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 see a lot of similarities. We would call the step before crossing the line a "near occasion of sin."
In your example if a certain place had a lot of opportunities for "appreciating" women other than one's spouse, which lead to sinful thoughts, then avoiding going to that place would be "avoiding the near occasion of sin. Avoiding the near occasion of sin is something we look for and resolve to avoid.
Examination of conscience, moral discernment, confession, true contrition, penance are all part of our Sacrament of Reconciliation. Sin is defined as that which takes us away from or breaks communion with God and His Church. It's bad for us and bad for others. If we have faith in God's love for us, we live the Sacramental life to the fullest of our ability.
We do not, however, believe that our present and future sins are already forgiven.
I'd definitely seek out God for “forgiveness” in entertaining the possibilities with someone other than my wife.
You put forgiveness in quotes here, so perhaps it is a different thing, and that's as you and I can come in answering the question.
thanks again for your reply.
In a kind of parody way, not a real way.
Fortunately, for this discussion, we're only comparing a limited portion. We both believe in confession and in asking for God's forgiveness. The difference is we do not believe we already have it for all past, present and future sin.
SO that is why even though I know my sins are already forgiven and paid for
For sins in the future, that, I think it's safe to say, would be presumption in our view. We don't know the future.
I also have an advocate with the father and can come to him for forgiveness from my human failures and sin.
You can of course, and we do, the question is why you would come to Him for forgiveness if you truly believe He has already given it to you.
My assurance of my salvation comes not from what I do to earn or merit it but purely because of the undeserved grace and mercy of God. I don't ever need to beg or plead for mercy because he already promised me he would give it, freely. Glory to his name
Nice post.
Soli Deo Gloria
Thank you.
I think you are on the brink of causing them a meltdown. Apparently they must never have asked that question.
If you are still selfish, fail, sin begins in your heart and becomes an action, etc., how is the "natural man" rendered powerless?
It's empty feel-good sloganism that sells because it "sounds right." Like Rick Warren's Purpose-driven Life.
I am very familiar with the process and the procedure required. In fact, I was aware Pope Kosta wasn't really pronouncing dogma when he omitted the magic words.
Since you are aware of the exact qualifications required to make a Pope's declarations "Infallible" I am certain you can show me the "Infallible" declaration by Pope Boniface I which made the Old Testament Canon of Carthage infallible.
The Bible says no one can take the sins of another. It doesn't say no one can die for the sins of another.
Surely the sacrificial lamb is not guilty, but that same innocent animal is killed for the sins of a man.
The reason the Bible is adamant that no one can take your sins is because that would make them guilty of something they did not commit, which is not possible. How can a lamb be "guilty" of your sins?!?
A very good question. I think it has more to do with the aloneness of Jesus at that moment and the awful exercise of free choice in choosing life - or death - which is upon every man and which Jesus took upon Himself.
Why was he "alone?" If you are in communion with God, you are with him no matter what, especially if your faith is perfect as Jesus' is believed to be. The "aloness" comes when sin separates you from God's presence, when you feel the Spirit "left." You can't tell me that a man of perfect faith, such as Jesus is known in his humanity, would feel that God had forsaken him unless his faith failed at the last moment.
Thanks. It's a pretty decent college try and, as concerns the "Apocrypha", I can see the logic behind it. The RCC had accepted the Old Testament Canon for hundreds of years and, while it was not until Trent that it was "cast in concrete", there is no argument against the RCC's claim of "Infallibity".
However, I can find no evidence of a unanimous, or even majority, belief in the RCC concerning the "Assumption of Mary" in the early Church up to, and including, relatively modern times.
Different rules for different times?
It's kept in the Vatican Secret Archives. You are right - nuthin for you.
You can of course, and we do, the question is why you would come to Him for forgiveness if you truly believe He has already given it to you.
The difference between Ephesians 1:6-8 and 1 John 1:9 is that John is dealing with what we call “relational,” or “familial,” forgiveness—like that of a father and a son. For example, if a son does something wrong to his father—falling short of his expectations or rules—the son has hindered his fellowship with his father. He remains the son of his father, but the relationship suffers. Their fellowship will be hindered until the son admits to his father that he has done wrong. It works the same way with God; our fellowship with Him is hindered until we confess our sin. When we confess our sin to God, the fellowship is restored. This is relational forgiveness.
