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)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

MAD DAWG: "So, I am tired of spending energy trying to point out how stupid and malicious it is to think the Pope doesn't condemn Islam."

NATURAL LAW: JPII understood that love is the greatest weapon against evil

So JPII loved the Koran enough to kiss it?

His actions were indefensible.

But still some try.

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." -- Proverbs 28:26

[D-fendr]

It is no accident that Calvin was a lawyer.

Again, however you get there, your theology ends in a very bad god.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Perhaps my question wasn't clear because you did not address it at all.

What is it about one man that causes him to choose to believe and what is it about another man that causes him to not believe?

Is one guy more pious, more holy, more intelligent, better looking than the other guy?

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your post:

"If we couldn’t agree on whether or not the mission T-shirt should say “Jesus loves you” or “Maybe Jesus loves you”, then we needed to part company."

That's where I end up also. Argue over interpretation all you want, but if you end up disagreeing on that foundation, well…

[D-fendr]

What is it about one man that causes him to choose to believe and what is it about another man that causes him to not believe?

I have my own experience, other's have theirs. I don't believe it can be put to one thing. It's all of a piece, but the pieces vary.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It is no accident that Calvin was a lawyer.

lol. I'll take that as a compliment. 8~)

But it's not legalism that requires the support of Scripture. It is how the Bible tells us we are to know the true from the false, the good from the bad, the right from the wrong.

"What saith the Scriptures?"

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But surely (may I call you Shirley?) your church has given you a clue as to why one man believes and another man doesn't.

What makes one man believe and another man not believe?

Most Christians should be able to answer that question, if for no other reason than they (hopefully) know why they themselves believe.

[D-fendr]

It is how the Bible tells us we are to know the true from the false, the good from the bad, the right from the wrong.

If it were magic, we'd all agree then. But we don't. So, there's more to our endpoint theology than scriptures, which are the same for both.

To illustrate, we can take the scripture Mr Rogers, no slouch in the scripture department, offered earlier in his post against double predestination. You can then show how the same scripture confirms double predestination.

“God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

[Dr. Eckleburg]

God does not shirk from assuming the full responsibility for events of this world, He does not present Himself as a feel good God that only wants to be your buddy, He welcomes the distain of unregenerate men. He does not point the finger at the devil.

Not one bird falls from the sky, nor one hair from your head without the ordination of God.. He is sovereign over all life and events.. He declares His sovereignty all throughout the scriptures.. One must read with their eyes closed or blinded not to see that ..

God proclaims His sovereignty over nature and politics and life and death ... He wants us to celebrate and find rest in the assurance that HE IS GOD

AMEN!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Great post!

"Thy people shall be willing in the day of YOUR POWER( ps 110)

amen!

[D-fendr]

I learned some time ago not to project my experiences or needs on others. What is the “only way it can happen” for me is not for others.

[Legatus]

You mean this?

That's the one, thanks.

I understand the desire that people have for the pope to confront islam the way we perhaps would. If I shout "your's is a doctrine of demons" at a Protestant he'll shout right back at me. I have the impression that if I shouted "your prophet was a pedo" at a muslim there would be a body count and if it made the news people who weren't even involved would die. I think we used to call people like that savages. The same rules of engagement don't apply when dealing with savages with guns and explosives.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I'm not asking you to project anything on anyone.

I'm asking you why you believe and the guy next door doesn't.

How can you preach the Gospel if you don't know the rebuttal to that Gospel?

Why do you believe and they guy next door doesn't?

Let's make this even easier.

Why do you believe?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That’s a wonderful verse. “Whosoever believeth.”

Who believes? That’s what I’ve been asking you a dozen times today.

So who believes and who doesn’t? What’s the difference in those two men?

[D-fendr]

Pope Benedict in his Regensburg lecture compared contradictory passages from the Qur'an:"There is no compulsion in religion" "spread the faith through violence".

Of course the muslims had a serious fit anyway, illustrating your point.

But I think his approach, much more subtle and foundational than this brief snippet, is wise, very smart. I think it drives a wedge and can be successful over time.

[Quix]

LOVE IT.

BELLY LAUGHS.

MetMom's comments were GROTESQUELY UNTRUE???

REALLY?

Restraining myself reallllly hard here regarding definitions.

Finding how many out of what 100,000 [nope--bad guess on my part, out of 400,000] or what number of cases = grotesquely untrue???? . . .

OK, per the below, evidently 30% of 400,000 priests are married in the USA. THAT evidently equals "grotesquely untrue." That's tolerable given different sensibilities. I was thinking it was a few dozen or so.

