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.
Calvinists may try to portray Arminians, Catholics, Methodists as satanic yet Calvinist doctrine taken to it’s logical ending seems to signify a support for abortionists since Calvin says that those unborn, unbaptised “elect” babies go to heaven. This logically measn that those killed in abortions are all, according to Calvin, “elect”? Does Calvinism them logically say that it should be wiser to “kill ‘em all” since that would make them elect and go straight to heaven?
It does make sense if you realise that limbo essentially is theologically used to mean “I don’t know”, hence “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. “ refers to the place where people like the OT prophets etc. were in before Christ opened the gates of heaven. Do you follow that?
The first limbus patrum IS doctrine seen as the temporary state of those who, in spite of the personal sins they may have committed, died in the friendship of God, but could not enter Heaven until redemption by Jesus Christ made it possible. That should be clear,right?
I did and what you quote there does in fact “define” what “children’s limbo” is by the words “we ought to believe” and hence “This is what Catholics usually mean”.
There would be no need for “centuries of speculation” if the Catholic Church accepted what the Scriptures say about the lot of those who died before Christ came.
On the contrary, this is EXACTLY what irresistible grace is about. Everyone is responsible for their own salvation. The Jews demonstrates the outward calling of God. The Jews are called to the wedding feast. Yet they will not come. Neither will the unbelieving Gentiles.
In Acts, the believing Gentiles demonstrated the inward calling of God. They were appointed to salvation and they believed. They were not more clever then the Jews or did they chose wisely on their own. Instead scripture tells us that they were appointed to believe as an illustrated that God was with the Gentiles now.
Paul talks about this to the Corinthians:
However, if one were to read it in context of God choosing men, then not only does these verses make sense, these verses are in perfect harmony with Acts 13:48. There are people who God simply refuses to help, according to His good council and His plan. Why He helps one out and not another is a mystery. Why did He tell the Jews about the Angel of Death and not the Egyptians? Why didn't God have Joshua run into Canaan and try to convert the people rather than slaying them? Why did God save Noah (and seven others) and drowned everyone else?
Is God unjust? No. Every action that God ever takes is holy, just and good. Perfect justice. Perfect love. Perfect grace. The truth is that we are vile creature who God RIGHTFULLY should cast into the torment of hellfire and brimstone for all eternity. This is perfect justice at work and serves to illustrate what fallen creatures we are to demand such a punishment.
It is because of His perfect love and perfect grace and perfect mercy, that God has looked merciful on some of us vile creatures. It isn't that we're special-it is that God is merciful and gracious and have incorporated us into His plan for His righteousness sake. God chose these Gentile, for purposes know to Him, to illustrate that God saves men. Every believer is woven into God's plan and serves as an illustration to non-believers that God is merciful as well as just. We should PRAY that God would grant repentance to others and free them from their bondage, knowing that once free it is because God appointed them to His kingdom.
Less we be boastful that the Gentiles have been chosen by God, we are reminded in scripture that God has put a hardening of the heart on the Jews until the Gentiles have been brought in. We have been grafted in ONLY because of His mercy. According to scriptures God has chosen us because we were foolish. Again, this does not make any sense if God allows all men to chose Him.
While you may wish to try to explain away Act 13:48, the context and wording are clear; "and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." We were appointed to believed. It could be added "...by His mercy." But it was obvious. This is why the Gentiles rejoiced.
You need to visit a day care.
My own anchor and the basis of my view of reality is that “God is love” -- note that, and consider the implications: not that God loves (though He does of course) or that God commands love (again He does), but that He is Love, that the foundation of all that is created, the fons et origo, the alpha and omega is Love. And it seem to me that to say God is one is not only to say that there is only one God, but that God of His nature is a unified whole, that His justice is not separable from His love or His mercy. One of the Hebrew words for “justice” -- ts’dakah -- has a range of meaning that includes “justice,” “righteousness,” “charity,” “alms” -- almost like approaching a “unified field theory” of attributes of God.
