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.
Just out of curiosity, where does is say that Mark?
Origen wondered why and came up with the Ransom theory which the Orthodox adhere to, even to this day.
The ransom is in the NT, Mark. Origen didn't come up with it. It's straight out of the Gospels.
Anselm didn't think that satan held any power over God and came up with the Satisfaction Theory which states that the debt was owed to God, rather than a ransom to satan
Anselm "forgot" that the Incarnation and death on the cross was an act of mercy, out of love, and not an act to satisfy Zeus' anger.
The idea that God was somehow "shortchanged" and that we owe God something is completely pagan. God lacks nothing, or he is no God. God cannot be dissatisfied. God cannot be injured. God cannot lack anything. What Anselm created was something pagan and it found fertile ground in Anglo-saxon and Frankish Europe.
Christ did not offer himself as ransom because God "owed" something to satan, but in order to gain access to him and destroy him. How else could God end up in hell?
The Dagonesque bloodthirsty view is the Penal Substitution theory, which came out of the Reformation...is not the Satisfaction Theory of Anselm whatsoever. This is truly a reversion back to pagan bloodlust
Well, the reformers only took Anslem's pagan idea of an angry Zeus, and made it more pagan, the way they took +Augustine and made him into a "Calvinist." Remember, the correct name is not Reformation, but Deformation.
The East believes in the atonement to satan to free mankind from his power
No, Mark, the east does not believe that. In the east, fasting is atonement (Greek: nesteia). The idea of appeasing an angry Zeus (Greek: hilasterion) is entirely Pauline in origin (Romans 3:25), and those who wrote in Pauline-like style (i.e. Hebrews 9:5, 1 John 2:2, 4:10). In other words it is foreign to the Church which follows the words of Christ in the Gospels, because Christ did not teach that.
Ransom you will find in Mark (10:45) and Matthew (20:28), and 1 Timothy (2:6), the latter probably written long after +Paul to attenuate Pauline theology and bring it closer to the the Gospels.
God did not atone to satan or to himself. There is no atonement in the Gospels. It's a Pauline innovation.
I want to explain the conflict here: Christ could not “take†our sins because then he would be guilty. That is incompatible with the belief that he died innocent of any wrongdoing. The Old Testament not only says that no one can “take” or be guilty of someon else’s sins (that the sons cannot be punished for their fathers’ sins, nor fathers for their sons’ sins), but that only the soul that sinneth shall die.
“take†= “take”
fathers’ = “fathers’”
sons’ =”sons’”
The beauty of being a Reformed "Christian" is that one can make up whatever he or she wants and believe it's true. It's also centered on the "feel good" self flattery which explains its appeal.
However, what Paul said grammatically is contrary to the idea that sanctification is a life-long process. According to Paul, those who accepted Christ as their savior were immediately "justified" in God's eyes, were also sanctified in the same instance.
Whether they die the next instant or live another 100 years makes no difference in their being "set aside" (i.e. sanctified), elected, chosen, saved, whatever.
Thus, the process is by necessity, grammatically expressed and otherwise, instantaneous. From the moment you are "set aside"; you are just and clean and holy in God's eyes, no matter what you do, say or think, so the conversion is instantaneous and complete, and an irrevocably accomplished fact, just as Paul expressed it grammatically.
Some people may be crazy but they are not necessarily stupid, so even those who believe with all their heart that they are saved and holy in God's eyes, know that they are not holy and that claiming to be holy in public would get them laughed at. And for a religion that is founded on me (self-flattery), that is a definite area to avoid.
More like hopeless babble of the mindless.
Which it is for God’s elect, since there is no way that God’s stated will for his elect can be subverted.
But she doesn't think so. She says it's a life-long process of "improvement". :)
Don’t feel badly; spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The spiritually blind cannot see them.
That and $2.00 may get you a cup of coffee.
I do not expect you to understand this but...
1 Corinthians 1:2, "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy…
Here Paul is describing there is a relationship between positional sanctification and progressive sanctification,
The Greek root of the word sanctified and holy is the same word.. We are seen by God as holy and called to be holy
Through Christ we are positionally Holy, seen as being Holy in Christ..We are called to live out in our lives (progressively, what we already are positionally)
I am seen as holy by God, but it is not MY holiness that God sees, it is Christ.. The work of God in me leads me to grow in personal holiness as I live out the Christian life..
Matthew 26: 26 14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
Here, the distribution of His Body and the drinking of His shed blood means His Death, of course - for the forgiveness of sin.
Matthew 26: 50 Jesus answered him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then stepping forward they laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. 51 And behold, one of those who accompanied Jesus put his hand to his sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must come to pass in this way?"
It MUST come to pass in this way.
John 11: 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, 11 said to them, "You know nothing, 50 nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish." 51 He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 12 53 So from that day on they planned to kill him.
Impressive. Even Caiaphas got in on the act of prophesy.
John 15: 11 "I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete. 12 This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. 13 5 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.
This kinda leans on the other verses and probably wouldn't stand on its own.
The ransom is in the NT, Mark. Origen didn't come up with it. It's straight out of the Gospels.
Origen, writing after Irenaeus, and Augustine (in his mouse-trap analogy) expounded on the ransom paid to satan. Gregory Nanziazus objected to it, and various Church Fathers worked away at it until Anselm and Abelard (!) of all people rejected the notion that anything was due satan and that it was due to God instead.
Most of this came from various chapters of the Catholic Encyclopedia, with additional information from various sources.
