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 does God CONTROL AND DIRECT AND MOVE their hands, mouths, feets, thoughts, with utter control? A simple yes or no answer, please
Some years ago, a friend who grew up Fundamentalist Baptist had been excommunicated from her church because she was engaged to a non-Baptist. They married and she joined a Southern Baptist church. When her youngest son was 5 it was discovered that he had a hole in his heart that would require surgery. At the time she was quite active in her church home. She asked the pastor if he would add her son to the weekly prayer list for a while because of his impending surgery. After a few weeks she noticed that his name had still not appeared on the list. She asked the pastor. He politely told her that since her 5 year old son was neither saved nor baptised that he would not add the boy to the public prayer list but he, himself would pray for the boy. As far as her church was concerned the child was not a christian and would not go to heaven if he passed away during treatment. She was devistated.What's the difference between a Fundamentalist Baptist and a Southern Baptist?
Some years ago, a friend who grew up Fundamentalist Baptist had been excommunicated from her church because she was engaged to a non-Baptist. They married and she joined a Southern Baptist church. When her youngest son was 5 it was discovered that he had a hole in his heart that would require surgery. At the time she was quite active in her church home. She asked the pastor if he would add her son to the weekly prayer list for a while because of his impending surgery. After a few weeks she noticed that his name had still not appeared on the list. She asked the pastor. He politely told her that since her 5 year old son was neither saved nor baptised that he would not add the boy to the public prayer list but he, himself would pray for the boy. As far as her church was concerned the child was not a christian and would not go to heaven if he passed away during treatment. She was devistated.Wmfights --> is this SBC belief that a child is not Christian?
Why do you point out Wesleyans? RnMomof7 is a Presbyterian, OPC
Why do you point out Wesleyans? RnMomof7 is a Presbyterian, OPC, not Wesleyan Methodist
Your analogy misconstrudes the doctrine of grace. If a person understands that nothing comes from us, including our faith, then you cannot have pride. Everything is given to us. How is it possible to have pride? What would you be prideful about? Everything is given.
That's the whole point in me asking you where your faith comes from. If I understand that faith comes from God, I can say I'm elect but that's it. I have to just shrug my shoulders and say, "I don't know why God would elect me but there must be a reason."
If you believe your faith comes from yourself, then you can say, "I'm elect because I have faith. Others are not elect because they do not have faith." The difference is because you choose to exercise your faith for whatever reason.
Now what seems to be the most prideful?
One of the posters being addressed had been told to leave the thread by the religion moderator and has started a thread (to which I linked) absolutely excoriating Wesleyanism. So it seemed to me if Wesleyan doctrine is "satanic" (not my words btw) that the idea of Protestant unity on essentials is a myth.
Dissenting Catholics are lumped in with faithful Catholics and we get "see, Catholics have no unity of belief but Protestants agree on Biblical doctrines". Faithful Catholics are in agreement with what the Church teaches though but "Faithful Wesleyans" and "Faithful Calvinists" aren't in agreement on free will and predestination (at least). So my question was "are Wesleyans not actually Protestants"... since I gather from what I'm seeing in that other thread that they're almost as scummy as Catholics.
Thanks! That passage was brought to mind by a number of posts here, only I didn’t get around to hunting it up!
Thanks for the Chesterton.
Orthodoxy is online here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/orthodoxy.html
203
His “Everlasting Man” is online, here:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/content.htm
Pride is possible either way.
Responsibility, sin, repentence, love, meaning (what you choose matters) is only possible in one.
It is not a diminishment of God’s power if He wishes real relationships with real people who come to him of their own choice.
This is something I was getting at in an earlier post: we are enjoined to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect; we know that God's justice can be hard to understand (but His justice does not stand in isolation from His other attributes); nevertheless, our ideas of justice are necessarily derived, however imperfectly, from our idea of God's justice: we are to be just because God is just, as we are to be merciful because God is Mercy.
But if God's justice is not simply more perfect than what we can achieve, but of an entirely different kind, does that not make our ideas of and efforts toward justice useless? Does it give us permission to be utterly arbitrary?
Well, it’s the prerogative of the Calvinist god. Not giving his creatures any free will, he alone must decide who is saved. He has the power to predestine unto election no one, everyone, the many, the few, or any combination thereof.
Scripture indicates that the majority of souls will not escape perdition. So for some reason, the fewer people saved, the more the Calvin god is glorified. It’s counter-intuitive certainly; but such are the mysteries of the Calvin god.
The real bummer is when an elect soul gets to eternity, and then asks the Calvin god where his stillborn child is. Then the Calvin god, wiping away the poor soul’s tears, says, Well my son, I predestined your beloved son/daughter from before the very foundation of the world that he/she would spend all eternity suffering everlasting torment in the fiery pits of hell, for it is all well and good and pleasing to me, and it brings me great glory to boot.
I’m not sure the Lord God is the Calvin god.
D-fendr, this is heresy, plain and simple. Romans 9:
11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
God is no respecter of persons. Why would He show any favoritism toward a reprobate fetus over a reprobate child or a reprobate adult?
On an emotional level, the natural man recoils at this. However, as Paul states in Romans 9:
20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
To: RnMomof7; OLD REGGIE; Dr. Eckleburg; bkayceeThe OT is Gods revelation to the Jews.. It was never given to the church. It remains under the authority of the jewish peopleWhich Jewish people? The Sadducees? the Alexandrian Jews? The Essenes? The Samaritans? The Pharisees? I hope you realize they all different canons and beliefs. Now which one has monopoly on being the most Jewish when it comes to the "Old" Testament?
The Christian OT was based from the beginning on the Septuagint (LXX). The NT writers quotes from it almost exclusively. The Church accepted it whole, "apocrypha" included.
The NT is Gods revelation to the church
Last time I checked, the "New" Testament was also revealed to the Jews unless you know of any non-Jewish Apostles in Jesus' party.
And, save for the handful of them, the Jews rejected it as fraud.
The question is “Does God limit himself for his purposes?” Obviously none of us can resist God. If he chose to save us irresistibly, he could and would.That's interesting and a good point -- they replied "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" implying that the acceptance of Jesus's grace was what the persons had to do to be saved, not just sitting back and assuming they were save
But when the Philippian jailer asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, they didn’t reply, “Nothing! Monergism, Dude!”
Instead they replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. - Acts 16
An unbaptised baby does NOT go to hell or purgatory as they have not yet sinned of their own will. What happens to them? We say they go to “we don’t know” i.e. limbus infantium.
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.