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.
Before any replies are made it will be necessary to ascertain your adherence to or aversion of Christianity.
That will never happen. Anti Catholic diatribes are much more important to the OPC than stating core beliefs about individual conduct with respect to theology.
“”To pretend that God is not a God of Justice and wrath is a matter of scriptural ignorance””
True SCRIPTURAL wrath and justice is not how Calvin viewed it because God being love can never cease being love OR GOD WOULD BE CHANGED(”For I am the Lord, and I change not”-Malachi 3:6 and “1 John 4:8 “God is love”). The wrath is the person being tortured by God’s infinite love due to hatred of Love
Love is the utmost torture and wrath to grave sinners,those in hell and the devil
Kolokotronis posted this excellent post showing how the Church Fathers understood this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:kolokotronis/index?more=71407381
Here is what +Symeon the New Theologian says about the Final Judgment:
“In the future life the Christian is not examined if he has renounced the whole world for Christ’s love, or if he has distributed his riches to the poor or if he fasted or kept vigil or prayed, or if he wept and lamented for his sins, or if he has done any other good in this life, but he is examined attentively if he has any similitude with Christ, as a son does with his father.”
In all events, it is God’s Love, not an instrument or instruments of torture, which is the “end” of the Final Judgment.
“I say that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love.... It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love’s power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it” +Isaac the Syrian (Homily 84)
1. What is your definition of said inappropriate Christian behavior? Before making a slanderous statement one should be advised that your definition of inappropriate christian behavior is in order
2.Why do you feel a need to nominate me as a Catholic? Have you empirical evidence of this statement or is this some additional conjecture?
3. Your attempt at accessing and labeling my INTENT as "not appropriate christian behavior" is a very troubling aspect of your post and needs to be reviewed at the highest level by Counsel to ascertain any possible tortuous aspects. You attempted a faulty guess at my faith why not try for occupation.
Mostly now, I'm curious why someone wouldn't say.
Exactly, kind of like Dr. E's obsession with Legatus' post about Dr. Dobson. That inappropriate, demandng curiosity is typical of Catholics like Dr E.
Oh, wait...
You inquired “ So how many children do yo have” ? According to the Daily Mail the London newspaper that estimates actual crowds 80000 and they all showed up to support the Pope this Sunday. Guess you had a reading or counting problem
Sorry, forgot to ping you to 6526.
Oh Gee, thanks! lol
Wouldn't wanna miss out on round two.
ROFL!!!
Well, since I mentioned you,and dragged you back into the sewer, I thought it might be nice to ping you.
Probably because that's where I'm needed most. ;O)
Ah, the Animaniacs!
Here’s Pinky and Brain “pondering”...
Sounds like the OPC on this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg6OTTbKsmQ
Not at all. I can't decide whether I'm following my will or the Lord's will except what it tells me in scripture that the Lord would like me to do. I trust that God will do as He has promised.
And how will the Lord guide you back to the right path?
Perhaps you should ask King David that.
If a person can't trust in the word of God, then they are rudderless ships sailing in the ocean.
That's because everyone keeps bringing up "free will" and I keep insisting there is no such thing. There is only God's will and man's will. God's will is good. Man's will is bad (to do the things of God). The concept of "free will" is the interjection of a third choice and implies man is capable of doing the things of God (e.g. man can choose God, man can do the works of God, man can behave and be very good). There is nothing in scripture that would back this claim of free will up.
Every Reformer that I have read will readily insist that man has a will (even Calvin). That will is held in bondage and, once free, it is capable of doing the works of God. But it is only when man's will is free can it be guided by the Holy Spirit to do the things of God. This is the technically accruate description of what happens. But there is no free will by which man can do things pleasing to God. It is impossible.
What makes our discussion seem like I described is statements such as this:
But it is only when man's will is free can it be guided by the Holy Spirit to do the things of God.
Guided not controlled. I read you writing of choices and making them, but then denying you have choices. Make sense?
I think we're, partly, in a semantical problem more than a theological one.
You are defining: choosing self is "bad" and choosing God is "good" and saying there is no free choice. I'm saying this is the choice we face every day - self or God. This is how I'm describing free will choice.
once free, it is capable of doing the works of God. But it is only when man's will is free can it be guided by the Holy Spirit to do the things of God. This is the technically accruate description of what happens. But there is no free will by which man can do things pleasing to God. It is impossible.
I think this is confusing, and I think it is confusing because it is trying to say there is free will and then that there is not. I believe it is also confusing because it's counter to our experience, a very basic human experience of making decisions.
In any given instant, deciding to follow God does not mean we are God or we create "good"; however, neither does it mean we do not have a decision to make and make it. Would you agree with this statement?
The East believes that Mary was cleansed of all sin at the moment of Annunciation and has not sinned since her submission. If she were sinless, by nature, as the Immaculate Conception claims, then she would not need a savior and would not have died (actually the Catholic Church never explicitly states that she died, but the East most definitely does).
Worthy reminder of the early Church.
Do you do that on your own will?
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.