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.
And they wanted it because...?
You have to walk it all the way back, determined each step of the way.
Determinism is the view that the future is completely determined by the past. Each action therefore conradicts the reality of free will choice - the past is unchangeable - choice is predetermined. Only the illusion of choice is possible. Determinism is the antithesis of free will choice.
In your formulation, once again, man, as self-conscious being capable of free choice, is removed from the equation.
The theological conclusions lead us away from Christ's teaching, His commandments and exhortations - and away from each human's personal responsibility.
“If some one gives you something that you want and they know you want it will accept it and you do accept it do you do so of your own free will?”
I have added a phrase to make it a little clearer.
Well, here's +Basil the Great's take on this:
"Famines and droughts and floods are common plagues of cities and nations which check the excess of evil. Therefore, just as the physician is a benefactor even if he should cause pain or suffering to the body (for he strives with the disease, and not with the sufferer), so in the same manner God is good Who administers salvation to everyone through the means of particular chastisements. But you, not only do you not speak evilly of the physician who cuts some members, cauterizes others, and excises others again completely from the body, but you even give him money and address him as savior because he confines the disease to a small area before the infirmity can claim the whole body. However, when you see a city crushing its inhabitants in an earthquake, or a ship going down at sea with all hands, you do not shrink from wagging a blasphemous tongue against the true Physician and Savior....And you may accept the phrase 'I kill and I will make to live' literally, if you wish, since fear edifies the more simple. 'I will smite and I will heal'. It is profitable to also understand this phrase literally; for the smiting engenders fear, while the healing incites to love. It is permitted you, nonetheless, to attain to a loftier understanding of the utterance. I will slay through sin and make to live through righteousness. 'But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day'. Therefore, He does not slay one, and give life to another, but through the means which He slays, He gives life to a man, and He heals a man with that which He smites him, according to the proverb which says, 'For thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from death'. So the flesh is chastised for the soul to be healed, and sin is put to death for righteousness to live.... When you hear 'There shall be no evil in a city which the Lord hath not wrought', understand by the noun 'evil' that the word intimates the tribulation brought upon sinners for the correction of offenses. For Scripture says, 'For I afflicted thee and straitened thee, to do good to thee'; so too is evil terminated before it spills out unhindered, as a strong dike or wall holds back a river.
"For these reasons, diseases of cities and nations, droughts, barrenness of the earth, and the more difficult conditions in the life of each, cut off the increase of wickedness. Thus, such evils come from God so as to uproot the true evils, for the tribulations of the body and all painful things from without have been devised for the restraining of sin. God, therefore, excises evil; never is evil from God.... The razing of cities, earthquakes and floods, the destruction of armies, shipwrecks and all catastrophes with many casualties which occur from earth or sea or air or fire or whatever cause, happen for the sobering of the survivors, because God chastises public evil with general scourges.
"The principal evil, therefore, which is sin, and which is especially worthy of the appellation of evil, depends upon our disposition; it depends upon us either to abstain from evil or to be in misery.
"Of the other evils, some are shown to be struggles for the proving of courage... while some are for the healing of sins... and some are for an example to make other men sober." +Basil the Great "That God is Not the Cause of Evils" "Ελληνες Πατερες της Εκκλησιας" (Greek Fathers of The Church) 7-94, 98-102
I should have added the obvious.
Christian belief holds that we can be transformed. Our new life in Christ not determined by our previous habits and history. Our past does NOT completely determine our future - we have a choice.
“I should have added the obvious.”
I appreciate what you wrote but you didn’t answer the question.
“If some one gives you something that you want and they know you want it will accept it and you do accept it do you do so of your own free will?”
Have I no possibility of choosing to change my wants?
God created us with free will, by definition this means He does not make those free will choices.
If you are saying He foreknows what we will choose, I agree. That He causes my choices, or that they are determined completely by the past, a clockwork cosmos, I disagree.
So perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. Or maybe "determinism" is not the term you mean?
“If you are saying He foreknows what we will choose, I agree.”
What if He brings about the circumstances so that you chose according to your wants, needs or desires. Is that chosing of your own free will?
I'm losing track or focus here.
If I have free will, I choose, yes, chose of my free will.
If I'm following correctly, are you saying God, foreknowing, manipulates events to accomplish His wishes, while allowing free will choice?
That is going to take some time to digest. A cursory reading will not do it justice. I am in the middle of finishing the preparation of a lesson I have to teach for church tomorrow so please excuse my not giving it the attention it deserves tonight.
If the Bible is God's Holy and inerrant word then we can be sure that Christ taught this because (for one thing) Paul teaches it and he got his gospel and his teachings from Christ directly. However, if not being found in black and white in one of the four Gospels is disqualifying as to truth, then I suppose much of Catholic and Orthodox Tradition would also have to be considered nonsense using the same logic. :) In any event, we do not pit the Bible against itself and suppose that something is true or not based on its location therein. God's word is God's word.
