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.
16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
So where do unbaptized babies go?
If original sin is a bar to heaven and baptism removes that original sin, then the baby is not innocent until it is baptized, hence the fear of the parents.
By the church's own teaching, the baby is consigned to hell then because it is not innocent.
Mrs. C_C and I aren't waiting for our baby's baptism. We're praying for our baby's regeneration unto salvation even before birth.
While we know that all Fallen Men our conceived in Spiritually-Dead Iniquity:
We also know that it is within God's power to answer our prayers and Regenerate our baby's spirit even in the womb, long before he (she?) is birthed and baptized:
How wonderful it is to know that God, in His time and in His choosing (but we know also that the prayers of His saints are incorporated into His Divine Plan, as He wills), will sometimes quicken the spirit of even a tiny baby like the unborn infant David, who was Regenerated unto Spiritual Life long before he was even old enough to make a conscious choice about anything.
“ARE” conceived not “our” conceived. Brain fritz.
“”I knew Catholic parents who were terrified of taking their newborns out somewhere before they were baptized, lest something happen to them.””
Which is ridiculous since the parents or anyone else can baptize immediately if something happens to the child
§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM
§2.....or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2W.HTM
You never learned as a Catholic the great difference between Original Sin and personal sin? The unbaptized baby is utterly innocent of personal sin. And the Church never taught that unbaptized babies go to Hell -- as I said previously, the hypothesis of Limbo was proposed as a solution. Limbo was thought of as a place of perfect natural happiness, without the Beatific Vision, but certainly not Hell.
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Excerpt
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.
The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.
Finally, an observation on the methodology of the text is necessary. The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine. Only in this way - and observing the principle of the hierarchy of truths mentioned in the Decree of the Second Vatican Council Unitatis redintegratio (#11) – the topic can be reconsidered explicitly under the global horizon of the faith of the Church. This Document, from the point of view of speculative theology as well as from the practical and pastoral perspective, constitutes for a useful and timely mean for deepening our understanding this problem, which is not only a matter of doctrine, but also of pastoral priority in the modern era.
In other words, if I don't do what YOU say I must do (read through all your posts to find the one that says what you dictate it must say) then my inaction proves that you are right?
uh-HUH.
You know, there's a Midrash about how God spends His day -- part of it is devoted to teaching the Torah to children who died too young to learn it from their parents.
MD: You guys are too much.
When did your pope John Paul condemn islam? He made a terrible mistake of kissing the koran, which was used through out the world by muslims. I don't remember any public declaration that those who follow islam are lost and need to come to Jesus Christ to be saved.
If I missed this I stand corrected, but when did it occur?
...the Pope has sympathy for those with whom he disagrees, for unbelievers.
Where is the sympathy if by silence people don't hear The Gospel.
Of course, hatred has no eyes for charity and sympathy, and naturally will belittle and demean the first tentative outreach to non-Christians, while it also mocks the Church for insufficient evangelical effort -- thus displaying once again that the concern is not truth but condemnation whether true or untrue.
Where is the hatred in asking if this pope ever stood up to the evil of islam?
So, I am tired of spending energy trying to point out how stupid and malicious it is to think the Pope doesn't condemn Islam.
Is this to say he never publicly pointed out that followers of islam are going to hell?
If it makes people good to feel superior to John Paul the Great, let them.
If leaders of churches don't preach The Gospel to the lost what good are they? Anybody can sing to a choir that is singing the same song. Everyday Evangelists are preaching The Gospel to the lost at great personal risk. How does it help them when the leader of the largest church kisses the koran and never tells muslims how they are damned.
Amen.
A mistake that someone should have had the good sense to stop. Did pope John Paul overcome this error in judgment by preaching The Gospel to the lost? Did he point out to them that without Jesus Christ as their Savior they would be damned? If so, when did he do that?
“Only a fool would think the latter. / Straw dogs abound.”
