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.
How can the NT compare with the live testimony and miracles of Jesus Himself?
Continuing your negative nay-saying does not contribute to a better understanding. Implying that I am somehow "lost" is mind-reading.
And you are "found"?
“What kind of a “proof” is that, and how can anyone blame the Jews, given that they didn’t have the NT!?”
But the Jews in Jesus time did have one who claimed to be the Messiah, Jesus, and he authenticated his claim by miracles; applying the prophecies of Isaiah to himself; and the resurrection. Each time he did they rejected the claim. They were looking for a political Messiah who would usher back in the “golden age” of David and Solomon and when he did not accede to their aspirations they rejected him.
The requirement for salvation has always been faith. The object of one’s faith for salvation has always been God. What has changed through the ages is the content of a believer’s faith. God’s requirement of what must believed is based on the amount of revelation He has given mankind up to that time. They had the living Christ and did not believe.
Where you there? besides, the OT does not predict that messiah will do miracles or change the order of things. Jesus is simply not mentioned by name or otherwise hinted i.e. Bethlehem, etc.) with any specifically identifiable events of places. The hints are vague. The NT "witness" to the OT speaking of Jesus in particular is written after the fact (some 30-40 years).
At the same time, there are incopmatibe things mentioned in the OT that definitely tell Isiah and others were not writing about Jesus in particular. Things such as the suffeirng servant fathering literal, physical offspring (the Hebrew word used means "sperm"), or that God prolonged his life strongly suggest the "prophesies" are not about him.
Finally, God being God's servant makes no sense to a Jew (or any reasonable person).
Prophecy of the future is often not explicit but Isaiah clearly foretold the coming of a Messiah born in Bethlehem to a virgin. The key prophesies of Christ are missing in the Masoretic text or subtly different from those in Septuagint but it was the latter that was in use by Jews at the time. The complete Masoretic text was not published until many centuries later. Defenders of the Masoretic text may claim that parts of it were in circulation but Apostolic writings quote solely from the Septuagint. Paul must have learned the Septuagint in his rabbinical training.
Where does the OT say the messiah would perform miracles, die and resurrect, or claim to be a literal son of God and not just by the title (like the angels and all anointed kings)? Perhaps that's why the Jews were not impressed with the alleged "authentications." They took his applying the prophesies to himself as vain blasmphemy.
Christian writers wrote their stories decades after the fact and had no one but the people who shared their views agree to agree with them. There are no extrabiblical accounts of the stuff that is alleged in the New Testament. It was all accepted by one person "witnessing" to another that he learned from another "witness," but in the long run very few people were really witnesses (John and Matthew only, assuming they wrote what we call their Gospels), especially Paul. It was all accepted on their word—all the way to this day.
They were looking for a political Messiah who would usher back in the “golden age” of David and Solomon and when he did not accede to their aspirations they rejected him
For the same reason the Christians reject the "revelation" of Joseph Smith's "Book of Mormon"—it doesn't fit their preconceived "truth" about what the messiah is supposed to be, based on their own scripture.
The requirement for salvation has always been faith
Why? Why does God require people to believe in him in order for him to save them from him?
Worship of any god requires faith, because there are no gods walking among us. And if someone were to claim to be God, people would want some proof. Why do people accept unproven testimonies written two thousand years ago by unknown authors about magical things no one else has seen and written about, on faith alone?
I will tell you why: fear, fear of death. Take out the "life everlasting" candy from Christianity and see how many stay in the pews.
God’s requirement of what must believed is based on the amount of revelation He has given mankind up to that time. They had the living Christ and did not believe
They did not believe because the great preponderance of the OT "revelation" says nothing of God's literal Son, who will become man, and call himself Jesus, who will perform miracles of rising people from the dead and what not, who will be crucified and die and who will resurrect on the third day, despite anonymous Christian writings to the contrary (which did not exist in Jesus' time but were written decades later).
The key prophesies of Christ are missing in the Masoretic text or subtly different from those in Septuagint but it was the latter that was in use by Jews at the time.
The 10th century oldest Masoretic Text found in a Moscow synagogue agree perfectly with the pre-Christian Qumran copies of Isaiah.
Septuagint, on the other hand is a hypothetical entity because we only scanty parts of the pre-Christian Septuagint, but the other existing remnant are all Chritsian-era attempts to bring it to a closer agreement with the Mesoretic Text and are 2nd century AD work of Jewish scribes.
Apostolic writings quote solely from the Septuagint. Paul must have learned the Septuagint in his rabbinical training
They quote mostly form it (over 93% of the time) simply because Gospels were written in Greek. Jewish Encyclopedia very effectively debunks the myth that Paul had any formal rabbinical training.
Yeah, funny how that works! :) First mortal men write books, then other mortal men say it's the infallible word of God, which others take on their word.
Who can argue with such a fallible-proof system
You can't, because they tell you that you don't have the "eyes" and the "ears" or the ability to read with understanding their "word of God." It's a neat way of getting out of having to prove anything.
Well then, I would have to fully agree with you that we are not in agreement. :) I don't think I've seen anything like this before.
