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.

"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!

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.

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.

And in your theology, this desire for hell would have been implanted by God? That's what it sounds like to me.

God makes no one sin. The fall of Adam ruined humanity.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world.

Because of Adam, we are now "God's enemies".

Rom 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

God in His mercy CHOOSES to save some. God does not choose to save ALL, but leaves them to their own deserved punishment.

If you want JUSTICE then all DESERVE Hell.

I don't put much stock in the "retroactive" definitions you are so happy to use.

With a little bit of effort, one can debunk nearly everything. The benefit is one has to make very few commitments and has few responsibilities. The penalty is one is left with little to believe in -- which is only a problem if it turns out that believing is the first step toward knowledge of that which makes eternal life worth living.

Of course your criticism of my use of the Catholic encyclopedia, once admitted, works both ways. No source NOT Catholic could possibly understand the issue well or have the love of truth necessary to pursue the matter down to its den.

Assuming you have a modicum of understanding of the issue it's not necessary to understand the issue very well if the "talking points" are given to you. This is especially true if you are on the "payroll" so to speak.

It is of course just as silly to criticize papal infallibility by arguments irrelevant to the definition as it is to criticize transubstantiation because the consecrated elements do not look like flesh and blood. You are in the ridiculous position of saying, "If you'd said what I want you to have said, you'd have been wrong."

Your magic definition of infallibility didn't exist in the 7th century. How convenient it is to say "Honorius was not teaching Heresy by our recently developed, and retroactively applied, standards.

Yeah. Okay. I'll concede that.

But we didn't say the false thing you wish we had said so that you could call it false. And according to what we DID in FACT say. Honorius's posthumous verdict of heresy simply does not touch on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. So the persistent, albeit boring, effort to trap us in some inconsistency once again fails -- unless you get to write the rules, rules which have nothing to do with reason.

By it's very nature, the Council's delcaration of Herest was "infallible".

But really, if we are going to be serious, we need to look at the documents and to go over them calmly. Reaching the verdict before we know the details is not exactly the highest of human functioning.

Does the tiniest part of you believe the entire subject of Papal Infallibility was without controversy? Have you "calmly" reviewed the documents and come to the conclusion that the Bishops (etc) of the Catholic Church were unanimously in favor of the definition of Papal Infallibility? Does your "calm" review explain why approximately 170 Bishops connveniently 'took a hike' prior to the final vote?

Your side (seemingly a much used term of yours) might do well to make an effort to attempt to objectively examine the reading of history on the "other side".

Denying the validity of the Council, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick refused to speak at any of the general sessions after June 4th, 1870. Bishop Joseph Strossmeyer of Diakovar told Lord Acton, There is no denying that the Council lacked freedom from beginning to end. To Professor Joseph Hubert Reinkens, Strossmeyer said, that the Vatican Council had not had the freedom necessary to make it a true Council and to justify its passing resolutions binding the conscience of the entire Catholic world.

lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the Council that solemnly defined it. Years later, Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov, observed with disdain that, The Vatican Council has as much right to call itself a Council as todays meetings of delegates from the Soviet republics can claim to be a free expression of the will of the people. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx

John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, Part II

Then they had them to another place called Mount Innocent, and there they saw a man cloathed all in White, and two men Prejudice and Ill-will continually casting Dirt upon him. Now behold the Dirt whatsoever they cast at him would in a little time fall off again, and his Garment would look as clear as if no Dirt had been cast thereat.
Then said the Pilgrims, What means this? The Shepherds answered, This man is named Godly-man, and this Garment is to shew the Innocency of his life. Now those that throw Dirt at him, are such as hate his well-doing, but as you see the Dirt will not stick upon his Cloaths, so it shall be with him that liveth truly innocently in the World. Whoever they be that would make such men dirty, they labour all in vain; for God, by that a little time is spent, will cause that their Innocence shall break forth as the Light, and their Righteousness as the Noonday.

these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness

More RC double-speak. The quote you cite doesn't say "heaven," does it? It doesn't say infants will be in the presence of God or see His face.

"Perfect natural happiness." lol. I prefer the supernatural happiness of heaven.

