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.
That certainly is a valid conclusion to draw.
Maybe my memory is faulty but I seem to remember Cardinal Ratzinger affirming the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdatolis.
On Unam Sanctam I don’t think consulting a bunch of internet canonists is going to help much. I will say this though, “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” may not be saying exactly what you think it says. It is absolutely necessary for British citizenship for every human creature to be subject to the reigning monarch... doesn’t mean you have to like it or even acknowledge it. You could probably even vociferously deny it, wouldn’t actually change anything though.
Thanks for your non-answer. :-)
I'll be gone for a few hours but will attempt to research the Cardinal Ratzinger - Ordinatio Sacerdotalis thing later on.
To which I repliedTo: Mr Rogers; 1000 silverlings; HarleyD; RnMomof7I didn’t have the option of smiling and claiming to be the pretty one...And yet you have because the Arminian is smarter and more pious than his neighbor next door who doesn't believe. The Arminian chooses correctly all by his lonesome. Congratulations. Well done. Good work.
Funny, too, how your analogy is shrouded in sexism.
As 1000silverlings noted, your tag fits right 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.
Perhaps that's their intent.
5,375 posted on 09/15/2010 7:17:58 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
Secondly, I have not seen Mr Rogers or any Arminian come on any Protestant-Catholic thread for nearly a year, so your very statement is incorrect.Dr. E felt that one group of Protestants was "popping up and derailing the argument" --> I haven't seen any group of Protestant do that and indeed haven't seen any dissenting Protestant join these threads for nearly a year.
To which I repliedTo: Mr Rogers; 1000 silverlings; HarleyD; RnMomof7I didn’t have the option of smiling and claiming to be the pretty one...And yet you have because the Arminian is smarter and more pious than his neighbor next door who doesn't believe. The Arminian chooses correctly all by his lonesome. Congratulations. Well done. Good work.
Funny, too, how your analogy is shrouded in sexism.
As 1000silverlings noted, your tag fits right 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.
Perhaps that's their intent.
5,375 posted on 09/15/2010 7:17:58 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
Secondly, I have not seen Mr Rogers or any Arminian come on any Protestant-Catholic thread for nearly a year, so your very statement is incorrect.Dr. E felt that one group of Protestants was "popping up and derailing the argument" --> I haven't seen any group of Protestant do that and indeed haven't seen any dissenting Protestant join these threads for nearly a year.
Certainly he does. Read the thread you're referencing (in opposition to the rules of FR which says not to carry one argument over to another thread.)
Rome is not "silent" on infant salvation. Rome screams evil by its concocted fabrication of "limbo" being the eternal destiny of babies who are not baptized.
A satanic, completely unScriptural doctrine developed to frighten the masses into entering a church led by "another Christ."
That is not Christianity. That is coercion by evil.
What about the stillborn? Could this not be construed as saying that infanticide is somehow a "positive"?
And how EXACTLY did Calvin know this?
Throughout history, Christian theologians have looked at the Bible every way possible hunting for some verse or verses that can be interpreted to say that the stillborn or those who die prior to baptism will definitely go to Heaven. If you believe nothing else I have ever written, believe this, EVERYONE (Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants) WANTS to believe that these innocent infants are in Heaven, but NOBODY has been able to find Scripture that will definitively validate this wish.
If God gives us the number of days of our lives, then it is reasonable to believe He brings the little children to Him by His grace, as Jesus said.
The Catholic Church has NEVER suggested that God cannot or does not bring these children to Heaven, it has simply acknowledged the painful reality that Scripture is silent on this.
Sadly, Rome teaches that unbaptized babies do not go to heaven but to a fictional land called Limbo where they are deprived of the presence of God for eternity.
Again, this is FALSE. Whoever taught you that LIED.
Pray for eyes to see. What has been described happens all the time.
You are breaking the rules of FR by carrying one thread over to another.
None of this cherry picking verses oops, sections you know.
NL: If they do, and I have not heard of a single case, it is not out of necessity, but most likely to comfort a grieving parent. If you are aware of any instances please link them in.
Is that not lying to the parent then, leading them to believe that it is accomplishing something when it's not?
As much as possible, I take a Freeper’s post at face value.
and I eat babies
The nature of the gambit is to cop to an outrageous matter in hopes that a denied less outrageous matter will be thought, by the thoughtless, to be as ridiculous as the one copped to.
