With such a limited vocabulary, it's no wonder that your telephone booth cult is:
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 we post Scripture to back it up as opposed to the musings and fantasies passed of as *tradition* on equal par with Scripture that the Catholics post.
Catholics are no strangers to popsting what they think God thinks, but the problem is, they don't use any God given authoritative source, like Scripture. The church just can't legitimately make up stuff and pass it off as truth. It has no basis nor legitimate foundation without Scripture.
G*I*B*B*E*R*I*S*H
The latest in a long list of corrections; I expect that it is merely yet another in a very long string that may stretch out until we can get the telephone booth Reformed cults back to Christianity.
Odd. The Reformed poster sent a post to you copy me confirming it. Have you forgotten?
AMEN!
Also, no "alter Christus;" no "co-Mediator;" no "co-Redeemer;" no "re-sacrifice of Christ;" no "bank of merit;" no "purgatory;" no "limbo;" no other sacraments beyond baptism and the Lord's Supper; and no confessional booth where sins are forgiven by a man who presumes himself to be "another Christ."
;-)
With such a limited vocabulary, it's no wonder that your telephone booth cult is:
If we truly made that claim, it would be truly hubristic. But we don't so it isn't.
Distinguo: To claim to have worked through the teaching of the Trinity more than somebody else is not to claim to understand the infinite God.
You didn't miss a thing. It was a basic sophistry comparable to accusing someone who claims to know how to frame a doorway of claiming to be able to build the Empire State building by himself.
If you eliminate enough NT Scripture, there is no end of true Christianity that one can eliminate as well. Good summary of all those Christian aspects that the Reformed have rejected.
The German nobles were desperate to find a way to exert more control over their region, Luther gave them a way to do it. Plus, having a "German" church meant that they could keep some of the money that would normally go to the Vatican.
Even today if you look at Germany you will see that the division between Catholic and Lutheran is almost entirely geographic. Some nobles became Lutheran and some stayed Catholic.
It is a given that the "quotes" posted by caww wer not accurate. Bad for them.
There never was a Pope Constantine V. However it was the Constantine's who effectively ruled the Church for 60 years and it was Constantine V who called the Council, ignoring the Pope. This Council, comprising 338 Bishops was one of the largest ever called.
The primary conclusion of this council- "No one is to possess or venerate an image, even in the secrecy of his home. All who disobey are to be excommunicated, and also to be punished by the law of the emperor, for their disobedience is also a crime against the state."
Leo III died in June 740. His son, who succeeded as Constantine V, was to reign for thirty-five years, and to show himself as capable as his father had been. Such a succession--nearly sixty years of continuous, good, strong government--was without precedent. The great event of the new reign, from the point of view of religion, was the council called by Constantine in 753, for the purpose of solemnly condemning the cult of images. For this emperor was much more of an Iconoclast than Leo III. In a treatise which he wrote, and circulated to the bishops on the eve of the council, he explained that all images of Christ were heretical, since they must portray Him as merely human, i.e., as though He had but one nature. At the same time that he thus, indirectly, seemed to reprobate the ancient Monophysite heresy, he used its terminology to explain himself; and as well as this, by refusing to the Blessed Virgin the name of Theotokos, by asserting her to be no more than Christotokos, he aligned himself with the Nestorians. It was at the first real breathing space of his reign--which had begun with a civil war, in which the rebels held Constantinople--that Constantine V held this council.
It met in the emperor's palace called Hieria, near Chalcedon, February 10, 753, and it sat for as long as seven months, with 338 bishops attending. So far as numbers went, this was one of the greatest of all the councils so far.
The pope was not invited to it; the see of Constantinople was vacant; Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were now well and truly sees in partibus infidelium. The president was that archbishop of Ephesus who, nearly thirty years before, had been one of the first promoters of iconoclasm. What took up the time of so many bishops for so many months was not the proposal to forbid the veneration of images. Here all were agreed. But the bishops resisted the emperor steadfastly when he proposed to go back on the earlier, acknowledged General Councils. They refused to endorse his heresies about the nature of Christ, the Theotokos, and her role of intercessor for mankind, the practice of prayer to the saints, the veneration due to their relics. So that the final summing up of the council does no more than speak of the images as being idolatrous and heretical, a temptation to the faith that originated with the devil. No one is to possess or venerate an image, even in the secrecy of his home. All who disobey are to be excommunicated, and also to be punished by the law of the emperor, for their disobedience is also a crime against the state.
The Church In Crisis
Yes, the site and quotes presented by caww contained significant errors but that does not detract from the main premise: The possession and veneration of images were outlawed.
The acceptance or rejection of the conclusions of this Council by the Pope is meaningless. The Pope was another Bishop, nothing else, and Constantine V was the effective leader of the Church.
It requires a retroactive writing of history to suggest the "Pope" was the leader of the Christian Church.
Pope Constantine V, whoThe Constantine's ruled the church for almost sixty years"
There, fixed it for you.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek.
Your argument would be worth considering if you weren't so apparently determined to ignore and/or dismiss those verses that don't support your rather rigid positions. To pluck a verse or passage from Scripture and claim "This is what God thinks" is infantile; Scripture represents what God tells us -- and he tells us different (and often apparently contradictory) things in different verses and passages. To claim flat-footedly that "God thinks [whatever]" is either incredibly presumptuous or incredibly stupid -- or both.
Even using the locution "God thinks" is, at the very least, taking unwarranted liberties. Kosta, can we even say "God thinks"?
Heresies are a continuing issue through history. Someone's always getting a crazy idea and the list of heretics and their particular theories is huge and sometimes they get a LOT of people stirred up. Most of the "Christian" world was Arian at one time, Iconoclasm never took off in the west except for the Franks who (and this is hilarious considering the discussion we're having now) misinterpreted a document.
Heresies, schmeresies; The fact is your retroactive history of a continuous authoritative Papacy is fiction.
They don't hear you.
Good point. It is like my son who is just being introduced to mathematics being accused of understanding advanced calculus.
Is this another way of saying that, while there were a bunch of errors you still like it because of the conclusion that was reached?
That sounds A LOT like, "Fake but accurate."
The acceptance or rejection of the conclusions of this Council by the Pope is meaningless. The Pope was another Bishop, nothing else, and Constantine V was the effective leader of the Church.
This theory is all so fascinating, it's pretty much identical to the way the left rewrites history to fit their agenda.
The Constantine V who is referred to was the BYZANTINE EMPEROR who ruled from Constantinople (present-day Istanbul, Turkey); he NEVER set foot in Rome, in fact the Roman Empire had been gone for centuries at this time.
Nevertheless, if we are to believe your theory, we need to believe that the Church was being run by Turkish emperors, but that eventually authority was transferred to the Bishops of Rome. So, to support your theory, perhaps you can fill us in on some of the missing historical events:
1. When did this transfer of authority take place?
2. At what event did this transfer take place?
3. Who was involved? Which emperor, which bishops?
4. What was the reason for this transfer? Why did the emperors want to surrender authority?
5. Why was authority given to the Bishop of Rome and not the Patriarch of Constantinople?
Perhaps the weather.
Or the upcoming election.
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.