Your source says ----- "However, sinless perfection will not be achieved in this life. Glorification of the believer is when we stand complete before the Father in a resurrected glorified body. Then we shall be sinless and perfect." ----- This is not even Christian! What scriptural reference does he have for this?
This is explained more fully in the companion article: Perfect Sanctification. An excerpt:
I did not realize there was any controversy within Christianity on the concept of entering Heaven with glorified bodies and without the stain of sin. Do Latins or Orthodox dispute this?
Also, how do you stand before the Father and not the Son and the Spirit, and, second, just when will the "saints" be perfected? At the instant of their death? Where does Jesus teach that? Isn't perfection something we attribute only to God? Or does he suggest that believers will become God?
I thought the whole theosis deal was to become "as a God". :) I would have thought that most of all of the believers around here would be pointed more or less in the same general direction on this. To wit, no one is ever elevated to literal Divine status, and Heaven is not a place conducive to the presence of sin. Therefore, if anyone is to enter into Heaven it must be in some form without sin. This is expressed in terms of glorification and having glorified bodies.
I also do not see controversy in the idea of standing before the Father. I suspect the reason the author put it this way is in keeping with the language in Romans 5:6-11. The idea is that we are reconciled TO God BY Christ. So, the focus is not in separating God or anything like that. Rather it is to highlight the specific acts of Christ and what their consequences were.
As to when the saints will be perfected it appears to be a matter of some eschatological debate. I believe the final perfection is pretty much the last thing to happen before the elect then move into Heaven for eternity. I think many Protestants believe, including Baptists, that at the point of death the saved are in the "presence" of God (2 Cor. 5:8), but that final perfection does not take place until after the second coming of Christ. Before you even ask, I have no idea how the concept of time applying or not applying "applies" to all this. :)
[From the article:] “Sanctify,” means “set apart for God’s exclusive use.” Our sanctification is past, present and future. We have been sanctified, we are being sanctified and we shall be sanctified. These three aspects speak of our positional sanctification (1 Cor. 6:11; 1:2; Heb. 10:10), experiential or progressive sanctification (1 Pet. 1:6; 2 Cor. 7:1), and ultimate or perfect sanctification (1 John 3:1-3).
To which [I] say Baloney! 1 Cor 6:11 presupposes that the "washed" and the "sanctified" are not—to borrow Paul's own words—of those who will not inherit the kingdom, namely the fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, swindlers, etc., all of which will many Protestants be until their last breath no matter how much they have convinced themselves they abide in Christ and are made "just" by the his blood. [1 Cor 6:9-10]
Paul is clear in his writings that what matters is faith. Having true faith does not mean we will never sin again, it means we are a new creation in Christ, the old has gone and the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17). Therefore, Paul's list in 1 Cor. is a reference to the non-elect, not a reference to anyone who ever has or will commit a sin. Paul DOES say that the non-elect are not eligible for sanctification, however, this does not exclude the elect, even though they still sin. We are positionally sanctified because of what Christ did, and our following faith, NOT because anyone becomes sinless upon belief.
Reference to 1 Cor 6:11 presupposes the "washed" are none of the above, and then some, and frankly I don't believe there are many in this world who are not a little bit of everything Paul considers unfit for the kingdom of heaven, the feel-good kumbaya self-congratrualtory rituals the Protestants perform for themselves every Sunday notwithstanding.
By their deeds Paul considers everyone to be unfit for the kingdom of Heaven: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", ... "the wages of sin is death". Therefore, he cannot be referring to sinless people here or it would be pointless. The context of his other writings makes it clear he is discriminating between the elect and the non-elect, those with faith and those without it.
I'm not sure what Protestant rituals you are referring to, but whatever they are they in no way make us more or less fit for Heaven.
(Cont..........)
As for "progressive sanctification" supposedly mentioned in 2 Cor 7:1, it all boils down to Paul calling on the "saints" to cleanse themselves "from all defilement of flesh and spirit". To which I say: why bother, when every one "knows" for sure these "saved" will be made "perfect" at the end of their sinful life no matter what they do, think or say?!
This is just an exhortation to obey God and live a Godly life. It isn't a works-based salvation model. Those who have been truly changed will be moved to do as Paul says here. We don't avoid contamination (evil) in order to earn our way in, but because we are changed and want to obey, please, and grow closer to God. Regardless of the fact of our already accomplished salvation, living a Godly life, etc. is of benefit to us while on earth. Even in cases of persecution or martyrdom we are better off spiritually if not physically.
