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.
Nonsense. If we belong to God, we belong to God. As His children, we are loved by Him so much He sacrificed His Son for us.
"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." -- 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 "Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:24
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." -- John 10:26-29"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
No canines anywhere around.
NL said: Is preaching limited to a recitation of the written Scripture or does it (should it) include a demonstration of actually living the Scriptures?
RN said: Works never saved anyone.
That sure doesn't sound like a "Yes, we should be living the gospel". And why bother with living the gospel if you are predestined?
In and through Christ. Nobody's intercession has any effect except through His authority.
You really are a contradiction, laughable and sad at the same time. Imposing your own definitions and interpretations on the Catechism doesn't work any better than imposing them on the Scripture. The portmanteau stuffed with Calvinist agitprop that you schlep from thread to thread hasn't convinced anyone of anything other than the devotees of a dying cult will stop at nothing for their cause.
With the highpoint of Calvinism several generations in the past you do need to get past arguing about who is right and begin to search for what is right.
Absolutely. In reading the Catholic responses all I see are the continued efforts to pit "the Gospels" AGAINST the rest of scripture, as if they are contradictory and only one can be right. Perhaps it is because for some of them they know that the actual texts of the epistles and OT really ARE in contradiction to the Latin interpretations of the four Gospel books. Therefore, the four Gospel books must be said to be "right" and the rest of scripture must be wrong, or at least the four books must trump the rest of scripture.
This oft expressed Catholic idea is so at odds with their own Catechism that they do not need any help from us in discrediting it. So many FRoman Catholics treat the Bible in direct contravention to their own CCC that I hardly even take it seriously as a Catholic authority anymore.
We all belong to God. However some refuse Him:
1 John 3: 1 1 See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet so we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God's children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed 2 we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 Everyone who has this hope based on him makes himself pure, as he is pure.
Hope, not assurance. We are His children - we all are according to Jesus - and we do have the ability to refuse Him. The prodigal son is a case in point. However, he came back. How many do not? How many since the Reformation are lost since they have been blinded by the sins and the religions of men? Who knows? Perhaps God will be merciful. We can only pray for that - which is useless under the Reformed umbrella, right?
Nonsense.
I agree. That's why your post: "There is God and then there's everything else." is poorly formed, nonsensical.
lol. You think the Beatitudes are the New Covenant?
You confuse the true meaning of Christianity with the sanctified life of the believer. The former is the reason men are saved. The latter displays that salvation.
The New Covenant is the fact that the legalism of the Old Covenant of works does not save men because no man can keep the law perfectly. Instead, God has mercifully sent His Son to fulfill the law perfectly for those who cannot. Christ becomes the one-time, perfect offering for sin which no man is able to repay.
your elevation of a Paulian orthodoxy based upon the corrupted interpretations of heretics above the direct teachings of the incarnate Word,
Because Rome does not live by the Scriptures, Rome dismisses the Scriptures.
and your judgmental condescension and lack of charity are a poor substitute for Christianity.
But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." -- 2 Corinthians 10:13,17
"Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods." -- Psalm 97:7
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36"But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you...
Negative. We say that the Gospels are the pinnacle of God's revelation to man, and that every other revelation, including the rest of Scripture needs to be read through the Gospels. We do not see the rest of Scripture as contradictory, but we can see that if one starts with Paul, for instance, that the Gospel meaning can be construed far differently.
How are you; it has been quite some time, my friend.
If you would consider that the Catechism is read also through the Gospels, you may change your mind as to their usefulness. If you start with, e.g. Bishop Long, or some other random human authority, then you wind up the anarchy that we Catholics see practiced by those separated by the Reformation from the Church.
If that's all you got, that's all you got.
LOL. Why don't you read some of those words of Christ you constantly reference without much thought?
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." -- John 10:26-29
"No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." -- John 6:65 "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Now we have it. That is why we do not consider the Reformed to be Christian.
The New Covenant is the fact that the legalism of the Old Covenant of works does not save men because no man can keep the law perfectly. Instead, God has mercifully sent His Son to fulfill the law perfectly for those who cannot. Christ becomes the one-time, perfect offering for sin which no man is able to repay.
Yeah, and only the self identified elect and their families, pets, fleas and termites get that limousine ride to Heaven.
Because Rome does not live by the Scriptures, Rome dismisses the Scriptures.
Pardon? Wasn't it just you that dismissed the Beatitudes?
You guys have departed so far from Christianity that I'm surprised that you still have a cross on your prayer barns. You guys cannot speak the Athenasian Creed with a straight face, much less the Nicene Creed. I'd replace the cross on the OPC churches with a Town Car limousine in preparation for the Rupture. Of course, you guys might have to fight in your dwindling and increasingly geriatric congregations over who gets the ride...
Until you can show us "on this thread" where the "reformed" have an incorrect understanding of the Trinity, as you speculated, we'll have to conclude your bizarre accusation is as empty and meaningless as all the rest you post.
You proved my point, what more is there to say but: I agree.
Your proof contradicted your original statement. Recognizing this is sufficient. I have little use for or desire in further effort determining which of the two is your real position.
Your post is gibberish.
Do you happen to recall the Trinitarian claim that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit made a pact of their actions by a member of the Reformed?
As time goes on, the man made religions that make up Reformed beliefs get ever stranger and more convoluted.
Only to the moron, the simple and the unlettered. We are considering which one...
and what Thayer suggests that YOU AGREE WITH is that “person” in both Matthew 22:16 and Gal. 2:6 means outward appearance, “face”.
An “outward appearance” is not a “someone”, “a who” or an individual “a person”, having personhood.
To assign the giving or receiving of authority to the word “face”, “person” at 2 Cor. 2:10 is not supported by the meaning of “prosopos” while “presence” is.
“So you understand now that “prosopos” at times can only be translated as “person? So why the long post asking for an example of such?”
Again you misstate what I said, I did not just ask “for an example of such?” as above but rather:
You say the Greek reader “takes the meaning from context, for example, when “prosopos” is used in the strictly anatomical sense the reader understand it as “face”, otherwise, the entirety of the human individual”.
So I must ask,
Have you found any instance of “prosopon” or its variants, being used to refer to “person” in the sense of an individual with all the characteristics of self existence that confer upon him personhood, an individuality not associated with objects or animals?
The examples you give do not meet the the criteria of the question above or EVEN WHAT YOU SAID YOU AGREE WITH, i.e.,
“I don't disagree at all that the meaning of “person” in Matthew 22:16 is indeed what Thayer suggests”
and what Thayer suggests that YOU AGREE WITH is that “person” in both Matthew 22:16 and Gal. 2:6 means outward appearance, “face”.
You say (have said) the Greek reader “takes the meaning from context, for example, when “prosopos” is used in the strictly anatomical sense the reader understand it as “face”, otherwise, the entirety of the human individual”.
That's an either/or choice, the face with eyes, nose, etc. OR the person with all the attributes (”the entirety) associated with what it means to be an individual, self aware, “a person”.
That, you have agreed, is NOT the case, presence, literal face, outward appearance, being amongst other meanings you have agreed that “prosopos” can mean.
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.