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.
AMEN!
Men are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness (Kay, by any other name.)
Kosta50: As it says in +James, who was so odious to Luther, "mercy exults (triumphs) over judgment" (2:13).
Does God punish anyone? Do reprobates burn in hell?
If so, is that due to God's mercy or His justice?
What James meant in that verse is that while ALL men deserve divine judgment for their sins, some men receive divine mercy by God's grace through faith in Christ.
Well put . . . .
. . . not in the counsel of the unGodly.
If God is immutable and unchanging He cannot be both love and hate. If you know a God that hates, it is not the Christian God.
Again, the false choice of Calvin: All God or All Man.
Can you choose to toss a coin right now? Can you choose to toss it high or low? Are you choosing how to reply right now?
You have free will, given by God. Is that an illusion; is God the ultimate trickster?
Bosh.
Maybe he meant that but he doesn't say that. Chapter 2 of James talks about impartiality. Sounds like he may have meant that God is impartially merciful in that he gives everyone a chance to work out their salvation, but some freely refuse? Otherwise, it would be difficult to speak of an impartial God granting mercy to some but not to others, since all have sinned.
I posted it in a historical context, some of which may or may not be known to everyone here or to an occasional lurker. And because one such doctrine, which the Church formulated early on is improperly understood by some here.
Truth is spiritually-discerned
That may be your belief, but not necessairly a fact, unless you have hard proof for it.
A person who says he does not know God or understand God or even believe God exists is not someone who evidences spiritual discernment.
You mean someone with "spiritual discernment" understands God? You know God? You have proof that God exists? Can you show me "spiritual discernment?" Can you tell me what is God?
Matthew 20:26-28
26 ... whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45
45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
John 11:50-52
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
John 10:16-18
16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
Perhaps it is not that God "pulls all the strings", but rather, because he is unbounded by time, he KNOWS where all the strings are going and his will is worked with and among them? He knows the former things and the latter things, and all things work according to his will. Can we accept that not all things ARE knowable to us?
The key word was God. No mention of ransom to God like Hebrews and Ephesians.
If God doesn't pull all the strings then who does? Are yous saying he is fitting his will according to human will? Protestants really do have a buffet of different beliefs.
Is this for real? This is the reason why God loves him?
This is very odd theology, at least to me; "positionally...righteous in Christ"? Just what do you mean?
I happen to agree with this explanation in Positional Sanctification. Here is an excerpt:
So, again to be clear the righteousness is not of ourselves at all. It is only Christ's righteousness that allows us to be saved and sealed in the Holy Spirit in the present time, even though we are yet still sinners in this world. This positional aspect of sanctification is what allows assurance of salvation and assurance that God's promises apply to us as believers, etc. As a status this would be comparable to the juridical aspect of what we call justification. Christ's action justified us and gave us the permanent status of being positionally sanctified IN Christ.
I find it interesting that in making a case for this concept, the author makes not a single reference to any of the four Gospels. Why is that FK? Could it be because Christ never taught such nonsense (and no, 1 John is not a Gospel).
Your source says
This is not even Christian! What scriptural reference does he have for this? Also, how do you stand before the Father and not the Son and the Spirit, and, second, just when will the "saints" be perfected? At the instant of their death? Where does Jesus teach that? Isn't perfection something we attribute only to God? Or does he suggest that believers will become God?
To which is say Baloney! 1 Cor 6:11 presupposes that the "washed" and the "sanctified" are not—to borrow Paul's own words—of those who will not inherit the kingdom, namely the fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, swindlers, etc., all of which will many Protestants be until their last breath no matter how much they have convinced themselves they abide in Christ and are made "just" by the his blood. [1 Cor 6:9-10]
Reference to 1 Cor 6:11 presupposes the "washed" are none of the above, and then some, and frankly I don't believe there are many in this world who are not a little bit of everything Paul considers unfit for the kingdom of heaven, the feel-good kumbaya self-congratrualtory rituals the Protestants perform for themselves every Sunday notwithstanding.
As for "progressive sanctification" supposedly mentioned in 2 Cor 7:1, it all boils down to Paul calling on the "saints" to cleanse themselves "from all defilement of flesh and spirit". To which I say: why bother, when every one "knows" for sure these "saved" will be made "perfect" at the end of their sinful life no matter what they do, think or say?!
And if they so hate sin (supposedly), now that they have been "regenerated," why do they need prodding by their idol Paul? Shouldn't that come to them "naturally"? I guess not.
And what about 1 Peter 1:6 your source uses as evidence of "experiential or progressive sanctification"? It speaks of trials (persecutions) which has nothing to do with sanctification, but calls on perseverance in faith, as hope for a better future promised them. Peter calls on the Christians to offer themsleves to God as sacrifice, imitaing Christ, that is to martyrdom.
Finally, your author also embellishes his worthless claims with 1 John 3:1-3 as scriptural backing for the assertion of the "ultimate perfect sanctification".
Verse 2 in particular says that we really don't know yet what we will be, but (somehow) we "know" [sic] that, when Christ appears, we will be [just] like him (!)—because we will see him just as he is (?).
It seems to me that if they are going to be like him, as pure as he is, they will be perfect (i.e. divine). It sure seems like he knows what they will be even if he says he doesn't! I am sure the Mormons delight in in these verses as much as your author does.
And then verse 3 says that everyone who has this hope (in the previous verse he says "know") purifies himself as Christ is pure. What happens, pray tell, with someone who is "born again" yesterday and dies today? How can he purify himself as pure as Jesus is pure in one day? Or is there some magic involved?
But then 1 John says that
Well, then, this tells me there is not a single person on this earth "who abides in him", not one. So much for progressive sanctification, let alone final purification!
