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.
No it doesn't. God the Father has no body. God the Son of course had a body. As the WCF clearly affirms.
If your reading comprehension here is the extent of your disagreement, God be praised. 8~)
And for a Christian to insist that someone deserved or went to hell is not being obedient to the scriptures but judgmental.
Did I say that? Do two wrongs make it right? See my post #7008.
Good for you for ordering the book. That’s exactly what we are called to do — read for ourselves “to see if these things be so.”
You know, if you're going to use a word like "sophistry," you should at least spell it correctly.
(And I only draw your attention to that because you've been correcting others' spelling of late, so I figured you'd want to know.)
If she didn’t trust Christ, didn’t have faith in Him, she didn’t make it, works notwithstanding.
Despair is not a hallmark of faith.
AMEN! Luther was racked with agony when he couldn't reconcile Scripture to the rituals and superstitions of Rome.
When he relied on Scripture alone, life fell into place and truth became apparent.
Despair vanishes in the singular light of Christ.
Great observation.
So it ok to declare someone is in heaven if one is catholic, but not hell ??? The truth is the church has most likely said that many that are burning in hell are in heaven hearing and answering prayers.
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day... And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." -- Jude 1:5-6,22-23"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
"...have compassion...Save with fear."
For those given ears to hear.
I have some experience with my own words being misconstrued and taken to mean things I did not at all intend. Based on what I've read so far at Amazon I think that I will find something similar going on in this case.
If I start finding punchline quality quotes I expect a lot of mea culpas around here.
Except her Church doesn't teach that.
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.
There are countless Christians who do evil things. Does your God save evil Christians? Sure seems that way. But that's not what the Bible says.
The Bible says "The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom" [2 Tim 4:18]. Deeds seem to matter. If they didn't, why mention them in connection to going to heaven?
Do Christians lie, steal and cheat and fornicate? You bet!
Paul seems to think (at least sometimes) that deeds do matter when he says "do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." [1 Cor 6:9-10]
Paul seems to think that "real" Christians are cleaned of all this and never do it again (true meaning of repentance) [1 Cor 6:11]. So, all those who still do these things, even if they call themselves Christians, are not going to heaven because of their deeds, according to Paul because anyone who lies, cheats and steals is not a Christian in his book! I imagine true Christians can be counted with the fingers of one hand.
And just in case you think this is atypical of Paul, he reiterates that "envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." [Gal 5:21] Deeds, deeds, and more deeds.
And, again, "so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory" [1 Thes 2:12] Walking in a manner worthy of a God, also qualifies as deeds.
And "This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering." [2 Thes 1:5] Did not Mother Theresa suffer and agonize, did she not live in unimaginable poverty, self-denial surrounded by unspeakable human misery? Imagine that, Paul says suffering makes you worthy! Did you skip that Bible reading class?
So far I have found nothing but deeds associated with going or not going to heaven. Now I understand what they mean when they say Christians read the Bible differently from non-believers. They know which sections to skip!
Good deeds are the evidence of salvation, not a requirement for salvation. As Christ taught us, a good tree produces good fruit, and a corrupt tree produces evil fruit.
When God looks to judge us, we can be thankful He will not judge us according to our sins which are heavy and many, but on Christ within us.
That's what "Justification" means. And that's why so many people have difficulty with it. It's hard to accept men can get something for nothing with no strings. But that's the difference between mercy and debt. God saves us in spite of our sins, not because we are sinless. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
And of course Rome teaches salvation by good works. We've heard for days now that Mother Teresa was saved by her good works and her charity despite the fact that she admitted she had no faith in Christ.
I thought everything belongs to him. Is there anything not in his control? The truth is, God repents all over the Old Testament. Reading Calvin only reminds what hyperbolic, convoluted mental gymnastics are needed to make the Hebrew God into a Platonic Christian Deity
More likely it was a case of getting the bad news out first so it has time to dissipate.
And even then, look how so many Roman Catholics simply don't believe the words she's written herself. Apparently she writes she has no faith, but still there are some who deny what she says about herself.
Tell you what. I've got that book around here somewhere. I'll find it and read it, too. We can compare notes. 8~)
It didn't say God the Father; it said God (generically) has no body, which is not true. The WFC states the following in generic terms regarding God "I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6]..."
You are right; it wasn't intentional.
And I only draw your attention to that because you've been correcting others' spelling of late, so I figured you'd want to know
No problem. My pay is the same. :)
You take a phrase out of a sentence out of context and debate that phrase. Good luck with that.
You don't have a point here.
Calvin is saying you’re misunderstanding the word “repentance” in relation to God.
I’d have to agree with Calvin.
They are neither evidence nor requirements but a condition, one among many. For, contrary to what the Protestants are peddling, salvation is not unconditional, at least not according to the Bible. Even if works were not a factor, or a condition associated with salvation, faith alone is a condition necessary for salvation, along with baptism, etc. But so are the words, deeds, conduct, etc.
Paul makes it clear (and Protestants never quote those verses ad nauseum like the banal ones that are doctrinally approved) that to him a Christian who is worthy of the kingdom of heaven is "spotless" in his heart, intention, deeds, conduct, walk, as well as faith, and, honestly, I have yet to see one.
When God looks to judge us, we can be thankful He will not judge us according to our sins which are heavy and many, but on Christ within us.
The bad news is that, even according to the Protestant demigod Paul, God will judge you by your deeds. That is so contrary to what the Protestants are peddling that I am not surprised they cannot see those verses for all I know. But they are there as clear as they can be.
That's what "Justification" means. And that's why so many people have difficulty with it. It's hard to accept men can get something for nothing with no strings. But that's the difference between mercy and debt. God saves us in spite of our sins, not because we are sinless. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
There is this banal repetition of the same old same old, Dr. E. Unfortunately, that's not all there is, unless of course, one cuts out those verses that one finds objectionable, which even Luther attempted. Truth doesn't set you free, but hurts.
Your scriptures say that God will not justify fornicators who continue to fornicate, or liars who continue to lie or those who are impure in their hearts and vindictive in their intentions, etc. Christian God doesn't seem to like nasty people, whether thye clal themsleves Christians or not. God ought to detemrine who is a true Christian, not man.
God wants his people to be pristine and dead to sin and ungliness and immorality and lies, etc. And he rewards those who suffer. Paul says so, Peter says so. First the cross then the crown.
The idea of a sure comfy first class limo ride to heaven with Christ carrying your luggage is a fairytale, perhaps soothing, but not something you will find in the Bible unless you really work hard at cutting out much of it.
And of course Rome teaches salvation by good works. We've heard for days now that Mother Teresa was saved by her good works and her charity despite the fact that she admitted she had no faith in Christ.
No it doesn't. Show me where the Cathoic Church teaches that. And no one here has said that Mother Theresa was saved by works or otherwise; some, notably Protestants, however, seem certian she is in hell.
God is God, deity, Godhead (according to KJV). It applies equally to all three hypostatic realities otherwise incorrectly known in the west as "Persons".
You take a phrase out of a sentence out of context and debate that phrase. Good luck with that
I quoted straight out of WCF expressing belief in one God (not just the Father). In talks generically of God and that applies to all three hypostatic realities who are co-equal and co-eternal. Logos is God, Jesus is Logos, ergo Jesus is God; Jesus has a Body, ergo God has a body.
You don't have a point here.
Do you always find logic pointless?
That's what makes you a Calvinist. :)
“No, it doesn’t” is not a sound defense of anyone’s faith.
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.