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.
Also -- just how do you understand "Love thy neighbor," given your stated view of humanity?
“Can you explain why Paul’s message had different responses?”
Because different people make different choices, just as we all do every day. You might as well ask why we don’t all drive Ford F-150s.
Jesus gave a reason in John 5: “44How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” Men who seek the approval of other men refuse to believe the Gospel.
And sometimes Satan is involved: “The ones along the path are those who have heard. Then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.” Luke 8
“There are multiple incidences of the inward and outward calling of God. Would you say that Moses’ calling was inward, outward or both?”
Scripture records an outward call. Do you know of a passage that states Moses, or Noah, or Saul or Abraham receive an irresistible inward call? Of course not.
“It is presumptuous to think we can say “no” to God.”
It is simply scriptural, as in Acts 13:46 “Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.”
Or John 1: “11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.”
Or Matt 22: “’Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’ 5But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.”
What is presumptuous is to substitute our philosophy for the clear teaching of scripture.
Seeing how personal matters get pretty intense scrutiny, evaluation and commentary on this forum, I’m glad I opted out on a response to that question of yours..
But I do think it would have been surprsing.
Dead means separated from God, not incapable of responding to God. And there are many passages speaking of us as blind, or slaves, or ill - all of which must be ignored if man is to be presented as unable to respond to the command of God, with God then judging him for not doing what he is incapable of doing.
It is like beating a dog with diarrhea for pooping on the carpet, when you left him inside an apartment for 12 hours...
Your view of GOD is to low and view of Man is to high.
With the "All God or All Man" false dichotomy we always get it wrong, for we must eliminate one or the other in choosing. In your view, man is eliminated. If I seek to put him back into reality, you will always see this as too high - because you have to eliminate him entirely.
And since I also don't choose "All God" you will always see "God and Man" as reducing God.
God is omnipotent; He created man with free will.
NO ONE understands; NO ONE SEEKS for God.
God seeks us. Our response is to His grace; whether we believe. This covers the elect and non. Our difference is you say God creates some such that they cannot possibly respond, and that God "passes them by."
They are not wounded. They are dead in trespasses and sin.
Again, all instance of "dead" do not mean dead forever. If it did there would be no "alive in Christ" possible. My use of wounded includes being "dead in sin" and all of that, but it does not mean we are born forever dead to Christ.
Our difference again is not that man can "recover" or get well or be reborn. Our difference is double predestination. So post all you wish about that, if it applies in double predestination, it applies without it it. The difference is whether God creates or designs dead forever folks, and programs both such that there is no free will.
Fallen, humanity is running away from God and God's enemy… We were God's enemies
Your view of God is too small here. His love is perfect.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;The god of double predestination falls short of what Christ says of His Father and what He asks of us.
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
***Did you ever participate in the Eucharist at a “Roman outpost” or were your words simply speculative?***
I have witnessed it, but seeing that I am not a Paipist I was excluded.
I think beating a dog with a rolled up newspaper might be more effective. Not that we should be beating dogs in the first place of course.
I know, I know, but it was still funny the first time I read it.
Was it a work for Peter?
I don't say that believing is a work, in the works vs. faith sense for anyone. It is believing.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Of course. We don't disagree on any of this.
So Man determines who is redeemed, not God?
Again, "all God or all Man." A false choice that leads to the dilemma that double predestination cannot solve. When your premise has only false answers, it is your premise that needs changing.
PS
I have been incredibly blessed in life and am full of gratitude for the decision I made.
It gets harder and harder to believe you know any actual people! ;-)
I'm way too tired to get into this tonight -- it's been a long day . . . zzzzzzz Maybe tomorrow!
No, but I can imagine Jesus doing so.
We do not understand God as they did in David's time, else we would still be Jews.
In the OT we have the massive revelation that God is not like the pagans gods. First of all "He is one." Second, we can enter into conversation and covenants and have a concept of God as "just" rather than capricious.
We have "God loves you, if..."
If nothing changes, nothing changes. Something really changed in the Incarnation. Revealed to us was that God's love does not depend on our keeping the law. Jesus took us from "God loves you, if.." to "God loves you."
If we do not follow Jesus, if nothing has changed with His Incarnation, we have not learned more about His Father; we still have only the OT and not the Gospel.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Our Lord was asked the following question (by a lawyer no less):
Christians do love God and they show this love by enacting justice throughout the world. They illustrate their love for God through numereous charible works. But it is all because of God working through us. I suspect that you would agree that you cannot name one good act that you've done on your own for someone without the help of God.
Again, we do it every day. We have this choice every day.
They all heard Paul and the exact same message. Some mocked. Some ignored the message. And some believed. Can you explain why Paul's message had different responses?
Words are not magic, man is not programmed. We can read and hear the same thing and respond differently. Even the same person can respond differently to the same words at different times in his/her life.
Just as you described yourself doing earlier.
I would suggest there was a understanding of this in Old Testament times. Note what the scriptures teaches:
Psa 51:15-19 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem; then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar.
Isa 1:10-11 Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
As far as Jesus handing out the t-shirts, our Lord did not look very favorable upon those who He called "sons of the devil" or "brood of vipers".
For God so loved the world...
Dr. Sproul stated that people always quote John 3:16 without quoting the whole context of the verses:
Joh 3:16-19 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
I think so to. In studying the OT, we can at times see almost two different descriptions or revelations of God. In the Gospel we see which is more accurate - dramatically so in the Incarnation.
John 3:16 without quoting the whole context of the verses
The latter does not contradict what came before it. It says "Whoever believes," not double predestination.
Hey, He was human too. :)
DR.E: What was it specifically that scarred you in Dobson's book, "Preparing for Adolescence?"
But nowhere in your lengthy, nine-paragraph response is there any semblance of an answer.
Instead, you compare some of us to "decadent atheists" and say things like...
if someone has a great deal of difficultly understanding what I'm saying when I'm recounting my own experiences I don't see how that person should be trusted to properly interpret Holy Writ.
Which is just about the most arrogant, short-sighted statement I have ever read on this forum.
And I've read a LOT of sentences.
By making that statement, whether you want to give that impression or not, you seem to be saying your comments are as clear and weighty as Scripture. And that anyone who says they understand the word of God should at least be able to understand your remarks.
However, we're in the middle of a discussion that proves that opinion false. In several posts you've talked about how Dobson's book scarred you, but you have not yet told us HOW.
Not without a sense of irony I'm going to direct the conversation toward another goal
Why not wait to direct the conversation toward another goal until we accomplish the first goal? You've already acknowledged my question as a "halfway decent point," but you haven't answered it.
What was it specifically that scarred you in Dobson's book, "Preparing for Adolescence?"
What a splendid, beautiful post. Good enough for a Sunday morning sermon. Thanks, RnMom.
Oh, really? How about this one:
You know if I hated catholics I would stand back and allow them to follow the pope right into hell
Actually, Legatus' post was just an honest statement of why some people can't be trusted to interpret scripture. After all, if someone is unfaithful in small things, why would they be trusted with important things? And why would anyone voluntarily answer a hostile questioner? If someone despises the Catholic Church, why would an individual Catholic expect decent treatment regarding a personal issue?
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.