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.
As usual you present the journalist equivalent of fertilizer as objective fact. Your big revelation comes from a study conducted by graduate journalism students. Give me a break!
It would appear that your only objective standard for veracity is that the study or factoid concur with your preset notions. I don't know where you went to school or work but that level of sloppy and dishonest research would get you dismissed where I did.
I have a complete and true answer, but I know it will be dismissed out of hand before it is even read and frankly, I just don't want to argue about it with dimwits and liars.
Lastly, Old Reggie has ducked, dodged and obfuscated every question posed to him and I don't feel anymore compelled than he to answer anything.
That reference uses Mat 28:19 as its strongest argument. Mat 28:19 is a latter-day addition by some accounts, since it doesn't fit anywhere in the Bible and is contrary to what Jesus taught about being sent for the lost sheep of Israel. Although (miraculously?) no extant copy older than the 4th century of 28:19 is known, indirect evidence (from repetitive quotes of the same verse by authors such as Eusebius in the 3rd century) suggest very strongly that the original did not have the triniatrian formula. This is also supported by all references in the book of Acts to apostolic baptisms being preformed in the name of Jesus.
The Comma Johanneum (1 John) is a known fraud. Those are the only "hard" proofs the Bible has to offer.
Yes, and I have said that too.
Very good catch, sir. I missed these statements. It is unconscionable that a Christian should have even conceived these thoughts, much less post them as if they were Christian beliefs. Unbelieveable. Do the Reformed really believe that they can just make it all up as they go along?
Do former Eastern Orthodox, now Agnostics, really get to decide what is heresy?
The him in this case is Israel.
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust . . . 1 Peter 3:18
To die for someone's sins, to be punished in someone's stead does not impute guilt or sin of the guilty party. Jesus died a sinless and innocent man. His death was the ultimate injustice. Luke makes that perfectly clear. To suggest that God made his Son sinful so he can satisfy his divine anger is a preposterous deformation of Christianity.
You continue to defame a dead woman, who gave her life to Christ, on a mission for decades to the poorest of the poor. As you sow, so shall you reap (Christ said that).
Disgusting.
While counting don't forget the explosion of nondenominational churches.
The rest of the world is turning from Rome to the light of the Gospel.
I think it's pretty interesting that you're seeing church growth where The Gospel is preached and decline in churches whose members don't even know The Gospel let alone teach it, or preach it.
That’s what happens when you live in the cafeteria.
Of course to our human view of justice it is preposterous, yet it IS what God chose to do because he so loved the world. He did not make Christ "sinful", he "made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (II Cor. 5:21) - yeah, Paul again, sorry. ;o)
Just one more thing, Kosta, you don't even believe in all this "Christian" stuff, why are you even in the discussion this way? Nothing else better to do?
You need to read the Gospels, especially Luke. the idea that Christ died for others' sins doe snot make him sin. Christ remains innocent and sinless. His death becomes ultimate injustice.
To suggest that Christ "bore our sins in his body" (1 Petr 2:24) is contrary to the Gospel accounts and the Christian belief that Jesus was sinless to the end, and died an innocent man.
Let me guess: the same way the "elect" were chosen, before the foundaiton of the world? :)
Sure. The former EO, now Agnostic, still knows what the Church taught way back and still does. Heresy simply means teaching other than what the Church teaches. That is the genuine Greek meaning of the word haeresis and how the undivided Church used it and how the Eastern orthodox Church still uses it.
Belief is not a requirement to be on this forum. I do know something about the Christian faith, the Bible, Church history, biblical Greek, etc., probably more than your average bear, so I see no reason why I should not participate in objective discussions of religious matters. I
Yes I realize that, but that's not how it is preseneted in the Gospels and the catholic and apostolic Church is based on the Gospels.
THANKS FOR THE PINGS.
You used the term yourself.
The shedding of blood was an atonement in the old testament. Christ shed his blood to atone for original sin, which Adam and Eve committed and all men and women carry at birth until they are baptised. Thus, Christ made salvation possible.
Thank you for sharing that, Malkee. It was not necessary for me, but it was very courteous of you.
Well, Jesus quoted Isaiah bunches of times. I figured if it was good enough for him, it would be good enough for you. ;O
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.