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.
Those who derive theology from what they observe growing in their navels or pick from between their teeth are definitely not following Christian beliefs.
I ask God everyday to forgive my sins as I forgive those who sin against me. Don't you?
To the East is means primacy of honor above all, and privilege and prestige. But the East rejects an episcopal ruler. It also rejects the innovated titles such as the "vicar" of Christ and similar things unknown to the undivided Church of the first millennium.
You are correct and I should have phrased it differently.
Nevertheless, my point was that it is utterly absurd to think that the Byzantine emperor once controlled the Church, but that this control was later transfered to the papacy.
Are you aware of ANYTHING that would suggest that Byzantine Emperor Constantine V in the mid-8th century was in charge of the Church (including the Church in the West)?
I love it.
We had an incident at my current congregation . . . IIRC, not that many years ago . . .
There’s an older teen who’s really a great young man of God—very prophetic; humble, worshipful, loving etc.
Anyway—at the beginning of the service, as is somewhat common, the Pastor opening the service mentioned that we have a lot of freedom to worship here—to wave flags, dance, kneel, sit, prostrate on the floor—whatever THE LORD might lead—not per se the flesh—but THE LORD.
Welllllllll, this young man—about 19 or 20 or so—did cartwheels across the front of the auditorium.
Later this atheist came up and was kind of incredulous. He’d just said to God just before the cartwheels, that
IF GOD WAS REAL, HE’D HAVE SOMEONE DO CARTWHEELS ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE AUDITORIUM.
PRAISE GOD FOR HIS SENSE OF HUMOR AND HIS FAITHFULNESS
ACCORDING TO *HIS* WISDOM AND PRIORITIES.
I don’t really know what happened to the atheist though I gathered his heart was softened and he was much more open to The Gospel.
Lets look at WHEN THEY LEFT
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
THIS IS A CLAIM OF DIVINITY, that was blasphemy to the Jews ,now see their reaction
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Men can not save themselves GOD has to grant it to them
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
It was not the bread, that they understood that as an analogy, that Jesus was saying He was like the manna that fed their ancestors. But then He made it clear that he had come from the Father and would return there.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
No, the angostic is tellig you that the OT says one thing and the NT another. Instead of avoiding the issue by bringing up my dilemma, you'd be better off addressing the issue at hand as stated, if you can, that is.
If you were asking God, why would you post to me?
.
Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.
Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.
The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.
The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.
There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.
If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.
In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error.
On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.
That is exactly what I am saying. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, timeless and infinitely perfect. That the ancient Jews sought to explain Him to themselves as a Zeus like character is of no concern to me. Much of the Old Testament is allegorical in order to explain a great many things to a people with no language skills or cultural experience to comprehend it any other way.
There is much about God that is and will forever remain a mystery. God may choose to reveal different aspects of His truth to us, but he does not deliberate and then decide or change his mind. He simply knows. Imposing our human physical and cognitive limitations on God is wrong. We cannot change God.
I thought you were Pentecostal
There, fixed it for you.
That's not what Scripture says. Both the Sermon on the Plain and the Sermon on the Mount tell us that they were addressed to the crowds ie the world.
The Beatitudes say nothing about HOW and WHY men are saved. Thus the Beatitudes are not the Gospel. Keep reading the Bible and learn what the Gospel is.
That's funny. Jesus spends a lot of painstaking time addressing the crowds in both Matthew and Luke and you say it is not the Gospel? This is why we say that Calvin departed from his Christian roots and why we say that Calvinism is a Paulician / OT pagan religion, full of the wrath of whimsical, sullen and anthropomorthic gods.
And again, the Great Commission is given to all believers - to preach the Gospel, confident that those given ears to hear by God will respond in saving faith.
Backwards yet again. The Gospel narrative is clear as to who is being addressed; Calvin merely came and tried to rearrange it a millennium and a half of Christianity.
Why is it that some of you Bible Believers (tm) cannot read the plain language of what is said and who it is said to?
Let's just say that the Emperors held sway over the Church in the 4-6th century. Much of the Roman resistence to the Emperor was based on him having the backing of the Franks.
The so-called 8th (or Photian) Councils are not counted among ecumenical councils by the East although the original was overturned, only to be overturned again by the separated Latin Church at a later date.
Are you aware of ANYTHING that would suggest that Byzantine Emperor Constantine V in the mid-8th century was in charge of the Church (including the Church in the West)?
The Frankish alliance with popes made that impossible after AD 800. The Emperors most certainy did exercise the privilege to convoke the councils up to the 9th century. And some has a great dela of in lfuence on the council's inplementations (Justinian I comes to mind), who even had the pope arrested.
I pray the Confiteor daily. Will you join me?
I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
If you want to play the tit-for-tat game you’ll have to play alone.
Are you aware of any of the Byzantine emperors EVER assuming the title of Pope?
Are they inspired and infallible sources?
There was no priesthood in the Catholic church until it was decided the eucharist was a sacrifice ..that was around 300 ad.. there was no official mass until it was declared doctrine by the Lateran Council.
the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into "High Priest" and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.
The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .
The greek have a couple words for priest
hiereus
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ
and archiereus
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.
Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..
The priesthood was a type of Christ fulfilled on the cross by Christ there is no more sacrifice for sin
He is now our High Priest..
The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.
There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..
Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,
"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."
One more time, there is no priesthood in the NT church ...no pope... none/nada
Posting about me yet again without pinging me? No rules except when you wish others to follow them?
"Paul does not subscribe to the Nicene Trinitarian view of Christianity. Neither do the Synoptic Gospels, by the way. It is in John that we find some evidence of the Triune God, with the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit co equal, co existing, and co eternal members of One God. Paul definitely is not Trinitarian." -- Posted by MarkBsnr on April 24, 2010.
Find me the post number and the thread that you claim that I posted this, please. I want to make sure that you didn't change anything that I posted. You have been known to do this before. I am not accusing Gamecock of falsification, please note.
Just out of curiousity, does you Bible contain the 25th chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew or any of the Epistle of St. James?
What sect do you belong to?
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.