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)

[Quix]

You are over-thinking this. Try to think as a child. It isn’t that difficult. To refuse to accept the un- or anti-Scriptural teaching of, say, a bishop (even of Rome) is the same thing as a soldier refusing to carry out an illegal order. To carry it out is to disobey. Just ask any court martial. It doesn’t depend at all on what led to what. Wrong is wrong is wrong. Why one thing led to another is an interesting and, perhaps, useful subsequent exercise for the historian and his readers. But it finally is no justification for accepting as right that which is wrong.

---

QUITE TRUE. QUITE TRUE.

THX.

[OLD REGGIE]

I don’t know the instance. I can’t comment on it.

It is surprising that you would find it necessary to comment on something which you knew nothing about. That is unlike you.

Your comment "I agree with NL" concerned this statement of his "Not believing someone and accusing them of lying are two completely different things."

Yes, in of itself this statement is logically correct. It was made, however, in reply to one specific, personal, claim.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Person A: "I bought the encyclical."

Person B: "The Encyclical was never for sale, it is available free on the Vatican website. We can therefore conclude that the rest of of the posting is equally bogus."

Person A proves conclusively that the Encyclical in question is for sale and provides the link to the Pauline Books And Media site where it is listed for sale.

Person B: "I simply do not believe you."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please explain how you justify this exchange between A and B and come to the conclusion B is not calling A a liar, notwithstanding the Jesuitical and unrelated smoke screen response "Not believing someone and accusing them of lying are two completely different things."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Recap:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A: "I bought the encyclical."

B: The Encyclical was never for sale, it is available free on the Vatican website. We can therefore conclude that the rest of of the posting is equally bogus.

396 posted on Sunday, August 29, 2010 11:12:05 AM by Natural Law (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
****************************************************************************

A:

To: Natural Law

I've already wasted too much time on you today. So pay attention...

CHARITY IN TRUTHPauline Books and Media
Encyclical For Sale

The publisher sells the book for $6.95. So I was over-charged 55 cents...in addition to the $6.95 I wasted on the book since it's not worth the paper it's written on. I've already got Marx' "Das Kapital" in order to understand the lies of communism, so I really didn't need another book supporting the same evil philosophy.

407 posted on Sunday, August 29, 2010 12:35:06 PM by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
******************************************************************************

B:

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I simply do not believe you.

509 posted on Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:14:38 PM by Natural Law (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
====================================================================

[OLD REGGIE]

Yes. Once again I ask — do you believe in the Trinity?

I have answered that question freely during my 9 years on Free Republic. There are times, however; when it is obvious that the motives of the one(s) asking the question have nothing whatsoever to do with an interest in honest dialogue but, rather, to use as fodder for thinly disguised personal attacks.

Don't be expecting a reply from me.

[OLD REGGIE]

Dodge of the Question # 236. If one has a problem stating and owning up to his views on the Divinity of Christ, they lose any standing in questioning Christian doctrine.

My views are well known and may be found in many of the multi-thousands of posts I have made. Feel free to look them up. In the meanwhile please be advised I have "standing" to question any Christian doctrine I wish.

For you:

[Alamo-Girl]

I’m honored to call all three of you my brothers in Christ!

[Mad Dawg]

If we are accepted by Christ Thru Faith and not works, how can the RCC say we are lacking?

My latest hobby-horse is "esse v. plene esse" = being (essence, what-it-is) v FULL being (etc.)

Swallow hard and stipulate, just for as short a time as possible, that we teach the real deal, that our sacraments are efficacious, that the communion of the saints, including asking for their intercession and advice [and that of angels -- I have been under assault lately, the enemy decided to go for my body so against him I ask the help of God, AND of my angel and of Gabriel (my 'name in religion' is Dominic Gabriel, because both these "mighty men of God" -- one angelic, one human --seems to specialize in bringing glad tidings) and of Michael (patron of law enforcement officers and I was one briefly)], and all the rest ....

IF we were right about that stuff, then by holding back from us, one would be turning away from all these allegedly marvellous and powerful helps.

It is well-said that any landing you walk away from is a good landing, and by God's grace working through faith in both of us I look forward to making your better acquaintance in centuries to come.

