1930’s. That’s not widely known . . . maybe only by 25-65% of those well read on the subject. Hard to guess.
Ike was evidently the first and maybe the only President to meet with representatives of the critters.
Purportedly one race offered to solve our environmental, energy etc. problems but we had to surrender all our weapons and particularly our nuke weapons. AND, they would NOT transfer any technology to us. No way was Ike going for that.
The other purportedly less saintly group of critters was willing to transfer technology in exchange for realtively free reign in abductions. The U.S. government purportedly extracted a contract/treaty wherein the critters promised to yearly provide a list of who was abducted where etc. etc. It was soon discovered that the critters were abducting far more than they’d agreed to limit their activities to. And, that there was essentially nothing we could do about it.
Fine, then we can look for an upswing in married priests. But last I heard, they're still having trouble finding priests because of that. And a few exceptions does not make a wholesale policy change.
- You said that Catholic Church does not offer the chalice. False
And I also said that I understand that that has been changed in recent years. I haven't made that comment since the correction.
- You said that the failure of the appearance of the bread and wine to change indicated the falseness of the doctrine of transubstantiation when in fact if they DID change, that would contradict the doctrine. So that's false.
If the Catholic church teaches that one must eat the literal, actual body and blood of Christ, and that Jesus Himself turned the wine into his literal, actual blood, and the bread into his literal, actual body for us to literally, actually eat with our literal, actual mouths, then it very well ought to look like literal, actual flesh and blood.
Demanding that every part of the ceremony be interpreted as literal and actual except for the literal, actual physical change in the elements stretches credibility. It's cherry picking what must be literal and actual on the physical plane and what's not. Switching between everything being literal and actual in the middle of the whole thing and then back again, is too much like manipulation. It's all literal, except for this part. It just doesn't work.
It seems that the issue is that some people can’t distinguish between poetry and allegory and reality.
The amazing thing is we all come back into the fray...now why is that? There is a love of those who are in Christ among us thru His Spirit that is here....like brothers and sisters is families we get into fights and even at times leave a scratch here and there....but when push comes to shove I have no doubt all Christians will unite agains the foe....
And yes even with Quix and those who can dig at us wher we don’t want to be dug at.....Everyone who addresses him just keeps coming back and continues to debate or slander..whatever the mood might be at the time....How come? Why bother if it is so bothersome how people might express themselves? Because despite all Christians do have something to say and there are good minds here.....maybe some a little worn from time and tide...maybe meds etc. get in the way for others....maybe some not as educated or leanered..............everyone mispells!
GREAT PARAGRAPHS.
Plus governments are big on disinformation to conceal the truth. To tell a really big lie they tell a little truth with it. One of “the sightings” is pretty well believed to be the lunar landing thing— it was described by eyewitnesses and left 3 pod tracks in the sand. If they can make everybody believe only kooks see UFOs, then they pretty much squelch reports.
The Aztec Symposium presentation I saw on the 3,000 scientifically analyized, verified trace landing incidents was very persuasive. The scientific rigor was quite high. The evidence was quite conclusive in those 3,000 cases.
I understand that now, the number is closer to 4,000.
Whatever still small voice that said there’s grey bioengineered critters walking around is not one I would put a lot of trust in.
I guess I missed that VERY gross distortion of facts about my perspective the first time . . . It probably seemed like a minor one along side the piles of major ones on this thread.
ONE DOES NOT NEED HOLY SPIRIT saying a thing about the critters to know such beings are . . . moving around . . . our sphere, into bedrooms, in yards, . . . though they evidently rarely “walk.” They are MORE frequently seen floating, gliding slightly above the ground etc.
The evidence is deep, broad and of high quality.
Of course, some sorts of ignorance refuse every kind of evidence to the contrary.
I find your post so outrageously dispicable that I’m only going to post the history that is still available with minimal comment.
IIRC from what I can tell, a number of the 4-7 posts asserting he did not exist have been pulled.
I don’t give a huge pimple pop about what some stubbornly determined naysayers think about my perspective or the massive amount of solid evidence on the topic of UFO’S AND CRITTERS. Their irrational addictions to a TYPE II ERROR are exceedingly well known on the UFO threads. They seem to think a TYPE II ERROR is not deadly . . . that all they need to do is do back flips avoiding a TYPE I ERROR and they will be fine.
THAT’S CRAZINESS TO THE MAX.
BOTH TYPES OF ERROR ARE DEADLY, depending on issues, factors and contexts.
ATS has a motto: DENY IGNORANCE.
I think the naysayers’ motto is
WALLOW IN IGNORANCE AND BRAG ABOUT IT!
The important history still available is below:
An appeal to the authority of a non existent expert. Par for the course.
18. They would also be calling a number of astronauts liars who have increasingly been enboldened to come clean about what they know and have seen in terms of UFO’s and ET’s.
Name the astronauts that have come out re: ET’s. With source.
20. Far too soon, they will have to yet again eat crow about being critically horrifically terminally wrong about a dramatic truth they COULD have, instead, been helping prepare Christians to face. God have mercy on their cluelessness then.
We Catholics have never called Jesus bioengineered by UFOs. Where is your cluelessness now?
3,077 posted on Thursday, September 09, 2010 6:23:51 PM by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
To: Quix
Sorry to bother you, Jesse, however, this dispute happens to be about you. IF YOU DON’T WISH TO RESPOND OPENLY, YOU COULD RESPOND IN A PRIVATE FREEPMAIL TO THE “RELIGION MODERATOR;”
Actually, this is more about your claims and appealing to non existent or unproven authority.
