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.
This is what the Church believed all along (or at least form the beginning of the 2nd century), and not something it made up 16 centuries later. There was no opposition to that belief as far as I know, so whether it is true or not is irrelevant. It is what the Church believed and still believes, base don tradition and the Church says so.
What I don't understand is why do Protestants believe it since they reject traditions of men and especially the Catholic Church?
The Greek word is to stammer, babble repeatedly. There is a lot of that in all churches.
Really? All churches will say the same prayer countless times as a routine practice? I am not aware of that being a practice in any of the Protestant churches I have attended in my life.
He is not defending me. Mark is simply stating the fact. Are you suggesting he should—for the sake of Christain solidarity—knowingly promote untruth?
No. It's very clear: call someone a fool and hellfire is awaiting you. Yet, the word is used all over the Bible, Old testament and New.
Praying in public "To be seen of men" is speaking to motive in the act and not an admonition against praying where others may see or hear you
Certainly. That's why he says you should pray in the storage room, with the door closed, where no one can see you. Which part is in dispute? There is no reason whatsoever one has to pray in public to be seen of men, none.
This is the other point I am trying to make....posting volumes of information from other authors literature leads to dissecting every word not to mention the source and author themselves. Thus the topic, which might otherwise prove interesting for all gets lost in all the unnecessary details. It becomes a match for those who desire to showcase their intellect and or their personal library, which is simply ego building for those who need to feel significant but might very well have no opinion of their own.
So no, I will not define Hinduism or any other religion to those who are likely very much in the know of what these are enough to form their own opinion of the differences in these religions.
If it were a simple belief in an eternal supernatural being, who is good, merciful, etc., and who has revealed himself to mankind spiritually some 2,000 years ago, then obviously historical accuracy would be a moot point; the faith in him would not depend on factual historical accuracy but on pure belief in the existence of such a supernatural being independent of time, or tradition.
Ah, and what is the truth? The vast majority of the Protestant pantheon believes in the Catholic Canon, minus the Luther withdrawal, with no questions asked. How would you investigate the truth? Will you call the Holy Spirit down and put Him on the witness stand? Aside from a handful of nutjobs and flakes who post on FR, some on this very thread, is there anyone that claims that they can do that?
Mark you are so kind. It is not so much the faith itself as I do not deny God (for that would be another form of faith) but simply admit that I do not know what God is. Boatbums, you will never see my posts casting doubt as to the existence of God. Most of my posts have to do with factual issues concerning the Bible, the history and other tangible subjects, where evidence casts doubts on some aspects of what people traditionally believe based on them.
Yes, we understand that your religion is of your own making and your god is what you create. We get it and while there are many ex Catholics who succumb to the urge to create their own god, there are that many more who accept and worship God. We are Moses, spiritually attached to God, and the children of the Reformation are Aaron, making the golden calf to satisfy their own whims and immediate desires. We get that. And we appreciate that you have illuminated the distinction.
Appreciate the kudos. What a twit...
Why am I not surprised?
Beats me. Because it does not tend to be prevalent, I suppose.
As Christians, we should learn to laugh more.
Agreed. The problem is that many who purport to be Christians are laughable, rather than funny...
The KJV calls it a closet. Whatever he meant by it he specifically said "close the door". He calls on the disciples (and believers) to pray in private. He is saying there is no reason whatsoever to pray in public, and if you think about it it makes perfect sense, because otherwise people may think you are doing it for hypocritical reasons, and probably are.
Jesus message is loud and clear as a bell: Instead of making a spectacle of one's worship, do it in private. So why are Christians making a public spectacle with their prayers on TV and at sporting events, and every other occasion? Is that not hypocritical? Is that not contrary to what their own God told them not to do?
The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning.This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. - Second Vatican Council. Second Vatican Council, "Decree on Ecumenism," no. 4. (Emphasis mine)
There is no room in Biblical Christianity for unity or compromise, or cooperation with Rome as long as she believes and practices continuing sacrifice, Maryolatry, false gospel of works for salvation, and her continuing "to regard the Scriptures, taken together with sacred Tradition, as the supreme rule of her faith." Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," no. 21.
Hinduism? That speaks for itself. False gospels, another Jesus, and deceiving spirits, and doctrines of men, are the real problem for the Christian churches.
i have been meaning to ask you the very same question, bb. mark admits that the Gospels were written anonymously and that they were assigned authorship by the Church according to tradition (legendary belief) towards the end of the second century. Until then, no one quotes from the Gospels and says "according to Matthew, etc."
Mark accepts that his Church believes they were written by the authors whose names we are familiar with. And you accept them based on what, since you reject the authority or the tradition of the Church?
When you say "investigate the truth," what truth are investigating? That no witnesses were ever named, and that even the authors who wrote about the unnamed witnesses are not named except according to the legend and tradition believed by the Church you reject?
Oh, that is terrible. I would no sooner believe that the good Dr. E. would speak disparagingly of the Church than I would believe that the Democrat National Committee should be confined to bed rest and a heavy and round the clock dose of tranquilizer.
Many of the anti-Catholics on here CLAIM adherence to beliefs as confessed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, e.g. the profess to believe in the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Now, the Church has long acknowledged that a great many Protestants are in agreement with the Church on these points.
However, there are those on these threads who openly deny the Holy Trinity and the eternal Divinity of Christ. Why is it that the anti-Catholics ignore the heresy of other anti-Catholics? Do they simply view the non-Trinitarian anti-Catholics as useful idiots? Are they concerned at all about the salvation of the the non-Trinitarian anti-Catholics or do they simply want all of anti-Catholic support they can get?
The more I see of these threads, the more I become convinced that many of the anti-Catholic participants ARE NOT CHRISTIANS at all in spite of their protestations to the contrary. Their "religion" is anti-Catholicism and to that end they will embrace anyone else who hates the Church as much as they do.
I heard her paranoia has reached such lows that she cancelled her cell phone service and burned her phone once she heard there were Rome-ing Charges
Kosta is perhaps the most informative and truthful poster on FR that I have ever seen. And, for what it's worth, I believe that his soul is in less jeopardy than most Christians, including mine. Kosta is honest, as opposed to many of the posters on the RF.
Correct, so why are so many repetitions in prayers? Beats me. It's just one of so many things one finds in the Bible that is ignored. Or maybe some people think the verses apply only to the hypocrites and of course no Christian sect will consider itself hypocritical, so it must not apply to them!
The Bible give Christians one prayer and one prayer only. And they are directed ("pray thus") to pray in a closet with the doors shut, away from everyone. Yet Christians engage in public prayer, group prayers, and invent their own prayers.
If Christian worship is not an example of the most blatant violation of Jesus' words I don't know what is!
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.