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.
Weird.
How about I Corinth 11:23 ff? St. Paul wrote that, and it is a terrific passage. Do you believe it? Especially verse 29: "He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgement on himself."
When a prod approaches the Lord in prayer to ask forgiveness of sins, how does s/he remember all of them? Do prods need a tally? Do they have a list? Do they just use a generic "all my sins" and not embarrass themselves by specifically remembering each and every one and apologizing to Christ for each one? Does the Holy Spirit speak to prods and tell them they are forgiven? Is that in words, or just a vague "feeling" of being ok with Jesus?
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).Or Ireneus, a disciple of the Apostle John
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).your interpretation is wrong -- the first century Christians practised in a manner similar to what you see in any Catholic Church today. Read about the mass
"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).
Didache (a Syrian liturgical manual written around A.D. 70), which stated, "On the Lord’s Day . . . gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest our sacrifice be defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: ‘In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am a great king,’ says the Lord, ‘and my name is wonderful among the gentiles’ [cf. Mal. 1:11]" (14:1–3).So, let's see -- Apostolic Succession, check, Mass, check, Eucharist, check, priesthood, check, episcopal nature, check, popes (bishops of Rome), check.
Hi, Cronos. ;-D
20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,--> Matthias is added to the number of apostles -- ordained to keep the same number. Remember that the 12, the number was chosen for a reason, just as the priesthood of Israelies had a ministerial priesthood in the house of Aaron, so too did Jesus inaugurate His new priesthood of believers
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'[b] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'[c]
21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This passage shows the authority being spread through the 12 to others in the growing Church
3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them
4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."
5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.Even +Paul is ordained, showing His Apostolic succession
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.The apostles ordained Barnabus and Saul, the authority flowing from Christ to the Apostles to their disciples in Apostolic Succession
23Paul and Barnabas appointed elders[a] for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.Again, apostolic succession to ensure the Truth is maintained
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.Here not only do we see the apostles appointing some to deliver the message, we see the first Apostolic Synod.
14Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.1 Tim 5:
22Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.-- Apostolic succession is to be kept true and correct, ensuring that the Truth is spread, not gnosticism.
It is apparent that Apostolic Succession was true in scriptures and followed to ensure that there were no distortions of the Word. Here you have a few passages from the NT as proof of this
The comment was about the NT church, not what came after.
Non-Scripture sources? Check....
That alone tells you it’s a Catholic posting without even having to look at the screen name.
In order to tell something about the New Testament church, you have to read the NT.
Nothing about filling our stomachs.
Since you seemed so partial to Calvin the last time we discussed him, let's see what he says about 1 Corinthians 11:24...
But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must rise heavenward. Here, therefore, faith must be our resource, when all the bodily senses have failed. When I speak of faith, I do not mean any sort of opinion, resting on human contrivances, as many, boasting of faith on all occasions, run grievously wild on this point. What then? You see bread — nothing more — but you learn that it is a symbol of Christ’s body. Do not doubt that the Lord accomplishes what his words intimate — that the body, which thou dost not at all behold, is given to thee, as a spiritual repast. It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh, which is at so great a distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding. “In the meantime, however, drive away gross imaginations, which would keep thee from looking beyond the bread. Leave to Christ the true nature of flesh, and do not, by a mistaken apprehension, extend his body over heaven and earth: do not divide him into different parts by thy fancies, and do not adore him in this place and that, according to thy carnal apprehension. Allow him to remain in his heavenly glory, and aspire thou thither, that he may thence communicate himself to thee.” These few things will satisfy those that are sound and modest. As for the curious, I would have them look somewhere else for the means of satisfying their appetite. (Which is broken for you) Some explain this as referring to the distribution of the bread, because it was necessary that Christ’s body should remain entire, as it had been predicted, (Exodus 12:46,) A bone of him shall not be broken As for myself — while I acknowledge that Paul makes an allusion to the breaking of bread, yet I understand the word broken as used here for sacrificed — not, indeed, with strict propriety, but at the same time without any absurdity. For although no bone was broken, yet the body itself having been subjected, first of all, to so many tortures and inflictions, and afterwards to the punishment of death in the most cruel form, cannot be said to have been uninjured. This is what Paul means by its being broken This, however, is the second clause of the promise, which ought not to be passed over slightly. For the Lord does not present his body to us simply, and without any additional consideration, but as having been sacrificed for us. The first clause, then, intimates, that the body is presented to us: this second clause teaches us, what advantage we derive from it — that we are partakers of redemption, and the benefit of his sacrifice is applied to us. Hence the Supper is a mirror which represents to us Christ crucified, so that no one can profitably and advantageously receive the supper, but the man who embraces Christ crucified. (Do this in remembrance of me) Hence the Supper is a memorial, appointed as a help to our weakness; for if we were sufficiently mindful of the death of Christ, this help would be unnecessary. This is common to all sacraments, for they are helps to our weakness. What is the nature of that remembrance which Christ would have us cherish with regard to him, we shall hear presently. As to the inference, however, which some draw from this — that Christ is not present in the Supper, because a remembrance applies to something that is absent; the answer is easy — that Christ is absent from it in the sense in which the Supper is a commemoration. For Christ is not visibly present, and is not beheld with our eyes, as the symbols are which excite our remembrance by representing him. In short, in order that he may be present with us, he does not change his place, but communicates to us from heaven the virtue of his flesh, as though it were present. (This is my body)...how is it possible that his body, which is in heaven, is given to us here upon earth? Some imagine that Christ’s body is infinite, and is not confined to any one space, but fills heaven and earth, (Jeremiah 23:24,) like his Divine essence. This fancy is too absurd to require refutation. The Schoolmen dispute with more refinement as to his glorious body. Their whole doctrine, however, reduces itself to this — that Christ is to be sought after in the bread, as if he were included in it. Hence it comes, that the minds of men behold the bread with wonderment, and adore it in place of Christ. Should any one ask them whether they adore the bread, or the appearance of it, they will confidently agree that they do not, but, in the mean time, when about to adore Christ, they turn to the bread. They turn, I say, not merely with their eyes, and their whole body, but even with the thoughts of the heart. Now what is this but unmixed idolatry? But that participation in the body of Christ, which, I affirm, is presented to us in the Supper, does not require a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor infinite extension, nor anything of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.