I would not expect an apology from the co-Roman Catholic. Most of that ilk on such threads seem to be allergic to apologies.
This is about your claims and their proofs. I have nothing to apologize for since you were the one who refused to provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims.
Yes, I get weary of such frequent/common jerk-face assertions about your non-existence on such threads, too.
If I claim that I know somebody whom I point to as an authority, it is up to me to a) show that I know them and b) that they actually are an authority.
3,418 posted on Friday, September 10, 2010 10:34:09 AM by MarkBsnr
To: Quix
I have to say that I am 100% disabled from events in Iraq and the only reason I bring that up is to reinforce that as a 74 year old I could not care less what a nameless entity that I have never met nor had contact with has to say about me. I have no idea what was written nor would I waste the time reading whatever!! As far as I am concerned the only ones I have to answer to is my wife and God. :-) Jess Marcel
3,598 posted on Friday, September 10, 2010 2:46:15 PM by jesseam
If the Catholic church is going to have any credibility in its claims that Mary worship doesn't occur, then it needs to get the message out to its parishioners and much more strongly discourage the kind of behavior that is worship in practice.
INDEED. THANKS. WELL SAID. BTW, Am trying to make most of the centered lines longer for you.
Thanks.
:)
That probably covers a lot of it . . .
however
Such a RESPONSE on the part of the reader or hearer
is NOT AT ALL NECESSARY
for the author’s use of language to be
“arrogant, condescending, obscuring, obsfucating, haughty, cheeky and elitist,”
The author alone can insure such attributes are fittingly applied.
On FR, we have a very wide range of education, types of backgrounds, degrees of literary and scholarly awareness etc.
While I have a fairly extensive literary background, most of it is decades old in terms of the classics.
I used to know more Latin phrases than I know now. I’ve always found them annoying.
ON FR, WITH SUCH A WIDE RANGE OF READERS, USING THEM AT ALL WITHOUT EXPLANATION EVERY USE—IS, ON THE FACE OF IT, ARROGANT, CHEEKY, OSTENTACIOUS, HAUGHTY, CONDESCENDING, ELITIST, DEMANDING, SMUG, . . . ETC.
The only one’s I’d not say that about are Alamo-Girl and Betty Boop. However, that’s only because they use them on threads and topics wherein virtually the only correspondents are folks more or less equally informed about Latin phrases.
Their use by others hereon is extremely offensive to this poor white trash Texas/NM hick farm boy. I almost literally physically cringe just imagining the thousands of lurkers who have less of a clue about the meanings involved than I do.
And to DEMAND by their use that the lurkers and readers EITHER BE BRIGHT AND EDUCATED ENOUGH TO KNOW THEIR MEANINGS
OR
BOTHER A LOT TO LOOK THEM UP
IS
AUTOMATICALLY CHEEKY, ARROGANT, CONDESCENDING, DEMEANING ETC.
And I hate such stuff as folks snobbishly requiring that of even 5%, much less 70 or 85% of their readers/hearers.
GRRR
If the Catholic church teaches that one must eat the literal, actual body and blood of Christ, and that Jesus Himself turned the wine into his literal, actual blood, and the bread into his literal, actual body for us to literally, actually eat with our literal, actual mouths, then it very well ought to look like literal, actual flesh and blood.
Demanding that every part of the ceremony be interpreted as literal and actual except for the literal, actual physical change in the elements stretches credibility. It’s cherry picking what must be literal and actual on the physical plane and what’s not. Switching between everything being literal and actual in the middle of the whole thing and then back again, is too much like manipulation. It’s all literal, except for this part. It just doesn’t work.
INDEED. VERY WELL PUT.
The VAST majority of my posts are not about trying to get someone to agree with Catholic teaching, but to clarify what that teaching is.
I may also try to offer and advocate depictions of “mind-sets” in which certain propositions or behaviors which differ between Catholics and non-Catholics would be consistent with those things about which we agree. And I will try to analyze arguments.
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. THANKS.
For example, I am engaged in a slow process (at your invitation, BTW) to lay the groundwork for some basic concepts of scholastic realism. We’ve done Aquinas’s “first way” — the unmoved mover argument. We’ve looked at the idea of the reality of universals. Next I will try to address “substance.” These posts have tried to sketch not only what the ideas are but how a reasonable person would think them.
THAT’S ALL WELL AND GOOD.
AND PROBABLY IT IS WORTH YOUR DOING FOR THOUSANDS OF LURKERS.
However, I’m skeptical that it will add a lot that’s effectively significant to the REAL PRESENCE issues.
However, I will certainly read what you offer with a fair-mindedness and respect of you as my Christian Brother seeking to be helpful.
Then, as an example of the second class, I try to look at, say, Marian devotion, and present the notion that it is an outgrowth or flowering of devotion to Christ.
I think that effort is doomed to fail from the beginning. However, I will read what you offer as charitably as possible.
And, as is evident, if somebody argues, for example, that Marian devotion is bad because it is easily abused, then we need to look at the capability of good things to be used badly, and to inquire into whether the abuse of, say, Oxycontin means there is no good use for that medication.
That’s a very understandable analogy. I don’t think it’s a remotely fitting analogy.
Perhaps Curarie might have been a better selection of a drug for the analogy.
However, I think for most Biblically sound and thoughtful Proddys . . .
the issue is NOT HOW CLOSE TO THE CLIFF WE CAN DANCE WITH MARY . . .
THE ISSUE IS
HOW FAR AWAY CAN I GET TO AVOID ANY HINT OF OFFENSE TO GOD IN SUCH MATTERS.
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.