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.
“”One might consider how the Douay Version translates Gen. 3:15 as to the identity of or the “seed” of the woman.””
I have a busy day at work today, so I can’t hang around FR,but there is much more on this topic than most people realize.
Here is a good piece on this from the renown Scripture Scholar Fr William Most
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHRI602.HTM#03
The Messiah in Prophecy:
notice that all the following prophecies involve Mary inasmuch as she is the Mother of the Promised One, inseparably joined with Him even in the eternal decrees.
Genesis 3:15: The Protoevangelium: Revised Standard Version: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
Targum Onkelos: And enmity I will put between you and the woman, and between your son and her son. He shall be recalling what you did to him in the beginning; and you shall be observing him in the end.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: “And I will place enmity between you and the woman, and between the offspring of your sons and the offspring of her sons. And it will happen: when the sons of the woman will observe the precepts of the Torah, they will aim to strike you on the head; and when they will forsake the precepts of the Torah, you will aim to bite them in the heel. But for them there will be a remedy; whereas for you there will be no remedy. And they will be ready to make a crushing with the heel in the days of King Messiah.”
Fragmentary Targum: And it shall be: when the sons of the woman observe the Torah and fulfill the commandments, they will aim to strike you on the head and kill you; and when the sons of the woman will forsake the precepts of the Torah and will not keep the commandments, you will aim to bite them in their heel and harm them. However there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, O serpent, there will be no remedy. Still, behold, they will appease one another in the final end of days, in the days of the King Messiah.”
Targum Neofiti: “And I will put enmities between you and the woman, and between your sons and her sons. And it will happen: when her sons keep the Law and put into practice the commandments, they will aim at you and smite you on the head and kill you; but when they forsake the commandments of the Law, you will aim at and wound him on his heel and make him ill. For her son, however, there will be a remedy, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. They will make peace in the future in the day of King Messiah.”
Pius IX: Ineffabilis Deus, 1854: “The Fathers and ecclesiastical writers... in commenting on the words, ‘ I will put enmity between you and the woman, and your seed and her seed’ have taught that by this utterance there was clearly and openly foretold [praemonstratum] the merciful Redeemer of the human race... and that His Most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was designated [designatam], and at the same time, that the enmity of both against the devil was remarkably expressed. Wherefore, just as Christ the Mediator of God and man, having assumed human nature, destroying the handwriting of the decree that was against us, in triumph affixed it to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, joined with him in a most close and indissoluble bond, together with Him and through Him exercising eternal enmity against the poisonous serpent, and most fully triumphing over him, crushed his head with her immaculate foot.”
Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950: “We must remember especially that since the 2nd century, the Virgin Mary has been presented by the holy Fathers as the New Eve, who, although subject to the New Adam, was most closely associated with Him in that struggle against the infernal enemy which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, was to result in that most complete victory over sin and death, which are always tied together in the writings of the Apostles of the Gentiles. Wherefore, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory, so also that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son, had to be concluded with the glorification of her virginal body....”
Pius XII, Fulgens corona, 1953: “... the foundation of this doctrine [Immaculate Conception ] is seen in the very Sacred Scripture in which God... after the wretched fall of Adam, addressed the... serpent in these words, which not a few of the Holy Fathers and Doctors and most approved interpreters refer to the Virgin Mother of God: ‘ I will put enmity.... ‘ But if at any time, the Blessed Virgin Mary, defiled in her conception with the hereditary stain of sin, had been devoid of divine grace, then at least, even though for a very brief moment of time, there would not have been that eternal enmity between her and the serpent — of which early tradition makes mention up to the solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception—but instead there would have been a certain subjection.”
Vatican II, Lumen gentium #55: “These primeval documents, as they are read in the Church, and are understood in the light of later and full revelation, gradually bring more clearly to light the figure of the woman, the Mother of the Redeemer. She, in this light, is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise, given to our first parents who had fallen into sin, of victory over the serpent (cf. Gen 3, 15)....”
Vatican II, Dei Verbum #3: “After their fall, by promising redemption, he lifted them into hope of salvation (cf. Gen 3, 15)....”
John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater §24: “It is significant that as he speaks to his mother from the Cross, he calls her ‘woman’.... Moreover he had addressed her by the same term at Cana too.... this expression goes to the very heart of the mystery of Mary and indicates the unique place which she occupies in the whole economy of salvation.... How can one doubt that... she who was... brought into the mystery of Christ in order to be his Mother and thus the Holy Mother of God, through the Church remains in that mystery as ‘the woman’ spoken of by the book of Genesis (3:15) at the beginning and by the Apocalypse (12:1) at the end of the history of salvation.” And in Mulieris dignitatem, 1988: §11: “At the same time it [Genesis 3:15] contains the first foretelling of victory over evil, over sin.... It is significant that the foretelling of the Redeemer contained in these words refers to ‘the woman’.... From this vantage point the two female figures Eve and Mary are joined under the name of woman....” [We note the multiple fulfillment].
