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 big is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. This begs two questions;
1) Are Christian and bigot mutually exclusive terms?
2) Is tolerance a Christian value or attribute? I think that from way up on your soap box you might find a truthful answer to either of those questions uncomfortable.
Yes.
Not physical harm. But there is no question in my mind that there are people posting on this and on other threads who do violence to the truth in almost every post.
There are many facets of my leaving Protestantism, but one was this: The Episcopal Church seemed to have chosen disobedience, and having chosen to abuse the faculty of choice, it became unable to choose at all. At first, the process was slow, and there were excellent theologians and pious men and women. But especially since the Lambeth Council of 1930 the Episcopal Church became more and more a group with a thin shell of specious piety and deliberation covering a body in feckless turmoil.
For example, the House of Bishops could resolve not to ordain practicing homosexuals, and Bishop Spong could ordain a practicing homosexual shortly after the passage of that resolution. And for this he would acquire fame and prominence.
So, whichever side one might take on the question itself, one was left wondering what exactly was the point of the solemn (and not inexpensive) gathering of alleged bishops if none of them held himself bound by what they had decided together? It was like children playing church, not like anything real.
Similarly, on these threads I see truth of any kind being despised in favor of scoring rhetorical points. Consider: we have a half a millennium of estrangement; there are vastly different 'cultures' and terminologies; systems and methods vary.
For example, let's look at the issue of "blessed assurance." If Bunyan is any authority, it's not foreign to reform Protestantism to think that "everybody talkin' 'bout heaven ain't goin' there." "Ignorance" in Pilgrim's Progress, as I have remembered since I first read the book before I was a teenager, is bundled off to hell even at the gates of heaven. And on the other hand, we Catholics fondly repeat tales of Dominic and Terese confidently asserting that they will be in heaven, and in heaven will intercede for all of us with the availing prayers of the righteous. And none of us (I think) says they are presumptuous.
So those are the phenomena - Calvinists who think they are assured of heaven going to hell instead (if one takes Bunyan as authoritative -- and I promise myself a re-read of the book as a Christmas present to myself), and Catholics who sure SOUND like they are enjoying the blessed assurance.
Instead of looking at this kind of thing with the care and charity of estranged brothers, we end up debating like testosterone-drunken teenagers, or like hoodlums.
So I fear for all of us, and a few of us have an interdenominational group devoted to prayer for all of us, because those who prefer triumph to truth will have neither, while those who have the grace to embrace humility for the truth will have triumph as well.
And to this question by what has been presented herein the answer is ‘No’, “presence” or “in front of” or “in the sight of” or “face” best sums up the meaning of “prosopon” and not something like “acting in the person of” or something similar.
"That is a complex question that requires a complex answer.
* What percentage of American Catholics, at some point in their lives do not practice the faith or practice faithfully? That number is as high as 70%.
* What percentage of American Catholics at any given time or election are not practicing? That number, depending on the election cycle, the economy and a number of other factors is between 25 and 45%.
* What percentage of Catholics over the age of 65 are practicing faithfully? That number is approaching 90%, although the hippie generation may shift those numbers.
Do you have a similar break down for Protestants?
LOL!!
By dose is a little better this bordig.
Are you aware of any Catholic FReepers who primarily post on threads about Protestantism? And by about Protestantism I mean where the article that the thread is based on is ABOUT Protestant beliefs?
What about Catholic FReepers who show up on Protestant threads and try to hijack the discussion?
Let's look at this thread for instance, it is about some troll's bizarre theory that the Catholic Church wants to bring back the Holy Roman Empire as a dictatorship. So where are the posts on this thread offering a shread of evidence that the Catholic Church is interested in uniting present-day Germany, Austria, Poland, Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Croatia, portions of France and Italy, and other areas in Eastern Europe into a dictatorship?
Where are the posts that even support the notion that the Holy Roman Empire ever even was a dictatorship? It was a quasi-hereditary ELECTIVE monarchy.
The TRUTH is that the Holy Roman Empire recognized Protestantism within a generation of the start of the Reformation.
Here's another TRUTH, were it not for the Holy Roman Empire being victorius at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, ALL of Europe might have been overrun by the Islamofascist Turks.
And here's another oh so inconvenient little TRUTH, throughout the approximate thousand years that the Holy Roman Empire existed, the papacy was among the Empire's most frequent ENEMIES. Read up on the Sack of Rome in 1527, it was the Holy Roman Empire that took the pope hostage.
Nevertheless, if you have ANYTHING to add that would illuminate how Catholic views about the Blessed Virgin Mary have ANYTHING to do with a German empire, by all means let me know.
I can go days at a time without grabbing a Protestant and shouting "you adhere to a doctrine of demons!" It's been weeks since I preached a crusade and I haven't burned any heretics at the stake since last night at the parish potluck, procession and auto de fe.
LOL.
Perhaps you missed my post noting that I thought the OP was largely absurd.
Evidently it doesn’t count . . .
with the ‘Papist bigots’
that some are relentless and tireless in
TRYING valiantly
to turn FR into a
directly managed arm of the Papal offices in the Vatican virtually 24/7.
. . . that endless thread after thread affronts and offends Proddy sensibilities horrifically 24/7
etc. etc. etc.
yada yada yada
What a pleasant surprise!
Thanks.
Any link for the source(s)?