And if they so hate sin (supposedly), now that they have been "regenerated," why do they need prodding by their idol Paul? Shouldn't that come to them "naturally"? I guess not.
We humans always need reminding and encouragement, even well after initial faith. It's how we're built. :) And without it, there would not appear to be any room for growth. It seems Biblically clear that God's intention is for us to grow in our faiths throughout our lifetimes. I can't imagine any Christian having a disagreement about that.
And what about 1 Peter 1:6 your source uses as evidence of "experiential or progressive sanctification"? It speaks of trials (persecutions) which has nothing to do with sanctification, but calls on perseverance in faith, as hope for a better future promised them. Peter calls on the Christians to offer themselves to God as sacrifice, imitating Christ, that is to martyrdom.
Putting aside physical hardships to draw closer to the Lord is precisely a part of sanctification. Sanctification itself is a spiritual matter, we are to put behind us the physical and draw close to the spiritual. That is growth, and this passage is a perfect example.
Finally, your author also embellishes his worthless claims with 1 John 3:1-3 as scriptural backing for the assertion of the "ultimate perfect sanctification". Verse 2 in particular says that we really don't know yet what we will be, but (somehow) we "know" [sic] that, when Christ appears, we will be [just] like him (!)—because we will see him just as he is (?).
The author merely acknowledges that we cannot know the mechanics of everything that will happen, but that we can take rest in knowing that since it is of God it WILL be perfect.
It seems to me that if they are going to be like him, as pure as he is, they will be perfect (i.e. divine).
Sure, but the author knows, as do we all, that this makes no sense. The Bible elsewhere prohibits this conclusion since there is only one God. Therefore the author says we don't understand everything.
And then verse 3 [1 John 3] says that everyone who has this hope (in the previous verse he says "know") purifies himself as Christ is pure. What happens, pray tell, with someone who is "born again" yesterday and dies today? How can he purify himself as pure as Jesus is pure in one day? Or is there some magic involved?
No magic, the point is that Jesus was certain of everything. We are more like Him when we imitate the confidence in God that He had. The more we trust in God the more spiritually mature we become and the more sanctified we are. There is no issue of achieving the pureness of Christ's faith. We can only imitate it to some small degree. As believers we have "X" number of days left on earth as Christians and we should use all of them to become more like Christ.
But then 1 John says that ----- "He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins" (1 John 3:5-6) ----- Well, then, this tells me there is not a single person on this earth "who abides in him", not one. So much for progressive sanctification, let alone final purification!
Verse 6 "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him." actually sounds like a good proof-text for POTS! But that's another matter. :) We know that we cannot take the plain meaning here because direct observation would then conclude immediately that no one goes to Heaven, just as you said. So, ALL Christians do not interpret it this way. I can't speak for other Christian faiths, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is talking about unrepentant sinning. That is, the person who continues to sin as he did before conversion shows extremely strong evidence that he was not truly converted, that he was not truly changed. Good trees WILL bear good fruit, etc. Grace produces faith which produces literal change. I think that's what this passage is talking about.
The sad thing is that it makes decent people feel good about themselves, but it also does much more people like Andrea Yates. She is also "saved" and "holy" in God's eyes, pure as snow, and destined to heaven.
I don't think any one of us can really be sure either way about that. I think it's clear that many who do profess do so falsely. The Bible tells us that. But I think it's not up to us to guess which ones.
If Protestantism is true Christianity, I am glad I don't qualify as a Christian. In fact, I am proud of it.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think it would occur to me to characterize Protestantism as true Christianity in any exclusive sense since (a) we don't claim a monopoly on all truth, and (b) "Protestantism" is too broad a term. I would only say that I believe that in general Reformed theology is more accurate than anything else of which I am aware. I don't think "true Christianity" is really about that, though. It's more about having faith in the one true Christ and what He did and does for us. One doesn't have to be Reformed or otherwise Protestant to get that part right. :).
Exactly. In the his on-line Catechism, arhcibishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Russian orthodox Church, speaking of the Reformed minds, puts it this way
Denying free will in order to recognize God as the supreme puppet master of all of creation, by necessity excuses any human behavior, no matter how evil, as God's irresistible will, serving higher justice and purpose, thereby freeing individual human transgressors form any responsibility for their acts and, in fact, portray them as being necessary elements in carrying out God's plan.
With such thinking, Andrea Yates, a Christian who drowned her five children because "God told her to", is "saved," "just," "pure" and "holy" in God's eyes.
Oh, yes the "pedagogic" evils of divine love...this is one of Orthodoxy's darker teachings. God brings on evils to to "prevent" real evil (sin). Yeah, after 6,000 years of such loving lessons, everyone knows how well this works preventing the "real" evil...
Yes. Thew fact that someone may know what you want or how you will react does not change the requirement that the desire had to come from you or else it is not your will. The question is whence comes your desire?
