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.
A friend gave it to me. Started it today.
There was never a "divorce," OR, just two bishops telling each other to get lost. The "Great Schism" of 1054 was an event of Hollywood imagery and Macchiavelian intrigue. A papal legate, Caridnal Humbert, whose commission expired (because the pope died three months earlier), rode on a horse (!) into the Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantiniople, through the Royal Doors where only ordained indiviudals can walk, and placed the invalid bull of excommunication, condmening the Bishop of Constantinope (second in honor and pirvilege only to pope), on the altar in the middle of the worship service, the Divine Liturgy(!)
A distressed deacon followed the caridnal as he rode out of the Church, pleading with him to reconsider, but to no avail. The Bishop of Constantinople (Ecumenical Patriarch), Michael Celurarius, in turn excommunicated the cardinal. The Church then divided along the lines of who was on whose side, gradually brekaing communion with those of the opposing camp. This lead to a de facto existence of two Church communities, one siding with the Ecumenical Patriarch and the other with the Pope of (old) Rome, functionally creating a western "(Latin) Roman Catholic Church" and an eastern community of Churvches united in their communion with the Bishop of Constantinople, or the the Orthodox Catholic Church (official name), better known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.
In 1964, 910 years later, the bulls of excommunication were withdrawn and "committed to oblivion" by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athanagoras I. But by then the two virtual Churches could not restore communion because their theologies are no longer the same, and because the East does not recognize any of the Catholic dogmas proclaimed after 1054 as dogmas, inlcuding the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and Purgatory. There is also a disagreement about the nature and extent of papal jurisdiction, the unleveaned bread, the Filioque, and a myriad of other obstacles left after a millennial break.
The "communion" means they shared the same faith. It's a theological term. Political and power struggle that existed betwene the Greek and Latin communities is a different issue.
Typically, the history is confused and subject to "interpretation". However it seems the Eastern Churches accepted the same Scripture Canon as presented at Carthage.
Actually Carthage accepted what was is known as the (Eastern) Alexandrian canon. The Quinisext Council aka Trullo reaffirmed it. But the actual "infallible" delcaration of the canon can legally be contrued only by the Seventh Ecumneical Council (probably the truest ecumenical gathering ever) in the late 8th century, by which provisions of the Trullo were acclaimed, and everybody signed it!
Nevertheless, the original question that started this discussion was when was the "Apocrypha" infallibly added to the Bible in the (Latin) Catholic Church. And my answer was 397 (proclaimed) and 419 (ratified) because we are talking about the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church, not the whole Church, meaning the East and the West. The VII Ecum. Council ratified the declarations of the Council of Trullo, therefore for the East, but not specifically for the West, although, since the West did not object and since the Popes igned the Council is legally binding and officially considered infallible.Thus if anything the correct answer would be the Seventh Ecumenical Council (8th century) rather than Trent, whioch was not a true Ecumenical Council..
Consensus patrum refers to Ecumenical or local declarations of the participating bishops.
UNANIMOUS!!!!
Your version treats it as one and the same sentence. The NIV treats it as two separate (unrelated) statements.
"The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple."
Clearly the soul and wisdom are not one and the same. Soul is life; wisdom is not. The way I see it, God can restore an unrighteous soul to righteousness, just as he can make a simple man wise. But the point is that if all you need is the Torah to makes yourself "restored" in the eyes of God, why the messiah?
The visions of hell stuff are exceedingly real . . . but I had to take it in chunks. It’s too heavy.
The Heaven one is just as real and, of course, tons more encouraging.
Congrats. Glad you’re reading it. I didn’t find anything unBiblical in either one.
She’s a no-nonsense author/lady. Doesn’t mince words. Very down to earth. I like that kind of person and author.
You've used this phrase several times now, and I'm thinking you may not realize that the ancient city of Babylon is little more than a heaping ruin. Saddam attempted to rebuild it in his honor - he thought he was Nebuchadnezzar.
According to Wiki: In 1983, Saddam Hussein started rebuilding the city on top of the old ruins (because of this, artifacts and other finds may well be under the city by now), investing in both restoration and new construction. He inscribed his name on many of the bricks in imitation of Nebuchadnezzar. One frequent inscription reads: "This was built by Saddam Hussein, son of Nebuchadnezzar, to glorify Iraq". Well, we know how THAT has turned out, don't we?
