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.
“Does that make either wrong? Or just the emphasis on different things?”
I am not saying that either is “wrong”, but it is more than “just” emphasis. What is worth pondering is the theological and spiritual result of those two very, very different views of salvation. By that I mean, how have these divergent views played out in the spiritual lives of ordinary faithful?
Sure.. Ya got nuthin'.
That is a very interesting question, isn't it? When presented with a Gospel that literally brings joy, peace, comfort and clarity to this life and the next, why would anyone turn away from it?
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." - John 8:47 "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." - John 10:16
Well, as long you leave our heresiarchs out of it...
It definitely helped the eventual occurance of the Reformation, for sure and the various evolutionary novelties of its aftermath. You have brought up the Faith of your Greek grandparents and mother; I have been struck by the comparison of my German grandmother and her deep, deep Faith as well, based on the little that text exchanges offer. There are certain things which set each Church apart somewhat, yet how much is basic belief and how much is culture?
Is Vatican II the logical outcome of the extent that the Church adopted Anselm's developments? Maybe. Is the atrocious catechism of so many Catholics as a result of Vatican II to be laid at the feet of Anselm? Maybe stretching it. I suspect that the spiritual lives of the ordinary faithful are not that far apart, at the end of the day.
Let us go to the next portion of the Catechism which deals with the Resurrection.
ARTICLE 5
“HE DESCENDED INTO HELL ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN”
Paragraph 2. On the Third Day He Rose from the Dead
638
“We bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this day he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus.”489 The Resurrection of Jesus is the crowning truth of our faith in Christ, a faith believed and lived as the central truth by the first Christian community; handed on as fundamental by Tradition; established by the documents of the New Testament; and preached as an essential part of the Paschal mystery along with the cross:
Christ is risen from the dead!
Dying, he conquered death;
To the dead, he has given life.490
I. The Historical and Transcendent Event
639
The mystery of Christ’s resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testament bears witness. In about A.D. 56, St. Paul could already write to the Corinthians: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve . . .”491 Apostle speaks here of the living tradition of the Resurrection which he had learned after his conversion at the gates of Damascus.492
The empty tomb
640
“Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.”493 The first element we encounter in the framework of the Easter events is the empty tomb. In itself it is not a direct proof of Resurrection; the absence of Christ’s body from the tomb could be explained otherwise.494 Nonetheless the empty tomb was still an essential sign for all. Its discovery by the disciples was the first step toward recognizing the very fact of the Resurrection. This was the case, first with the holy women, and then with Peter.495 The disciple “whom Jesus loved” affirmed that when he entered the empty tomb and discovered “the linen cloths lying there,” “he saw and believed.”496 This suggests that he realized from the empty tomb’s condition that the absence of Jesus’ body could not have been of human doing and that Jesus had not simply returned to earthly life as had been the case with Lazarus.497
The appearances of the Risen One
641
Mary Magdalene and the holy women who came to finish anointing the body of Jesus, which had been buried in haste because the Sabbath began on the evening of Good Friday, were the first to encounter the Risen One.498 Thus the women were the first messengers of Christ’s Resurrection for the apostles themselves.499 They were the next to whom Jesus appears: first Peter, then the Twelve. Peter had been called to strengthen the faith of his brothers,500 and so sees the Risen One before them; it is on the basis of his testimony that the community exclaims: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”501
642
Everything that happened during those Paschal days involves each of the apostles—and Peter in particular—in the building of the new era begun on Easter morning. As witnesses of the Risen One, they remain the foundation stones of his Church. The faith of the first community of believers is based on the witness of concrete men known to the Christians and for the most part still living among them. Peter and the Twelve are the primary “witnesses to his Resurrection,” but they are not the only ones—Paul speaks clearly of more than five hundred persons to whom Jesus appeared on a single occasion and also of James and of all the apostles.502
643
Given all these testimonies, Christ’s Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact. It is clear from the facts that the disciples’ faith was drastically put to the test by their master’s Passion and death on the cross, which he had foretold.503 The shock provoked by the Passion was so great that at least some of the disciples did not at once believe in the news of the Resurrection. Far from showing us a community seized by a mystical exaltation, the Gospels present us with disciples demoralized (”looking sad”504) and frightened. For they had not believed the holy women returning from the tomb and had regarded their words as an “idle tale.”505 When Jesus reveals himself to the Eleven on Easter evening, “he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.”506
644
Even when faced with the reality of the risen Jesus the disciples are still doubtful, so impossible did the thing seem: they thought they were seeing a ghost. “In their joy they were still disbelieving and still wondering.”507 Thomas will also experience the test of doubt and St. Matthew relates that during the risen Lord’s last appearance in Galilee “some doubted.”508 Therefore the hypothesis that the Resurrection was produced by the apostles’ faith (or credulity) will not hold up. On the contrary their faith in the Resurrection was born, under the action of divine grace, from their direct experience of the reality of the risen Jesus.
