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)

[Mad Dawg]

the Eucharist is imperceptible. It's not an 'experience'>

Interesting statement.

Well it's an imprecise statement too. What I should have said is something more like "What makes the Eucharist the Eucharist is imperceptible."

It is apprehended by faith, as Aquinas said before me and as I have now said approximately eleventeen times.

Faith! I would have thought your side would like that! We think that with the gift of faith we can believe realities which cannot be seen. Is that a bad thing in y'all's view?

[Mad Dawg]

One time I went through a list of quotes of that kind and showed how each one, read without the intention to construe them as idolatrous, could be seen as consistent with monotheism and with all the normative doctrines of the atonement.

Another time I offered a conjecture about people vying for extravagance in praise and making witty expressions of devotion as if challenging their companions to say, "You can't say THAT!" and then coming up with some tendentious and outrageous explanation which pulled the extravagance back within the bounds of orthodoxy.

But it was when somebody else quoted somebody like deMontfort saying as clearly as could be that in every respect mary is secondary and derivative and blah blah, and the response from the other side was, in essence, "He's just saying that. He doesn't mean it."

That pretty much sealed the deal for me. When the words of an author are dismissed because they run counter to the accusation, when the evidence which disproves the charge is thrown out BECAUSE it disproves the charge, then there's no more point in arguing.

But there certainly are a lot of excessive statements about Mary from some Catholics.

[OLD REGGIE]

Of course there is no explicit development of what happens in the Eucharist in the Bible. God wanted to make sure that theologians of later centuries could get work, so he left stuff for them to dope out.

I'm tired. That's the best I can do for right now.

I'm afraid that's a pretty lame "explanation".

Of course, we have only the words of Jesus clearly and specifically. What weight does that have compared to later day invented "tradition"?

[metmom]

And do I expect you to keep up with the internal affairs and goings on of various denominations with which you are not affiliated?

What happens in the Catholic church is important to Catholics, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that the RCC serving the cup at communion after centuries of not is going to make headlines in the MSM.

Nobody but Catholics care.

[metmom]

Could be Israel too.

God considers Himself to be the husband of Israel and Israel produced the Messiah.

[OLD REGGIE]

It seems to me clear that God doesn't come in parts. The argument to get there has been posted in this thread, and I saw no effort to contradict it.

If God does not come in parts,
If Jesus is God,
If Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament,

Then ALL of Jesus is present in each fragment, however small, of the sacrament.

IF! True IF!

The chief benefit of the sacrament is participation in Jesus, all other "spiritual" benefits derive from that.

So someone who receives a very small bit or "only under one 'kind'" receives all the benefit he is capable of receiving from the Sacrament.

It would seem to be the VERY sort of legalism of which we are too often unjustly accused for us to insist on reception all the time in two kinds despite any difficulties and problems attendant on that insistence.

If trying to think coherently and clearly is a tradition of men, whose tradition is it to think incoherently and unclearly?

I dispensed with your "Sola" sidetrack because, somehow, I didn't believe you had me in mind.

As for my "legalistic" interpretation of Jesus words; yes, I take the words of Jesus "legastically" as opposed, for example, to Paul when he says "I say", "women should keep silence", etc. How you and I interpret those words of Jesus is another story.

For convenience sake may I imagine you supporting the complete change to the Lord's Prayer?

[OLD REGGIE]

But it was when somebody else quoted somebody like deMontfort saying as clearly as could be that in every respect mary is secondary and derivative and blah blah, and the response from the other side was, in essence, "He's just saying that. He doesn't mean it."

The skeptic might call De Montfort's disclaimer as but the standard disclaimer. He then feels free to fill page after page with over the top "veneration" to Mary.

This "veneration has continued through the reign of "TOTUS TUUS" Pope John Paul II who considered De Montfort's True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin at least one of the most important books he has ever read and gave due credit in his encyclical "Rosarium Virginis Mariae".

What do you expect?

[maryz]

But there certainly are a lot of excessive statements about Mary from some Catholics.

You mean like this?

And with them eke, O Goddesse heavenly bright,
Mirrour of grace and Majestie divine,
Great Lady of the greatest Isle, whose light
Like Phoebus lampe throughout the world doth shine,
Shed thy faire beames into my feeble eyne,
And raise my thoughts, too humble and too vile,
To thinke of that true glorious type of thine,
The argument of mine afflicted stile:
The which to heare, vouchsafe, O dearest dred [object of reverence], a-while.

Oh, wait -- that's by a Protestant to Queen Elizabeth I!

[OLD REGGIE]

I don’t recall at this point. would have to click back through half a dozen posts. Not a priority at the moment.

I think you’d asked some question of an RC about some article or issue related to the Real Presence or some such. and I just wanted to know if you ever got an answer. It was one of those questions that the RC’s hereon typically never answer.

I found the only response which was the typical "wash my hands" baloney.

False attack on Quix

[Mad Dawg]

Perfect.

It won’t make any difference.

