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.
The "spilling of Christ's blood" was not an event but the culmination of a process that began in the Beginning. It cannot be separated from God's plan for Salvation that was brought to fruition by the incarnate Word.
The old covenant was being forced on Gentile converts by some of the Jews..not the NT church ,one of those that was a part of that problem was Peter .. The 1s church council led by James rules to only hold them to a couple basic requirements
The NT church was never law based ...
That is why the Roman church is an Old Covenant church.. it is all law and works and tradition
Constantine V was NOT THE LEADER of the church.
They were the SAME GROUP until Jerusalem was destroyed. Jesus Christ was JEWISH not a Christian.
Sorry, I forgot he carried around KJV with the boys.
If your name is on the ping list to which I am responding I will not remove it. Is that clear?
Your imaginary "LEADER" didn't have the authority to call the Council or forbid his "subject" Bishops from attending.
Retroactive history doesn't bestow retroactive authority.
Then WHY do you keep responding?
Or do Catholics feel that they are the ones privileged to do as they please while giving marching orders to non-Catholics?
But it is also what we must expect if we are going to engage in theological discussion.
Sure to us it appears to be 'salvation by right belief' rather than by grace through faith; but they would say that the index of grace is whether you believe their view of how salvation works.
What is more troubling is not just that they take the word of, for example, a Mennonite Ph.D. as the final word on the timetable of covenants (with the implicit instruction that covenants operate like factories: FIRST do this; THEN do that; THEN believe the OTHER, and the New Covenant is established and you're included) but that they do so while they appear unable to comprehend that the dance of our will with our Savior's is maybe just a little less binary than they are comfortable with.
They would nod with agreement when Lewis says "not a tame lion," but they reduce the relationship of the soul with God to a series of codified instructions, a schema imposed by people who don't know what "Living Word" means, and, in general a nice tidy anti-anxiety drug.
While they accuse us of claims we do not make to understand God completely, they have the whole thing mapped out and expressible in a little pamphlet: "Say this prayer, mean it, and you are saved."
TO do this, they have to excise reams of Scripture, and to take without explanation or mention how it is that such a simple thing was so cluttered with what to them must be "noise."
It is analogous with a lobotomy. One sacrifices part of the fullness of being human for the benefit of a nice tidy God.
AND it is because of the drug-like nature of this bargain that rather than discuss this in a relaxed way, as among friends, they have to engage in polemics and debate. The weakening consequent upon belief in so tidy a system makes any questioning of that system so threatening that any amount of discourtesy and dishonest discourse is justified in defending the system. Better to be incoherent than to face a wild and loving God.
Ooops! Exploding spaghetti squash! Gotta go!
Ping to post 10,707
It’s implicit in the meaning of “apostle.” I might as well ask you what the authority is for chewing the Bread of the Sacrament, since Jesus only mentioned taking and eating.
There is nothing of the love song, or the dance of the Savior with the saved, or the unspeakable happiness of knowing a speck of God’s overwhelming ardor for His creatures...
Sad, yes.
Thank you; we may disagree on theology, but I appreciate your courtesy.
That is the functional definition of gnosticism, salvation by the correct knowledge. They taught that salvation could be attained through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge and were exposed as heresies by the early Church.
Today Gnostic thought is echoed in much of Protestantism's emphasis on private interpretation of Scripture, its adherence to the eisegestic hermeneutics and on its individualist emphasis. The early Church had it right and is still right today.
No, I would not agree. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Testament come from testamentum, the word by which the Latin ecclesiastical writers translated the Greek diatheke. With the profane authors this latter term means always, one passage of Aristophanes perhaps excepted, the legal disposition a man makes of his goods for after his death. However, at an early date, the Alexandrian translators of the Scripture, known as the Septuagint, employed the word as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith, which means a pact, an alliance, more especially the alliance of Yahweh with Israel. In St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) Jesus Christ uses the words "new testament" as meaning the alliance established by Himself between God and the world, and this is called "new" as opposed to that of which Moses was the mediator. Later on, the name of testament was given to the collection of sacred texts containing the history and the doctrine of the two alliances; here again and for the same reason we meet the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. In this meaning the expression Old Testament (he palaia diatheke) is found for the first time in Melito of Sardis, towards the year 170. There are reasons for thinking that at this date the corresponding word "testamentum" was already in use amongst the Latins. In any case it was common in the time of Tertullian.
The pact or alliance began when?
The first chapter of Luke provides the answer.
Luke 1: 5 2 In the days of Herod, King of Judea, 3 there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly. 7 But they had no child, 4 because Elizabeth was barren and both were advanced in years. 8 Once when he was serving as priest in his division's turn before God, 9 according to the practice of the priestly service, he was chosen by lot to enter the sanctuary of the Lord to burn incense. 10 Then, when the whole assembly of the people was praying outside at the hour of the incense offering, 11 the angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right of the altar of incense. 12 Zechariah was troubled by what he saw, and fear came upon him. 13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, 5 Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of (the) Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. 6 He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother's womb, 16 and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah 7 to turn the hearts of fathers toward children and the disobedient to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord." 18 Then Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." 19 And the angel said to him in reply, "I am Gabriel, 8 who stand before God. I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news. 20 But now you will be speechless and unable to talk 9 until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at their proper time." 21 Meanwhile the people were waiting for Zechariah and were amazed that he stayed so long in the sanctuary. 22 But when he came out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the sanctuary. He was gesturing to them but remained mute. 23 Then, when his days of ministry were completed, he went home. 24 After this time his wife Elizabeth conceived, and she went into seclusion for five months, saying, 25 "So has the Lord done for me at a time when he has seen fit to take away my disgrace before others."
26 10 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." 29 But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, 11 and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" 12 35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived 13 a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; 37 for nothing will be impossible for God." 38 Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.
So when did the pact begin?
Romans 7:1 7 2 3 What then can we say? That the law is sin? Of course not! Yet I did not know sin except through the law, and I did not know what it is to covet except that the law said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, finding an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetousness. Apart from the law sin is dead. 9 I once lived outside the law, but when the commandment came, sin became alive; 10 then I died, and the commandment that was for life turned out to be death for me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it put me to death. 12 So then the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
That is why the Roman church is an Old Covenant church.. it is all law and works and tradition
No, it is not - you are incorrect.
How would the Reformed Jesus know what to do, if the pederast James I (ex of Scotland) didn't tell Him?
No you don't...A personal relationship with Jesus comes from the heart, not the stomach...Jesus is no more in your crackers than God is in a black rock in Mecca...
Jesus has died...He is NOT dying...He is risen...
Preach the Gospel of the risen Lord, the Gospel of Grace...
One who worships a Pope who personally sheltered pedophiles has the nerve to attack Hinn about a failed marriage????
There is your shark!
.
Yes we do! That which was set in motion at the last supper by the hand and word of Christ, like falling dominoes, physically and spiritually touches Catholics with each Eucharist taken. That is why we call it taking "Communion". We are in Communion with the risen Lord far more closely within a Catholic Mass than in the sterile confines of a Protestant church or on the misinterpreted wording of a redacted Bible.
Don't just preach the Gospel, embrace it with all of your spiritual being and experience it with all of your senses. Live it.
All of the visible lack of understanding is clearly on the side of the Bible denying Catholics.
And I responded exactly to your failure to understand the Lord’s recorded words.
It was what you posted that was ignorant.
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.