I bet those babies supposedly in Limbo would prefer that, too.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not official Catholic teaching thus it is unfair for you to attack it. tch tch

Now this is official:

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Oh wait! The best the Catholic Church can do is hold out "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized children.

Never mind.

Oh wait! The best the Catholic Church can do is hold out "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized children.

In the HOPE that someone is actually paying attention...

--------------------
Hope

1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful."84 "The Holy Spirit . . . he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life."85

1818 The virtue of hope responds to the aspiration to happiness which God has placed in the heart of every man; it takes up the hopes that inspire men's activities and purifies them so as to order them to the Kingdom of heaven; it keeps man from discouragement; it sustains him during times of abandonment; it opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude. Buoyed up by hope, he is preserved from selfishness and led to the happiness that flows from charity.

1819 Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hope of Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was purified by the test of the sacrifice.86 "Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations."87

1820 Christian hope unfolds from the beginning of Jesus' preaching in the proclamation of the beatitudes. The beatitudes raise our hope toward heaven as the new Promised Land; they trace the path that leads through the trials that await the disciples of Jesus. But through the merits of Jesus Christ and of his Passion, God keeps us in the "hope that does not disappoint."88 Hope is the "sure and steadfast anchor of the soul . . . that enters . . . where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf."89 Hope is also a weapon that protects us in the struggle of salvation: "Let us . . . put on the breastplate of faith and charity, and for a helmet the hope of salvation."90 It affords us joy even under trial: "Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation."91 Hope is expressed and nourished in prayer, especially in the Our Father, the summary of everything that hope leads us to desire.

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94 She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.95
--------------------

I HOPE that takes care of the disparagement of "hope".

He was making the distinction between men of age and infants. But of course men must commit a sin in order to be condemned

That is a works-based damnation. The WMCF makes it clear that this is not what the reformed believe. One has to do nothing to be condemned.

No, God says all types and nations and races of men are saved

That is a preposterous proposition by Charles H. Spurgeon in his sermon "Particular Redemption" of 28 Feb 1858. Talk about bending the evidence to fit the doctrine!

Nowewhere does the Greek word pas mean "some", but is translated in as – all, all things, every, all men, whosoever, everyone, whole, all manner of, every man, every thing, any, whatsoever, whosoever, always, any thing, etc.

You, OTOH, have told us you do not believe the Bible and you question its authority. You question the very existence of God.

And for a good reason and I have also told you why (human corruption in it, of which there is overhwleming evidence). And, yes, I do question the existence of God. Why not? I don't know what God is, so I condier all options.

So arguing with you is like arguing with an atheist.

Believers are all the same in the boldness of their belief, whether they claim or disclaim the divine. I simply don't know (isn't that what agnostic means?). There is a qualitative difference between the unbelief (atheism) and unknowledge (agnosis).

How Christain of you! Why do you find agnosis unacceptable? Do you know everything? Should I drop any contact with you simply because you don't know something? Imagine if God took your attitude?

And, to use your line, when you find a human being who knows everything, let me know.

There's no common ground. It's fruitless.

You mean to tlel me that you find "ruitful common ground" with Catholics or Orthodox? You could have fooled me. I don't recall many of your posts expressing fruitfulness and common ground with them.

You asked what the Church believes on the matter and I answered (and by the way you will note by a careful reading of the passages from the catechism, Scripture is referenced for the teaching that we are permitted to believe all unbaptised babies go to Heaven)

Again though, the question as asked requires two answers, one strictly theological that reflects Church positive teaching, and another that reflects the Church’s permissive teaching. I will not be drawn into a trap, and neither will the Church, that seeks to equate and thus destroy one (the permissive) by using the other (the positive). Refer to my previous post if there remains any confusion, but in brief, the two are not mutually exclusive.

IOW, in an objective analysis of the point, we are actually in agreement as to the destiny of unbaptised infants, and indeed for the same Scriptural reason (”suffer not the little children to come to Me”), but yet you persist in asking the same question.

I can only conclude two things: Either you didn’t bother to read the passages from the catechism I provided (when asked to do so by the way), or you do not wish to accept the plain truth that they answer your question in full.

The last word is yours, if you need it.

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.