My point is, don't be so quick to disparage what has been proclaimed as the Word of God from his inspired prophets. If Isaiah was not a bonafide prophet of God, he would have been stoned to death for impersonating one and his writings would NOT have been preserved for us in the Bible. The Lord told his people how to recognize a true prophet, and Isaiah was one.
meant to ping you, too, sorry!
I've got to give it to you. You make dogmatic statements which are consistently wrong. Keep up the good work.
You have a follower in MarkBsnr but I doubt even he will follow you on this one.
Of course not. I'm saying you are pigeon-holing the word "gospel". You hear it and automatically think it must mean the "Gospels" - the first four books of the NT. Obviously, it is not since Jesus spoke of the gospel of the kingdom and proclaimed it to the people. The Greek word is euaggelion and it means:
1) a reward for good tidings
2) good tidings
a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God
b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ
c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ
d) the gospel
e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings
He thought a bunch of things before he was executed, but you must remember that Babylon was not just a city - it was an empire, same as Rome was an empire. The name of the capital was used as the term of the empire. And the empire of Babylon was roughly corresponding to that of current day Iraq.
My point is, don't be so quick to disparage what has been proclaimed as the Word of God from his inspired prophets. If Isaiah was not a bonafide prophet of God, he would have been stoned to death for impersonating one and his writings would NOT have been preserved for us in the Bible. The Lord told his people how to recognize a true prophet, and Isaiah was one.
Never said that Isaiah was not a prophet of God. Or that he does not speak as the word of God. But he was as crazy as all get out, he got a bunch of things wrong, and he did not identify the Messiah (man) as Christ (God). The Word of God is Jesus the Christ. I pray that you never forget that.
This is me following...
Of course not. I'm saying you are pigeon-holing the word "gospel". You hear it and automatically think it must mean the "Gospels" - the first four books of the NT.
Yes, actually I and all Catholics do. We prize the Word of God (Jesus) and elevate Him beyond all names and all individuals. Everybody else is lesser than God, we believe. Do you believe other than that?
Iraq is hardly an empire.
Will you please explain how you can agree that Isaiah was a prophet of God who speaks the words revealed from God but was "as crazy as all get out" and "got a bunch of things wrong"??? God told his people that whoever said he was a prophet of God, would not get things wrong - EVER! That's how God told them they could recognize the difference.
Deuteronomy 13:1-5
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." 21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
If you remember, Jesus quoted Isaiah in the temple and told the people there that he was the one whom Isaiah foretold. Many of the "Messianic" prophecies come directly from Isaiah and are part of how we can know that Jesus is the Promise One. The logos word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus is The Word. The "words" of God are written in what we call the Bible, the Holy Scriptures. I pray you can tell the difference, I can.
> “But the point is that if all you need is the Torah to makes yourself “restored” in the eyes of God, why the messiah?”
.
Torah saved no one.
Grace is the only route, and that through Christ. John 6 makes that plain. The Psalm does not claim salvation through Torah; only wisdom.
The NIV is full of Gnostic corruption beecause is is from the two Gnostic codices, not the majority texts.
.
But that's not what 1 Cor 6:11 says, is it? It says you are (already) sanctified. Protestants always remind the world that Christ's work is sufficient and that he died once and in doing so accomplished everything.
Protestant denigrate Catholics and Orthodox for never receiving enough grace and having to consume the Body and Blood over and over, and now you compare being sanctified to a daily meal that has to be replenished? That's not what Paul says.
1 Cor 1:2 "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy..." sure sounds like they are "done" being sanctified.
or this "pearl"
1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
You don't even have to be a believe to be sanctified! Just marry a believer! LOL. And your children immediately get "immunized" with sanctification by proxy. What happened with being elect from before the foundation of the world?
And what happens is a believer divorces the unbeliever? Does the unbeliever get "de-sanctified?" And what about the children?
But don;t worry, to another crowd Paul wold say something else. To the Thessalonians he says if they want to be sanctified they must avoid immoral sex!!!
1 Thes 4:3 "It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality."
But what if you marry a believer...? Seems like there may be a loophole.
Now, I don;t see anywhere that Paul says you have to be re-washed (re-baptized), re-justified and re-sanctified, especially not every morning! Now, what's the wash-sanctify-justify quota?
p> How do you know that [Paul is not God]? You told us you don't know what God is
I don't. But I do know that Paul is not the God you believe in, God as you define him.
Oh well...
OR: UNANIMOUS!!!!
Yeah, unanimous condemnation. Not a single Father was a unitarist.
What "dogmatic" statement did I make?
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.