No matter. The RM is in charge of a bunch of unruly cats and is tasked with keeping them in some sort of order. Let's all of us not make his volunteer task any more difficult than our regular posting practices often do. It is a serious business.
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.
Now Mom, you know they* rely on tradition and the fathers only when it supports their errors.
Let’s not forget the Council of Orange was wonderfully Evangelical and Predestinarian, contray to the modernist Pelagian stand that Rome now holds!
*FRoman Catholics.
I am waiting to find out how Catholics know if a tradition of men or of God?? So far crickets
Mary can anyone keep that command..ever?? Can anyone keep the commandments perfectly?
I think all men will be found guilty at the judgement if it is based on that.. and if God is a just judge, He must render judgement ... GUILTY !
How does the church tell us to deal with that GUILTY judgement?
Jesus taught from the OT, on the road to Emmaus Jesus opened the eyes of the apostles and taught them that all the old testament . He plainly taught what generations of their scholars had not seen ..that only through His suffering could Jesus save men .
So the apostles taught jesus from the Old Testament ..but to say there was no New Testament would not be accurate.. the epistles were circulated among the churches to teach doctrine to those that had been saved ... Peter advised the churches to listen to Paul, because Pauls writings were SCRIPTURE (the infallible word of God)
So the New testament church had the witness of the OT and the doctrine and teachings of the New testament
Did you ever get to play your favourite character?
Shocking and totally unacceptable of anyone who is the product of an advanced school system. Everyone knows that it is spelled Harpies...
> “Did you ever get to play your favourite character?”
.
No, casting was adamant that you were their guy!
.
It'd be a whole lot quieter here.
You are too kind.
How about STUPID or ignorant?
At least I didn’t post “Harpy’s”
Can I besmirch my own mental health? Cause if I can't then I'm not really going to have much to say around here.The RM responded "Don’t start it even by making fun of yourself because once the subject gets introduced on a thread it spins out of control."
I would say the place would be full of crickets but that would probably be besmirching the mental health of everyone so I'm not going to say that.
He didn't get the point I was making but I was originally asking about this statement made by the RM:
And do not besmirch the mental health of any Freeper.I think we've had plenty of that in the last 24 hours or so what with all the paranoia talk. Oh well, rules for some, tiny flags for others.
Interesting. Shall we see what actually transpired?
Luke 24:13 5 6 Now that very day two of them were going to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus, 14 and they were conversing about all the things that had occurred. 15 And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus himself drew near and walked with them, 16 7 but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. 17 He asked them, "What are you discussing as you walk along?" They stopped, looking downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, said to him in reply, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know of the things that have taken place there in these days?" 19 And he replied to them, "What sort of things?" They said to him, "The things that happened to Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 how our chief priests and rulers both handed him over to a sentence of death and crucified him. 21 But we were hoping that he would be the one to redeem Israel; and besides all this, it is now the third day since this took place. 22 Some women from our group, however, have astounded us: they were at the tomb early in the morning 23 and did not find his body; they came back and reported that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who announced that he was alive. 24 Then some of those with us went to the tomb and found things just as the women had described, but him they did not see."
25 And he said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer 8 these things and enter into his glory?" 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures. 28 As they approached the village to which they were going, he gave the impression that he was going on farther. 29 But they urged him, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them. 30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. 31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. 32 Then they said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?" 33 So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them 34 who were saying, "The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!"
It actually appears that there were only two of them and none of the Apostles were present. He taught the two that He met on the about all the OT that referred to Him. Not ALL the OT. The two did not have their eyes opened UNTIL Jesus broke the bread after they had gotten Him to stay at their house for the evening. He did tell them that His suffering was necessary, yes, of course.
So the apostles taught jesus from the Old Testament
Pardon?
but to say there was no New Testament would not be accurate.. the epistles were circulated among the churches to teach doctrine to those that had been saved
Which epistles? When were they written? When were they circulated? How many copies were made, and when? There was no Internet email. No printing press. Paul didn't begin writing until ca. 50 A.D., when Mark was working on his Gospel. How long did it take to send a letter? Weeks and months. When did somebody decide to copy it out and then send it? I think that you are thinking of those times in terms of modern technological communication miracles.
Peter advised the churches to listen to Paul, because Pauls writings were SCRIPTURE (the infallible word of God)
And when were those verses written?
So the New testament church had the witness of the OT and the doctrine and teachings of the New testament
I will ask my friend Kosta to chime in, but I don't believe that non-Jewish Christian converts, ie the Greeks, really emphasized the OT because it did not mean anything to them. The OT was not a part of their culture, education or understanding. They concentrated on the Good News of Christ. It was the Jewish converts that needed the OT attention.
. No, casting was adamant that you were their guy!
Alas, I have no favourite characters in Deliverance; I saw some of it on a rainy Saturday afternoon years ago, and was repulsed enough to switch to another channel. Well, to each his own.
True. Unless you were posting about or to a specific properly named Harpy in the possessive, and then you would be correct.
