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.
Wrong on both accounts and condemned already.
EVERY believer ONLY has access to faith through God. Not another mediator except Jesus Christ. Any human who adheres to a doctrine OTHER than directly from God, falls into the same category of picking and choosing independent of God.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The spiritual gift of Pastor-Teacher is a spiritual communication gift for some believers to communicate with others.
It is possible for a body of believers with such a gift to organize and group together doctrines through faith in Christ and provide them, communicate them to other believers as sound doctrine. It is possible for a RCC to perform this task.
It is also possible for any believer to remain in fellowship with God through faith alone in Christ alone and God the Holy Spirit perform that very same work within the believer. The believer is to respond to the Holy Spirit by the protocols God has provided.
If the believer instead picks and chooses by their own agenda, even if they are Roman Catholic obeying the letter of the magisteriun, they have already fallen out of fellowship with God and are following their own volition vice that of the Lord.
LOL!
The Catholic Church allows heretical Popes. Argue with that.
“We have but 22 books, containing the history of all time, books that are believed to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets. There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; r, although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf.” - Josephus
I don’t have Calvinist beliefs, I have bible beliefs
It was binding in the jurisdiction of the western patriarch (the pope of Rome), not the eastern four patriarchates.
Catholic Encyclopedia - The 21 Ecumenical Councils. The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent , Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:
The Council of Carthage stipulates the following canon of the OT (AD 397): "It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees."
Note that the five books of Solomon inlcude Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus. Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon and Maccabees (2 in Catholic, 3 in Orthodox canon) are not included in the Protestant canon. So, all the apocrypha of the Council of Trent were included in the Council of Carthage (397 AD), which was finally ratified in 411 AD.
What the Cathodic encyclopedia means by "most explicit" is that the books were individually mentioned (explicitly) rather than inclusively (implicitly), such as "Paraleipomena" = Chronicles, Esdras — Ezra and Nehemiah, etc. It does not mean that Trent added any new books. That is a Protestant myth or just plain ignorance.
Didn't Rabbinic Judaism have its beginning at Yavneh?
Semantics. If I have a life line that I refuse to throw a drowning man, I am complicit in his death. If I have a life saving medicine and refuse to dispense it because you aren’t on my list, I’ve participated in your death.
Further, scripture COULD say we are saved by grace thru election, but it doesn’t. It is by grace thru FAITH.
I didn't say the belief didn't precede the Protoevangelium. The Infancy Gospel is used as written evidence of such tradition.
Josephus wrote before Yavneh.
The Alexandrian Jews did. That's where the Septuagint came from and was used by them canon. Obviously, the Apostles thought they books were canon because none objected to those books being there, just as no one objected to quoting from the Book of Enoch.
Different Jewish communities had different canons. Even within the same sect (Rabbinic Judiasm) heterodoxy is the norm in that religion. "Jewish" canon was not settled until much later, and then I wouldn't call it "Jewish" since other sects (Alexandrian Jews, Essenes, Sadducees and Samaritans) are also Jews, and the Masoretic text of the Tanakh doe snot represent their canon.
The Protestant canon follows the Pharisaical (rabbinic) canon, a sect unto itself that survived and is erroneously conflating it with 1st century Judaism in general.
Who said they were innocent children? Is that your contention? Saul lost the kingship because he left Amalekites alive. God being merciful and just will deal with the souls of “innocent children”, or is this life more important than the spiritual
Josephus was a Pharisee. What else would you expect him to list but the canon of his sect? What amazes me is why are the Pharisees assumed to have orthodox monopoly on what true Judaism was in the first century AD, or any time since then?
Well, in case you missed it, MD’s post 5066 will serve to answer your demand of me as well.
No poster is here at another’s beck and call. A statement that a poster MUST look up proof or concede the argument is completely without merit. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Nor does any poster get to define the nature of the proof for another, and demand that it be produced or concede the argument.
Such behavior is manipulative, and assumes a mantle of phony authority.
m’kay?
hey, it’s not our fault your leader kissed the koran. As for all of our beliefs about Mary, Quix posted just one book about it here with all of her various titles listed and as I said, we can post Papal writings about Mary and all her heavenly tributes and they are still denied. It’s Catholic theology that we question, nobody hates you
Indeed, Jewish history records the canon fixed by the ‘Men of the Great Assembly’ which existed 410-310BCE. The Council of Jamnia canon story is a Christian invention.
“Obviously, the Apostles thought they books were canon because none objected to those books being there, just as no one objected to quoting from the Book of Enoch.”
No. They often cited the OT, saying, “It is written...” (”Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “’You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”)
The quote from Enoch is similar to the quote of the Cretan prophet. (”One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13This testimony is true.” vs “4It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied...”)
The Sanhedrin moved to Yavenh (aka Jamnia) after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Jospehus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the first century, just about the time when the phantom "council" took place.
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.