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.
So now its out in the open - Adhominem attack is all you, and fellow Satan supporter Waite have.
Defend God’s word, and be attacked by Satan and his cohorts.
.
> I’m “glad” to see that a Protestant will sometimes go for the throat of another Protestant even in a room full of Catholics.
.
Hold your joy.
Lacking any fact based argument, Connt was resorting in adhominem attack on one of God’s scriptural warriors.
This had nothing to do with any denominational affiliation.
> “Dr. E was very clear about that in her post (14991) “Sanctification is a life-long process...” as opposed to justification, which “is a one-time event,” except that nothing in 1 Cor 6:11 makes that distinction. All three “states” are lumped together in the same aorist as accomplished facts!”
.
This all really misses the real point:
Sanctification is not what saves us; justification is what does that.
Sanctification is what prepares us to be fit to be in the physical presence of God, which has to be an ongoing process for a naturally sinful being.
.
Good night, ES.
The point, which you apparently missed, is that Paul says one thing and Dr. E's Calvinist doctrine another. Paul says the sanctification is already an accomplished fact (grammatically expressed as such), not something you undergo throughout your life.
As far as your comment is concerned, what good is justification without sanctification? Both are needed for your 'salvation'.
Valid point, but in addition to the unanimity its version of history infers, i guess you have to debate the RC sources who point to Trent, not Carthage, as issuing “the first [but far from unanimous (even if not necessary)], infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.” Good day.
Interesting. Well, we know that the prophecies and Jesus Himself said that He had to die for our sins. I happened to be reading through the Gospel of Mark (natch) and came up with these verses:
1 He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power." 2 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no fuller on earth could bleach them. 4 Then Elijah appeared to them along with Moses, and they were conversing with Jesus. 5 3 Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Rabbi, it is good that we are here! Let us make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 6 He hardly knew what to say, they were so terrified. 7 Then a cloud came, casting a shadow over them; 4 then from the cloud came a voice, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him." 8 Suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone but Jesus alone with them. 9 5 As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what rising from the dead meant. 11 Then they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 12 He told them, "Elijah will indeed come first and restore all things, yet how is it written regarding the Son of Man that he must suffer greatly and be treated with contempt? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him."
So, He is telling them what must be, comparing His condition with Elijah, even giving the Apostles a sight of Elijah (and Moses).
Mark 9: 30 They left from there and began a journey through Galilee, but he did not wish anyone to know about it. 31 He was teaching his disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death he will rise."
More reinforcement of this idea.
Mark 10: 32 They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus went ahead of them. They were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. Taking the Twelve aside again, he began to tell them what was going to happen to him. 33 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles 34 who will mock him, spit upon him, scourge him, and put him to death, but after three days he will rise." 35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." 36 He replied, "What do you wish (me) to do for you?" 37 They answered him, "Grant that in your glory we may sit one at your right and the other at your left." 38 5 Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" 39 They said to him, "We can." Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink, you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; 40 but to sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared." 41 When the ten heard this, they became indignant at James and John. 42 6 Jesus summoned them and said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. 43 But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; 44 whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. 45 For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many."
And so on. I did a little reading over the weekend to your excellent post's point and came up with what I think I have a little better idea of the development.
Atonement, as given in Scripture, is where Jesus sacrificed Himself to atone for all of our sins. Origen wondered why and came up with the Ransom theory which the Orthodox adhere to, even to this day. Basically, God ransomed the sacrifice of Jesus to satan, who released us from death, bu then Jesus resurrected and satan was still held to his bargain.
Anselm didn't think that satan held any power over God and came up with the Satisfaction Theory which states that the debt was owed to God, rather than a ransom to satan. So the atonement was paid to God rather than to satan. Jesus served as the sacrificial lamb - as they did to pagan gods in ancient times. (I went into the Jewish Encyclopedia for their take on it and had a bit of an education on that. Sacrifice in Jewish customs was not associated with the taking away of sin.) I can see the novelty of this development.
Then came the moral exemplar theory, which serves as an example for Christians to follow, but does not explain the Crucifixion at all.
The Dagonesque bloodthirsty view is the Penal Substitution theory, which came out of the Reformation. This says that Jesus accepted the punishment due to mankind. God was not satisfied with anything that we can do, but He accepted a bloodied, beaten and tortured Jesus who underwent ultimate punishment for mankind (or to some, a limited number of men). This is not the Satisfaction Theory of Anselm whatsoever. This is truly a reversion back to pagan bloodlust. The several Jewish sources I read also recoil in horror from this view because the lambs and other Jewish sacrifices were held as humanely as possible and the sacrifical animals were not beaten, bloodied or treated inhumanely in any way whatsoever.
