Intended Catholic Dictatorship

Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

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.

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.

—Reginald Firehammer (06/28/10)

[smvoice]

Mark, why did Jesus Christ have to die? Seriously, what does the RCC teach about the death of Christ? And what about the resurrection of Christ? What was the reason for that? Or is there any real reason for it, according to the RCC?

[RnMomof7]

We understand that nobody will keep it perfectly, but one of the purposes of the teachings of Jesus is how to strive to imitate Him. To strive to keep the Law of Christ is to imitate Him; our Judgement will be on our deeds and failure to repent for what falls short of Christ.

Everything we do falls short of Christ ..everything that comes from the human heart falls short of Christ... it is the sin of pride that tells us that we can imitate Christ in anyway .

God knew no man could keep the law in anyway.. it was given so we know what sin is... it was given so we could see how far short we fall of the perfection and holiness of God ... it allowed us to see that we could never save ourselves.. that we need a Savior..

That Savior was Christ, the only one that could keep the law perfectly..The law points us to Christ ... The law condemns it does not save

[smvoice]

Is there more you'd like?

Yes. You to read the Bible rightly divided. :) And come to the knowledge of the truth. :) How much more can I ask for until you ZOT me? :0)

[boatbums]

Boatbums, does this qualify? :)

Ummm...yep. I'll try to remember it as an example where a Catholic disputed a doctrinal issue with another Catholic.

[Judith Anne]

Mark, why did Jesus Christ have to die? Seriously, what does the RCC teach about the death of Christ? And what about the resurrection of Christ? What was the reason for that? Or is there any real reason for it, according to the RCC?

SV, why did Jesus Christ have to die? Seriously, what does your so-called church teach about the death of Christ? And what about the resurrection of Christ? What, according to your so-called church was the reason for that? Or is there any real reason for it, according to your so-called church?

PS, I don't care what kind of so-called church it is, because there are thousands of them, and they're all different, so forget that part.

[1000 silverlings]

kind of like the thousands of novus ordo churches

[smvoice]

So-called? Judith Anne, you would be wise to just skip past my posts. I don't think I've EVER needed information enough to ask your input. BUT, Judith Anne, I'll humor you once, since I so often find humor when you pop up somewhere. First, and always remember this: Jesus Christ did NOT die so you could impress Him by eating fish on Fridays.

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you THE GOSPEL which I PREACHED unto you, which also YE HAVE RECEIVED, and wherein ye stand; by which also YE ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you that FIRST of all that which I also received, how that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS, according to the scriptures; and that HE WAS BURIED, and that HE ROSE AGAIN the third day according to the scriptures." 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

Now, who said these things? Hint, it was NOT Peter the Pope 1.

Why was Christ resurrected? I'll let you answer that one. Another hint: It was NOT so Mary could stand by His side, directing the world through Him.

It would be so refreshing if I thought you actually wanted to know what my church teaches. I would share every belief with you. But your posts seem to argue against any real conversation. With "the OTHERS", like me.

[RnMomof7]

False a couple of times here. We will be Judged by Christ on, among other things, how we kept His Commandments. We understand that nobody will keep it perfectly, but one of the purposes of the teachings of Jesus is how to strive to imitate Him. To strive to keep the Law of Christ is to imitate Him; our Judgement will be on our deeds and failure to repent for what falls short of Christ

Mark where does Jesus teach that it is ok to sorta keep the law ? Or do the best we can?

Douay-Rheims Bible Gal 3:
1 O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have you suffered so great things in vain? If it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith?

6 As it is written: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.

7 Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing, that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, told unto Abraham before: In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse. For it is written: Cursed is every one, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that in the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest: because the just man liveth by faith.

12 But the law is not of faith: but, He that doth those things, shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus: that we may receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.

15 Brethren (I speak after the manner of man,) yet a man's testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth, nor addeth to it.

16 To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, And to his seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years, doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one.

21 Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe.

23 But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our pedagogue [schoolmaster]in Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue [schoolmaster}

. 26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if you be Christ's, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

[boatbums]

Most of my posts have to do with factual issues concerning the Bible, the history and other tangible subjects, where evidence casts doubts on some aspects of what people traditionally believe based on them.

And what, may I ask, is your motivation for only showing a one-sided view? You certainly must know that there are many scholars that disagree with your "facts", yet you never show that other side. Why is that?

I accept you will never just take someone's word for what they believe and you will only change your mind if someone can show you tangible proof (maybe not even then). But what I contend is that God HAS given many proofs not only that he IS but that he is knowable - to the extent that we can humanly understand him, of course. He has not left us in the dark but he requires first that we approach him in faith. After that, he says, he will reward us with further knowledge. We must make that "first step", that "leap of faith" and that is what trips up many. They cannot let go of their need to see first, then believe. God says believe first, then you will see. I pray one day you will.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

See also L’Osservatore Romano: An International Scandal

[RnMomof7]

Forget it, they think Paul was nuts or a false apostle or not really the author of scripture.. what ever works at the moment .. seems a very fallible council was wrong

[smvoice]

I know...but I thought your point was beautifully made and HAD to comment!

[RnMomof7]

The sabbath rest is indeed Christ.. we can rest in Him

[1000 silverlings]

So it appears that the Catholic Traditionalists are all dying off, or being pushed out the door, in favor of the Brave New Church which went hippie 40 or so years ago, and hasn’t come back. In spite of the facts, posters here deny it. Why is that?

[RnMomof7]

Thanks ...

[MarkBsnr]

What council was it that sealed the cannon??

You have been away from the Church a long time, haven't you? The NT Canon was proclaimed (not sealed unless there was wax involved) beginning at Hippo in 393 and confirmed in succeeding Councils.

If Trent was wrong about the canon.. just maybe they are wrong about other things..

They are correct about the canon. And the other things.

[RnMomof7]

I have never had an intelligible reply from any non Catholic anywhere anytime as to why they believe that the Canon of Scripture (minus the Lutheran hacking of the Deuterocanonicals) is actually the word of God complete and true

Actually Rome added non inspired writing to the OT without the authority to do that ,so I guess maybe the Catholic bible is not completely the word of God .

The scriptures written over thousands of years has been proved historically and prophetically correct..

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 states: "But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And you may say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

There is more than 300 prophecies about Christ in the OT.. all fulfilled..

[Brian Kopp DPM]

On the contrary, it is the spirit of VII hippies, liberals, progressives, etc that are dying off. That whole scene has no staying power; liberalism is infecund. They still hold the reigns in many positions of authority, but their time is swiftly passing.

The coming generation, the smaller, more pure faithful remnant Ratzinger predicted years ago, will be almost entirely conservatives or traditionalists. Just ask any liberal bishop. Their biggest fear is that they have already lost the battle for the future of the Church. The future is in Summorum Pontificum, not the spirit of VII.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

the Catholic Traditionalists are all dying off

Wow, again, I just have to say I've not seen such a blatant misreading of the Catholic scene in quite some time. The future of Catholicism belongs solely to the trads (and conservatives, who eventually will be trads too.)

[boatbums]

Appreciate the kudos. What a twit...

I liked the way you spoke like Gollum would (it was funny), but just like him, you may be deluded. He was a twit, not the party you may have thought you were speaking of.