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.
There it is again...
I'm trying hard not to. Please, now or in the future, let me know when I get them wrong.
I look forward to seeing anything written by Dr E that you have misstated.
Because I don’t think there is such a thing.
I have long pondered your collective infatuation with all things "Rome" and why non-Catholics would spend so much time on any topic in which they had no personal stake. After long reflection and prayer I believe I know the answer. The Holy Spirit is doing this so that you may learn what "Rome" teaches and to help facilitate your plan for Salvation. May God bless your continued journey across the Tiber.
ROFLOL!
Was Jonah predetermined to preach at Ninevah? Did he choose to go to Ninevah or did God choose for him? He had a choice to sit in the belly of the fish or go. Whose choice was it?
Here is what the Westminster Confession states about free will and the effectual calling of man:
Of Free Will
I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.[1]
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]
III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]
IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]
V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.[11]
Chapter X
Of Effectual Calling
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]
The Summa uncompleted? Didn't know that. Or was he planning another massive work?
Sure. Unbelievers say no constantly to the gospel call or anything that would please God. They will NEVER say yes unless God intervenes. This is what David states when he say,
The Lord shepherds us. He WILL use that rod and staff to guide us to green pastures. He leads us where we should go and restores us for His righteousness sake-not ours. Does this sound the least bit familiar? It's Psalms 23.
Believers are a stiff-neck people who are bent on following their own sin nature. And left to our own devices we would degenerate into the wickedness of the world. Ever served on a staff to pick out carpeting for the church? God guides us past that to work His will. There is no greater evidence in scripture of this than Jonah.
However, I"m not Jonah. Nor is Jonah you or me, or the world. I know no prophets, and no one with the miraculous experiences of a Jonah. But we do all have our times in the belly of the fish, and we can choose to call out to God - or we can choose not to. And our choices have consequences - in ours and other's lives.
Here, we are not talking about OT prophets, but about the world's salvation, the Gospel, Jesus Christ and "whoever believes in him". Jesus expressed a little concern for those who required miracles. I think He would also be concerned about those who fail to see the miracles all around them. To me, original sin can be seen as "born making selfish choices" not aware, or forgetful of each miracle God sends our way.
Still God pursues us. We continue making choices - toward selfishness and pride, or toward God. No matter which, God is still there for us - at every second.
Is your part in the whole process of choices, in what you believe, whether you believe, where you pay attention, what you really hear, how you choose to react to others, to suffering, to joy… Is this all, and the choices you're making right now, an illusion?
A question I've asked before: If free will choice were demonstrated to you to be true, would you accept it?
They believe.
I think you could take a look at your view and see circular reasoning, combined with hindsight.
Everything you say in this context is only known, by you, looking backwards. Like this: had he been elect he would have believed, and we can know he’s not elect because he didn’t believe.
Consider eliminating the circle. He’s elect because he believed.
To complete the thought: God is omniscient, so he has perfect foresight.
When he sees the elect, he sees those who will believe. Not whom he will create only such that cannot *not*, believe, not those he will force to believe, but who will believe.
When He says elect, it’s a certain knowledge, when He says my sheep, it’s a certain knowledge. But knowing what choices we will make is not the same as making them for us.
Lord knows he gives us plenty of opportunity and reasons to believe, but He created us with free will and we can choose otherwise.
Perhaps because He valued real relationships with real people.
The Catechism isn't and isn't meant to be systematic theology (or a commentary for that matter) -- it's a summary of what the Church teaches. (Not sure what a "systematic scriptural Theology text" might be.)
And it doesn't use "proof texts" in any generally accepted understanding of the term. The "proof text" is whipping out one or several Scriptural verses and letting them stand alone (apparently deliberately ignoring the other Scriptural verses that offer a different or even apparently contradictory understanding), whether they're on point or not (anyway the way they're used on FR!). I believe historically this use of the proof text came in with Protestantism and -- in serious circles, at least -- was dead by the 18th century, because of its serious drawbacks, among them the "bumper sticker" approach to theology they represent and the incessant battles of the "dueling proof texts" that advanced no argument.
Adducing Scriptural sources in the course of an exposition or argument is a different thing altogether.
And in your theology, this desire for hell would have been implanted by God? That's what it sounds like to me.
Yeah, he didn’t finish the Tertia Pars, which, as far as I can tell should have been titled “Everything Else.”
2. This [Second] Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
2. Cf. John XXIII, encycL ">Pacem in Terris", April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. 19; Pius XI, encycl. "Mit Brennender Sorge", March 14, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encycl. "Libertas Praestantissimum", June 20, 1888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), p. 237-238.
“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 out 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...”
Legatus, you have a gift for expression that, with clarity and without condescension and contempt, peels away at masks and lays bare reality. It is a gift to be able to write and to write well and to say it as it is—better yet to do so as a talent used for the Lord.
Sorry, but Limbo was taught as doctrine by the Roman Catholic church for decades if not centuries.
Consider the Baltimore Catechism (keeping in mind you said Rome has "NEVER suggested Limbo as anything more than a THEORY"...)
BALTIMORE CATECHISM
Q. 402. Did Christ's soul descend into the hell of the damned?
A. The hell into which Christ's soul descended was not the hell of the dammed, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.
Q. 403. Why did Christ descend into Limbo?
A. Christ descended into Limbo to preach to the souls who were in prison -- that is, to announce to them the joyful tidings of their redemption.
Q. 404. Where was Christ's body while His soul was in Limbo?
A. While Christ's soul was in Limbo His body was in the holy sepulchre.
YADA YADA YADA...
Fascinating, you've found what the Baltimore Catechism wrote about the Harrowing of Hell.
As best I can tell, the only thing standing between you and some sort of "gotcha moment" is the rather inconventient fact that this has NOTHING to do with what we were actually discussing.
Here is what you wrote in post #5620:
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.
Here is what I wrote in post #5667 (you will notice that the Limbo I am talking about is in regards to unbaptized infants):
The Church has NEVER suggested Limbo as anything more than a THEORY. The Church has NEVER definitively stated that where the unborn/unbaptized are. And there has certainly NEVER been even a suggestion that they would be denied the presence of God for eternity.
Now, let's see what The Baltimore Catechism has to say about that:
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Now, a "common belief" IS NOT a doctrine and the phrase "similar to" certainly negates any presumption that it is a definitive statement.
The catechism is rife with proof texts ...but Catholics get a pass that evil Protestants don’t HUH?
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.