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.
If somebody contests a point I am making, but their argument seems to be be directed to some other point not the one I am making, I will say they don’t understand me.
Otherwise, we ‘take it to the next level’ and reason backwards to find where the differing premises are or forwards to look for reductios. As far as I can tell, that’s how dialogue (the art which the vulgar call ‘talking’) works.
That sounds reasonable.
However, I would encourage you . . . when you say that they don’t understand you—to encourage/instruct what minimal sort of response would be necessary for you to feel understood. I assume it would normally be a paraphrase in that person’s own words which you considered accurate enough to rate “understanding” as a fitting label on the exchange.
Yes???
Now if somebody says that Transubstantiation cannot be true because the “bread” does not have the appearance of “flesh” and the “wine” does not clot, I have every reason to say that that person does not understand the doctrine.
Practicing what I preach . . .
I understand that you believe a Proddy saying that “the Big T cannot be true because the appearance of the elements does not match the appearance of flesh and blood” is an indication that said Proddy does not understand the Big T as you do and as you believe the RCC teaches it.
Is that close enough?
I suppose a whole collection of words will have to be redefined and vetted between us . . . to me, said list of words will still necessarily collapse into either
"OTHER THAN SYMBOLIC" commonly known as "REAL," "OVERTLY REAL," "TANGIBLY REAL," "COMMON SENSICALLY REAL," "OBSERVABLY REAL," etc.
Therefore, it would be useful to me to see how any of your terms, ideas, concepts, constructs, 'realities' can fit in any other category than those two.
Of course, the defect in this counter is the air of triumph, the projection of certainty, the barely cloaked, "aHA!" This is remarkable, because when somebody displays, as I say, not just ignorance, but certainty about something which is not true, it would seem prudence and humility would suggest a little reduction in the incidence of premature end-zone dances.
IF you think that Proddys have a corner on that sort of display, THEN I have to question how much we've been existing on the same planet in all this.
But I am delighted that in the midst of the self-granted triumphal procession, a really good question is raised: in what respect, if any, is it right to say this is “merely symbolic?” Related questions would be ‘What is the difference between spiritual and symbolic?’, ‘What is the locus of symbols?’ ‘Whether there can be ‘true’ or ‘false’ symbols.’
THOSE ARE WONDERFUL QUESTIONS . . . though I think some of them are a bit . . . over weighted and bordering, if not over the line of prissy.
Nevertheless, I’ll be blessed to dialogue with you about them.
To me, your side has at once a harder goal and too eager a tendency to descend to triumphalism, though some on my side do a pretty good end-zone dance too. I have the easier goal because I am just trying to get a coherent expression of what I scarcely understand myself. It is made harder because of the abundance of abusive terms and phrases, AND the sensitivity of having to say to somebody, “You may think you ‘know’ that, but you don’t, because it’s not true.”
I don’t know that we are slated to agree about “abusive phrases” in this time/space dimension . . . though I’d dearly love it if we could.
You may, hopefully, have noted that I rarely use such phrases with you.
I’d guesstimate that 75% of my use of them, if not 85% or more . . . is in response to folks who GREATLY DESERVE THEM because their attitude or their word choices or their “arguments” are so outrageously begging for such.
A lot of the time in life, I prefer to give folks what they desperately are begging for even if they are not consciously admitting at all that they are doing so.
I don’t know IF you have noticed or not,
EVEN WHEN A chronically mean-spirited and relentlessly personally assaultive RABID CLIQUE bloke or blokess becomes civil with me, I TEND to immediately return civility in kind.
Again--I rarely use them with you. I'm willing to earnestly try and use them even less with you. No promises about responses to the rabid clique folks.
Usually it is clear to me that you disagree, but I end up having no understanding of the reasons (as distinct from the causes) for the disagreement.
I'm happy to earnestly work to increase the understanding of the reasons for my disagreements.
All I read is outrage and abusive language. I cannot find (not saying it's not there) a coherent reasonable disagreement. Consequently I have no way of knowing whether there is any understanding of the points I am advocating. Rejection is clear, understanding, not so much.
I think you are saying that the 'outrage' emphasized in my words and phrasing and style clouds your discernment of my reasons for my outrage and disagreement. Is that close?
MOST of the time, the dramatic language is designed to jar some folks out of their stereotypic tunnel vision and Vatican Vulcan Mind-Meld mentalities long enough to consider the issues at least a bit more fair-mindedly and fresh. I realize such is not likely to occur in the short term. I have a lot of life-long data to believe that even such outrageous language does foster such ponderings down the road--and often, fosters such ponderings very productively.
Thanks for your kind and clear post.
A Messianic Jewish Rabbi sort of bloke held such a service/Sedar in Israel, with our tour group, IIRC . . . I am certain he did in San Diego but I think he did in Israel as well. Very meaningful.
ooops:
I suppose a whole collection of words will have to be redefined and vetted between us . . . to me, said list of words will still necessarily collapse into either
SYMBOLIC
OR
“OTHER THAN SYMBOLIC” commonly known as “REAL,” “OVERTLY REAL,” “TANGIBLY REAL,” “COMMON SENSICALLY REAL,” “OBSERVABLY REAL,” etc.
The Passover meal was a foreshadowing of Christ, but apparently, most Jews didn’t really get it. There was a lot of confusion about the Messiah then as they obviously didn’t expect Jesus to be what He was otherwise they would have recognized Him and accepted Him.
