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)

[smvoice]

And, while you're at it . . . perhaps you could manage an explanation about how rabid clique types who seem to have such a horrid time living by FR Rel Forum's rules manage to abide so flawlessly by the Sermon on the Mount?

I've been wondering the same thing, too, Quix.

There's a WHOLE lot of ATTITUDE going on with those Beatitudes. I can almost hear a snapping finger or a 'talk to the hand' instead of a "blessed are the meek'... Which would be fine if they were not held up as the be-all and end-all sweeping stairsteps to heaven itself.

[Quix]

I don’t mind being challenged to love more or better.

Prayed for that all my life.

However, part of my brief before The Lord is to pop balloons of gross hypocrisy—particularly in the garb of RELIGIOUS PONTIFICAL SAINTLY HAUGHTINESS. LOL.

AND given the evidence, I question that any of the frequent rabid clique sorts of posters would recognize

LOVE FROM APATHY;
LOVE FROM HATE;
LOVE FROM LAZINESS;

Doesn’t sound or feel like they’re very familiar with the concept—much less the loving actions required.

Thanks for your insights and discernment.

[stfassisi]

Many would say that God knew she would say yes and I don’t disagree with that since He is God and knows everything. The crux of the utter disdain for Mary seen here makes it seem as though she was compelled by God, unable to refuse, nothing more than an incubator.

I think the key to understanding this is that Scripture says God is unchangeable. Thus, He creates everyone as one "NOW" in the mind of God -knowing what decisions will be made FREELY by our decisions and without taking away the ability for us to CHOOSE or God would be changed

From Saint Thomas Aquinas...

God is altogether immovable, which is confirmed also by the authority of Holy Scripture. For it is said: I am the Lord and change not (Mal. iii, 6) ; With whom there is no change (James i, 17); God is not as man, that he should change (Num. xxiii, 19).*

[Quix]

There is, though, that curious event where Moses changed God’s mind . . . according to God’s own Word.

[betty boop]

.... more and more, Reason and Logic are considered the rules of functioning of the meat computer.

The only "fly in that ointment" is this: Man is not a meat computer!!! (NOR a "meat machine" as he also has been recently described). He is a created son of God from the Beginning. That is, he has a spiritual dimension that never reduces to pure reason and logic, nor to pure material physics either.

Nowadays science has found it marvelously convenient to try to assess man and his position in society and nature in quantitative terms. But man does not bottom out in descriptions that are quantitative.

[Mainly science in recent times has been trying to "get man out of the picture altogether" in order to preserve the putative pristine "objectivity" of science. As if science could exist without a human mind to contemplate it in the first place. The "worst sin" seems to be anthropocentrism, which is postulated as a very grave error (see: Jacques Monod's theory of science for details. Or ask me about that.) Thus in particular, human subjectivity is deeply suspicious to "official" contemporary science, presumably because a man's subjective experience cannot be exhaustively "quantified." But that's an issue for another time perhaps.]

The most important thing about man, if you were to ask me, is that his nature is inherently qualitative — for he was made in the Image of God. And God Himself never boils down to "numbers," and thus He forever is beyond the reach of human logic. And accordingly, so is His image/creature, man.

Plato described man as the zoon noun echon, that is: the ensouled creature, or animal, that thinks. Which strikes me as an amazingly astute insight, for a man who did not know Christ Jesus — Who is fully Human and fully God at once — whose Sacrifice was a revelation of the Logos, the Word of God, Who was God, and Who was with God in the Beginning.... Who is Alpha and Omega, and the effective order of everything occurring in between in mortal time.

If we are unhinged from God's Truth, then reason and logic — having lost their divine ground — will probably get us into a whole lot of trouble pretty soon.

Oh, I see I must correct myself already: We're already in a deep heap of trouble on that score....

Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your wonderful insights!

[Hank Kerchief]

Let us please ignore the historical fact that virtually ALL dictatorships have been secular, NOT Catholic.

Please consider the questions at this post, thank you!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2578704/posts?page=560#560

You might also consider all those dictatorships of history from the Hebrew kings to the “devine right of kings” rulers of Europe.

hank

[stfassisi]

“”There is, though, that curious event where Moses changed God’s mind . . . according to God’s own Word.””