Anselm "forgot" that the Incarnation and death on the cross was an act of mercy, out of love, and not an act to satisfy Zeus' anger.
Don't confuse Anselm with the penal substitution developed in the 16th century. If a ransom is paid, it is paid to somebody. Who was the ransom paid to here?
Well, the reformers only took Anslem's pagan idea of an angry Zeus, and made it more pagan, the way they took +Augustine and made him into a "Calvinist." Remember, the correct name is not Reformation, but Deformation.
From what I've read of Anselm, I don't get angry Zeus.
No, Mark, the east does not believe that. In the east, fasting is atonement (Greek: nesteia). The idea of appeasing an angry Zeus (Greek: hilasterion) is entirely Pauline in origin (Romans 3:25), and those who wrote in Pauline-like style (i.e. Hebrews 9:5, 1 John 2:2, 4:10). In other words it is foreign to the Church which follows the words of Christ in the Gospels, because Christ did not teach that.
Irenaeus and then Origen after him, and Augustine after him, did.
Possibly, except that who was the ransom paid to?
Interesting. Ezekial 18 says that they will not. Same with John 9. But Exodus 20 says that the Lord will punish the sons to the third and fourth generation. Deuteronomy 5 repeats Exodus 20. Deuteronomy 24 says not. Isaiah 14 says yes. Jeremiah 32 says yes as well.
Mixed bag here. However, the Faith says that you have your own sin and not those of your father and that is what I believe. But in terms of taking sin on Himself and away from us - atonement, we do have some evidence.
John 1: 28 This happened in Bethany across the Jordan, 20 where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, 21 who takes away the sin of the world.
Notice the choice of words - Lamb of God - the sacrifice - who takes away the sins of the world - with that sacrifice.
“Possibly, except that who was the ransom paid to?”
To no one and no thing, Mark.
“By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered
When it encountered Thee in the lower regions.
It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.”
That sound like ransom to you? Sounds like the ultimate sucker punch to me!
I do understand what you are trying to say, but I can't agree with you because that's not what the Greek text says. The idea of "positional" and "progressive" sanctification is a doctrinal rationalization, no odubt, but not in the spirit of the Greek in which it was written.
Paul says says no such thing.
*hegiasmenois—perfect, passive, participle of hagiazo, in other words, having been done (finished), passively (without active participation).
Reading it in Greek, it is clear to me that there is no "progressive" anything in what he is saying. What he is saying is simply that those who have been made holy (i.e. sanctified) are called holy, not that they are called to be holy.
After all, what else can holy be but holy?
To no one and no thing, Mark.
Then who was expecting the ransom? Randoms require a demander and a demandee.
Thanks, you are right. My only objection is that the oldest copy is 3-4th century, and no earlier fragments exist, so I consider it questionable because there is enough reason to suspect doctrinal alteration, the way "fro many" and "for all" are curiously conflicting. The same goes for John 11.
Who was the ransom paid to here?
No one. The ransom was never paid as far as I know.
No kidding. Welcome to the wonderful world of God's word. I will supplement your list with one of my own, because I have compiled it some time ago.
Are we punished for the sins of others?
Yes! According to: Genesis 9:21-25, 20:18, Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Deuteronomy 5:9, 23:2, 28:18, Numbers 14:18, 1 Samuel 3:12-13, 2 Samuel 12:14, 21:6-9, 1 Kings 2:33, 11:11-12, 21:29, 2 Kings 5:27
Isaiah 14:21, Jeremiah 16:10-11, 29:32, 32:18, and Zephaniah 1:8
No! According to: Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, Jeremiah 31:29-30, and
Ezekiel18:20
John 1: 28 This happened in Bethany across the Jordan, 20 where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, 21 who takes away the sin of the world.
Bethany is not a place "across Jordan." There is not such place there. Some Bible versions call it Bethabara trying to salvage the damage. However, there is a suburb of Jerusalem by the name Bethany and it's not across Jordan. And, at least according to Mat 3:4-6 and mat 1:9 John baptized in the Jordan River.
I am sure there is a raitonalizaiton out there that shows there is no contradiction...I take everything John write with a grain of salt. More on the interpolated character of John's Gospel.
Not an angry God for sure.
> “After all, what else can holy be but holy?”
.
Your big problem here, beside your lack of spiritual eyes and ears is that you do not understand “Holy.”
Holy means set apart from the world.
All of God’s elect are made Holy when they are justified. This is both an instantaneous and an on going thing. We are set apart at the instant of justification, and we continue to be set apart until either we die, or the Lord returns.
We understand your confusion, and would love to help you, but that is the Father’s task, not ours.
And no, you cannot pray effectively to the Father, because you do not have the authority granted by the Son yet.
.
Paul also mixes his bag on that as well.
So it seems - and Jerusalem (and Bethany) are a good day's trot from the Jordan, as well. Don't know.
I am sure there is a raitonalizaiton out there that shows there is no contradiction...I take everything John write with a grain of salt. More on the interpolated character of John's Gospel.
The content of the Faith was being developed at a furious rate during these times. Your source says that John was written to try to calm down distressed Jewish Christians (converts) who weren't liking the way things were going in the temporal realm...
Not an angry God for sure.
The term ransom was well known (and well used) in those times. The pagan bandits roaming the hills, as well as Roman political intrigue all used kidnapping and ransoming regularly. I believe that the term was used advisedly and deliberately and it meant the same then in Greek as it does now in English.
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.