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.
The claim was made that we are free to choose our own paths. This is not what the scriptures tell us. Jonah is one of the most obvious examples but there are plenty more. If we truly had free will as some would claim, then when Jonah ran God would have simply shrugged and say, "Oh well, there's plenty more of those fish in the sea."
A question I've asked before: If free will choice were demonstrated to you to be true, would you accept it?
I believed in man's free will for 30+ years. I never even heard of Calvin during that time. But I could NEVER reconcile passages in scripture. When I would ask people they simply say "It's a mystery". Well, no, I don't buy into half the Bible being a mystery. God CHOSE a whole nation, and do people really want to argue that God doesn't choose people? The logic is a bit overwhelming.
Free will can't be demonstrated to me as being true because it has been demonstrated to me as being false. What kind of "free will" did Jonah have if God pursued him, made a fish to swallow him, and waited for Jonah to either repent or be digested? Clearly your not going to argue that Jonah had the freedom NOT to preach to Nineveh?
Non-Christians CANNOT make any choices that pleases God.
Christians ARE free to make choices that pleases God. This isn't an illusion. It is a loving Father who guides our hands to make the right choices that are pleasing to Him. He gives us our works but it is all His doing. It is His guidance that we chose wisely.
You have that exactly backwards according to scripture:
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
They were not appointed to eternal life BECAUSE they believed. They believed because they were appointed to eternal life. Otherwise Acts is wrong.
Except that Augustine was before Calvin and was a prominent Church father.
The end of the story is already written. Is that preprogrammed? Can you change the prophecy of scripture?
Non sequitur. It doesn't follow logically.
I believed in man's free will for 30+ years. I never even heard of Calvin during that time. But I could NEVER reconcile passages in scripture.
You are describing your thought process, weighing various factors, concerning your choice of what you believe.
Free will can't be demonstrated to me as being true because it has been demonstrated to me as being false.
And, therefore, you made the free will choice not to accept it.
QED, friend.
No, just a statement of foreknown fact.
Does prophecy cause or foresee?
I grew up in a Protestant denomination that emphasized personal holiness and "entire sanctification", in practical terms that involved: going to church 3 times a week, revivals, tithing, praying for missionaries and meals, nightly family extemporaneous prayer and Bible reading. It also meant no movie theaters, no dancing, no tobacco use, no alcohol, no playing cards, no Sunday newspaper, no Sunday shopping. It meant camp meeting and district assembly every summer, oh, and a week of church camp as well. No family could have been more fully involved than mine.
I'm not saying all of that properly understood isn't fine, but I am saying: THAT WAS IT. I don't ever remember anything that could even remotely be considered instruction in how to apply all that Bible reading to personal conduct. Personal holiness in practical terms consisted primarily in what one didn't do. I was a preacher's kid, one would think that if there was some secret level of spiritual development I would have known about it.
No wait... I forgot James Dobson, and with good reason. Three years of therapy to get that mess out of my head, thanks a lot Jimmy.
Great, I think I blacked out for about 10 minutes, where was I?
Oh yes, it was Bible, Bible, Bible, interpreted however the Sunday School teacher, childrens church director, preacher, evangelist or youth pastor chose to interpret it. Much scorn was heaped on the Catholics who drank, smoked, danced and ran to confession every Saturday... as if that was all that was available to them and it wasn't their fault if they didn't make use of the enormous deposit of spiritual help.
There never seemed to be any introspection on back-biting, calumny, detraction, or GLUTTONY! The very word "charity" was a dirty word because the Catholics had used it to replace agape apparently (hey, I didn't make this stuff up). And of course the fact that all we had to do whenever we were "under conviction" was tell God we were sorry. Talk about a case of mass projection.
That was the thing, we were using everything the denomination had to offer and comparing ourselves to the absolute bottom line minimum Catholics, rejoicing in our self-righteousness and completely missing the point that we were as spiritually pathetic as the worst of Catholics.
Oh there were gems among all the places I lived... my mind may be playing tricks on me but I recall that most of them were ex-Catholics.
It kinda makes sense of what you're saying through the lens of the mistakes of Calvin especially
My experience both on FR and in real life agrees with yours. My boss is ex Catholic and is now a force in a rising wanna be mega church. He actively recruited me when I accepted employment; there have been other examples in the area of that as well. Given the apologetics that I learned, from among other places, here, he has not mentioned that rather new age feelgood non Biblical "Bible believing" cult in quite some time.
No wait... I forgot James Dobson, and with good reason. Three years of therapy to get that mess out of my head, thanks a lot Jimmy.