Comments: 1. Three out of four of the Targums (ancient Aramaic versions, plus interpretations, of the OT) show us that Genesis 3.15 is in some way messianic, even though their interpretation is clouded by allegory. Yet they do speak of a victory, even though the same Hebrew verb shuf is used twice, for striking at head, and at heel.
Some reject the evidence of Targums, saying we do not know the date of their composition. We reply (as to date of the messianic prophecy comments): 1)These interpretations were written by ancient Jews without hindsight, i.e. , without seeing them fulfilled in Christ, for they hated Him. 2) Jacob Neusner, a great Jewish scholar, of today, from Brown University, in Messiah in Context reviewed every Jewish document from after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonian Talmud inclusive (completed 500-600 AD). Up to, but not including that Talmud, he found no interest in the Messiah. In the Talmud, interest returns, but the only major point they mention is that he was to be from the line of David. Now it is hardly conceivable that the Targum interpretations, so numerous, on so many points, could have been written in a period when there was no interest in the Messiah. (On the Targums, see also: Samson Levey, The Messiah. An Aramaic Interpretation. ) Some scholars, e. g, R. Le Deaut (in: The Message of the New Testament and the Aramaic Bible (Targum), Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1982, pp. 4-5, put the beginning of the Targums in the occasion when Ezra read from the book, and translated, giving the sense: Nehemiah 8. 8.
2. Pius IX for the most part does not speak in his own name, he merely cites approved authors. But Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus speaks without reservation about the struggle being foretold in the Protoevangelium, and he even uses the fact that this “struggle” was in “common” to Jesus and Mary as a part of the theological reasoning by which he finds the Assumption in the sources of revelation. Further, in Fulgens corona he says Genesis 3:15 is the foundation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: therefore, it must be contained in that text in some way. Vatican II uses cf. before Gen. 3.15, at the request of about a dozen Bishops. Cf. Charles M. Miller, “As it is Written”. The use of Old Testament References in the Documents of Vatican Council II, (Marianist Center, St. Louis, 1973, pp. 49-60). But even so, that reserve seems to apply only to the understanding of the human author—we do not know how much he foresaw. But it does say that the Church now, with the help of later and full revelation, does see the figure of the woman gradually coming to light. Here Vatican II seems to use the notion that the chief Author, the Holy Spirit, could intend more than the human author saw. It is really obvious that He could do so. (This is true even though in Dei verbum #12 where the Council had an opening to say explicitly that there could be such a fuller sense, yet it did not say so. On this cf. H. Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Herder & Herder, 1969, III, p. 220). Still further, John Paul II, without any reservation speaks of the Protoevangelium many times as referring to Mary—sample quotes given above. We note that in Mulieris dignitatem he speaks of the text as referring to both Eve and Mary. This is quite plausible, a case of multiple fulfillment of prophecy. On this latter pattern, cf. W. Most, Free From All Error, chapter 5.
The conclusion from all these sources is that it is quite clear that at least as understood in the light of later revelation, Gen 3. 15 is Marian/Messianic.
Of course one looks for meaning, but one still should translate honestly what is written, and if the meaning is obscure, write a commentary. It would have been fine for a Protestant to translate "in the person of Christ" and then explain in the commentary that the inspired author meant something else. It would be silly but honest. To simply substitute words to fit a preconceived theology is dishonest.
How would you know that is a mistranslation just from reading that Scripture in the Douay Bible?
You shouldn't just read the Douay (or any other) Bible. You should read the Bible in the company of the Church with the mind of the Church. Today, especially, there is ample apparatus available for the curious reader on the Internet. On this issue, for example, one should ask: how did the readers of the passage in the early Church understand it, -- did they think St.Paul decides to forgive by himself and calls on Christ to witness it ("in the presence of Christ"), or did they think that St. Paul acts on authority of Christ as if Christ Himself is doing it ("in the person of Christ"? Which interpretation would better agree with other scripture, the relevant scripture being, of course, John 20:21-23?
You would find, for example, these commentaries by St. John Chrysostom. In his Homily 4 on Second Corinthians he discusses how and to waht extent did Paul share his authority with the local Church in Corinth, and then adds:
Did he for men's sake pardon? No; for on this account he added, “In the person of Christ.” What is “in the person of Christ?” Either he means according to [the will of] God, or unto the glory of Christ.
One the authority of priests St. John Chrysostom had a lot to say in Homily 86 on the Gospel of John:
As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ invests them with the same power.[...]
