Skip to comments.Intended Catholic Dictatorship
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.]
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.
Good point Mark. Certainly right on the money.
That's ontologically impossible in my case! :)
I appreciate that! Funny thing about the "sciences", they change quite frequently depending upon what they think certain evidence suggests or if new stuff pops up - which happens pretty often -, but since they weren't "there" much is conjecture. I wonder if anyone has told the museum in Israel that their treasures are fake???
And the last part about the Bible not being meant to be a book on science and history, I TOTALLY agree. What I have observed, though, is that whenever it does speak of things in those realms, it is correct - often describing events before they happened and before the "learned" even knew about the facts.
The never-ending wacko talent show of the separated 'brethren.'
Isn't that what they mean by freedom of religion?
Of course they will likely
—that the Vatican offical paper has anything to do with the Vatican;
—that ‘Father’ Funes is any kind of Vatican official to the least degree;
—that ‘Father’ Funes has any awareness at all of the Vatican inner santum’s perspectives on the topic.
—that the Vatican is using the likes of Funes to incrementally advance the topic in the public square—particularly for the Vatican sheeple . . .
And the last part about the Bible not being meant to be a book on science and history, I TOTALLY agree. What I have observed, though, is that whenever it does speak of things in those realms, it is correct - often describing events before they happened and before the “learned” even knew about the facts.
Actually that's not true. Church Slavonic (which is an exact rendition of Greek specifically created for liturgical and theological use) and Syriac, were also widely used languages in Christendom.
ALL literate Christians could read Greek or Latin and usually both
Actually, the Church became separated along linguistic lines early on (5th century) and by the end of the first millennium the linguistic aparthied was complete. The Greeks refused to learn Latin and the Latin west was not very proficient in Greek. Even early Latin apologists such as St. Augustine knew Greek very marginally. Some of his key errors are base don his own faulty translations.
It was only with the appearance of the Renaissance that a desire for ancient Greek returns to the West where the language of science was strictly Latin.
It was Erasmus who, in the 15th century, translated the Bible from what he believed were reliable Greek copies of the Codex Alexandrinus, and called it Textus Receptus (received text), a translating which was later used as the basis for the "error-free" KJV.
Needless to say, not only was his Greek marginal, but the copies he used were terribly corrupt latter-day versions. He was forced to actually retro translate (!) from Latin into Greek (and thus create new text) because he was missing a portion of the New Testament, so he used the Latin Vulgate, which itself is not a very good translation of the Greek.
Even when Gutenberg first printed his Bible the cost was far greater than the average person could afford (of the Bibles printed by Gutenberg, only one is known to have been privately owned by an individual); however, as with ALL technology, the cost eventually came down
Absolutely, spot on! Besides, most of the population were farmers, and farmers did not send their children to schools to learn how to read and write, let alone learn a foreign (Latin) language. They needed all hands on the farm.
Now consider this, God KNEW that the Christian world would be almost totally illiterate for FIFTEEN CENTURIES after the Resurrection, why would He develop a means of Salvation that was conditioned on technology that wouldn't exist for FIFTEEN CENTURIES? It would be as if Christ had said, "There will be a new Covenant, but NONE of you will be part of it and neither will the next fifty generations."
Again, your points are spot on. I couldn't agree more.
He changed his mind? :)
In short, they go to church to receive the sacraments. Early church services were 'closed' affairs, for Christians only, not open to public, so it wasn't as if they were praying in "public" or in open synagogues.
The 1,700 year-old Orthodox liturgy is divided in two parts: the liturgy of the Catechumens (those wishing and being taught to become Christians) and the Liturgy of the Faithful. After the initial psalms, hymns and petitions, the Catechumens are dismissed.
In the olden days the Cathecumens had to leave the church at this point. Today the Catechumens usually go to the winged sections of the church (churches are built in the form of a cross) or simply stay put, but they do not partake of the sacraments.
In the Latin church, they normally leave the building, unless the teaching center is connected to the church, then they go to that, but they definitely leave the church after dismissal.
I don't pray. I am agnostic, remember? God would know what I need and in the end it would be his will one way or another. I could give thanks, but that would be assuming I know more than my heart tells me.
All Eastern Orthodox Christians have prayer corners in a private section of their homes. This is where they do most of their prayers.
When I was a practicing Orthodox Christian, I also had a prayer corner like the one pictured above, more or less. The icons are still there. I may be agnostic but I don't hate the Church or God.
Not the post Vatican II prayer barns. The best of them are rectangular. The worst? We have some rather disturbing structures that purport to be Catholic churches...
Why am I not surprised that Jesus' words are mocked by the people who swear by his name?
The Greek word is to stammer, babble repeatedly. There is a lot of that in all churches.
kosta50: Why am I not surprised that Jesus' words are mocked by the people who swear by his name?
Me: < suppressed giggling>
Luke's Gospel is not signed. The Church believed it was Luke who wrote it, according to tradition. beside,s he names no witnesses.
Mark, which is also anonymous, is not naming witnesses; he is interpreting Isaiah's prophesy as applying to Jesus.
Thanks for that informaiton, Mark. I didn;t know what the Latin Church did.
Agreed. How much of the NT was actually written by the individual whose name appears on the current Bible? Paul wrote as little as half of his purported letters; did Peter actually write either? Who wrote Matthew, Mark Luke and John? The only thing is that the Church has decreed that these are as they are presented.
I am prepared and have been prepared to accept them as is, according to the Church. I suppose that that differs me from the Protestant pantheon. So be it.