I think that God understands all things as one NOW takes care of that-thus, making no change in God but, only seemingly changed in the mind of man in interpreting it God was changed. Since Scriptures cannot contradict it’s the only logical conclusion.

More on this from Saint Aquinas...

That God understands all things at once and together

THE reason why our understanding cannot understand many things together in one act is because in the act of understanding the mind becomes one with the object understood;* whence it follows that, were the mind to understand many things together in one act, it would be many things together, all of one genus, which is impossible. Intellectual impressions are all of one genus: they are of one type of being in the existence which they have in the mind, although the things of which they are impressions do not agree in one type of being: hence the contrariety of things outside the mind does not render the impressions of those things in the mind contrary to one another. And hence it is that when many things are taken together, being anyhow united, they are understood together. Thus a continuous whole is understood at once, not part by part; and a proposition is understood at once, not first the subject and then the predicate: because all the parts are known by one mental impression of the whole.* Hence we gather that whatever several objects are known by one mental presentation, can be understood together: but God knows all things by that one presentation of them, which is His essence; therefore He can understand all together and at once.

2. The faculty of knowledge does not know anything actually without some attention and advertence. Hence the phantasms, stored in the sensorium, are at times not actually in the imagination, because no attention is given to them. We do not discern together a multitude of things to which we do not attend together: but things that necessarily fall under one and the same advertence and attention, are necessarily understood together. Thus whoever institutes a comparison of two things, directs his attention to both and discerns both together. But all things that are in the divine knowledge must necessarily fall under one advertence; for God is attentive to behold His essence perfectly, which is to see it to the whole reach of its virtual content, which includes all things. God therefore, in beholding His essence, discerns at once all things that are.

6. Every mind that understands one thing after another, is sometimes potentially intelligent, sometimes actually so; for while it understands the first thing actually, it understands the second potentially. But the divine mind is never potentially intelligent, but always actually: it does not, then, understand things in succession, but all at once.

Holy Scripture witnesses to this truth, saying that with God there is no change nor shadow of vicissitude (James i, 17)

[betty boop]

You are my very dear brother in Christ, Quix; now and always!

May God ever bless you and your dear ones. May His Holy Spirit continue to guide your testimony for the benefit of "the Gentiles."

[Quix]

I’m skeptical that we have much of a clue what

an eternal God Almighty means by

NEVER CHANGING, NO SHADOW OF TURNING.

I do believe it means at a minimum that

HE IS DEPENDABLE; HIS VALUES AND WAYS DON’T CHANGE; HIS CHARACTER AND NATURE DO NOT CHANGE.

Beyond that, I think I’d be fantasizing.

Aquinas not greatly withstanding.

[Quix]

LIKEWISE! I CHERISH YOU DEAR SISTER IN CHRIST, AS WELL, NOW AND ALWAYS.

And look forward to long chats in Heaven with you and those you love there.

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] To wit: It is precisely the "reason" of mortal men that is our downfall ...

This is one of the most important differences in theological outlook possible. It's not a new thought to me, but it is good to have it so clearly stated.

Stating it so, though, is a conversation stopper. What is left to us if reason is bad?

This seems to be a pet subject of yours - And we have touched upon it before. But I hasten to add that you have me "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I did not say that reason is bad. The operative statement was this:

Human reason has it's place, no doubt, but that place is not in trying to discern the things of YHWH. -roamer_1 #525

Mantic poetry or bootless yelling seem the only options have.

That isn't necessarily so. I don't believe this has to be an either/or situation - One CAN have both: Hence, Rap music. ; )

We would say that like everything truly human, reason is good, for "God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good."

And I would fully concur with that statement. What I am attempting to draw your attention to is the inherent limitations of reason.

However, we are fallen. So our reason is weak and subject to being ignored, led astray, or misused.

That, I think, is granted. But one must also consider another somewhat obvious factor. I do not believe that human reason, even in it's natural state (without the curse), can compete with the unlimited potential of the Father.

