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.
GREAT SAYING.
I would love to believe that. I really would. But there is no scripture to support that.
To the contrary, if a man could have confidence that every single one of his children were saved (elect), then every one of Noah's children's, and his childrens' children, and their childrens' children, etc., have been saved. In other words, every single soul from Noah on down to the end of time is elect.
You and I both know that is an impossibility. Unless, of course, Noah himself was not elect. But can you really believe Noah was saved from the flood but not from eternal damnation?
The promise was made to believers and their children.
That’s sufficient to permit me to sleep at night.
That, and the fact my husband and I take our Christian responsibility seriously to raise our kids as God-fearing children who kneel to none but Christ.
Beyond that, it’s God’s to know. I trust Him. He gave me my children to raise, not to own. They are His.
The RCC catechism (1250) says that unless a parent baptizes their infant, those children cannot be a "child of God." --
"The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51
AMEN! What a wonderful question.
A comforting promise, to be sure. But heresy, nonetheless.
Scripture makes it abundently clear that the majority of souls will not escape perdition. So your comforting promise could not have been effective for Adam, otherwise *nobody* would go to hell -- for every single one of his children, and then every single one of his childrens' children, etc., would be elect. And neither could the promise have been effective for Noah, for the very same reason.
So either the promise of every one of the elect's children being elect is unscriptural or, if true, then either Adam or Noah was not elect. Of course, there is no scriptural evidence that either Adam or Noah was elect, but it would seem rather counter-intuitive if we all got to heaven and neither Adam or Noah was there, don't you think?
And therefore go to heaven. If any are predestined non-elect and die in the womb they would go to hell.
(Please let me know if my statements above are incorrect according to the teaching of double predestination.)
While I understand you saying there is some uncertainty in knowing whether those who die in the womb are all elect or some are not (heaven or hell), I'd appreciate your thinking on this followup question:
If all who die in the womb are elect - and thus babies who die before birth go to heaven, what about those who die, say, just after being born? How far out does this go? Would you think all who die in the first week after birth go to heaven? First year? Two years?
How would you approach this question?
A comforting promise, to be sure. But heresy, nonetheless.
The LORD shall increase you more and more, you and your children." -- Psalm 115:13-14
"If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore." -- Psalm 132:12
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." -- Acts 2:39
"Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me..." -- Isaiah 8:18
"And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." -- Hebrews 2:13 "He will bless them that fear the LORD, both small and great.
I'm sufficiently convinced. 8~)
How would you approach this question?
By leaving it up to God.
While the RCC believes parents elect their children by baptizing them, and teaches that unbaptized babies go to some fictitious, unScriptural place called limbo, I'm content to leave the fate of unborn, just born and recently born children up to the grace of God.
I believe I'm correct that some do, but it is important to be certain on each other's beliefs.
Below are the portions of the Westminster Confession of Faith (A Reformed confession of faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition) concerning predestination. I know this is the doctrine of Dr. E's Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It also applies to some other Presbyterian churches worldwide; and, with various changes, it has also been adopted by some Congregationalists and Baptists.
I think it helps immensely in these discussions to accurately get what they believe from those who believe it. If others, Reformed, on this thread include this in their articles of faith, please say so; conversely, if you/your church disagrees, please state on which parts, if you wish.
The Westminster Confession of Faith:
CHAPTER III. Of God's Eternal Decree.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
The story looks a little different when you tell the whole truth:
1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.
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.
FALSE!
I'm content to leave the fate of unborn, just born and recently born children up to the grace of God.
I believe that's pretty close to Catholics, though I believe Catholics go a bit further towards an affirmation that God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven.
We do not believe that any fetus or baby who dies was foreordained by God to everlasting death -for him to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice..
You cite some beautiful verses to be sure. But, with all due respect, not one single one of them deals with the thrust of my post:
That if a saint can rest assured in the salvation (predestination unto election) of each and every one of his children, then has every single descendent of Adam been saved? Then no single sould goes to hell. Unbiblical. How about every single descendent of Noah? Every single one of them unto the end of time is saved? Also unbiblical.
The biblical verses you cite are most edifying, but do not in any way deal substantively with the question of the secured/promised/guaranteed election of the elect's children. In other words, I am not going to let you off the hook so easily, Doc.
Something seems not quite right about that... it does enforce the point that this earthly life is not the purpose of our existence and that eternity is going to make all of this seem so very insignificant.
As has been point out, the Baltimore Catechism is the bare-bones basics. In addition, doctrine develops, is more clearly defined (usually in resolution of a controversy), as the necessary implications are realized.
"(The ordinary man) has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such thing as free will also.......,
The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It if full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), ti is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad becuse they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.
For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational value of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it esier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. ...... his mercy would mean mere anarchy."
So that they can become full members of the Church, with all the graces appertaining thereto!
Besides, ya never know -- they might be so unfortunate as to grow up!
The way I recounted it is the way I read it in a Midrash class -- in the original Hebrew.
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.
I've read that at the time of Christ there was vigorous discussion about that very thing and that this is the background to be understood in the account of The Good Samaritan.
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.