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.
I had to sleep on my response. I'm not sure how JPII could have been the first pope to proclaim that animals have souls since the word "animal" comes from "anima" which means "soul". Maybe he was the first pope who felt the need to point out the obvious, I don't know. I think the Catholic Church has always taught that animals have natural souls because the soul is the "animating" principle of the body. A natural soul is not immortal however.
The basic argument that places companion animals in heaven is that God will deny us nothing that would contribute to our happiness. That at least keeps 70zillion mosquitoes out of heaven. Now that does give rise to the conundrum that compared to my children the cat means nothing so if the reasoning is based on what would make me happy the salvation of my children is guaranteed based on that alone. Wouldn't that make parenthood so much easier.
Even Father John Hardon makes allowances for the presence of pets in heaven based on the happiness of the heavenly resident. I'm not really inclined to argue with him but my jaw does drop in astonishment at what these kinds of ideas make of heaven.
Heaven is the beatific vision: the direct apprehension of the Glory of God, it is realized in the primary object Who is God Himself and the secondary object which is His glory reflected in His creation. The secondary object admits the possibility of our earthly pets but it does not require it.
Attempt to imagine every perfect experience of earthly existence: marriage proposal, wedding, birth of children, rapturous music, your favorite movie opening, that most enjoyable hobby, your greatest laugh, the most sublime moment of prayer, the realization that God loves you... every experience that engrosses, captures, uplifts, enlivens and excites. Wrap them all up into one event, then double it, and double it again and keep on doubling it until it's too much for the unaided human to even comprehend and we might be on the approach to understanding what it will be like.
I remember the first real date I had with my wife as we sat looking at each other while the food grew cold, well at least I was staring at her. I really don't know what she was doing but I do know no food was eaten that night. I thought "I could do this all night" but of course I couldn't do it all night because the restaurant eventually closed. I think that's the first time I wrapped my head around what heaven could possibly be like; the restaurant will never close and the object of my adoration will be inexhaustible.
I really don't see any room for cats in that. I remember a theology grad student telling me that heaven to her would be an eternity of studying books that she'd never had the chance to read in this life and I couldn't but wonder why anyone would want to read a book when the Author was available for an eternal interview.
I particularly liked this well made point that I've also been asserting hereon for a long time:
In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.
THANKS FOR THAT GREAT PIECE. YOUR BOOK SHOULD BE VERY IMPACTFUL. Nice to put the silly lie about 30,000 purported Proddy denominations to rest. Perhaps as we throw the last shovel full of dirt on its coffin . . . we could reflect on the dozens of Papist bigots hereon who have gloatingly trumpeted that always false number as though it were truthful and as though their countless cliques under the Vatican umbrella were inherently better, more holy, sanctified . . . wrapped in their endless layers of white hankies and all. What clueless UnBiblical GALACTIC SIZED arrogance. Sheesh.
I’m not so convinced that animals have eternal souls.
However, I could easily believe that God would resurrect—as it were—beloved pets as a loving Heavenly gift.
So when the Scriptures say “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” and that “if he doesn't listen even to the congregation, let him be as a man of the nations and a tax collector” and those in a position to act fail to do so, which sort of sin are they guilty of?
And are they not guilty of sharing in the sins of the unrepentant sinner by failing to act, “Omission”, when they have the power to?
Were you taught anything about these questions?
Right. There are a number of other areas where Protestantism differs from historical fact. Hopefully someone will write a book to prove them right so it can be settled.
To: Religion Moderator
With all due respect to you, I disagree.
8,921 posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2010 9:55:17 PM by Judith Anne
What an unmitigated shock!
What a rare occurance!
St Paul is wrong per you.
The RM is wrong per you.
Amazing.
Who’d a thunk!
Ahhhh welllllllll
Cardinaless J.A. Has spoked.
All Proddys can do is grovel and shield their eyes from the glowing halo.
/s
Hmmmmmmm
Wellllllllllllll I SUPPOSE
that’s slightly better than
the magicsterical reading of their tea leaves from their afternoon tea.
Please stop the name-calling, and please do not make this about me.
Yup. That's one of the reasons the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops... and the road to hell and apparently the lampposts as well, depending on the version of the quote.
Forums like FR that provide a soapbox with some rules to restrain those who can’t or won’t restrain themselves and also a place where such high-minded and noble persons like ourselves (well...maybe a few others) can make spirited arguments and allow that even honest people can have false ideas.
So hopefully we’ll all remember that if God can put with fools and knaves for such a long time surely we can for such a short time.
QUITE SO. QUITE SO.
. . . . even the ones in our mirrors.
OF COURSE.
And, given the New Testament example, within the Rel Forum’s boundaries . . . and one’s sense of God’s boundaries for such . . .
I say let the fur fly . . . I have always thought that more truth gets aired and vetted with unvarnished exchanges than with weasel worded diplospeak.
Sure we are all prone to having boogers on our faces from time to time. Better that than whitewash and pretense.
We can agree with the moderator that making posts about individual persons is wrong and counterproductive. Perhaps you were just giddy at the though of an opportunity to be condescendingly juvenile and asinine and forgot the rules.
That’s rich.
LOL. What a knee slapper. Loved it.
It’s great to see some blips of RC creativity . . . given the rarity of such.
A new rule for FR, “If you’re going to put a finger in someone’s eye—only go to the first knuckle”? Done and done!
” . . even the ones in our mirrors.”
In addition to all my other outstanding qualities you expect humility too?
No.
You don’t understand.
That rule is for PRODDYS only.
RC’s automatically go up to the elbow as a matter of dogmatic ritual and !!!!TRADITION!!!! . . . as well as the UNDIVINE rite and right of THE INQUISITION!
Welllllllllll
humility is a pretty priceless crucial thing! LOL.
LUB
To believe that Mary remained virginal her entire life implies there is something base and immoral about human sexuality in marriage between a husband and wife.
To believe it is morally superior for priests and nuns not to marry implies sexuality is base and antithetical to a life of faith.
You get the drift? Sex in marriage and women bad; men and abstinence good.
This goes a long way in explaining why Irish men marry so late in life and why Italian men feel free to take mistresses. These are stereotypes for a good reason -- they're true.
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence" - Thomas Aquinas.
Beginning with the Reformation, Luther and other reformers opposed the sexual negativity Rome had imposed on its adherents for centuries. Luther married a former nun and encouraged other priests to marry. The reformers rejected Rome's use of Adam and Eve to rationalize sexual negativity and a low opinion of marriage which they recognized as anti-Scriptural.
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it" -- Genesis 1:28
9,000?
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.