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.
presently no screen name wrote:
“Since the books are God-inspired, why the angst for who penned them? The command was to HEAR and OBEY. Not question who He chose to pen His Word.”
Since the authors for the most part identify themselves in the text of their respective works, this would make the doctrine of inspiration either a joke or God a liar. It matters a very great deal. Thus the angst.
Well, let's look at it. Who wrote Hebrews? It does not say it in the text. 2 Peter is considered a late writing approximately 150 AD, about 100 years after Peter was martyred. And it was figured that up to (but not categorically stating) half of Paul's works were not written by Paul. I am not a scholar in this area, but the works are well documented and available on the internet.
I understand where you are coming from. How about this: I believe that the Church has selected the Scripture for us. It doesn't matter who wrote it; the Church has selected it as Scripture.
As it says in the Nicene Creed: I believe...
So we may be 99.9998% "atoned up" and if we forgot that time when we were 12 and stole a candy bar from Grandma, what, we're doomed???
I cannot say if you are destined for heaven or hell right now. If you do not repent of your sins, then we are taught that the penalty is hellfire.
But your comment...Beyond Christ and the church you have no answer leaves one in the lurch....the question of ones salvation then is unsettled this side of heaven, from what I'm understanding you are saying, rather we all continue to face fearful Judgment because there is no security of the believer even if they gave their life to Christ and accepted his atonement for their sins. If even one sin is not repented of we are doomed? Correct?
You are being legalistic here. I believe that the Lord is going to ask about repentence, not accounting. Have you repented of your sins, or not? Yes or no. I do not read the Gospels as being that legalistic. Look at the dishonest steward, for instance. He was Judged on his repentence. Did he make every single thing right? No. But he showed repentence to his Lord and that is what counts.
Negative. Have you repented of your sins or not? We are taught that that is what the Lord is looking for. It is not an accounting exercise. If it were, nobody would be saved.
If you went to confession late on Saturday and stayed out of trouble for about 12 hours, you were good for taking communion. But the catch was that you had to not sin after that because if you did, you'd go to hell if you died.
Now, I'm sure this is going to bring out the *That's not what the Catholic church teaches* crowd, but while they may find sone technicality in official RCC doctrine which supports their positions, it still is, in reality, just what the Catholic church does indeed teach, official doctrine notwithstanding.
Catholics are in bondage to the rules and regs that the Catholic church inflicts on them. There is no freedom in Christ for a Catholic. They consider it chutzpah to believe that one can be sure of making it to heaven in spite of what Scripture teaches, which is.....
1 John 5:12-14 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.
Do you sin every week?
No... Now if it's sorrow for everything except that time then yes.
People need to understand that the current form that sacramental confession takes is a discipline subject to change. It's the procedure the Church chooses but it doesn't have to be this way, originally you'd have to stand up in the middle of the congregation and declare your sin publicly. Originally penance would involve extended "quarantine" from the assembly of the faithful, including standing out in front of the church with a sign and begging for prayers from people.
That's where the days in purgatory came from because the thinking was that if you didn't do your penance here on earth it would still apply in the same way after death. Penance would be "say one Our Father, a Hail Mary and pray for me" it would be "2000 days in front of the entrance holding a sign declaring you're an adulterer". Oh, and you'd get one post baptismal chance. Is it any wonder people like Constantine delayed baptism until death approached?
MarkBsnr wrote:
“Well, let’s look at it. Who wrote Hebrews? It does not say it in the text.”
This is avoidance of the point, whether you realize it or not. There is a very great difference in admitting that one does not know the author of a particular book of the NT, and Hebrews is unique in this (and maybe it was intended to be such ... Origen’s statement on this is still the best) and either assigning a supposed name or, worse, denying the plain statement of the text of the said work. Don’t you see that? Don’t you see that denying the truth of the author’s own self-identification calls into question everything that follows?
I will leave unanswered the rest of what you say, since I have already spoken to the points you are simply repeating. It would seem that your trust in scholars outweighs your trust in God’s word.
