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.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Grace is God's unmerited favor shown to an undeserving sinner.
Here's a very nice essay from a Baptist church...
God's Riches At Christ's Expense Grace then is God's free unmerited favor that comes to us in spite of what our sins deserve. In fact in Jesus Christ God gives to every believer not only not what our sins deserve but the very opposite. In the place of death He gives life. Instead of wrath, He shows favor. Rather then send us to Hell, He will receive us into Heaven. This is Grace. God's favor to the Hell deserving, in which He gives us the very opposite of what our sins deserve. Someone has made the matter simple and memorable in saying that grace is:
Likewise, this from Shane Rosenthal is lovely...
The New International Dictionary of The Bible defines grace as "that unmerited favor of God toward fallen man...." This quite an adequate definition. Notice here that grace is described as disposition of God (God's favor upon the undeserving). Some people speak of grace as though it were a substance God pours into us, but as the Bible describes it, when we receive grace, we are receiving approval, acceptance, and favor, from God himself. This is why I also like one of the definitions found in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary which describes grace as, "a disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy or clemency." This is exactly how the Bible describes our relationship with God. We do not earn this kindness or clemency, but it is caused or initiated by God's own character. In his mercy, he is gracious to us. But to say that grace is related to mercy, is to say that grace is totally undeserved, unmerited, and unearned, for if we have received mercy, the implication is that we have received a special exemption from justice. Therefore, one will not sufficiently understand grace and mercy until he or she has acquired a basic understanding of God's holiness, righteous requirements (i.e., his law), and the predicament of human sinfulness. We simply will not have an adequate view of ourselves or any doctrines relating to grace until we have understood these basic concepts.
Interestingly, Rosenthal goes on to describe the error of some of our RC FRiends...
In my own production work for the White Horse Inn I have polled a wide number of believers from various backgrounds, and on one occasion I asked approximately one hundred Christians what they thought of that quote (without immediately letting them in on the fact that it was a Bible verse). Forty percent of the folks I polled disagreed with Jeremiah's statement about the deceitfulness of the heart; a quite troubling statistic. Jesus' statement that all sins are rooted in the heart seems also to be what he was getting at in his Sermon on the Mount when he said: "whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." I once brought up this verse to a non-Christian friend who looked at me in disbelief that Jesus would ever have taught such a thing. When he said, "Then no one would make the cut!" I replied by saying, "That's kind of the whole point." For too many years, evangelical communication with the world has been hostile. We've portrayed ourselves as saints and told the world they were sinners. If we are to avoid becoming modern day Pharisees, we must rid ourselves of this distinction between ourselves and the "sinners out there in the world." We must recover once again the biblical concept of total depravity; we are all sinners. The only difference between us and the "unregenerate" is that we wear Christ's righteousness as a robe, and that we are being sanctified. But in terms of our own standing with God, we are just as morally repugnant as any pornographer, adulterer, murderer or homosexual (Is. 64:6). As my friend Michael Horton likes to say, "My heart has done things my hands haven't gotten around to yet!" When all is said and done, the Christian must view himself in accordance with God's word, as is summarized well by the psalmist, "No one living is righteous before you" (Ps. 143:2). We simply have to admit that we cannot truly sing John Newton's famous hymn, "Amazing Grace" until we really come to believe and understand the following lines "...that saved a wretch like me." A sober view of human potential always brings a high view of grace... It is ironic that Jesus is often portrayed as the messenger of love in contrast with the God of wrath presented in the Old Testament. You begin to wonder if the folks who say these things have ever read the New Testament (or the Old Testament for that matter). This is particularly clear when you read Jesus' remarks about the coming judgment, and of God's wrath, but it is also evident when you notice what Jesus says about the human condition. Rather than being optimistic about "human potential," Jesus presents us with the sobering reality of the problem of sin, and the fact that the problem does not merely lie on the surface, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'... (Matt 15:19-20). Jesus was confirming the words of the prophet Jeremiah who wrote that, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked..." (Jer. 17:9).
No wonder our RC FRiends have such a difficult time articulating the Gospel. The Good News of Christ is based on grace - the unmerited mercy of God - and Rome does not appear to understand what "unmerited" means.
Jesus Christ, the word of God made flesh. What a splendid, comprehensive and exhilarating plan of salvation.
