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.
Couldn't tell you -- but here's a Jewish perspective on Calvin from the Jewish Virtual Library:
Perhaps most relevant to the contemporary conflicts was the Jew's final query: "I ask those who contend that we are in this exile because of Jesus' execution, but this is not true because we had been in exile before his death. If it be true that in the hour of his death Jesus begged his Father and said, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34) and if Father and Son are identical and both have the same will, then certainly that iniquity was condoned which he himself had forgiven." In his reply Calvin could only harp on the theme of the Jews' obstinacy in persisting in their error and the numerous sins their forefathers had previously committed, as attested by the numerous prophetic denunciations. These cumulative sins over generations have sufficiently accounted for the sufferings of the people of Israel since it went into exile. With all this fury, Calvin showed himself somewhat more merciful toward the Jews, as well as the Muslims, than toward Christian heretics. He seems to have been satisfied, on the whole, with keeping the Jews out of Geneva and with echoing the long-accepted anti-Jewish polemics.
Oh, yes, Pablo otra vez. If you chose to read the Bible in its entirety, instead of using that Reformed Random Verse Generator, you'd find such verses as "ask and you shall find" or discover that even the doubting Thomas was an apostle.
Besides, why should I believe Paul? Who is Paul? Is he God? You believe a man who says God speaks through. Amazing! But it was his foxy salesmanship that did the trick. He was a man who says "I was all things to all men" (it's in the same 1 Corinthians you spout) as long as they bought his story.
He became everything to everyone (by his own words) and said anything anyone wanted to hear just so they would buy into his sales pitch.
How bizarre can a statement become? GOD destroyed the Jewish priesthood in 70AD? The Roman Church revived the Jewish priesthood a couple hundred years later?
Don't worry. Their history is as accurate as their theology. For instance, they will either deny or simply ignore the fact that most of the American colonies established state religions and enforced them to the point of death. The Baptists and Catholics and Quaker know - they bore the brunt of persecutions.
God is not an indian giver.. What He has saved He will keep
Read John 6..
Show us WHERE God created a new priesthood?
Act 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
Is it possible that someone that has so much knowledge does not understand the crucification?
God uses men for His means.. (If you do not use that you have a problem with the incarnation)
The plan of salvation was in place before the foundation of the earth
That plan called for a Savior to be born of the line of David.. to live a sinless life and as the innocent dying for the guilty be the propitation for the sin of the guilty
All of this was ordained by God, as well as the means
The means was Judas betrayal,the call of the crowd,decision of Pilate , and the nails that held Christ to the cross
From beginning to end it was ordained of God to vindicate His name and to save the elect
Now you know me well enough to know that I can prove this with scripture
I have a family funeral today..but if want the scripture citations, I will have them for you later today..
Absolutely. He speaks like any Jew would, for the Torah (the Law) is forever (see the Old Testament) and cannot be fulfilled! Matthew's Jesus also states very clearly that he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel and he specifically defines this mission to be limited to the areas not inhabited by Gentiles or even Samaritans. (Someone will come back with Matthew 28:19—don't bother, it's a latter-day addition to the text).
I told her that you could e-mail prayers to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. She wanted to know why on earth you’d ask Jews to pray for you.
In Judaism one can pray for anything, but praying for the Gentiles may be hypocritical. Sometime towards the end of the first century, Judaism made a clean break with Christians as heretics. Since then, they instituted blessing number 12 (Birkat HaMinim) in the morning prayers (Amidah) cursing all minims (sectarians), such as Essenes, Gnostics, Nazarenes (Christians), etc. collectively. The blessing reads (in translation from Hebrew):
"as for the sectarians (or usurpers) let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed are You, LORD, who breaks down enemies and humbles sinners."
Hardly charitable or comparable to Christian prayers. But the Jews are under no commandment to love their enemies, so judging it by Christian standards is pointless and wrong. We cannot hold the Jews, who are under the Law, to Christian values.
Knowing this, how can you ask a Jew to pray for a Gentile in the afternoon if you know he crused him in the morning?
There are many Gnostic statements in the Gospels and the Epistles. Such as "He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." [Mat 13:11] and similar ones in Mark (4:11) and Luke (8:10). They couldn't be more Gnostic!