MD:
This is too miuch, First when someone gives evidence of disgracefully awful catechesis WHILE claming the authority of experience it is beneath me to address the argument and to point out that I who have received ZERO catechesis (auto-didact here) know more than she does.

I read MetMom as an expert on HER CORNER OF ROMAN CATHOLOCISM. JUST AS RNMOMOF7 IS AN EXPERT ON HER CORNER OF CATHOLOCISM. JUST AS DR E IS AN EXPERT ON HER HUBBY'S CORNER OF CATHOLOCISM.

TO ME,

DENEGRATING, DISMISSING OUTRIGHT, DEMEANING, BELITTLING THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THEIR CORNER OF RC-DOM IS GROTESQUE.

PERHAPS They have too justifiably little to say reasonably accurately about Roman Catholocism at large. I think that's arguable because there's such a huge consensus amongst such departed RC's as to what the ills of RC-dom are. However, for the moment, let's assume you are right.

YOU ARE NOT RIGHT ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE OF THEIR CORNER OF ROMAN CATHOLOCISM BEING GROSSLY INACCURATE. Insisting that their descriptions of their EXPERIENCE of Roman Catholicism is mostly inaccurate is, to me, disingenuous and grotesquely insulting.

From. . . .

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/catholic-priests.htm

-----------------------------------

Catholic Priests: Some Facts Related to the Roman Catholic Church

Catholic priests currently number over 400,000 worldwide. Of these, approximately 65% are considered diocesan priests (assigned to specific parishes within geographic regions) and 35% are considered religious priests (not necessarily assigned to a specific church community). It is now estimated that there are over 1 billion Roman Catholics in the world, representing over 17% of the global population. Although there is no church wide census, and there are various criteria for determining membership, scholars now estimate that Roman Catholics comprise nearly fifty percent of all "Christians" in the world. In 2001, there were approximately 63.7 million Roman Catholics in the United States.

-------------------------

from:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

------------------------

What percentage of priests have a homosexual orientation?

Nobody knows, with any degree of accuracy.

Any discussion of the role of homosexual orientation in the priesthood -- in fact any discussion of clergy abuse itself -- is hampered by a lack of hard, reliable data.

Some estimates of the percentage of current priests with a homosexual orientation:

Analysis of the estimates of others:

	According to Amanda Ripley of Time Magazine, estimates range from 15% to 50%. 3
	According to Bill Blakemore of ABC News, "...nobody knows what percentage of the American priesthood is gay; estimates range from less than 10% to more than 30%." 4

Personal estimates:

	Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy, chastity, and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. He once estimated that 30% of the priesthood is homosexually oriented. 5 Elsewhere, he is quoted as estimating that between 25% and 45% of American priests are homosexual in orientation. 6 He told the Boston Globe: "If they were to eliminate all those who were homosexually oriented, the number would be so staggering that it would be like an atomic bomb; it would do the same damage to the church's operation...It would mean the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world. And it's very much against the tradition of the church; many saints had a gay orientation, and many popes had gay orientations. Discriminating against orientation is not going to solve the problem."
	Sister Maryanne Walsh, spokesperson for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that it would it be difficult to find evidence to support these Sipe's estimates of the percentage of gay men in the priesthood. She feels that it is also irrelevant. She said: "There's no real purpose in saying whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual. The issue is whether they can make a commitment [to chastity]." 6
	Bishop Jerome Listecki is an auxiliary bishop in Chicago. He estimates that "perhaps more than 10%" of priests have a homosexual orientation." (Emphasis ours). 5
	Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president says that there is such a high percentage of gay priests in the church that he is concerned that 'the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession.' 5 In his book, "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," -- published in the year 2000 -- he estimates that 50% of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation.
	A NBC report on chastity and the clergy found that "anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent" of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. 7
	Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 48.5% of priests were gay. 8

Actual surveys:

In the Fall of 1999, the Kansas City Star sent a questionnaire to 3,000 priests in the U.S. 73% did not reply. The low response rate could be anticipated. One would expect homosexuals and bisexuals to be reluctant to respond to the questionnaire since it deals with such a sensitive issue, and originated from a newspaper. Homosexual and bisexual priests would probably be less likely to reply to the survey. Among the 801 priests who did reply:

	75% said they had a heterosexual orientation;
	15% homosexual;
	5% bisexual. 9

During 1990, Rev. Thomas Crangle, a Franciscan priest in Passaic, N.J., mailed a survey to 500 randomly selected priests. Of the 398 responses,  about 45% said that they were gay. ₁₀

Conclusion: If we assume that all of the estimates are of equal validity, then about 33% of priests have a homosexual orientation -- about one in three.

