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.
ping
No, they simply point to the fact that "John's" Gospel is an interpolation which is not obvious to an average uneducated reader.
Makes a person wonder how Christ managed without them
What do you really know about Christ except from a select number of books the Church picked for you? Books that have no basis in fact and events no one else has recorded.
Our friend Forest Keeper knows all this. His is just being a lawyer, right FK? :) Many of us (Orthodox/Catholics) have told him the same thing, and you certainly put it superbly, so there is no chance of any misunderstanding.
The Jews place the Torah (which they believe was written by God before the foundation of the world) as the central part of the Tanakh (Old Testament), with Prophets and Writings basically expounding (through inspiration of human writers) on what the Torah revealed.
The New Testament is treated exactly the same way: the Gospels are narratives of what Jesus said, the Epistles are inspired teachings of human authors based on those words.
In 2 Cor 1:11, however, "prosopos" is certainly not congruous with outward appearance: "εκ πολλων προσωπων το εις ημας χαρισμα" refers to people praying. Surely St. Paul did not mean to say that because the Corinthians made the outward appearance of praying it became a gift for him.
Now, can one say that in 2 Cor 1:11 the "individual with all the characteristics of self existence that confer upon him personhood"? I don't know. I know that in order to pray one has to be a person. An outward appearance does not pray; a presence does not pray. If there is a creature that prays yet lacks all the characteristics of personhood, I am not aware of it, unless you think it was a praying mantis that St. Paul was thanking.
Likewise, when St. Paul pardons the penitents in 2 Cor. 2:10 he does so in the person of Christ. The person of Christ here has enough of personhood to authorize St. Paul to forgive sin. That is consistent with John 20:21-23. To say that St. Paul did so "in the face of Christ" but not "in the person of Christ" could mean two things. One, St. Paul put on outward appearance of Christ. That is comical and of course not meant. Two, that St. Paul did so as Christ was watching, -- in the presence of Christ but with no authority of Christ. The latter is the unfortuinate version of events offered by some dynamic "translations". That is smoother for the reader as it does not engage his mind, adn that is the chief objective of dynamic translators. We often say things like: I gave him $10 in the presence of Jim. But does it make sense in the scenario on hand? I don't see what sense it makes if St. Paul pardoned the penitents who had already been pardoned, without attaching the authority of Christ to his pardon. Was Christ any less present when the penitents were pardoned the first time?
I think it is clear that St. Paul added that his pardon was in the "prosopon" of Christ in order to invoke the authority of Christ and not merely point to Christ's presence. If you have any explanation of this where the authority of Christ is not claimed by St. Paul, but his presence is mentioned, I'd like to hear it.
"the entry on iconoclasm from the Old Catholic Encylopedia" is available here. If you read through what I posted you made it to the section on Nicæa II, or about halfway through the article.
It is therefore without any doubt that prosopos is to be understood in Greek, in context, as either the face or an individual (person).
Your question is a nonsequitur.
Can you speak English?
Did you mean 'Imply?'
You're so very scholarly, just like the "serious scholars" you wish to protect from scrutiny, that deny Christ's deity, or in many cases, his very existence.
Paul cautioned us against trusting human philosophers, and with good cause.
Those that question God's word are not 'scholars,' they are destroyers.
Your disagreement with a TV minister fails to make them 'charlatans.' While there certainly have been some very compromised Christians doing TV broadcasts, their failures have been mostly in the area of dedication to Mammon, and to sexual pleasures, much like the Papist churches. Their doctrines have been mostly Biblically sound.
Instead of going off on the "preaching the gospel" tangent, just answer my question. I'm asking, even though I have a strong suspicion there will be another left turn into the boonies of obfuscation.
This is a question which NEVER gets answered.
If a person REALLY BELIEVES in the cosmic lottery (aka predestination) they should understand that praying and preaching is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS. If EVERYTHING has already been decided, no amount of prayer or preaching is going to change what God has already predestined. If predestination is true, their prayers and preaching are really no different than an Indian rain dance.
It's like they're trying to work their way into heaven or something.
And Catholics attack non-Catholics about their view of the Trinity as if Catholics understand it.
What hubris Catholics display to claim to understand the infinite God.
Apology accepted. Not a problem.
Then please post supporting documentation from Trinitarian Protestant theologians where they make the case that the Protestant understanding of the Trinity is different in ANY WAY from the Catholic understanding.
Please post documentation where Protestants have somehow expanded upon or redefined Trinitarian formulas after the Reformation.
If you are going to suggest that the Protestant understanding of the Trinity is different from the Catholic understanding, you need to be prepared to prove it. Otherwise, you should accept the reality that the Trinity has NEVER been a point of contention between Catholics and Trinitarian Protestants.
Are you aware that there are Protestants who specifically DENY the Trinity? They don't make a secret about it.
Again all that will to come.. the question is who will will?
Men make choices based on their preferences. The question is can a man desire to surrender all claims to his self-salvation and being worthy or good enough to be saved ?
The sons of Adam have a will to have exactly what Eve did..He wants what is pleasing to the eyes, his flesh satisfied and most of all he wants to be equal to God. The will of men is in bondage to self because of Eden.
Our wills must be freed so that we have the absolute freedom not to make a god of our liking.. not to hide from the God of creation as Adam and Eve chose to .
Unsaved men have a will in bondage to self.. it is only the grace of God, a work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration that again gives man an ability to choose not to sin, to no longer be slaves to sin and to desire to see and understand that Christ has saved us from ourselves and our sin
I believe the crux of the New Testament is the forgiveness of sin and the reconciliation of God with men. The crux of the NT is the cross and resurrection of Christ
There is no apostolic succession taught in the scriptures, no priesthood, no pope, no mass etc.. all of that is extra scriptural and a lie from the pit of hell
I guess you did...through the entirety of the thread we have been told Paul and made stuff up was nuts and that the only important things are found in the red letter in the gospel
I have ever referred to you as the good Dr. E. I must be very foolish.
Your post reveals where you fall.
To be more accurate; my posts reveal the truth of Christianity and the failure of telephone booth sized non Christianity masquerading as Christianity.
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.