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.
Your argument is with the Scriptures. Go back and read them.
As usual, the mockery falls flat.
Answer the questions rather than rewriting them.
Is it true or not that if God did not want evil in this world He could erase Satan (whom He created) from all existence?
No dichotomy. Life is all God.
Thank God.
“I vaguely remember this incident, wasn’t there a bruhaha because the pope walked out?”
You mean this?
“Pope walks out after Muslim cleric accuses Israel of ‘slaughter’”
“... The speech was delivered in Arabic, without simultaneous translation, but after the pope was informed of the political nature of al-Tamimi’s speech, he left the conference. “
http://www.haaretz.com/news/pope-walks-out-after-muslim-cleric-accuses-israel-of-slaughter-1.275822
Original or ancestral sin or inherited sin in no proves double predestination or limited atonement, etc.
God does not doom to hell fetuses en mass for what their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great... grandparents did. You’re describing a blood feud.
Is the first guy smarter or more pious or less fallen than the guy next door?
No it's with the theology of Calvin that you follow.
Go back and read them.
Likewise:
"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" -- Exodus 20:5
Do you read the New Testament?
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" -- Romans 5:12
If Christ had never been born, would all men go to hell?
Christ specifically and particularly came to save "those who believe." Those who are "the called according to His purpose."
All are called to salvation and a plan for salvation exists for all. The choice to follow it or reject it is up to each individual.
We are all called to beatitude and commanded that whatever we do to the least of His brethren that we do unto him. To reject that as not applying to those we have deemed to be not saved or not yet saved by our acts of Beatitude is to endorse the crimes against humanity and those lesser creatures not deemed worthy. It explains the uncivil treatment Catholics receive at the hands of self proclaimed Calvinists here on FR.
All are called to salvation and a plan for salvation exists for all. The choice to follow it or reject it is up to each individual.
We are all called to beatitude and commanded that whatever we do to the least of His brethren that we do unto him. To reject that as not applying to those we have deemed to be not saved or not yet saved by our acts of Beatitude is to endorse the crimes against humanity and those lesser creatures not deemed worthy. It explains the uncivil treatment Catholics receive at the hands of self proclaimed Calvinists here on FR.
“That may be you but the world is not made according to you. I have to go by what the Christian world did and history doesn’t support your claim.”
What the Christian churches did was recognize the Gospels and Acts and Paul’s epistles and 1 Peter as scripture from the start. They had doubts about some of the others, which persisted for a long time. But then, I’d happily discuss theology using the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s epistles and 1 Peter...
The other books you mention were not recognized as scripture. Look at the record - when lists of NT scripture were prepared only Codex Claromontanus (400? AD) listed the Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter & Epistle of Barnabas.
“By A.D. 200, twenty-one of the books of the New Testament had a secure position in the canon. In the course of discussion it was possible to group a book according to one of three categories: (1) the homologoumena or universally accepted writings; (2) the antilegomena or disputed books, accepted by some churches but challenged by others; and (3) the notha or clearly spurious documents. During the third century, James, Jude, Second and Third John, Second Peter, and Hebrews were frankly disputed in different sectors of the church, so that Origen and Eusebius classified them among the antilogomena. (6) Revelation had enjoyed wide acceptance at the beginning of the century, but in the ensung years it was subjected to challenge and discrimination. The dispute over questions of authorship, authenticity, style, and doctrine subsided by the middle of the fourth century, and these documents also took their place in the lists of books accepted by the bishops of the church. The church fathers Jerome and Augustine acknowledged the entire twenty-seven books of the canon, as did the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. By the end of the fourth century the limits of the New Testament canon were irrevocably settled in both the Greek and Latin churches. Only in the churches of Syria and elsewhere in the East did the question continue to be debated. Even here all of the books accepted elsewhere in the church finally achieved recognition.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/barker1.html
Yeah. Right. And work out your own salvation doesn’t mean you have any choice in the matter.
Again, dueling proof texts is futile.
You use proof texts to prove God is cruel and unjust. I’ll just continue to point out that however you got there, you took a wrong turn.
I have no particular interest in debating predestination with the folks on this forum that I debated at length some months ago. However, you might find some good reading at this link:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
FWIW, I left the Baptist church I was a member of last spring when the Sunday School teacher said God forced men to sin. The pastor rejected that claim later, but I told them the bottom line was this: When you walk thru a Mall and see lost men, are they men God loves and wants to have repent, or are they men God hates and looks forward to sending to hell?
If we couldn’t agree on whether or not the mission T-shirt should say “Jesus loves you” or “Maybe Jesus loves you”, then we needed to part company. The Baptist Church I joined a few months later has a Presbyterian pastor, but he agrees that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
JPII understood that love is the greatest weapon against evil, not condemnation or intolerance. He talked the talk and walked the walk. Funny how it is Protestants, not the actual Pope, who "Pontificate".
lol. I'd love "dueling proof texts."
All you've offered are a few fragments of Scripture WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION.
Of course Christians must work out their salvation with fear and trembling, because they are aware of the power and majesty of the God of their salvation and they are aware of what Christ has saved them from.
"Work out." Follow through. Live.
Not earn. Not merit.
Only a fool would think the latter.
Straw dogs abound.
I meant “straw men.”
I must have Obama on my mind. 8~)
It's called free will for a reason. If you want someone to love you, they have to also be free to not love you, and to hate you. For good reasons or bad reasons or no reasons. Because someone shot their dog, because they shot someone else's dog and can't find their way to forgiveness yet. Because they were taught an evil and mean god, blame him for all their troubles and want to get back at him. Because their family has abandoned them and they can't think of "father" without hating.
All of these are explanations and reasons, but they are not excuses.
We have choices, our choices matter: to us and to others we can or do impact. What we do has consequences and we are responsible for them. We are instruments of God's love or of our own hate.
God showers us with light and love, sometimes we see it, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we listen; sometimes we don't. Sometimes we remember, sometimes we forget.
I've never met anyone who didn't want to be loved and to love. And I've never met anyone who was denied love, God's love included, except by their own choice. This is also true for me.
"Free to love; free to hate" is a package deal. And you get what you give. By choice. God loves everyone, and respects their choice. Without that, no love, of God or otherwise, is possible.
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.