..... but I don’t believe that +Isaac was preaching universal salvation. He was far too intent on God’s respect for man’s Free Will choices to believe that.
Yes, I've never heard that as being a part of Orthodoxy.
I suppose it is true that everyone, at some point, inclines to God and turns from wickedness and it is certainly true that God’s mercy will ALWAYS outweigh a man’s sins. But if a man chooses not to accept the uncreated energies of God, His mercy and grace and love, God respects that choice.
OK, that's what was confusing me. It didn't sound like there was any separation between turning to God and accepting His mercy, etc. I take it that he meant those are distinguishing choices.
The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved,
Sanctification follows justification (salvation). If the household is "sanctified' then it is "saved" and as such "set aside for God" 9sanctified).
It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith.
Paul didn't hold much to baptism, or perfor many. His main tenet was that you are saved by faith or by proxy (if you married a believer), not by baptism. The baptism that matter is of the Spirit, so there is no need for water baptism if you think about it in Pauline theology.
does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so
But is their making the response ever in question? Whether God forces their response or just foreknows how they will feel on that they is irrelevant. The dice have been cast; the actual event is only a matter of going through the hoops. The outcome is never in doubt. You are sitting on a train bound for a station; what you do on it is of no consequence.
Even on a theoretical level a perfect being can be utterly unselfish in calling for such, if that is what is best for his subjects
God decides what is best for the subjects. He is not guided by a higher necessity. A God who demands that people adore him and worship him is a narcissistic God. It's not about his subjects but about him. But I will take it back and not even call it narcissistic, because it is beyond narcissistic. It is outright petty. It would certainly seem rather petty if a human were to expect that lowly little ants in his back yard, stop and drop on their little faces on a daily basis, or to expect them to adore him ebcause he doesn't step on them.
It seems to me that the love proclaimed by the Christians have for their God has a lot to do with the prospect of the "everlasting life" and that without it, I have a feeling, very few would be devoted to the Christian God. So, it is not true love, if you think about, but a "love" motivated by fear.
Moreover, what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem
That's not always the case.
Thus God calls men to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve;”
Except the scenario is such that there really is no choice...LOL!
Yet if God forced conversion then men would also object, which would be the case if He made faith in Him so utterly overwhelming that no one could not find anything by which they may rationalize unbelief.
Congratulations! You have just convinced yourself that man saves himself (as Judaism teaches) and what Pelagius allegedly believed.
It is not just the Protestant God who is misconstrued, and in the Bible God is constantly giving, giving man both good things and good laws, which He misuses and breaks...
Yeah, that darn man. Makes you wonder why would God even make him, except apaprently to have someone to look at and see himself (sarcasm), i.e. moody, narcissistic, selfish, petty, inefficient, somoene always capable of being driven to violence, demanidng, and endlessly wheeling and dealing and fixing things without rellay fixing anything.
I don't see any "choice" in this distinction. Why else would one "turn to God" if not because he is willing to ask for and "accept His mercy"?
You, know as in the Lord's prayer...ἁγιάζω, to make holy, hallowed. See 1 Cor 6:11. It's all in the past tense.
The Septuagint was written well before the time of Christ and was considered to be of divine origin by non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Philo. The NT, with Septuagint quotes, was written the First Century.
AND THOU, BETHLEHEM Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. (Micah 5:2)
10 And the Lord spoke again to Achaz, saying: 11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God either unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above. 12 And Achaz said: I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. 13 And he said: Hear ye therefore, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel [meaning "God is with us"]. (Isaiah 7)
Where the Septuagint uses the word "virgin," the Mesoretic text uses the Hebrew word for "maiden" which can mean young woman or, more traditionally, young virgin. The Septuagint indicates that translators understood the Hebrew word to be the equivalent of the "virgin" meaning for maiden. Note the context that clearly demonstrates the birth will be a special sign from God.
What does that prove? Who were they to decide what is "divinely inspired" and what is not. Septuagint was rejected by the rabbis in Jamnia c AD 90. The legend has it that 72 rabbis, commissioned by the Alexandrian despot, supposedly translated the Torah in one day. Whatever...
(Micah 5:2)
That's not Isaiah. You wrote that Isaiah predicated that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. I am quoting from your post 15,745
That is just plain false and misleading. Isaiah never mentions Bethlehem anywhere in his writings.
Post Babylonian Jews believed in, and expected the messiah, and their scriptures prophecy a messiah. But there is nothing in the Old Testament itself that specifically identifies that messiah as Jesus of Nazareth.
One has to reach for the New Testament, written after the fact and with the intention to "connect the dots" and identify Jesus as the messiah expected in the OT. Trouble is—Jesus does not fit the OT requirements of the messiah, except that he was Jewish.
Isaiah 7...and the "virgin"
The Hebrew has the exact word for a virgin and it's not the same as the "young woman". The OT uses the word for "virgin" on more than one occasion to make sure there is no doubt what is meant. Obviously, if Isaiah wanted to make sure everyone knew he was talking about a virgin he would used the same word for "virgin" used throughout the OT.
