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 when the ignorant insist that they know and when the deceitful claim that they tell the truth......
Only if you're God.
(A dinner and a movie never hurt, either.)
The two do not necessarily exhaust the possibilities. I agree that they were the Church. Also it seems that your side has trouble taking seriously our Lord's identification with his followers, with the Church which is His body.
You say Rome "claimed" the Church. We say it alighted there. Your side often offers this idea of an imperialist papacy. Fortunately I do not find repetition an effective tool of persuasion.
Ha-ha! Good one!
I was carefully avoiding equating them -- I would have said more, but I short-circuited considering whether logic itself (as opposed to man's use of it) could be said to be fallen! I don't think so . . .
I will say that I believed what God saw fit to put in the bible about Mary and I have no other opinion. I know it comes as a shock to many, but I don't believe Jesus, as fully God, cares more about Mary than He does anyone else. Everyone of us, including her, is His child and that's it
Mr Rogers writes: "congregations - decided what they accepted as God’s word, and the council merely ratified current practice."
And marryz replies "I don't think it was quite that smooth a process."
Mary is right. Christianity was not a democracy and congregations did not decide anything. I would be very interested to see an account where the congregation decided what was to be read in church. You didn't have each member of the church toting a bunch of scrolls giving his five cents' worth.
Among notable Christian apologetics, who were not excessively large in number, but who were authorities on church teachings, the few apostolic and church fathers whose works survive one way or another, we indeed see that some books of the current Bible were uniformly included, namely the Four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.
These books, I am sure Mr Rogers would agree, make up the core Christian beliefs. The deuterocanonical epistles of the NT (i.e. James, Jude, 2, 3 John, 1, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation, etc.) merely embellish and their absence from some canons does not in any way affect Christian faith to a significant extent.
I believe Mr Rogers and I will agree up tot his point. However, the important thing is that Pauline Epistles and the Four Gospels do not represent all the books found in various canons, a fact Mr Rogers seems to either ignore or is not aware of.
If you look at the collection of books in various canons, other than the Pauline Epistles and Gospels, you will find that different churches read very different canons indeed. They contained many currently banned and uneconomical books, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Book of Enoch, various Gnostic apocalyptic gospels (of Peter for example), and others.
All of these were used for "reproof and doctrine" leading to a variety of heretical teachings (universal salvation, pre-existence of souls, a Smörgåsbord board of Christological heresies, Trinitarian heterodoxy, etc.) well into the late 3rd and early 4th century.
The present canon of the Christian scripture was put together not by the congregation of Alexandria but by the bishop of Alexandra, +Athanasius and other African and western bishops agreed to it eventually and proclaimed the Christian scripture (at least in the West) at the (local and non-binding) Council of Carthage (the Third African Council) at the end of the 4th century.
The canon was ratified not by the congregation of Rome but by the Bishop of Rome in the first decade of the 4th century but not by the Eastern bishops who did not fall under his jurisdiction. For various reasons too complex to to into here, the Eastern Church refused to accept Revelation until the 9th century AD.
So, if I may summarize: (a) canonical authority was not in the hands of the congregations and (b) early church canons represented a heterodox collection of various books, sharing only the Four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles in common, but pretty much nothing else, and representing completely heterodox and incompatible beliefs.
And you can still reject it. Else, Jesus should have address his ministry to His Father, not us.
That is love.
The question was not did God love Paul, but did God force Paul to love him.
God threw him to the ground, caused him to tremble and then blinded him.
It took much less to get my attention. But attention is not love.
What is revisonist in it?
Yes, they are. But that's not the question.
The question, for the umpteenth time, is how do you propose to change something that has already been foreseen as fact in the mind of God?
The fact that men do not live as if this were true does not negate its truth.
Men's destiny's are set, according to the mind of God. We don't know that final destiny, but God certainly does.
If we have been given faith in Jesus Christ, we can have a reasonable certainty that our eternal destiny will be alongside God in heaven with the rest of God's children, as Scripture teaches us.
Then we have to assume He wanted humans to have free will.
Meaningless. You cannot prove free will. You can't even show it to me. I say the good within you that you say is the result of your own free will is actually God within you.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Phil. 2:13
Those without God are left to their own carnal, fallen desires which will always prove offensive to God because "anything not of faith is sin."
"Some are condemned and some are acquitted. Do you deny this is true?"
I tend to reject the lawyer Calvin's courtroom analogies
That wasn't Calvin. It was Jesus.
