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.
I missed it..I asked you to show us where Jesus taught such an important doctrine , I must have missed the reply could you link me to it?
You're the Bible Believer (tm). You tell me.
Does that mean that you are not? Or that the bible just is not important?
This is getting to be banal, this thing about how unbelievers (meaning me) cannot interpret what's written. First I did not interpret anything. Someone with a "pedigree" did. I merely copied and pasted what they wrote.
The Jewish and Greek OT do not use the word friend in their translation. It is not my translation, boatbums, it is theirs, and one would think the Jews know something about their language and context of their scriptures or are you denying them that ability too?
It seems to me that only those definitions and translations which come from Protestant, English-speaking Bible Believers are the "right" translations. Everyone else's, even if they are believers, are not.
Give me a break! To even insinuate that Jews cannot translate the spirit of their language correctly but some haughty English-speaking Protestant scholar can is without foundation. To imply that Greek Christians cannot translate their their own Old Testament form their own language is even more without foundation.
Obviously, your version of the Bible "harmonized" the OT text to match the NT (James) text (in fact all English tranlsations do). This is manipulating the Bible text to fit the doctrine, botabums. James refers to the OT passage and uses the word philo (friend), but when you go back to the OT, the Hebrew ahab is not a friend, so they append the meaning friend in their Lexicons, and that magically "solves" the problem, at least for some.
But when they look for the Greek version of the OT (written before the Christian era and its bias) they see that the Greek text says "beloved seed of Abraham" and there is no trace of a philo in it. So, what do the Christian scholars then do? They dismiss the Greek Septuagint version as "false." Conveniently. Even though it was good enough for the New Testament writers who quote from it overwhelmingly.
What is even more pathetic is that the Cathoic Bible versions also adhere to this "harmonziation" even though to a alrge extent the Catholic Church still accepts the Septuagint, because it is doctrinally desirable. Everything is subjected to doctoring translations to make them look like a flawless, interconnected text when it's not. In other words it's fraud.
> “Does that mean that you are not? Or that the bible just is not important?”
.
It means that the Bible contains the true word of God, and is thus hazardous for those that cling to false, manmade religions to read.
It means that there is not a single word of support for purgatory, or any other deviant catholic construct to be found therein.
Case closed.
.
You have a point. Much of the Old Testament is confusing and "foreign" to our belief system.
I am not well versed in the Old Testament and can hardly hold myself out as a "qualified" judge.
However, the Apocrypha appears to be distinct from the "accepted" Old Testament books in many ways.
*None of the Apocryphal Books are written in Hebrew as are the Old Testament Books.
*None of the Apocryphal writers claim inspiration, rather, they "hope" the books are useful.
*Neither Jesus or the Apostles ever quote from the Apocrypha.
*The Old Testament is a Jewish Book and the Apocrypha is not accepted by the Jews.
Romans 3:
[1] Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
[2] Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
Of course there is much more but a few examples are sufficient to suggest a case against the Apocrypha.
Seriously though, there is some important typology regarding Tobit...
from scripturecatholic Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
The Apocalypse are historical books and the correspondence between events recorded in the New Testament is in no way an indication of the "canonicity" of the Apocrypha.
As for the Church Fathers: This is not a valid argument. They were far from unanimous in their acceptance or rejection of the Apocrypha. I can cherrypick as well as you. :-)
> “You should also realize that these deutercanonical books were in Bibles for over 1000 years before Luther wanted to remove them.”
.
Are you related to Joe Biden? (FDR, TV)
So you are saying that these books were in ‘Bibles’ before there even were Bibles? Before printing presses? When the scriptures for most people consisted of a few sheets copied from the few sheets that their pastor happened to have?
Just wondering.
A friendly advice: If you want your posts not to be dismissed outright, state what you have to state succinctly and defend each objection individually rather than write a "book". It's a much more effective way to communicate.
Now, back to the topic: the original question (I believe it was smvoice) said "When was the Apocrypha infallibly declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be inspired? And part of the Bible?
The question itself is a somewhat confusing one, and quite imprecise. First it addresses the "Apocrypha" collectively and must be taken as such, and second, it asks when it was declared as part of the Bible (i.e. scripture).
In both cases, the answer is resounding AD 397. The "Apocrypha" were declared as "sacred scriptures" and were made part of the Bible for the Latin Catholic Church in that year (not the entire Church, because the council was not binding for the Eastern Churches).
That decision from AD 397, to include the "Apocrypha" as "sacred scriptures", has been upheld by all the popes and all the councils of the Undivided Church (1st millennium) and the Latin (Roman) Catholic Church (2nd millennium) that followed, to this day.
The Council of Trent in 1546 did not change or annul that decision (to include the "Apocrypha"); it merely affirmed that this was the correct decision of the Church from the start and that any deviation form it is heresy. The Council of Trent did not add the "Apocrypha" to the Bible, but retained them.
So, as regards the original question, the only true answer is AD 397. The question does not specify which "Apocrypha".
Jerome's objections are irrelevant. The "Apocrypha" were included into Jerome's Vulgate (AD 406) despite alleged opposition by this individual, or any other (and this was before Boniface I ratified the Council of AD 397 in AD 419). The "Apocrypha" are also part of the canon of the Greek Church, as evidenced in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus.
Again we are talking "Apocrypha" in general, collectively, not individual books. At issue is the decision to include "Apocrypha" as a class of books in the Latin canon, not which specific books. That decision, made in AD 397 has not changed, and neither has calling them (collectively) "sacred scripture," which means inspired text, as part of the only canon of books to be read in (Latin) churches.