It guess I could make another conjecture: Calvinists posit an essentially abusive God, who makes babies with the intention to torture them forever.
Whatever this might suggest about their own histories, it also suggests a kind of free-floating anger waiting for a convenient target. So when a Catholic comes along, the interactions are more characterized by hostility and anger than by reason or courtesy.
These two conjectures are no more incompatible than discourtesy and cannibalism. But I prefer my first conjecture because it seems a little more based in empirical reality.
One of the most fabulously, incredibly offensive of our adversaries, one who notoriously mischaracterizes our beliefs and never admits to getting things like, just as an example, the name of the Catholic cathedral in London wrong, ludicrously called me a hypocrite because I snapped back after a series of insulting and condescending posts aimed at me.And this is why I am beginning to see that real conversation is impossible. Conversation requires the willing participation of both parties.
Yes, I know that many, especially on your side, talk about thin skins and rough and tumble -- along with displaying a totally unrealistic understanding of how to sharpen a blade. it seems to me that your side is incapable or at least unwilling to consider that we ALL share an evangelical responsibility to the rest of FR.
So, rather than choosing to provide example a courteous and charitable dialogue in an environment given to rhetorical excess, abuse, and sophistry, your side views the FR rules as permission and opportunity to be as nasty as you wanna be.
Just as the adulterer tells himself that a few sweaty hours in a hotel will somehow forever be excluded from the true history of his life, so the most aggressive religious Freepers seem to think that the gratuitous hostility of these threads is not done in the Lord's presence.
I suppose since you all know you are saved it does not matter to you that you all seem intent upon dishonoring Him who saved you and set upon making His beloved seem ridiculously spiteful. Whatever my ultimate destination, I will be ashamed when I am asked to explain some of my posts here.
In any event, I stand by my original post. Here comes the gentle Mr. Rogers. Your side circles him like teacup poodles around a rat and nips and yips until he shows some temper. Then you all present a shocked and disappointed condemnation because he was half as nasty in defense as you all were in assault.
I agree completely. That's why we look to the whole of Scripture for some guidance. Where Scripture is clear, we understand clearly. Where Scripture is less clear, we understand less.
Calvin came down on the side that since it is God who determines the length of our days, time in the womb, time outside the womb, it is a benevolent and merciful perspective to believe that all babies who die go to heaven. We see Jesus bringing the children to Him. Therefore we have His teaching that children belong to Him.
Sadly, Rome preaches another Gospel by saying unbaptized babies go to limbo, a place devoid of the presence of God where they will reside for eternity.
That is truly pitiful. It was a theory concocted to get people into a Roman Catholic church by fear and coercion.
For some reason known only to you, you deny this fact which has been taught by your church for centuries. I can understand the reluctance to embrace such a foul teaching.
Now if only Rome would follow your good example.
I distinctly remember at the time he said it wasn't because when it came out "we" all started doing the happy dance and shouting "in your face" at the womyn-priestette people and then cardinal Ratzinger cut the legs out from under our unChristian glee. I believe what then developed was the statement that OS wasn't an exercise of the charism of infallibility because there was no refinement or clarification of dogma, it was something we already knew and fully understood JPII was just driving home the knife... er, so to speak.
As to my non answer... well, maybe it is. I'm not positive that the statement requires the assent of the individual reader. It may be a statement of fact as understood by the Catholic Church. I am my children's father even if some of them decide to go all emo on me in the future and claim otherwise. I think we've bounced off each other on this subject earlier and I sort of wondered if the interpretation of that line was dependent upon the intent of the currently reigning pontiff.
The Catholic church is pretty adamant that those who are not baptized go to hell and that baptism is necessary for salvation.
The only reason I think they waffle on the issue of whether stillborn babies or infants go to heaven is to avoid conflict.
They can’t say they do, they can’t say they don’t, so they’re stuck and the only really honest answer is *We don’t know* and people don’t want to hear that.
Now--- I was discussing theolgy with the gentle mr rogers as you call him, and nobody made him respond. Like any of us he can always go do something else.
and again, for all your sad stories about how we believe all kinds of outrageous things about the Catholic theology, you have no problem believing hearsay posted about some Baptists somewhere doing awful things to babies.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
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.