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.
Can you explain what Protestants mean by "obedient". Is it a mindless, unquestioning Abrahamic conformance to commands or does it mean to choose to hear and submit freely to what has been heard (from the Latin ob-audire meaning "hear or listen to")?
The only true selfless love was the cross of Christ. The innocent dying for the guilty ..Greater love HAS NO MAN.
The only love that pleases God and saves is the love of Christ on the cross...
Amen!
It's pretty obvious Mother Teresa tried to live up to the teaching of her church, believing that good works would save her.
Clearly, she did not find that to be true. Which is why Roman Catholics have not been graced with the assurance that Christianity brings to men. If a man has faith in Christ, that man will perform good works not because it earns him heaven, but because his good works are the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
The world conspires to keep this promise hidden from men; to keep them anxious and off-balance and ever-striving for a perfection they can never attain in this life.
Instead, Christianity teaches confidence and security because it is not founded on our weaknesses but on Christ's strength and on His promise to do exactly what He said He would do -- bring His sheep home safely.
" Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:24
DR. E: You use the words of Scripture and your renewed mind to understand as best you can.
D-FENDR: And your result is... ? How would you describe it?
Sorry. I don't play that game. Some Roman Catholic apologists, once they've gotten the answer in several posts, keep asking the same question.
Next.
if God is without passions, what do you make of God “hating” or experiencing “wrath”?
Let's see what Calvin has to say about the immutability and consistency of God regarding Genesis 6:6...
The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sakes he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot take place in God, easily appears from this single considerations that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. Wherefore, there is no need for us to involve ourselves in thorny and difficult questions, when it is obvious to what end these words of repentance and grief are applied; namely, to teach us, that from the time when man was so greatly corrupted, God would not reckon him among his creatures; as if he would say, ‘This is not my workmanship; this is not that man who was formed in my image, and whom I had adorned with such excellent gifts: I do not deign now to acknowledge this degenerate and defiled creature as mine.’ Similar to this is what he says, in the second place, concerning grief; that God was so offended by the atrocious wickedness of men, as if they had wounded his heart with mortal grief: There is here, therefore, an unexpressed antithesis between that upright nature which had been created by God, and that corruption which sprung from sin. Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put him to grief, let us learn to abhor and to flee from sin. Moreover, this paternal goodness and tenderness ought, in no slight degree, to subdue in us the love of sin; since God, in order more effectually to pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections. This figure, which represents God as transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature, is called ἀνθρωποπάθεια
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." - Gen. 6:6
It is the Roman Catholic church which anthropomorphisizes God and makes Him into a Zeus-like character who changes with the whims of men. This must be what permits Rome to so easily give Mary and various saints God-like abilities. Rome doesn't know God, and therefore Rome gives away His holy and divine essence to mortal men.
Here's Arthur Pink's excellent work...
IMMUTABILITY is one of the Divine perfections which is not sufficiently pondered. It is one of the excellencies of the Creator which distinguishes Him from all His creatures. God is perpetually the same: subject to no change in His being, attributes, or determinations. Therefore God is compared to a rock (Deut 32:4, etc.) which remains immovable, when the entire ocean surrounding it is continually in a fluctuating state; even so, though all creatures are subject to change, God is immutable. Because God has no beginning and no ending, He can know no change. He is everlastingly "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jam 1:17)...
And here is a great essay...
Among Catholic theologians, while they may differ as to the exact manner and extent of God’s passibility, one nonetheless finds a strange mix of theological bedfellows. They include, among others, Raniero Cantalamessa, Jean Galot, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Roger Haight, Elizabeth Johnson, Hans Küng, Michael Sarot, and Jon Sobrino. Of course one must add the host of Process Theologians who, following the lead of Albert North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, hold, by the very character of their philosophical position, that God is by nature passible and so can suffer. This theological shift has been so overwhelming, so thorough, and has been achieved with such unquestioned assurance that Ronald Goetz has simply, and in a sense rightly, dubbed it the “new orthodoxy.” What has brought about such a radical reconception of God? How, in only one hundred years, has the Christian theological tradition of almost two thousand years, so readily and so assuredly, seemingly been overturned? There are basically three factors that have contributed to this change: the prevailing social and cultural milieu, modern interpretation of biblical revelation, and contemporary trends in philosophy... From the dawn of the Patristic period Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible—that is, He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and so cannot suffer. Toward the end of the nineteenth century a sea of change began to occur within Christian theology such that at present many, if not most, Christian theologians hold as axiomatic that God is passible, that He does undergo emotional changes of states, and so can suffer. Historically this change was inaugurated by such Anglican theologians as Andrew M. Fairbairn and Bertrand R. Brasnett. Within contemporary Protestant theology some of the better known theologians who espouse the passibility of God are Karl Barth, Richard Bauckham, John Cone, Paul Fiddes, Robert Jenson, Eberhard Jüngel, Kazoh Kitamori, Jung Young Lee, John Macquarrie, Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Richard Swinburne, Alan Torrance, Thomas F. Torrance, Keith Ward, and Nicholas Wolterstorff.
And because God works "all things for the good of those who love Christ, who are the called according to His purpose," I should thank you for motivating me to find and read these wonderful links and then send them on to my fellow saints in Christ.
