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.
Catholics are by definition self-bound in servitude to Jesus. When a Catholic talks about freedom, it is freedom from the state, which always tries to displace bondage to God with bondage to government.
I find that when liberals or libertarians talk about freedom, it is often in the form of something debasing, such as cussing or doing drugs or nonvoncentional sex or being selfish. A Catholic will tell you that these things enslave rather than give freedom.
INDEED.
When I get more awake and functional, that should probably be acknowledged as another Station of the Stations of the White Hanky.
Do you have the exact quotes? I'd like to add them to my collection.
But what is that victory? How did it come about?
That's why I said 1 Cor 15:54 is "controversial". Victory suggests struggle, but Isa 25:8, from which Paul quotes, does not have victory in the verse, because there is no struggle.
In Isaiah, God simply comes and swallows death! But Paul, apparently, decided to add the word "victory" for doctrinal purposes!
Likewise, 1 Cor 15:55 quotes from Hosea 13:14, except that it also distorts the OT quote to make it "flow" with his corrupted version of Isaiah 25:8.
There is no mention of victory in Hosea 13 either. (remember, Judaim is not a dualistic religion, so God is not "struggling" to defeat his "rival") It is a snipped, just as the previous one, from a much longer verse, and a misleading one at that.
Hoseas 13:14 reads "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight."
Hosea 13, by the way, has to do with Ephraim's idolatry and in unrelated to anything resembling Christ's death and descent into hell or the messiah in general.
This is a perfect example of how Paul's "gospel" was built up from snippets of unrelated OT verses, conveniently altered to fit the story he was preaching. Now Thomas Jefferson's words that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" begin to make a lot of sense. Unfortunately.
That is not extortion?
No, not really. It means "the asking price". The captives were held legally; they were all guilty of sin.
Not being sure what God is is not the same as saying "I know nothing for a fact," as Dr. E alleges I said.
If you don't understand the difference, that's sad. I overestimated you.
jimmygrace, Hank Kerchief has bene banned.
Good luck with this short learning trip called life. Don't waste it on backroad wanderings.
> “And he knows a lot more of Scripture and Church belief and doctrine than you have displayed knowledge of.”
.
Now We know you’re smoking something illegal!
His lack of even the most basic scriptural facts is just as bad as yours.
Both atheists and agnostics are unbelievers.
If you do not know that the shed blood of Christ has saved you from eternal damnation, you are an unbeliever by definition.
I can say "I breath" but that does not imply that I am not continuing to breath AFTER I make that statement.
Men are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and that sanctification continues throughout a lifetime.
Justification is a one-time event where Christ on the cross paid for all the sins of His flock.
Sanctification is the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit whereby He works to align us with God's will and Christ's righteousness all the days of our life.
"Read your Bible and pray for ears to hear"
Hear what?
The truth found in God's word.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." -- John 10:26-29 "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
I hate to say that I feel about the same with your post.
And that is saying a lot.
Yes it is.
Oh yes, that's what I said, Christ died as a sacrifice to satan./s With absolutely NO understanding of WHO held us ransom and why Christ had to die for our sins, this is the conclusion you come to?
Oh, you made it perfectly clear that big bad Satan hijacked man on God's watch and in God's full view. and enslaved him, against God's wishes. Come on, get real
What you are saying is that the omnipotent, omniscient God had his most beloved and prized creation "stolen" right under his nose by a defunct angel! And the same omnipotent God gives in to Satan's "extortion", and pays the devil. What kind of a God do you believe in?
I do believe this is the last post from me to you, as you seem unable to understand atonement, salvation, or justification, you twist the clear meaning of God's Word and turn it into a pathetic joke.
No, I think you do.
The vast majority of Protestants agree on all the basics -- men are saved by God's grace alone in faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for God's glory alone as revealed in God's infallible word alone, and that men are justified not by their own works but by Christ's righteousness freely and mercifully imputed to them by God.
None of which Roman Catholics believe. Thus, the Reformation.
Everyone can be in error, Dr. E. How can you be absolutely certain that your faith is right and my doubt is wrong?
