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.
~~”Can’t we discuss doctrinal differences without belittling others? It sure would be refreshing.”~~
Here’s the problem as I see it.
For a thousand years Rome deluded Christians until finally God brought about the Reformation by the revelation of Scripture and the recognition that God is in control of salvation, not men and not magisteriums.
Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Hus, Wycliffe, Beza, and hundreds of other Reformers rebuked the works-based salvation of Rome and declared (under threat of death) the Scriptural truth that God is sovereign and He determines the names of His children, and that He will insure that those children are brought to Him by the free gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit who leads His children to the righteousness of Christ.
All well and good. The entire world was leaving Rome. Europe was becoming Protestant in just a few generations. The middle class was flourishing. Life was good.
But not for Rome. Rome was mighty distressed. Rome looked around and saw it was losing its grip on the Christian church. So what did Rome do? What do Italian Machiavellians always do? They connive. They slink around and infiltrate. They pervert the truth so that others will believe a lie.
Part of this counter Reformation was taking a reformed Christian like Arminius and bringing him to Rome. After a few months in Rome, Arminius returned to Amsterdam and began preaching another Gospel. A gospel of free will, of men’s clever choices, of uncertain salvation, of works. Sound familiar?
And because men love to think they are more pious and holy than the next guy Europe began to turn back to Rome, to a works-based salvation, to a church where grace is merely a nudge and not a life-altering blast from the all-holy Creator.
This thread is a great example. Protestants and Roman Catholics have been debating doctrine. And then what happens? An Arminian appears and diverts the discussion by criticizing the Protestants and agreeing with the Roman Catholics.
So if you detect some rancor, it’s probably because it gets really frustrating to see right in front of our eyes the fact that the counter Reformation has never ended. It continues to this day. On this very forum. On this thread.
Thankfully, Christians know that Romans 8:28 is true. “All things work for those who love God, who are the called according to His purpose.”
Sadly, Arminians choose to forget the second half of that verse.
More’s the pity.
Wrong. We can be confident He brings them all to Himself.
I think we've been here before, but I'm not sure. Are you saying:
- All babies who die are elect? Or:
- Non-elect babies who die are changed to elect.
Quick, Quix, white hankies all around
Oh, I entirely get that.
As I've been saying, and it's no fault of yours, there was some sloppy catechesis going on.
I have libraries (ok, small libraries, very small) of examples of lousy catechesis. I was a big noise in kiddie religious edumication for a couple of years. and I was horrified.
What should be THE GOAL of kiddie religious ed? Why, it seems to me, to proclaim that saving love of God in Christ Jesus, what else? If I myself trust God and the power of His love, even if/though I think the feelthy papist Church is the bees knees, I am going to try to proclaim His love the best I can, in word and deed, and one of the 'deeds' will be to trust Him conspicuously by not attempting to turn the Gospel into an instrument of control or of enculturation.
A fourth grader engaged me in dialogue: "Mr. Dawg, God loves me right?"
"Yes"
He want me to be happy, right?
"Yes!" [firmly]
"Then why doesn't He help me with my math homework?
To me, this was wonderful,. He was casting the question in terms of the first things, the basic principles! So I could talk about God developing our strengths and skills and character blah blah, but the kid had already put the whole thing in terms of Love.
If God wants the kid to become a Catholic, or whatever, that's wonderful. But the kid is IMHO more likely to care about God, to rely on Him, to reach for and listen for Him if he hasn't had a bunch of prune faces emotionally beating up on him while proclaiming a love they are making incredible.
But my genius and wisdom are, for some reason, unappreciated, and within and without the Catholic Church religious ed dopes keep using God to try to control children -- because the teachers have too little faith.
And as Protestants teach better than many Catholics, a lack of faith makes you stupid, and enables lousy decisions. So the next thing you know a bunch of good kids have experienced what should be (from my POV) a wonderful introduction in to the Gospel of Love as an oppressive boring experience in being made to feel guilty.
It's a crime. But fortunately God is good and can use our ferocious booboos as megaphones for His word, or I would have cried myself to sleep way too many nights.
Absolutely ZERO people on this earth today know with certainty the answer to “are babies saved?”
But there is enough Scripture to convince us that God’s grace is sufficient to cover the most innocent of His creatures, even though no one escapes the fallen nature of our first father, Adam.
It’s funny. You can ask people and you get all sorts of answers, most not even related to their theology. It’s just all over the map.
I find that people who have children are more accepting of infant salvation. Certainly being made aware of the fragility of life and the depth of love does something to our perception of God’s view of infants. I do think that believers can have a greater confidence in the fact their children will be saved because Scripture tells us that “the promise is made to you and your children.” And of course it is God who gives us our children in the first place.
Not every question is answered completely in the Bible. But the important ones are answered to what should be our satisfaction. That’s enough for me.
Belittling people is one thing.
Belittling trashy destructive ideas is something different.
Because I don't think they really teach that. If I see a post from one of them saying exactly that, I will post a disagreement and say why I did not agree.
Why can't the Magesterium settle the question that grieves so many parents of children lost before any action could be taken for their "spiritual welfare"? I get the whole baptism is necessary thing, but maybe they got that part wrong and should recognize that baptism is something that should come after a person accepts Christ as savior not something "done" to a human being who has no understanding at all. Maybe the ordinance of water baptism is not supposed to be in the way it's done in your religion because it does not address all the aspects of it.
Then why post things irrelevant (or of unclear to me relevance) in response to it?
We would say they lacked Charity, Faith, Hope, Justice, and Temperance. They had enough Prudence to make it to the pilot's seat and enough Fortitude to steer the planes.
