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.
This is the accepted Catholic Church position.
Never been to a Catholic school with the nuns?
That right there illustrates the kind of benighted ignorance Catholics encounter here, daily.
I'm not saying "right" or "wrong". But it occurs to me that humans are social animals. "It is not good for the man to be alone." Every child is 'formed' by his parents, even if the formation is nothing better than challenges that the maturing adult must overcome.
So, and this is just a speculation, IF we assert that Jesus was truly human, AD IF we assert that humans are in some respect "formed" by their parents and home, THEN it seems the characters and graces of Mary and Joseph would have to be influential in the development of Him who was truly God AND truly man.
Don't forget their pets as well...
Let's put it this way. God has a perfect plan that He has enacted. That perfect plan was formed before the foundation of the universe and is perfect, right and just. A part of that plan includes your salvation and redemption. Why this is important is difficult to say, only we know that it's part of "The Plan".
Now God must have thought that having you as part of His Plan was 1) important, and 2) necessary. God needs you to exist to carry forth His perfect plan. It isn't that God couldn't create a rock to accomplish the same task that you or I are going to perform. But God in His great wisdom ordained that it was best and perfect for you and I to do whatever it is that He has deemed appropriate.
So yes you need to exist simply because God has ordained it. God hasn't made anything in this world that isn't important and doesn't have some purpose.
While that is true that we are called to find them and bring them back to Christ, it is also true that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
So many of the “christians” pick and choose what to belive and cherry pick parts of verses to support their beliefs, cling to it with a death grip and damn anyone who doesn’t agree. We’ve certainly seen alot of that.
Before someone gets their knickers in a twist, that’s not to say that there aren’t Catholics who line up at the cafeteria and behave in a similar manner.
I don't really think you can accurately say that. There would have been no need of "councils" if that were so. Even within "The Church" today, there is not total agreement on "beliefs".
The quotes from, say, Nahum are not the literal words of God Almighty spoken to men. We believe that God meant us to read them, but they do not weigh against the spoken words of the Lord.
So when Nahum says things like: "Thus saith the Lord..." and "the Lord hath given a commandment concerning thee..." and "Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of Hosts.", he was pretending to speak for God and it ended up IN THE BIBLE ANYWAY???!!! The words of Almighty God are throughout the entire Bible and are all there for a purpose. The fact that Jesus himself says "It is written." so many times proves he accepted them and we can do no less.
Paul was the apostle and teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles as opposed to being an apostle to the Jews. The NT church quickly became composed primarily of Gentile believers; therefore, the major part of the NT church fell under the teaching authority of the one appointed by God to be a teacher and apostle to the Gentiles
Remember that Paul spent much of his initial years as Apostle among the Jews and that he preached all things to all men. His earlier efforts were in the synagogues and he was present during the movement from Christianity as Jewish sect to the separation of Christianity from Judaism. If you follow through Acts, for instance, we see several instances where he went deliberately and provoked the Jews on their own turf, as it were.
As odd as it may sound, Peter converted the first Gentile of all the Apostles in Acts 10. Thomas left the Middle East and wound up converting portions of the west coast of India. So Paul was not the one and only evangelist to the Gentiles.
But there is no question that Peter accepted Paul after some initial hesitation - Paul is the one with the chip on his shoulder and keeps protesting throughout his writings about being accepted by the others.
Agreed. That is what we have faced for many years...
There are a handful of minor discrepencies, but you must remember that almost all of the Councils were called as a result of developing heresies.
So when Nahum says things like: "Thus saith the Lord..." and "the Lord hath given a commandment concerning thee..." and "Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of Hosts.", he was pretending to speak for God and it ended up IN THE BIBLE ANYWAY???!!! The words of Almighty God are throughout the entire Bible and are all there for a purpose. The fact that Jesus himself says "It is written." so many times proves he accepted them and we can do no less.
A fair question. Let us turn to Nahum for illumination.
Nahum 3: 1 Woe to the bloody city, all lies, full of plunder, whose looting never stops! 2 The crack of the whip, the rumbling sounds of wheels; horses a-gallop, chariots bounding, 3 Cavalry charging, The flame of the sword, the flash of the spear, the many slain, the heaping corpses, the endless bodies to stumble upon! 4 For the many debaucheries of the harlot, fair and charming, a mistress of witchcraft, Who enslaved nations with her harlotries, and peoples by her witchcraft
Let us compare Nahum with Jesus:
Luke 22: 17 Then he took a cup, 6 gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you. 21 "And yet behold, the hand of the one who is to betray me is with me on the table; 22 for the Son of Man indeed goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed." 23 And they began to debate among themselves who among them would do such a deed.
