Intended Catholic Dictatorship

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.

"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!

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.

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.

So, what does in the "Protestant view" ginomai mean in 1 Cor 15:45? If I remember correctly, you said it meant Christ's mission or work. Your own definition doesn't support that, FK. Especially since Paul uses it only once for both Adam and Christ.

I don't actually remember saying that, but if I did I have no idea what I meant by it now. :) What I think it means now is that Adam BECAME a living soul from the dust in time. Likewise, Christ BECAME a life-giving spirit to humans in time, that is, once there WERE humans to receive it. That would seem to match verse 46: "The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual."

FK, I am curious. Why would anyone think a 19th century Protestant from NJ who likely never went to Greece, maybe even never knew a Greek, let alone a Greek Orthodox theologian, would be an authority on koine or Byzantine Greek?

I can only guess, but it may have to do with him being the first to organize the material in such a usable way. I believe his concordance is still the most widely used in the world across all Christian faiths. While it might surely have been a plus if he had had a Greek background, I don't see it as a negative that he didn't. I don't think knowledge is barred by bloodlines or anything like that. He certainly had the bonafides of a legitimate leading theologian of his day, and he must have done something right since his work has withstood the test of time with so many Christians. There's always going to be some disagreement in translating and people of all ethnic backgrounds are subject to having agendas.

As a result of His death and resurrection, and with the latter being the context here, Jesus functionally became a life-giving spirit, as by faith in Him believers have life, not only eternal life but regeneration of the Spirit, (Eph. 2:1,5) who was not poured out upon all believers (Acts 2:17,18) until Jesus resurrection, (Jn. 7:39; 14:26) for "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (1Jn. 4:9)

Amen, and thanks for noting with great scriptural evidence the significance of the resurrection as support for the timing issue. His "becoming" is tied to His resurrection, NOT to His coming into existence. I really have to hand it to you for so many verse links. That's great. I don't know how you do it. :)

As far as being is concerned, as Jesus had to take on flesh, He essentially was/is spirit, as God the Father is, (Jn. 4:24) and after His resurrection appeared in a glorified, incorruptible physical body, not simply as a spirit, which could materialize at will yet eat food (Lk. 24:36-43) and which type of body believers will have, (1Cor. 15:49; 1Jn. 3:2) as "in Christ shall all be made alive" (1Cor. 15:22; and which is termed a spiritual body. (1Cor. 15:44,46)

Good point. There's another dagger in the "Paul thought Christ was created" argument. Paul obviously knew all the intricacies involved here. We learned many of them FROM him. :)

Also, thank you so much for the table on the uses of "ginomai". That's quite a list.

“Amen, and thanks for noting with great scriptural evidence the significance of the resurrection as support for the timing issue.”

Thanks to God. The whole chapter is about resurrection, with that, or “risen” occurring at least 17 times, and is the continuing subject immediately before the text at issue. Moreover, to have Jesus being created as a spirit in v. 45 would be contrary to the order of v. 46, in which it is stated that that which is spiritual is not first, “but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual,” and which is contrary to what is stated concerning creation, as it is the invisible which gives birth to the visible. (Heb. 11:3)

In the subject of resurrection however, the incarnated Son of God became a life-giving spirit thru His death and resurrection, life giving because He makes the converted soul spiritually alive who was dead in sins and trespasses, so that the believer lives in the spirit, (Gal. 5:25) and spirit because that is essentially his nature, though not simply being a spirit but one with a “spiritual body,” which is what believer will have. How such can eat food and yet come through locked doors is beyond our knowledge, but that is what is revealed in the texts sited, and such is the nature of the spiritual world.

Rendering this as speaking about Jesus being created requires wresting the text out of its immediate context and supposing that Paul is introducing a novel doctrine which is contrary to what he and the other writers say on the issue. Such attempts typically evidence the extremes some will go to in seeking to construe contradictions out of texts which in reality are part of the complementary nature of Divine revelation.

“the table on the uses of “ginomai”. That’s quite a list.”

And in which makes it obvious that it is by no way restricted as referring to coming into existence. And that translation is no easy thing.

Wonderfully said, thanks be to God. In his sermon yesterday our Pastor touched on our spiritual bodies. In joking about playing a harp on a cloud for eternity he affirmed that we will not only have bodies but will be DOING things in Heaven. That is, in addition to worshiping. I really don't know, but it's interesting to think about.

Yes, what “ shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?” (Psalms 116:12) To be able to give, and show gratitude is a privilege.

“In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. {3} And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:” (Revelation 22:2-3)

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.