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.
I can just imagine.
It’s accurate. If you don’t like it. Then don’t act like it.
Facts are stubborn things.
It can be precarious to consider oneself a “leader”, or someone with “position”.
It has the possibility of leading someone where they are better off not to go.
“The most difficult thing in this world to do is to be an absolute nobody”
—quote from a character in a work by J. D. Salinger
I’m not a fan of Salinger, but even Salinger can be right at times. He was right with that quote.
St. Paul understood this.
I had hoped you were answering my last post to you
More baloney from the bologna factory..
I repeat, one book does not, as a usual practice, result in a dramatic disruption od one's life. Better to refrain from such intimate discloses on a public forum? Yes!
"The book "Preparing for Adolescence" which was published in the late 70s almost single-handedly wrecked my life. I remember my mother crying out "You used to be so loving and kind, what's happening to you?" some years later I realized that what I had wanted to say was "if you could get all this Dobson stuff out of the house I might have a chance of actually becoming myself instead of this freak it's trying to turn me into." ... er, or words to that effect. So yeah... that took 3 years of intense therapy to work out. :)"
"30+ years later and if someone wants to send me into a feral rage all that has to be done is for a Dobson book to be tossed into my line of sight. Maybe I just didn't understand what he was getting at, but there's like a 14 year block of my life when I wouldn't allow another human being to so much as touch me, I mean down to little old ladies at church trying to hug me... I'd clothesline them. Sorry grandma, you invade my personal space and you're going down. And no, there's no deep dark secret lurking in my childhood, it's just how I reacted to Dobson's psychology."
“Did he say to work TO BE SAVED?No He did not..this letter was written to the saved.. it was instruction on HOW TO WALK out their salvation not how to be saved”
This tortured grammar is simply at variance with Paul's statement that salvation was something to be worked out, a result of faithful endurance in agreement with Christ's own statement about the necessity of endurance to the end to gain salvation.
“I think you meant Heb 10:26 not 36”
No, I meant just what I wrote.
“This is a passage that Catholics really need to rake to heart”
No doubt, but that is a matter for Catholics.
Cross eyed.
Who brings about godly grief? Who brings about repentance? How does faith come? Who opens our ears to hear and our eyes to see? If you believe that you've manufacture your faith, then your right. But if you believe that your faith is a gift from God then your wrong. It's that simple. But we won't hash over where your faith comes from.
There are multiple incidences of the inward and outward calling of God. Would you say that Moses' calling was inward, outward or both? How about Saul, or Abraham, or Noah, or Cornelius? God saves us just as He has saved everyone in scripture. He reveals Himself to us.
Notice the call went to the individuals, who chose to reject it. The King didn’t send them faulty invitations, or leave them the wrong address. They were too busy to accept.
The question is why were they too busy to accept. Consider the following scripture:
If you believe in a deterministic God who...
This isn't about determinism. This is about the nature of man. Men hate the light and will not come to it. Adam hid because of his sin. Peter asked the Lord to leave because he was a sinful man. This is our nature. God seeks us out. We want to hide.
There is no hint that a man will ever, on his own, sit down and reason out God and decide to approach God thru his own desire. But God takes the initiative and reaches out to man, and man can either say yes or no.
It is presumptuous to think we can say "no" to God.
And we must have at least this anchor, or some anchor. Else, we don't know if at the end of all our systematic theology or proof texts if we have out-thought ourselves and managed to build a quite solid proof for a very wrong idea of God.
If we end up with an unjust, capricious unloving and unlovable God… we have made a wrong turn somewhere. We may be able to "prove" every turn, but we have failed in where our theology has lead.
As you probably are aware . . . lots of Proddys have similar convictions about lots of RC’s. LOL.
Let me guess. That can only be . . .
Oh! Lemme answer.
The Baltimore Catechism is not Catholic Teaching.
We use only for the young and ignorant.
There should be a question mark after that. No, I don't. As one who managed to spend most of life making the most sick choices possible, I know they are not exaggerations.
The comparision is whether God creates us dead or sick - whether, according to double predestination, some are created dead forever. Or whether, even as sick, dead, perverted man becomes, he is not that way forever - for there is grace and a loving God.
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
We cannot take every instance of "dead" to prove double predestination. All of this kind of stuff describes just how sick we can be. Often it shows how, sick as we may be, God still loves us, still is there to make us well - whole, as only He can.
even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved.