24 8 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. 25 9 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; 26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. 27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves. 28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials; 29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 10 11 "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." 33 He said to him, "Lord, I am prepared to go to prison and to die with you." 34 But he replied, "I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows this day, you will deny three times that you know me." 35 He said to them, "When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?" "No, nothing," they replied. 36 He said to them, 12 "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, 'He was counted among the wicked'; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment." 38 Then they said, "Lord, look, there are two swords here." But he replied, "It is enough!" 13
39 Then going out he went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. 40 When he arrived at the place he said to them, "Pray that you may not undergo the test." 41 After withdrawing about a stone's throw from them and kneeling, he prayed, 42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done." 43 14 (And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. 44 He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.) 45 When he rose from prayer and returned to his disciples, he found them sleeping from grief. 46 He said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not undergo the test."
47 While he was still speaking, a crowd approached and in front was one of the Twelve, a man named Judas. He went up to Jesus to kiss him. 48 Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" 49 His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, "Lord, shall we strike with a sword?" 50 And one of them struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. 51 15 But Jesus said in reply, "Stop, no more of this!" Then he touched the servant's ear and healed him.
I think that the words and deeds of the Incarnate Son of God are a tad elevated above the minor prophet Nahum.
Scripture warns about those who know the truth and then walk away from it.
I never asked about the period covered by the Gospels. The coming of Jesus was the New. Prior to that was the Old. Christianity for 2000 years has been satisfied with that. Now you come up with yet another novelty and would have us consider it Christian as well? And by the way, I learned this fact from a Mennonite professor of theology in a Bible Survey class. It is an accepted fact by Christian Theologians
1. So? Various Mennonites have various theologies loosely descended from the Anabaptist faction of Zwingli's third of the Reformation. Your 'facts' are not facts. They are opinions at best and money making 'angles' at worst.
2. Name these 'Christian Theologians'. Would Christians have heard of any of them?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "elevated". Certainly, you realize that the "Gospels" were written at a later date than most of the epistles. The teachings of Jesus were told and retold verbally for many years prior to them being written down for posterity. Paul, for example, learned not only from the followers of Jesus what he spoke but from Jesus himself. So, in that case, what Paul wrote WAS the word of Almighty God just as the case of the writers of the Old Testament including Moses and the prophets (major and minor ones).
I assume your point in stressing this "preeminence" of scripture is to try to prove that what is written that Jesus said overrules any subsequent revelation written in Scripture and, if this is your point, I strongly disagree. Just as your church teaches progressive knowledge, there was progressive revelation. What was revealed as truth to the early Christian church was new compared to what had been spoken of before Christ came. Different audience, different covenant, different purpose - but still the truth God intended to be made known and which he has preserved even until this very day. And God does not contradict himself. It is often our own misinterpretation that causes the conflict. God's word is truth - He knew what He was doing when He entrusted mere men to record his truth - and He ensures its protection from error.
Bizarre to me how folks don't understand that "Catholic" means "Universal"; the one true Church founded by Jesus himself. I guess some don't read history or the Bible.
Bizarre to me.
Again you are telling someone what they think.
A longtime majority (nearly 60%), the Protestant churches and communities did not benefit from the predominantly Catholic immigration in 1960-1970. The proportion of Protestants thus experienced a strong depreciation, comprising only 40% of the population in 1990...
*...nice “uplifting” Catholic forums might be a better venue.*
I am the one who posted about “uplifting” Catholic forums.
BTW, it isn’t a case of “feelings getting hurt”; it’s more about dealing with a certain kind of counter-productive “discussion”.
About that uplifting -—St. Paul exhorted us to think about and speak about things that were pleasant and of good report. No doubt he knew how effective such attitudes are in the sharing of faith.
Scotland’s downfall began when they let the papists back in. Where Rome treads, socialism follows.
See post 8017...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2578704/posts?page=8017#8017
Paul said to preach the Gospel in truth and to “speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority,” that authority being the word of God.
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.