However, as Father Donald Cozzens wrote:

"Beyond these estimates, of course, are priests who remain confused about their orientation and men who have so successfully denied their orientation, that in spite of predominately same-sex erotic fantasies, they insist that they are heterosexual." ₁₁

Many define "homosexuality" in terms of actual same-sex behavior. They regard themselves as not homosexual because they have never acted on their fantasies, desire and orientation. To that might be added an unknown percentage of priests who have a bisexual orientation, and consider themselves neither homosexual or bisexual.

. . .

What does the future hold?

A USA Today/Gallup poll taken during 2002-MAR found that:

	72% of Roman Catholics say the church leadership has done a bad job dealing with sexual abuse by priests,
	74% say that the church is more concerned with protecting its own image than with solving the problem. 13 FROM: http://www.rentapriest.com/roman-catholic-traditions.htm
39 Popes Were Married! 10/25/2002 by Father John Shuster, Married Roman Catholic Priest My name is Father John Shuster.I am a married Roman Catholic priest. Please call me "John".    I want to tell you about a crisis in our Roman Catholic Church. There is an alarming shortage of celibate priests.1 The shortage is so acute that many parishes are being forced to close.2 At the same time, there are over twenty thousand married priests here in the United States. To put that in better perspective, one out of every three priests has married. That’s a large number of priests available to staff parishes - over four hundred priests, on average, per state. Married priests are still priests, but we are no longer clerics.    Let’s examine the difference between a priest and a cleric. A priest is engaged in a vocation of service, a spiritual calling from God. A cleric occupies an organizational position in the institutional church.    When a priest marries, he is dismissed from the clerical state. But he retains the fullness of the priesthood. He should be referred to as an "ex-cleric." Many mistakenly use the term "ex-priest". He is ordained to be a priest, not a cleric. Ordination is permanent. This fact is validated by church law, Canon 290.    Twenty-one church laws entitle Catholics to utilize married priests. In marriage, by virtue of Canon 290, our education, our ordination and 12 centuries of Roman Catholic tradition, priests retain the role of administering to people as Jesus did. We married priests have NOT abandoned our faith. We continue to help Catholics in need and look forward to our full reinstatement when the man-made law of celibacy is rescinded.    At the threshold of the millennium, thirty percent of all priests are now married. It is felt that God is calling us back to our original Roman Catholic tradition. And, since society has finally recognized their equality, it is time the church granted women equality for pastoral service. In fact, many married priests and their wives minister as a couple. Married Priests in the Early Church    History fully supports a married priesthood. For the first 1200 years of the Church’s existence, priests, bishops and 39 popes were married.3 Celibacy existed in the first century among hermits and monks, but it was considered an optional, alternative lifestyle. Medieval politics brought about the discipline of mandatory celibacy for priests. Let’s remember the words of Jesus: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." St. Peter, the pope who was closest to Jesus, was married. There are three references in the Gospel about St. Peter’s wife, his mother-in-law and his family. Based on Jewish law and custom, we can safely assume that all of the Apostles, except for young John, were married with families. 4    Married priests and their spouses were the first pastors, the first bishops, the first missionaries. They carried the message of Jesus across cultures and protected it through many hardships. They guided the fragile young Church through its early growth and helped it survive numerous persecutions.    Pope John Paul II recognized this in 1993 when he said publicly that celibacy is not essential to the priesthood.5 This pronouncement offers great promise toward resolving the problem of the shortage of celibate priests. The early Church was a network of small family-based communities throughout the Mediterranean region. Life was marked by a sense of joyful expectation. Jesus said that he would return and the first Christians believed that it would be soon. Led by married priests, they met at each other’s homes to celebrate the Mass. Strangers were invited to share the bread and wine. No one was excluded from receiving Communion. The strangers soon became friends, joined the young Church, and brought others to hear the good news of Jesus.    Sacred Scripture documents that priests and bishops of the early Church were married. In the New Testament, in his first letter to Timothy, chapter 3, verses 1 through 7, St. Paul discusses the qualities necessary for a bishop. He describes a "kind and peaceable" father, a man with a family. As part of his description, St. Paul even asks the question, "...how can any man who does not understand how to manage his own family have responsibility for the church of God?" St. Paul established many small communities and left them in the hands of married priests and bishops.    Church leadership was based in service and was accountable to the people. Each member of the church had a voice in the community. As we read in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15, verse 22, group decisions were made in agreement with the whole assembly. The early Church is portrayed as democratic, where leadership listened to the community and responded to its needs. Roman Influence in the Church    How did we evolve to the large institution that we have today? What happened to the married priesthood? It began in AD 313, when the Roman emperor Constantine legalized Christianity within the Roman Empire. With his legislation, the early Church evolved from a persecuted group of small communities to become the official faith of a world power under Emperor Theodosius in AD 380.    Constantine’s intentions in adopting Christianity were not entirely spiritual.6 His position was being challenged by political groups; he needed to display his power. Forcing other politicians to become Christians was a test of their loyalty.    Constantine used the new religion as an effective tool to weed out his enemies. It strengthened his political power. Constantine also was faced with unifying the many peoples his armies had vanquished. Christianity was the key to establishing a new Roman identity in the conquered peoples. On the surface he made them Christians to save their souls, but this new religion was his final act of conquest over them.    With Christianity now the official religion of the Roman Empire, many things changed very quickly in the Church. Priests from the small communities were given special social rank among their new Roman friends. They no longer had to hide from Roman soldiers and fear for their lives. Instead, they received pay for their services as priests and enjoyed special privileges in Roman society. Bishops were given civil authority and assigned jurisdiction over the people in their area.7 Romans, who were members of the local ruling elite, quickly converted to Christianity as ordered by the Emperor. These were men trained in public life and skilled in city politics.8 They became priests and rapidly moved into positions of leadership in the Church.    These Roman politicians, with their newly acquired priesthood, brought the impersonal and legalistic attitudes of government to the Church. The celebration of the Eucharist moved from small home gatherings to what we now call "mass" involving huge numbers of people in large buildings. The celebration of the Eucharist became a highly structured ritual that imitated the ceremonies of Rome’s imperial court. This Roman influence is the source of our vestments, genuflection, kneeling, and the strict formality of Mass.    An institutional Church structure emerged mirroring that of the Roman government. Large buildings, church tribunal courts, rulers and subjects began to replace the family-based small communities that were served by a local married priesthood. The new Roman priests worked to shift authority away from the married priests in the small communities and consolidate political power around themselves. With the assistance of the Roman Empire, Church leadership became a hierarchy that moved away from its family origins and into the Roman mindset of a ruling class that was above the people in the street.9    Other changes occurred that shifted emphasis away from the people and towards the preferences of the Roman politicians. The Church adopted the Roman practice of men alone holding institutional authority. There is solid historical evidence that women served as priests and pastors prior to this time.10 Women Priests in the Early Church    In 494 women’s participation in the leadership of small communities came to an end when Pope Gelasius decreed that women could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. 11 This legislation is perhaps the strongest proof we have of women serving as spiritual leaders in the early Church. Women’s roles in the church diminished as popes and bishops marched in lockstep with the Roman authorities.

