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.
Actually we have to ask if it has been "protected "..Buddhism, hinduism,Islam are all very old demonic religions that survive and still flourish today.. Who "protects " them
Beloved: Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
2 Thessalonians 2:14-16
14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 16May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope,
Letters to Timothy
If Paul is considered the more immediate author, the Pastorals are to be dated between the end of his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero (A.D. 63-67); if they are regarded as only more remotely Pauline, their date may be as late as the early second century. In spite of these problems of authorship and dating, the Pastorals are illustrative of early Christian life and remain an important element of canonical scripture.
Date of Writing: The Book of 1 Timothy was written in A.D. 62-66.
This second letter was probably written a few months after Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians in late A.D. 51 to early A.D. 52.
Matthew
Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Mark
Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mark 7:3-4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in the face of persecution (Mark 13:9-13), while going on with the proclamation of the gospel begun in Galilee (Mark 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.
Luke
The Gospel according Luke was written in 60 A.D. Luke, a close friend and companion of Paul, is perhaps the only Gentile author of any portion of the New Testament. Luke was also a physician. Colossians 4:14: “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.” Luke was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus Christ and little is known of his conversion or his early life. Luke was an evangelist by calling and a physician by profession. Luke not only wrote the Gospel of Luke but also the book of Acts and he traveled with Paul as a missionary. Luke was with Paul when he was martyred. As to the rest of Luke’s life, we know very little.
John
The book is filled with first hand accounts of experiences with Jesus Christ that occurred during Christ’s 33 years of life on earth. Scholars generally accept that the Gospel of John was written between 50 and 85 A.D.
Actually, the scriptures being spoken about were the OT Scriptures.
Wait, they came equipped with a KJV, speaking 17th century English. My bad. Or did I miss something?
At last! A genuine example of gibberish!
Here’s the difference. Unlike the few and scattered opinions you mentioned, the Vatican in a monolithic, “global authority”-loving, bastion of idolatry and lies which denies the God-given liberty of the Christian conscience and thus seeks to enslave by force, as it has done for hundreds of years.
I’ve read the reaction of the Catholics on this forum to that posting.
That’s what gives me the idea that she wasn’t forgiven.
Making excuses and then little digs don’t indicate an attitude of forgiveness.
That may not apply to you yourself specifically in this case, but it sure applies to other Catholics on this forum.
Quite so as is proper attribution of repeated verbatim quotes from published sources, agreed?
Your post #11,895 appears to have been taken in large measure from www.ancient-hebrew.org/39_exodus.html.
Shall we compare the two?
You certainly have missed a great deal.
There is video available of the Gospels where you can clearly see our Lord picking a pebble out of His sandles, pointing to Simon and saying, "You are a rock" as He flung the pebble to the ground. He then pointed at a massive boulder and said that He would build His Church on it.
It's also quite informative to watch the videos and see how Jesus Christ would routinely switch from Aramaic to Greek in order to confuse and mock His Disciples.
Considering your insults to the generic "RCC's" and "Rome," and "Magicsterium" exactly the same could be said of YOUR posts. Were any names given? Then it's within the rules.
I suspect that's why none of you will name your "church" -- because you all know that your "churches" are very fallible, as much or more so than the Catholic Church.
Had no idea about the formula for max postings to a thread, I'm always impressed about what freepers know!
Again,you’re resurrecting old heresies through marcion and others.
Blessed Saint Irenaues addressed all this(perhaps this will help you see your error)
My time is limited,it’s best you read this for yourself anyway
Title-”Refutation of the opinion, that Paul was the only apostle who had knowledge of the truth.”Book III, Chapter 13
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103313.htm
1. With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles. Galatians 2:8 Peter, therefore, was an apostle of that very God whose was also Paul; and Him whom Peter preached as God among those of the circumcision, and likewise the Son of God, did Paul [declare] also among the Gentiles. For our Lord never came to save Paul alone, nor is God so limited in means, that He should have but one apostle who knew the dispensation of His Son. And again, when Paul says, “How beautiful are the feet of those bringing glad tidings of good things, and preaching the Gospel of peace,” Romans 10:15; Isaiah 52:7 he shows clearly that it was not merely one, but there were many who used to preach the truth. And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, “But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so you believed,” 1 Corinthians 15:11 acknowledging as one and the same, the preaching of all those who saw God after the resurrection from the dead.
2. And again, the Lord replied to Philip, who wished to behold the Father, “Have I been so long a time with you, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He that sees Me, sees also the Father; and how do you say then, Show us the Father? For I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; and henceforth you know Him, and have seen Him.” To these men, therefore, did the Lord bear witness, that in Himself they had both known and seen the Father (and the Father is truth). To allege, then, that these men did not know the truth, is to act the part of false witnesses, and of those who have been alienated from the doctrine of Christ. For why did the Lord send the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matthew 10:6 if these men did not know the truth? How also did the seventy preach, unless they had themselves previously known the truth of what was preached? Or how could Peter have been in ignorance, to whom the Lord gave testimony, that flesh and blood had not revealed to him, but the Father, who is in heaven? Matthew 16:17 Just, then, as “Paul [was] an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father,” Galatians 1:1 [so with the rest;] the Son indeed leading them to the Father, but the Father revealing to them the Son.
