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'm afraid you may be having a problem with semantics here. Jesus, we are told in Matt. 4:23; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 11:5; Matt. 24:14; Matt. 26:13; Mark 1:15; Mark 8:35; Mark 10:29; Mark 13:10; Mark 14:9; Mark 16:15; Luke 4:18; 7:22; 9:6; 20:1 preached the "gospel". The apostles proceeded to also preach the "gospel" as we are told in Acts 8:25; 14:7; 14:21; 15:7; 16:10; 20:24. Then throughout the rest of the epistles, the "gospel" was referred to. I am POSITIVE they were not references to the NT books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
“Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” — Romans 4:7
Awww, come on Doc, that’s just that crazyman Paul. < sarc>
If Paul was crazy, so was David. (See Psalm 32: 1-2)
Jhn 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Look at the Greek and the context of this passage. Jesus is praying that his disciples will be set apart for holy service to God. This has nothing to do with salvation. Fail.
Act 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Grace is able to build them up and give them an inheritance with those who are sanctified (the saints in Heaven). God has always promised His inheritance to us. This has nothing to do with Purgatory. Fail.
Act 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Again, go back and review the process of Purgatory. This does not repudiate any of it. Fail.
Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
That the offering might be acceptable, being sanctified. Not individual people. Fail
1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours 1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
The people in Corinth were tearing themselves and the church apart. Paul is telling them that they are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and not themselves. Go back and read in context. Fail.
Hbr 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
We are sanctified through Jesus Christ, yes, but no argument against Purgatory. Fail
Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ
The KJV is about the only translation that says 'sanctified'. The rest say 'called'. Jude is writing to an unknown group of readers warning them about false teachers and giving them some general Christian admonitions. Nothing about Purgatory here. Fail.
Hbr 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Wow. You're batting 0.000 and have posted nothing against Purgatory. You fail here magnificently. Why don't you go back and look at my extensive post instead of trying to post competing verses and failing so badly?
Are you saying that the rest of the NT writers (and by extension all Protestants) are free to make their own gospel up?
Now I see your problem - can’t read.
Enjoy your purgatory invention; I don’t think it’ll catch on with real Christians though.
.
“I am certain you will understand I find the article vague and somewhat confusing. (I am a simple person.) :-)”
Well, I am merely the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants, so we should stumble along together just fine!
“He apparently believes the classification of Church Father has no time limit. We may well have “Church Fathers” amongst us this very day.”
Indeed we may. As I have written many times on these boards,in my opinion +Benedict XVI is one, the first one since the 14th century. I hasten to add that I disagree with the pope on a whole host of issues. It doesn’t occur to me that a Father of The Church is or even can be infallible.
“3. a. Western position = “questionable”.
b. Others (I presume Orthodox) “...accord of the Fathers” presupposes their consent on essential matters, with possible disagreement on isolated issues.””
Yes, that is what His Eminence is writing.
“4. I appreciate his position but still believe “Consensus Patrum” when invoked by the RCC is a fiction. The author may well feel the same.”
I don’t think he is saying that the Latin understanding is “fiction” but it is certainly true that we Orthodox do not agree with the Latins as to which beliefs are “Patristic’, which is to say, part of the consensus patrum and which are peculiar, often to the West, and outside the consensus. It may surprise you to know that many of the doctrinal/dogmatic matters which the Latins espouse and we Orthodox reject are foundational to protestantism.
Have you read A Divine Revelation of Hell by Mary K. Baxter?
“I would say it is like a musical symphony (= agreement) where with different notes, with the variety of instruments and voices, the same song is sung, and in this case the all-harmonious chant of true Theology, which is none other than Christ Himself”
That’s excellent, sfa. I had never heard of +Joseph until your post. I found this explanation by him of the famous anti-Abortion icon of Kostas Vrousgos:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/BpJosephAbortion.php
I suppose that you are correct in a fashion. It's my problem if you cannot read since I have repeatedly posted to you and am looking for intelligible posts in reply.
Enjoy your purgatory invention; I don’t think it’ll catch on with real Christians though.
Interesting statement, since only real Christians believe in Purgatory.
Yes . . . as well as her one about Heaven.
Both are excellent and worth everyone reading.
What did you get from Baxter’s book(s) that you’d like to share?
The Septuagint doesn't read like that. It reads: "the seed of Abraham which I loved." It is really odd to call seed a "friend." The Slavonic version reads the same (in transliterated form, since it won't copy) "syemya Avra'amle, yegozhe vozliubikh."
