I sure have sympathy for the poor guy. Can you imagine what things are like every single day in his life? No Calvin-invented hell could possibly be worse.
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.
Since I am Christian and not Calvinist, I post neither. I suppose that your sentence makes sense in a rather odd sort of way - 0 and 0, which is where I suspect that OPC sympathies and support really lie, given the wide eyed statements of protest and attack against others.
It's an impossibility. I'll be long gone, cremated, and my ashes scattered in the ocean, "Filling" you in on hundreds of years of history.
I suspect that the bucket is empty. Nice bluff, though.
I sure have sympathy for the poor guy. Can you imagine what things are like every single day in his life? No Calvin-invented hell could possibly be worse.
Ah, but for us, we are on the FR Internet forum and therefore are separated from all that by the grace of God; there is a husband that experiences sheer living hell every single day...
He is an inspiration for me. When I was recouping from prostate cancer surgery I kept telling myself that there are always others who have it worse than me. He headed that list.
He also said that he would love to sit down and have a meal (or a beer) with Luther, but Calvin did not seem to be the type of guy you wanted to visit with.
The big problem that set the Lutheran Reformation off was that neither side was really interested in what Luther was saying at times. The Pope didn't really care at first what some back woods Augustinian monk said from one of the Germanies, and the Elector Princes just saw a way to tell the Pope to get out of their hair. By the time the split happened, it was more political than theology.
Same with the horror that was the 30 years war. There was a Catholic poster here on FR that mentioned a Lutheran (Protestant) army sacking Rome. I was at first confused, for no army of the Protesting Estates made it that far south. We were both right. The army was a mercenary one under the Catholic king of Spain Charles V, who was fighting with the Pope over who would rule. In the end, most of the fighting over the 30 years was financed by Catholic powers arguing over the Imperial throne. Religion was a side issue.
Catholics and Lutherans have much shared theology. So much that while we are the “original” Protestants, using that term leads to much confusion on both sides.
My Lutheran Pastor said the same thing in my confirmation classes years ago.
Very true.
As for those who were bodily assumed to heaven (which is in the Bible, such as Enoch), I don’t know exactly what type of body they have at the moment. I can wait to find out.
And you mentioned you had an electron micro scope. Would love to borrow it for the weekend.
But you are correct in wondering. I don't know about this creedal declaration; I accept it at face value.
Let's see: Elijah in:
2 Kings: 6 Elijah said to Elisha, "Please stay here; the LORD has sent me on to the Jordan." "As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live," Elisha replied, "I will not leave you." And so the two went on together. 7 Fifty of the guild prophets followed, and when the two stopped at the Jordan, stood facing them at a distance. 8 Elijah took his mantle, rolled it up and struck the water, which divided, and both crossed over on dry ground. 9 2 When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, "Ask for whatever I may do for you, before I am taken from you." Elisha answered, "May I receive a double portion of your spirit." 10 "You have asked something that is not easy," he replied. "Still, if you see me taken up from you, your wish will be granted; otherwise not." 11 As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
This is interpreted as OT bodily assumption.
Genesis 5: 22 Enoch lived three hundred years after the birth of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. 23 The whole lifetime of Enoch was three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 2 Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him.
Ditto.
As for Mary, East and West differ somewhat, but the whole question remains: what do the Creeds mean when it comes to either these two or three individuals? I can also wait to find out.
As for the electron scanning microscope, I am currently researching the body of Scriptural proofs of Calvinist beliefs. It is pushing the limits of the microscope's resolution to actually observe anything at all.
He also said that he would love to sit down and have a meal (or a beer) with Luther, but Calvin did not seem to be the type of guy you wanted to visit with.
I would generally agree on both counts. I tend to be a little hard on Luther because I think that he is responsible for opening Pandora's Box of man-made religion (remember his any milkmaid comment?). Calvin on the other hand, was creepy and malignant by all accounts. I see him in a screenplay being portrayed by somebody like Alan Rickman or Christopher Walken, whereas Luther would be more like John Goodman or John Ratzenberger.
The big problem that set the Lutheran Reformation off was that neither side was really interested in what Luther was saying at times. The Pope didn't really care at first what some back woods Augustinian monk said from one of the Germanies, and the Elector Princes just saw a way to tell the Pope to get out of their hair. By the time the split happened, it was more political than theology.
Spot on.
Same with the horror that was the 30 years war. There was a Catholic poster here on FR that mentioned a Lutheran (Protestant) army sacking Rome. I was at first confused, for no army of the Protesting Estates made it that far south. We were both right. The army was a mercenary one under the Catholic king of Spain Charles V, who was fighting with the Pope over who would rule. In the end, most of the fighting over the 30 years was financed by Catholic powers arguing over the Imperial throne. Religion was a side issue.
Correct again.
Catholics and Lutherans have much shared theology. So much that while we are the “original” Protestants, using that term leads to much confusion on both sides.
Yes. I am impressed by WELS and the LCMS in terms of Christian orthodoxy.
Wagglebee is correct that we have much more in common than differences between traditional Anglicanism and orthodox Lutheranism.
Arrghhh.
I meant Luther to be played by George Wendt, not John Ratzenberger. Apologies to all, especially Luther...
The evidence of that statement is nowhere on this forum. Occasionally, you post snippets of Scripture with no explanation or reason.
I don't mind. It helps to differentiate the light from the darkness.
redgolum: My Lutheran Pastor said the same thing in my confirmation classes years ago.
I am sure he did. The other half of the Church teaching, however, says that man synergistically cooperates with God, like a patient with a doctor, if one is to be saved.
In other words, God does not force himself on anyone (i.e. forced love = no love). Grace, being love, is not irresistible. However, the Protestants claim otherwise.
Therefore, the Church teaches that the essential elements of salvation are Grace first, and free will second. God offers, man accepts; God leads, man follows—freely.
meant to ping you too, sorry.
Yeah, I couldn’t see Cliffie in that role...but Norm? Nooorrrmmm, werks fer me. Cheers! ;o)
My husband says that's when he checked out of Rome. He asked questions and was admonished for doing so.
Rome believes in authority; an authority that is not to be challenged even with Scripture.
No problem, ROE.
Isn't it stunning that Roman Catholics believe they must suffer self-inflicted pain in order to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
Most people don't give themselves pain. But if Roman Catholics believe this pain is necessary for salvation, then this goes a long way in explaining why they would want to believe a saint would pray for them and give them some of their earned merit.
A salvation stand-in.
The Incarnation has nothing to do with the fables and lies Rome has concocted -- such as Mary being sinless; her supposed bodily ascension into heaven; her immaculate conception; her co-redeemer status, her crown as queen of the universe, and all the other idiotic, unScriptural, blasphemous titles and characteristics Rome heaps with abandon on a simple Jewish girl.
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.