Yes, but while we can say that Adam and Eve acted on their free will, which is why they were punished, the question why. Obviously, because God felt ti was their decision to disobey. But, if God foreknew what Adam and Eve would do, why did he let them fall from grace unless he wanted it?
God's punishment in Genesis 3 is issued for doing the wrong thing in their judgment (will), and Genesis 6:6-7 leaves no dobt that God blames man for his wickedness, or else he wold not punish the whole human race with a Flood, but one must really wander what kind of foreknowledge does hits God have if he has so much "stuff" slip?
God constantly punishes Israelites for their idol worship. If he thought they were not acting on their free will, why would he punsih them?
“Yeah, after 6,000 years of such loving lessons, everyone knows how well this works preventing the “real” evil...”
Somehow it’s appropriate coming from one of us, though, isn’t it Kosta! :)
“Oh, yes the “pedagogic” evils of divine love...this is one of Orthodoxy’s darker teachings.”
The more common and sightly later teaching, of course, is that evil in the world feeds on itself and grows, that sin has and continues to so distort the world that “bad things happen to good people”. Why the Cappadocians held the pedagogic evils notion is something I have never understood since it flies in the face of their teaching which says that God is not the cause of any evil.
The teachings of the Desert Fathers about the world and creatures returning to its and their pre Fall state around people who have attained theosis (+Gerasimos, +Mary of Eygpt) is much more in “sync” with the Resurrectional theology of The Church in the East.
“”It was the same God who let the King of Syria kill hundreds of thousands of the northern tribes of Israel, and just last week permitted the church in Iraq to be attacked.””
All of these were acts committed by free will of men, not attributed to the will of God.
“”Do you really believe that God is powerless to stop the atrocities or didn’t know they would take place?””
God’s power is His Love which NEVER ceases or God would be moved,it is the free will of man that denies this love and commits heinous acts. Just because God knows all things does not mean you can attach the evil to Him
You’re failing to see that man turning freely away from God’s love is what punishes man,it is not an angry God that kills people,it’s lack of love of man NOT attributed to God
God does not change from Love or it would be an imperfection
The Scripture that seem to suggest God is inconsistent with perfection are to be metaphorically understood
Thus we see Saint Aquinas write...
“But even other affections (affectiones), which are specifically inconsistent with divine perfection, are predicated in Holy Writ of God, not properly but metaphorically, on account of likeness of effects. Thus sometimes the will in following out the order of wisdom tends to the same effect to which one might be inclined by a passion, which would argue a certain imperfection: for the judge punishes from a sense of justice, as an angry man under the promptings of anger. So sometimes God is said to be ‘angry,’ inasmuch as in the order of His wisdom He means to punish some one: When his anger shall blaze out suddenly (Ps. ii, 13). He is said to be ‘compassionate,’ inasmuch as in His benevolence He takes away the miseries of men, as we do the same from a sentiment of pity: The Lord is merciful and compassionate, patient and abounding in mercy (Ps. cli, 8). Sometimes also He is said to be ‘repentant,’ inasmuch as in the eternal and immutable order of His providence, He builds up what He had previously destroyed, or destroys what He had previously made, as we do when moved by repentance: It repenteth me that I have made man (Gen. vi, 6, 7). God is also said to be ‘sad,’ inasmuch as things happen contrary to what He loves and approves, as sadness is in us at what happens against our will: And the Lord saw, and it seemed evil in his eyes, because judgement is not: God saw that there is no man, and he was displeased, because there was none to meet him (Isa. lix, 15, “
And....
That God cannot will Evil by Saint Aquinas
EVERY act of God is an act of virtue, since His virtue is His essence (Chap. XCII).
2. The will cannot will evil except by some error coming to be in the reason, at least in the matter of the particular choice there and then made. For as the object of the will is good, apprehended as such, the will cannot tend to evil unless evil be somehow proposed to it as good; and that cannot be without error.* But in the divine cognition there can be no error . 3. God is the sovereign good, admitting no intermixture of evil. 4. Evil cannot befall the will except by its being turned away from its end. But the divine will cannot be turned away from its end, being unable to will except by willing itself . It cannot therefore will evil; and thus free will in it is naturally established in good. This is the meaning of the texts: God is faithful and without iniquity (Deut. xxxii, 4); Thine eyes are clean, O Lord, and thou canst not look upon iniquity (Hab.i, 13).
“You’re failing to see that man turning freely away from God’s love is what punishes man,it is not an angry God that kills people,it’s lack of love of man NOT attributed to God”
Why did God send His son Jesus into this world? Was it not that He should die for the sins of the world?
Acts 2:23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”
. Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Jhn 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
Jhn 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Jhn 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
John reinforces this ..1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
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.