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.
. Why would I ask anything of someone that God’s word plainly says is just as blind as you are?
Observant Jews don't know their own Scripture? Really? I'm going to have to share that with a couple of close Jewish friends. No doubt they will be astonished, but convinced of your non Scriptural claim.
. Isaiah wrote of the whole epic, and when the tribulation is over, all the things that your denier’s mind question will be fulfilled. God does nothing by your timetable.
Isaiah got a whole bunch of things wrong. I showed you those things. Do you deny them or just ignore them?
Ah, the tribulation. Going to be saved through the tribulation, or do you think that you get the limousine ride along with the Reformed?
I don't deny God; I deny those who repudiate the Church and create their own religions based upon the state of their stomach and the image in their mirrors.
God does nothing by your timetable either; He is also not beholden to those who claim salvation for themselves. Why don't you argue from Scripture, instead of merely making random statements?
A quick read through of your posts to this thread will affirm my statement.
.
. And I replied fully as possible, considering that nothing you posted had anything to do with “purgatory,” unsurprisingly, since purgatory is naught but fearful imaginings of unbelievers that refuse the plain words of God.
You simply dismissed it. If that is as fully as possible for you, then you have a wondrous relation with reality that oughta be written in the annals of medical journalism. I posted from Jesus, Paul and John. What do you have but irritated dismissal?
> “Observant Jews don’t know their own Scripture? Really?”
.
Live by the strawman; die in its pyre.
.
Isaiah got nothing wrong, your lack of comprehension not withstanding.
.
Where is your Scripture? Where are your proofs? I post extensively with Scriptural proofs and you have posted none, only sneering dismissals. Is this the best you can do?
There was really nothing there to dismiss.
.
Really? When was Damascus desolated and abandoned? When was Iraq desolated and abandoned? Why cannot Isaiah figure out if Assyria is a great ally of Israel or destroyed by Israel? Why cannot Isaiah figure out that Jesus is God? Why cannot Isaiah figure out that the Caananite language is dead and buried and and that his predicted five cities in Egypt that speak it will never be? Why do you hang your hat on somebody that gets so much wrong, and not hang it on Jesus Christ?
> “I post extensively with Scriptural proofs...”
.
In your imagination, perhaps.
Your inability to find a single verse that promotes “purgatory,” coupled with your apparent total lack of understanding of what little scripture you read, leaves us with no substance to even analyze.
Imagine how great it would be if these twerps actually worshiped God instead of the image in their mirrors...
Babylon is not “Iraq.”
Babylon was the empire of the Assyrians.
Come on, Scripture please. You are a Bible Believer (tm), are you not? Let's have some more scripture and a little less talking out of your.. .
Amen - perfect!
Babylon was the empire of the Assyrians.
I see. The lands of Babylon do not correspond to modern day Iraq. And Egypt is not Egypt. And Israel is not Israel. And Ethiopia is not Ethiopia. And Rome is not the lands of Italy now. How is that flat earth thesis coming along?
Are you unable or unwilling to debate based upon Scripture?
That English word “friend” is used often of a superficial and temporary relationship and hence may be inadequet to properly carry the full sense of “’ahab”. But “agape” may not either.
James used “philia” and “philo” with the sense of one having a deep and intimate involvement with another, while “agapeo” denoted a less personal benevolence and concern for the welfare of another, the “love” God has for mankind in John 3:16.
Since no other person had that relationship with God “’ahab” at Isa. 41:8 could properly be translated “friend”. It is that relationship of deep and warm love God expressed for Abraham that James (James 2:23) uses “philos” to describe instead of “agape”.
“It is difficult for me to imagine that a Jewish group would consider God their friend because it is uncharacteristic of anything written in the Old Testament. No one in the OT gets that close to God.”
It's difficult for some to imagine that Peter would say Christ was in Hades (hell in AV) so they go through every possible theological and verbal contortion possible to avoid the conclusion that hades, hell was not a place of torture in the Bible.
Maybe there's part of it called “paradise” or an upper and lower berthing, or a limbo or purgatory or this or that, something that will allow the interpreters to insert their bias.
