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.
Is that what I said?
Oh, so Willie Nelson singing “Amazing Grace” is your authority? I’ll take the Holy Father, thanks.
Yeah, you're bulletproof, omniscient and infallible. And you've got God in a box in your pocket.
Plenty good and worthy points in your post.
Thx.
You may or may not have noticed my continued adjustments of my own posting time and energy foci.
Yes, I really read it that's why I really put a disclaimer about not endorsing what he was saying but only reproducing it here for the purposes of showing that he used the term "holy virgin" other than in reference to the virgin birth. I included that paragraph for the purposes of not taking the quote out of context. It's this annoying compulsion I have of trying to treat the opposition fairly.
But as it happens, yes, her redemption is far more glorious than her maternity. Nevertheless (and I can't believe I'm arguing for a fair reading of Calvin) "It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son" can't be set in opposition to "In a word, the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son" they have to be complementary in some fashion... or the man was an idiot. I think he was a rogue, not an idiot.
Indeed.
Very well and accurately put to my experiences and observatons as well.
Again, because I really don’t remember: Are you the one that said that “Jesus’ body carried God.”?
yes
I mean that since God impregnated Mary, then while Mary was alive, no human could come after Him.
God did not have intercourse with Mary, so her husband would have been the first.. Joseph was her covenant husband .Their union was blessed by God ...
God designed sex ..He does not think sex soils woman within marriage.
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
There are common themes you find amongst the heretics such as valentinians,sethians,marcionites,bardaisans etc.. and Calvinism
One is God planned evil or created it,the other is free will is not understood properly and lastly there is misrepresentations of the Apostle Saint Paul.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Absolutely agreed. But you did NOT quote me, you distorted my words.
My words: "I mean that since God impregnated Mary, then while Mary was alive, no human could come after Him." Nowhere did I say that "intercourse with her covenant husband would have soiled her." YOU said that.
Your statement: God did not have intercourse with Mary, so her husband would have been the first.. Joseph was her covenant husband .Their union was blessed by God ...
It is very arrogant of you to state what took place between God and Mary. God impregnated her. The Bible does not tell us how. Joseph was her "covenant" husband; was Joseph Christ's "covenant" father? Did Calvin tell you, or the Holy Ghost perhaps, that Joseph took Mary to his bed? Honestly, this insistance of yours is lascivious.
Or my family or friends..
For sure.
Have you told them they're going to hell?
And, you can’t be wrong - again.
Sorry, you don’t know the future and you can’t claim credit to have persevered until you do.
Oh, PLEASE tell us all about your spiritual discernment.
I think that is a limited reading of the word, especially in the context of the NT, whose language and terms may have been influenced by the LXX. I think one has to go root around in Hebrew, especially in the word KPR.
I think this is an example of how the presupposition influences the translation and the Bible ends up confirming rather than forming theology.
As part of the old Episcopal communion service there was, after the general confession and declaration of absolution, what's called the "Comfortable [in the sense of 'strengthening'] Words" it was a little cento of Scripture verses which ended,
Here also what St. John saith: If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and he is the propitiation of our sins.In recent years (like the last 50 years, give or take) the thinking is that Cranmer (who was certainly very influenced by Calvin) was sort of over-specific in choosing "propitiation" to translate "hilasmos".
Unsurprisingly, the Episcopalians wussed out and settled for "perfect offering" which really steers carefully past any useful translation. I kind of like "expiation", but I'm not wedded to it.
I think that to limit one's understanding of the atonement to propitiation of the wrath of an offended God, is insufficient.
KPR literally means "cover" (and is thus more evidence that Hebrew is an Indo-European language). And there are sacrifices in which the blood of the victim is not only sprinkled on the altar but on the people -- as though without a little extra 'blood (='life') they could not bear reconciliation with The God of the Living.
I think that sin 'offends' God AND damages the sinner. So God somehow needs propitiating AND the sinner needs, uh, repair, cleaning up, something.
So the "washed in the blood of the Lamb" language is not, I think, ONLY about propitiating God, but also about literally (I mean, in the metaphor) 'covering the stain of sin." So, it is as if, when God looks at the sinner he does not see all the damage and soil of sin, but the cleansing, vivifying blood of the lamb.
To me "propitiation" goes to the offended party, while "expiation" goes to the offense.
This is not meant argumentatively but just to lay before you some more ideas about the atonement. There are more even than these.
One of the aspects of Calvinism that finally led me to drop it is that it selects Scriptures and on the basis of that selection produces what seems to me an oversimplified theology which does have a certain coherence but simply does not answer to the phenomena it is intended to explain.
I know Mormons believe that their god had intercourse with Mary..but I had no idea catholics entertained that idea as well..I must have missed that in religion class..
Your post prattles on making no sense.. Mary was married to Joseph, in a covenant marriage.. she was not married to God. Joseph had a right to have intercourse with his wife and mary had a duty to be a wife in every sense to Joseph .
Will you please grow up? Admit you know NOTHING about Mary's relationship with God, OR Joseph. And if you think you do, please quote some scripture on it, because I've seen nothing credible here.
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.