The condition of Christ’s risen humanity
645
By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his passion.509 Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and when he wills; for Christ’s humanity can no longer be confined to earth and belongs henceforth only to the Father’s divine realm.510 For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith.511
646
Christ’s Resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was the case with the raisings from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus’ daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus’ power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ’s Resurrection is essentially different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another life beyond time and space. At Jesus’ Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state, so that St. Paul can say that Christ is “the man of heaven.”512
The Resurrection as transcendent event
647
O truly blessed Night, sings the Exsultet of the Easter Vigil, which alone deserved to know the time and the hour when Christ rose from the realm of the dead!513 But no one was an eyewitness to Christ’s Resurrection and no evangelist describes it. No one can say how it came about physically. Still less was its innermost essence, his passing over to another life, perceptible to the senses. Although the Resurrection was an historical event that could be verified by the sign of the empty tomb and by the reality of the apostles’ encounters with the risen Christ, still it remains at the very heart of the mystery of faith as something that transcends and surpasses history. This is why the risen Christ does not reveal himself to the world, but to his disciples, “to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.”514
II. The Resurrection—A Work of the Holy Trinity
648
Christ’s Resurrection is an object of faith in that it is a transcendent intervention of God himself in creation and history. In it the three divine persons act together as one, and manifest their own proper characteristics. The Father’s power “raised up” Christ his Son and by doing so perfectly introduced his Son’s humanity, including his body, into the Trinity. Jesus is conclusively revealed as “Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his Resurrection from the dead.”515 St. Paul insists on the manifestation of God’s power516 through the working of the Spirit who gave life to Jesus’ dead humanity and called it to the glorious state of Lordship.
649
As for the Son, he effects his own Resurrection by virtue of his divine power. Jesus announces that the Son of man will have to suffer much, die, and then rise.517 Elsewhere he affirms explicitly: “I lay down my life, that I may take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”518 “We believe that Jesus died and rose again.”519
650
The Fathers contemplate the Resurrection from the perspective of the divine person of Christ who remained united to his soul and body, even when these were separated from each other by death: “By the unity of the divine nature, which remains present in each of the two components of man, these are reunited. For as death is produced by the separation of the human components, so Resurrection is achieved by the union of the two.”520
III. The Meaning and Saving Significance of the Resurrection
651
“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”521 The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ’s works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.
652
Christ’s Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly life.522 The phrase “in accordance with the Scriptures”523 indicates that Christ’s Resurrection fulfilled these predictions.
653
The truth of Jesus’ divinity is confirmed by his Resurrection. He had said: “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he.”524 The Resurrection of the crucified one shows that he was truly “I Am,” the Son of God and God himself. So St. Paul could declare to the Jews: “What God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’”525 Christ’s Resurrection is closely linked to the Incarnation of God’s Son and is its fulfillment in accordance with God’s eternal plan.
654
The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God’s grace, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”526 Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace.527 It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ’s brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: “Go and tell my brethren.”528 We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.