But good acts, to the extent that they arise through men, require all the virtues, including the ones that are entirely and simply gifts of God. They had none of the supernatural virtues (as we see it) and distorted versions of half of the cardinal virtues. They called evil good, and believed it. So they did it.
“I’ve noticed that when Roman Catholics are losing the arguments on some of these threads, certain Arminian posters pop up and derail the discussion.”
I haven’t posted on a religion thread for a long time, and will drop off this one now. When I’m asked to say who Jesus is...what is next? A demand that I discuss all the names of God, or describe all of life in 25 words or less?
When someone who has debated Catholics on the priesthood, real presence, baptism, infant baptism, the Pope, works, etc is accused of trying to ‘go back to Rome’, it becomes a waste of time.
If someone has a serious question and wants to discuss it, that is fine. But this thread has thousands of posts as the same group make the same accusations, same insults and same churlishness that drove me from the religion threads last spring.
RnMomof7 is correct in believing I have far more in common with her theology than I do with Catholics...and I appreciate the spirit with which she makes her arguments. HarleyD has been honest and serious with me, and I appreciate that. I think boatbums knows the regard I have for her.
But let’s be realistic. I’m not likely to change any of your minds, and you are not likely to change mine - so let’s leave it. We disagree. God will have to sort things out in His time and in His way. Until then, I will gladly pray with any of you for revival, for a spiritual awakening in America, and pray that God may forgive my many errors.
If anyone wants to read more on the non-Calvinist side, I recommend the SEA, although I am not a member. (http://evangelicalarminians.org/) I think they are the most responsible single source forum for Arminian ideas. But it will only encourage parts of me that I don’t want to encourage to debate this here longer.
You know on the day of my salvation I kept asking "why me Lord? why me?" The above scripture is the best answer I have ever found ...I am nothing, I have not one thing to commend me to a Holy and righteous God.. I fall on my knees in gratitude that he has adopted me to be His own ...
I was saved by HIS grace and Mercy, not because I was smarter,or more holy or more clever than the unsaved ..but just because HE set his love on me
AMEN, RnMom!
Free grace. No strings. Chosen by Christ, for Christ, through Christ, according to nothing in ourselves, but simply to display His mercy.
"The purpose of life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever."
LOL.
Leave me out of this one.
I see both . . . facets of God’s mysterious diamond in Scripture. I’ve said what I have to say on the topic many times.
I think my perspective is akin to Angel-Gal who also sees Scripture on both sides of these issues.
When I see a topic where God seems to say things on both sides of what humans are inclined to see as a linear logic either or construction on reality . . .
I try and avoid yelling louder and beating brothers and sisters on the head harder . . . and just wait for God to clarify things IN HIS TIME—which, on this topic, will likely be in eternity.
When I asked our Assembly of God Chaplain [AOG is decidedly Arminian] to speak on the issue of “ETERNAL SECURITY” (I’d been running around with a lot of Baptist missionaries), I thought sure he’d give a resounding proof of Armianism.
Instead, he laid out Scriptures on both sides. He refused to take a stand and insisted we search the Scriptures and seek God for ourselves about it.
My abiding sense has been that it is a lot harder to lose one’s Salvation than some AoG hell-fire and brimstone preachers of my outh indicated . . . I used to think that if The Rapture occurred while I was frowning, I’d go to hell.
Yet, that there are some folks who curse God, say vile things about Holy Spirit and evidently deliberately actively reject God and the whole idea of a Salvation they once cherished.
And, I believe that there has to be—AT LEAST FROM OUR FINITE PERSPECTIVE SOME DEGREE OF ROBUST ABILITY TO CHOOSE NON-LOVE IF THERE IS TO BE ANY REALITY OR MEANING TO CHOOSING LOVE.
And, I like Dr Walter Martin’s explanation—imagine a computer as big as the universe. From the perspective of God, every possible choice of all possible organisms is already programmed into God’s computer with Him as programmer. From the perspective of each finite individual, the choices are real and authentic choices with authentic consequences for bad choices vs good choices.
However, God is able to jigger the program to achieve His will in all cases.
That’s my bit. I don’t care to argue any of those points.
Great points.
I particularly like:
If God wants the kid to become a Catholic, or whatever, that’s wonderful. But the kid is IMHO more likely to care about God, to rely on Him, to reach for and listen for Him if he hasn’t had a bunch of prune faces emotionally beating up on him while proclaiming a love they are making incredible.
It seems to me that ifyou think about learning in general and about that statement, you will understand how the Balto Catechism could make a statement like that as a broad brush introductory remark suitable for young people, but wrong in the details.
The problem with carrying on a prosecution rather than an enquiry is that the prosecutorial goal blinds one to common sense explanations not compatible with prosecution.
First, no Jew would ever quote Jesus. According to the Jewish sources Rabbi Hillel said only this: "'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Everything else is commentary."
Second, one thing Christians don't understand about this verse is that it has a very narrow meaning: it was meant for the Jews, and Jews only.
That is obvious from the whole verse (Leviticus 19:18) which reads:
The Hebrew term used, rea, means someone close, even intimate, someone who is related (a member of Hebrew nation), not just any fellow human being.
So, when the Jews read Lev 19:18 they don't see, interpret and understand it to mean the same as when you read Mat 22:39.
It may look the same but it's registered as a completely different message.
The fact is that the Catholic OT with "Apocrypha" was "cast in stone" at the Council of Carthage onward.
I gave you the listing of the OT books at the Council. It was ratified in Rome in 411 AD.
If I had just learned that what I thought was the official teaching of the Catholic Church was in fact a distortion which decreased in currency shortly after I left, I hope I would have the good sense to entertain the notion that other distortions had changed as well.
But what we're talking about is the subjective experience of Jesus. I decided to quit trying that about 5 minutes after they started in seminary. I am content to let that one abide in mystery.
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.