His statements of *This is my body/blood.* is no different in nature than the rest of the times He explained parables to the disciples. He told them spiritual truth using symbolism and then had to explain what that symbolism actually represented because they still missed it.
The Passover meal was a foreshadowing of Christ, but apparently, most Jews didn’t really get it. There was a lot of confusion about the Messiah then as they obviously didn’t expect Jesus to be what He was otherwise they would have recognized Him and accepted Him.
His statements of *This is my body/blood.* is no different in nature than the rest of the times He explained parables to the disciples. He told them spiritual truth using symbolism and then had to explain what that symbolism actually represented because they still missed it.
I AGREE. Excellent points.
Um, Hold a minute, I beg thee, friend. Dost thou say that our sweet Lord spake NOT in the English tongue?
The good King James the Pederast sent the KJV back in time to Our Lord so that the Apostles and the discples could wander the Holy Land armed with a 1611 KJV in order to instruct them as to what to say and how to act.
You may find what you wish. Perhaps it may coincide with reality on occasion.
IIRC from what I can tell, a number of the 4-7 posts asserting he did not exist have been pulled.
I am unaware of that number exceeding zero.
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.
UFOs and ETs belong in B rated movies and the worst of the tabloids. They do not belong in a religion forum.
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. The saying is 'put up or shut up'. You have not put up.
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
In other words, there is no evidence, either from this entity or from his purported website and all we have is your indignation. Believe in little green, or grey men all you wish, but do not expect me as a believing Christian to respect those beliefs when it come to the Lord God Almighty and to the practicing of the Faith which has been handed down through the millennia through the Church from Jesus Christ Himself.
I've seen you do that hundreds of times. In fact, you're usually the first one to "become civil."
THANKS FOR YOUR GREAT MEMORY AND REALITY TESTING.
I think we are on the same planet . . .
in contrast to the rabid clique folks . . .
I see the ABSURDITIES TO THE MAX ARE BACK.
What more proof do even willfully blind clueless folks need other than websites; youtube videos . . . all vouchsafed by multiple FREEPERS and the person himself?
REPEATEDLY one gets the impression that many willfully blind rabid clique RC’s would dare to imagine arguing with God face to face.
Or as Mamma used to say . . . with a fence post.
Thankfully, that’s reportedly pretty impossible given the deep, intense conviction and vivid revelations of their own hearts and minds in such a context.
IIRC, You have raised teen boys . . .
You have seen folks in face to face life like the rabid clique types hereon.
What have you typically observed with the Dad is of the rabid clique sort and has teen boys???
Impressive Post RnMomof7.....I am going to study this further from this perspective. Though I understood this is the meaning, and Agree, It is another thing when you make it your own. I look forward to seeing what the Lord says about this. He has a way, does he not, of sealing in our hearts what He wants us to know.
Thank you for sharing this!
CW
AMEN! AMEN! WELL PUT.
THX.
Your statement isn't without problems.
sitetest
Speaking for myself, and likely for all former Catholics, if you're trying to explain the doctrine of transubstantiation so that we can understand it, save your keyboard.
I was not so *poorly catechized* that I do not understand what the Catholic teaching is about it. I understand completely what is taught about it because I remember what I believed about it and it wasn't different from what you're explaining.
My point is that it's wrong and the challenges are WHY I believe it to be wrong. There are too many contradictions and inconsistencies in the teaching. The justification and explanations that Cathlics have to put forth and believe in direct violation of any kind of reasoning is staggering. Catholics HAVE to claim that you just have to accept that it happens by faith, because there's no other way that that any reasoning mind can justify the belief. And honestly, God doesn't expect us to kiss our brains good-by when we become followers of His.
The interpretation of the Scripture surrounding the institution of communion and the teaching about the cup and bread being the body and blood of Christ as a symbolic ceremony is easily supportable by Scripture, while there is plenty of Scripture that disallows the meaning that the Catholic church has attached to it.
As far as the whole Mary worship thing, while you can, no doubt, point to various statements made by the Catholic church over the years to *prove* that the Catholic church does not endorse the worship of Mary, for all practical purposes, it does. For one thing, what happens in practice is that people treat Mary as deity. They relate to her as such by praying to her as they ought to pray to God the Father only. Everything they do in practice screams *worship*. The Catholic church has not discouraged publication of prayers to Mary that are idolatrous. They have given their official approval to the publication of material in books that is just out and out wrong. Lies, in reality.
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.
AMEN!
The real problem with Rome, besides all the superstition and aberrant doctrines, is that they resemble Islam in that they present a different face to non-Catholics than they really are. We've seen on various caucus threads that Roman Catholics LOVE their Mariology. They can't wait to heap blasphemous accolades on this simple Jewish girl.
But when questioned about it, they simply deny there's anything untoward about their "devotion" to Mary. They say whatever is expedient. They deny they worship Mary while at the same time they kneel to her and pray to her and ask her to mediate between God and men; they look to her as a dispensatrix of all graces and believe her to be a co-mediator and the queen of heaven and hell and purgatory, and they even go so far as to believe that true piety lies in giving ourselves to Mary during our entire lives and most especially, at the hour of our death.
It's difficult to tell which is worse -- Mary worship, the abomination of the mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ, or following the guidance of "another Christ."
Any one of those errors would brand a church as one who preached another gospel.
Rome is three for three.
Personally, I think the Mary worship is the worst because it has the greatest potential of leading folks well off the track and over the cliff.
The other two are more of a mixed bag, depending, imho.
The Maryolatry stuff is blazingly dangerous almost from the git-go, imho.
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.