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.
Point is that it was taught to us AS IF IT WERE DOCTRINE..
LOL
What I do know is that the Calvinist idea that they are gifts given by God to the Elect is nowhere taught in scripture. Both belief and faith are repeatedly - in literally hundreds of verses - described as something men do, not receive.
The idea that faith is a gift comes from confusion between pronouns and the nouns they are linked with in several verses in the second chapter of Ephesians. The problem really arises because English words, unlike Greek, have no gender and because certain words that are singular in Greek have a translation in English that sound plural. Also, it doesn't help that some translations, like the NIV, add punctuation that reinforces the idea that faith is a gift even though it's unsupported by the text. I'll give the Greek and then the English. I'll make the nouns ("the riches" and "the gift," singular neuter) and the respective pronoun ("this," singular neuter) in question bold so it's obvious which goes with what. "Faith" (singular feminine, πιστεως) I'll italicize. (And the really sad thing is that most of the English translations miss out on reproducing some beautiful parallelism in the Greek.
4 ο δε θεος πλουσιος ων εν ελεει δια την πολλην αγαπην αυτου ην ηγαπησεν ημας 5 και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν συνεζωοποιησεν τω χριστω χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι 6 και συνηγειρεν και συνεκαθισεν εν τοις επουρανιοις εν χριστω ιησου 7 ινα ενδειξηται εν τοις αιωσιν τοις επερχομενοις το υπερβαλλον πλουτος της χαριτος αυτου εν χρηστοτητι εφ ημας εν χριστω ιησου 8 τη γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια πιστεως και τουτο ουκ εξ υμων θεου το δωρον 9 ουκ εξ εργων ινα μη τις καυχησηται 10 αυτου γαρ εσμεν ποιημα κτισθεντες εν χριστω ιησου επι εργοις αγαθοις οις προητοιμασεν ο θεος ινα εν αυτοις περιπατησωμεν
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
The thing to note here is that the "that" that so many think refers to faith cannot because it is a neuter pronoun that refers back to the neuter noun "riches" and to that noun's apposition "gift," also singular neuter. It doesn't refer to "faith" because, if it did, it would have been feminine in gender.
A better way of translating this passage would be simply to repeat the noun to which the pronoun refers and to make sure the parenthetical comments appear as such both times.
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ (by grace you are saved) and has raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus so that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding wealth of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus (for by grace are ye saved through faith). And that exceeding wealth, the gift of God, is not of yourselves. It is not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, in which God has before ordained that we should walk.
6,402 posted on Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:38:45 PM by aruanan [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6379 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
If God wanted to save us by grace thru election, then of course he could choose to do so. But that isn’t what scripture says he chose to do.
I didn’t say we reasoned our way to God, and in fact I have specifically rejected the idea that man can reach up to heaven and bring God down. But God in his grace HAS reached down, and how we respond to his grace is a choice he leaves with us. And those who believe him are born again, and made part of Christ, and in Christ receive everything.
But, after His death, you hold that without seeing, without touching, Joe Blow can of himself, choose to believe? Good one
I've read your posts and know how strongly you feel about this as well.
I posted a sample of scripture showing belief is something from us, and that God holds us responsible for doing. Yes, God reaches down - but we accept or reject what he reveals to us. “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”
you are saying it is up to man to save himself. Well that’s OT law and the failure of it, the Law, and the man trying to do it, could never save
human belief is capable of walking away from Jesus doing miracles, and why? because they never believed in the first place. Faith is a gift of God and not from yourselves. How much clearer does it get
“Evangelical” Protestants, as opposed to what other kind of Protestants? Southern fried? Yankee bean?
I think the goalposts are moving.
I don’t think there’s any point in making comparisons between Catholics who don’t believe what the Church teaches and Protestants who do believe what their particular sect teaches.
The thread I linked to has Calvinists and Wesleyans going at each other hammer and tongs. Both claim their distinctive doctrines are taken from Sacred Scripture. Are Wesleyans not “Evangelical” Protestants? I grew up as a Nazarene and hilariously we just thought we were evangelicals period.
The word Bible means library... and Maccabees says that Nehemiah had a library .. so it seems that there was an organization of a prescribed set of books that was never changed
Of course they had writings recognized as sacred, I don't see anything about a canon as such in your references -- the k'tuvim (Writings) aren't mentioned at all.
Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Jhn 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Luk 24:27 — And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.
All of scripture is written by prophets , all of the Jewish OT books are Christocentric, containing prophecy and types of Christ..
.
Act 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled [them] in condemning [him].
I thought according to Protestants, Maccabees itself isn't canonical, so why would you consider it binding? -- the k'tuvim (Writings) aren't mentioned at all. I thought according to Protestants, Maccabees itself isn't canonical, so why would you consider it binding?
I would think if one did believe it was INSPIRED that one would believe what it says.. and it says there was a canon. Catholics can not have it both ways ..yes it is canonical inspired text but it is wrong when it says there was a canon ...
Go back to your Catholic Encyclopedia quote.
Bingo
I am not aware of any "Protestant" claiming the "Apocrypha" was added at Trent. Claiming such is myth or just plain ignorance.
It is fact; however, that the Catholic Old Testament Canon was cast in concrete at the Council of Trent otherwise this would not have been necessary.
yes if it’s not the Jews eating babies it’s those anecdotal baptists, somewhere in the mid-west or south
“From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation,’” (Luke 11:51).
“The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7i66KyR1jUQJ:carm.org/apocrypha-it-scripture+Jesus+knew+the+beginning+and+end+of+the+Jewish+canon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
In my experience anyway, Catholics who "don't believe" what the Church teaches frequently (not always, sadly) don't actually know or understand a particular teaching but are quite amenable to accepting it when it's explained.
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.