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.
Exactly... Just make it up as they go along ..
For instance, if I said "Are you a heretic?" that would not be making it personal. But if I said "You are a heretic" that would be making it personal.
And if I said "Perhaps you don't know..." that would not be making it prsonal. But if I said "You don't know..." that would be making it personal.
Gravity is not a sacrament.. where does it say that we are bound by the sacraments?
Do you follow ALL the rules God has set in place?
IF it is so easily found, why can not any of you highly educated Catholics spell it out for us??? Baptism is a major doctrine...One would think you guys wouldn't have to locate a specific paragraph, just tell us what it says...
I don't think God would be surprised with anything people do. But Jeremiah wrote the following (supposedly revealed to him by God):
Seems pretty clear whom God had in mind.
Scripture tells us that Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul the apostle to the gentiles..The New Covenant belongs to the church, the saved
By design. However, as regard Paul being the apostle to the gentiles, that was an afterthought, or more like desperation:
Seems like poor old Peter was sent on a paper chase. No wonder he [supposedly] ended up in Rome; he had no one to talk to in Israel and for a good reason: what the NT says Christ said an observant Jew would never say. So something has to give.
besides, Jesus allegedly told the disciples not to go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the lost sheep of Israel. Even he said that the only reason he was sent was for the lost sheep of Israel.
So, what happened? God changed his mind after he told Jeremiah that his new covenant will be only for the Jews? And Christ changed his mind after he said he came only for the lost sheep of Israel?
I know, you will say but Matthew 28:19 says...let me tell you, there are many references in the pre Nicene Christian sources that suggest that is a latter-day add-on. Mark certainly doesn't say anything even close what Matthew says as far as the Great Commission is concerned, and going to "all the nations" (the Greek word is tribes) and for a good reason.
Christ was not talking about the people of the whole world but was referring to the Jewish tribes scattered in the world (that's what the Jewish messiah was supposed to do—gather all the tribes and being them back).
And, finally, there is ample biblical evidence that the 12 apostles were picked for a reason, corresponding only to the 12 tribes of Israel, so that together with the anointed one (messiah), they will judge them.
It's all bout the Jews, for the Jews and from the Jews. The Gentiles come later on, an afterthought as I said, as a practical necessity because the Church was dead in Israel (certainly by the time Acts was written—James was allegedly stoned and his church in Jerusalem closed in 62 AD)
Then came the genius, Paul, who saved the day by selling a Jewish mystery religion to the superstitious Greeks, and John who (at the end of the first century) hellenized Jesus into a Platonic deity.
Oh yeah, the New covenant belongs to the Church alright—by design!
They do because the largest factor in the precipitous drop in the number of Samaritan Jews was due to their conversion to Islam.
Read the thread. As usual, Rome cannot refute the Scriptures.
Regarding the original posting of this thread, who knows what thread simply gathers people's attention? I remember a few years ago the Nativity movie thread went longer than this one.
As far as the other Calvinist thread goes, I was chastised by the RM the other day for bringing one thread over to another.
But since you brought it up, if one had actually read that thread they would have seen it is an interesting take on infant baptism which reminds us once again that John Calvin believed children who die in infancy all go to heaven -- something Rome completely denies and Arminians remain divided over.
I realize Roman Catholics are made uncomfortable by dissent. Protestants, not so much. Protestants know they are called to rightly divide the word, and that takes effort and thought rather than simply swallowing the latest edict from an anti-Scriptural bureaucracy with its own anti-Scriptural agenda.
Just to move things along: (note paragraph 1257 may be of particular use to you, RnMomof7, but as I believe, NaturalLaw pointed out, a thorough reading of catechetical writings, in context, is required for true and complete understanding of the teaching in question. Here, for example, reading paragraph 846 only would lead to, at best, an incomplete understanding of the doctrine of Baptism. It should be read and understood in the context of paragraphs 1257-1261)
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1257
Thank you. Ditto. :)
In August 1988 Rev. Duplantis was preaching a revival in Magnolia Arkansas. He feels impressed to go back to his hotel room and pray about the service that evening. He notices the clock (again) it was one minute before one o’clock. He gets down on his knees and gets ready to pray then“Suddenly I felt a suction as if I was being pulled up out of the room…I heard a sound Whoose! And I was pulled up out of the room…I didn’t know I had left the room and I was zooming along at a phenomenal rate of speed…in something like a cable car…Then I looked up. There stood another being I realized that it was the blond-headed angel who had visited me…”You have an appointment with the Lord God Jehovah.”
Before Jesse is sent back home to planet earth Jesus explains how He is dreading the day when He has to send some of the creation He loves to hell. “I wanted to reach out and comfort Him, so I put my hand on the Lord…I could tell that Jesus was hurting.” (19) Can you imagine? The One who upholds and sustains all things by His power (Heb. 1:3) feels sad and is hurting and Jesse tries to comfort the Lord God Almighty as best he can. In these closing discourses with Jesus, Jesse comes to believe “we can delay His coming by waiting for a sign before we act on His Word…” (20) Through this supernatural gnosis, we learn that people choose their eternal destiny as proto-babies and we also can delay the return of Christ by our actions or inactions. Earl Paulk, must be correct then when he teaches that it is up the Church as to when Jesus returns. Jesse continues to humanize God by saying;“I didn’t know before how much He needed me to reach out to other people. I have always thought of how much I needed Him, not how much He needs me…He smiled at me and said, “I chose you. NO one else wanted you, and I need you Jesse.
You remember the Woody Allan line: "I took a speed reading course and read War and Peace. It's about Russia."
He's not WRONG, he's just not very right.
The Baltimore catechism seems to be right enough for children. It lacks refinement.
How refreshing to read the implication that you guys do not know what we teach.
However, it is mystifying then why, if you all don't know what we teach, you all engage in this reconnaissance by fire.
Since the method of the inquiry presupposes hostility, and since I do not want to offer helps to the answers to help a group whose rhetoric implies ill-will, I think I will let you all continue to charge us with saying what we do not say and accuse us of doing what we do not do.
The article could go through a whole litany of things, but conclude by saying that the real evil is in the opposition to abortion, pre-marital sex and homosexuality. Would the anti-Catholics even read it or would they just jump on board?
Do the anti-Catholics realize that they are playing into the left’s hand? The left DOES NOT CARE what the Church believes about the Blessed Mother, Baptism, the Eucharist or anything else that gets discussed on these threads. The left doesn’t actually even care about any clerical abuse that happened in the past. The left wants to destroy the Church because of its stand on moral issues (moral issues that evangelical Protestants claim to agree on) and nothing else.
******************************
I agree, which is why I question the motives and even the claims of religious denomination by at least some of that group.
Why don't you ask how many were raised as calvinists.??
Do you believe that what you believed as a Wesleyan was satanic?
No, I am a fan of the work and person of John Wesley , who is often quoted by reformed people ..I think he was wrong about some doctrine.. but then I think Calvin was wrong on some too.
Turnabout is fair play.
Well not really..see you do not have a choice of what to believe and still call yourself a Catholic.. and many of us know what the church teaches and so indeed most OBSERVANT Catholics believe what Rome tells them
Are you saying that what Catholics debate IS NOT Scripture and doctrine?
Yep..full lockstep with Rome ..Rome defines a handful of scripture and you must accept that as the correct definition.. the same with doctrine.. "no Iron sharpens iron" allowed in Catholicism
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.