Anything in particular or just general semantics?
Oh yes, it was Bible, Bible, Bible, interpreted however the Sunday School teacher, childrens church director, preacher, evangelist or youth pastor chose to interpret it. Much scorn was heaped on the Catholics who drank, smoked, danced and ran to confession every Saturday... as if that was all that was available to them and it wasn't their fault if they didn't make use of the enormous deposit of spiritual help.
I never smoked very much and am not very fond of dancing...
Oh, yuck. 8~)
I thought it had something to do with pirate flags.
Clearly, smelly pirates.
That's something I admire about you, Dr. E. Consistency.
The book "Preparing for Adolescence" which was published in the late 70s almost single-handedly wrecked my life. I remember my mother crying out "You used to be so loving and kind, what's happening to you?" some years later I realized that what I had wanted to say was "if you could get all this Dobson stuff out of the house I might have a chance of actually becoming myself instead of this freak it's trying to turn me into." ... er, or words to that effect. So yeah... that took 3 years of intense therapy to work out. :)
30+ years later and if someone wants to send me into a feral rage all that has to be done is for a Dobson book to be tossed into my line of sight. Maybe I just didn't understand what he was getting at, but there's like a 14 year block of my life when I wouldn't allow another human being to so much as touch me, I mean down to little old ladies at church trying to hug me... I'd clothesline them. Sorry grandma, you invade my personal space and you're going down. And no, there's no deep dark secret lurking in my childhood, it's just how I reacted to Dobson's psychology.
We all have our little issues.
Hmm... I think I need to put him on my don't ask don't tell list. lol
That's something I admire about you, Dr. E. Consistency.
Your comment is indecipherable. Were you following this particular discussion or was this just another drive-by fruiting?
Now using that mindset, when Catholics look upon Protestant denominations, they believe that all denominations must similarly be fully exclusivist towards all other denominations. They think that Protestants exclude all denominations/members not their own from the full body of Christ, because that's how it Catholics themselves approach others. While some "Protestant" congregations and denominations (using those terms loosely) may act that way towards outsiders, the majority do not (and the creedal ones IMO less so).
I find it amusing that it was Calvinists and Presbyterians who came up with the "Five Fundamentals" (where the perjorative "fundamentalist" comes from) as an ecumenical tool to find common ground with Christians of all persuasions (including Catholics and Orthodox). I myself can find fruitful, common ground with any and all Trinitarian Christians (Trinitarianism being my personal "outermost circle" for defining Christianity. Sure, we might argue doctrine, we might argue about what are "doctrines of demons" or what is the "gospel of Satan", but those are inter-family squabbles as far as many of us are concerned. Catholicism and Orthodoxy cannot reach across the aisle and say the same, IMO.
Great post and wonderful links, Alex. Thanks.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
They were not appointed to eternal life BECAUSE they believed. They believed because they were appointed to eternal life. Otherwise Acts is wrong.
In context, Acts 13 represents the first public preaching to the Gentiles. From verses 16-45, Paul and Barnabas preach to the Jews, and NOT the Gentiles. But when they reject the Gospel, we find verses 46-48:
46And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “’I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” 48And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
A POSSIBLE interpretation is the one HarleyD advances - that they were ordained to salvation as individuals, and then believed. And if this was a common phrasing of the conversion experience, that interpretation would have a lot of strength.
However, another POSSIBLE interpretation notices that 30 verses were addressed to the Jews, and only in verse 46 does it change. And what did P&B say to the Jews? That they “judge [themselves] unworthy of eternal life” - which doesn’t sound like irresistible grace.
In verse 47, they proclaim that they are also sent to the Gentiles, and in 48 “when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
So another interpretation is that ‘as many as were appointed’ refers to the fact that it wasn’t just Jews receiving the message, but the Gentiles who were also appointed for salvation by God. Until this point, only Cornelius has received the Gospel as a Gentile, and he was a special case: “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.”
There is at least one other way of looking at it, found at this link:
http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/search/label/Exegeting%20Acts%2013%3A48
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”GK Chesterton in "Orthodoxy":
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.
"Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. .....47 has not given two contradictory truths, but Chesterton's description still stands
He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus, he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. ....
It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man."
And yet, note that if Calvinist belief is that babies who die prematurely are all “elect” and going to heaven, does it logically also follow that Calvinists should kill all babies since they would then go to Calvinist heaven since they were all predestined?
Precisely because they were told they were saved no matter what they did. Remember Luther's pecca fortiter?
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.