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.
This is all the basics? It's all about me, me and me and my salvation. The basics of Christianity, Dr. E., are the (1) trinitarian God, (2) the Son, being one person in two unconfused natures, fully God and fully man, (3) the Incarnation and (4) Resurrection.
Of course, all Protestants do not agree on these, and even members of the same sect disagree on doctrines they formally agree on. Everytone has his or her own idea of the Holy Trinity, the way Christ's two natures interact, whether we have free will or not, whether we should baptize infants or not, whether our works damn us or not, etc.
One thing is certain: the Protestants disagree on a lot more than what they agree on.
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.
I was hoping I would get an equally rational answer. I didn't. You have people like Richard Dawkins who says the same narcissistic thing and expects everyone to beioeve him, except in his case his path took the opposite direction, into disbelief.
What makes his conclusion wrong and yours right? Again, what seems right for you is not necessarily absolutely right. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. So, you didn't really answer me how do you know that your faith is right and my doubt is wrong? A Muslim could have givne me the same asnwer you gave me. is that any profo of "knowledge"? You gave me an answer that can be reduced to this: I am right and you are wrong because I believe it.
It seems that doubt is part and parcel of the human condition. Even Christ experienced it on the cross
Then his faith was imperfect.
I don't know if my faith will ever by 100%. I'm okay with 99%.
How do you know it's 99% and not 98, or 98.5, or 90...
I'm happier believing there's a reason why we live. And doubt can end up becoming very egocentric
Dr. E, everything you are telling me is egocentric. What else is saying I believe because "I am happier believing..." It's a feel-good, egocentric attitude, what makes us happy, not necessarily what is true. It's like someone saying I smoke because I like it. Does that mean smoking is the right thing to do and to wish it on everyone?
As Van Til concludes...
I don't know who Cornelius is or was, but I am not impressed with his work, although I can see his thinking pattern as a familiar folly used by many. Just because the massing link is still missing doesn't prove the existence of God, or justify a supposition that he does when we don;t even know what God is. Nothing is more ridiculous then men who write that God is incomprehensible and then proceed to tell you and explain everything about him in intricate detail.
Yes dear, except why should I believe you?
Some things exist whether you believe in them or not.
Like free will.
:)
I don’t care if you believe me or not; that’s your problem.
I care only to voice God’s word, that his elect will hear it, and believe. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
.
The subject was luck.
Do you believe in luck?
I believe “Are you saved?” under Calvinist predestination reduces to “Were you born lucky?”.
Under Calvinism with a capricious god, yeah, there’s luck. And the unlucky ones are created in his wrath for eternal punishment. The lucky ones, spared of his wrath call this “love” and “justice.”
But, no, I don’t believe in this god. It’s not the Christian God.
You would be wrong since "luck" doesn't exist.
Do you believe in luck?
God is not capricious and there is no such thing as luck.
Can you answer the simple question? It's pretty straight forward.
Do you believe in luck?
To those created for hell or heaven, it darn sure looks like luck, coming out of nowhere for no possibly discernible reason or cause - in the womb. To them, it's a roll of the dice - heaven or hell. If that's not luck, it's as close as you can get.
The theology is clear: Completely at the whim, er, pleasure, of a wrathful god. It's a step back to a pagan god.
Then tell me the reason you were created in the womb destined for heaven and not hell.
Can you answer the simple question?
I told you already, in this context, I don't believe in luck, I don't believe in Calvin's god. My position is that you believe in luck, despite saying you don't.
I can understand someone like you who believes his good works will save him hoping for a God who waits on men to see what they’ll do next.
But that is not the God of Scripture. It’s the god of Rome who encourages men’s hubris to believe they are righteous in their own right and thus can fulfill the law perfectly when no one but Christ can fulfill the law perfectly.
Back to the question.
Do you believe in luck?
Asked and answered.
Now, you. Why were you created in the womb destined for heaven and not hell? Why were you picked to be spared of god's wrath and punishment?
I care to have a discussion with rational human beings. With you that seems impossible. If you feel like preaching, go preach to someone else.
I don't know why God has graced me with faith in His Son. It is enough for Christians to know He has and to be grateful for the free gift of His mercy when all men deserve death due to their sins.
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" -- 2 Thess. 2:13
I told you already, in this context, I don't believe in luck, I don't believe in Calvin's god. My position is that you believe in luck, despite saying you don't.
lol. Not only do you redefine the question I'm asking you, but you change my answer.
Let's try one more time.
Irrespective of anyone else's definition of luck, do you believe in luck, as defined by Webster?
lol. If only.
It's not a complicated question. Most people would have no trouble with it.
Do you believe in luck?
Might as well pick luck then.
Irrespective of anyone else's definition of luck, do you believe in luck, as defined by Webster?
In the case of salvation, no. Again, I don't believe in Calvin's god.
In terms of whether the coin is heads or tails, you win the lottery…, there are odds, physics and causation. A completely different subject.
Calvinist superstition holds that it was divine choice, but it all comes down to luck on an individual level because they sure did nothing to tip the scale, but were simply handed the ticket stamped "heaven" before they could even ask or wish it.
That's a great explanation, RnMom. Thanks much.
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.