Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
“He [Plinio Correa de Oliveira] does not speak for the Church ...”
The there is nothing in the article that says he does; but, he certainly speaks for himself as a Catholic, and for all those Catholics who agree with him.
Hank
He was not a Catholic, he was a heretic who allowed his small group of followers to teach that his (Oliveira's) mother was a quasi-divine being and that he himself was a divine being (known as "The Axiological Principle").
Oliveira was, putting it mildly, a troubled individual.
But why stop at Oliveira?
There is a guy who lives in his mom's basement in Delia, KS named David Bawden. But he claims that he is Pope Michael I and that Benedict XVI is an impostor.
Why not cite him as a source, too?
I’m holding out for the Holy Baptist Empire to be headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Actually I am interested in why the Catholic Church is both a political system, with its own sovereign state, ambassadors, political leader, etc. and a religious system, with the same leader as its political leader. The only reason I can see is they want both political power and religious power in the world. WHich is exactly what Islam has.
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord,we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them that glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be be side ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that He died for all, that they which live not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by jesus Christ, and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconcilation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For He (God) hath made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:10-21)
Catholic monarchists are a bunch of loonies.
But still, they’re talking about a state church and not a theocracy.
The Protestants were the only ones who were really big on theocracy. Look at Calvin. Look at the English Puritans who overran the Anglicans (members of the state church). And it didn’t work for them either.
“Instead of fretting about the Holy Roman Empire which has about as much chance of returning as Babe Ruth has of suiting up for the Red Sox, you might want to give a thought to the coming marginalization and persecution of Christians in this country. That’s the real issue.”
I have.
Defending Christianity and Christians:
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/objectivism/three_books.php
Opposing the normalization of homosexuality
http://usabig.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=108
Hank
It is not a political system. Like any other church, even down to the Unitarians, the Catholic Church has its own internal laws and its moral laws.
The Catholic Church has never been the same as the civil ruler, and in fact, the reason that many Catholics died was because of the conflicts between the civil ruler and Church authorities.
Henry VIII tried to establish himself as both the civil and religious ruler, but that didn’t work because Christianity can’t work that way, so all he really did was make Anglicanism the state church with the king or queen of England as its head.
The Catholic Church has NO civil power. The only place it has any power is the Vatican, which is a tiny fictional state composed mainly of a handful of clergy and religious that was set up to defend Catholic sites - such as St Peter’s Basilica - from secular powers that were trying to absorb or even destroy them.
“you have to take my word for what I say”
Well, no, I don’t have to take anyone’s word about anything. I chose to take their word about what they believe they are over what you believe they are.
If you don’t see any difference between someone saying what their religion is and someone saying they are Emperor or North America, I think you have a problem.
Hank
;)
Wow, nice to know that the loons I encounter elsewhere are just as loony about Catholicism as they are about science!
Actually, give me ANY government which faithfully believes in the absolute sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
It's the "faithfully" part that's the difficulty...
It certainly sounds both political and religious to me.
I think Muslims and leftist Muslim defenders who are posting on FR to try to defend Islam by claiming that the Catholic Church is the same need to get a little knowledge under their ignorant belts. The only thing in the US that has even been remotely similar to Islam - because while the Puritans wanted to establish a theocracy, Roger Williams undid that and there has never been another mainstream Protestant attempt - is Mormonism.
And the Mormons were defeated by the US Army (under the Constitution based on the rights of man found in [Christian] natural law) and shaped up when they realized they couldn’t get away with a theocracy.
Interestingly, the colony founded by a Catholic, Maryland, specifically provided for freedom of religion. When Calvert’s grandson converted to Protestantism (because of his marriage), he denied freedom of religion and imposed an oath of adherance to his particular Protestant church.
Go and read up on history a bit, boyz.
The answer is simple.
When the Popes were political subjects instead of sovereigns, the political powers over them tried to force them to follow the dictates of the state.
As the elected monarch of a sovereign state that extends over six city blocks, he is not beholden to any politician.
The only reason I can see is they want both political power and religious power in the world.
When the Papacy was at the absolute zenith of its political and military power in the late Middle Ages, the area controlled by the Pope was slightly smaller than West Virginia - or about 3% of the Catholic world.
All this talk of the "Holy Roman Empire" is quite amusing, since anyone acquainted with the history of Europe knows that the emperors and the popes were in constant conflict with one another - and both were in constant conflict with the King of France.
No society in human history has ever been more politically pluralistic than the Catholic Christendom of the Middle Ages.
WHERE did you conclude that I was either a Muslim or a leftist Muslim defender? lol! Because I asked you a simple, provable question about the Catholic Church being both a political and religious system? You need to read your history. Especially Constantine. Perhaps you are just ignorant of the fact that this is true. There is no shame in ignorance. There is shame in attacking someone when you don’t like the truth they show you.
So you maintain that there is a difference between (a) someone saying that he is something he's not and (b) someone saying that he is something he's not.
Being a Catholic isn't a subjective matter where each individual gets to define their own version of what it means to be a Catholic.
It is an objective matter: you either accept what the Church teaches or you don't.
Thanks for the pleasant reply. What actual power/influence did Constantine, as emperor, have over the Church when he converted?
Yes we are. Completely bonkers usually. Mad as hatters on our good days.
He didn't interfere with the Church's teaching, but he really changed the day-to-day lives of pastors and most lay believers by legalizing Christianity.
It's hard for us to imagine today a shift from the psychological pressure of being hunted for one's beliefs to the relief of being welcomed and encouraged.
His influence was not direct, but it was enormous: there were now no new martyrs. There were plenty of places to meet and teach when before there were few. Christians who had to sacrifice their inheritances and livelihoods and social position no longer had to.
Probably there were many new converts who were not particularly sincere or committed, but who were motivated to get on the Emperor's good side.
He definitely changed the dynamic drastically.
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.