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.
” you don’t have any faith in the evidence you offer, but simply use it to prove anyone who does believe it is stupid.”
Hmmmm....the Religion Moderator must be sleeping, because you are breaking the rules by “mind reading” again. Or else is it possible that the rules only apply to Catholics, but not to you?
Then what is all this about praying for other people? What's the bank of merit where a RC can earn points by praying and then give them to someone else for their salvation?
The RCC says if someone prays according to a certain rotation (I forget exactly what it is now) that person can earn days off in purgatory for themselves or for others.
Which is nuts.
The RCC catechism says good works are required for salvation.
And this is not Scriptural. Good works are the result of our salvation, of the rebirth by the Holy Spirit; they are not the cause of our salvation.
The cause of our salvation is the good work Christ performed on the cross on our behalf and mercifully imputed to us, by the grace of God for the glory of God.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5
I’m simply repeating what Kosta has told us many times. And I think Kosta knows that I’m not saying this with malice. If he wants the RM to pull the comment, it’s fine by me. I just hope he gets to read it first so he doesn’t think I’m ignoring his posts without cause.
Oh. In other words, you didn’t break the rule, and if you did, it didn’t count. Got it.
I prefer to get it directly from my Church.
God is not capricious
But according to your doctrine you have nothing to base that statement on since God elects or condemns:…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 moving Him thereunto…
Apparently you think all men need to earn their own salvation.
I'm sorry I cannot attempt to reply or discuss my views if you insist on stating my views incorrectly or not attempting to get them correctly. I am, seriously, trying to be correct about your doctrine and view - I abhor them and slam them - but I do try to get them correct first.
If you'd care to start again...
Same chapter, same answer.
I really don’t see an honest attempt to understand Catholic belief on faith, grace, works and salvation. I only see repeated distortion.
If the effort to correct distortions could bring us to honest disagreement on what we actually believe, it would be worth it. But it has been done so many times without effect.
I’m sorry.
Whoops.
I just remember I owe you a massive rebuttal, concerning Natural Law, on the old other thread. I completely forgot. I'll get my hammer and tongs out...
I quoted the RCC catechism and New Advent. If those aren't good enough for you, welcome to the revolution. 8~)
God has already condemned all sinners. Some men He rescues. Some he leaves in their sins. It's His call. You have men attempting to earn their salvation even though Paul tells us faith is a gift of God's free grace.
God doesn't tell us why He elects as He does except to say it is not in men to will their own salvation nor to run for their own salvation, but for God to show mercy.
I'm sorry if it perturbs you that Roman Catholicism presents itself to the world as a works-based religion. Many RCs on this forum have explained that men must do enough good works to merit God's favor. That's why they say the Rosary, why they do charitable works, why they pray for others -- because men must earn their salvation.
All of which is anathema to the God of grace. We cannot merit the gift, and so God gives it freely to whom He will.
No one is turned away from God. All who seek Christ will find Him. But the very desire for Christ is part of God's regeneration which He works to bring a man to faith in Christ.
He does not regenerate everyone, or everyone would be saved.
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9:20.)
Same old, same old. Men love to boast.
Good grief, the final insult from the RC apologist — you don’t understand RC belief.
Yes, many of us DO understand. It’s not that difficult. It’s pretty basic, in fact, when you go back and read the source materials like the RCC catechism and New Advent and Roman Catholic Caucus threads, etc.
It becomes painfully clear. “Another Christ” is “another Christ.” A re-sacrifice” is a “re-sacrifice.” A “co-redeemer” is a “co-redeemer.” “Another mediator” is “another mediator.”
We get it. Scripture denies it.
I find that extremely difficult to believe. Do you have any examples of those "many RCs"? Can you name an RC who posted that "men must earn their salvation"? Or were those statements pulled out of the air?
No, those aren't my words. Those are your words.
My words said what I meant. I think Kosta understands. If you don't, it doesn't bother me.
Why is saying 20 Rosaries more efficacious in confessing your sins that saying 10 Rosaries?
Hello? Now it is clear why what you say needs translating.