Thank you so very much for sharing your testimony, dear sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!
I enjoyed "The Book of Eli" - but I do not recall "Places in the Heart." It is always a delightful surprise to watch a Hollywood production that is in sync with Scripture!
“”You have No idea””
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of “making it personal.”
Lets see Dr E prove she knows historic orthodox Christianity than compared with those who do like Kolokotronis and kosta 50?
“Places in the Heart” was a sweet movie by Robert Benton in 1984 which gave Sally Field her second Oscar. It’s on DVD and Netflix. There is just the most splendid scene at the end of the film where family members who’ve passed away are sitting with their loved ones in church. It’s just beautiful. I haven’t seen it in years. Hope it holds up. I should watch it again.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087921/
And the Coen brothers’ “Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou” is pure Old Testament with an ethereal river baptism scene.
Every once in awhile Hollywood produces something worthwhile.
Maybe it’s just the odds. 8~)
It is STILL after all these years,
amazingly shocking to read such stuff come from RC fingers.
One thinks they can’t stoop any lower and then somehow, they manage to do just that.
They must begin teaching
RC Rationalizations
in the first grade in Parochial school. Or is it Kindergarten?
Because I don't know it's God's word. You say it is. Why should I believe you?
Did you not read the New Advent article? The debt was paid by Christ on the cross to God and His perfect judgment.
THAT is what your Roman Catholic church teaches.
And for once, Rome is correct.
For some peculiar reason, you've put yourself outside of Rome AND historic, orthodox Christianity.
In all sincerity, stfassisi, read New Advent. The excerpt came from the chapter on Atonement.
smvoice is not Catholic as far as I know. In 1558 he denies it, but in 15414 he writes:
I am including smvocie on the ping list only out of courtesy since his/her screen name is being mentioned, but we are not communicating by his/her own decision.
As I said, Protestants believe many things. Your Westminnster Confession is a traditon of men, and many a Protestat does not subscribe to it.
That's what the Bible teaches. That's what the WCF teaches. That's what New Advent teaches.
The conundrum you're experiencing is answered by the fact that Satan was created by God and does not work with impunity. Rather, "all things" work according to the purpose of God. Therefore Satan tempts, but it is God who frees men from this temptation.
"With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his." -- Job 12:16
Agnostics ask "why did this God whom I don't even believe in set things up this way?"
Christians answer: for His glory and His good pleasure and the welfare of His family.
Somehow you take exception to this. Who do you think Christ pays the ransom to? Who is Christ beholden to?
This is an excellant description of ‘Grace’ DR. E. I have saved for reference. Thank you...and lets hope others read. Good stuff!
Actually it's even more pathetic than that, sfa. I was asically told by one FR Protestant recently that Satan kidnapped our ancestral parents and enslaved, mankind ever since, right under God's nose and on God's watch.
Poor God had no choice but to kill himself to satisfy the greedt devil and release the captives. It seem God simply could not come up with a less bloody solution!
Calvinists would argue that God actually wanted Satan to do that, and that eveyrhting happened according to God's plan and the whole Garden of Eden drama was concocted by God for his own glory.
There are as many theologies as there are Protestants, and each and every one of them claims to be right.
And I love the baptism scene from “Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou” you mention as well as the haunting song "Oh, Death."
It could be argued that the worst crime ever committed in history was Christ’s death on the cross.
Did God ordain that death?
Why don’t you read post #15,511 to learn that the Roman Catholic church also teaches that Christ paid the ransom for our sins to God, just as smvoice and I have maintained according to Scripture.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2578704/posts?page=15511#15511
Looks like you’re odd-man-out. Or would that be odd-agnostic-out?
No. I places "blessed" in quotation marks, using the term but not taking the meaning seriously.
Just some free-floating good luck, eh?
Do you consider a poor child born in Brazilian ghettos, with a cleft palate, no father, living in poverty and exposed to violence as "punished" byt God, or just darn unlucky, since you obviously believe that being "blessed" is somehow God's doing and not sheer free-floating luck?
Is that not really Pharisaic—thanking God you are not like the tax collector in the back of the synagogue? I think it is.
It's not who but what. If you are going to claim invisible "beings" controlling things you will have to provide some evidence of their existence and work.
Spot on, SFA.
So then you do believe in luck?
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.