A fellow sinner, in need of Christ's redeeming?
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.
There is a blindspot in Calvinism here. God foresees my choices, this does not mean I don't choose. God forsees the effects and changes that come from my choices. This does not mean that I do not choose and my choices have consequences.
That God foresees them in no way removes free will choices or consequences.
Let's try this analogy: I film a man making choices. I watch the film. I know what he will choose. Did he not make a choice because I know what he will choose?
God can watch the film prior, knowing what the man will choose, but he still chooses. It is two very separate things.
Knowing in advance what choices I will make and making these choices for me are two different things.
Of course, you’re right. How could I forget? Paul the Gnostic. Paul the kook. Paul the second to Peter.
The author of more than half the New Testament, and FR RCs want him relegated to comic book status.
No, the question was did God force Paul to love him. This is contrary to a loving God and contrary to Paul's own view of God.
Yes! This is the same arguments that Mormons use! Sweet! Of course that didn't stop Joseph Smith from quoting it verbotem as new revelation, even to the punctuation
Yes, some of the Tirnitaruian and Chrisotlogical heresies do come from the canonical books as well, but many came form non-canonical, or the non-canonical books were used to "support" the heretical views found elsewhere.
The canonical books are full of ambiguities and textual variants that give "proof" to such views. Others are related to such factors as grammar. Take for instance the Jegovah's Witnesses' claim regarding John 1:1—it's all about one (nonexistent) indefinite article!
That's my point. Rome declares what it wants to declare.
It all depends on who showed up.
It’s corrupted where translation errors are made,not where they are not.
Lets not get carried away now
The KJV says God repents-do you actually believe this?
Amen. Certainly those are the very words of Scripture when Christ refers to believers as his real mother and brothers and sisters.
Since I didn't say that, it's something internal to your thought processes that came up with it and needs examining if you want to pursue you own mind on the matter.
Are you really willing to say that only Rome is guilty of that?
8~)
what does the bible say? And by the way, the Catholic church did not, no matter what you claim, write the Hebrew scriptures
The hardware in the horse’s mouth is a full cheek snaffle bit, which is generally considered one of the gentlest bits made. The horse standing next to me in the picture doesn’t need or use a bit, but the horse my daughter is riding is green broke. Using a bit makes it easier to communicate what is desired, and makes her more comfortable than when bitless.
I suspect people are sometimes like horses. Those sensitive to God don’t need a bit, while those of us who are less sensitive won’t know what is going on unless God uses a bit clearer guide...
But none so until the moment of their death.
Half right. We don't know for certain anyone else's salvation. Therefore we continue to preach the Gospel to all men everywhere forever, confident that those whom God has given new ears will hear the truth and believe to the saving of their souls.
We do have an indication -- by either the good fruits or evil fruits a man produces. Christ tells us that good trees produces good fruit and corrupt trees produce evil fruit.
But life is long and who is to say God will not turn the eyes of today's unbeliever to the glory of Christ tomorrow?
We DO have a reasonable certainty of our salvation because the Bible tells us that God's free gift of grace through faith in Christ is evidence of our adoption by God.
Don't let any man or church deprive you of the blessed assurance Christ has given His flock -- that He will never leave them and never let them suffer beyond what they can handle and that He will be with them until the end of time.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:18 ", Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." -- Acts 16:31
How ethical is it to ignore the topic and use the post to make a personal attack in violation of the rules?
“”I would encourage you to actually read Augustine rather than cite clips form the internet approved by Rome””
I have read Blessed Augustine and agree with him when he is in line with consistent church teaching
Blessed Augustine had some error in thought like we all do sometimes but always submitted to the Church. and stayed within the Church.
The late Fr Willam Most explains some of Augustine’s error in thinking .
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.HTM
The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis: God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin alone, without waiting for any personal sin.
God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to hell.
He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it, but that was a denial of God’s love. For to love is to will good to another for the other’s sake. If I will good to another not for that other’s sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving that person, but using him.
So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son see, he explicitly denied several times that “God wills all to be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it means
nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance.
Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on, in about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his sense of God’s goodness took over his thinking
What former Catholic made these statements?
BTW it is a bit ingenuous to word your observation on married priests as you do ... you should explain that as of RIGHT NOW, only married "priests" of other faiths that convert are allowed in the priesthood, and if their spouse dies they vow not to remarry
So are there married priest ...yes.. but that is a very special catagory
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.