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.
Clearly, the answer is yes. God created Satan, every jot and tittle of him. God was well aware of what Satan would do and all that would transpire in his wake.
And yet God created him anyway.
Therefore even Satan serves a purpose, according to the plan God has ordained for this world and the next.
This should be a great comfort to Christians because Christ tells us that Satan cannot hurt us. Christ, according to the word of God, protects us and keeps us from falling.
"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
Double Predestination: God chose whom to save and whom to doom, in the womb. As concerns salvation, there’s no free will, it’s all predetermined, salvation and condemned to hell. The difference between the doomed and saved has nothing to do with them individually, it’s at God’s pleasure.
It’s tied up in the rest of Calvin’s theology.
good grief, what kind of hardware do you have in that horse’s mouth
His Church is the Body of Christ. Your post is self-contradicting.
Paul was murdering Christians when God "forced Himself" on him.
That's what it takes to turn us from our own reflection to the face of God.
If you think you are doing the turning, you are detracting from the grace that belongs to God alone.
I guess I always thought they just called that “Predestination.” Why the ‘Double’?
You left out one essential detail: the Council of Orange was a local Council and therefore not binidng on the whole Church nor able to proclaim dogma.
INDEED.
SOUNDS GOOD.
I’m not sure it deals adequately with the fact that the Vatican’s documents are on all sides of that issue.
Thanks for your efforts and thoughtful words.
Again, you arguing a straw man. I am simply talking about God's foreknowledge. And even that you cannot defend.
Yes, you know the sun will rise tomorrow. Just as God knows who will come to Him and who won't. And He has known this fact from the foundation of the world.
How do you presume to change this fact? You can't. What God foreknows will come to pass.
This is where free will is an illusion to Calvinist
The Calvinist knows that no man's will is "free." Men are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness, and that end has been declared by God from the beginning.
Limited atonement. Another justification for the cruelty of double predestination.
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved. He's God. He gets what He wants.
All men are fallen.
Yet some are doomed, some are saved.
Some are condemned and some are acquitted. Do you deny this is true?
Maybe I missed something -- who has argued that logic is adequate to bring us to God? Or that human reason is not fallen and imperfect?
As for relate - that is what family involves. Relations. It is what exists between two people, and the God of the Bible is personal. He is not a principle to be comprehended or observed, but personal.
"Relationship" I have no problem with. "Relations" often has a, well, more specific referent! ;-) And "relate" as in "relate to" (as opposed to relating, say, cause and effect, or relating events as they transpired) just brings back too many echoes of "Hey, dude, ya know, I just can't, like, relate to that, ya know? I probably was just exposed to too many undergrads when the usage gained currency.
I don't recall anyone here even remotely suggesting that God is not personal.
Still "no."
Still wrong. Read your Bible. Read Acts 9.
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." -- Acts 9:1-6"And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
"Trembling and astonished." And "blinded for three days," to boot.
Doesn't sound very gentle to me.
BTW, lovely picture! How old is your daughter?
Revisionism.
It can be called Predestination, or even Determinism used non-theologically, but to clarify theologically, Calvin’s view of predestination is called “double” because both saved and damned are predestined.
That God’s grace is withheld from some, that Christ did not die for their sins, their is no free will concerning salvation (either for saved or damned), etc. flow from or are tied up in this foundational belief.
What a great point. Of course that would be acceptable to most RCs. They tell us the exact same thing every day on this forum.
The RCC catechism requires them to believe that kind of sacrilege.
Actually, kosta, an Orthodox Christian, is right. There were 7 councils in the first millennium of Christianity, and Orange wasn’t one of them.
Maybe an important early principle is that we don't say whom God will certainly not save (with the possible exception of the person who insists that he doesn't WANT to be saved.)
I would in no way ever say that acknowledging and appreciating Mary's role (or the role of little old Miss Spinster who ran the church nursery with little knowledge but with love to rival that of the greatest saints) is necessary at the beginning of one's life in Christ.
As a passage just quoted from the Confessions indicates, God makes the first move, so even before we acknowledge Christ and take Him as personal Lord and Savior, I think He acts in our lives and loves us.
I think the boldness with which we approach Him will not be compromised by the detailedness of our understanding of the role saints and angels and little old ladies (of either sex) have played in our Salvation.
As I keep saying to those foolish enough to come to me for teaching, "He's not trying to make it hard for you; he's not erecting ridiculous barriers; he wants your heart, but a living, strong, happy heart, not one broken by impossibilities."
Put in this way: My expectation, should you and I meet before the throne, is that, because I am full of myself, I will babble on at length about all the stuff I didn't know that turned out to be true. You will finally shut me up and say, "You know, Mary IS more than I thought, praise God."
How's that for a verbose spontaneous answer written in a hurry while talking on the phone?
Your side, against Scripture, thinks that everyone is suited to the highest and most subtle theological inquiry. The questions just cannot accommodate this desire for oversimplification.
Love the Lord, and rejoice in His love for you. If you must, laugh at me for my knowing that "The Roman Catholic Church" and "The Catholic Church" are not the same thing.
But if you challenge what I say, I will take you seriously and treat your challenge with the respect a question for a sister -- albeit a contentious one -- deserves.
The question of liking or not liking an answer is in no way related to whether or not the answer is true.
Got it now. ‘Preciate you taking the time for the explanation!
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.