3. But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles.” Galatians 2:1-2 And again he says, “For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it. Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.
Title- “If Paul had known any mysteries unrevealed to the other apostles, Luke, his constant companion and fellow-traveller, could not have been ignorant of them; neither could the truth have possibly lain hid from him, through whom alone we learn many and most important particulars of the Gospel history.(Book III, Chapter 14)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103314.htm
1. But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, “we came to Troas;” Acts 16:8, etc. and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, “Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us,” “immediately,” he says, “we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship’s course towards Samothracia.” And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: “for, sitting down,” he says, “we spoke unto the women who had assembled;” Acts 16:13 and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, “But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we abode seven days.” Acts 20:5-6 And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul there, Acts 21 how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; Acts 27 and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; Acts 28:11 and the island upon which they escaped, and how they received kindness there, Paul healing the chief man of that island; and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli, and from that arrived at Rome; and for what period they sojourned at Rome. As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: “Demas has forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me.” 2 Timothy 4:10-11 From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: “Luke, the beloved physician, greets you.” Colossians 4:14 But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him “the beloved,” and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?
2. But that Paul taught with simplicity what he knew, not only to those who were [employed] with him, but to those that heard him, he does himself make manifest. For when the bishops and presbyters who came from Ephesus and the other cities adjoining had assembled in Miletus, since he was himself hastening to Jerusalem to observe Pentecost, after testifying many things to them, and declaring what must happen to him at Jerusalem, he added: “I know that you shall see my face no more. Therefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood.” Acts 20:25, etc. Then, referring to the evil teachers who should arise, he said: “I know that after my departure shall grievous wolves come to you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” “I have not shunned,” he says, “to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Thus did the apostles simply, and without respect of persons, deliver to all what they had themselves learned from the Lord. Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying, “Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word.” Luke 1:2
3. Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary, the exclamation of Elisabeth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord’s years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar. And in His office of teacher this is what He has said to the rich: “Woe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation;” Luke 6:24, etc. and “Woe unto you that are full, for you shall hunger; and you who laugh now, for you shall weep;” and, “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you: for so did your fathers to the false prophets.” All things of the following kind we have known through Luke alone (and numerous actions of the Lord we have learned through him, which also all [the Evangelists] notice): the multitude of fishes which Peter’s companions enclosed, when at the Lord’s command they cast the nets; Luke 5 the woman who had suffered for eighteen years, and was healed on the Sabbath day; Luke 13 the man who had the dropsy, whom the Lord made whole on the Sabbath, and how He did defend Himself for having performed an act of healing on that day; how He taught His disciples not to aspire to the uppermost rooms; how we should invite the poor and feeble, who cannot recompense us; the man who knocked during the night to obtain loaves, and did obtain them, because of the urgency of his importunity; Luke 11 how, when [our Lord] was sitting at meat with a Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner kissed His feet, and anointed them with ointment, with what the Lord said to Simon on her behalf concerning the two debtors; Luke 7 also about the parable of that rich man who stored up the goods which had accrued to him, to whom it was also said, “In this night they shall demand your soul from you; whose then shall those things be which you have prepared?” Luke 12:20 and similar to this, that of the rich man, who was clothed in purple and who fared sumptuously, and the indigent Lazarus; Luke 16 also the answer which He gave to His disciples when they said, “Increase our faith;” Luke 17:5 also His conversation with Zaccheus the publican; Luke 19 also about the Pharisee and the publican, who were praying in the temple at the same time; Luke 18 also the ten lepers, whom He cleansed in the way simultaneously; Luke 17 also how He ordered the lame and the blind to be gathered to the wedding from the lanes and streets; Luke 18 also the parable of the judge who feared not God, whom the widow’s importunity led to avenge her cause; Luke 13 and about the fig-tree in the vineyard which produced no fruit. There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus. And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread. Luke 24
4. It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion’s followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains]. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying theperfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed].
By all means. Both of the links you cited are bogus. Post 11,895 simply says "Nope" and www.ancient-hebrew.org/39_exodus.html. leads to a page error.
I would say a lie is a lie no matter the source.. like an "unbroken line of popes from Peter" or apostolic succession at all
Just as i fell for the oath some still believe in apostolic succession and the unbroken line of the papacy
Members of your group have these beliefs.
What "group" is that? I'm Presbyterian.
Even Unitarians can accurately point to the errors of Rome.
There, fixed it for you.
What kind of Presbyterian? There are several distinct groups.
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.