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.
LOL!
Gresham’s Law exhibited on the Religion Forum except use posting as an analog for money.
Here is the real truth:
GOD IS IN CONTROL
lol, I missed that one
So? What does that have to do with the price of cheese?
Yes, you accurately and honestly depicted what Quix actually said. Does that excuse "...all the RC's who falsely accused Quix..."?
Bingo!
My choice to reject the interpretations of the Catholic church are simply based on the fact that Scripture can be clearly and plainly read and, for the most part, easily understood by the average lay person. And that I saw discrepancies between what Scripture stated and what the RCC taught.
Tradition is NOT on equal par with Scripture. It says that nowhere in the Bible, and Christ Himself had a lot to say about the traditions of men, and none of it good. The only thing that gives weight to the concept that the tradition of the Catholic church is on equal footing with Scripture is,.... (drum roll) the tradition of the Catholic church.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
“The Catholic Church allows heretical Popes.” My work is done if I show it has had one. Is that ok with you?
INDEED. WELL PUT.
We’ll see how much attention is called to the 2nd STATION OF THE STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY on that one.
INDEED.
Because they are at nature, control freaks? The Catholic church is well suited to obsessive-compulsives, all the ritual, doing exactly 50 hail mary’s,counting beads, bow 3 times and spin once before sitting down, and all the rest they do
INDEED.
However, even if one had a video, it seems like a majority of them would STILL DENY they were doing so even if THEY were IN the video and it was proven to be authentic.
Exactly. That’s one more reason why Rome distrusts the liberty of the Christian conscience. It cannot control it.
Thank God.
INDEED.
PRAISE GOD.
Yes,
!!!!CONTROL!!!!
has always been a main feature of phariseeism . . . in my experience . . . on both sides . . . as a pharisee and as a victim.
THANKS.
Great question.
No, NOT a Great question
but an interesting one, to me.
To borrow a phrase of yours -- "this has been explained to you many times."
The Roman Catholic church only considers a person to have "formally left" the Roman Catholic church when that person writes a letter to his bishop advising Rome of that fact.
I've asked dozens of ex-Roman Catholics and many other ex-RCs on Free Republic if they've done that and they just laughed.
Apparently, when they find a church that follows the Scriptures they shake the dust of Rome from their feet and they don't look back.
God be praised.
And we can't forget we have the testimony of Roman Catholics like Salvation who have repeatedly told us that "once baptized a (Roman) Catholic, always a (Roman) Catholic."
Is Salvation wrong? Has she been "poorly catechized?"
DR. E: So not only have you broken the rules by falsely saying I believe myself to be "omniscient," but you now imply I think I know your heart.
WAGGLEBEE: Actually, I've said nothing of the sort
Do RCs think we forget some of these personally slanderous posts by RCs which repeatedly break the FR RF rules? I realize RCs don't trust the written word, but thankfully, it remains to reveal the errors of RC apologists.
In YOUR POST #3533 you wrote...
"...a person such as yourself who claims omniscience..."
Thank you for the fine illustration of the veracity of those who follow another gospel taught by "another Christ."
I really missed it if anybody said that. Can you name somebody who said it?
Quix singled me out for special attention on the "poorly catechized" charge. I'm confident I didn't say or imply that. I'm not responsible for careless inferences.
Old Reggie, this may clarify the part of my post you said you didn't follow: metmom saith:
I was no more poorly catechized than the Catholics who I grew up with, and went to school with, and worked with, and was related to, who are still practicing Catholics.
The cold logical response is first to remind the reader that saying so-and-so is poorly catechized is not blaming them, it's blaming their catechists.
The second is to say I have no way of knowing what the prevalent quality of catechesis is. I hear mostly horror stories about RCIA and I was recently rebuked by a Middle School DRE for citing Dominus Iesus so I bet there's a lot of downright heresy being taught.
The important part is that that that doesn't make it good. The good is often unpopular.
Here's one slightly more aggressive argument, metmom:
You say you found that Catholic teaching is unscriptural. BUT you said things that weren't true about clerical celibacy, transubstantiation, and offering the chalice.
Consequently, while the overall proposition "Catholic teaching is unscriptural," MAY be true, anyone who thinks what you said about those doctrines cannot say authoritatively that those doctrines are unscriptural as long as he thinks those doctrines teach what you say they teach.
To work an example, Catholic teaching on "sacred ministry" and marriage May be wrong, but it is not wrong because it teaches that married people cannot be ordained because it does not teach that. It will have to find some other reason to be wrong.
In other news:
Their tradition is what gives their tradition its weight. Pretty convenient, isn't it? They've got a nice, neat, little system all sewed up.
Their tradition is Quotes from Scripture are what gives their tradition the Bible its weight. Pretty convenient, isn't it? They've The Sola Scriptura proponents have got a nice, neat, little system all sewed up. (Except that I think Scripture provides arguments in favor of "tradition.")
In general, I deplore the tendency towards the "And another thing," assault. How many issues are we supposed to deal with at once and who thinks that if we do three or four at once we'll do better than if we focus?
Oh yes, the MARY Pope. The one who received his "inspiration" for Marian "Devotion" from De Montfort. The Totus Tuus Pope. The one who credited Mary with saving his life. That one?
Yes, that one.
Rope-a-dope or do you have a point?
MY point was precisely that the man you are calling “the MARY Pope” did not seem to me to display idolatry or distraction in his other writings.
What’s you point?
I am not responsible for careless inferences.
"The Catholic Church allows heretical Popes." My work is done if I show it has had one. Is that ok with you?
Ambiguous use of the word "allow".
2 dozen issues enough?
Quix singled me out for special attention on the “poorly catechized” charge. I’m confident I didn’t say or imply that. I’m not responsible for careless inferences.
I certainly don’t have and don’t recall chapter and verse.
And, I confess that you have been far better than average on such things. However, it does seem to me that you have sometimes said something to that effect about others being poorly taught etc. I am happy to be corrected that you did not. My memory is certainly flawed.
Didn’t you say recently something to the effect that durn near everyone is poorly taught?
[Cue Mary Martin in South Pacific and “ . . . carefully taught . . .”]
IIRC, it’s much more the RC’s who habitually list Quix’s and Dr E’s horrific sins [in their eyes] as plentifully as they seem able to manage . . . concluding with some variation on . . .
‘Besides all that, your mothers dress you funny and you smell like sulpher from hell.’
Sigh.
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.