[D-fendr]

Oh, and thanks for the link. I'm reading an article that pertains to a recent discussion:

The reason God is not be the author of sin and evil is that he limits his power in relation to creation. By his own choice he is not, in the inimitable words of Baptist theologian E. Frank Tupper, a "do anything, anytime, anywhere kind of God." He could be, because he is omnipotent, but he chooses not to be that kind of God. Why? For the sake of having real, rather than imaginary, relations with human persons…

[Dr. Eckleburg]

No, it was just the opposite. He politely sat and listened. There was some question whether or not he knew what was being said, but I'm sure there were priests there that did. Imagine how he would have been condemned in the muslim world for walking out and applauded in the Jewish and Christian world.

Of course you are correct. Amazing, isn't it, how some try to rewrite what we saw with our own eyes?

At the conclusion of Tamiri's six-minute diatribe against the U.S, and Israel, Tamiri walked over to the seated pope and shook his hand.

Then, when the pope stood, they shook hands again!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don’t comment on unattributed quotes where the poster doesn’t have the courtesy of explaining who is speaking.

But to help you out and show you it is possible to do so, here is the unattributed link which you are excerpting...

http://www.mercy-church.org/wordpress/?p=3061

[D-fendr]

So who believes and who doesn’t? What’s the difference in those two men?

You mean other than they are two different men with different experiences making different choices at different times and different places under different conditions?

Nothing. To me as I'm thinking about it now, that's a lot of differences.

They are also similarities: both created human beings, that's the same. God is unchanging, the same for both. However, what people tell them God is can be be quite different, and that can, not necessarily always, have a major effect, but it's also part of the different experiences and different choices.

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, other than the old Calvinism, and you know my view on that. If it's something else, you can just post it. Maybe I'll have an aha moment.