C.S. Lewis recounts asking an uneducated sexton about a proposed change to the wording of the BCP from “indifferently administer justice” to “impartially administer justice” -- the man had no idea of what “impartially” meant, but said that “indifferently” (being unacquainted with its later connotations) meant “making no difference between one man and another.” Which pretty well sums up the general human understanding of justice. We are enjoined in the OT not to judge for the rich man because he is rich or for the poor man because he is poor. The Calvinist God does not seem to live up to the requirements He places on men . . . Unless of course He is giving men carte blanche to judge according to whim.
I think in speaking to the “wrath” of God, we must remember that we have only human language to speak of anything and only our human analogies, which accounts for much of the anthromorphism of -- especially -- the OT, I.e., we interpret as the wrath of God that which we wouldn’t do unless we were really, really, really mad. “Wrath” in Thomistic philosophy (and broadly elsewhere) is a “passion” (I don’t think I have to point out that the love I spoke of above is distinct from that romantic love properly classified as a passion). Now “passions” are called that because we are “passive” under them; they act upon us. But God, Who is “impassible” (unchangeable) isn’t moved by passions. (The sufferings of Christ, incidentally, are referred to as “The Passion” because -- unthinkably and incredibly, gloriously and out of Love -- He Who is God and thus Pure Act allowed Himself to suffer, to be passive (a “patient,” if you will -- same root).
That’s probably more than long enough for one post. I hope it gives some idea of where I’m coming from.
Fascinating. I have always had a mild distaste for Dobson, but no specifics. More of a case of opportunism than substance, I thought.
Only to those with the Minimum Daily Requirement of intelligence.
Were you following this particular discussion
Throughout.
or was this just another drive-by fruiting?
No, I do not follow the tenets of Calvinism.
Interesting, your take on Dobson.
It reminds me of the Scripture “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it: (Proverbs22:6)
Actually, the words “train up” are a “best of” translation: the original verb for that (the action “train up”) in Hebrew is an action in the Hebrew culture wherein dates were mashed into a sweet liquid and touched to the palate of a new-born to create a desire to suckle. Also, the “when he grows old” verb in Hebrew actually translates “when he grows a beard”.
In short, Proverbs 22:6 tells us: create a thirst for the sweetness of God in the young and when they reach manhood they won’t leave it.
So you do not see man inheriting a fallen nature from Adam?Sick or wounded, not dead.
So you would say that after the fall, man has a propensity to sin, but still retains a weakend ability to choose God?
AND you would say that these verses are an overstatement.
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." 13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16in their paths are ruin and misery, 17and the way of peace they have not known." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
HarleyD writes
On the contrary, this is EXACTLY what irresistible grace is about. Everyone is responsible for their own salvation. The Jews demonstrates the outward calling of God. The Jews are called to the wedding feast. Yet they will not come. Neither will the unbelieving Gentiles.
But here is what the passage says:
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.’”
It makes no mention at all and allows no inference that there was a secret ‘inner call’ that would be irresistible, and that the ‘outer call’ cannot be freely responded to by the Jews. There is no hint that God has refused to save the individual Jews in Antioch, and I seriously doubt that there were no Jews at all saved in Antioch. However, the Jews at Antioch, on the whole, rejected the offer of God. “you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life” - the total emphasis is on the Jews rejecting, not on God refusing to allow them or not giving them a call.
HarleyD mentions the wedding feast, and the calling to it.
Matt 22 tells the story:
“2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’ 5But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.”
Notice the call went to the individuals, who chose to reject it. The King didn’t send them faulty invitations, or leave them the wrong address. They were too busy to accept. “But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.” There is no hint that the invitation was at fault, but that the recipients CHOSE to refuse. Again, no hint that there is a secret, irresistible invitation given behind the scenes.