That whole essay, which on its face looks impressive, given all the biblical verses used as references, falls apart when these references are examined, and reveals that much of the holiness some people convinced themselves of is nothing but a feel-good delusion.
The sad thing is that it makes decent people feel good about themselves, but it also does much more people like Andrea Yates. She is also "saved" and "holy" in God's eyes, pure as snow, and destined to heaven. If Protestantism is true Christianity, I am glad I don't qualify as a Christian. In fact, I am proud of it.
Exactly! Dear Friend.
From Saint Thomas Aquinas..
But some might be of opinion that God does not love one object more than another; for a higher and a lower degree of intensity of affection is characteristic of a changeable nature, and cannot be attributed to God, from whom all change is utterly removed. Besides, wherever else there is mention of any divine activity, there is no question of more and less: thus one thing is not known by God more than another. In answer to this difficulty we must observe that whereas other activities of the soul are concerned with one object only, love alone seems to tend to two. For love wishes something to somebody: hence the things that we desire, we are properly said to 'desire,' not to 'love,' but in them we rather love ourselves for whom we desire them. Every divine act then is of one and the same intensity; but love may be said to admit of 'greater and less' in two ways, either in point of the good that we will to another, in which way we are said to love him more to whom we wish greater good; or again in point of the intensity of the act, in which way we are said to love him more to whom we wish, not indeed a greater good, but an equal good more fervently and effectually. In the former way then there is nothing to object to in the saying that God loves one more than another, inasmuch as He wishes him a greater good: but, understood of the second way, the saying is not tenable.
Hence it appears that of our affections there is none that can properly be in God except joy and love, though even these are in Him not by way of passion, as they are in us. That there is in God joy or delight is confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture. I was delighted day by day playing before him, says the Divine Wisdom, which is God (Prov. viii, 30). The Philosopher also says that God ever rejoices with one simple delight.* The Scripture also speaks of love in God: With everlasting love I have loved thee (Jer. xxxi, 3); For the Father himself loveth you (John xvi, 27).
But even other affections (affectiones), which are specifically inconsistent with divine perfection, are predicated in Holy Writ of God, not properly but metaphorically, on account of likeness of effects. Thus sometimes the will in following out the order of wisdom tends to the same effect to which one might be inclined by a passion, which would argue a certain imperfection: for the judge punishes from a sense of justice, as an angry man under the promptings of anger. So sometimes God is said to be 'angry,' inasmuch as in the order of His wisdom He means to punish some one: When his anger shall blaze out suddenly (Ps. ii, 13). He is said to be 'compassionate,' inasmuch as in His benevolence He takes away the miseries of men, as we do the same from a sentiment of pity: The Lord is merciful and compassionate, patient and abounding in mercy (Ps. cli, 8). Sometimes also He is said to be 'repentant,' inasmuch as in the eternal and immutable order of His providence, He builds up what He had previously destroyed, or destroys what He had previously made, as we do when moved by repentance: It repenteth me that I have made man (Gen. vi, 6, 7). God is also said to be 'sad,' inasmuch as things happen contrary to what He loves and approves, as sadness is in us at what happens against our will: And the Lord saw, and it seemed evil in his eyes, because judgement is not: God saw that there is no man, and he was displeased, because there was none to meet him (Isa. lix, 15, 16).
“I am not sure that’s what he is saying, for the same phrase in the OT doesn’t sound like “act your age”.
You raise a good point. I went back to look at the passage.
Lev.11:42-45, “Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon [all] four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they [are] an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I [am] the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”
If one defines “holy” as coming in contact with the deity then the Leviticus passage seems to say “be what you are” since it is the presence of God in their midst that makes them “holy” not anything they did. What the passage seems to say is not to touch the “unholy” (the profane, common or unclean)since they are “holy”.
- Human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism.
Why isn't the first statement negated by the second?
Determinism is the antithesis of free will choice.
“Why isn’t the first statement negated by the second?”
If some one tells you something that you want to hear and they know you will agree with it and you agree with it do you do so of your own free will?
If some one gives you something that you want and they know you will accept it and you do accept it do you do so of your own free will?
Who was that "some one" who wanted hitler to kill millions of Jews BD? "Some one" was giving hitler what he wanted according to what you seem to be putting forth.So ,who is the one giving hitler what he wants if he has no free will?
Are you suggesting it was God who wanted this since he fore knew hitler wanted to kill millions of Jews,thus hitler was actually following the will of God?
I am thoroughly convinced that people who deny free will are hiding some hideous evil act they have done and pawning it off on God's ordination.
I'm tired,Good Night!
“Who was that “some one” who wanted hitler to kill millions of Jews BD?”
It was the same God who let the King of Syria kill hundreds of thousands of the northern tribes of Israel, and just last week permitted the church in Iraq to be attacked.
2 Kings 8:10-13, Elisha replied, “Tell him that he will get better, although the Lord has shown me that he is actually going to die.” He stared at him until he became embarrassed. Then the man of God began to cry. “Sir, why are you crying?” Hazael asked. Elisha answered, “I know the evil you will do to the Israelites: You will set their fortresses on fire, kill their best young men, smash their little children, and rip open their pregnant women.”
13 But Hazael asked, “How can a dog like me do such a significant thing?” Elisha answered, “The Lord has shown me that you will become king of Aram.”
Do you really believe that God is powerless to stop the atrocities or didn’t know they would take place? We don’t know why He allows evil to seemingly triumph but as Habakkuk said looking down the mouth of the Chaldean invaders,
Hab 3:16-19, When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself, that I might rest in the day of trouble: when he cometh up unto the people, he will invade them with his troops. Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.
19 The LORD God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places.
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.