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.
“”Whose thoughts? The Lord’s thoughts.””
The Scripture is for man’s understanding of thoughts,not for us to understand it as “God actually thinking” since God cannot be moved or it would be an error from eternal knowing
All Covenants were sealed with blood ...His blood would seal the New Testament ...it had not yet been shed..
So all the gospels up to the crucification were about the law, not the New Testament.
The Old Covenant people met God in the tabernacle ..the new Covenant has men indwelled by God. The saved became living tabernacles.
The Gospels reveal the divinity and humanness of Christ, they reveal Him as Messiah.
"Christ is the Mediator of the new Testament (Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:23,24; Luke 22:20 - see Heb. 8:6-9, 12:24). Our Lord said, "This is my blood of the New Testament." Therefore, the New Testament was to be established by the shedding of His Own BLOOD. When was His blood shed? Near the END of each of the accounts in the so-called "Four Gospels" (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), on the cross, in the year A.D.29. According to Heb. 9:16,17, a testament is not valid unless there be the death of the testator. Therefore the New Covenant did not, indeed it could not begin until AFTER HIS DEATH and the BLOOD WAS SHED."
http://www.bereanworkman.com/miscellaneous/rdhowto.htm
This is not a reformed position, it is a theological one that I learned in a "Survey of the OT " At Houghton College taught by a Mennonite PHd in Theology
No doubt about it... :)
Since Psalms wasn't penned in King James English why did you choose that particular translation? I'll bet it was because other translations, even the New King James version utilize more accurate translations of the Hebrew and use the word "plans".
Funny, then why did He hold up the wine and say that it was His blood, the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant?
And “take, eat, this is My body” about the bread?
Do you have difficulty taking Christ’s words seriously?
Please show me where jesus teaches that the apostles have the right or authority to pass on the gifts and position He gave to them.. The belief in apostolic succession is made up out of whole cloth
Of course not. That is anthropomorphism.
You still haven’t figured out that you cannot speak English?
Your sentence made no sense, unless you were speaking of your own position, but that would not do as a question to me, thus a nonsequitur.
As for your TV evangelists, the names you mention are a mix.
Benny Hinn’s theology is far more solid than your own, although I do not favor his stage antics. He does not violate any Biblical commandments, like deifying dead humans and praying to them, nor does he misconstrue the communion bread and cup into a pagan seance as Catholics do.
.
The Gospels testify to the divinity and humanness of Christ, they testify to His incarnation.. They establish the person of Christ.. But ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD and it is all true and right and holy . all suitable for instruction and reproof
Um, they continued to meet in the Synagogues, follow Jewish worship practices and have Eucharist UNTIL they became a separate group after the fall of Rome. The old covenant was being followed by the members of the new covenant. There was a council about that. Remember?
+++Which translation?+++
Which one would you like?
New International Version (©1984)
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
New Living Translation (©2007)
And he said to them, “This is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice for many.
English Standard Version (©2001)
And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
International Standard Version (©2008)
He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant that is being poured out for many people.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the promise. It is poured out for many people.
King James Bible
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
American King James Version
And he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
American Standard Version
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Bible in Basic English
And he said to them, This is my blood of the testament, which is given for men.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
Darby Bible Translation
And he said to them, This is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many.
English Revised Version
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many.
Webster’s Bible Translation
And he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Weymouth New Testament
“This is my blood,” He said, “which is to be poured out on behalf of many—the blood which makes the Covenant sure.
World English Bible
He said to them, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many.
Young’s Literal Translation
and he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the new covenant, which for many is being poured out;
I think it's safe to say that this thread has officially jumped the shark!
Apparently. There’s some other stuff that gets tossed out. Well they just don’t like the meat and vegetables....
I need, if you can think of one, a reference to further examination of this proposition.
Clearly, if we speak of God thinking (or speaking) in one way we are anthropomorphizing. But I think that it is not for nothing (duh) that John calls what we later believe to be the 2nd person of the Trinity, "the Word," and that, if we think about thinking (I'm getting a headache here ...) we realize that it is bound up with "wording".
The New Covenant was established at the Last Supper. And thanks for the translations, but I’ve read them all, already. I just didn’t feel like posting with you anymore, because of what you posted about your dead Catholic relatives being in hell.
That was ugly.
That is a STRETCH of scripture. That has not one thing to do with apostolic succession
Where did jesus give instructions, or permission or AUTHORITY to pass on apostolic privilege or gifts He had given to them?
Referring to my posts yet again without pinging me? Your Christian fruits are really on display on this thread.
This evidently is the sophistry du jour: if one claims the chair needs to be moved a little to the right, they complain that he said to shove it against the wall. The other recent example was somebody claimed that such and such was the correct way to understand one aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity and the entire Catholic Church was said to think it understands God.
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.