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.
Maybe Catholics need a scorecard....See they can not tell us apart because we really do have the same basic doctrinal positions ...LOL
You may find my previous post 5590 helpful as well.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2578704/posts?page=5590#5590
Dont think so, he was busy doing what Rome has never done.. writing bible commentary and a book of systematic theology
"We discussed what Calvin wrote in his commentary on Genesis about music and its role in Christian worship. Here in the Strasbourg Psalter published 1544, was included “I Greet Thee Who My Sure Redeemer Art,” clearly not a strict Psalm versification (though it has hints of Psalm 67 in it, “shine on us with the light of thy pure day”). Calvin commended Psalm singing, versified poetry from the Psalms himself, commissioned Clement Marot, the work carried on by Beza after him, but nowhere during or after his time in Strasbourg, where German Lutheran hymns were widely sung, did he condemn the writing or singing of hymns of human poetic composition. In the Geneva Psalter published 1551, Calvin included “I greet thee.” Some hymnologists believe Calvin wrote this hymn; it is very Calvin and may have been so; the fact that we don’t know who wrote it is actually a vote in favor of humble, un-self-serving Calvin."
http://roxborogh.com/REFORMED/calvinhymn.htm
Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops,Prior to....
The fact that you don't agree with the Church's interpretation of Scripture DOES NOT MEAN that they don't refute Calvinist beliefs.
Regarding the original posting of this thread, who knows what thread simply gathers people's attention?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in this case it was almost certainly the title.
As far as the other Calvinist thread goes, I was chastised by the RM the other day for bringing one thread over to another.
So, the fact that Calvinists haven't called Arminians satanic and blasphemous on THIS THREAD means it didn't happen?
But since you brought it up, if one had actually read that thread they would have seen it is an interesting take on infant baptism which reminds us once again that John Calvin believed children who die in infancy all go to heaven -- something Rome completely denies and Arminians remain divided over.
Once more, you have yet to show that the Catholic Church teaches that unbaptized infants do not go to Heaven. The FACT is that Scripture is silent on this. Besides, I thought Calvinists believe that only the "elect" are saved, are you suggesting that ALL children who die before being baptized are saved? If this is true, wouldn't that make infanticide a "positive" action?
I realize Roman Catholics are made uncomfortable by dissent.
Only when dissent morphs into bigotry, as it often does on these threads.
Protestants, not so much. Protestants know they are called to rightly divide the word, and that takes effort and thought rather than simply swallowing the latest edict from an anti-Scriptural bureaucracy with its own anti-Scriptural agenda.
Really, Protestants enjoy being called satanic and blasphemous?
“It is a presumption for a catholic to speak for MANY Calvinists”
I have had the same thought, somewhat revised:
“It is presumption for a calvinist to speak for MANY Catholics.”
Wesleyan Doctrine is typically referred to as holiness doctrine and is closely aligned with the Catholic doctrine of a works based theology.. which is why some may call it satanic.... roots in Catholicism
So it is ok to teach children incorrect doctrine?
Do all baptized babies that die in infancy go to heaven? Do all unbaptized infants that die go to heaven? That is the question and the answer is????????
Even Benedict XVI acknowledges that he can err in matters of doctrine. I see nothing in the relevant constitutions which say a pope is always and everywhere protected from teaching error.
In fact, there is a suggestion that the definition of papal infallibility was influenced by the mess around Honorius I. If so, perhaps the influence was shown in the precise description of the circumstances under which a pope is protected from error.
My reading suggests that Honorius's evident approval of Monotheilitism was not promulgated in an encyclical.
It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.It is embarrassing to read something proposed as an ineluctable and baffling dilemma and then to find that the case was oversimplified to the point of mendacity.
And maybe this is the place to point out that the matter of Honorius I and papal infallibility has nothing to do with the ludicrous OP of this thread or with any of the ninety-eleven unrelated attacks on Catholicism. Not only is any old stick good enough to beat a catholic with, but any old pretext is fit to introduce a vast and scattered array of charges.
This is why I only engage in "constructives" in response to assaults. There is no evidence that many of our adversaries really are interested in the Truth anything like as much as they are interested in some fleeting rhetorical victory.
Not so much okay as unavoidable. Theology is always wrong. The task is beyond the 'logos' we have. Kiddie theology is doomed. If the kids are froward and do not persist in learning, they will be stuck with a childish vision and understanding of the Church.
The answer is, from a strictly dogmatic standpoint, as Cronos said, “We don’t know for certain”.
But as the catechism clearly states, we are permitted to believe they do.
This may not be a satisfactory answer for you, and if so, I’m sorry. You must understand the subtlety of the situation here. You are asking a question that demands both a dogmatic reply and a personal reply.
Put another way, if I’m in a theological debate and I’m asked that question, I will answer, “The Church cannot say for certain as a matter of dogma”
But if a grieving mother asks me the same question, I would answer, “I’m sure your baby is in Heaven”
You may, at this juncture retort, “But that is contradictory; you can’t have both answers be true.”
Both answers can be true though because, one is answering a theological charge, who’s only purpose can be to trap the Church in some theological mistake, while the other is asking an honest, truly human question, that has a truly human need attached.
This is actually why the Church is quite reticent to define anything dogmatically until and unless there is sufficient reason to do so. There will always be some who seek to trap Her with her own words.
I don’t know your motivation for asking the question, since I can’t read minds, which is why I gave both answers.
May I guess you were studying anti-Catholic forensics when you might have acquainted yourself with the fact that only death prevented Aquinas from completing a massive work of Systematic Theology while he also wrote hymns and prayers?
Asking you who Jesus is was the next logical step in my argument. The answer to the question is Peter's reply to Jesus, and this reply is the rock upon which the church is built. This "rock" is God's supernatural revelation to Christians and no Christian ever reaches it on his own accord. You however claim that you did. But then again, perhaps you think the man Peter is the rock.
and I eat babies
Read the thread. Calvin believed all children who die in infancy go directly to heaven.
Do you believe God gives us the number of days of our lives? Or does He just get us born and we determine the length of our life?
If God gives us the number of days of our lives, then it is reasonable to believe He brings the little children to Him by His grace, as Jesus said.
Sadly, Rome teaches that unbaptized babies do not go to heaven but to a fictional land called Limbo where they are deprived of the presence of God for eternity.
Now THAT is satanic.
And as we read from the RCC catechism (1250) parents "elect" their own children when they get them baptized. lol. Yeah, that's in the Bible.
Not.
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.