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.
John 6:39-40, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
Not really...
Aren't they predestined?
Aren't they predestined?
This indicates that St. John had the correct understanding, that the "prosopos" here means not merely presence of Christ but also a transmission of His will.
Really? That's the story the Protestants go with, they think the Virgin Mary is called that because of the Virgin Birth?
The fact is no one does know correct? There was no one in the bedroom of Mary and Joseph.
Actually, Jesus and whoever else was staying with them at the time would have been in the "bedroom." Except for the very wealthy, private bedrooms are a fairly recent development.
The Catholic church has made up various stories to explain why Joseph may have been fine with that.
"Various stories"? Try this one:
An angel of God came to Joseph and explained that the woman he betrothed to was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and she is carrying God in her womb. And then, right after the Son is born the angel returns and says that Herod is plotting to kill the Child and they need to flee into Egypt.
Now, that is the story as it is told in the Bible. Maybe other people would react differently, but if it was me, I'm pretty sure that this chain of events would totally reprioritize my life. People seem to think that it makes sense to believe that Joseph and Mary had a "normal marriage" after the Nativity of our Lord, but the truth is that the Child removed any possibility of normal. St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother had intimate roles in the most incredible and unique event in the history of the world, having a normal life simply was not a viable option for them.
no one does know..
But here is what we DO know, there is NOTHING that suggests that ANYONE other than Jesus Christ was born of Mary and the FACT that He entrusted her care to Saint John when He was on the Cross would indicate that she had no other children because it would have been unnecessary if she had other sons. Saints James and Jude and others may have been the children of Saint Joseph from a previous marriage, they may have been cousins raised by the Holy Family, but there is NOTHING to suggest that they were born to the Blessed Mother.
Actually, our Lord entrusted mankind to the Church, not the Bible (the Church in turn gave us the Bible). I try as best I can to faithfully do what He instructed us to do.
No, Catholics accept what man says is true with no infallible support
Incorrect, Church teachings are not in conflict with Scripture.
There is absolutely no proof or even a suggestion anywhere in known inspired writing that Mary was born free of sin, that she never sinned, that she was assumed into heaven, there is no evidence that she can hear or answer prayer or that she is the "queen of heaven"
The fact that Protesants REJECT Church teaching on portions of Scripture, does not mean that such Scripture does not exist.
If a Jew came to you and said there was no Scripture that says that Jesus Christ is God and that He was crucified for our sins and that we could have eternal life through his name, you would say that the Jew was wrong, but from his perspective it would be totally true. Protestant rejection of Marian teaching is no different.
This is all nothing more than speculation made doctrine.. All sola scriptura says is that it is the FINAL authority because we know that is the inspired word of God
How do you "know" this? Who do you think it was that determined the canon of the New Testament? Protestants rely on the tradition of the Catholic Church whether they want to admit it or not.