655
Finally, Christ’s Resurrection—and the risen Christ himself—is the principle and source of our future resurrection: “Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. . . . For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”529 The risen Christ lives in the hearts of his faithful while they await that fulfillment. In Christ, Christians “have tasted . . . the powers of the age to come”530 and their lives are swept up by Christ into the heart of divine life, so that they may “live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”531
...
This is what I mean by emphasis, rather than difference.
Your contributions notwithstanding.
Of the Byzantine text, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition, by Bruce M. Metzger says on page. 7 of the introduction:
“The framers of this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called conflation), and to harmonize divergent parallel passages.”
He further points out that the Byzantine was the most readily avoidable to early editors and printers and so Bibles based upon it became the standard form
The Vaticannus and Siniaticus were however based upon copies from the early second century. (pg.5 of the above)
So what “obscure words” does the NIV have?
“Of course, the majority of the changes in the NIV from the KJV/Geneva versions were done for the simple reason that it had to be copyrightable to be commercially viable, which is the reason for many of the obscure words they used.”
And you know this, How?
Amen
No doubt, you know the subject inside and out, right?
It all started in the 17th century with John Fell, Richard Simon and with John Mill (not John Stuart Mill). The centerpiece of textual criticism is Mill's publication (1707) of 30,000 variations of extant copies (majority text mostly) of the Greek New Testament.
What followed was a series of attempts to "harmonize" the extant copies through the work of mostly Protestant, and an occasional Catholic biblical scholar, such as Richard Bentley, John A. Bengel, John J. Wettstein, Karl Lachman, Lobegott Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf, Brooke F. Westcortt, and Fenton Joh Anthony Hort, who made it possible to harmonize the biblical text to a reasonable proximity of what the "true" text was before thousands of alterations and corruptions, both minor and major theologically speaking, were added to the Bible over the centuries by various copyists.
Based on their work, scholars can pretty much say to a good degree of certainty which version of a given chapter or verse that exists in variants is the unaltered copy and which is/are the alteration(s). This does not mean, however, that they can "extrapolate" with any degree of certainty what the origin apostolic manuscripts said.
Some of the variants are of great theological significance, such as 1 Tim 3:16, where the Greek word hos (he) written ΟΣ was changed to ΘΣ, a ligature for Theos (God).
So, you can take it from here. The subject is quite extensive and I have no desire to discuss it on this thread. But if you want to post a new thread on the subject, by all means.
When we confess and ask for forgiveness, we’re really asking for it.
If you believe you have already been forgiven for all sins - past present and future - why: “pray to God and ask for forgiveness every day”
origin=original
“This is what I mean by emphasis, rather than difference.”
Mark...you don’t see the difference, do you? Think about it this way. I learned about the ultimate divine act in the restoration of man’s potential for fulfilling his created purpose from the Pascal Sermon proclaimed after midnight in church on Holy Pascha after having spent most of a Divine Liturgy chanting this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tKexc4wSM with all the other Orthodox there, and Latin’s learn it from what you posted. By the way, here’s what the Greek means:
Christ is risen from the dead
trampling down death by death
and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
The OSAS crowd seem to not understand that their theology makes prayer superfluous. What is one praying for that hasn't been accomplished or decided already? Are they going to "persuade" God to change his mind?
It's almost like a child who has been given everything and wants more.
One thing I do not understand is why do Protestants pray for their sick! Do they not wish their beloved to be with God more than with them? if they do then they don;t love God with all their heart and mind and soul!
Why not simply say "Thy will be done, and not mine"? Oh, wait, Paul didn't say that; Jesus did, so it doesn't count. :)
And the congregation, exhausted from a 40 day rigorous fast (boiled vegetables in water and plain bred!) sings it fervently over and over and over again. Nothing like the experience of Orthodox Pascha. It always bring tears to my eyes, even tough I am an "agnostic slime." :)
The issue was when according to RC sources quoted.