Pope Boniface I put his official seal of approval on this decision in AD 419 and as far as I know no other pope has challanged his choice. Trent confirmed that decision as correct and binding.
Trent also made a change in the designation of one of the Apocryphal books (1 Esdras), following Origen's designation which took hold only in the west. The Jews themselves followed suit and made Esdras into two books in the Middle ages. The Greeks did not follow Origen's division and consider Ezra-Nehemiah a single book (Esdras Beta).
If I remember correctly, Trent merely removed the first part from the artificially divided single book as non-scriptural, but retained the second (Nehemiah).
Thus, Trent did not infallibly add "Apocrypha" to the Bible as sacred scriptures. The Council of Carthage did more than one millennium prior. Trent merely retained it with one minor modification of a part of a single book in the collection, and not the entire collection.
What Trent did, however, as regards to the Protestant challenge (which was the only reason it dealt with the Catholic canon) was to make any deviation from the aforesaid canon a heresy, which no one else could. By the way, did you know that your Decretum, which you represented as "evidence," is a forgery?
There were plenty of Bibles around before printing presses. They were called codices and the oldest one goes back to the year AD 200. the oldest complete Christian Bible is Codex Sinaiticus (AD 350), followed by Vaticanus (about the same time frame).
Which biblical writer specifically claims to be inspired. Luke writes "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us" (Luke 1:1) he states that many have decided to write and compile what they heard from others.
Admitting "it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3)
Nowhere is there any appeal made to the holy Spirit guiding and writing for them. It's what they decided and what they knew or could find out from others who were (alleged) witnesses and servants of God. In other words hearsay.
When the very first reference you choose is so obviously a pure example of cherrypicking in order to discredit the "Protestant" version it cause, for me at least, to discredit and ignore the rest of your "wisdom" posting.
Viz.
2 Chronicles 20:7
PROTESTANT BIBLES
RSV [7] Didst thou not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and give it for ever to the descendants of Abraham thy friend?
King James 20:7 Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?
*****************************************************************************
CATHOLIC BIBLES
RSV - Ignatius Edition 7* Didst thou not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and give it for ever to the descendants of Abraham thy friend?
NAB 7 Was it not you, our God, who drove out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and gave it forever to the descendants of Abraham, your friend?
DR (2nd Book Of Paralipomenon) [7] Didst not thou our God kill all the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?
And your argument against the approved Catholic Bible versions is????
Is the Tanakh the Gold Standard? It does not contain the Apocrypha.
Pure fiction. Once again, you have no authority or knowledge to justify your imaginative claims.
For example, one of the reasons the English speaking Bibles mention the "Persons" of the Trinity, giving an impression of polytheism, is Vulgate! Jerome used (for reason that completely escape any reason) the Latin word persona (meaning a MASK) for the Greek word hypostasis (which never means a "mask" in Greek).
From the persona in Latin (which probably had a lot to do with the Modalist heresy) it was later corrupted further in English to a person (which has nothing to do with a persona, or with the hypostasis!), but is complete nonsense. The Greeks don't think of a "person" when they see the word hypostasis.
As for our "friend" of God, The reason why Jewish and Greek translations of the said passages do not use the word "friend" in them is because there is no word "friend" in them! Just because some Christian scholars appended the meaning "friend" in order to harmonize the two testaments doesn't mean it's correct.
It's an artificial alteration and adulteration of the scriptures to fit the doctrine, and Protestants as well as other Christians are guilty of it. There is plenty of evidence for that troughout the New Testament especially.
Oh, this is very convincing, OR. When a pope ratifies something it is pure fiction, right? It's also not binding on his Church? You are outdoing yourself today. Taking comedy lessons lately?
Just curious, what authority do you have, OR? And is it real or fictional?
Neither are based upon the TR or the Vulgate.
As I remember, you were a self-professed Christian at the beginning of that thread, changed your handle to Invincibly Ignorant as a response to Catholics - and by its end were denying the divinity of Christ, as predicted.
The question was "when was the Apocrypha declared infallibly by the RCC?", not "when Trent 'added' the Apocrypha to the Bible".
You are on record as alternatively claiming Local Councils cannot bind the whole Church while claiming the local Council Of Carthage did infallibly bind the whole Church.
The fact is the Council Of Trent was the first council which could and did bind the entire Church.
Are you in the habit of arguing diametrically opposed sides and claiming both are fact?
Forget for the moment you cannot document your claims and defend your differing claims concerning which type of Council can "Infallibly" bind the Church.
Oh! I see! You felt free to attack the Protestant versions while ignoring that they are identical to the Catholic versions? No prejudice there??????
Once again I ask if you consider the Tanach, which omits the Apocrypha, the Gold Version.
No authority is required to state an opinion.
“”Are you related to Joe Biden? (FDR, TV)””
NO, but perhaps you are?
Codex Vaticanus
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Vaticanus
Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Bible. It is slightly older than Codex Sinaiticus, both of which were probably transcribed in the 4th century. It is written in Greek, on vellum, with uncial letters.
The order of the Old Testament books is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles as normal, 1 and 2 Esdras, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.
Codex Alexandrinus
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Codex_Alexandrinus
The codex contains a complete copy of the LXX, including the deuterocanonical books 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and the 14 Odes. The “Epistle to Marcellinus” attributed to St. Athanasius and Eusebian summary of the Psalms are inserted before the Book of Psalms
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.