My understanding is that 'ahab means beloved, and that includes members of one's family, asexual as well as sexual love, etc. Somone you see as one of your own. Philia is more something you are passionately drawn towards, such as philosophia (love of wisdom, philosophy), but also in a negative connotation pædophilia, Agape is never manifested in a negative way.
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.
Why? John 5;7 reads "The sick man answered Him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me." [NAB] Where is anything trinitarian in it?
Even kosta has his bias
Of course he does.
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.
But who is to judge? :) The "unbiased"?
The Septuagint doesn't read like that. It reads: "the seed of Abraham which I loved." It is really odd to call seed a "friend." The Slavonic version reads the same (in transliterated form, since it won't copy) "syemya Avra'amle, yegozhe vozliubikh."
My understanding is that 'ahab means beloved, and that includes members of one's family, asexual as well as sexual love, etc. Somone you see as one of your own. Philia is more something you are passionately drawn towards, such as philosophia (love of wisdom, philosophy), but also in a negative connotation pædophilia, Agape is never manifested in a negative way.
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.
Why? John 5;7 reads "The sick man answered Him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me." [NAB] Where is anything trinitarian in it?
Even kosta has his bias
Of course he does.
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.
But who is to judge? :) The "unbiased"?
apologies for double post.
So in other words the Protestants are much more righteous than the Apostolic Christians? How Pharisaical! The Orthodox, since you asked, are required to confess every time they receive communion, which can be every Sunday or more commonly in old-country Churches, during each fasting period (four times a year).
Does that mean the Orthodox churches necessarily follow this regimen, especially those in America? No of course not. Greek, Antiochan and OCA congregations empty out the pews just like the Catholics do, contrary to Orthodox canons. And that's why we pray to God and ask for forgiveness every day, not once a year...
Orthodox Christians are always in a state of repenatcne/confession, unceasingly asking God for forgiveness; canonically, they are required to pray three times; buit most devout indiviudals rpay unceasingly (as the Bible commands) in between the morning, midday and evening prayers. It is usually the "Jesus Prayer" ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner").
It is believed that if one constantly repeats the Jesus Prayer he or she will not sin. Interesting hypothesis.
I understand how you feel...There was a time in my life when I had the same questions...
There was a long time that I would ask God to forgive me for being a sinner...Reminds me of your religion's practice of penance...
'I have been bad God, what do I have to pay or give up to equal things out???'
Took me a while to figure out this God/love thing...You don't get saved because you love God...God first loved us and it takes a while to sort that all out...It takes time to have a loving relationship with God, in my humble opinion...That's part of the sanctification process...
But now, I ask the Lord for forgiveness because I violated His trust and hurt His feelings, again...
But you already have His forgiveness - that's central to your belief. You are expressing, regret perhaps; but it makes no sense to ask for forgiveness if you believe you have already been given it.
thanks for your reply.
Depends if you consider Trent a true Ecumenical Council or not. The Eastern Churches were not represented, so it wasn't Ecumenical and infallible any more than pan-Orthodox Councils held by the Eastern Church.
If one wants to be precise, and as its seems Rome intended to be, any addition of a book or subtraction from the Bible would result in two infallible lists, though again the difference is relatively little.
The situation is somewhat confusing. First the canon was passed in silence. Only three bishops voted to have 1 Esdra (which they called 3 Esdra) removed. Second, the classification still retained two "Esdras," except they are now called Ezra and Nehemiah. But it turns out this division is an artificial split of 2 Esdras. This is clearly not the canon of Vulgate which the Council directs must be retained in all of its parts in what appears to be a self-contradiction. So, while there is no doubt that the canon was altered, it retained the same number of Esdras, as in the Vulgate; it's just that their content is somewhat "shifted."
At Trent, three voted against it, eight did not vote, and forty two voted to pass over it, but I would have to study the issue more, and the argument from the other side.
You can argue either way. The specificity of which "Apocrypha" and what Esdras contained were never specified by Hippo/Carthage. The point is that Trent did not infallibly "add" the books of "Apocrypha" (which was part of the original question that started this), but merely commanded that they be retained and that no one can question them. But if you really want to be formalist, I think the Seventh Ecumenical Council infallibly canonized the Bible, when the Eastern churches Succumbed and accepted, grudgingly, the Book of Revelation. That was at least 750 years before Trent.
At issue is the infallible nature of the definition of the apocrypha, and thus what it consists of, which infallible definition could neither change or be challenged we see from Trent .
