. . .
THAT shoe
on the other foot!
MEMORIES!
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.
Herein lies the difference in identity of the Christian Church and the RCC identification of the Church. The Christian Church also trusts the Church Fathers when they are united and don’t trust them when they are not united with the teachings of Christ. One has the object of a grouping of men labeled the Church, while the other focuses on the object providing foundation to the Church.
QUITE SO. QUITE SO.
THX
Thanks, kosta! Much obliged!
I feel quite similarly.
God loving the world, i.e., His creation in general, is not mutually exclusive with God hating certain people in particular.
It is an express Biblical teaching that God hates certain people:
Why would you preach against the express Biblical teaching that God Hates Certain People? It says that God hates certain people, EXPLICITLY, right there in the Infallible Word of God!
"Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." (Psalm 139:21-22)
If you don't like what the Bible says; if you don't preach what the Word of God explicitly declares -- if, in fact, you directly contradict the Word of God -- then can you really claim to believe the Word of God?
Again, your church has some serious problems since there is so much teaching in it at the local level that you guys keep saying isn’t the official position of the Catholic church. I knew Catholic parents who were terrified of taking their newborns out somewhere before they were baptized, lest something happen to them.
Limbo certainly is taught in the Catholic church. Amazing how different former Catholics remember the same *wrong* teaching. How can so many people who don’t know each other and grew up in separate parishes have so many of the same (alleged) errors in belief if it weren’t the pervasive teaching of the church?
INDEED.
When asked to provide a list of scripture, the extraneous books you mention didn’t make the cut. Many other books were considered of value and read, but were NOT considered scripture.
It is possible for sincere Christians to differ on many points of doctrine, since God gave us scripture and not a systematic theology text. And if you read a ST text, it is obvious why - theology is philosophy, not revelation. It often enters areas where man cannot KNOW by reason, and where God has not REVEALED, yet the pride of man insists on going there regardless.
There is a reason Paul wrote “8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col 2)
So yes, early Christians differed on philosophy and theology, even as modern Christians do. That is why I can disagree strongly with Catholics on many issues and still call many of them my brother and sister in Christ. God, in His time, will either clarify the issues or bring us home where we see our foolishness and repent of our vanity.
Call it a "defective choice" if you want; it's still an irrelevant distinction. I will repeat (and re-phrase) my prior question:
Can those who have Free Will, choose to do Evil?
Nice to see some rational posts on such issues.
Love the Scriptures.
Great link.
Thx.
God hates evil. People who refuse to repent but wallow in evil will receive his wrath. Frankly, God gets angry with me when I sin.
But he loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son. And while we were his enemies, he died for us.
But God did NOT pick a list of names to hate from before the beginning of the world and compel them to sin so he could judge them for doing what they could not help doing.
I hate and despise Obama, but if he repented and turned to Jesus, I would welcome him as my brother.
And God hates certain people. It specifically says so, in the Word of God.
But God did NOT pick a list of names to hate from before the beginning of the world and compel them to sin so he could judge them for doing what they could not help doing.
What a ridiculous characterization of Calvinists, and our expressly-Biblical beliefs.
If you're not going to debate your opponents on what they actually believe, don't even bother. You're not debating, you're just Bearing False Witness, a deliberate and willful violation of the Ninth Commandment.
It's an Abomination against God for you to Bear False Witness as you do. The way you dishonestly smear your opponents with you own deceitful and malicious fabrications, you're just polluting the thread for those of us who actually want to discuss Scripture like Christians.
If that's how you intend to "debate", with snarky lies and intentional malice -- then all I have to say to you is, get thee behind me.
“God loving the world, i.e., His creation in general, is not mutually exclusive with God hating certain people in particular.”
*****************************************************************************************
And in context, it says.....
John 3:10-21
10”You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
16”For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
*************************************************************************************
Jesus is talking about PEOPLE. He didn’t die to redeem creation. He came and died to redeem PEOPLE.
From the Catechism:
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Did you see the post where I allegedly said that the Catholic church never allowed married priests?
If you remember it, you ought to be able to do a search for it, or mention a time frame of when you saw it.
I searched through all my posts back about a month and couldn’t find anywhere where I even brought that topic up until it was implied that I made a statement to the effect that the Catholic church never allowed married priests.
If you don’t produce it, I consider that as an admission of loss.
You claim I said it? You are responsible to produce it to support your claim.
Um, again, they're not mutually exclusive.
Respectfully, I would submit that the Scripture teaches -- He did both:
"But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:13)
I don't think that your post was incorrect, just incomplete.
People are created in the image and likeness of God.
Physical creation is not.
Redemption of creation comes with redemption of man since corruption of man corrupted creation.
But Jesus came to save mankind, not creation. That’s just tagging along with the redemption of mankind part.
Mankind is not equivalent to physical creation.
I don't disagree with your overall view. I just think that we should not lose sight of the cosmological universality of Christ's Victory. I don't think that the Apostles did either, in Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3, even if they (understandably) placed their primary emphasis on the salvation of individual souls.
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.