“Positional” forgiveness, or judicial forgiveness, is that which is obtained by every believer in Christ. In our position as members of the body of Christ, we have been forgiven of every sin we have ever committed or ever will commit. The price paid by Christ on the cross has satisfied God’s wrath against sin, and no further sacrifice or payment is necessary. When Jesus said, “It is finished,” He meant it. Our positional forgiveness was obtained then and there.
http://www.gotquestions.org/confession-forgiveness.html
Why odn't you tell us then, since your usage of 'dogmatic" doesn't seem to reflect its definition.
Link here -->Kosta "forgot" OR had qualified the use of "dogmatic"
I can't proclaim dogma, OR, so what I say is not dogma. So, claiming I make "dogmatic" statements is just being obsessed with kosta. Are you obsessed with me, OR? Sure sounds like every one of your posts is about me.
Do you have anything substantial to contribute or are you just here to post about me?
Since you are aware of the exact qualifications required to make a Pope's declarations "Infallible" I am certain you can show me the "Infallible" declaration by Pope Boniface I which made the Old Testament Canon of Carthage infallible.
You can't even stay on the topic, but are hopping all over the place, just looking for something to write about me.
If you spent more time learning about the Church you wouldn't be as confused as you seem to be, so let me help you here. The Church believes it is infallibly led by the Holy Spirit. That means what the Church believes is infalible orthodox Faith.
That makes every local church, or council, regardles how small, or provincial, equally infallible, but not canonically binding to the whole church.
This is no different than, say, understanidng that county odrinances are as legal as the state oridnancel; the difference is that county oridnances apply to the county and state oridnances apply to the state, that si to all counties.
The affirmation of the Carthaginian Council by Pope Boniface I is as infallible as the Council of Carthage or Trent, or any other Chyurch council, but not binding to the whole Church. His signature made it binding to the Latin Catholic Church but not to the Eastern Churches, because it was a Latin Council, and he was the Latin Patriarch in a Church that consisted of four other patriarchate which he did not lord over.
The reason Trent is not binding to the whole Church is because the East wasn't there, and the Church is not gathered in full unless both sides are present, or unless one side accepts the Council in absentia, which the East never did.
But I am going tom have to leave you, OR, because I am tired of reading your posts about me. Maybe that will give you an opportunity to find another obsession, or perhaps, there is always hope, maybe you will decide to write about the topics instead, and add a little substance to them for a change. :)
> “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.”
.
What rubbish!
Most of the men you list, and especially Westcott and Hort, were literal agents of Satan seeking to erase the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Hort-Westcott Greek text is literally Satan’s version of the Bible. You need only read the letters that they exchanged to clearly see their mission.
.
You can read the reference I cited, or not; that is your choice.
Riplinger is the only person given the motivation to delve into the deliberate corruption of the word. It was a monumental task, and now its done.
Metzger is a con man trying to “cool the mark,” us.
Horse - water - drink, or not.
.
“That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. 4:22-24)
“On account of what? Christ never says any such thing”
Paul did and he preached what Christ had shown him by revelation.
“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Eph. 1:12)
“What was “set aside” for God had to be “perfect,” or blameless, a perfect specimen. You can't have “holiness” when sin is coexisting with the indwelling Spirit!”
Oh my word!!!! Even a cursory examination of a concordance would show where to find Scriptures that show people were “set aside” as holy without being sinless but one should be sufficient,
“And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office.” (Ex. 29:44)
Aaron and his sons were not without sin were they?
“God doesn't expect humans to be perfect. But they have to try. If you honestly try and honestly fail, God does not hold it against you. But most people don't honestly try. Rather, they try to get out of it.”
Either those “set aside” had to be perfect or they didn't,
Lev. 11:44 You must be holy for I am holy.
Matt. 5:48 You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect
“Only God can keep his Law perfectly because he is perfect. Every, voluntary transgression requires repentance, and the Jewish religion, like the pagan religions it came from, offered living and non-living sacrifices for their transgressions. That goes back to Cain and Able, before the Law was even given.”
Genesis says of Cain and Able only that they made “offerings”, reason unstated, no requirement that they do so for unnamed transgressions existed.
God is Law Giver not Law Keeper. And do try to make up your mind....either the Jewish religion as described in the OT is the result of God's contact with Moses or it came from the pagans...which is it, according to kosta?
And no, “it's both”, won't do.
“If Jesus is the same God who gave Hebrews the Law, Jesus would not preach against his own Law. An observant Jew doesn't say things Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels. This is like someone saying that in America you have to recite the National Anthem in front of your house every morning at 8:00 AM or pay a fine. That's just not true. But it's equally outrageous.”
