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.
No wonder Rome ignores and diminishes Scripture. The word of God contradicts and thus denounces its errant beliefs and practices.
The Reformed believe in God, unlike Mother Teresa whose faith did not sustain her. For the last 50 years of her life she was an unbeliever. That is very sad.
8. So far, I’ve been speaking of intelligence as something that can be measured scientifically by a number. But in recent years I’ve also come to believe there are differences in black and white styles of thinking. Race differences are not limited to numerical differences on a single scale like IQ (which itself is an aggregate of several different abilities). Race differences also take in different types of mentality, which we can see more readily by commonsense observation than by scientific tests.
Personal observation is of course subjective and may be erroneous and unfair. Nonetheless, it is a necessary part of understanding the world in which we live. Further, I am attempting to describe the whole journey of my change of attitude regarding race, a journey that has included (possibly unfair) generalizations from personal experience as well as the cognition of more objective facts. In the next few paragraphs, therefore, I will state my subjective impressions and conclusions as such, without claiming objective validity for them and without attempting to document or prove them beyond telling the experiences that led to them.
Following the arguments and actions of black leaders, listening to black callers on talk radio, led me over several years to an increasingly bleak view of black thinking styles. For one thing, it seemed to me that many blacks have a marked tendency to pick up some slogan and then just use it without much logical connection to the subject at hand. I also became increasingly aware of the "hustle," the way many blacks at all levels—from street people and politicians to celebrated "intellectuals" like Cornel West—did not use ideas as ideas, but as a hustle, as a way of manipulating people’s feelings. Suggestibility and the substitution of rhetoric for reason are general human weaknesses, but it seemed to me that these failings were noticeably more pronounced among blacks. Of course there are many blacks who are rational and logical and intellectually competent. But the proponderance of irrationality among the black population is hard to ignore.
9. I was also impressed by Gedalia Braun’s fascinating manuscript, Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit, based on his many years of close personal observation of blacks in Africa, an excellent review of which appeared in American Renaissance in 1993.
According to Braun, African blacks have a wholly different kind of mentality from whites. He pointed to Africans’ inability to understand cause-and-effect relationships, as seen in the magical mode of thinking observed among Pacific Islanders and known as the "cargo cult" syndrome, and which Braun also saw evidenced among black Africans. For example, as Braun described it, Africans seem to see Western development aid as a magical process that will automatically make all the appurtenances of a modern society appear. This way of thinking leads African blacks to see whites as magical beings who could, if they wanted, do everything for blacks. To the extent that this attitude carries over to blacks outside of Africa, it would explain their belief in (white) government as the answer to all their needs, and their growing rage at whites for not giving blacks the vast range of goodies that blacks believe is within whites’ (magical) power to give.
Another of Braun’s provocative observations was that African blacks (at least those who have not come under the influence of Western liberalism) have no hang-ups about the notion that whites are smarter. In fact, they take it for granted and, he pointed out, are eager to talk about the subject with him because it’s so rare for them to find a white who will speak honestly about race. They prefer such honesty to the racial guilt, the pious lies about equality, and the hypocrisy that they normally get from whites. These observations suggest that white liberal attitudes have done more to harm race relations than any other factor.
Those are just a few paragraphs from one page. Pretty ugly, in my opinion. The source you gave, Auster, is DEFINITELY impeachable, and has no business being used here, in my opinion. I leave it up to the RM to decide.
Further, no one is trying to silence anyone. Surely there is a better source for the ideas you are trying to put forth.
Your comment, that "Auster criticizes the Roman Catholic church, and thus he brings the wrath of Rome and its apologists down on his head," is rather humorous. What wrath?
Finally, your commands that I "Discuss the comments I posted by Auster. Stick to the topic and try not to make it personal," are also humorous. Considering your tagline, I'm sure no explanation is required.
It seems that until lies are banned on the religion forum there will be no hope of silencing the anti-Catholics.
The first time a poster links to dubious or banned sites one could conclude an error or error in judgment. When it happens repeatedly it would seem that some are willing to push or bend the rules in order to make a point and then claim indignation when called upon it. Even a child understands that when you throw mud your own hands get dirty. Perhaps it is anti-Catholics who lack the ability to 'to understand cause-and-effect relationships' that Auster ascribes to Africans.
Its all pretty crass manipulation of both the letter and spirit of the RF rules and completely disgusting.
Speaking of crude and loony statements, how about this one (#6263)
Perhaps muslims aren't such an enemy of Rome afteraall. Perhaps muslims serve a purpose of Rome by further destroying people and cultures which are not under Rome's control.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that?
I think the question is one of how can there be sin without free will? The only world views I know of that deny free will are Calvinism and modern materialistic determinism; in the latter, of course, the concept of sin does not exist.
Did anyone, anywhere ever suggest that we succeed perfectly? It's the goal toward which we strive. Unless, of course, you deny that we can or should strive. (I'm reminded of teachers who think that any test on which anyone in the class gets 100% is not a real test!)
Man cannot live by the laws and commandments no matter how good they are.
To the extent that someone is "good," isn't he living by the commandments?
Man relies upon God's grace and mercy for when we fail to keep the commands.
So we don't rely on God's grace and mercy when we succeed in keeping a commandment? Oh, wait . . . unless we never keep them. Does God issue commandments, the fulfillment of which is necessary to eternal life knowing that we cannot keep them, even with His grace -- so He decides arbitrarily that some will be exempt and saved anyway?
Christians do love God and they show this love by enacting justice throughout the world.
