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.
The New Covenant was intended for the House of Judah and the House of Israel (Jews and Jews only).
The NT is revelation to the church.Christ NEVER gave authority over the OT to the church
Apparently Paul thought he did.
That would make a great tag line!
National holiday or just a Feast Day?
I haven't followed the question.
I think the Calvinists are right that there may be crispy critters in the deep fat fryer for reasons the justice of which we cannot see. So I think there's an appropriate theological humility in saying, "Well it sure seems to me that a just and loving God would just scoop the little ones up into heaven, but I'm not all THAT smart, so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I need to study this for another 1,800 years or so. Get back to me."
LOL. Thanks for your kind reply. You are welcome to it.
I don't know whose church you are referring to, but it isn't my Church. Infant Baptism is an obligation on the parents, not on the infant. It is a time when we renew our Baptismal vows.
Confirmation is the Catholic sacrament of mature Christian commitment and a deepening of baptismal gifts. Like Baptism and Eucharist, it is a Sacrament of Initiation for Catholics and a Sacrament of faith in God's fidelity to us. It is a time where we, with adult minds and awareness of the difference between good and evil, make a conscious choice.
We call 'em "cafeteria Catholics." And I'd say "suits their whims" rather than "suits their lives."
So here's what seems wrong to me.
It's the "good" Arminians and Calvinists who disagree with one another. But it's the 'bad' Catholic (though not necessarily in their own eyes) who disagree with the good ones. Obedient and faithful Calvinists differ from obedient and faithful Arminians. Disobedient and unfaithful Catholics differ from obedient and faithful ones. So I think there's a difference there.
Certainly not this Catholic, nor any of the Catholics I interact with. Perhaps you are referring to some irreligious or former Catholics.
Baptist do not believe baptism saves and they don’t baptize babies to begin with.
They believe people are saved by
1) admitting they are a sinner
2) repenting their unbelief
3) believing that Jesus died on the cross to pay for their sins
4) confessing this belief to others
Only after this do they baptize
Something does not sound right about this story ? Are you sure the church was a Baptist church .
I was really glad to see you posting again and am sad that you feel you should stop posting again. Maybe this thread we should let die a natural death, but please continue to contribute your thoughts on the RF when you feel led. I sincerely missed your learned, loving and respectful posts. Don’t let ANYONE chase you away!
I knew you would say that. :-)
Even on this on thread, there are so many attempts to understand what God clearly seems to want to tell us when He’s good and ready to reveal all.
I just want to know why he didn’t make me smart and good-looking.
All that is hidden will be revealed.
What happens to an unbaptized baby?
Is it fair to say that there's a lot of "hostile witness" cross examination that goes on here?
Is it fair to ask what the purpose of such questioning is?
Yes they did. The Septuagint contained the "Apocrypha" as well and the Septuagint was used as scripture by the Alexandrian Jews as well as by the authors of the New Testament. No one ever dipsuted a single book of the Septuagint.
You speak as if there was one Septuagint. Though some Hellenized Jews may have read one or more versions of the Septuagint they were hardly the "Jews".
The latter copies available to Origen were written in 2nd century AD (mostly by converts or practicing Jews in an attempt to bring it in compliance with the Pharisaical scriptures), long after the Gospels have been written, and certainly way after Paul's Epistles.
I don't know who do you think you are or who gave you the authority to judge who is a Jew and who is not. Essenes were Jews, Sadducees were Jews, Samaritans were Jews, Alexandrian Jews were Jews as far as I know. And so are Orthodox Jews, the Reformed and Conservative Jews...they all share one thing in common: they reject Jesus as the messiah. On everything else they differ.
Do I understand you to be claiming that the present day Jewish Canon (Torah) of the Orthodox and Reformed Jews is nothing but a surviving sect?
Rabbinic Judaism in all its forms is the sole survivor of the Pharisaical sect. The essense, and Sadducees did not make it. The only other survivors are a few hundred Samaritans who still practice Temple Judaism.
Romans 3: [1] Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? [2] Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
And your point is?
he=He
So if you detect some rancor, it’s probably because it gets really frustrating to see right in front of our eyes the fact that the counter Reformation has never ended. It continues to this day.
The Jesuits continue in their original task. My best friend in college fell in among Jesuits later, while in the Army. He ended up "swimming the Tiber".
(Didn't I tell you? The post you wanted me to comment on is already 800 postings from the end.)
I prefer belittling trashy destructive ideas and the horse they rode in on.
So the RCC teaches that unless and until a baby is baptized, they can never be "a child of God."
That's an error. Thank God.
But doesn't your theology teach that babies in the womb are pre-determined by God as either elect or reprobate. And this doesn't change?
lolol. And I’ve missed 90% of them. Nuts. 8~)
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.