Yes, Abraham was unique and calling anyone God's friend was uncharacteristic in the words of any OT writer. Being truly a friend was rare even among men and was remarked upon, Hiram for David being an example. (1 Kings 5:1)or Prov. 18:24.
“Bible interpretation and translation is a tricky, tainted business. Look at Psalm 19:7 It says that God's law (Torah) is perfect and can convert/restore the soul (and make man acceptable to God). Look at different Bible versions and how they translate the word shub.”
Yes, it often is as in the example of one publisher that didn't want any form of God's name in their OT translation though it is there thousands of times, because he felt its inclusion might hurt sales. Or the inclusion of John 5:7 in translations because it seems to support a trinitarian doctrine though by any measure John 5:7 is no part of Scripture.
“I have learned that translations follow doctrinal bias and that by itself makes every translation and interpretation corrupt, for none is perfect”
Even kosta has his bias but the question is to what extent bias goes unrecognized and to what extent it affects the translators final product, an imperfect product as all human efforts are, Jewish and Gentile.
Not nearly as much as you guys are...How often is it that you guys are required to confess your sins to a priest??? Isn't once a year sufficient???
And that's why we pray to God and ask for forgiveness every day, not once a year...
The Churches were in "Communion" with each other, with typical territorial and power struggles throughout, until the divorce in 1054.
Typically, the history is confused and subject to "interpretation". However it seems the Eastern Churches accepted the same Scripture Canon as presented at Carthage.
Ergo, at the regional council of Trullo (692), the African Code, which, included the Biblical canon of Carthage (that is, Canon 24 of the 419 Council of Carthage, which reaffirmed the 397 Biblical canon) became formal and binding for the Eastern Church. This cannot be denied. The reason we say that the canon of Carthage was given Ecumenical authority at Nicaea II is because Nicaea II (from the Byzantine perspective and by Byzantine standards) gave ecumenical authority to the decree of Trullo which made the Carthaginian Biblical canon the norm for the Eastern Church. In other words, while we Romans do not accept the council of Trullo to be Ecumenical or binding, the Byzantines (that is, Eastern Orthodox) do. Thus, they are bound by what they profess; and Nicaea II makes them share that profession with us Romans in an ecumenical context. This is the contemporary understanding expressed by in the private correspondences of the fathers who participated in Nicaea II viz. the Biblical canon.
***************************************************************************
"Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers. For all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty. (In canon I of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of II Nicaea II). ****************************************************************************
Did the Council of Nicea II in 787 A.D. confirm the canon of Carthage?
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.
Yes, I misspoke here. Trent bound only the RCC.
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.
Trent was Ecumenical for the RCC. Trent bound the RCC Trent Canons are considered Infallible by the RCC. By Trent the Orthodox Churches are no longer under consideration.
As for the definition of the requirements for "Infallibility", the RCC definition has priority over yours. Sorry.
That's ok...It's not unusual for someone to know so much about the Catholic religion and know so little of what God says...
2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Let's see what he has here. God gets hacked off if you bug Him too often. Jesus will be called Immanuel, which He isn't. The NT is full of fish and bread, not curds and honey (unless you are John the Baptist, that is); Jesus the Lord has to learn between good and evil and to choose correctly (I guess being Incarnate has made Jesus less than perfect), and there are no records of any desertions of lands during the childhood of Jesus.
Wow...You'd better put down that bible...You're going to hurt yourself with it...
Isaiah also predicts the desolation and abandonment of Damascus (now currently one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world) and of the lands of Babylon - I guess that all of our troops over there were shooting at camels, right? If you actually read Isaiah, you might be surprised at just how much he gets wrong.
Isaiah doesn't get any thing wrong...Like the cliche' says, 'It ain't over til the Catholic religion burns'...And it will...And Damascus will fall...
You haven't made it to your final judgment yet...Does that mean it won't happen???
Consensus Patrum is a fiction. There is no such thing as an "approved" list of Church Fathers. Furthermore the identification of a Church Father is left up to the imagination of the Apologist of the moment.
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.