And that leads me to an illustration of how reason can lead one astray: One can use reason to say:

(1.) Christ is God.
(2.) As the body is connected to the Head, so we will be like Christ.
(3.) We will be like God.
(4.) Ergo, we will be gods.

Now, I don't believe that to be true (and neither do you, I am certain). But many have used this reasoning, and religions have been born from it... And if one were to wrongly divide the Word, the idea has support in Scripture.

An extrapolation such as this really has no support in truth, and the fallacy lies in the fact that YHWH has declared that no one is like Him. So, while we are made in His image, and it is written that we will be "like" Him, it is obvious that the similarity alluded to is certainly still (far, far) subordinate to the Infinite One, no matter what the outcome finally is. YHWH is GOD. There is no one like YHWH.

But without being so radical, it seems that it is hard to realize the effect that human reasoning has (albeit well meaning in most cases) in changing the things which God has unequivocally declared. IOW, "making His words null in effect."

Where it is not purely hubris, it is ALWAYS human reason that does this, every_single_time. So, while we are free (even encouraged) to reason, and to extrapolate, when our reasoning effects the Word, which the Father has declared to be inviolable, that must be the point where reason must be set aside, and we are left only to be in obedience, even though we don't know why.

In the case of Solomon, he may have "rationalized" his idolatry, but that is a misuse of reason. Specifically, he ignored revelation and its authority. Revelation is a grace and it is a gift to acknowledge its authority. But once those gifts are given, reason directs that revelation be followed.

That presupposes the revelation to be true, which often is *not* the case. What you might believe is a misuse of reason, might well be a misuse of revelation.

So, for us, the folly of man's wisdom is (or at least includes) relying on reason alone.

Oh, it certainly includes reason.

And, again, from our point of view, your post is logically inconsistent. You lay out some principles (Scriptural texts) and an example (Solomon) and then argue to a conclusion. But the conclusion at least appears to discredit the method by which it was reached.

Not at all. This perception arrives from the supposition that I discount reason altogether, which I most certainly do not.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You do understand that for every bible verse you render, another can find a verse to question the interpretation of first verse rendered.

ROTFLOL. Don't believe it. That's the lie the magisterium tells its captives in order to keep them from reading the Bible for themselves to know the truth.

You've been given dozens of verses, some from the mouth of Christ Himself, which tell you that all those who have been given true faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior are saved.

And STILL you deny it.

Matthew 7:21 simply says that some men have been given this true faith and some men only think they are in receipt of true faith. And how does Christ tell men to know the difference? We follow His lead. We search the Scriptures to see if this be so.

Rome tells men that salvation is difficult and complicated and confusing; a series of works man must accomplish before he is good enough to deserve salvation. Rome lies. No man but Christ is good enough nor equal to the penalty paid for our sins. Thank God for His merciful free grace which simply means that we believe God has created us and Christ has died for us and the Holy Spirit is sanctifying us, all according to the word and will of God.

Men who have been given new eyes and new ears to see and hear the truth of the Gospel understand this, and they are confident in Christ's sacrifice on the cross on their behalf. Read Hebrews 10.

Pray for those same eyes to see and ears to hear. If God so wills, you, too, can know the comfort and security of all that Christ has promised His flock.

"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 4:36

Keep reading those five words. God willing, you'll understand them. All good fruit flows from those five words.

[stfassisi]

I’m skeptical that we have much of a clue what an eternal God Almighty means by

Dear brother,If God who is perfection changes in any way it would be a mistake from the first Cause-which comes from God,thus, God would have imperfection of the first cause -which inperfection cannot come from a perfect God

It's nice to have a civil conservation with you once in awhile

[Quix]

It’s nice to have a civil conservation with you once in awhile

---

TRUE TRUE.

Only Once in awhile? I think it’s nice every time it happens! LOL.

I still think your assertion PRESUMES

to have comprehensive knowledge of an infinite ALMIGHTY GOD—AND THAT FROM A VERY FINITE PERSPECTIVE.

I’m skeptical we even have the first page of a dictionary to use in such constructions and ponderings.

What you say may be plausible enough from our finite perspective. I just don’t think that’s as high as a gnat’s knees toward understanding a giraffe’s dander problem by analogy toward understanding an infinite ALMIGHTY GOD remotely well—and certainly not comprehensively.