Trent also regulated the liturgy and prohibited any changes to it. Well, the first pope who succeeded the sitting pope at Trent changed it! And so did a number of other popes since then. The last was in 1952, regulating the use of native language in some parts of the Mass and some Easter protocols.
And in 1959, almost on the eve of the Vatican II, John XXIII dropped the Good Friday liturgical prayer for "perfidious Jews" as the first act of his papacy! So what does that say about the "infallible" decision of a Council where the elder bishop is himself considered infallible in matters of official dogma and faith?
And, the decision of the Church in Toledo (Spain) in the 6th century, to ignore the prohibition of the Ecumenical Councils against any additions or deletions of any parts of the Nicene Creed, decided to add the Filioque clause ("form the Father and the Son") which eventually became a major thorn that split the Church.
Facts tell us the following: the "Apocrypha" were added in 397 and approved in 419. Some individuals were opposed to it, but the canon stuck as binding to the entire Latin (western) Church, individual clerics' opposition or personal canons notwithstanding.
But it can be argued that the doctrine of infallibility was a development, and itself awaited an infallible decree, so the dissenters did not know they were not to give full assent of faith to the Carthage ratified canon.
There were always dissenters, regardless how "infallible" the decision was. The Council of Laodicaea instituted celibacy for Latin clergy. But it took about 1,000 years to implement it more-or-less fully, and then you had examples such as Pope Alexander VI, who in the Renaissance period fathered numerous illegitimate children and even claimed them! Yet he is considered an orthodox pope as regards his teachings and running of the Church!
We are talking reality, not theory. The reality is that in 397 "Apocrypha" were added to the canon as sacred scirputres. In 419 Pope Boniface I put his seal of approval and made it binding on the whole Latin Church. Making the choice of the canon an "infallible" issue never stopped individuals from transgressing it or opposing it.
Liberal Jesuits and nuns believe abortion is okay, obviously many a Catholic priest doesn't agree with celibacy (even though they swore to it), and some Catholic nuns believe they ought to be priest(esse)s, and some male priests are willing to "ordain" them even at the price of being excommunicated.
But it is reputable Catholic scholarship that states that Trent was the first infallible pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal, definitively settling the matter of the Old Testament Canon. Another apologist upholding early acceptance states that “the Rome/Hippo/Carthage defined the canon as a matter of liturgical rule for the universal Church, not as a matter of dogma.”
Reputable Catholic scholarship could not reputably argue that Trent was a General Council of the entire Church when the Eastern Churches were not present. It is as Ecumenical as Trullo.
Again, the issue is not whether Carthage made that decision, but its infallibility, and thus its binding nature, which much evidence shows it did to have, and even Trent showed a lack of unanimity. “Even on the eve of the Council the Catholic view was not absolutely unified” (Jerome Biblical Catholic Commentary, pg 523) .
There was hardly ever any unanimity except, I believe, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the last one of the Undivided Church.
They are hardly irrelevant, and thus the apologetic attempts to convert him to an advocate, but he said far more against it then for them as a whole, and apart from more information, their inclusion does not meant he saw them as canonical Scripture, while he is not at all alone in his dissent.
They are irrelevant on the same basis as that "mind over matter" thing is, as in "we don't mind and he doesn't matter" type. This is, of course, being sarcastic, but the plain fact is Jerome didn't matter. His pope did.
Papal affirmation does not make it ecumenical and infallible, which would hav made it binding irreformable, thus ending ongoing discussion and need for Trent's dogmatic definition.
Papal affirmation makes it official policy of the infallible Church, and him having jurisdiction over all clergy of the 'Universal" Church, according to Latin claim, singing something is ofificla and binding on all clergy to obey.
What you have posted twice are word parsing games, and word association games. Nonsensical terms like “Greek context,” Like the context was not set by story being told, but by the language that the translation used. Strange thoughts, to be sure.
That seems to be the height of katholic theeolugee.
.
If one believes that Jesus used the KJV and distributed Bibles to the Apostles, then it would appear very strange. If one believes that the Christian Bible was written entirely in Greek, then one understands the meaning of Greek context.
That seems to be the height of katholic theeolugee.
When your beliefs come out of your navel or what you scrape out from under your toenails, then Christianity must seem wondrous indeed. We believe that the Faith comes to us from the Apostles, who got it from Jesus. The children of the Reformation get whatever it is that they believe today from whatever repository seems proper to them.
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.