The "justice" that chooses some and rejects others arbitrarily? Not quite sure what you mean here, but there seems to be little enough justice here below.
They illustrate their love for God through numerous charitable works.
Maybe it's not what you intend, but the way you say this seems to make clear why "as cold as charity" is an old expression! Since you're not specific, I can only assume you mean by "charitable works" such common forms as almsgiving in whatever form and perhaps volunteering. We are, of course, commanded to give to the poor, but that's a separate commandment from that of love of neighbor. Almsgiving without love gives us the horror of the welfare state. Are you suggesting that the rich don't count as our neighbors or that the destitute are somehow exempt from the commandment to love our neighbor?
So what does "love of neighbor" mean? To me, it's to keep the awareness that each is made in the image and likeness of God, however sadly or horribly that image is obscured in a given individual; to remember always that, as God is love (a point on which you agreed), He loves each immeasurably and more than we can imagine; He can do no other than love -- to say which is not to put a limitation on His power than to say His power is limited because He cannot create a square circle. God doesn't do nonsense.
But it is all because of God working through us. I suspect that you would agree that you cannot name one good act that you've done on your own for someone without the help of God.
Can't argue there -- but God not only created us, it is His love and grace that keep us in being at all! Should God -- per impossibile -- cease to love us, we simply would cease to be at all.
Since it seems evident that you're interested in the numbers, what's the largest gathering of Orthodox Presbyterians in the last 70-years for a leader of that group? How many showed up? I'd be interested to see how it compares since it looks like stones are being thrown.
Organizers now anticipate around 55,000 worshippers to gather for the beatification of Cardinal Newman Sunday in Birmingham, central England, compared to the 80,000 people originally expected. Fewer pilgrims are also expected at the open-air mass at Glasgow's Bellahouston Park than those who showed up at the venue for a mass given by Pope John Paul II there in 1982. This was not because of lack of interest, however, organizers said. "I think one of the problems is that quite a lot of the trees in the park have grown since then, which is a tendency which trees have, which has altered the sight lines," said Lord Chris Patten, who is heading the government's part of the visit. "Quite properly, welcoming as the citizens of Glasgow are, they don't want to cut down all their trees," he said. John Paul II was the first pope ever to set foot on English soil, and his visit came at the height of his popularity at the time. Benedict's visit, starting Thursday, has been overshadowed by the church's clerical sex abuse scandal. Smaller crowds than initially expected will attend events scheduled during Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said Tuesday.
Ah, yes, "those pesky trees." Pity all those evergreens and poplars keep growing "which is a tenancy which trees have," or so we're told.
But we all know how Rome operates. If there were three people there, the press release would say 300 showed up.
Wow! Even for you this is priceless!
Your "proof" of small crowds is an article published by the AP two days BEFORE the Pope even came to the UK. This reminds me of the way the left cherry picks reports of the Tea Party.
Maybe you help with an question that nobody seems quite able to answer: why is it that when groups like the AP and NYT are reporting about conservatives, conservatives know to ignore it; when they are lavishing praise on Obama, conservatives know to ignore it; but, when they are criticizing Catholics, anti-Catholics who claim to be conservative believe them without any hesitation?
The protests against the Pope were with regards to his position on homosexuality, abortion and other social matters. The only reasonable thing that I can conclude is that the anti-Catholic FReepers who cheer these protesters are doing so because they ALSO support militant homosexualism and abortion.
That'll leave a mark.
Talk about small crowds:
OPC cult, yes, definitely cult.
27,990 members
(449 ministers + 19,968 members + 7,573 non-baptized members)
The seating capacity of FedEx Field, home of the Washington Redskins is 91,704.
I’m open to other explanations, but here’s the way I see it:
The secular left protests against groups and individuals that oppose the homosexual agenda, abortion, graphic sex education and so forth, the media dutifully reports about how “outdated” it is to oppose homosexual marriage, abortion and the sexualization of children. These are the FACTS that all social conservatives agree with.
The only logical conclusion is that those who support the protests and the media bias are doing so because they support the left’s agenda.
Do you realize that this works out to about one minister for every 61 members? They could hold their services in medium-sized conference room.
Well that's pretty much where the so called discourse has arrived.
I'll tell ya something else, someday I'd like to meet these "Roman Catholic Apologists" they seem to be the powerful and secretive masters of the religion forum and yet I've never actually had one pointed out to me.
A view of the Papal Mass in Glasgow
A view outside of the Mass in Westminster (of course, it was full to the brim inside)
The view on the way to Hyde Park
One view of the vigil at Hyde Park
The opposite view at Hyde Park
The crowd outside the Mass at Crofton Park, Birmingham
Crofton Park, Birmingham
Clearly only 50-100 people at each location.
Wagglebee, maybe you need to get new glasses so that you don't see crowds where none exist. ;-)
“Do you realize that this works out to about one minister for every 61 members? They could hold their services in medium-sized conference room.”
But they’re the elect don’t ya know. /s
OPC has all the hallmarks of a cult.
I’m sure the anti-Catholic FReeper reaction to the crowds during the Pope’s visit to the UK pretty much mirrors the DUmmie reaction to the crowds at Glenn Beck’s rally in DC a few weeks ago.
Nah, to really reach cult status you need movie stars (maybe not as members, but they need to be openly sympathetic to your "plight").
Exactly. I believe Harley thinks that will is never free from deterministic influence and therefore there is no free will—just his will and God's will.
This, of course, still does not explain who makes decisions, and why, in the "elect," or why the "reprobate" are punished.
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.