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)

[Cronos]

Actually, I don't agree to any thing you make up.

The Church is threatened by the world -- I didn't say threatened by any one grouping -- because the world can't stand to see Christ's Church.

The Pentecostals are just one in the long line of new innovations that come and go -- don't worry, it will die out too, just like the Marcionites, just like the mainline Protestant denoms

[Judith Anne]

I'm sure you would.

[Cronos]

But note -- as I said, the various points which you brought together about a Pope Constantine V (which was wrong) is an example -- see how much hatred you can find on the net in the falsities they spread about The Church.

It makes one think -- if they so blatantly lie about verifiable history, how much more do these pastors lie about the bible? A lot more.

Come, explore The Church in it's fullness and truth

[OLD REGGIE]

This particular verse and the argument which depends on it has been made at least dozens of times. And yet I still pray to Mary, Dominic, Terese, Katherine Laboure, and more.

Read the preceding 5 verses and you'll get a hint as to why the argument is not persuasive.

Yes. Pray for, not pray to!

Your prayers to Mary, Dominic, Terese, Katherine Laboure, and more, are wasted.

[Cronos]

Actually, it's a quote which YOU quoted -- YOU said that you were saved by faith alone. This is contrary to CHurch teachings which are that
--Jesus's sacrifice is what saved us. He provided the salvation

-- (Wo)Man cannot save her/him self.
The problem is that you and others 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

[MarkBsnr]

See how things change.. you are quoting Paul to me, and I will quote jesus to you

You will note that in context, the verses that you have quoted outline that it is the choice of doers.

Matthew 23: 8 6 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.

And who was He speaking to? Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

God is the Father of all men; there are those who adopt the ways of evil and who choose an evil father...

[MarkBsnr]

I've actually been told on one of these threads that the Gospels aren't even for Christians, they were written for Jews ONLY, BEFORE the Church existed, to be used by the Jews after the Rapture.

[MarkBsnr]

The "Reformed" movement is heavily influence by Jewish theology that sees all Christian teaching as pagan, even those beliefs still kept by the Reformed.

Hmm, excellent point. The question does remain of how much is Jewish anti Christian thought, how much is anti Catholic thought, and how much is taken from extended navel gazing.

[Cronos]

Actually, you're wrong and it shows that you haven't read Acts or the Epistles that talk about +Paul telling the churches to ensure that the Word is spread from one to the other, directly from the Apostles or the disciples of the Apostles: Apostolic Succession: Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

And, instead of Rnm, writing 2000 years later abotu what she THINKS the 1st century Christians beleived in, let's hear from a real first Century Christian, pope Clement

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Or Ireneus, a disciple of the Apostle John

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

your interpretation is wrong -- the first century Christians practised in a manner similar to what you see in any Catholic Church today. Read about the mass

Didache (a Syrian liturgical manual written around A.D. 70), which stated, "On the Lord’s Day . . . gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest our sacrifice be defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: ‘In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am a great king,’ says the Lord, ‘and my name is wonderful among the gentiles’ [cf. Mal. 1:11]" (14:1–3).

So, let's see -- Apostolic Succession, check, Mass, check, Eucharist, check, priesthood, check, episcopal nature, check, popes (bishops of Rome), check. This looks like the Catholic Church to me -- and that is what the first century Church looked like -- AS DESCRIBED BY FIRST CENTURY PEOPLE!

[Jaded]

Now there is some major heresy. They do avail themselves to the OT when it serves their purposes.

[Cronos]

And, there is only ONE Mediator between God and Man -- That IS Church teaching. Only Jesus Christ can stand for us before God and gain our salvation and all grace. But what he has gained can be distributed from man to man among the members of his body. What he gives to me, I can, by his power, share with you, and vice versa. In fact, we experience this on a daily basis.

We pray to him for others, we intercede for them, we have no power to grant other's wishes, so we pray to God to grant them

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

I don't disagree with you concerning the possible "misrepresentation" but I do note the irony that well into the 8th century the "Catholic Church" was not in charge.

[Jaded]

Wasn’t the premise of this whole thread that the Catholic Church would rise up and take over the world(again)?

[Legatus]

Ok this is just getting crazy... and it's a perfect example of the basic insanity that prevails when people go looking for smoking guns about Catholicism.

caww presented the following in post 10097

........”Pope Gregory III condemned the use of IMAGES in worship. .................Pope Constantine V, who ruled the church for almost sixty years, condemned the use of IMAGES of Christ as heretical because only Christ’s human nature could be depicted.................. A church council which met near Chalcedon on February 10, 753 (and lasted seven months), condemned the use of IMAGES in worship as being “idolatrous and heretical, a temptation to the faith that originated with the devil.” ...........( Philip E. Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870, p. 167. ) So much for the idea the unchanging church! The Bible is clear: idolatry is false worship.

I found something online which seems to be the source for what caww wrote:

Pope Gregory III condemned the use of images in worship. Pope Constantine V, who ruled the church for almost sixty years, condemned the use of images of Christ as heretical because only Christ’s human nature could be depicted. A church council which met near Chalcedon on February 10, 753 (and lasted seven months), condemned the use of images in worship as being “idolatrous and heretical, a temptation to the faith that originated with the devil.” ( Philip E. Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870, p. 167. ) So much for the idea the unchanging church! The Bible is clear: idolatry is false worship.

