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)

[Running On Empty]

It’s my hope that Legatus will opt out of responding to this unnecessary questioning. He has no obligation to give answer.

I posted earlier that I thought it would behoove both of you to give up this doggy bone.

It doesn’t matter to me that Legatus himself brought the subject up.

What matters is that there shouldn’t be a persistent questioning of him at this point of the “discussion”.

It’s his privilege to not respond.

Nobody is “winning” here. (if “winning” is the goal)

Galatians 5: 22-23

[Legatus]

You: But nowhere in your lengthy, nine-paragraph response is there any semblance of an answer.

Me: "down the "specifically" path is "he said/she said" and analysis of the perceptions of a 12 year old."

There's your semblance of an answer, it's the only answer I'm going to provide because this issue isn't THE issue. The point wasn't that Dobson's psychology was harmful to me, the point was that Dobson's psychology was the only applied "theology" Protestantism ever provided me with... and several other things that have nothing to do with Dobson.

You: By making that statement, whether you want to give that impression or not, you seem to be saying your comments are as clear and weighty as Scripture

Me: Without comparing myself to the Divine Author of Sacred Scripture or my typing to His Word I still think it's important to consider that if someone has a great deal of difficultly understanding what I'm saying when I'm recounting my own experiences I don't see how that person should be trusted to properly interpret Holy Writ.

If I write the word "the" and you consistently read it as the word "catflap" I'm not comparing myself to the Deity if I say you can't read.

You: You've already acknowledged my question as a "halfway decent point,"

Me: OK, well finally we get to a point that seems halfway decent.

With a tiny amount of levity I ask whose side are you on anyhow? If my secondary point is to show that you're not paying attention then you've demonstrated that dramatically several times in one post. Oh, and it is and you have. We were at the point where you were behaving halfway decently, you hadn't raised a "halfway decent point".

"Why not wait to direct the conversation toward another goal until we accomplish the first goal?" Because your goal is not my goal. We're not going to explore the issue. Well, I'm not, I suppose you can do whatever you like.

With minor digressions I have been attempting to return the discussion to the original point raised by stfassisi when I very briefly mentioned Dobson by writing "No wait... I forgot James Dobson, and with good reason. Three years of therapy to get that mess out of my head, thanks a lot Jimmy."

MarkBsnr asked me to elaborate and I did knowing that there would be snark with which to deal.

Then you suggested repressed memories, I dismissed the suggestion and here we are.

You: Instead, you compare some of us to "decadent atheists"

I'll repeat the entire paragraph:

The accepted standard of conduct and behaviour of people on the internet is beneath the dignity of rational creatures of God. I mentioned another website in an earlier post, on the whole it is populated by liberal atheists (they are at least the most vocal participants), other than the specific subject matter I would be hard pressed to discern the difference between the conversations there and the conversations here. So what's the point of Christ if His loyal disciples are indistinguishable from those who wallow in the spiritual decadence of this world?

I stand by that. I regret ever mentioning James Dobson because that allowed the entire discussion to be derailed.

The world wants to know what the big deal about Jesus, well it used to in a way, our own behaviour has answered the question for most people. I include myself in this.

I am a horrible example of a faithful Catholic because I know what a good Catholic should be like, or rather WHO a good Catholic should be like. So the question is, What should a good Protestant be like... or even who?

To return entirely to what stfassisi was talking about in post 5878 with:
"When I was involved in a protestant community I was always amazed by the people running around telling everyone they were saved and guaranteed heaven. Meanwhile they would watch the smuttiest TV shows on and talk about it along with speaking about others behind their back. I realize we are all sinners and this is not indicative of all protestants, but this is brazen,it’s as if in saying you are saved gives one a license to be proud of sin"

What practical tools should or does Protestantism offer to the believer to avoid becoming that sort of person? Does it matter?

[metmom]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”330

.

.

.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

[metmom]

Thanks. That, too.

[D-fendr]

Good points.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

[Cronos]

What is interesting is that wagglebee posted some time ago, an expose on the poster who posted this article — he’s been banned by the way. It seems that this guy is a leftist who hates ALL Christians and used this to attack us all. The lefti-pinkos went first for the Anglicans, then the Methodists, then PCUSA and ELCA and now attck the Catholics.

[Cronos]

So, do you spread the gospel to the non-elect, or, like the good Calvinist Amish decide that it’s not worth it, spreading the gospel to those who are already damned from before time?

[Cronos]

so what does that say about Christianity?

well, it doesn't say anything if the posters are not really Christian. I notice that the non-Catholic posters who normally stay civil like harley or even mostly civil like metmom and bkay, didn't react in the same way to your personal experience. That's probably the differentiator between Christians who would understand and sympathise and people who seek turmoil and strife.

[Cronos]

Agatho thereby provided the tacit basis for the condemnation of Honorius on these grounds: that by neglecting to preach the truth, Honorius left the Lord's flock exposed to ravaging wolves, as indeed the monothelite Eastern Patriarchs were and under whom the faithful suffered for many years.

[Cronos]

The council's judgment is consistent with Agatho's letter.

It made a distinction between the fault of Sergius and Cyrus on the one hand and that of Honorius on the other. A reading of the condemnation reveals Honorius is neither grouped with nor shares the same fault of those "whose doctrines" were execrated—i.e., Sergius, Cyrus, etc.