In Acts 13, we see the first instance of the Gospel going to Gentiles. Cornelius was a believing Gentile. Before Peter visited him, he is described as “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God”, and the angel says, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter.” Cornelius was no run-of-the-mill Gentile.
But the Gentiles in Antioch were. And in verse 47, right before the proof text of 13:48, we read, “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.’”
The verse immediately before is about the calling of God going to the Gentiles as well, and THEN we read, “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.” And when the Gentiles heard this - that God had commanded Paul & Barnabas, “’I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth’” - they began rejoicing.
Salvation and the grace of God that Paul & Barnabas had been preaching were not just to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as well.
The word translated appointed (tasso) means “to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint” - either “on one’s own responsibility or authority” or “mutually, i.e. agree upon”. It is used 8 times, all of which are listed here: (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5021&t=ESV)
If you believe in a deterministic God who, as my Sunday School teacher had it last year, ‘decides if you wipe your nose’, then yes, God had to determine and appoint individuals to respond...but that is bringing your belief to the verse, and then using the verse to back up your belief. And I can do the same thing. God had determined to offer salvation, to the Jews first and also the Gentiles - a pattern we see in the rest of Acts, as Paul would first seek out the Jews, and only later go to the Gentiles of a city. And God had ordered this in verse 47 - that salvation would also go to the Gentiles, and in verse 48 the Gentiles rejoice.
Bringing my beliefs to the verse, as HarleyD did, I find that God ordained the Gentiles to be saved as well, and that the message should go first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. And if it was mutually agreed, then the Gentiles would be saved.
In favor of my interpretation, I offer the rest of Acts. This is the only time we see tasso applied to a story of conversion, and it only occurs when the Gentiles, for the very first time, are offered salvation. And it occurs immediately after the Jews made the choice - as did the wedding feast guests in Matt 22 - to refuse the offer of the King.
If you go to this link (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4100&t=ESV), you will find the the “246 times in 218 verses in the Greek concordance of the NASB” that the word pisteuo (believe: “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in”) is used. I made no attempt to filter it...in a fairly short time, you can read all 218 verses. When I first encountered Calvinism last year, I read them all. And I concluded that believing is something we are ordered to do, and something that comes from us in response to God’s revelation. There is no hint that a man will ever, on his own, sit down and reason out God and decide to approach God thru his own desire. But God takes the initiative and reaches out to man, and man can either say yes or no. There is no hint that believing is something God makes us do irresistibly, or that anyone who hears the Gospel is incapable of responding. The individual is always responsible for how he responds to God. Mark 9 has it how I believe it normally happens: “And Jesus said to him, “’If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”
Acts 13:48 is one of perhaps a half dozen verses that, at first glance, seems to say God decides who repents and who does not. So I have to choose: Do I read those half dozen in light of the 218 others, or read the 218 others in light of the half dozen? I was taught to interpret the Bible using the obvious to explain the obscure, rather than the obscure to explain the obvious - a rule I believe Augustine taught. And one can expand that list by looking at the word faith, and how it is used in hundreds of verses.
If there were 200 verses discussing how God picks individuals for salvation as opposed to a call going out to groups and ‘whosoever’, and only a dozen discussing a choice to believe, then I would be a Calvinist. But that isn’t what I find in scripture.
1Co 1:19-25 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Now if everyone had a choice, as some suppose, these verses make no sense. — Harley D
I have to disagree. I believe everyone has a choice, and it makes perfect sense to me. If God had decided to save those who worked hard and scored above 65% in the test of life, many would take the offer. It would be focused on them earning God’s approval. If God decided to save those who were the most successful in business, many would gladly take the offer. But God offers the gift of salvation to the whosoevers, and only requires that we take Him at His word. That is a huge stumbling block. It puts the focus on God, not man - and man doesn’t like that.