But I grieve a little because I DO believe this stuff, and I think you are missing out on a lot of totally wonderful graces and helps and benefits and consolation and even on a certain intellectual and moral clarity -- or, at least, great helps towards that clarity ( certainly a great many Catholics despise those helps ... . )

THis may seem more kumbaya than the Church really is, and I AM a kumbaya kind of guy, I guess. But we DO teach that the ORDINARY was to become a member of "THE Church" is to be baptized. (that's why it is technically incorrect to refer to a baptized Christian who later becomes Catholic as a "convert.") But God is not confined to the ordinary.

I'm going to stop. I had a rough night and evidently it is showing up in involved syntax and verbosity. I hope my point is not thereby rendered completely opaque.

[Mad Dawg]

My overdue response will be brief.

First: Yeah!

Second: Yep, it does not good to try to refute somebody's argument by assuming another set of premises. And argument from Scripture will not and, in a way, OUGHT not to have power over someone who does not think Scripture is authoritative.

More loosely: I think the mathematical "proof" is a sort of diagnostic. If we can't make that or of argument, we need to go back and re-examine our thinking. And when we Can make such an argument, one of its benefits is that it clarifies what our premises are. And should some later argument lead to an absurdity, then we have already identified the premises so we know where the adjustments need to be made.

Sorry for delay and curtness. I'm backed-up and unexpectedly weary.

[Mad Dawg]

And Scripture and life observations indicate to me that far more Proddys AND RC’S go through the motions than HEART-FELT-LY FOCUS ON CHRIST/FATHER/SPIRIT ALONE.

A Buddhist once said, "If you hold a lotus to a rock long enough, who knows, it might take root." The risk of "motions" is that some people will just go through them. But if the motions are good, we can hope that maybe one day the goodness will sink in deep enough to make a difference. I had studied Scripture and gone to Church for quite a while before it hit me that the forgiveness and love God has for sinners applied to me and my sins. THe logic was simple: God forgives sinners
I am a sinner.
God forgives me.

But somehow I had never 'applied' it.

So I had been going through the motions - and one day the engine caught ...

[Mad Dawg]

No. I'll hold to it.

The soldier who obeys an illegal order because he thinks it legal still does a bad thing, but the quality of the act in his soul is different from that of the solider who knows that it's illegal or who obeys because he likes the whole thing.

Even law looks for a mens rea, a criminal intent, and thus distinguishes between capital murder and negligent homicide.

[bronx2]

Honest dialogue is the farthest concept from many who have frequented this thread. Just look at the bold faced type, large letters, cartoons, and first now esoteric mathematical concepts employed to advance the message of the UFO devils they worship.

Yet, we are commanded by Jesus to love one another and do good to those who persecute us. In my volunteer adult bible class I display the responses from some to warn the faithful of the wiles and wickedness of the ravenous wolves set to destroy the Bride of Christ.

The more exposure and attendant explanation provided their deceitfulness and duplicity the easier it is to shield true believing Christians from their rants. How sad.

[Quix]

Yet again, I thoroughly agree with your post.

LUBB

[Quix]

LIKEWISE DEAR SISTER.

[Mad Dawg]

. Any institution that claims to churn out the only true people of God deserve the scrutiny they get.

If we claimed that, the argument would be relevant. That is not our claim. The two distinctions to hold onto are those between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" and between "esse" and "plene esse".

Any institution that derives their rules and regulations from men deserve to be looked at closely and examined under the microscope of God's Word.

Of course, we do not think we do that. Was Scofield (sp?) not a man?

And that institution is telling people with every sacrament, every doctrine, every tradition, that they are doing exactly that: churning out good Christians. Redemption cannot be taught.

No offense but that is NOT WHAT WE CLAIM. For crying out loud, read Dante if you want a fuller poetic reflection on our claims. The Archdiocese of Washington is producing some very fine articles which have been posted on FR, and a recent one was precisely directed AGAINST the notion that 'going through the motions' was anything other than a kind of idolatry.

Since you mention the heaven's place thing I will only see that to say that Ilike puzzles seems little tu-quoque-ish. (Brandy. mmmm!)