Good night, Judith. It’s been swell.
Oh, I understand that your posts are special, where the rules are concerned.
Your posts do not indicate that you get it. They seem more determined than ever not to get it.
I cannot argue for a belief I do not hold.
I’ve watched folks labor to give you the correct vocabulary and doctrine, where it is clear, where it is more open to each believer - long posts that show precisely why your presentation of Catholic beliefs are incorrect. To no effect.
And the effort to get to a point of honest, yet passionate, debate on what Catholics believe has over and over again been futile.
The only thing I’m left with is getting your beliefs correct and arguing against them. If I have them wrong, please let me know.
But unless there is the corollary with my beliefs, it’s just, well, useless to try to defend and argue them.
It has long been obvious that that point can never be reached because all disagreement with Rome is seen as ignorance of Rome.
We get it. It's not difficult to understand.
We disagree with it.
You think "co-redeemer" and "another mediator" makes sense. Are Scriptural. Are truthful. Are reality.
And they are none of these.
They are errors which contradict the word of God, deny Christ His due and diminish the power and intent of the Holy Spirit.
Again and again and again.
Further you may think you are paraphrasing my beliefs correctly, but I can assure you , you are not. You misstate them over and over.
Do I whine that you are dense and don't understand? No, I try again to state my beliefs, hoping that lurkers at least can read productively.
WOULD
it kill you
NOT TO SPIT
when you address me?
Certainly if it would, then GO RIGHT AHEAD and spit yourself
silly.
But if we're not
Talking
about a stroke or a HERNIA
then maybe you could KIND of, oh, I don't know...
!!!STOP SPITTING!!!
I realize that the religion forum is sort of the dumping ground for "you're a booger brain"
"NO YOU ARE"
kind of "debate" but frankly my clothes are getting wet.
One of the things that foncuzes me about the religion forum is we can't call each other liars but we certainly can treat each other like liars. It seems a thinly veiled hypocrisy... well actually there's no veil at all, it's blatantly obvious.
We can't "make it personal" soooooooooooooooooo, rather than treat each other like persons we treat each other like objects... like toys, playthings.
One of the lessons I have been trying to teach my children for as long as they can remember is that they must never treat another person like a toy, it degrades everyone involved.
Earlier this evening my 10 year old daughter was holding our miniature dachshund for the zillionth time and I said "Honey, let the dog go" and of course the dog ran for the safety of my feet. I asked my child if she didn't understand that the dog doesn't like to be held. I asked her to consider that every time she releases him he runs away. I pointed out that a year ago he'd run to her and now he runs away. I reminded her that now he snaps at her when she gets in his face when he used to lick her nose.
I very quietly explained to her that she is treating the dog like an object, like a toy. I asked her if she wanted people to treat her like a toy and what she would think of someone who treated her the way she treats the dog... and her sisters... and her brothers.
After she described how bad she would feel I told her that was how the dog thought of her in his doggy way.
Then came the lesson of the night: When we treat the people with whom we interact as means to an end, as unpersons, as grist for the mill, as things, we become exactly that: a thing. We pour our humanity upon the altar of our own self-glorification and we become an empty husk that is barely even self-aware, much less cognizant of the damage we do as we blunder through a pointless existence and eventually slouch towards an impersonal but singular Gomorrah.
Maybe one day she'll get it but I expect tomorrow will find me saying "Honey, just put the dog down. Oh, and stop kicking your sister do you think I'm blind?"
But your doctrine lists what is not part of the decision:
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 moving Him thereuntoIt has nothing to do with us. This is not "with God there is no respecter of individuals," but God is no respecter of anything involving a totally depraved human species. I'm juxtaposing this against "God loves you" and "love your enemies" as Christ taught us.
Your doctrine at its foundational relationship between man and God goes off in the other direction from Jesus Christ.
No one is turned away from God. All who seek Christ will find Him.
That's trying to finesse the doctrine. Men are born incapable of seeking Christ, incapable of believing in HIm. They are condemned before they are even born.
This is contrary to Christ's teaching.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
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.