No. I don’t have such handy for Proddys. Maybe Alex Murphy does.
Most Proddys don’t go around exaggerating the rolls of their churches.
My current congregation sort of prided itself in not even having church rolls until it was pointed out that the legal incorporation papers required it.
Then they went through a period of essentially taking attendance at every service. LOL.
There’s probably 250 or so on a moderately good Sunday morning.
And 40-75 or so on a moderately good Wednesday evening.
I don’t know that anyone would even imagine to count folks, not there, in any category though they would still be thought of as more or less part of the church family, to some degree.
There would be some awareness amongst at least some of the leadership as to who was evidently doing OK spiritually and who was doing dreadfully spiritually within each family.
Out and out rebels as well as those who had fallen by the wayside would be noted, known amongst the leadership. Most would still be prayed for and inquired about from time to time. They would not be considered amongst the faithful. They would not be counted in any such category. They would be considered to be running from God or some such and concerned about.
They would be considered amongst the blood families and in some loose sense a detached part of the church family. They wouldn’t be considered to be part of the faithful.
This particular congregation has an uncommonly intense, genuine, effective and successful stance, attitude of accepting all comers as they are and working to love them into mature Christianity over time. There’s a lot of bikers and other birds of rare plumage. Consequently, a fair percentage of folks come and go from a wide geographic area.
I would guess that 15-20+% are fairly transient. Many of them are of unknown spiritual health and maturity.
How would you apply your stats to the “billion” Roman Catholics figure?
So, why then do you think we are nearly TEN THOUSAND POSTS into this thread?
Why not start a thread based on an actual topic?
Evidently it doesn’t count . . . with the ‘Papist bigots’ that some are relentless and tireless in TRYING valiantly to turn FR into a directly managed arm of the Papal offices in the Vatican virtually 24/7. . . . that endless thread after thread affronts and offends Proddy sensibilities horrifically 24/7
Really? Do you have examples of this? Most FReepers don't even frequent the Religion Forum.
What is your evidence that Catholics want to turn FR into some sort of "managed arm" of the Vatican?
If, as you claim, "endless thread after thread affronts and offends Proddy sensibilities horrifically 24/7," would it be possible for you to post links for say a dozen threads posted by Catholics in the past 24 hours where the main body of the thread "offends Protestant sensibilities"?
Tell you what, I'll even make it simpler. Below is a list of threads posted in just the Religion Forum in the past 24 hours. Can you list which of these threads were posted by Catholics AND the main body of the thread (not the comments afterward), offend Protestant sensibilities? After all, if we are doing this 24/7 as you claim it should be easily demonstrated from this list:
Not necessarily . . . though I think it depends on definitions.
Bigot to me is probably more narrowly defined than your definition. I would say a bigot is one who is immovably, unalterably, narrowly, rigidly, radically & irrationally partial to a set perspective, set of beliefs and practices with fierce, absolute intolerance for those not sharing the same beliefs and practices--regardless of facts, evidence, reality etc.
I don't see Proddys like that hereon. I do see some RC's like that.
However, I wouldn't hazard a remotely definitive, accurate guess as to any of their eternal Salvation statuses. I could easily be surprised. Out of the abundance of the heart the fingers fly. However, many things are not as they appear.
I can assert that some of their assertions are off the wall, or idolatrous, or blasphemous or heretical or irrational or whatever such. When such relentless and habitual pontifications cross over from merely human into deliberately outrageously sinful and rebellious or even demonized--only God knows.
My task is more to offer a type of a mirror rather than definitive judgment.
2) Is tolerance a Christian value or attribute? I think that from way up on your soap box you might find a truthful answer to either of those questions uncomfortable.
It appears that assumptions and presumptions are rampant again.
It depends again on definitions, types and degrees. Tolerance is a wonderful Christian virtue until it is grossly misapplied or operating out of a deliberate or misguided sense of what is right and proper and what is evil, demonic, destructive or what have you.
I doubt the Pharisees thought Christ was very tolerant when He was calling them sons of satan, a brood of vipers and white-washed tombs.
I, for one, believe those were the MOST LOVING things He could have said to them at the time.
I realize mileage may vary.
Matthew 13:54-56 is truly the definitive passage in this gross error by the RCC.
The way that the scripture is composed shows the Lord’s desire to snuff out this blasphemy.
I think I can field this one: If the world Catholic appears in the title or body of an article without being condemned then it’s offensive... horrifically. If a Catholic doctrine or devotion is mentioned positively, it’s offensive.
NOPE.
However,
I’m off to pottery.
Exactly, and a couple more categories: If a Catholic defends the Church against a slander or a falsehood, that’s offensive also. If a Catholic posts Caucus thread and the mod boots off the prod interlopers who ignore the caucus designation, that’s REALLY offensive, and proof that the mod is Catholic.
> “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.”
.
What you seem to have glossed over is that he has already done “what was needed,” at the cross, once and for all.
It is done. Every believer’s every sin is already taken off the ledger. We are forgiven. Have faith in what God can and will do, and there is no need to worry about what you will do.
We are in his hands, and nothing can snatch us away. He has promised that.
> “My irony meter just EXPLODED!”
.
Because it was defective! :o)
.
And, if you don't persevere, then, Calvinists will say you never were really His.
Your sense of OSAS does not bind God.
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.