That's from http://www.letusreason.org/rc2.htm

Are we still on the same page here? Does that look like it might be where caww was getting his info?

Here are the lines from the History being cited:
"The pope[Gregory III] 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." How does that square with what was presented?

"Leo III died in June 740. His son, who succeeded as Constantine V, 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." Leo III and Constantine V were emperors in Constantinople, not popes in Rome but do you notice the sixty years reference? THAT is where "letusreason" got its information... and THEY BLEW IT!

"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." Again Constantine V is identified as the EMPEROR, not the pope and again you can see where the source caww used practically lifted its information from Msgr Hughes but missed the point that Constantine was the emperor.

"It met in the emperor's palace called Hieria, near Chalcedon, February 10, 753, and it sat for as long as seven months" again, they lifted their information right from Msgr Hughes but either missed or deliberately omitted critical information: Hieria was a robber council!

All this work to demolish what was basically a throw away attack against the Catholic Church and it looks like nobody on the "other side" cares that the attack was fabricated from misinformation.

So yes, what happened here was Msgr Hughes was misquoted, and blatantly so. What's depressing about this is it will probably continue to show up. Is anyone out there able to say "oh, it looks like we got the wrong end of the stick on this"?

[boatbums]

(Poza Kościołem nie ma zbawienia)

Did your cat type your new tagline? Looks like what happens when Beaux starts kneading my keyboard. :o)

[Natural Law]

"

Pope Constantine V, who ruled the church for almost sixty years"

That is because in the absence of any magisterium or central authority Protestants believe that they can use any source like the "Let Us Reason Ministries" as an authority for both history and theology. The only criteria is that it affirm their difference with "Rome" even if those difference are contrived.

[Legatus]

I don't disagree with you concerning the possible "misrepresentation" but I do note the irony that well into the 8th century the "Catholic Church" was not in charge.

Heresies are a continuing issue through history. Someone's always getting a crazy idea and the list of heretics and their particular theories is huge and sometimes they get a LOT of people stirred up. Most of the "Christian" world was Arian at one time, Iconoclasm never took off in the west except for the Franks who (and this is hilarious considering the discussion we're having now) misinterpreted a document.

[editor-surveyor]

You offer that which you lack yourself.

If you wish to find Christ, you must distance yourself from the idolatry that you promote here. His church meets daily on street corners, in coffee shops, in living rooms, and on job sites.

His church eschews the idolatrous practice of praying to the false goddess “Mary,” or other deceased mortal beings.
.

[D-fendr]

and clearly Israel was not to use things to represent Him....

This brings up a good point, I believe. You referred earlier to the iconoclast controversy and I think the Judaic/Christian split is very relevant to this discussion.

As you point out, in Judaism, God could not be represented - there was no thing, no "form" possible of God. This was antithetic to their very concept of God, one of the key differences between them and other religions. To attempt to represent in form what could not be was based on a false concept of God.. I.e., any "image" of God was impossible, therefore false and forbidden.

This is still the case for Judaism, and the case in Islam (just a comparative reference, not an insult).

The big difference comes with the Incarnation. Neither Judaism nor Islam recognizes the Incarnation - God is therefore still, literally, impossible to represent in the manner of any visual form. "No man has seen God" (in the whole, not as an appearance in a bush e.g.)

You are also correct about opposition to paintings and statues of Jesus. What what we now call Judaizers opposed this. The above helps explain why. ( Of course, in all its aspects, the conflict between remaining Jews vs. Gentile is a major conflict in the early Church.)

Inside Christianity, we still see a range of views on this, Messianic Jews representing the Judaizer end of the spectrum.

During the iconoclast controversy, one of the important points made was that it is fundamental to Christianity that God became man, the Word became flesh and this forever separated true Christians from Jews (and Moslems) on this issue. Because, more precisely, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." We can only imagine how this must have sounded to Jewish ears.

Therefore representing God in the form or a representation of Christ was not a violation, because God Himself had incarnated in a form - and this is a fundamental difference between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

A difference, the Incarnation, that the Church emphasized - after all it is fundamental to the faith.

This helps explain the artistic renderings from the catacombs onward that illustrate, in the simplest possible way, the basic fact of the Incarnation: human mother and Christ child: the Word became flesh and dwelt among us - as proudly proclaimed in the liturgy, in art, in song.

[kosta50]

The "brotherhood of man" is not taught anywhere in scripture

It's not "brotherhood." God gave Adam life and through Adam to all of us. We all come from Adam, so we are all the same substance.

after the fall men are born with imperfect sinful natures looking like their sinful father Adam, while retaining some of the image of God, but no longer innocent and pure

If your son does something wrong, he is still your son. If God wanted all men to be perfect then all men would be perfect. As it turns out none is perfect, so who are we to judge others?

God never changes, however God is the sum of all His attributes

Christian God is not a sum of anything, lest he be a compound, complex being. God is one, a monad, indivisible and simple. God has no "attributes" either. Christian God is Essence. He is not just, but Justice. He is not loving, but Love.

Love cannot be hate, justice cannot be injustice. Truth cannot be a lie. Therefore God cannot change into something that he is not. And since he didn't create hate, lies, and injustice, or any sort of unholiness, they "exist" only through us and because of us and we should never attribute them to God.

Please read scripture in context.. we can not apply the specific to the general

I do. You should too. Jesus states it as a general principle when he says "love your enemies."