That is the first rational question you've asked in a long time. My response is that the doubt I once endured has been replaced by a steadiness that was foreign to me before. The comfort and ease that accompany believing Christ has paid for my sins satisfies my mind's questions, my heart's fears, my body's anxiety and literally brings joy to my eyes. I see what once I missed. Therefore, the doubt diminishes daily.
It seems that doubt is part and parcel of the human condition. Even Christ experienced it on the cross, fulfilling prophecy but also to illustrate that in all ways God knows how and why we suffer.
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." -- Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
I don't know if my faith will ever by 100%. I'm okay with 99%. I'm happier believing there's a reason why we live. And doubt can end up becoming very egocentric.
As Van Til concludes...
And if my unity is comprehensive enough to include the efforts of those who reject it, it is large enough even to include that which those who have been set upright by regeneration cannot see. My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods. The child is not afraid because its father knows it all and is capable of handling every situation. So I readily grant that there are some "difficulties" with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that faces me, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways. And it is exactly that sort of God that I need. Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all. So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos. I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.""...Looking about me I see both order and disorder in every dimension of life. But I look at both of them in the light of the Great Orderer Who is back of them. I need not deny either of them in the interest of optimism or in the interest of pessimism. I see the strong men of biology searching diligently through hill and dale to prove that the creation doctrine is not true with respect to the human body, only to return and admit that the missing link is missing still. I see the strong men of psychology search deep and far into the sub-consciousness, child and animal consciousness, in order to prove that the creation and providence doctrines are not true with respect to the human soul, only to return and admit that the gulf between human and animal intelligence is as great as ever. I see the strong men of logic and scientific methodology search deep into the transcendental for a validity that will not be swept away by the ever-changing tide of the wholly new, only to return and say that they can find no bridge from logic to reality, or from reality to logic. And yet I find all these, though standing on their heads, reporting much that is true. I need only to turn their reports right side up, making God instead of man the center of it all, and I have a marvelous display of the facts as God has intended me to see them.
First, why should I believe you? And, second, you "know" that how?
> “And, second, you “know” that how?”
.
The only way that anyone can know anything: God’s word says so.
.
Not precisely a family. More like a bucket of worms that one takes angling...
Is this the royal "We"? Have you crowned yourself or have you followed the road that James VI of Scotland followed?
His lack of even the most basic scriptural facts is just as bad as yours.
I'm grateful that you think that we are in the same league. Although, as goat granny has discovered, Bible Believers (tm) very often know nothing of Scripture outside of the coupon clippings that they have taken from whatever Bible they brandish this week.
Your rejection of God’s word continues to be the hallmark of your presence here.
.
Halloween was a couple of days ago. You may take off the crazy prophet costume .
"The vast majority of Protestants agree on all the basics -- men are saved by God's grace alone in faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for God's glory alone as revealed in God's infallible word alone, and that men are justified not by their own works but by Christ's righteousness freely and mercifully imputed to them by God."Or - according to some protestants - by being born lucky.
I don't believe in luck. It doesn't exist.
I think you do.
I can say "I breath" but that does not imply that I am not continuing to breath AFTER I make that statement.
Look, I don't play games. Being sanctified (made holy, Gr. hagiazo to make holy, sanctify, from hagio or holy) is an accomplished act. Either you are "holy" or you are not. You can't be holy a "little bit." You seem to be advocating different "stages" of holiness. What makes one "more" holy than another? Just how many levels of holiness are there? It's all nonsense and it's nowhere to be found in scriptures.
Men are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and that sanctification continues throughout a lifetime.
Where does it say so in the Bible? I am asking in order to figure out where this doctrine comes from. If I understand "sanctified" correctly, it means being set aside for God. Many an individual is called 'holy" in the Bible, yet they are not perfect. The only thing that had to be perfect was the sacrificial animal, and the animal is never called "holy." Also, Matthew (23:17) says that the temple "sanctified" the gold! How can inanimate objects be "holy?" According to Paul, even an unbeliever, married to a believer, is made holy! (1 Cor 7:14).
"Read your Bible and pray for ears to hear" The truth found in God's word. John 10:26-29...
Obviously reading has nothing to do with it, for even your own select quotes say that only those who have been given him by the Father are his. It is a given and not something we have to "work" for. In other words, as D-fendr likes to say "if you have been born lucky."
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.