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.
A relic is part of the remains of a saint, or something that came into contact with the saint or his remains. There is nothing supernatural implicated in the existence of relics. The thing either is part of the remains of a saint or something that came into contact therewith, or it's not. It's not a supernatural claim at all.
I was in Baltimore recently and visited the Basilica there. They have a nice little museum. In it, there is a kneeler on which the late Pope John Paul II knelt. There's even a photo of him kneeling on the kneeler. The kneeler is a relic because the late pope touched it. There is nothing supernatural to that claim. Should Pope John Paul be someday canonized, the kneeler will be a relic of a canonized saint of the Catholic Church.
That is the only material claim about the relic. Do you deny that it is a relic? Do you need further investigation that it is a relic?
It is entirely possible to believe that a material object is a relic without believing that there is anything supernatural associated with it (although, to deny that supernatural events have been associated with relics in the past is to deny the historicity of the Bible, but that's another story).
“Yes, if I needed absolute PROOF that a miracle had occurred, the first place I would check is the Catholic Church.”
Absolute proof of most anything is available to no one, at least not as we understand the words “absolute proof.” However, persuasive testimony is something that I would seek from the Church, as Jesus gives considerable authority to the Church.
You don't view the Catholic Church as the Church. I do. In this, we differ. You're wrong, and you will find that out someday. But I won't spend any time trying to persuade you otherwise.
sitetest
This is a Religion Forum. Posters believe all kinds of things because of and also in spite of, physical or logical evidence.
A poster's testimony is what it is.
People who don't want to believe it won't, no matter how much proof is offered.
Luke 16:19-31
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
I look forward to it!
“If the credibility of Religion Forum posters were subject to personal attack, then the advantage would not go to any particular religious belief but to atheists...”
No, the advantage would go to the truth. And that would be very good for Catholics. Disadvantaging the truth is anti-Catholic.
“...because not just the statements would be subject to empirical or logical proofs but the poster himself would be subject to accusations of malicious intent, superstition, mindlessness, etc.”
In that Catholics are regularly accused of all these things, in general, I'm not sure that it would matter much to say them in particular. But the things you mention are all subjective in nature.
There are objective facts that exist about posters that are observable by all, and these facts can be used to impeach the credibility of a poster. Disallowing them is disadvantaging the truth, and to disadvantage the truth is inherently anti-Catholic.
sitetest
As Quix said " And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."Dr. Patrick Dixon in his book "Signs of Revival" lists six characteristics of an Altered State of Consciousness:
1. Alterations in thinking
2. Altered sense of time
3. Loss of control
4. Changes in emotional expression
5. Body image changes
6. Perceptual changes or hallucinationsThe "laughing revival" is an altered state of consciousness.
A similar experience has taken place in Seattle, Washington called the "Seattle Revival Center." In 1994, three pastors, Darrel Stott of Lake Boren Christian Center, Steve Richard of Freedom Life Foursquare, and Wayne Anderson of International Church traveled to Toronto and claimed they "got drunk in the Holy Spirit."
Pastor Stott tells of his legs growing weak, falling on the floor, his legs flying in the air, laughing uncontrollably, feeling like a drunk, staggering, swinging around posts, shaking, furniture flying in the room, floor rolling, twitching, yelling, rolling down the halls, etc.. ("O Timothy" - #8, 1997 - page 2-4)
I believe these apparitions are demonic. At the Lausanne II Evangelical Conference in Manila in 1989, John Wimber testified of these supposed signs and wonders. "A member of the press panel from India refuted the claim that these miracles and signs must be from God. He said that the same charismatic-styled tongues, healings, miracles, signs and wonders are also found among the heathen religions of his native India." ("Foundation" magazine - March-April, 1997 - page 13)
thanks but I will stick with the religion founded personally by Jesus....that would, of course be Catholicism.