" For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." -- Matthew 12:37
"Justified" is a forensic term. It means "made right in the eyes of the law." Acquitted of sin. Not guilty on account of another taking the punishment rightly due the sinner.
Christ’s church rode off in all directions. If any of it “alighted” at Rome, so did it alight and catch fire elsewhere. In fact Alexander the Greek did more for it than Rome ever did.
So if Thor hits you with a board and pokes your eyes out, you will love him?
Paul had a conversion experience - a big one. That it was a loving God made all the difference. This is the point.
Calvinism is a cruel distortion of our loving God.
Yes, and God forced Paul to love Him, as Scripture has just informed you.
God threw him to the ground, caused him to tremble and then blinded him.
It took much less to get my attention.
Wow. Aren't you special? You're a better man than Paul. More pious. More receptive to God's will. More righteous than Paul.
Amazing.
It doesn't bother you that you've made that statement? You have an opportunity to withdraw it.
All of these were used for "reproof and doctrine" leading to a variety of heretical teachings (universal salvation, pre-existence of souls, a Smörgåsbord board of Christological heresies, Trinitarian heterodoxy, etc.) well into the late 3rd and early 4th century.
Maybe you don't mention it here because it's not directly relevant, but aren't there Christological and Trinitarian heresies that grew -- or at least were claimed to be found -- in the books finally declared canonical?
MR””You will note many of the parchments date well prior to the church council which you say gives them authenticity.””
I am aware of this but as you well know(I think) the oldest surviving NT is traced back to around 125 (we think) and you don’t have much in a larger pieces until dated around 200-250. So, it’s not until the 4th century that we see some volume of what’s in the Vatican Library and some other places.
I’m sure you have seen the following link before ,I don’t think it’s even a Catholic site, but It pretty much matches the work done by Robert Kraft from UPENN and others
N.T. Ancient Manuscripts
http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html
The Catholic Church is STILL THE WITNESS that says these are authentic since the Gospel does not come with signed autographs and the Church has been the deciding factor over what is Gnostic or not in the many,many writings from the time of Christ through the ages.
“”One thing that gets me angry is when Catholics feel a need to denigrate the word of God to build up their tradition. As I understand it, the Catholic teaching is that scripture IS the word of God and reliable, BUT that it needs the ‘lens’ of tradition to ensure it is understood clearly and correctly.””
I believe Scripture is the word of God because the Church says it is and I trust the Church as witness to authenticate them. We are both in agreement that Scripture is the Word of God,we differ in the interpretations .
I believe all the Sacraments are completely Scriptural and I can trace them back through consistent teaching through the ages. Those who disagree with this can only use a modern approach,not consistency from the 1st century on
“”The Catholic Church did not wake up one day and suddenly find itself astray. It was a gradual process, and I don’t know many evangelicals who believe it was totally bad by 500 AD””
Look ,dear brother. If you believed the Church went bad in 500 AD this means you must think the Church was correct from the 1st century to than.This would ALSO mean you also mean you would agree with those saints within the uncorrupted Church like Saint Ignatius ,Irenaues,Polycarp,Clement etc...
who taught the Sacramental system-infant Baptism,Eucharist,Confession etc..
Once you realize this you ought to realize that Sacraments have not changed and therefore the Church is still NOT corrupt.
MR””and yet all that research shows the manuscripts used by the KJV were pretty good”’
The problem is the KJV used wrong translations many times and is corrupted.
Let me point you to Kosta 50’s tagline as just one example .....God is tired of repenting — Jeremiah 15:6, KJV.
What does God need to repent from! utterly ridiculous!
Dr. E called my comment "Revisionism." That reminds me of the replies made by Bolsheviks. Anything they didn't like or know was "revisionism" (their term).
Of course, the only Councils that are binding are Ecumenical or General or Church-wide Councils, and only they can set dogma.
Unlike the Council of Orange, the Council of Trent is considered an Ecumenical Council by the Latin Church (technically speaking the East was invited but did not attend).
The same can be said of the Third African Council (Council of Carthage) at the end of the 4th century, that established the Christian canon. It was a western council and not binding to the East, which is why the east was under no obligation to accept the book of Revelation as canonical, and in fact did not do so until the 9th century.
Of course it was a loving God. That’s not the question.
The question was did this loving God simply nudge Paul or overwhelm him?
You opt for nudge (and you think it took even less to get your attention.)
Scripture tells us God did more than nudge. A lot more. He took a slayer of Christians, threw him to the ground, terrified him, blinded him, all to enable him to serve the living God, Jesus Christ.
He does the same for you and me, whether you know it or not.
maybe he’ll have an epiphany
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.