No matter. The RM is in charge of a bunch of unruly cats and is tasked with keeping them in some sort of order. Let's all of us not make his volunteer task any more difficult than our regular posting practices often do. It is a serious business.
Well, bless my soul! /sarc
You mean to tell me that someone who takes the unBiblical (or, at least, not indisputably Biblical) position of sola Scriptura finds that there is no clear unequivocal biblical Statement on something on which we have pretty much admitted there is no clear unequivocal statement?
And it's only been said, what, a couple of dozen times? And each time more persuasive than the next?
Look, the way you read Scripture seems to me to lead you right PAST the point. You seem to treat it like a cook book or, at best, like a kind of code book, a sort of mix and match which produces a clear answer if you take a text from here and another from there and two more for somewhere else. The wonder at finding an articulable conclusion from such a dubious process leads to a mistaken sense about the reliability of that conclusion, as far as I can see.
And, of course, by refusing any guidance except what you can find in Scripture you make yourself open to this error, and subject the Bible to all sorts of other misinterpretations from others who treat it the same way, but they start at different places and mix and match d9ifferent verses.
And the whole enterprise is misguided in any event. You will note, maybe, if you're in a noting frame of mind, that I don't so much argue to persuade anyone that a particular point of view is right. Instead I argue that it is thinkable, not unreasonable, and, most of the time, NOT what the anti-Catholics say it is.
One reason for this is that I know we have different attitudes towards the Bible, so I do not try to persuade you from my principles or leap about in triumph when my principles lead to my conclusions.
It just makes no difference to me that the way YOU read the Bible leads you to think that the Catholic Church is wrong about the priesthood, because I do not think you read it correctly. Garbage in,in my view, therefore in my view, garbage out. And I expect you to think more or less similarly about my thinking and conclusions.
I see that in another post you have once again trumpeted that your conclusions are in accord with your principles -- what a surprise! -- so I will continue my answer in response to that post.
You see, the very usage -- "scripture" meaning "proof text" -- to me suggests the problem with this approach to Scripture.
This is especially true because in a recent post I laid out the building blocks of the argument, with reference to a great many ideas discussed and referred to in the Pauline corpus. It was all right there -- and others have added other clarifying references.
As to the distinction between reliable tradition and unreliable, well I posted the little passage from St. Vincent of Lerins, that's as good a place to start from as any, that and Acts 15.
I feel like I left a lot of the building blocks of the argument in many of my posts since I posted the excerpt from Vincent of Lerins on development.
And the atmosphere here is so hostile, that I fear [see the post on paranoia ;-) ] that it's a waste of time and will only focus the opposition.
The essential argument is:
1)that by the Spirit and by Grace, the Church is the body of Christ and each of us members.
2) In everything ecclesiastical that's going on in the NT, one thing that's happening is that all this miracle and wonder and call are being, as you might say, "processed."
3) Christ is THE High Priest.
4) Therefore the Church, the body, has a priestly function.
5) So the question becomes
(a)HOW to exercise that function and
(b) how to exercise some kind of, what, editing, certifying, function. (You don't suppose that all the people Paul said needed to leave the Church just went home and moped, do you? I think many of them just set up shop somewhere else and said, "WE'RE the real deal." So how is the sincere believer to know?)
6) The 'overseer' probably fairly early on 'presided' at community 'breaking of the bread and the prayers.' As the Church grew, we envision that he delegates that presiding function to presbyters -- sent them over to the suburbs or the other side of town to exercise the overseer's ministry.
7)[Grant me, for the duration, the premise that the Mass is not, strictly speaking a repetition, but is THE paschal act, made present in time and space. We are not, strictly speaking, doing something AGAIN. Okay? Just for the time being?]
8) Also the "sins ye remit" function is delegated, So many sins, and sinners, so few bishops-- this actually took a few centuries to get sorted out - "processed".
9) The "president" at these functions is, in our view of the 'making the past present' So to speak, presiding at the priestly functions of the great High Priest. Through His promise and command we re-present, make present the acts of His priestly ministry.
10)Therefor the hieratic aspect of priesthood gets conceptually attached to the offices of overseer and elder; BUT
11) They are not priests like any before, and certainly not a continuation or revivification (except in a dangerous but sometimes useful analogy); BECAUSE
12) It is CHRIST's priesthood. It is in no fundamental sense "theirs.". This CAN be so only because we are members of His body and, having died and been brought to, not ours, but HIS life we can dare to function in His stead.
When Paul says, No I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, (and we might add "in spite of me"), we take that VERY seriously.
I may be a fool, I almost certainly AM a fool, but when I was an Episcopal priest I never for a minute thought it was anything of mine or about me as me that was involved with the Eucharist. "I have sinned, I have sinned, and I know my wickedness only too well" (The Song of Manassas). It was Christ keeping His promise despite the remarkably unworthy man in a dress standing by the altar and monkeying with bread and wine.
Again, this is not to persuade. It is a schema, an outline of the KIND of thinking that in our view justifies a sort of kind of priesthood.
I hope that is at least clear.
May have been overkill on font size . . .
however . . .
given the denseness in various regions . . .
LOL.
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.