Hmmmmmm
He once gave me a very strange look at a psych conference while I was taking a picture of him, but mostly I admire him and believe him to be of the highest integrity.
He reportedly is a bear to work with as a publisher because he’s extremely convinced of how he wants every aspect of his books.
In terms of his parental guidance . . . I think he’s a lot better than a long list of others.
He does write for a mass audience, however.
And, he can allow for special treatment of extremely unique kids. I don’t know that THAT comes across in his books, however.
I don’t know that I’d say his books are written for the LOWEST common denominator but certainly for the most common stuff to come up in parenting challenges.
Sorry he gave you such fits. I’m very curious along what lines if you care to FREEPMAIL me.
But one by one God showed me the errors in Catholic doctrine and eventually I had to leave if i was to be true to God and myself
PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR INTEGRITY TO GOD!
PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR INTEGRITY TO SCRIPTURE.
PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR INTEGRITY TO YOURSELF.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
I can only conclude that you're generalizing from yourself and people you know well.
Not really. The list is endless.
OK, well finally we get to a point that seems halfway decent. Not without a sense of irony I'm going to direct the conversation toward another goal because down the "specifically" path is "he said/she said" and analysis of the perceptions of a 12 year old. The only thing I will address further in that area is that although at the time I had the intuition that the Dobson psychology was the problem it wasn't until a decade after my initial exposure to the book that someone was able to put it into words and help me understand exactly what the problem was. It's been 21 since then and the only lingering after effect is that I shout a lot whenever anyone brings up Dobson and I tend not to keep it at the front of my mind. Otherwise I'd think about it, shout, think about it shout, think about it, shout. etc. When I say "shout" I am exaggerating for effect btw. What's the point of dwelling on unpleasant episodes, unless it's Civil War reenactment or something.
Now that the digression is out of the way there are two points I actually want to address:
1) I knew what I intended to convey when I wrote the earlier post, you did not get out of it what I intended and focused on one part of the overall post to the exclusion of the primary point. Acknowledging that people are allowed to do that, I want to point out that it's remarkably similar to the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. Without comparing myself to the Divine Author of Sacred Scripture or my typing to His Word I still think it's important to consider that if someone has a great deal of difficultly understanding what I'm saying when I'm recounting my own experiences I don't see how that person should be trusted to properly interpret Holy Writ.
By way of example, I do not believe that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man and that God is a Trinity because of what I read in the Bible, I believe those doctrines because the Church tells me in a variety of ways that I should believe and understand Sacred Scripture in light of those doctrines. If left to my own interpretations I would not arrive at those beliefs by relying upon Scripture alone. So Catholics are told to reject X doctrine of the Catholic Church based exclusively on the interpretation of someone claiming to be a Bible Christian but to retain other doctrines of the Catholic Church. All at the behest of people who can't be bothered to actually pay attention to what I'm writing, it doesn't lend a reasonable degree of trust to their ability to interpret scripture.
Which brings me to point 2. People say "you get more flies with honey than with vinegar" and I ask "who wants a bunch of flies?" Nevertheless how are people supposed to effectively communicate even their own personal interpretation of the Gospel when they act like spoiled fruit? Who walks into a restaurant, sees someone gagging and spitting over a bowl of soup and says "I'll have what she's having"? Did Our Lord truly say "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you act like complete dorks to all and sundry"?
There are two normal rebuttals: a) if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and b) Catholics do it too.
Yes, Catholics do it too, to their (and my, especially when I do it) shame. "She kicked me first" is not a valid excuse even for a 4 year old, at least not my 4 year old.
As for the hot kitchen, what good is it doing for anyone? No bread is being baked here, no mushrooms sautéd. No matter the intent of this kind of behaviour, the result is to drive people away and/or just shut them up. Now... if a process results in unintended consequences often enough then the process is at fault, if the consequences are the intended result of the process then the operator is responsible.
The accepted standard of conduct and behaviour of people on the internet is beneath the dignity of rational creatures of God. I mentioned another website in an earlier post, on the whole it is populated by liberal atheists (they are at least the most vocal participants), other than the specific subject matter I would be hard pressed to discern the difference between the conversations there and the conversations here. So what's the point of Christ if His loyal disciples are indistinguishable from those who wallow in the spiritual decadence of this world?
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.