Let us then do all we can to have the Holy Spirit with ourselves, and let us treat with much honor those into whose hands its operation has been committed. For great is the dignity of the priests. “Whosesoever sins,” it says, “ye remit, they are remitted unto them”; wherefore also Paul says, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” Hebrews 13:17 And hold them very exceedingly in honor; for thou indeed carest about your own affairs, and if you order them well, you give no account for others, but the priest even if he rightly order his own life, if he have not an anxious care for yours, yea and that of all those around him, will depart with the wicked into hell; and often when not betrayed by his own conduct, he perishes by yours, if he have not rightly performed all his part. Knowing therefore the greatness of the danger, give them a large share of your goodwill; which Paul also implied when he said, “For they watch for your souls,” and not simply so, but, “as they that shall give account.” Hebrews 13:17 They ought therefore to receive great attention from you; but if you join with the rest in trampling upon them, then neither shall your affairs be in a good condition. For while the steersman continues in good courage, the crew also will be in safety; but if he be tired out by their reviling him and showing ill-will against him, he cannot watch equally well, or retain his skill, and without intending it, throws them into ten thousand mischiefs. And so too the priest, if he enjoy honor from you, will be able well to order your affairs; but if you throw them into despondency, you weaken their hands, and render them, as well as yourselves, an easy prey to the waves, although they be very courageous.
Choose as to what? Judge as to what? To separate as to what? To approve as to what?
I must have missed the pronouncements of the Lord on Quix; would you be able to forward the email to me please?
What would it do to the person?
IfMary never had to be perfect and sinless, just obedient. I>
Jesus is God, not just another deity hanging around.
If Jesus identifies with us with us fully in our humanity, that would include being borne by a sinful mother, just like the rest of us.
Where does it say this in Scripture?
Oh man, you guys are not Christian at all, are you? Mary is the NT Ark, which carried God for 9 months while growing in her womb.
There is not one verse in Scripture which indicates that the ark foreshadowed Mary. That's merely a Catholic construct used to justify the claim that she was immaculately conceived.
Jesus was carried in Mary; God in the OT was carried in the Ark. I cannot believe that the Reformed have departed from Christianity quite as far as they have.
Yes. And Jesus and the Apostles carried the KJV 1611 so that they would know what to say and do at the appropriate times. Our friends do not really believe that the NT was written entirely in Greek and then translated into Latin. They do not believe that the three liturgical languages of the Church are Greek, Latin and Church Slavonic (in that order). Everything to the insular and unlettered in the US is American-centric and there is not any allowance for any other culture or time in history.
They have not clue one that at the time of the Reformation that England was the equivalent of Albania today, and the US consisted entirely of people as equally savage as Calvin, only with fewer clothes.
They also had high-speed internet and just about everything Jesus said was posted on YouTube. It's fascinating to watch the videos where Christ switches between Aramaic and Greek just to confuse the Apostles and the whole Peter/Rock question gets cleared up when you can see the gestures that Jesus makes.
They do not believe that the three liturgical languages of the Church are Greek, Latin and Church Slavonic (in that order).
Totally false, the Church used Latin to trick people. Shakespearean English has been around for two thousand years and ALL Christians could read and write.
My sediments, too.
. . . in terms of the dogma . . .
I believe all authentic Christians have a role, duty, to be as Christ to a hurting world.
I don’t believe professional religionists are necessarily more so.
Individuals of whatever calling who are more filled with His Spirit are more so. That’s the only criteria and effective difference.
Some things are classified.
Only those with proper decoder rings are candidates for some knowledge.
White hankys don’t work on such code.
Do you believe Jesus suffered and died?
Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
THANKS for your kind reply.
Health, wholeness, provision, peace and Intimacy with HIm to you, your family, particularly your cousin.
If your looking for me to excuse the Catholic legislators, priests and nuns who have supported contraception, abortion, homosexuality and the like, you are in for a long wait -- I actually have MORE contempt for them than I do for Protestants who hold the same position.
That being said, I was not speaking about individual Christians, I was speaking of entire DENOMINATIONS of Protestants who condone such immorality.
Two things:
1. The Catholic Edition is available free on-line and in paperback for less than $20. THE HOLY BIBLE Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
2. I carefully posted 2 Corinthians 2:10 from the RSV Catholic Edition.
2 Corinthians 2:10 Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,
Is the RSV Catholic Edition also evil?
Broadly it includes those whose dogma and identity are founded upon contrasting themselves from anything and all things Catholic. The following working definition was put together by Prof. David Crusuribe of Trinity College:
Anti-Catholicism (like anti-Semitism in some ways) is not easy to define. I am often tempted to apply the "definition" of pornography advanced by Justice Stewart of the United States Supreme Court: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
My definition is drawn from the history of anti-Catholicism in America: I believe that modern anti-Catholicism continues (with some interesting variations) the religious themes of the Protestant Reformation and the secular (anti-clerical) themes of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment periods. In the United States these two strands became intertwined in nineteenth century Nativism, and they have continued (though attenuated) up to the present. Their presence on the Web simply reflects the fact that all kinds of ideas (mainstream and marginal) are now disseminated in this way.
Anti-Catholicism is bot religious and secular in its origins and motivations. Anti-Catholic themes may be loosely categorized as follows:
1. attacking Catholicism as being un-Christian or a cult (in the pejorative and not the sociological sense);
2. ridiculing or misinterpreting Catholic doctrine or practice;
3. ascribing to the Catholic Church a sinister role in an anti-Christian or anti-American conspiracy;
4. distorting or taking out of context illegal or scandalous behavior (especially sexual misconduct) by Catholic clergy or laity.
And leprosy is a disease, not a sin.
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.