“There are people who God simply refuses to help, according to His good council and His plan. Why He helps one out and not another is a mystery. “
There is a fair bit of truth here. God gives his grace to all, but not in equal measure. A person raised in a Christian home is more likely to hear the Gospel than someone in the jungle. As with asking about infants, there is a point where we need to trust God to do what is right, to know what he is doing, and to accept that a just, holy, and loving God is capable of dealing with people in a manner consistent with who He is.
But I’m not so certain that God refuses to help. Paul wrote, “12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2)
I think God gives His grace and revelation as He wills, but He also judges by the revelation each has. That is a guess, not a well thought out theological principle on my part. I’ve met a number of non-believers who will ‘what if’ things to death - literally. Their scenarios are excuses for refusing to deal with the revelation God has given them, and they will be judged accordingly. But to those who respond to what God has provided...well, those who have will be given more, and those that have not will lose what they have. If someone shows a willingness to know God, based on however much God has given him, then I believe God will give him more, and judge by whatever he has been given, so that “their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
The Bible makes clear that those who died before Christ were dead in their graves awaiting resurrection from the memorial tombs.(John 5:28,29)
As Peter said (Acts 2:29-36)of both Christ and King David, they were in Hades or as it translated often into English, “hell”. No limbo of any kind.
Since David was in his tomb and not in heaven (Acts 2:34) he would have to await that general resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous Paul spoke of. (Acts 15:24)
There is no limbo to be found in the Scriptures no matter whose doctrine it is.
That is quite clear, yes.
Man is neutral in your view and God owes him a chance?If you love someone, would you give them a chance to get well, even if they didn't deserve it?
Your view of GOD is to low and view of Man is to high.
Fallen, humanity is running away from God and God's enemy.
Rom 3:11 NO ONE understands; NO ONE SEEKS for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; NO ONE does good, not even one." The Gospel of Grace is to be proclaimed to the WHOLE world. God removes the blinders for the ELECT and GIVES them FAITH to BELIEVE. The rest of humanity is still culpable for their sin, brought upon them by Adams curse and their own sin.
God chooses to save some and allow the rest to what they deserve.The wounded deserve to die?
They are not wounded. They are dead in trespasses and sin. We were God's enemies, running away from Him as fast as we could. God HAD to arrest us.
We ALL deserve eternal punishment, BUT GOD in His Mercy chooses to Save some.
Rom 9:14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Amen!
I have worshiped in Lutheran, Baptist and other churches and have been warmly welcomed as a brother.
A couple of years ago I remember traveling to visit family and attended Christmas Eve service at a Reformed Baptist church. They had communion after the main service and wanted to interview (my words) any guests before they broke bread.
The deacon who interviewed me asked why I should be allowed to partake. I told him I am a sinner who has been saved by faith in Christ alone and I bring nothing of my own. He asked if I was a member of a church that preached the Gospel, and I affirmed that I was. He asked if I could vouch for my family, I did. He warmly welcomed us to the table.
Quite different from what you get in a Roman outpost.
What is more horrifying to me is to see a Catholic receive our Blessed Lord in Eucharist and do what you and I have both described we observed as protestants. Sadly,I think we all have been guilty of this at times. Lord have Mercy on us !
The line to confession ought be hours long,but it is not.
I need confession frequently
Did you ever participate in the Eucharist at a "Roman outpost" or were your words simply speculative?
“”Precisely because they were told they were saved no matter what they did.””
It’s embedded in Western culture now where even cafeteria Catholics and the ignorant believe this now
I like what Blessed Fulton Sheen once said...
.....”This was the answer given to the Greeks just two weeks before His crucifixion
This is the Lesson of Jonah, the Lesson of Our Blessed Lord, and this is the essence of Christianity! Remember, Christianity is not easy!
Perhaps that is why there is such a high interest in the Oriental religions? You have a religion without cost, a religion that requires no penance or mortification. All you have to do is “Just BE” .
Christianity COSTS SOMETHING. Grace is NOT CHEAP.-Bishop Fulton Sheen
Different teaching. Different understanding. Apples and oranges.
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.