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.
“Why do I have a nagging suspicion that you think it’s Peter?”
Because I don’t call Catholics rude names?
Peter was given a special role. He opened the Kingdom of Heaven to the Jews at Pentecost, and the Gentiles in the home of Cornelius.
But the foundation is Christ, and it is against faith that the gates of Hell cannot withstand. Remember, the Gates of Hell are defensive, not offensive. The picture is the church on attack, not on defense.
As usual, Barnes gives good commentary:
And upon this rock, etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word ROCK refers to Peter’s confession; and that he meant to say, upon this rock— this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah—and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety; and in such confessions shall my church stand amidst the flames of persecution—the fury of the gates of hell.
Others have thought that he referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah—upon myself as the Messiah—I will build my church.”
Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles.
Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9.
But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed—a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible.
More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this:
“I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=016
Inherent in the question is the recognition that there was marriage permitted, otherwise I wouldn't have known that there had been married popes.
I can see how it looked like I thought that the Catholic church never permitted married priests. I do know that the Catholic church does not allow priests to marry, which you have verified. I was not aware of the Anglican thing going on.
As far as offering both elements of communion, again, when I was last regularly attending the Catholic church, they weren't. I wasn't wrong based on the knowledge I had. It was correct for the time, so no accusation of being poorly catechized can be made. One cannot be poorly catechized if one is not part of the church.
When did I quit going to the Catholic church? Answered somewhere else but likely you missed it so I won't make you hunt that one down. Back in the late 70's and then sporadically over the years for funerals and weddings.
And again, checking whether the cup was offered at communion, if they even offered it for that matter, at either of my parents funerals wasn't on my mind at the time. I just was not in the state of mind to notice or care.
Bears repeating, and we ex-Catholics do know better. We know what the Catholic church teaches because we were raised and catechized in it. We know what other Catholics that we worked with, went to school with, had communion parties, confirmation parties, marriages, and funerals with believed because we talked about it. Some of us even have family members who were in the Catholic clergy and really KNOW what the Catholic church teaches.
This gets back to what the Catholic church at the local level teaches and what you guys claim is *official* Catholic doctrine as defined by Rome.
I DO know what I was taught and what all the other Catholics I grew up with believed. I do know what my Catholic priest relatives said. Other former Catholics on these thread have verified that they were taught and believed the same things. The same *errors* are being widely taught apparently. You guys have bigger problems than us former Catholics in that case. There is a real lack of communication from the top down. But that has been verified in an earlier post by a fellow Catholic.
I was catechized as well as the rest of the Catholics in my sphere, and not many of them left the Catholic church. My leaving it had nothing to do with the quality of the catechism. I would not have stayed if I had been catechized better. Others didn't who were.
Hey, I appreciate the time and effort you put into accommodating that request. I also looked for some of those comment myself and didn't find them. Either I missed them or you have a better search ability that I. I am someone computer challenged since I do it recreationally and not for a living.
Got the Lemon Chicken done. Time to work on the carrot cake. I sure wish I could eat that stuff....
:(
Infants exist within a state of invincible ignorance. A God of infinite mercy would not condemn them to hell.
NO ONE is arguing that man is the source of grace. But God’s grace and faith are not interchangeable. They are not one.
We are saved by grace - God had no obligation to do ANYTHING for us. We all are sinners who merit condemnation and nothing else.
Yet by God’s unmerited favor, we are not doomed. If we believe his promise - if we believe in Jesus - then God saves us. Or we reject Him, and wallow in even more deserved condemnation!
Thus we are saved by grace, operating thru faith. And this grace is not of us, but of God. We had no claim on him, until he created a claim out of nothing - that anyone who believes shall be saved.
so, go ahead and boast, give yourself all the credit
how do you do that?
Carrot cake: the complete meal!
nice tag line
Catholics have unity alright. They’re all uniformly wrong, according to FRoman Catholics.
They have a bigger issue than *disunity* of beliefs from church to church or parishioner to parishioner.. They have whole churches full of people who are being taught things that the Vatican allegedly does not teach, that is allegedly (in some cases) not “official” church doctrine.
[One] can’t even get Catholics on this forum to agree about that little book Quix posted about Mary.
However, when [one] can find two passages within the Catechism of the Catholic Church which make diametrically opposite claims, [RC'S] can tell any non-Catholic that they’re *wrong* about any church doctrine. [PRETTY CLEVER, THAT! LOL]
I don't think they are 'uniformly' wrong . . . it's too convoluted and too much of a hodge-podge bunch of accusations and counter accusations amidst them . . . welll . . . not always accusations . . . claims and counter claims as to what is precisely orthodox . . . small wonder given the rather messy and massive Catechism.
NAW.
The contrary claims of RC’s hereon do quite well enough at that all on their own.
Sure that's what the Catholic church teaches and what Catholics believe, that unbaptized babies who die go to Limbo. It may not be technically *official* church doctrine, but that IS what the Catholic church teaches and that IS what Catholics believe. We're not wrong for relating what we know to be true. Your beef is with the diocese which teaches wrong.
Of course there isn't, but every Papal Declaration can be judged against the criteria necessary for it to be deemed infallible. When this is done there has been only one instance; in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, had proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary an ex cathedra dogma in December 1854.
Kind of depends some on what you consider the antecedent of *it*.
It can easily be read that the salvation is the gift and it makes more sense within the context, because it goes on to say, *not of works so that no man should boast*.
You don’t work to earn a gift.
Let's not forget Irish Coffee.
What you said....
the devils also believe— is that a saving belief?
Then they don't need to be baptized, now do they?
Ah, the Arminian war cry which has been denying the Gospel and returning the church to Rome for the past 500 years.
No wonder Arminians are such great friends of the magisterium. They carry water for those who look to their good works for salvation.
Arminians boast, while Calvinists fall to their knees in thanks.
Same old, same old.
As the whole of Scripture tells us, most specifically in Ephesians 2:8, faith is indeed a gift of God given by His free gift of grace. "Saved by grace through faith." None of which is of ourselves. "It is a gift of God," for, by and through Jesus Christ, "the author and finisher of our faith." From beginning to end.
The ability to repent, obey and believe is not a part of the natural man. He must first be born again; regenerated by the Holy Spirit to know the things of God.
And that rebirth is given not by the will or desire or work of men, but by the good pleasure of God alone for His glory.
Jesus very clearly said that we did not choose Him, but that He chose us.
And yet some Arminians still do not believe these words of Christ. So we shouldn't be too surprised they don't believe the words of Paul.
Just like the Romanists.
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.