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.
Now what seems to be the most prideful?
You make my point, thank you. The Calvinist believes what you just said - "I don't know why God would elect me but there must be a reason."
A knowing smile, and just enough politeness not to say, "I'm Daddy's favorite because I'm the pretty one."
The non-Calvinist says, "I am ugly. I deserve God's wrath, and I know it. I repent and beg forgiveness!"
9He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' [I don't know why God would elect me but there must be a reason.] 13But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." - Luke 18
Who does Jesus say had pride - the one who believed he was Daddy's favorite, even if he couldn't put his finger on why, or the one who knew he was a sinner and begged for mercy?
I didn't hear the term 'elect' for years after I converted. The difference between individual and corporate election is this:
Individual: "I don't know why God would elect me but there must be a reason."
Corporate: "...whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life".
I'm not one of the elect because God picked me as an individual and rejected other individuals, I'm part because God cast his nets wide, and said "whosoever". All of our experience is that if God picked me as an individual, I must be special. If God took me because his net was open to anyone, then I have nothing to boast of - I'm just a whosoever.
Since I was in the military, I'll use an analogy. Suppose the recruiter came to my house and said, "Mr Rogers, we want you - YOU - to be one of The Few, The Chosen!" That would make me special. But if anyone between 18 & 23 was allowed to join, I'm not special...just of age. I"m a whosoever, not a first round draft pick!
I'll also add this scripture: "40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls."
Yes, I know - it was Peter, so I'm obviously calling everyone to return to Rome! < / sarcasm > But notice what he said: "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." Sure sounds like he expected his listeners to make a decision, doesn't it.
There is no room for boasting in 'whosoever'. There is plenty of room for boasting in 'God picked me - not a group, but me as an individual - guess I'm just prettier than the rest!'
As a note, I've met Calvinists who didn't seem at all proud, so I know it isn't a universal affliction. But I am bewildered why Calvinists think others are proud, when it is the Calvinists who teach that "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"...without ever realizing that was written over a thousand years after Jacob & Esau.
Corporate election, not individual. And as a side not, HarleyD has been serious & honest with me, and I do not believe his beliefs are rooted in pride. As I said, I have met humble Calvinists, and there is a reason the SEA requires agreement that Calvinists can be our brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree.
The honest reader of the CCC, the one reading to find out what it actually says, NOT the one who goes in only looking to pick incriminating cherries, knows that it says that Baptism is NOT absolutely necessary to salvation.
Really? So was God surprised when the church was both CONVERTED jews and Gentiles?
Scripture tells us that Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul the apostle to the gentiles..
The New Covenant belongs to the church, the saved..
GKC: good stuff. My beef with Calvin since 1970 has been not that he doesn’t make sense but more that ‘sense’ is all he makes. It doesn’t have the savor (related to sapientia) of Truth.
Did Calvin write any hymns?
What I have noticed is that certain anti-Catholics seem predestined to be a$$holes not nice people. I guess when you believe you are among the elect then you are exempt from actually adhering to the truth or acting upon the Scripture you claim to know so well. This is especially true when taunting and baiting those you absolutely know to be damned.
When every Catholic topic thread attracts the same parties who offer up the same lies about the Church, its history, its clergy, and its Catechism, ignoring the countless rebuttals and refutations, there is no point pretending that civil discourse is possible or that the truth can will ever be acknowledged. I for one have had enough of pretending we are dealing with decent, rational, and sane people. The Church is not endangered or even harmed by them, but their souls are in jeopardy.
34“You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
35“The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.
36“But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
- Matthew 12:34-37
Well, this thread has finally become a serious discussion on issues like canon, predestination and other issues. And, it has become a very good learning experience — even from Dr. E who can be very informative and people WILL read her posts if there are no insults.
Amen and thanks.
That's probably not the case as Arminian thought is pretty prevalent in Protestant and Evangelical Christianity. That's probably most likely because those who hold to Arminian thought don't self-identify with it and announce it.
There was a Buddhist FReeper, but he kept getting the nastiest sort of utter garbage from FReepers who had no clue about Buddhism (some thought it was worshipping a Chinese God!), and yet he was quite lucid and interesting. let me see if I remember his name.
That is not the question.. is that BARE BONES right or wrong ? Are you saying that incorrect doctrine was taught as a framework?
LOL... What about original sin? Can one enter heave with original sin?
From the current Catechism
1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."
So I ask again,if the catholic church teaches that baptism is a necessity to enter heaven where do unbaptized babies go? No more limbo..
The Baptism of infants
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51
1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52
1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53
Faith and Baptism
1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"
1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.
1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.
It is intentionally simplistic and incomplete. It was intended for an immature Catholic and sought to lay out a basic frameword and vocabulary for subsequent study.
As evidenced by a recent thread, many Calvinists actually believe that Arminianism is satanic and blasphemous.
They basically believe that all non-Calvinists are damned and that God wills non-Calvinists to damnation.
I appreciate that it is the practice of some Prtotestant sects to mine nuggets from Scripture to affirm what ever point of dogma suits its founder, but you cannot apply the same practice to the Catechism. Unlike a penal code, it must be taken in its entirety. When read and understood in its complete context it makes no such demand on infants for their salvation.
The phrase "without which" here refers to the birth of water and Spirit. The Catechism says that baptism "actually brings about" this birth, but it DOES NOT say that this is the only manner with which this birth can occur (the Holy Innocents have ALWAYS been considered Christian martyrs and saints, though they were never baptized).
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.