There are several more theories that have been developed, but they are of no consequence, really.
So gentlemen, there we have it - there really is somewhat of a difference between East and West. The East believes in the atonement to satan to free mankind from his power. The West believes in the atonement to God to free mankind from satan's power. I have never really understood it this well before, but there is a world of different between Anselm's substitionary atonement and the penal substitution of the Reformation.
Comments?
I have done some reading up on the Atonement this weekend. God is just in the sense of adhering to His promises to us. But for us, we only pray that He has mercy upon us, who are all sinners.
The only problem with a “living sacrifice” (Rm. 12:1) is that it tends to crawl off the altar.
He has atoned for them. Interesting, the East versus West differences in whom the atonement is paid to...
Nope, no unconditional in the Bible. God sets a number of prerequisites for salvation.
That salvation is conditional and requires certain things of those who would be saved.
You continue to misunderstand Paul. Just because you say he says something does not mean he said it. In fact, quite often, the opposite is true.
And the Calvinist's view of sanctification is the orthodox, historic Christian understanding of the word -- men are elected by God from before the foundation of the world; justified by Christ on the cross; and sanctified over their entire lives by the Holy Spirit.
As far as your comment is concerned, what good is justification without sanctification? Both are needed for your 'salvation'.
Sanctification is the result of a person's justification. Paul understood this. It is Roman Catholics who get it wrong by fusing the two as indistinguishable. Strange that a self-professed agnostic like yourself would continually side with the Roman Catholics.
Again and again and again.
Like sanctification, this seems to be an ongoing occurrence.
Thanks for the ping.
INDEED.
Particularly the hotter the fire gets.
Well put.
Thanks.
> “The point, which you apparently missed, is that Paul says one thing and Dr. E’s Calvinist doctrine another.”
.
No, that’s just the vain hope of a twisted mind.
.
> “Paul says the sanctification is already an accomplished fact (grammatically expressed as such), not something you undergo throughout your life.”
.
Which it is for God’s elect, since there is no way that God’s stated will for his elect can be subverted.
Don’t feel badly; spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The spiritually blind cannot see them.
.
It has been said that mercy is not getting the bad that we deserve, and grace is getting what we don’t deserve. “The gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24) is just that.
Justice for us would be damnation, but the justice needed for the forgiveness of sin was served in the person of Christ so that mercy might be shown, righteousness imputed to those repentant souls of faith, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. (Rm. 3:21).
Once a year atonement was mandated, (Lv. 16) forgiveness being provided under that rubric, and thus Christ suffered once for all, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God, (1Pt. 3:18) God having laid upon Him the iniquity of us all, (Is. 53:6) that He might be just, and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus, (Rm. 3:26) and bearing our sins in His own body on the cross, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1Pt. 2:24)
Thanks be to God.
But those who spurn so great salvation, and will not honesty humble themselves as sinners worthy of their just punishment, but love darkness over light, not having the love of the truth, (2Thes. 1:8,9) but suppose they may merit eternal life (or deny it altogether), shall die in their sins, to their eternal horror. “For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Lk. 18:14b)
For example, the provisions of Trent infallibly—infallibly declaring that the Traditional Latin Mass cannot be altered in any way—were violated by the first succeeding pope, and a number of popes following him!
It makes you really wonder what kind of Clintonian lawyering this is when infallible prohibitions are really not infallible prohibitions at all! It's like trying to nail jello to the wall. Classically Pharisaical.
“the first [but far from unanimous (even if not necessary)], infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal"
First, the voting itself doesn't have to be unanimous, but the declarations are binding to all. It's no different than our system of laws. Not everyone may vote for the law, but once the law is declared it ti binding to all who subject to it whether they supported it or not.
secondly, and more important issue is how this statement is read. If we presume that Trent was truly an Ecumenical Council (which it clearly wasn't), then it's proclamation regarding the canon was the first one of such (universal) gathering, as far as know, that specifically declares a canon of the universal (catholic) Church, including the Greeks, as well as any other group not in communion with the Vatican. (after all the Greek canon does not exactly match the Vatican canon, although the difference is very slight).
If you read ti that way, then it is the first such infallible proclamation of the canon, intended to be binding to all Christians, not only the Latin Church, and I have a feeling that's how those individuals read it.
LoL....exactly!
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.