While Honorius is anathematized "with them"—that is, sharing a similar punishment—it is not because of any doctrine attributable to him. Honorius is condemned because of what the council "found written by him to Sergius;" in which letters Honorius "followed his [Sergius's] view" about keeping silent and thus "confirmed his [Sergius's] impious doctrines" (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 343).

[Cronos]

Likewise, Pope Leo II (682-683) faulted Honorius because he "did not endeavor to preserve" the faith and for having "permitted" it to be assaulted, but not for having either invented, taught, or adhered to the heretical doctrine (Paul Bottalla, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 111-112). Elsewhere, Leo blames "Honorius, who did not, as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence" (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:455; emphasis added). In sum, Honorius failed to teach.

[Cronos]

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, held in the East and comprised almost in its entirety of Eastern bishops, addressed Agatho as the "bishop of the first see of the Universal Church" and received his letter—and thus its claims—as "divinely written as by the chief of the apostles" (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 349-350).

In his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho (678— 681), asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and all of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, "have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 328—339). This included Honorius and since both Agatho and the council (by accepting the word of this letter) affirmed the orthodoxy of Honorius who was condemned for failing to teach, to be a good shepherd as he a bishop, was supposed to be

Honorius resisted the heresy insofar as he urged "silence" with regard to the expression "one operation," which he rightly considered Eutychian. This is not good enough for a bishop who has the duty to mind his flock and prevent it from going into heresy, and hence he was condemned for failing in this

[Cronos]

A reminder again -- the council said "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines" --> and we know that in Honorius's letter

that Honorius wrote that, "on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man" (Scripta dilectissimi filii quoted by William Shaw Kerr in A Handbook on the Papacy 196, emphasis added).

Sergius wrote to Honorius to obtain not a dogmatic teaching but a rule of silence that Sergius misrepresented as necessary to end needless wrangling over disputed expressions.

Honorius, without further investigation, accepted Sergius's presentation at face value, seeing the dispute as "an idle question" to be left to the "grammarians who sell formulae of their own invention" (Scripta fraternitatis vestrae, quoted by Fernand Hayward in A History of the Popes, 90).

In order for the case of Honorius to disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, it is not sufficient to claim the pope was a monothelite. It must be demonstrated (which it cannot) that the pope taught (note: taught, explicitly) heresy as defined by Vatican I (The pope must exercise his office as "teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," and he must define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be "held by the whole Church" (Pastor aeternus 4, iv, quoted in The Church Teaches, John F. Clarkson, S.J. et. al, ed., 102). .

[Cronos]

So, no matter how some may try to spin it, it is a fact that Honorius wrote that, "on account of the simplicity of man and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, define neither one nor two operations in the mediator between God and man" i.e. he said nothing at all

it was wrong of a bishop NOT to take care of his flock by teaching AGAINST Heresy so while Honorius didn't teach the heresy, he didn't teach anything against it, HENCE the council making a differentiation between the proponent of the heresy by "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God (i.e. Sergius and other heretics)" and a different action against Honorius "and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." because Honorius kept silent and failed as a bishop to teach

A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching" --> like any teacher who teaches

In order for the case of Honorius to disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council, it is not sufficient to claim the pope was a monothelite. It must be demonstrated (which it cannot) that the pope taught (note: taught, explicitly) heresy as defined by Vatican I (The pope must exercise his office as "teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," and he must define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be "held by the whole Church" (Pastor aeternus 4, iv, quoted in The Church Teaches, John F. Clarkson, S.J. et. al, ed., 102). .

[Cronos]

btw, did you follow that error of yours in thinking there was only one limbo? Perhaps it would help to check the other areas where what your group may believe and say about The Church are wrong?

[Cronos]

1. It was (as repeated to you ad nauseum), not dogma, not doctrine -- it never was
2. It was never taught as a FACT because of the above point.
3. If you believe that that was what you were taught as FACT, that could be due to your own personal interpretation considering points 1 and 2

[Cronos]

Dr E: Calvin came down on the side that since it is God who determines the length of our days, time in the womb, time outside the womb, it is a benevolent and merciful perspective to believe that all babies who die go to heaven.

Cronos: Including all babies killed by abortion?

No answer from Dr. E yet -- are all of these victims of abortion going to heaven as members of the elect? Or are some non-elect and going to hell?

[Cronos]

“All Protestants believe that nothing they do can lose their salvation (but they haven't read the Bible carefully enough).” he's right. Even one Scripture would show that salvation is an end result and not a set in concrete condition. As the apostle Paul said at Phil. 2:12, salvation was something to be “worked out” and Jesus said at Matt. 10:22, “..the one that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved”.

Good point -- we can learn from civil posters. Thanks

[Cronos]

You do know what a quote is don't you? Neither of your quotes has any bearing in reality thus are misleading at best, outright falsehood at worst.

Ditto for the articles.

[Cronos]

We do not define what "children's limbo" means because we "don't know" -- it may be anything, but we know that God is love, God loves Children and Children who die without sinning are only tainted with the sin of Adam, unlike the rest of us.

we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."