Soot on the forehead is not how we are to declare Christ.
That if thou shalt confess with they mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." -- Romans 10:8-10 "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
You've been given lots of quotes from the book of her letters. If that's not enough, buy the book and read it yourself.
Your continued "authoritative" pronouncements regarding what the Church teaches and what Catholics believe is unqualified and specious. Hearsay from failed Catholics and Google mining of dubious websites are no substitute for the years of rigorous study under educated Catholic theologians.
Presented as opinion for the sake of contrasting yourself from all things Catholic simply comes off as clumsy and juvenile. Authoritatively spoken they come across is something far more sinister. Thank God anyone with access to to Free Republic also has access to the truth freely available on the internet. No one has to depend on your posts for the truth.
This kind of recognition of truth is what true worship is about. These words have returned the Name of the Holy One back to where it belongs, high and lifted up. You have brushed aside the flimsy, tattered rags of Rome and shown that there is nothing there. To God only be the glory, and Him alone. Thank you, Dr. E.
Some years ago there was a program done by the UCC I think ..it was called ""I got it"
There were bill boards all over the place with that phrase on it.. a friend gave me one of the buttons with the promise that if asked I would tell them what I" got.. " .She never told me what to say, just that
We had to go to a wake ( a very Catholic one, rosary and all), and as I was talking to someone an onlooker noticed the pin, and he asked me what I found.. I told him "I found new life in Jesus Christ"
The mocking started..Oh "you're one of them huh? " with the laughter .
Testifying Christ before men is done with our lips, it subjects us to ridicule. It brings anger and hatred.. a few ashes tells people your catholic, and not one other thing about Christ..
I have no problem telling people about Christ.. I am not ashamed of Him ...He is my Lord, and my Savior..
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Oh I’ll take your word for it. So, she stated “I am bereft and without the Holy Spirit” is that right?
Poor thing.
No Blessed woman , not poor thing
Luk 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
That statement shows that Roman Catholics do not understand faith or what it does in our lives.
"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." -- Acts 26:18
Faith enlightens. With faith, there may be occasional doubt, but there is no enduring despair which is exactly what Mother Teresa experienced. Despair.
Saints are not those who never contemplate and doubt, they are those who overcome their doubts and reaffirm their faith.
Correct. And with that definition we can see Mother Teresa excluded herself by her own words.
I will not pity Mother Teresa as I pity you. On any given day Mother Teresa gave more of herself, shared more Christianity and exhibited more beatitude before noon than you have in your entire life.
Not only is that comment against the rules of the FR RF, but once again it is revealed that Roman Catholics do not understand the words of God. Mother Teresa did not "share Christianity." If she had, she would have preached Christ risen. And she said she didn't because she didn't believe it.
It's going to be fascinating when Rome makes her a saint. Then the world will see even more confirmation that faith in Christ is not a requirement for Rome.
16Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
17But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
18That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
AMEN! Even better Scripture to show us that true faith neither requires nor warrants face-painting.
AMEN. Jesus taught us how to pray — from our hearts, without pain or discomfort, away from the attention of men.
Never got an answer. Your claims were about being your able to fully conceptualizing God, as you described "an entire concept, an idea with all its ramifications" etc.
I've asked you to demonstrate, to describe your concepts - your idea of God "with all its ramifications."
And.. Nada.
More Calvin:
This figure, which represents God as transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature
Ah, so it is God which anthropomorphizes God.
Doesn't really explain the "without passions" description - it contradicts it.
NATURAL LAW: To the normal, objective reader that would be the first clue that you have completely misinterpreted or twisted her meanings.
I'm happy to correct your misunderstanding...
As one reviewer told us, the book’s compiler and editor, Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, is a senior Missionaries of Charity member. Kolodiejchuk is Mother Teresa's postulator, responsible for petitioning for her sainthood and collecting the supporting materials.
Sometimes a self perceived fool for Christ is just a fool, not that I'm about to start casting stones in that direction but someone should point out that there are a lot of stones laying around waiting to be cast.
lol. Amen.
"The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein." -- Psalm 111:2
No one ever contended she was immaculate and sinless like Mary, only that she should be appreciated, emulated, and venerated. Things you will never have to worry about.
I do find your "any port in a storm" standards contemptible. One would believe that you take the observations of Christopher Hitchens as Gospel only because it affirms your darkest hopes. Without ever having actually read her book you act as though you have read her heart and are ready to condemn her to hell. When I see this condemnation of her holiness by those who have repeatedly sinned here in the Religion Forum in the name of vanity, the Reformation, and the OPC I only see a testimony to the blackness of their hearts and souls. As bad as it might be it does not hold a candle to the horrors Mother Teresa saw and overcame daily.
Self doubt, despair, depression, and a feeling of unworthiness were her cross to bear, and bear them she did for over 50 years, never tiring or wavering in her work. I personally will continue to love and venerate Mother Teresa.
Talk about a man centered religion!Calvin would be one of the last persons I would trust to understand genuine love fulfilling the will of God,thus acting in accordance with the Law of love
I find it odd that you and RnMomof7 seem to be bothered when someone says All genuine Love is the will of God and this love is man abiding in God -which is the theme of my posts.
I will continue to pray for the both of you at Adoration this week
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.