No, it isn’t a straw dog or man. It is an logical outcome of Calvinism that I left the church I had been a member of for 5 years over - does God so love the world, or does He only love certain men and hate others?
I have had Romans 9 inappropriately tossed in my face too many times: “13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
That section does not involve predestination of individuals, but a number of Calvinists have told me it does - and that God hates some men because He can, and He then prevents them from repenting so He can send them to hell for His pleasure.
Indeed, I met a guy about 6 months ago who stopped going to church as a kid after the church debated singing “Jesus Loves Me” - since Jesus only loved the Elect. So yes, there are people out there who object to a kid singing Jesus Loves Me, and there are some who think it bad theology to have “Jesus Loves You” on a T-shirt!
The problem with Calvin is that he didn’t understand corporate election. We are elect IN CHRIST - those who believe are joined to Christ, and IN HIM we have everything else.
He also misunderstood what ‘dead in sin’ means. It means we are separated from God, not incapable of repentance. The Prodigal Son was “DEAD”, yet he repented and returned to his father. And for every verse talking about us being dead in sin, there are more talking about us being “blind”, or “slaves”.
Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Rom 6:19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
Luk 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
Mar 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
And the key is faith, as Jesus demonstrated many times:
Mat 9:29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
Mar 2:5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”
Mar 5:34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”
Mar 10:52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.
When Jesus was asked, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”, he replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent...I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6)
IF we believe, we are united with Christ and IN HIM we are the elect, and IN HIM predestined to be like Him.
IIRC, the controversy was that he stayed till the end of the event, stood and shook hands with the thug and left as the event was ending. If I'm wrong I stand corrected, but I do recall watching video of this and he did not stand up and walk out during the thug's tirade.
Then, when the pope stood, they shook hands again!
Thank you Dr. E.!
If ever a moment existed when "good manners" should be ignored this was it!
Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
A. This question assumes a deterministic framework. Each person is a unique being who has the God given capability to make his own choices ex nihilo. One person believes and not another because one chose to believe, and the other did not.
Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
A. This is a non-scriptural definition of death. Death does not mean “unable to respond”, rather, it means “separated from God”. In the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32), the father states “my son was dead, but now is alive. He was lost, and now is found” (Luke 15:32). The son was able make decisions, including the decision to go home. Yet, he was separated from relationship with his father, and dependent on his father for reconciliation. To be dead is to be separated from Christ. To be alive is to be in relationship with Christ. Making choices does not give one the ability to be reconciled to Christ absent his consent.
Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
A. This is a statement that Arminians fully agree with! Arminians believe in prevenient grace, that God is in the process of drawing non-believers to himself. It is God’s drawing that enables the sinner to believe. We differ with Calvinists in that 1) We believe scripture teaches that God gives a measure of genuine grace to everyone (Titus 2:11), and 2) We believe that grace is resistible (John 5:34,39-40).
More common questions with answers at:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Jackson.Answers-to-Common-Calvinist-Questions
That there is a disagreement between my definition and that of others does not in itself prove that my definition is the one that is lacking.
It is based on the notion that no one freely chooses evil, knowing it to be evil. Just as the vices are not "existents" in themselves but defects in virtue, so a choice to do evil is not a choice but a defect in choosing.
It is the nominalist view that the will sort of stands back from the choice between good and evil and mutters, "Hmm, what to do, what to do?" (I don't mean that because it's nominalist it's wrong. I'm just distinguishing.)
A nominalist would say God is not free to do evil. A Realist would say God is utterly free and therefore he does the good.
Your list is incomplete. I went into lengthy detail (for your benefit) to show you that other books (besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles)for doctrinalm purposes and you ignore it.
I showed you that some churches considered some books diametrically opposed. I showed you that doctrine was not based and is not based solely on the core books of the NT, but that other books played and play a role in the formation of doctrine.
I showed you that doctrine in various churches was heterodox just as the canons were. Your seem to reject or ignore all that and insist that the important thing is that everyone agreed on the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. Rubbish.
