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.
And they never said she did
The Extent of the Magisterial Teaching
In defining the Assumption as a revealed dogma, Pope Pius XII did not infallibly answer all the questions that relate to the “where, when, and how” of the Assumption. For example, we do not know how old Mary was and whom she was with at the time. Also, the Holy Father did not attempt to resolve the controversy as to whether she was in Ephesus or Jerusalem, as there was no mention of where she was at the time of her Assumption. In addition, Pope Pius XII’s definition said nothing about Mary’s mediation, her queenship, or other privileges.
And significantly, Pope Pius XII left open the question of whether Mary “died.” Note that the definition intentionally uses the ambiguous phraseology, “having completed the course of her earthly life.” Some maintain that she did not die, because her Immaculate Conception freed her from the effects of original sin, including death.
People are damned for their sin.
I just thought I would clear this up as well, Calvinists do not believe in "once saved always saved", we believe in the preservation of the Saints..
Just as we do not save ourself we can never keep ourselves.. Jesus is the author and the finisher of our faith
Well on the surface I would say she was most likely not saved, that is antinomianism ..but how would that be different than a Catholic yelling..thats ok I will go to confession ???
As Humpty Dumpty said, it's a matter of who will be master. They will follow the Bible alone -- as long as they get to make it say what they want it to say.
I didn't enter this argument because of its circular nature -- and the general uselessness of the whole enterprise.
Because elsewhere in the Bible Jesus tells us not to believe men who call themselves "another Christ," and Paul teaches that there is "only one God and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus."
So clearly Paul does not mean men are to become an "alter Christus." He means we are to become Christ-like. To forgive as we are forgiven. To follow Christ's example as we live and forgive others.
Rome takes the simple words of Scriptures and inflates them to blasphemous proportions.
You and I are called to live our entire lives "in the person of Christ" because as Christians we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit who motivates us to trust, obey and believe.
yea can you imagine that ?
Luk 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
Luk 23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
If one was saved because of "works" That man never would have been promised salvation ....
Thanks. I will. 8~)
Yes, ironic isn’t it?
I don't recall where I've ever said one way or another what I feel about this.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Virgin Birth WAS NOT a "natural" child birth in any sense of the word.
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.
On the contrary, it shows that the Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph were totally devoted to their Son. From the time of His Birth onward they were in fear for His life (not their own, but His). EVERYTHING they did was for Him. The Holy Family WAS NOT a "normal" family, they were the most incredibly abnormal family in all of history.
To believe it is morally superior for priests and nuns not to marry implies sexuality is base and antithetical to a life of faith.
Saint Paul wrote that celibacy is certainly not for everyone and this is all the Church has ever taught. There has never been any claim of moral superiority.
You get the drift? Sex in marriage and women bad; men and abstinence good.
Your belief that this is what the Church teaches does not make it a fact.
Beginning with the Reformation, Luther and other reformers opposed the sexual negativity Rome had imposed on its adherents for centuries.
Really, find me where Luther or Calvin EVER denied the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.
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.
Luther rejected clerical celibacy, I am unaware of any of the Reformers rejecting this "sexual negativity" that you speak of.
But you are right, Protestants have certainly been leaders in rejecting "sexual negativity" the past several decades:
- They have embraced contraception allowing the "sexual revolution" to take hold.
- They have embraced abortion, allowing ONE BILLION INNOCENT BABIES to be killed.
- They have embraced homosexuality.
Yep, Protestants must be "proud" of the lengths they have gone to in rejecting Catholicism.
TRUE saving faith is not a work.. like Dorothy clicking her heels together
It is a gift of God...
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I am clearly anti-papist. I would never say, however, that all anti-Protestants are bigots and are not Christian, which is exactly what you said about those who protest RCC superstitions.
WAGGLEEBEE: Being an anti-Catholic makes someone a bigot, not a Christian.
And that remains a pathetic, vile and really stupid remark.
Since we have no original manuscripts of Scripture, I trust God to guide the translations of His word as well as my understanding of them.
Of course that is the same sort of thing Mark Twain described as a woman trying to prove she is a virgin.
So it’s easy to call someone a bigot and pretend the burden of proof is upon the accused instead of the accuser.
Yep. The goal is to deflect attention from their ignorance of Scripture onto something else. Anything else.
St. Thomas was citing the state of 13th medicine as a reading of his Summa Theologica will affirm. To try to extrapolate this into Church dogma is a stretch even for you.
No, I think duplicitous and hypocritical are better descriptions.
As long as the Gospel is preached falsely, you will have those who say otherwise.
There is no "alter Christus." No "co-Mediator." No "Dispensatrix of all graces." No "co-Redeemer."
There is only Jesus Christ.
Do you think the bible was written originally in Latin?
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.