Once again, the materialist division between "real" and "spiritual" rears its modernist head. I think justice is "realer" than a rock in the eye.

You all complain that it is hard to pin us down because we seem to keep shifting our position. I think this SEEMING is so because the distinction between the simplicity of a thing and the simplicity of its explanation is neglected. God, we think, is utterly simple. But since we experience so few simple things and our language is formed around complexities, it takes a lot of words, provisos, and distinctions to express anything accurate about God.

But not everyone is called to that effort. While "God is Love," is a mystery inexhaustible by mere discourse, it is pretty much all one needs to affirm, with whatever level of coherence and precision one can muster -- be it never so small -- to "enjoy Him forever."

It is the materialism which seems to dominate post Reformation thought that views the Church was MERELY an institution. We view it as Body, Bride, an "army terrible with banners", as "mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won." We are rebuked ourselves for being materialistic in our Sacramental thought, but the rebuke often comes from those who see only the superficies of the Church.

Yesterday an "interdenominational" group met to witness, pray, and sing in front of planned parenthood. One friar was there, Fr. Steven, who is VERY bald. So he was wearing the Dominican habit of white tunic, scapular, and hood, AND a tan baseball cap to protect is fair and nekkid scalp.

I thought, "Yeah, that's about right."

[Mad Dawg]

Who made me a judge or divider over them?

I did NOT comment on something I know nothing about. I commented on the proposition that there is a difference (and, I think, an important one) between saying, "You lie," and "I don't believe you." I think I know almost as much as to be known about that.

I do not understand and cannot imagine what NL meant when he said you cannot buy an encyclical, I have bought several (and even read some.) Not understanding, I did not get involved.

When I don't understand, I tend to resort to the basics, such as the difference between a statement about my belief and a statement about somebody' intention.

[Mad Dawg]

I’m honored to call all three of you my brothers in Christ!

As far as I'm concerned you're all a bunch of weirdos.

So I feel right at home.

:-)

[Cronos]

It's simply this -- a Unitarian does not believe in the basic Christian ideas of:
1. Christ is God
2. God is ONE - a Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Now if you as a Unitarian want to believe that, so be it, but if you then want to debate further Christian dogma, it's like someone arguing calculus when they do not agree that 1+1 = 2. Namely, it does not help those talking calculus and the topic goes on a nice merry-go-around.

It's like you or me getting on a thread between Mahayana and Hirayana Buddhism when we don't agree with their fundamental concept of rebirth.

If you as a Unitarian want to argue with us on the nature of the Trinity -- that's fair, just as you / I could argue over whether there is such a thing as rebirth with a Buddhist. But if we try to move further into various Buddhist theology, we are wasting everyone's time.

[Mad Dawg]

I’m working, without notable success, on keeping myself unspotted from the world. Born again virgin here ....

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I do not understand and cannot imagine what NL meant when he said you cannot buy an encyclical, I have bought several (and even read some.) Not understanding, I did not get involved.

Not understanding? lol.

Yeah, it would have been most presumptuous if you had simply told Natural Law you know the encyclical had been published and was for sale, as I had stated.

[Natural Law]

I do not understand and cannot imagine what NL meant when he said you cannot buy an encyclical,..."

I owe you an explanation. My original statement, "The Encyclical was never for sale, it is available free on the Vatican website" was incomplete. I meant to say that it was not for sale from the Vatican, it is freely available to all who wish to have it, as was evidenced by the link provided.

I will say again so that there is no misunderstanding that I do not believe that an anti-Catholic would purchase a document that they hold in contempt when it is available at no cost. It defies credibility.

I will further state that any single or group of posters who have displayed a complete lack of veracity on many, many, many, many occasions are not owed the benefit of the doubt by me. I will continue to begin any assessment of their claims and postings with "I simply do not believe you". I with the proper substantiation I may progress to I do believe it.

[bronx2]

Paul exhorted us to “Keep the faith” and so we too must ignore their effete self serving commentary but collect it and use as educational materials to enlighten the lambs of God against their wiles and wickedness.

Jesus saves even the most desperate sinners. God bless