Pentecostals often remain in Pentecostalism despite many misgivings for one simple reason: the healings. They may admit that many of the practices and teachings are unbiblical. They may confess that there is rampant abuse and manipulation. But they shake off the doubts because they have seen so many supernatural events--people stand up out of wheelchairs, back pain healed, etc. And so they wonder, "If this is really so bad, why are so many people being healed? Isn't it all worth it if sick people are being restored to health?"there are more examples in the link --> read 'em and you too can form a sub-division of the Quixotic grouping!eys and his authority away from him." (Ibid., 4-6.)However, Pentecostal church services are all about showmanship and appearance. It is surprisingly easy to fake healings, even to hold entire healing services in which people appear to be 'healed' all over the church and yet no one is really cured. How is this accomplished? The trick is usually, as Miracle Max said in the quote above, to focus on problems which can be resolved some way other than strictly supernaturally, to learn to 'heal' those who are only partly ill or can be made to seem well when they are not.Let's examine some of the most common 'healing' tricks in the Pentecostal experience:(a) Bigfoot Sightings. Perhaps the largest category of fake healings is what I call "Bigfoot Sightings", because, like the mythical Bigfoot, all that is known about these healings is that somebody else swears that they saw them and that they are real.Most often, it is the pastor or a visiting evangelist who relates stories of healings that occurred somewhere else. When these 'healings' are described in great detail to excited crowds, people tend to forget that they never actually witnessed the event and have no reason to believe that it actually occurred. In the retelling of the story, people often relate the healing as though they witnessed it themselves. It is only upon careful questioning that the truth emerges: nobody actually saw this one; it was just a story told to the group by some convincing-sounding guy with a microphone.EXAMPLE: Evangelist/ missionary David Hogan often uses this technique. Every time he speaks to groups, he claims to have raised 400+ people from the dead and performed many amazing miracles. Although he relates many incredible stories, he never actually performs miracles at his meetings . . . he just talks about all the miracles that he supposedly performed somewhere else.Hogan's fans often describe him as a great man of God who heals the sick and raises the dead. When directly asked, however, they admit that they have never actually seen Hogan do any miracles. The only reason they have to believe that Hogan has ever performed any miracles is that Hogan himself claims that he has.(b) "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Occasionally, 'healings' are fakes, plain and simple. Many evangelists believe that seeing people apparently get healed raises the level of faith of the parishioners and so opens the door for real healings. They use this as an excuse to orchestrate healing shows that are planned in advance simply to shock and amaze the crowd.EXAMPLE: It is difficult to say how often this technique is used, because evangelists who employ it are usually quite careful to cover their tracks. However, occasionally, scandals open up that allow a glimpse inside such misdealings. One of the best known examples of the intentional and calculated use of fake healings involved cult leader Jim Jones. Jones began his ill-fated career as a Pentecostal revivalist and healer. One of his favorite techniques involved healing people of 'cancer' by apparently removing chunks of foul-smelling material from their bodies that he claimed were the cancerous tissues. People's Temple insiders later confessed that the 'cancers' were actually rotten chicken livers, produced at the appropriate time during the church service with a little slight-of-hand.(c) MOSTLY disabled or ALL disabled? One of the most obvious and most popular techniques used by faith healers is based upon a popular misunderstanding of disabilities. When someone is in a wheelchair, people tend to assume that the person cannot walk AT ALL. This is rarely the case. Most people in wheelchairs can stand and even walk a little, just not far and not well. Likewise, when a person is said to be blind or deaf, people tend to assume that the person cannot see or hear AT ALL. Again, this is rarely the case. Most blind people can see a little, just not very well, and most people who are 'deaf' are really only partially deaf.This explains why many 'miracles' that occur in faith-healing services appear to be only partial healings. A healer may tell someone in a wheelchair to stand and walk. The person shakily stands and limps painfully across the stage. The crowd cheers, because they think that this is amazing progress and that the person is on his or her way to a full recovery. But, in fact, it may be no improvement at all. Likewise, many healers will test a healing of a blind person by holding up a handkerchief and asking the person to grab it. When the blind person is able to take hold of the handkerchief, the crowd is amazed, not realizing that there is nothing remarkable about a partly blind person being able to see a large white object held only inches from his or her face.EXAMPLE: This is one of the most common healing techniques and is used by many, many faith healers. One of the best known examples is Peter Popoff, who used a few trusted collegues to scout for healing candidates among the crowds that came to his healing services. Popoff's scouts always asked people in wheelchairs if they could walk a little or not at all. Any that could walk a little were called up to the front for 'healing' during the subsequent service. The technique was exposed by skeptic James Randi who placed actors in the audience to claim that they had disabilities. Randi's actors were interviewed by Popoff's scouts, and the information transmitted to Popoff via a radio transmitter. Randi intercepted and recorded the transmissions, which fed Popoff information on various audience members, including which of them would make good 'healing' candidates.
"As a believer, you have a right to make commands in the name of Jesus. Each time you stand on the Word, you are commanding God to a certain extent because it is His Word."
Why exactly do you believe these?
You started this in response to my post #697 on "How to Fake a Pentecostal Healing"
Do you dispute any of the examples given there? No. Instead you jump on in #702 "Would you care to dissect and disassemble my healing? Anointing and prayer one evening, rose up and walked the next day... "
Unitarian Universalists have no “church” —> they don’t even believe that Christ was / is / will be God.
LOL
Why would you believe otherwise?
well, it goes in line with the RM’s statement that one can criticise the statement, not the one making the statement, which akin to saying “The statement was a lie! But the person saying it is not a liar”
Because I believe in the Trinity, unlike Unitarians such as yourself. We Trinitarians consider Christ to be God. Unitarians deny the divinity of Christ. That is incorrect. Christ was God — why would you believe otherwise?
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.