[Mad Dawg]

The skeptic might call De Montfort's disclaimer as but the standard disclaimer

How long has a "standard disclaimer" been false because it was standard? What's the matter with a "standard disclaimer"? What is he supposed to do? A non-standard disclaimer?

[OLD REGGIE]

To: Mad Dawg But there certainly are a lot of excessive statements about Mary from some Catholics.

You mean like this?

And with them eke, O Goddesse heavenly bright,
Mirrour of grace and Majestie divine,
Great Lady of the greatest Isle, whose light
Like Phoebus lampe throughout the world doth shine,
Shed thy faire beames into my feeble eyne,
And raise my thoughts, too humble and too vile,
To thinke of that true glorious type of thine,
The argument of mine afflicted stile:
The which to heare, vouchsafe, O dearest dred [object of reverence], a-while.

Oh, wait -- that's by a Protestant to Queen Elizabeth I!

Actually, more like this:

Pope Paul VI,
From the time that we were called to the Chair of St. Peter, we have constantly worked to increase the worship of Mary (culto mariano) [per il retto ordinamento e sviluppo del culto della beata Vergine Maria - esortazione apostolica di Sua Santita Paolo VII, Page 2]

The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name...above every name, that at Thy name, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, p. 260).

The Holy Church commands a worship peculiar to Mary (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri p. 130).

Many things...are asked from God, and are not granted; they are asked from Mary, and are obtained, for She...is even Queen of Hell, and Sovereign Mistress of the Devils. (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931). pp. 127, 141, 143).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 618, 964, 968, 970)

All power is given to thee in Heaven and on earth, so that at the command of Mary all obey-even God...and thus...God has placed the whole Church...under the dominion of Mary (pp. 180-181).

Mary is also the Advocate of the whole human race...for she can do what she wills with God (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, p. 193).

The Glories of Mary: Mary is called the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing by her (p.134)

And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when 'the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than thru Mary.' (p.143)

He who is protected by Mary will be saved; he who is not will be lost. (p.144)

The Glories of Mary: All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth, and nothing is impossible to thee, who canst raise those who are in despair to the hope of salvation. (p.154)

TREATISE ON TRUE DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN - St. Louis de Montfort

[Mad Dawg]

I note there is no answer to the question about what exactly the "this" was, in DO this in memory of me?

What weight does that have compared to later day invented "tradition"?

Doesn't that depend on who "invented" the "tradition"?

[maryz]

Did you leave some out? I don’t see “goddess” there! ;-)

[Mad Dawg]

Shuck and Jive.

The protestant poet called Elizabeth, “O Goddesse.”

It seems to me that the shocked outrage at excesses aimed at a greater queen than barren Elizabeth is emptied of all its power.

It’s just another instance of, “It’s wrong when catholics do it, but okay when non-Catholics do it.”

I’m not interested in that game any more. We won and your side will never acknowledge it in a thousand years. I’ll stick to scholastic musings and explanations. I’m really not much interested in idle fencing.

[OLD REGGIE]

The skeptic might call De Montfort's disclaimer as but the standard disclaimer

How long has a "standard disclaimer" been false because it was standard? What's the matter with a "standard disclaimer"? What is he supposed to do? A non-standard disclaimer?

Whoever said it must be false? Sometimes it's a smokescreen, sometimes real. In the case of De Montfort??????????? You be the judge. On the other hand forget about it.

[maryz]

Of course, we have only the words of Jesus clearly and specifically. What weight does that have compared to later day invented "tradition"?

Don't you have that backwards? We have the words of Jesus only because the Church preserved them and passed them along with the rest of tradition (including the NT). The Church and the practice of the Eucharist predate the NT.

[Mad Dawg]

Nobody but Catholics care [about communion in both kinds.]

Well, I don't think it was a Catholic who brought it up when it looked like a good stick to beat Catholics with. But now that it's not so good a stick nobody cares ... until a couple of weeks when somebody else, who later won't care, brings it up to beat Catholics with again.

[Mad Dawg]

IF! True IF!

You think God comes in parts?

[caww]

As far as I know Jesus said nothing about faith at the last supper concerning the wine and bread....He simply said..”Do this is remembrance of me”. (Mark)

The cup represents the blood of Jesus, which in turn represents His poured out life. (His death)

He further states....” This is my blood of the New covenant which is poured out for many.” (Mark) Gods commitments to His people in the new covenant are possible only thru His death.

I think Jesus focused on these emblems of His “life poured out for many” because He knew men would forget the very price He paid for them personally...and why he emphasized to do this in “remembrance of me”.

Communion is a solemn moment where we DO pause and reflect on the fact it was our individual sins he took upon Himself...and for that we are not only grateful...but humbled that He determined we were worth that price as we observe Communion.

I find that if I were to think of this as somehow a transformation of those elements to Christ Himself somehow entering us then my focus would naturally go to the sense if or not that happened....so therefore that solemn moment becomes self focused rather than on what those elements actually represent for us by what Christ did in taking away our very own sins.