Your list mentions only "churches" rather than bishops or individual apologetics (except Origen), even though "churches" did not decide what to read but the bishops—a fact which you also ignore because it runs counter to the Baptist fairytale of Christian "democracy".
I suppose, ignoring the facts is one way to create the world just as you like it. Why not! After all, you yourself admit that Protestants do exactly that when it comes to theology. Otherwise they don't believe it. It's got to be their way or highway. What else is new? We don't want the truth to get in the way of fairytales.
Mary, I believe I answered your request. Apparently is has encountered a brick wall. Good luck.
“However, other Arminians have chosen a different line of argumentation against the classical Calvinistic understanding. They posit that the election of Ephesians 1:3-4 concerns the election of a corporate body of believers in Christ. It is not an election of the individual, but rather a choice of a body that all those who will trust in Jesus Christ for salvation can be a part of. With this view, Christ is presented as the foundation of the election of the church in Ephesians 1:3-4, and as the object election in 1 Peter 2:6. As the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), Christ’s election includes the election of his body. Thus, there is a strong connection between the election of the church and Christ’s election.”
I didn't look into the sources at all. I just thought the info was rather interesting in light of all the heat on such matters.
EVERYTHING else is a distraction from this simple argument. I bit off a small piece and everyone is trying to make it into something more than I can chew.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . . That little business of being accused by your cohorts--not you--comes to mind--where this phony Mount Everest about UFO stuff was fabricated on a grain or two of sand. Which is just to say, I, at least, amongst the Proddys am extremely familiar with the phonenon rather frequently hereon. LOL.
Every possible word and phrase some Proddys write is likely to be EXPERIMENTED with from every possible angle and meaning to see how much I/we can be trashed in the routine KILL THE MESSENGER campaign.
IN fact the persistence in making this impossible kind of argument leads me to wonder if your side is really interested in argument or is interested only in winning by hook or by crook, and especially by rope-a-dope, or getting us to spend our energy on bogus issues raised only to tire us out.
I don't think so--not by most of us anyway. There is a human element wanting to win that can easily creep in on both sides with almost any of us. However, I don't think most of us on the Proddy side and I don't feel that way about you or Legatus . . . give in to that much at all.
We do care passionately about our perspectives and certainly Proddys care passionately about Scripture as THE authority and about the Mary stuff. And RC's care passionately about Mary and THE INSTITUTION etc. etc. etc.
I think those passions are plenty explanation for a lot.
In the matter at hand, I still think there's some missing something from you . . . you still seem to be denying that folks like MetMom and RNMomOf7 et al can have an entirely "valid," thoroughly consistent--consistent with other parishioners--consistent over time--consistent Roman Catholic experience which is askew from what you or other RC's hereon would assert is kosher Roman Catholocism.
That is NOT per se because they are NOT AUTHENTIC AND ACCURATE EXPERTS on THEIR EXPERIENCE of Roman Catholocism. They are NOT LYING about THEIR EXPERIENCE of Roman Catholocism. They are NOT LABELING it's factors & features inaccurately in terms of THEIR EXPERIENCE.
My own explanation is that THE INSTITUTION IS SO VAST, DIVERSE, COMPLEX, VARIED, . . . that it is bound to have diverse yet locally consistent manifestations of itself.
I actually think that MetMom, RNMomOf7 et al's descriptions of their RC EXPERIENCES ARE MUCH MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPERIENCES OF MOST ROMAN CATHOLICS than you seem remotely willing to acknowledge.
That's a puzzle. I don't think that the most valid explanation of the puzzle is that such former RC's are lying; inaccurate; clueless; poorly catechised or whatever other dozen excuses are used to side step their reports of their EXPERIENCES and perspectives.
I'm tempted to get into some analogy but haven't the time and haven't yet awakened fully enough to want to bother. My OJ is on its way. This will be an issue I suspect I'll be coming back to.
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.