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.
The Epistle writers open the work of Christ on earth and revealed how He fulfilled the promises of the OT to jew and Gentile and what that meant to the sinner in need of a Savior.. They explained the person of Christ and the purpose of the cross in the atonement .
To demean any writer as "nuts" or somehow in error is to call in to question the entire word of God
AMEN!
Our advice to Roman Catholics is go read the Bible. Study for themselves to see if this be true.
is this you? are you referring to yourself in the 3rd person now? because silverlings is curious
What did Christ say and do?
In light of what he said and did, why do you, and Leggo presumably, (is there any more of you?)choose to live under Law?
Again, the subject of Isaiah is a separate thread. various experts disagree as to what he had in mind. it is rendered that much more ocntorversial because it is interpreted through the lens of the NT by the Christians and the NT is based primarily on the Greek Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text. The largest difference between these two versions of the OT are Isaiah and Daniel, not surprisingly two most crucial books for Christian for the so-called Christian "prophesy."
What a profoundly sad misunderstanding of the Gospel.
Christ redeemed men. But without the preaching of that fact, how would men know their salvation?
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." -- 2 Corinthians 5:9-11 "Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
Apparently, Paul was not "made manifest in your conscience."
Pray for it. How can you understand the Gospel if you don't believe Paul was sent by God to deliver the Good News?
St. Paul makes a statement and we must refer to what Christ said or did
Certainly. And anyone who's actually read the Bible would see Paul does not contradict Christ, but proclaims Christ, as God ordained him to do.
Good grief. RCs get themselves out on a limb and feverishly begin chopping it off. Do they presume Rome is waiting on the ground with congratulations?
Study to show thyself approved.
Or don't, and continue to write foolishness like "Paul didn't need to exist."
But we should realize this is exactly how and why Rome denigrates the word of God. "It isn't necessary."
Which God? is Christ not God?
Revelation 13:8
Coming from the Eastern side of the Christian tradition, Revelation a non-starter. It is a book the eastern Church horse traded for Hebrews, and not before the 9th century. Today you can probably find it somewhere on a dusty shelf in the back of the church rectory, and is certainly not anything the Eastern Church would ever read from.
You have to unerstand that Christianity does not have the same canon. Eastern churches follow the Septuagint as the OT, and the Protestant canon is incompatible with the canons of the apostolic Churches. So who are we kidding?
I assume you have not yet seen my response where I agreed I was in error.
If you have difficulty understanding the exchange simply give it up.
All 1000 of you?
What is the purpose of the question "What did Christ say and do"? For the most part the words and actions of Christ Our Lord are recorded in the Gospels, nevertheless the entirety of Sacred Scripture is a record of God acting on His creation. One thing that Christ did is choose His mother. External actions of the Divine Nature are acts of the Blessed Trinity.
BTW, I wrote "Leggo" because this entire thing is becoming surreal and I seem to be talking to myself anyhow.
As for this Law business I don't know what you're talking about.
Just because I am retired doesn't mean I don't know medicine. Besides, what does faith have to do with the Greek meaning of heresy? That is a linguistic topic and if you know any biblical Greek you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself this way.
Exactly.
I'm not discussing St. Paul with YOU, Calvinist. Or any of your cohort here. Guess what? I do not belong to you, I belong to Christ Jesus, Risen Son of the Living God. May Blessed Teresa of Calcutta grant that you learn humility.
It's called Paulianity (aka Reformed "Christianity"), where Christ is a second fiddle—God's errands boy—and Paul reigns supreme (along with Isiah); the Holy Spirit is the errands boy of the errands boy, a distant third.
>> picks a part of it out of context and goes berserk.
“trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
Matthew 7:6 is the mascot verse of this thread.
Not in my Bible or any Bible I have ever seen. I'll bet they are listed in the index of your Bible as New Testament forming the foundation of the New and Everlasting Covenant too. Are we supposed to just pretend that the Gospels are just some sort of contextual footnote or reference to support Paulican dogma instead of occupying the apex of biblical hierarchy and containing the actual Words of Christ?
No, Catholics revere and venerate St. Paul for what he was, but we do not recognize as the neo-Christ or THE "Alter Christus" as the Paulicans do.
Kids are our best confessors. Sometimes you love them for it and sometimes you don't! :) Tuth can be soothing, but it can also burn. So they are angels and devils all in one. But if you can explain soemthing to an 8 year-old you have reduced it to its essentials, free of fluff and excess baggage. It's a feat in itself.
Where did I say that, or more to the point, where did I give the appearance of saying that?
Misquote, conflate, beat a strawman to death. I understand how that type of argument is done... I just don't understand WHY.
Jesus Christ would exist without St. Paul, St. Paul, you, me, everyone and everything else, would not exist if not for Jesus Christ. I (and you I suppose) would exist without St. Paul having existed. I exist independently of you, you exist independently of me. When I close my eyes you don't cease to exist, much as I might hope that would be the case on occasion. We (and St. Paul) are not contingent beings, neither are we necessary beings.
Now... where it gets really interesting is whether or not Mary is a necessary being. Christ received His human nature from her, if another woman had been chosen He would have had a different human nature. Hilariously enough the only non-Catholic around here who would have even the faintest idea what I'm talking about and who would be able to have a meaningful discussion about it is an agnostic. Which goes to show how much better he expresses/deals with/explains/demonstrates the faith he rejects than you express/deal with/explain/demonstrate (all that to avoid using the word "understands" and thus be accused of mind reading... this is getting old) the faith you profess to hold.
From your home page
*Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the CATHOLIC faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever. *
There are 1000 silverlings, but only One Branch
is she the dispenser of humility now?
First, no one was expected to keep it because no man is perfect. But everyone is expected to try to keep it. It is okay to honestly try even if you honestly fail. That's what Judaism teaches, so I don't know where Paul got his ideas. Maybe he just made them up to sell his story (after all he admits he was all things to all men as long as they believed him!).
Second, no observant Jew would ever say that the Torah can be fulfilled. The Jews believe that the Torah was written by God before the foundation of the world (and merely dictated to Moses). Furthermore, because it is the very own God's word, it is eternal and is to be observed forever. In other words, it cannot be fulfilled.
So, the Jews raise their eyebrows when they hear that Jesus (an observant Jew who believed the Torah) said he came to fulfill the Law! This is equivalent to a Mormon like Glenn Beck telling Christians that Jesus and Satan are actual blood brothers (it's hard to believe a Catholic could ever fall that far)! It's nothing short of scandalous, and the only thing that is more scandalous is that some people believe it!
Why would Christ mind being “second fiddle” or God’s “errand boy” seeing that he said he sought not his own will but that of he who sent him, God? As the Scriptures reflect, Jesus is always in an inferior position to his father.
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.