Actually the Vatican has put out three dozen works on the subject. All can be found on the Vatican website under the Pontifical Biblical Commission:
1. Circa citationes implicitas in S. Scriptura contentas, Sulle citazioni implicite contenute nella S. Scrittura (February 13, 1905)
2. De narrationibus specietenus tantum historicis, Narrazioni solo apparentemente storiche (June 23, 1905)
3. De mosaica authentia Pentateuchi, Sull'autenticità mosaica del Pentateuco (June 27, 1906)
4. De quarto evangelio, Autore e verità storica del quarto vangelo (May 29, 1907)
5. De libri Isaiae indole et auctore, Indole e autore del libro di Isaia (June 28, 1908)
6. De organo officiali Pontificiae Commissionis de re biblica, L'organo ufficiale della Pontificia Commissione Biblica (February 15, 1909)
7. De charactere historico trium priorum capitum Geneseos, Sul carattere storico dei tre primi capitoli della Genesi (June 30, 1909)
8. De auctoribus et de tempore compositionis Psalmorum, Autori e tempo di composizione dei Salmi (May 1st, 1910)
9. De examinibus coram Pontificia Commissione Biblica subeundis, Esami per i gradi accademici davanti alla Pontificia Commissione Biblica (May 24, 1911)
10. Quaestiones de evangelio secundum Matthaeum, Sul vangelo secondo Matteo (June 19, 1911)
11. Quaestiones de evangeliis secundum Marcum et secundum Lucam, Sui vangeli secondo Marco e secondo Luca (June 26, 1912)
12. De quaestione synoptica, Sulla questione sinottica (June 26, 1912)
13. Quaestiones de libro Actuum Apostolorum, Sul libro degli Atti degli Apostoli (June 12, 1913)
14. Quaestiones de epistolis pastoralibus Pauli apostoli, Sulle lettere pastorali dell'apostolo Paolo (June 12, 1913)
15. De epistola ad Hebraeos, Sulla lettera agli Ebrei (June 24, 1914)
16. De parousia in epistolis Pauli Apostoli, La parusia nelle lettere di S. Paolo (June 18, 1915)
17. De additione variarum lectionum in versione Vulgatae tam Novi quam Veteris Testamenti, L'aggiunta di lezioni varianti nelle edizioni della Vulgata (November 17, 1921)
18. De falsa duorum textuum biblicorum interpretatione, Sulla falsa interpretazione di due testi biblici (July 1st, 1933)
19. Opus cui titulus«Die Einwanderung Israels in Kanaan» reprobatur, Condanna dell'opera «Die Einwanderung Israels in Kanaan» (February 27, 1934)
20. De usu versionum Sacrae Scripturae in ecclesiis, Sull'uso delle versioni della Sacra Scrittura nelle chiese (April 30, 1934)
21. De experimentis ad lauream, Gli esami per il dottorato (July 16, 1939)
22. Un opuscolo anonimo denigratorio, Un opuscolo anonimo denigratorio (August 20, 1941)
23. De experimentis ad Prolytatum, Sugli esami per la Licenza (July 6, 1942)
24. De versionibus Sacrae Scripturae in linguas vernaculas, Le versioni della Sacra Scrittura nelle lingue vive (August 22nd, 1943)
25. De usu novi Psalterii latini extra horas canonicas, Il nuovo Salterio latino fuori dalle ore canoniche (October 22nd, 1947)
26. Des sources du Pentateuque et de l'historicité de Genèse 1-11,Sulle fonti del Pentateuco e sul valore storico di Gen 1-11 (January 16, 1948)
27. De Scriptura sacra recte docenda, Insegnamenti della Sacra Scrittura nei seminari e nei collegi (May 13, 1950)
28. De libro «Die Psalmen» Bernardi Bonkamp, Sul libro «Die Psalmen» di Bernard Bonkamp (June 9, 1953)
29. De consociationibus biblicis et de conventibus eiusdem generis, Associazioni bibliche e convegni biblici (December 15, 1955)
30. De historica evangeliorum veritate, La verità storica dei vangeli (April 21st, 1964)
31. Ratio periclitandae doctrinae ad academicos gradus candidatorum, Piano d'esame per i gradi accademici in sacra Scrittura (December 7, 1974)
32. De sacra Scriptura et christologia, Bibbia e cristologia (1984)
33. Unité et diversité dans l'Église, Unità e diversità nella Chiesa (April 11, 1988)
34. L'interprétation de la Bible dans l'Église, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (April 15, 1993)
35. Le peuple juif et ses Saintes Écritures dans la Bible chrétienne, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (May 24, 2001)
36. The Bible and Morality. Biblical Roots of Christian Conduct (May 11, 2008)
Fantastic post!
Your statement, post 9391 “I will stand before God in Christ, not in my own righteousness.”
My reply, post 9394 “For sure.”
Your statement, 9440, quotes those as all one statement by me, which is an error. Then you apparently reply to yourself stating: “Well you can stand in yours if you like but I don’t think that will work out to well for those that do”
This is a clear example of Calvinist reasoning. Very bizarre.
Your statement, post 9391 “I will stand before God in Christ, not in my own righteousness.”
