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.

You still haven't answered my post to you in response to your statement that you say you are saved by faith alone.

POINT 1: Jesus's sacrifice is what saved us. He provided the salvation

2. POINT 2: (Wo)Man cannot save her/him self.

Do not go putting limits on God again saying faith alone -- When you say that you are saved by faith you identify your faith as the source of salvation when one should only be regarded as a means or the tool towards the Source.

Love is a necessary part

1 John 4: 7-11

7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son[b] into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Confession is a necessary part

Romans 10: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

Trust is a necessary part

Romans 10:11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Listening to the word of God is a necessary part

17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

When you say you are saved by faith you are allowing faith to become the source of salvation rather than simply seeing it as the tool or instrument to God, the Source of faith and love and Hope and The Word. Remember +Paul said “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” and +James “faith without works is dead” -- if you insist that you are saved by faith alone, then you also ascribe to +James and say that you are saved by works -- which is incorrect. The Church teaches that we are saved by GOD's grace. when you say you are saved by faith you give yourself the glory for believing in God.

The problem is that since the 16th century, people have tried to restrict God into "He saves by this or that" alone. They took the mass which has the Word of God, the mysticism, the devotion, the preaching, the singing etc. and put it into separate components so that one grouping has solemn readings only, one group has fiery preaching ONLY, one group has singing and dancing ONLY.

All neglect what we see in the Gospels -- for example, Christ heals people in different ways -- by touching them, by spitting on mud, by praying, etc. etc. -- never the same way twice. It's because He is God, He is limitless and to restrict it to just faith and leave out love and trust etc. is just trying to make an anthropomorphic God for your own benefit

The argument is not persuasive to a heart that is hardened against it.

LOL.

It doesn't take a hard heart to detect an argument disproved by the context of the verse on which the argument depends.

But the effort to go personal is noted -- and regretted.

And another thing that is noted is that the thread pursued by caww has been abandoned.

I am reminded of the guy who says "I don't know much about art but I know what I like" and of the supreme court justice who said pornography was hard to define but one knows it when one sees it. Here we can't say coherently what idolatry is but we know we're against it and that Catholics do it.

This conversation COULD take a useful turn. For example, we could continue to look for a definition of idolatry that we all agreed on. Then we could look at ways in which we all agree that we sometimes fall into that sin. (I suggested a few here in the last paragraph.

THEN when we were pretty confident we were speaking the same language, more or less, we could revisit the customs of Catholics and see what we would see.

THAT would be useful. It would build up the body of Christ. So, naturally, instead of doing that, we get the tired old citation from I Tim with a new garnish of misinformation about non-existent councils, and lightly sprinkled with vague characterizations of hard-heartedness.

How silly!

The opposition to my reference is exactly why I don't use catholic history as references....rather posting scripture. because then the resource is always challenged and diverts from the topic...even if it's from a catholic source!

Ok, wait a minute. Here's the actual source cited (Msgr. Hughes History of the General Councils) with my emphasis and possible comments in brackets []:

It was the newly elected Gregory III [Gregory III: Pope in Rome] who received the new patriarch's demand for recognition as lawful bishop of Constantinople in a profession of faith, made up, in part, of the edict or manifesto he had just signed. This pope, like the emperor, was a Syrian by birth. He replied by refusing the recognition asked for, and threatened the petitioner that unless he returned to orthodox ways he would be cast out of the priesthood. Gregory III was a man of great determination, and his "reaction" to the emperor's violence was to call a council that sat at Rome from November 1 to the end of the year--very much as Martin I had acted in 649. As many as ninety- three bishops attended. The pope published a sentence of excommunication against all who, "despising the ancient practice of the church," set themselves against the veneration of images, destroyed or profaned them. [does it look like Gregory was against images as your article claims?] The emperor, on receipt of this news, prepared an expedition to punish the Italian bishops and to arrest the pope. But the fleet was wrecked by storms. Only the remnant of it reached Sicily. All that Leo could do was to confiscate the vast papal domains in Sicily, upon whose revenues the popes had depended for their administration of Rome and for their traditional care of the poor.

Leo III [Emperor in Constaninople] died in June 740. His son, who succeeded as Constantine V [the next emperor, NOT a pope], was to reign for thirty-five years, and to show himself as capable as his father had been. Such a succession--nearly sixty years of continuous, good, strong government--was without precedent. [do you notice how your source muffed this whole thing? how in the world does someone screw something like that up? It was Leo and Constantine who reigned in combination for nearly 60 years, not Constantine alone] The great event of the new reign, from the point of view of religion, was the council called by Constantine in 753, for the purpose of solemnly condemning the cult of images. For this emperor was much more of an Iconoclast than Leo III. In a treatise which he wrote, and circulated to the bishops on the eve of the council, he explained that all images of Christ were heretical, since they must portray Him as merely human, i.e., as though He had but one nature. At the same time that he thus, indirectly, seemed to reprobate the ancient Monophysite heresy, he used its terminology to explain himself; and as well as this, by refusing to the Blessed Virgin the name of Theotokos, by asserting her to be no more than Christotokos, he aligned himself with the Nestorians. It was at the first real breathing space of his reign--which had begun with a civil war, in which the rebels held Constantinople--that Constantine V held this council.

It met in the emperor's palace called Hieria, near Chalcedon, February 10, 753, and it sat for as long as seven months, with 338 bishops attending. So far as numbers went, this was one of the greatest of all the councils so far.

The pope was not invited to it; the see of Constantinople was vacant; Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were now well and truly sees in partibus infidelium. The president was that archbishop of Ephesus who, nearly thirty years before, had been one of the first promoters of iconoclasm. What took up the time of so many bishops for so many months was not the proposal to forbid the veneration of images. Here all were agreed. But the bishops resisted the emperor steadfastly when he proposed to go back on the earlier, acknowledged General Councils. They refused to endorse his heresies about the nature of Christ, the Theotokos, and her role of intercessor for mankind, the practice of prayer to the saints, the veneration due to their relics. So that the final summing up of the council does no more than speak of the images as being idolatrous and heretical, a temptation to the faith that originated with the devil. No one is to possess or venerate an image, even in the secrecy of his home. All who disobey are to be excommunicated, and also to be punished by the law of the emperor, for their disobedience is also a crime against the state.

So there's your source's source... and they blew it, Gregory III was not against images he was for them, Constantine V was not the pope and the council in question was in fact the robber council of Hieria as I earlier suspected. So who's at fault? You can't blame Catholic history for not agreeing with itself here, SOMEONE misrepresented things to the point that it looks deliberate, and I'm NOT talking about you but whoever put together the source you used.

But all of that is just YOUR interpretation. Are you Pope CAWW I? Oh, I forgot. You all are your own pope. No wonder Reformers can’t agree on anything.

you know, that old argument isn't working for you anymore.

of the 140 million charismatic Catholics out there, each having left or never joined the "One" Catholic church as it's so frequently called, and reportedly left because they are spiritually starving to death, which of them has the "correct" interpretation?

Some of them are charismatic Marions, who elevate Mary above everything, and others of them, decry Mary worship and seek to elevate Christ. One group treasures beads, idols and icons, the other group is fervantly against them, throwing them out and breaking them in their church services.. A large number of them don't obey the pope or any of the heirarchy? Which group is correct? They're all Catholics, approved of by 3 popes.

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.