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.
They had stories IMO. However elaborate the stories grew, they didn't become theology.
Yes, in 2 Corinthians 2:10, Saint Paul pardons a person's sin in the person/face of Christ.
It really has nothing to do with “alter Christus”, or “another Christ” either.
Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with it; unfortunately, the hubris of the YOPIOS crowd prevents them from seeing the truth.
lol. Roman Catholic apologists just make things up.
They can’t defend their position from Scripture, so they look for all sorts of excuses to silence the discussion. It’s no wonder they call for a return to the Inquisition. It’s their style.
I highly recommend the libraries. They have books like dictionaries and stuff on religion and theology.
(p.s., I am not your library, do your own research)
It took Rome 2,000 years to get its act together to define the "assumption of Mary" as dogma of the RCC.
2,000 years.
Mary did not ascend bodily into heaven at her death. Mary was not born sinless. Mary did not die sinless.
All these attributes are examples of divinity. And Mary is not divine, as much as Rome would like to think so.
Mary was a sinner saved by grace just like any believer for the past 2,000 years.
The "reformed" are like liberals interpreting the constitution. Scripture will mean anything you want it to if you don't care about original intent. When Catholics cite Scripture and original intent it is rejected by the reforminst crowd because it doesn't match what Calvin said it does or what you want it to say. Read Scripture in the context of the Gospels and the actual words of Christ instead of seeing it only through an Calvinist and Pauline filter. It really is a beautiful thing and not the dour, joyless, threatening creed you espouse.
Its pretty obvious to me that God didn't choose you for a vehicle of revelation or interpretation and why. Your opinions, and they are exactly that, are worth exactly what I pay for them.....
Over three centuries after the Resurrection and about 4300 years after the Creation.
It took Rome 2,000 years to get its act together to define the "assumption of Mary" as dogma of the RCC.
Actually it was probably around 1900 years, but what difference does that make? As has been pointed out, the Orthodox accept it and the Schism was some nine centuries before the Catholic Church defined the dogma.
Mary did not ascend bodily into heaven at her death.
The ONLY people who have EVER made this claim are anti-Catholic bigots trying to support their own evil agenda.
Mary was not born sinless. Mary did not die sinless.
All these attributes are examples of divinity.
NO, they ARE NOT; they are attributes that God has, but so is humanity. If sinlessness equates divinity, that would mean that Adam and Eve were created as divine and somehow had their divinity taken from them. There is NOTHING in the Bible that suggests that sinlessness makes someone divine.
And Mary is not divine, as much as Rome would like to think so.
Again, the Catholic Church has NEVER suggested that the Blessed Mother is divine. Anti-Catholic bigots like to CLAIM the Church says that because it helps their evil agenda.
Mary was a sinner saved by grace just like any believer
Again, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS acknowledged that the Blessed Mother was saved by grace, the Church simply understands that she was protected from sin at the moment of her conception.
Are you saying there is more nuance in Greek than in English? Because that was the question.
"Original intent?" Who defines "original intent?"
Why not rely on the "intent" of the words as written? The truth isn't destroyed by the various translations. The truth of God's word is still visible to those given eyes to see.
Roman Catholic apologists sadly fall for this manipulative ploy - "original intent." Thus Rome can define "original intent" as anything it wants.
"No," says Rome. "'One Mediator' does not mean 'one Mediator.' It means 'one mediator among MANY Mediators.'"
Read the Bible for yourself. See what it says and learn how Rome has hoodwinked its members into believing lies that detract from the grace of God.
It really is a beautiful thing and not the dour, joyless, threatening creed you espouse.
Let's see. What's the true Good News of Christ?
That Christ has forgiven all your sins and cleansed you from your unrighteousness and that He will never let you fall, or that every time you sin you are damned to hell unless and until a priest forgives your sin, and then the cycle begins all over again. Sin, death, forgiveness, sin, death, forgiveness, sin, death...?
The trick for the Roman Catholic is to die during the right spin of the wheel. God help the man who dies with an "unforgiven" mortal sin still hanging around his neck.
No hope.
yes, and they're almost persuaded
Soooo, No “alter Christus”, No “another Christ”.
*and when they say “here is Christ* and *there is Christ* do not believe it
What difference does the fact that something was not defined as doctrinal truth by the church for nearly 2000 years after it occurred?
The difference is that if it took Rome 2000 years to declare it as Scriptural truth, then it obviously wasn't.
"Mary did not ascend bodily into heaven at her death."
The ONLY people who have EVER made this claim are anti-Catholic bigots trying to support their own evil agenda.
lol. So all Protestants are "anti-Catholic bigots?"
Thanks for the candor. We figured as much.
"Mary was not born sinless. Mary did not die sinless. All these attributes are examples of divinity."
NO, they ARE NOT; they are attributes that God has, but so is humanity. If sinlessness equates divinity, that would mean that Adam and Eve were created as divine and somehow had their divinity taken from them. There is NOTHING in the Bible that suggests that sinlessness makes someone divine.
Wow. Thanks for even more evidence Roman Catholics do not read their Bibles.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." -- Hebrews 4:14-15"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Truly, thank you for that statement. It's worth remembering...
WAGGLEBEE: There is NOTHING in the Bible that suggests that sinlessness makes someone divine.
Egads! No wonder Roman Catholics deconstruct the grace of God and give His holy sovereignty to various fallible creatures. Rome actually believes men can be sinless. Astounding. So who needs Christ if sinlessness is a human ability which men can attain?
"Mary was a sinner saved by grace just like any believer"
Again, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS acknowledged that the Blessed Mother was saved by grace, the Church simply understands that she was protected from sin at the moment of her conception.
Completely negated by Scripture. A fantasy of Rome's construction. It's just a continuation of the pagan myths of Isis and Cybele which Rome happily incorporated into its teachings.
Flee from it.
INDEED.
Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?
We are called to become “Christ-like;” not Christ.
We are to be grateful God does not impute sin to us but instead accepts the payment of His Son for all our sins so that He remembers our sins no more.
We are not sinless. No one is sinless but Christ.
Part of it, but I think the primary question is accuracy, re:
tell it to me in the language that this it was spoken by JPII and I'll let you know how accurate your translation is. English is a very poor language for expressing abstract and theological concepts.
I took off in another direction toward Greek. I would say there are nuances in Greek that are not capable of one-to-one translation, and, I believe, Greek would be more suitable to accurate description of Christian theology. English is a very young language.
Mostly I thought the statement: "English is the most intricate of languages. Read the Bible and see some of it." was saying that English translations of the Bible were better than, or even equal to, reading it in the original language. I think that's false.
For all of your cut & pasting you fail to recognize "catholic" was used as an adjective, not a proper noun.
Different time. Different Church.
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.