Even Paul, who quotes mostly from the Septuagint, speaks of Jesus as being born "of a woman" (Galatians 4:4), not of a virgin.
The Septuagint indicates that translators understood the Hebrew word to be the equivalent of the "virgin" meaning for maiden
Because in Greek the distinction is not as clear as in Hebrew. The word "betulah" means a virgin, period. In Greek "parthenos" is a bit more "expansive" in use, including one's daughter of marriageable age, and even males who are remain "clean." No one in his right mind introduces his daughter as "this is my virgin"!
The Hebrew word "'almah" used in Isaiah 7:14 means all that and also a young married woman, so not necessarily a virgin. Isiah 7:14 does not claim the child born of a young woman is born supernaturally, or that somehow a young woman (out of wedlock) became pregnant without losing her virginity.
The context of Isaiah 7 clearly shows that the virgin theory of 7:14 is an out-of-context Christian fabrication. This is particularly obvious since Isaiah also says that his suffering servant will have physical offspring and will be granted more years...
However, because no faith will ever admit to being wrong, even when everything points to it, lie and deny is the order of the day. When stuck in a corner, the religious either rationalize a fantastic answer, or alter existing scriptures (i.e. 1 Tim 3:16, 1 John 5:7, or John 8:1-11), or conveniently produce new "scripture," written after the fact, to support their claim, or to account for new situations (i.e. Gospel of John, 2 Peter).
One could say the same about the faith of atheism. You forgot that the pre-Christian and authoritative Septuagint OT translates that the mother of the Messiah would be a virgin. That was not after-the-fact. You also did not respond to my point that no other interpretation makes sense in the context of God specifically stating that the birth would be a special "sign." How would an ordinary birth to a young, naturally impregnated woman be "a sign of the Lord thy God either unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above."?
Other than to quibble, you did not respond to the OT prophesy that Christ would be born in Bethlehem.
If you could point to any authorities rejecting the Septuagint before Christ, that might count for something. However, it should be obvious that rabbis in AD 90 would be biased against the Septuagint by its clearly fulfilled prophesies of Jesus as the Christ-Messiah.
I think they are certainly comparable, however there is a great difference between Latins (and most likely the Orthodox) and mainstream Protestants as to the significance of sanctification. As I understand it, Latins see sanctification as a process leading towards salvation, i.e. it precedes salvation. In the most common uses of the terms we would say that sanctification takes place after salvation.
Where I think there is similarity is that one description of sanctification I would use is it is the life-long process of being conformed to the image of Christ. Sanctification represents spiritual maturity and growth in faith.
I don't know if this is a difference or not, but I would also say that sanctification is an act performed by God upon believers. That is, we cannot sanctify ourselves. I'm not certain who the literal "actor" is with theosis.
Not really. Most atheists would change their mind if they had tangible proof. In fact even most so-called believers, who accept the whole Christian story as true, would be highly skeptical if they ran into someone who claimed to be the Son of God.
If he raised people from their graves after they have been confirmed dead for several days (as must have been the case with Lazarus, since in the Middle Eastern heat, any dead body would show visible decomposition after four days), most people may believe him!
But not on his word alone. Nor on someone who swore to them that his dead uncle was raised after being confirmed dead for days without more evidence. And especially not on someone's word who heard it form someone who heard it from someone else, who heard that someone else saw it, etc. which is the case in Christianity.
That's not what the Bible says. Its says God asked Ahaz to ask for any sign. "Ask for the moon" he says! But Ahaz refuses to tempt God.
Then Isaiah says that God will give him a sign anyway. A sign doesn't have to supernatural. If it is foretold and it happens that is a sing that it comes from God.
Bu, as regard the child it says (Masoretic Text):
In other words she is pregnant right there and then. How can that be Mary?
In fact the Young's literal translation of the Bible says that she is conceiving as God is speaking
If she is pregnant in Ahaz's time then it can't be Jesus unless her pregnancy was to last several centuries! The whole chapter is about Ahaz and his enemies, and the child is a sign by which Ahaz will know that God's promise not to worry about his enemies is true.
In verse 15 it says the child will learn to reject the evil and accept the good. Did Jesus have to "learn" not to accept evil? Or did he always choose the good simply because there is no sin in him? Obviously this child cannot be Jesus.
Other than to quibble, you did not respond to the OT prophesy that Christ would be born in Bethlehem.
Because there is no prophesy in the OT that says that someone by the name of Jesus will be born in Bethlehem or that this "Jesus" (who will be known as the "Nazarene"!) is the messiah Micah is hinting about.
Sure, the Sadducees who were in charge of the Temple. They also rejected all books except the Five Books of Moses (the Torah). The Palestinian Jews had their own scriptures, the Samaritans their own Torah, the Alexandrian Jews their own, and the Essenes their own. Judaism was a heterodox community without a biblical canon agreed upon and the Pharisaical Masoretes did not hold monopoly on the Tanakh. They are the only surviving pre-Christian Jewish sect (unless you wish to unlocked the Samaritans as well).
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.