An individual who has done some awful dastardly things seems to understand forgiveness better than those who have an attitude their sins weren’t THAT bad, which feeds on ones ego. Believing that ALL sin is equally offensive to God and would require the same sacrifice of Christ, regardless of the depth of that sin, is hard for some to accept...therefore their “good works” continue being sufficient for them and that “little sin” was taken care of on Calvary.
That an an excellent insight.
That is not exactly a new issue, but the issue. Answering "When was the Apocrypha infallibly declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be inspired?” presupposes that she who declares herself infallible is the one who must declares what was a ecumenical council which was the first infallible pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. I do not disagree that your arguments have merit, but i do not see Carthage being listed as an ecumenical council, while authoritative sources states Trent was the first to ID the entire canon, with evidence showing that it did settle the matter. Thus as said, your argument is with those sources. Perhaps this shows a greater problem is that when you declare yourself assuredly formulaically infallible after the manner of Rome, that does not suffice to end all debate a to whether a teaching is infallible, without an infallible list of all that is infallible and when it became so.
As regards Pope Honorius (and you are really jumping all over the place here by mentioning him) ..
That was in regards to your examples militating against the infallibility of Trent, and so i added a like allegation regarding PI that RCA's also respond to.
Thanks for your respectable arguments.
The word for confess is homologeÅ and means
1) to say the same thing as another, i.e. to agree with, assent
2) to concede
a) not to refuse, to promise
b) not to deny
1) to confess
2) declare
3) to confess, i.e. to admit or declare one's self guilty of what one is accused of
3) to profess
a) to declare openly, speak out freely
b) to profess one's self the worshipper of one
4) to praise, celebrate
The word forgive is aphiēmi and means
1) to send away
a) to bid going away or depart
1) of a husband divorcing his wife
b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
c) to let go, let alone, let be
1) to disregard
2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
a) of teachers, writers and speakers
3) to omit, neglect
d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
e) to give up, keep no longer
The word cleanse is katharizÅ and means
1) to make clean, cleanse
a) from physical stains and dirt
b) in a moral sense
1) to free from defilement of sin and from faults
2) to purify from wickedness
3) to free from guilt of sin, to purify
4) to consecrate by cleansing or purifying
5) to consecrate, dedicate
So, like I said, when we confess our sins, we aren't informing God of what we did - since he already saw and foreknew anyway - but we name it as he names it, concede to what we have done, come out from hiding. By this act we admit our wrong. When God forgives - which has both temporal and eternal meanings - he "lets it go", remits, and promises to forget it. The eternal sense of forgiveness is when we are made righteous through faith in Christ and our sins are remitted, paid for.
We are then cleansed from our unrighteousness, we are freed from the guilt and separation that being unclean and guilty before our Holy God brings.
God commands us to do this because our guilt causes shame and separation from his fellowship. It is for our OWN benefit that he tells us to do this. He knows how we are made and has pity on us. He loves us and knows we need the power of forgiveness and cleansing in our lives.
I know this response is long, but one more thing. I don't believe in a generic "Lord, forgive me of all my sins...yada, yada.". I see no benefit in that and think it's kinda a cop-out. God wants the "goods" he expects an admission of what exactly we did wrong. How else can he really release us from the personal guilt and how else does he help us to avoid the same things all over again?
The canon of Trent is not a canon of the Church Universal because the East was not there, an dis not binding to the East. It's as simple as that.
The other issue is that the conviction that the Church will not succumb to the gates of hell because it is guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit.
What a local or particular Church agrees to may not be canonically binding but it is considered orthodox and therefore infallible, individual acts of disobedience notwithstanding.
It is not that the Ecumenical Councils "make" something infallible; they simply make it canonically binding for the whole Church. Their decisions are infallible because they are councils of the infallible Church Universal.
Local councils are not "fallible" either; they are just not canonically binding to the whole church, just as local, say, county ordinances are legal but binding only for the specific country and not the state as a whole.
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.