Lastly, I too say and confess with the Nicene Creed - and with heartfelt sincerity: “Credo”, “I believe.” But I do not believe in that which is detached from real history. The Scriptures of the NT, like those of the OT, are anchored in time and space. They speak truth itself, given by God to us through the authors of the various books. If what they say is not true, the Christian faith is a sham, no matter how vociferously urged on us by Rome or anyone. The Nicene Creed stands upon and draws is veracity and authority from the Holy Scriptures, which themselves are grounded in history. Otherwise my “I believe” is of no more certainty than that of a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, or any naturalistic religion of the world.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
But I do not believe in that which is detached from real history. The Scriptures of the NT, like those of the OT, are anchored in time and space. They speak truth itself, given by God to us through the authors of the various books. If what they say is not true, the Christian faith is a sham, no matter how vociferously urged on us by Rome or anyone. The Nicene Creed stands upon and draws is veracity and authority from the Holy Scriptures, which themselves are grounded in history. Otherwise my “I believe” is of no more certainty than that of a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, or any naturalistic religion of the world.
AMEN!
Thank you for a terrific post and solid Scriptural understanding.
Scripture "is anchored in time and space...and speak truth itself."
AMEN!
presently no screen name wrote:
“So you need to know the person who penned God inspired Scriptures before you believe them?”
No ... and I said no such thing. Go back and read what I wrote. Call me on any error I write, but don’t put words in my mouth.
I sin daily like every other human being on the planet.
If we are in Christ, we have His righteousness and there is no sin left for us to have to do penance for.
Besides, penance has no Scriptural basis. There’s nothing we can do to earn the forgiveness of our sins. If there was, Christ didn’t need to die. We could just do enough penance and be done with it.
Jesus said that he who has the son has life and he who does not have the son does not have life. (John 3)
Believers are the church, the bride of Christ. God’s not going to beat Christ’s bride black and blue to make her pay for sins that Christ’s shed blood forgave.
We are rewarded for good works. We don’t earn salvation with them.
Ok...so then Judgement for our sins was placed on Christ...and when we come to Him and repent, turn away from our sins, then we are no longer under the “penalty/judgement” of sin. For in accepting that Christ did that for even the worst of sinners to the least of all sinner’s... “There is now therefore no condemnation to them who are IN Christ Jesus.” This I do get and understand, where it gets confusing is when you mention further judgement... after we die. What you’re saying is even if we are struggling with a sin, and die without repenting of that sin we can assume Christ will consider we had intentions of repenting, that He will show mercy for our intentions...right?
But this is where it gets really hairy....not legalistic. If our intentions are even possible to look favorable before Him...then why the crucifion and the whole idea of Christ be necessary this side of heaven...why not just wait and see if our intentions were adequate before God without His sending His son to go thru all that?
Not for a believer. I believe, my friend. I believe in Scripture. It does not matter if Peter wrote 2 Peter or not. I'd like to know intellectually, but it does not make a difference if he did or not. The Church said that this is Scripture and for me it is so.
The Nicene Creed stands upon and draws is veracity and authority from the Holy Scriptures, which themselves are grounded in history. Otherwise my “I believe” is of no more certainty than that of a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, or any naturalistic religion of the world.
The Nicene Creed stands far away from Scripture. Many of the elements of the Nicene Creed are not found in Scripture at all, and in fact, oppose the bulk of Scripture addressing it.
As do I. Therefore you should repent daily. The medievals confessed on a daily basis. Why don't we?
Our intentions cannot be to look favourable. They are to be. Imitate Christ. Be perfect, as my Father is perfect. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and strength and love your neighbour as your self. The whole point of Christian living is to be, not to appear. God does not care about outward appearances. What is in your heart?
I thought you meant all of us of "The Others" when you referred to "a bunch of pansy poofs with their knickers in a twist because nobody will recognize them as Christians". That was post #13202 on this thread addressed to TSGT, but it was pretty obvious it wasn't meant for just him. Was I or 1000S being too sensitive or perhaps it was another post that got zotted already?
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.