“Jeremiah 31 refers only to the two tribes of the House of Judah and the ten tribes of the House of Israel. If you read carefully he says “a more perfect” covenant. The Covenant is never abolished, but simply made more perfect by being inscribed in the hearts so that no one can have an excuse and say nobody taught what I must do. Nothing else in that new Covenant is different form the Old one”
Uhh..NO. The word is “new” and the covenant is “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers” and fittingly refers to those God called His people.
(Heb. 10:15) “The Holy spirit bears witness to us” and then Paul quotes Jer. 31:31-34.
To cut through all the rest.... what is outrageous is the presumption that you can say,
“The Law is eternal and cannot be fulfilled. The idea that Christ fulfilled the Law by keeping it perfectly (so the Law was no longer bidning) is an unspeakable heresy invented by Christians.” or
“If Jesus is the same God who gave Hebrews the Law, Jesus would not preach against his own Law. An observant Jew doesn't say things Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels.”
Jesus was an “observant Jew” as was Paul, neither ‘preached against the Law’, that's utterly ridiculous on its face and we have a record of what Jesus said in the Gospels. Maybe it doesn't set well with what some think he SHOULD HAVE said but...so what?
And actually what opinions Jews of today have of Christ are irrelevant, their nation was destroyed not once but twice for their apostasy and finally as Christ said, “Your house is abandoned to you”.
They do not and cannot follow the Torah.
Ya still got nuthin'?
It works the same way with God; our fellowship with Him is hindered until we confess our sin. When we confess our sin to God, the fellowship is restored. This is relational forgiveness.
That's confessing. Nothing in this about asking for forgiveness. Which, I believe you still say you already have, relational or otherwise, correct?
Or is there a forgiveness you don't have yet that you are asking for now?
“”However, I can find no evidence of a unanimous, or even majority, belief in the RCC concerning the “Assumption of Mary” in the early Church up to, and including, relatively modern times””
There are many writings and even feast days through the ages we can point to on the Assumption or Dormition (Orthodox) of the Blessed Virgin Mary.There is even very old Icons as well that Kolo has posted on occasion.
Another important issue regarding the Assumption is we don’t see large fractions of people in the Church denying the assumption either during these centuries,what we do see is feast days and writings supporting the Assumption or Dormition so, it’s safe for us to say the Church is not in error regarding this and Thus it can be thought of as Infallible.
What’s important to remember is protestantism was starting to effect members of the Church through its modernity before the Assumption became declared Dogma.The protestant attack on Catholicism has many roots in denying the deeply rich role Mary played in Salvation history. So, the church moved to stop the growth of this from entering the Church and declared the Assumption Dogma.
Here is a little history on the Assumption.
We can trace writings back to Saint Epiphanius in the fourth century seen here...
“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.”Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).
Than we can see a steady flow of church Fathers writing the same..
T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones...” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).
“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).
“It was fitting ...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).
“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346), (ante A.D. 733).
“St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; where from the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” John of Damascene, PG (96:1) (A.D. 747-751).
Here we even see something from Dormition from the Byzantine Liturgy
“In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death. (966)”
That is one big fat rationalization, imo. 1 John 1:9 says in Greek:
But the doctrinally "corrected" (read corrupted) Protestant versions read
"But if we confess our sins to God, he can always be trusted to forgive us and take our sins away" (Contemporary English Version)
The "forgive" and "cleanse" is in subjunctive which can only be translated as may (a possibility, a conditional clause), so clearly the NIV and CEV translations are a blatant fraud.
The Greek texts expresses hope and not certainty, and as such 1 John 1:9 runs clearly against the very grain of Protestant superstition that all our sins, past, present and future are forgiven, so they had to invent this "relational" fairytale not to admit their error of thinking.
Likewise, Eph 1:6-8 says nothing about all sins, past, present and future, having been forgiven! It merely states (1:7) "in whom we have redemption,"; meaning in whom there is redemption to be found.
If God had forgiven all sins, past, present and future, then no matter what you do, did, or will do, can break the "fellowship" with him because in God's eyes the fellowship can't be broken!
If God forgave you everything then God is "blind" to your moral excesses against him; in other words, the "saved" can do no wrong in God's eyes. So the whole thing a pathetic rationalization apparently concocted through some very bad biblical scholarship (and corrupt translations) in order to give Protestants something to do on Sundays.
Tath's very convincing/s.
Most of the men you list, and especially Westcott and Hort, were literal agents of Satan seeking to erase the Gospel of Jesus Christ
And why should I, or anyone else believe you?
The Hort-Westcott Greek text is literally Satan’s version of the Bible. You need only read the letters that they exchanged to clearly see their mission.
Why don't you post some of them, for all to see instead of just shooting vectors with no force (in other words empty babble)?
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.