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.
When it comes to linguistic issues regarding biblical Hebrew, yes.
Yes "...probably transcribed in the 4th century."
Unfortunately we have no idea what happend to the earliest manuscripts. We do know various scribes exercised their imagination along the way.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are by far the oldest manuscripts and, though they do contain some small portion of the "Apocrypha", they certainly don't include even a significant portion of the Catholic Canon.
It is evident the present day Bible, both Protestant and Catholic, are a "best guess" version.
Interesting. Do you believe the Jews are not qualified to determine what is to be included in their Scripture while the Catholic Church is?
I would rather have the evidence from a 2000 plus year old Church with writings from Church Fathers through the ages regarding the Scripture than from Luther,King James etc... 1500 years later
In other words ...Catholic/Orthodox History offers far better guess
I imagine you really mean the Church Fathers who supported the Apocrypha while ignoring those who disagreed????
The Dead Sea Scrolls - of no account?
Save the babble!
Vaticannus and Sinaiticus are both known to have been prepared by the Alexandrian gnostics, and both show deliberate ‘editing’ where text in agreement with the majority texts was scraped off and replaced with gnostic nonsense. They are a collection of paprii from various sources, and their dates vary.
The “received texts” are in general much older than either of those modified codices, and represent excellent agreement among them.
Bibles not based on the majority received texts are in general very gnostic.
> “There were plenty of Bibles around before printing presses”
.
Plenty? - So far you’ve named two, both of which are known to be unreliable, heavily edited collections of papirii of varying date, prepared by the Alexandrian Gnostics.
No, ther were never “plenty” of Bibles before presses were developed. All there were were assorted papirii,from many generations of recopying.
Negative. You obviously don't understand how the Church functioned, or else you wouldn't be making such silly conclusions. Local Councils were just that, local. The Council of Orange, the Council of Carthage, the Conical of Laodacea, etc. were local (western, Latin) Councils. They were binding to the Latin (aka "Roman Catholic") Church, not to the Eastern Churches, even though theologically they were in communion with each other
The fact is the Council Of Trent was the first council which could and did bind the entire Church
Only in your head. The Eastern Churches were not represented at Trent, and, not being in communion with Rome at that time, eastern Churches were under no obligation to follow the proclamations of Trent.
Forget for the moment you cannot document your claims and defend your differing claims concerning which type of Council can "Infallibly" bind the Church
I can document everything I say as regards Church history. I can take you to the water, but I can't make you drink. Since Trent was not a true Ecumenical Council it's pronouncements are not infallible, and they are not binding on the entire Church, both East and West, but only to the Latin West.
Wrong on both accounts. Textus Receptus was based on a faulty and incomplete 13th century Greek copy. Where are you getting the information from??? State the source.
Bibles not based on the majority received texts are in general very gnostic.
You are dreaming. LOL!
.
You are passing something that doesn’t belong in the atmosphere.
.
Agree.
Post your sources where you're getting this information editor-surveyor
In other words, what I posted was correct.
But how you or anyone chooses to regard the Scriptures, it will be between you and God. If you are open to hearing him he will tell you his truth. Or you can live in darkness, never knowing who or what to believe.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. We have Islam and to a certain extent Judaism, which is the religion of the book. Catholicism and especially the Orthodox are believers in the Faith. What's the difference?
A religion of the book depends entirely upon a set of writings and how they are written, what words are used, how they are translated, etc. Look at the example of the Leviticus passage. Insect versus fowl. Fowl versus bird. Walking on four legs versus walking on all fours. Insects and birds with four legs versus their actual number. Isaiah predicting desolation in various areas that are not desolated and in fact have been continuously populated all these thousands of years later. That extends to the NT as well. Luke can't get Paul's conversion circumstances right in two passages of Acts. Nobody has the inscription over Jesus on the Cross the same. Do we baptize in the Name of Jesus only, or in the Name of the Trinity?
Okay, a religion of the book is going to demand internal consistency, which the Bible most certainly does not have, or else everyone comes along and takes their own interpretation of which verse is truer than the others, and which to ignore. So, we have snippet-taking, we have denial of opposing verses, or we have schizophrenia. Or we have people realizing this and gradually losing their faith, because the perfect inspiration of the infallible Holy Spirit is not the imperfect understanding of the fallible men who wrote and then chose and then translated Scripture. That is the logical outcome of the religion of the book.
What the Catholics and Orthodox have? The belief in the Faith, handed down all the way from the Apostles. The importance of the Creeds is that they more closely identify the tenets of the Faith in order to communicate, and enforce, Orthodoxy. When we resay the Baptism in Church as a confirmation of our beliefs, the priest says the Creed in the form of questions, and in the summation, says, This is the Faith, handed down to us from the Apostles. The Athenasian Creed has that statement right in it.
There is some contention on this thread between infant baptism and non infant baptism. Each can be supported from Scripture. The Duality that many believe in can be supported from Scripture. The Monality that many believe in can be supported from Scripture. The super man Jesus favoured of God but not Divine can be supported from Scripture. The Faith does not allow for that diversity. We have the Trinitarian Formula and that is that. You enquired about belief? This is what we believe. The Apostolic Faith.
We don't consider it darkness; we consider the Light given by Jesus to the Apostles and they to us. Jesus created His Church - the big tent intended for all mankind, as it were. If you set up your own tent, does that mean you reject God's?
Last Sunday, the Gospel reading was Luke 18: 9 He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. 10 "Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.' 13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.' 14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Let us put some different descriptions in for the two individuals.
Two men entered the Church in order to pray. One man said to himself: Thank God I'm not like those Catholics; I am a believer and I know that I am saved. The second man prayed: O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.
Lest someone scoff; this is an actual prayer used in the Mass; there are also slightly different versions of it throughout the Mass, as well.
I think that I have illustrated something of the fundamental differences that we have, with only a little tongue in my cheek: a religion of the book and the assurance of salvation, versus a belief in the Faith and the hope of salvation. Comments?
The “received texts” are in general much older than either of those modified codices, and represent excellent agreement among them.
Bibles not based on the majority received texts are in general very gnostic
Post your sources for this information ?
Prove the KJV has no gnostic influence while you're at it
Do you always miss the relevent point so completely?
There is nothing that is without Gnostic influence, but your promoted texts just happen to be the very worst examples available. They were even found in known gnostic strongholds.
.
I guess this means you believe Christ was gnostically influenced?
but your promoted texts just happen to be the very worst examples available. They were even found in known gnostic strongholds.
Prove it by showing where you're getting this information from
All the more reason for the consensus patrum
Beautiful post.
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.