Amen.
See post 10785
Acts 1:20-23 Does the Catholic church still cast lots to choose the new leaders? Peter did, only to have the guy fade into oblivion. Obviously not God’s choice.
First fail as the new *pope*.
Acts 6:2-6 Deacons are not apostles.....
Second fail. It proves nothing.
Acts 9:17-20 Ananias wasn’t listed as one of the Twelve. He wasn’t an apostle. He received his instruction directly from God, not through apostolic succession.
Third fail.
Acts 15:22-27 Chose some of their own, already apostles.
Fourth fail.
Other instances are for sending out others for missionary work and appointing ELDERS not apostles.
Cronos: “Apostolic succession is to be kept true and correct, ensuring that the Truth is spread, not gnosticism.”
Scripture does that. What you’re attributing to the apostles is accomplished with Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
As you've well-noted, there is nothing in Scripture about any apostolic succession. There is only apostolic teaching, passed down through Scripture.
The snippets of quotes Rome pushes forward as some kind of evidence shows just how desperate Rome is to substantiate its error. They take a line here and there from some translation of something and cobble it together to say the pope and his magisterium are infallible in matters of faith and religion when Scripture teaches only Christ is infallible and His teachings are what men are to follow. Teachings found in the Bible, open to all.
“1. But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”
Do you, 2000 years later, doubt their actions and beliefs?
Amen, Metmom. Excellent post.
Not true of "Rome" but definitely true of Calvin, qv above in your quoted passage.
"Fade into oblivion" did he? Well well, guess what? So will you. So will we all. Nevertheless, God calls us to His work, and we obey. Is fame the only criterion for "fail"?
Rnmomof7 is right, they are throughout this thread, many many times. When I made this comment I was specifically thinking of Wagglebee's response to the post prompting my response. From Wagglebee's 10231:
On the contrary, The Reformed® typically offer their distorted interpretations of Saint Paul's epistles and pretend it's the Gospel.
.......So, in a MONTH OF SUNDAY MORNING those attending this den of iniquity have not heard A SINGLE VERSE FROM THE GOSPELS. Repent and flee to the Church which our Lord founded where the Gospel is read at EVERY MASS.
Both of these statements clearly pit God's word AGAINST God's word. In the first, God's word through Paul is depicted as fully inferior to God's word through the Gospel writers. And the context is as in a GENERAL STATEMENT, NOT referring to a particular topic on which certain scripture is more specific. This idea that some of the Bible is generically better BY NATURE than other parts of the Bible is confirmed in Wagglebee's second statement. Therein, Wagglebee makes it clear that his view is that ANY passage from the Gospels is automatically superior to any other passage in scripture, REGARDLESS of the topic. The CCC, at least on its face, totally rejects this view by acknowledging that ALL scripture is inspired by God and none is "truer" by nature than other scripture. Wagglebee specifically criticizes the CCC's idea by inviting the poster to flee from any church that reads God's word from certain parts of the Bible as opposed to others in a given month.
All that I have seen is Catholic posters pointing out that in many Calvinist groups you read from the Epistles almost to exclusion and do not read the Gospels.
It would simply make no sense for a Calvinist group to do that. We say openly that all scripture is God's good and perfect word. No scripture is truer than other scripture so there would be no reason to avoid any of it. If you look at our views concerning Sola Scriptura you will see that our authority is ALL scripture, not just parts of it. No distinction about parts of scripture being superior is ever made in any Calvinist document I am aware of.
We read from the OT, NT (Gospels + Epistles) each Sunday and during the week and we read through the entire Bible, so no we do not pit or see contradictions. And, no, we do not believe that true Baptists (I'm saying that because I discount Westboro as a baptist group), Presbyterians (except the gay PCUSA) or Evangelicals (except the Benny Hinn, Word of Faith, Jesse Duplantis, Creflo Dollar etc) believe that either ...... (emphasis added)
But if I'm following you, you just said that many Catholics are observing that Calvinists read from epistles but not from Gospels. That would indicate an opinion that Calvinists elevate epistles over the Gospel books. We do not. It is ALL God's perfect inspired word.
The problem is that The Church IS The New Covenant Church —it’s form is that which we see in the Gospels, which we see the First Christians having.
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.