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.
Here’s the deal Roman Catholics don’t understand because their church has blinded them.
When a belief, practice or article of faith is explicitly taught in Scripture, it is incumbent for the Christian to follow that belief, practice or article of faith.
When not specifically spelled out in Scripture, the Christian has the liberty of conscience to follow that conscience.
Scripture does not clearly spell out the fate of babies who die in infancy. Therefore, we look to the rest of Scripture to formulate an opinion. And it’s just that. An opinion.
I’m content to believe babies who die in infancy go to heaven. I can certainly understand the alternate view that some may go to heaven and others might not.
But Scripture is very clear that there is no such thing as Limbo. Limbo is a figment of Rome’s over-active imagination. It is flagrantly false. It is a lie. And it leads to other errors.
AMEN!
Because it is understandable to believe infants are saved exactly the same way any man is saved -- not by works, but by grace.
Men can't earn their salvation. Infants can't earn their salvation.
It's all grace. Free and unmerited.
You can’t see it, but you just basically re-stated the Catholic approach to the question of scripture and infant death. Currently we lean, based, as you do, on other scripture, that God calls children to him.
However, for many Reformed, problem of infant death is only magnified by their doctrine, specifically the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The question of the death of children exposes the problem with the doctrine. To be consistent with doctrine your “free” belief must mean that only elect children die young and reprobate children never die young.
Such as?
I am not sure what you are referring to. Judaism believes that the messiah (the anointed one), or meshiyah, will accomplish among other things, the gathering of the scattered Jewish diaspora in "all four corners of the world" and bringing them back to Israel. Therefore the Jewish messianic mission is focused only on the Jews, the physically and spiritually lost sheep of the Jewish nation that wondered off.
If what the NT says is true, then something really doesn't fit. After all, Samaritans would have been first on the list, yet Jesus strictly prohibits his disciples going there! The Samaritan schism happened only a few hundred years prior and bringing them back into the fold would have given Israel a significant numerical advantage.
Not only would he know that but the nature of his innovations are simply not something an observant Jew (of any persuasion) would say, such as "I cam not to abolish the law but to fulfill it." I mean, to a Jew that is asinine.
The Jews believe that the Torah was written by God before Creation (not by Moses; Moses only received the Law by dictation). The OT itself says the Law is eternal, and is to be observed forever, and as such cannot be fulfilled. Oy!
It's not just frowning, he would have been stoned long before he had a chance to be crucified, and being associated with him would have been equal to crime, so all his disciples owuld have ended up on crosses too, or at least stoned to death. Stoning someone to death for even lesser things was not unheard of.
We all commit sins. Calvin and Scripture remind us that those who end up in heaven have had their sins paid for by Christ by the grace of God.
Men cannot earn their salvation. Infants cannot earn their salvation.
All of grace.
According to your Confession of Faith, you’re fate is determined in the womb, without any regard to anything.
It is a clear description of an unjust, capricious god. For every infant, child, man and woman.
If you teach this god to children, IMHO, it is just cruelty.
Paul addresses the points you raised regarding the Jewish expectations of Messiah and the reality that the law must be written on the hearts (in the Person of His Holy Spirit indwelling the human spirit) for no man can keep the whole law blameless, with his letter to the Romans and in his first letter to the Church at Corinth. As to the Jews, their current blindness serves God's purposes. He will lift the scales from their minds in His own good timing.
I’ll make it as clear and real as I can:
Could you stand up in front of a classroom of children and tell them:
Some of you sitting there are “foreordained to everlasting death.” God foreordained you to hell. And He hates you.
Could you do that?
No. No one would. For all I know every single one of those children are predestined to heaven.
I’m a postmillenialist. I believe more and more Christians is the ordained plan of God.
It’s a wheat field; not a tares field.
As far as any of us knows, every single person alive today could be among the elect.
We only have the evidence of the fruit they bear. And even then, tomorrow might be the day God has ordained that He would send the Holy Spirit to turn their eyes from sin to God.
You just never know. So we preach the Gospel to all men, and trust God for all the rest.
Romans 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
The legend (or "recollections" of Talmudic rabbis) says he lived to be 120 years (BC 110 - AD 10), like Moses. However, the Jewish sources, while admitting that Jesus may have been influenced by Hillel, provides a broader answer than Hillel does (who only mentions the brother love among Jews).
Correct. The Jews were not allowed to be intimate with foreigners, to eat with them, etc. They were considered profane. Their food was "unclean." Their gods were offensive to the Hebrew God, etc. Moreover, Leviticus specifically states that a Jew may not own a slave who is a Jew. But owning slaves who are not Jews was like owning property. The slaves and their children were part of the inheritance. It's all in the Old Testament.
That's why no observant Jew would seek to equate Jews with Gentiles. That is simply part of the Christian myth that was fabricated.
Pope Benedict tells of an interesting detail that occurred in 6 and 9 AD, but I am surprised he doesn't say that formal schism occurred at the time of the Babylonian captivity, circa 6th century BC.
I'm very glad to hear that. I'd keep them from reading Chapter 3 of the Westminster Confession as well. :)
You just never know. So we preach the Gospel to all men
Logically, again, it doesn't fit with your Confession. You are out of the equation - they are predestined.
As far as any of us knows, every single person alive today could be among the elect.
That, I believe, is the only way to get any kind of good and loving God from double predestination. Obviously, I think, we both would have problems with universalism, but it would at least avoid the beast of a god who foreordains a human fetus to hell "without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes"
As far as someone else knows, "every single person alive today" could be among the doomed as well. IF they believe the same Confession as you. Both statements are correct as far as the doctrine is concerned. As would be the in between of some are doomed, some are saved, for no "cause" from the womb.
God is either a universalist saviour or some measure of beast.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you interpreting this to mean:
God’s judgement is based on the actions of our ancestor’s actions; and,
God made us “bad” so he would have something to have mercy on.
?
Sure it could. it was not known to the entire Church for at least 300 years and to the east much longer.
Between Augustine and Anselm the Western Church became unrecognizable to the traditional East.
And Gregory of Nyssa at one point believed in heretical notion of the universal salvation he picked up from Origen, only to change his mind later on. The point is Cassian is not a heretic, just as Gregory of Nyssa isn't, or Augustine (he retracted many of his confessions, if you get a chance read his Retractions, not an easy book to find in stores), but Origen's and Pelagian teachings are.
The consensus patrum never accepted Pelagius or Augustine and their teachings never became Church-wide doctrine. The Church was never Pelagian. Augustinian beliefs subsisted in the West out of sight and out of mind of the East. When they were finally brought to the East they were flatly rejected.
Indeed, but the duty to raise the children in the ways of God applies to the fathers.
Exactly. Calvin believed otherwise...I guess he wasn't a real Calvinist! LOL.
D-fendr,
Do “you believe you can earn your way to heaven”?
Is this a correct assumption/presumption of what you believe?
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.