My reply, post 9394 “For sure.”
Your statement, 9440, quotes those as all one statement by me, which is an error. Then you apparently reply to yourself stating: “Well you can stand in yours if you like but I don’t think that will work out to well for those that do”
This is a clear example of Calvinist reasoning. Very bizarre.
Uhhhhhh . . . probably . . . only when hell freezes over and the real Mary comes down without a UFO and tells them all very fiercely in prime time on CNN that the whole white hanky/Vatican thing is off the rails forever.
Ok wait, before we get crazy here, it's one thing to trust God it's something else entirely to trust myself. Tomorrow I may decide to go completely off the rails, I've seen it happen often enough to know it could happen to me. The only thing that keeps me from being a complete monster is a constant reliance on the grace of God... and the desire to re-enthrone self is so very strong.
God will never and can never fail, I will never and can never succeed. And POW! I just put it all together, this is why Catholics are accused of believing in salvation by works: I'm sitting here attempting to express "the hope that is in me" and I just wondered why I'm doing it... what is my motive? Am I doing this because I love God with all my heart, soul, strength and mind or because I want to look clever? Is this for God or to keep my freepmail box full of compliments? And even if it is for God maybe it's because I want the consolations and not out of love, and that makes it for me and not for Him.
I don't know my own mind and motives. I know my "works" such as they are don't save me, I can't prove anything to God. I can't convince Him that I love Him by frantic activity but I do have a need to prove it to myself. No Catholic who is paying attention to what the Church teaches is going to present himself in Heaven with a resume: X number of people are here because of my witness and I made the following sacrifices and demonstrated heroic virtue so open the door and make me a sammich!
This is one of those areas where Mother Teresa is such a stunning example: her life wasn't about the consolations, there were no warm fuzzies from God. Love isn't a feeling, it's an act of the will. She had the awful grace of knowing her own heart in a way I hope I never will (mainly because of what I might learn, which means I have to hope for it after all). Do we love God because of what He gives us or because of Who He is? As long as He keeps drowning us in blessings will we ever actually know?
God I trust, me not so much. Therefore I don't live in fear worrying about my own motives because if there's a problem He'll do whatever is needed. We live in time and that's probably why Mark knows we cannot rest until the race is over. The old "if you died tonight..." question doesn't necessarily address "if you died in 30 years..." and the answer to that question we simply don't know. Even tonight is in the future, God knows what it holds but we do not.
AND . . .
. . . The bottom line remains: there are people who appear to be convinced that Proddy-ism is totally demonic and they will never miss an opportunity to drive that opinion down the throat of the nearest Proddy. . . .
========================
Gamecock, I think we have another winner for your homepage.
"Being an anti-Catholic makes someone a bigot, not a Christian."
No wonder a majority of Roman Catholics voted for Obama. They think like him.
. . .
. . . There are, however, some [Papist] bigots on this forum and thread who ARE [from all appearances] NOT Christians.
I’m certainly prepared to agree with that. Bigotry is not the trait of a Christian and it makes no difference if they label themselves Catholic or Protestant.
a FANATIC/bigot can be defined as “someone who believes something more strongly than you do.”
I rarely find either word all that useful.
I see you are not too good at math or deductive reasoning. A slight majority of Catholics did vote for Obama. Polls indicate that number to be somewhere between 51% and 54% of all Catholic voters, however, of those Catholics who actually practice their faith the vast majority voted for McCain, who you have to admit was a very unattractive candidate.
The real truth is that a majority of Protestants, a far greater number than half of this countries 24% Catholic minority, many of whom also don't practice their faith, voted for Obama and made the difference in the election.
How anyone can look at the Rev. Wright, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson and call them a Catholic creation and problem is belong insanity.
So . . . are you prepared to tell us . . .
what is the near accurate approximate percentage of those
COUNTED as Roman Catholics
who ACTUALLY PRACTICE THEIR ‘FAITH?’
Enquiring minds are eager to know.
. . . if it’s possible to get a rush answer before Jesus returns . . .
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.