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.
I know this might be a surprise, but none of us think Luther was infallible. he loved the Catholic church and only wanted to reform it to its biblical roots.. He was a priest at his heart.. God used Him to set a fire, but a match is not a bondfire.. it is only the igniter
Show me where Christ taught the special gifts to the apostles could be passed down.. Remember Christ always knew that Judas was the one that would betray him ...where did Jesus give approval or directions to replace him ..where did Jesus give them power to pass on specific gifts He gave to them ?
Wag, if my family died believing in the Catholic church and its law and work based gospel, yes they are in hell.
Where does God tell us that the “rest (of the Bible) is subservient to the Gospels?”
More Calvinist anthropomorphizing God and assigning to Him our human limitations. God is omniscient. He has no need to think, He simply knows.
Semantics.
"The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations." -- Psalms 33:11
Whose thoughts? The Lord's thoughts.
It's really not all that surprising. Without "tradition" you can't bow down or kneel to idols, proclaim Mary "queen of heaven" and all the other blasphemies that are taught as right and true.
It's sad that it is an Evangelical principal that the thing to be regarded in religion is not custom, but truth. Paraphrased from Philip Schaff "History of the Christian Church.
"The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations." -- Psalms 33:11
Whose thoughts? The Lord's thoughts.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.None of the religious theologians question God's word -- where can you show that Kostka's theologians are doing this? Do you then believe in TV Charlatans like Creflo dollar or Benny Hinn and the rest? The failures of these TV charlatans is theological -- like Jesse Duplantis and the others and their crazy ideas that God doesn't have the power of life and death.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.
Thx.
Incredible.
IT IS WRITTEN
IT IS WRITTEN
IT IS WRITTEN
IT IS WRITTEN
IT IS WRITTEN
IT IS WRITTEN
IT IS WRITTEN
Some folks . . . with a gnat’s worth of brains . . . realize that when God says ANYTHING—IT’S VITALLY IMPORTANT.
WHEN GOD SAYS SOMETHING REPEATEDLY
IT’S INFINITELY BEYOND IMPORTANT.
And some folks never get a clue.
Just like Rome..bend and twist, cherry pick scripture out of context or make up traditions to make doctrine
If one can not see that the catholic church bears no resemblance to the NT church Christ founded they are blinded
It's nice to see that Pentecostals aren't caught up in the Marian cult. The 'queen of heaven' stuff is terrible. It seems that all we can do is try and preach The Gospel to them.
By His need to send His Son and not communicate the Word and the New Law through surrogates and prophets.
And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." - Mark 16:15
And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. - Luke 24:25-27
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandments through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. - Acts 1:1-2
Dei verbum 18:
It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.
The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Quite so.
Thx.
Which translation?
+Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
When all else fails, the "Luther was really a Catholic" excuse always comes out.
Show me where Christ taught the special gifts to the apostles could be passed down..
[18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
-- Matthew 28:18-20And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)
Now, I don't expect you to agree with me, but you asked for Scriptural proof and there it is.
Wag, if my family died believing in the Catholic church [sic] and its law and work based gospel [sic], yes they are in hell [sic].
Thank you for your honesty. Perhaps you misunderstand what the Church teaches, the Church understands that it both faith AND works, NOT one or the other (read Matthew 25:31-46 sometime). However, it seems to me that it would take incredible hubris for someone to operate under the assumption that EVERYONE prior to the 16th century is in Hell, because that is essentially what this would mean. Now, I understand that some Protestants have fantastic conspiracy theories that there were Christians everywhere practicing some form of sola scriptura-type Christianity apart from the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but nobody has EVER been able to offer any evidence that this is true. Now it IS true that there were groups like the Arians and Nestorians that practiced heresy, but I wouldn't think that Protestants would want to claim to be the heirs of groups that deny the Eternal Divinity of Jesus Christ.
“”What God “thinks” is what is.””
What “is” was already known in “one now eternally” and involved no thought.
A thought would be a procession from something known by God,thus God would be moved.
You have already agreed that the comment to Jesus meant that he gave no consideration to outward appearances.
Perhaps we can dispense with what we both agree it does NOT mean.
“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.”
You assume a meaning of “prosopon” you have not supported.
Paul says what he forgives ‘for their sakes’
“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.”
According to John 20:23 Paul already had the authority to forgive sins when he wrote to the Corinthians so what further would he need?
Paul says what he forgives ‘for their sakes’ with Christ countenancing it or (presence) person.
“Two, that St. Paul did so as Christ was watching, — in the presence of Christ but with no authority of Christ”
A false choice, Paul's authority was not in question or the subject as it already existed as you have pointed out.
That “in the person” at 2 Cor. 2:10 means in “Christ's presence” (not ‘mere presence’) is supported by Vine's, Thayer’s Lexicon, and is so translated by the American Standard Version, The Emphatic Diaglott, the New Revised Standard Version as well as others.
So if you wish to say “person” at 2 Cor. 2:10 is a statement of Paul's authority or something similar, I ask
What is your support for so thinking?
“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.”
Now you're reading the motives of translator's and interpreting their objectives with words they didn't use in their translations!
If you have some evidence of what you say, please, by all means, let's see it!!!
“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.”
As you have said, the apostles had authority to forgive sins so what further authority could be attached?
“Was Christ any less present when the penitents were pardoned the first time?”
The Corinthians had just brought back into the congregation a man expelled because of immorality so Paul assures them that those they have forgiven he also has.
“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 that presence.”
Again you are arguing against something neither of us has contemplated or expressed, that Paul meant MERELY Christ's presence.
“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.”
By your understanding of the phrase “in the person”
such an explanation is not possible. The explanations I have given you have rejected per 2 Cor. 2:10.
Obviously you didn't “like it” since you say the authority of Christ is being invoked by Paul in this verse.
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.