We can’t even wrap our brains well around TIME . . .

What convinces us we have a clue about PERFECTION on the part of an infinite Almighty God?

Given that our ignorance is enormously broader than our knowledge in such quarters . . . I just think it’s much wiser to say we don’t know and are wildly speculating than to say such things with pontifical abandon and certainty as some of the wording implies on such posts.

[roamer_1]

Folks seem to then bounce to the absurdity that you are tossing reason out as totally useless, which I don’t see you doing.

Yeah - That's how I saw it too. See here: #651

God is both reasonable and beyond reason . . . which is DIFFERENT from being UNreasonable.

That is well said.

[Quix]

THANKS for your kind words and for your contributions.

[stfassisi]

God is a mystery for sure,but we can know many things about God since He is raveled through Christ.Perfect Love!

If God was changeable or could be moved,you would need to ask the question of why God allowed Hitler,Mao,child molesters etc.. not to be created than since He could have changed His mind.

I don’t have that problem because an unchangeable perfect God wills love and perfection for every one. It is the free wills of the evil people that move away from God who created everyone in one now and willed for love

[Quix]

YES! A LOT ABOUT THE FATHER IS REVEALED IN CHRIST.

I still, with my finite mind . . . even with Christ in front of my face . . . would still have a very limited understanding of THE FATHER’S PERFECTION

as well as of HIS UNCHANGEABLENESS.

However, speculations and fantasies about such can be amusing if not fascinating.

[Mad Dawg]

I was taught, FWIW, to distinguish between fedes qua creditur and fides quae creditur (in a Protestant seminary I hasten to add for those who came in late) - fides qua = the faith BY which; fides quae = the faith which - creditur =(it) is believed.

The old joke, related, is: "Do you believe in infant baptism?" "Believe in it? Heck, I've SEEN it!"

Even the deservedly disreputable Tillich is okay on this. There are the propositions to which we give assent - fides quae. Then there is that hard to nail down openness to Being (or to the flying spaghetti monster) which leads to a confidence in a number of things.

Among which might be a confidence that things will make sense even if we don't understand them; that good and evil matter, as do truth and falsehood.

This is one reason there is frequently more hope for an atheist than an agnostic. At least the atheist cares enough about the truth, about knowing it and stating it, that he takes a stand.

ANYway ... when I talked about "reason and revelation" I think I was kind of implying fides qua - except I approached explicitness when I talked about the inclination to believe what is revealed. BUt I was more directly talking about fides quae, the propositions revealed, the 'articles', whatever.

so, naturally, I asked, "What if the lens doesn't work properly unless it is stapled to the eye?" I've received no answer, so far.

I meant, of course, that you can't really look at things through the Christian lens unless you have a heart commitment to Christ. Christianity can't be "tried on" like a dress, or taken out for a test drive.

Which is to say that whether love precedes, follows, or accompanies knowledge, of the "things of YHWH" we can reasonably say that they cannot be understood (or not much) unless they are loved, unless there is 'troth' to go with the 'truth'
__ End of aside.

SO I agree with Anselm that without grace, without some divine leading, Reason will get nowhere much beyond how to make the car work.

I would check and shy a little bit, in that I think Socrates really loved the truth and justice, even though he only had a very generic glimpse of it/them.

But I would hasten to say that that love was a grace from God.

As to the reasonableness of God and the categories of the human mind. In one way, of course, you are right. God is incomprehensible. Somebody said it's like lighting a torch to see the sun.

But I think reason rightly used and guided by grace can do some pretty amazing stuff.

I mean I think the Nicene understanding of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian definition are wonderful. I also think they are incomprehensible. This may be heresy, but for me the way I "work" them is as guidelines. I mean if something I am thinking leads to a contradiction of those 'definitions' I know it's wrong. I can discern the outline of the mystery and some of its mysterious implications, while the thing itself is forever beyond my grasp.

God send that I am never beyond its grasp, but am always held firmly to His Heart.

This is not meant as a correction, even less a contradiction. It is adumbration only.

[Mad Dawg]

(psst! How do you rappel UP a rope?)