Also "to reveal his Son in me " [Galatians 1:16]. Gnsostics believed in the "divine spark" being in all. Gnostic-like statements can also be found in John, which is why he (along with Paul) was particularly popular among Gnostics.
Jews are a priestly nation, and every male Jew is obligated to act as a priest in his household, to do the three-times-a-day prayers, observe the Sabbath, etc. Given that the Torah is to be observed forever, being eternal, such a statement is as idiotic as something that could come from the Mormon side of this circus.
There is no priesthood provided for the Gentiles anywhere in the Old Testament. When Peter addressed the crowd and told them they were a "priestly nation," he was talking to the Jews (remember he was an apostle to the circumcision!).
You can walk away. It’s free will.
Question: There is a young man who is 26. Raised in a Southern Baptist home by faithful parents. He was home schooled attended church and bible study regularly growning up. Was “saved” by the age of 10. He was an active participant with church youth groups as a teen.
He moved to Austin to go to college at 18. He had lived with his girlfriend for 4 years. The girlfriend is an avowed atheist. They have a baby who is 18 months old. Cute little boy. Last time they were in town for Christmas, he was going to go to Church with his parents. She threw a fit and told his parents he was an atheist just like her and was a hypocrite to set foot in a church. They were married last weekend in Austin by a Hindu priestess. And yes, the bride wore a traditional wedding dress.
What is the state of his salvation? If he dies on his honeymoon will he go to heaven?
Going by YOUR criteria, Christ was speaking to Jews, not gentiles. How could any gentile possibly have ears to hear. And what is a triple negative with a verb and subject which do not agree ("Neither...nor...was not heard...those not given) doing cobbled together? Gibberish is about right.
Do you consider this forum to be your “job”? Do you think you are “discipling” the Catholics posting here? Do you think you are “ministering” to us?
Did God “call” you to be on the RF?
No, Cronos - as I have demonstrated to you twice before, using only Catholic lectionary statistics - you are hearing just 27.5% of the text at best in mass after three years' of unbroken daily attendance. May I assume that you, yourself, are attending mass faithfully on a daily basis? Exemplary behavior, to be sure. And hearing the Bible that frequently in church is never a bad thing.
But do the math, using your own lectionary. The daily mass contains less than 3/4 of the NT, and less than 1/4 of the OT, which are a far cry from the "Bible in its entirety" - not even close. The amount that you've been led to believe is "the Bible in its entirety" is really only slightly more than one-quarter of the whole text. If you're relying solely on the mass to give it to you, there's a whole lot of the Bible that you've never read.
You don't have to take my word for it. Get an inexpensive Bible and a highlighter, and mark the text as it's read in mass each day. At the end of three years (when the cycle ends), look at how many unmarked chapters are left.
He moved to Austin to go to college at 18. He had lived with his girlfriend for 4 years. The girlfriend is an avowed atheist. They have a baby who is 18 months old. Cute little boy. Last time they were in town for Christmas, he was going to go to Church with his parents. She threw a fit and told his parents he was an atheist just like her and was a hypocrite to set foot in a church. They were married last weekend in Austin by a Hindu priestess. And yes, the bride wore a traditional wedding dress.Sounds like he was trying to please his parents, but not really a believer.What is the state of his salvation? If he dies on his honeymoon will he go to heaven?
Real believers will persevere.
Eph 1:11 In Him 11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory
If God can call Lot righteous after reading what his life was like, this young man can be saved.
Is it likely? Maybe. Maybe not.
Is it possible? Certainly.
But someone who has never trusted Christ, can’t, no matter what religious ceremonies and obligations they keep. If they are depending on them, they are depending on the wrong things and are not saved.
2 Peter 2:6-8
6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)—
We know the answer, just some of us actually have other things to do. I was asleep when you posted.
Gee, let's think. Maybe the same way you and I have ears to hear. God gives them to us. Matthew 13 says Christ was addressing "great multitudes." That's it.
This isn't the first time a Roman Catholic has ignored the clear meaning of the words.
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." -- Matthew 13:11"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Some Jews and some Gentiles are given ears to hear, and some Jews and some Gentiles are not.
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.