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 have a "JERK" list of people I choose to ignore.
Perhaps, but Cushing is dead and Abraham is always up for playing a sociopath.
I didn't say anything about the size of your bucket; I just said that I suspect that it is empty. Touching on high points that are correct and do not distort the overall picture is not the same as in depth analysis, however, very few situations are simple enough to express them completely in a sentence or two. Yet that is what the Creeds do for Christianity. One does not have to memorize Shirer to have a grasp of the rise and fall of the Third Reich.
Just because you find yourself unable or unfit to do something does not mean that others cannot. I would, for example, consider myself unable to shoot somebody from a distance of a mile. Yet there are folks that pull extreme distance shots in Afghanistan.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7113916.ece says that:
A BRITISH Army sniper has set a new sharpshooting distance record by killing two Taliban machinegunners in Afghanistan from more than a mile away. Craig Harrison, a member of the Household Cavalry, killed the insurgents with consecutive shots — even though they were 3,000ft beyond the most effective range of his rifle...
The distance to Harrison’s two targets was measured by a GPS system at 8,120ft, or 1.54 miles. The previous record for a sniper kill is 7,972ft, set by a Canadian soldier who shot dead an Al-Qaeda gunman in March 2002.
Just because I cannot do it does not mean that it cannot be done.
The fact that you were able to distill this history in a two line pop indicates you are using a bottomless bucket or have settled on a drive-by baloney shooting cannon.
Silliness aside, either show any errors, or continue on with your drive.
Would it be fair to say that Unitarians are not required to believe in either the Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus so therefore some may and the rest don't, and leave it at that?
So is Calvin. :)
I haven't seen much Abraham - the thing with Cushing is that he can stare down the scene with piercing eyes, showing no emotion, and at the same time taking every slight, every insult, every happening personally. You know that he is just seething inside and will personally repay all and everyone.
Can Abraham play facially emotionless, yet enraged and bitter psychos? I thought of Lee Van Cleef, but he smiled too much for this role.
Abraham can pretty much do the same thing.
Watch him in “The Name of the Rose” with Sean Connery some time and you will see it. He plays an inquisitor.
Who made, after an "exhaustive" process, the Saints you pray to?
Has any person ever been declared a Heretic and subsequently decrared a Saint?
Has any "Saint" ever been stricken from the roll of Saints?
MEN, not Jesus were the ones involved.
I found no relevant "next" post. Which post did you have in mind?
Yup!
Negative. Lutheranism professes irresistible grace and therefore does not teach or believe in synergism, be of the Arminian or Catholic/Orthodox variety. Lutherans share the same belief as the Calvinists that God predestines some people to hell.
The orthodox position of the Church is that, just as God does not predestine anyone to salvation, he does not predestine anyone to hell. The key to who goes where is the free will. Christ died for all men so that they may all be saved, for God desires that. Thus, God offers his grace to all. The reason some are not saved is that some refuse it freely; and some are saved because they accept it freely and follow God's lead. God does not force himself. Forced love is no love.
A good analogy would be to say that God offers everyone a ticket to board a train destined to heaven. Those who refuse and discard his ticket cannot board the train and will never get to heaven. Those who keep his ticked can. Lutheranism rejects this.
I know that you find a lot in common with the Catholic/Orthodox beliefs, but you are a member of a sect that broke away from the Church and embraced a different theology that is incompatible with the beliefs of the Church. Even Arminianism is not fully compatible with the beliefs of the Church. To pretend otherwise is simply not true. Lutheranism, as mainstream Anglicanism, may "look" Catholic on the surface, but they are not.
You mean like Joan of Arc?
Who made, after an "exhaustive" process, the Saints you pray to?
I guess I'm not following. Sainthood is between that person and God. The Church tries to figure out which individuals that are saints, but the Church does not 'make' one a saint any more than the Church makes one saved.
Has any "Saint" ever been stricken from the roll of Saints?
A handful, sure.
MEN, not Jesus were the ones involved.
Let us not confuse the being of sainthood with the role of the Church trying to figure out if one is a saint or not. That is like a judge of a lower court finding someone guilty or not guilty and then a higher court reversing the decision of that finding. A conviction in a court does not mean that I actually did something or not; it means that the court thought that I did that something or else it couldn't be proven.
Then I think that we oughta leave it at that. Unitarianism is rather useless as a definition because it really isn't one, correct?
I'm afraid that post answers nothing. I did ask redgolum for the Biblical reference(s) to Enoch and have not yet received an answer.
In any event, we are speaking of two entirely different era"s; The Old Testament, and The New Testament.
I ask you to show any instances of Jesus, during His time on this earth, raising a single "Saint" to Heaven.
You, on the other hand, have many New Testament era "Saints" in Heaven. Who "raised" them if not MEN?
Yes, decrared a Heretic by the Catholic Church and a Saint by the Catholic Church.
'Splain it. The Church was in error.
Who made, after an "exhaustive" process, the Saints you pray to?
I guess I'm not following. Sainthood is between that person and God. The Church tries to figure out which individuals that are saints, but the Church does not 'make' one a saint any more than the Church makes one saved.
The Church, more accurately the MEN in that Church, "declares" Saints and you are only too happy to pray to them.
Has any "Saint" ever been stricken from the roll of Saints?
A handful, sure.
The "Church" was in error. Maybe you prayed to that "mistaken" Saint. Do you feel like you've been had?
MEN, not Jesus were the ones involved.
Let us not confuse the being of sainthood with the role of the Church trying to figure out if one is a saint or not. That is like a judge of a lower court finding someone guilty or not guilty and then a higher court reversing the decision of that finding. A conviction in a court does not mean that I actually did something or not; it means that the court thought that I did that something or else it couldn't be proven.
That is drivel. The "men" of your Church have no business declaring Sainthood for any person. God does not err, men do.
Yup! But I'm not the person you should be addressing.
I will not presume to speak for someone else, but I did post the relevant verses from Genesis 5:22-24.
I ask you to show any instances of Jesus, during His time on this earth, raising a single "Saint" to Heaven.
Since the Church does not do it either, what is the relevance?
You, on the other hand, have many New Testament era "Saints" in Heaven. Who "raised" them if not MEN?
The Church raises nobody to Heaven. We do not "have" or "raise" people anywhere; neither do we condemn them to hell. That is for Jesus the Christ. I'm still a little puzzled as to where you are going here.
'Splain it. The Church was in error.
Okay; the local Inquisitional court in Northern France found her guilty of heresy in 1431. Appeals were immediately made to the Holy See, which then opened its own investigation. 24 years later, the finding was annulled, officially.
Has any "Saint" ever been stricken from the roll of Saints?
A handful, sure.
The "Church" was in error. Maybe you prayed to that "mistaken" Saint. Do you feel like you've been had?
No and no.
That is drivel. The "men" of your Church have no business declaring Sainthood for any person. God does not err, men do.
The whole business is an attempt at recognition, not a conferring of salvation.
And the maid saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, "This is one of them!" But again he was denying it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too."We don't know anyone's soul or salvation. If we think we do, or we think we can know how God will ultimate judge them... we are treading on shaky ground ourselves.But he began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man you are talking about!"
Good explanation.
From Blessed Saint John Chrysostom...
“it is neither the case that everything is due to help from on high (rather, we too must contribute something), nor on the other hand does He require everything of us, knowing as He does the extraordinary degree of our limitations; on the contrary, out of fidelity to His characteristic love and wishing to find some occasion for demonstrating His own generosity, He awaits the contribution of what we have to offer.”-Saint John Chrysostom-Ibid., 53.2 (PG 54 466; tr. Hill, vol. 3, 82-83).
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.