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.
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.
Nicely done ,dear friend!
The following is the death blow to Calvinistic ideas ....
That God hates nothing By Saint Thomas Aquinas
AS love is to good, so is hatred to evil; we wish good to them whom we love, and evil to them whom we hate. If then the will of God cannot be inclined to evil, as has been shown (Chap. XCV), it is impossible for Him to hate anything.
2. The will of God tends to things other than Himself inasmuch as, by willing and loving His own being and goodness, He wishes it to be diffused as far as is possible by communication of His likeness. This then is what God wills in beings other than Himself, that there be in them the likeness of His goodness. Therefore God wills the good of everything, and hates nothing.
4. What is found naturally in all active causes, must be found especially in the Prime Agent. But all agents in their own way love the effects which they themselves produce, as parents their children, poets their own poems, craftsmen their works. Much more therefore is God removed from hating anything, seeing that He is cause of all.*
Hence it is said: Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of the things that Thou hast made (Wisd. xi, 25).
Some things however God is said, to hate figuratively (similitudinarie), and that in two ways. The first way is this, that God, in loving things and willing their good to be, wills their evil not to be: hence He is said to have hatred of evils, for the things we wish not to be we are said to hate. So it is said: Think no evil in your hearts every one of you against his friend, and love no lying oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord (Zach. viii, 17). But none of these things are effects of creation: they are not as subsistent things, to which hatred or love properly attaches. The other way is by God's wishing some greater good, which cannot be without the privation of a lesser good; and thus He is said to hate, whereas it is more properly love. Thus inasmuch as He wills the good of justice, or of the order of the universe, which cannot be without the punishment or perishing of some, He is said to hate those beings whose punishment or perishing He wills, according to the text, Esau I have hated (Malach. i, 3); and, Thou hatest all who work Iniquity, thou wilt destroy all who utter falsehood: the man of blood and deceit the Lord shall abominate (Ps. v, 7).*
That God cannot will Evil-(Chap. XCV)
EVERY act of God is an act of virtue, since His virtue is His essence .
2. The will cannot will evil except by some error coming to be in the reason, at least in the matter of the particular choice there and then made. For as the object of the will is good, apprehended as such, the will cannot tend to evil unless evil be somehow proposed to it as good; and that cannot be without error.* But in the divine cognition there can be no error . 3. God is the sovereign good, admitting no intermixture of evil. 4. Evil cannot befall the will except by its being turned away from its end. But the divine will cannot be turned away from its end, being unable to will except by willing itself . It cannot therefore will evil; and thus free will in it is naturally established in good. This is the meaning of the texts: God is faithful and without iniquity (Deut. xxxii, 4); Thine eyes are clean, O Lord, and thou canst not look upon iniquity (Hab. i, 13).
Time for work!
Your whole argument here is based on one small quotation from "Wisdom". Which is Apocrypha.
I could argue the citation, but why bother? It's not even real Holy Scripture.
Ergo, the argument fails on account of being Un-Biblical. Next?
You may not like Realism but calling it evasive or irrelevant indicates to me that further study on the question needs to be done. The "what to do, what to do?" position is just ONE position. I think it the worse one.
God is Love. We are enjoined to love our enemies; do you think Christ tells us to be better than God?
No, you didn't. Not at all.
You described a point of view, but you did not answer my question:
Yes, or No? Add all the extraneous explanatory verbiage you like, but please begin your answer with a straightforward "YES", or "NO".
Otherwise, no, you haven't answered my question.
I gather you are unfamiliar with the rules of the religion forum. You might want to check them in the profile of the religion moderator. Then again, you might not, who knows.
Are the Psalms and the Proverbs in your Bible? Because they specifically teach that God Hates Certain People.
Our own mortal, human Enemies may be amongst God's Elect, and just unsaved at this time; we do not know, so who are we to hate them?
But God, who is Omniscient, suffers from no such deficiencies in knowledge. He knows who His Enemies are, and He Hates them.
Is Deuteronomy 32 in your Bible?
It's in mine.
Mr Rogers, do not suggest another Freeper requires medication. That is also "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
There is no such thing as choosing to do evil (when evil refers to moral evil) because the so-called “choice” to do evil (in that sense) is a failure of choice, not its exercise.
Just wow.
“.....you’re just polluting the thread for those of us who actually want to discuss Scripture LIKE CHRISTIANS”
Is this post of yours Exhibit A of “Christian discussion”?
Faith is not a gift.
I quoted from monergism.com...what is YOUR source on what Calvin teaches?
Did Jesus die for all, or just the elect? If God irresistibly converts men, why doesn’t he convert all - unless he hates many apart from anything they have done?
I haven't read this list of Rules but I will say the following:
I have not accused him of believing one thing, and then changed my tune and pretended I accused him of something else.
I have not accused him of being mentally deranged, and requiring medication.
It is Mr. Rogers who resorted to all of these slanders.
I have simply called them, "Lies". Because they are Lies.
Rogers, you wanna point out any of my posts where I falsely mis-characterized YOUR beliefs, or accused YOU of being mentally deranged?
If you're sensitive to being criticized for Lying about people and their beliefs, then don't Lie about people and their beliefs. It's simple, really.
I suspect 5054 won’t last long, which is a pity. Some posts make my point for me, in a way I could never do...
Leave the thread.
I cited monergism.com for what Calvin teaches. Why do you claim I’m being dishonest?
What do you think limited atonement, unconditional election, and irresistible grace mean?
Yes, of course it is -- but my understanding of it is a lot closer to Aquinas' understanding than to yours.
It does strike me as odd that a Christian would prefer the OT to the NT to argue a point.
But I am curious how one is supposed to deal with the question I raised in #5059.
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.