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.

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2578704/posts?page=14821#14821 and others.

It was largely held but not without significant dissent, being treated as an undecided issue by great men, and which finally passed by a 9 vote margin out a possible 55, and which did settle the issue.

I think what this also testifies to is the doctrine of assured formulaic infallibility being a process of development. By the time of Trent that was much more established. And which is another subject.

God does preserve the faith, but in the Bible it was not by an assured formulaic infallibility, that is, one that infallibly proclaimed that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly declared criteria. The Jewish magisterium was not assuredly infallibly whenever it spoke on faith and morals, though like Rome or S. Baptists, etc. they can speak truth. Rather, while those who sat in Moses seat taught doctrines of men as commandments of God, which the Lord rebuked as being contrary to Scripture, (Mk. 7:9-13) God sovereignly would raise up prophets, wise men and scribes from outside their office (cf. Mt. 23:34) such as Jeremiah and his scribe, which, though not perfect reproved them, and by such essential faith was preserved, though only held by a remnant. And i believe many of those whom Rome slew served that purpose, and both Rome and us Prots are in need of such today, and to be such.

All of ES’s info is coming from KJV worshiper Gail Riplinger

Oh yes, she is a stellar personality. Too bad the KJV is not having any effect on her, but OSAS crowd don;t have to work on developing a character, since they can do no wrong in the eyes of God, so they come in all "flavors."

I thought it was interesting to see how these "Christians" (mostly independent Baptists—who else!) communicate with each other. It make even the nastiest representatives of this KJV club on FR look like Miss Manners!

Here is an article of the ongoing feud between the KJV kings and queens. It's title reads "Beware of Gail Riplinger " by "Dr. and Mrs. Waite, KJV aficionados themselves, but the subtitles is too "raw" for the Religion Forum, so I hope I won't get in trouble with the Mod by saying it reads "Bring it on B....!"

Imagine, people who have doctor of divinity titles being so frank with each other! Finesse and good manners are obviously not in their theological vocabulary.

Apparently, being a devotee of KJV does not stop a person form lying...which makes sense, considering that OSAS means what you say is irrelevant or do is irrelevant to God (although the very Bible they peddle says otherwise), so "pecca fortiter" as Luther said.

“”However, I can find no evidence of a unanimous, or even majority, belief in the RCC concerning the “Assumption of Mary” in the early Church up to, and including, relatively modern times””

I assure you, OR, the belief in the Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos is among the most ancient and wide spread in The Church, both in the East and the West, as sfa’s quotes demonstrate. He has already quoted the Apolytikion from the Orthodox Liturgy on the Feast of the Dormition. Here are the equally ancient Kontakion and Synaxarion for that Liturgy:

Synaxarion

“Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos, this is what the Church has received from ancient times from the tradition of the Fathers. When the time drew nigh that our Savior was well-pleased to take His Mother to Himself, He declared unto her through an Angel that three days hence, He would translate her from this temporal life to eternity and bliss. On hearing this, she went up with haste to the Mount of Olives, where she prayed continuously. Giving thanks to God, she returned to her house and prepared whatever was necessary for her burial. While these things were taking place, clouds caught up the Apostles from the ends of the earth, where each one happened to be preaching, and brought them at once to the house of the Mother of God, who informed them of the cause of their sudden gathering. As a mother, she consoled them in their affliction as was meet, and then raised her hands to Heaven and prayed for the peace of the world. She blessed the Apostles, and, reclining upon her bed with seemliness, gave up her all-holy spirit into the hands of her Son and God.

With reverence and many lights, and chanting burial hymns, the Apostles took up that God-receiving body and brought it to the sepulchre, while the Angels from Heaven chanted with them, and sent forth her who is higher than the Cherubim. But one Jew, moved by malice, audaciously stretched forth his hand upon the bed and immediately received from divine judgment the wages of his audacity. Those daring hands were severed by an invisible blow. But when he repented and asked forgiveness, his hands were restored. When they had reached the place called Gethsemane, they buried there with honor the all-immaculate body of the Theotokos, which was the source of Life. But on the third day after the burial, when they were eating together, and raised up the artos (bread) in Jesus’ Name, as was their custom, the Theotokos appeared in the air, saying “Rejoice” to them. From this they learned concerning the bodily translation of the Theotokos into the Heavens.

These things has the Church received from the traditions of the Fathers, who have composed many hymns out of reverence, to the glory of the Mother of our God.”

Kontakion

“Neither the grave nor death could contain the Theotokos, the unshakable hope, ever vigilant in intercession and protection. As Mother of life, He who dwelt in the ever-virginal womb transposed her to life.”

Here is a link to the Greek chanting of the Apolytikion which sfa posted in English:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd0fdXwwkY&feature=related

Now, there are two differences between the Orthodox conception of the Assumption and that of the Latins. The Latins believe that the Theotokos was assumed into heaven while alive; that she never died. This is compelled by the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Orthodoxy believes that she died and was assumed into heaven after three days in the grave. The other difference is that the Latins hold the Assumption to be dogma, something that all Roman Catholics must believe (like, among other things, the Immaculate Conception). The Orthodox do not claim that belief in the Assumption is dogmatic but rather is what we call theologoumenon, in this instance a pious belief which can be accepted or rejected. I will tell you that I have never met, nor have I ever heard of, an Orthodox Christian who does not believe in the bodily Assumption of the Mother og God into heaven.

The canon of Trent is not a canon of the Church Universal because the East was not there, an dis not binding to the East. It's as simple as that.

Well, I would be simple if that was her position. And I suppose that if Rome also considers Prots to be part of the body of Christ, (though Dominus Iesus relegates Protestant churches as not being worthy to be called churches "in the proper sense) it would need to have their consent to have a true ecumenical council.

But again, if we are going to answer when the RCC first infallibly defined the apocrypha then we must allow her to define it, and for which i have proved substantial sources pointng to Trent as fulfilling her criteria for infallible affirmation of the apocrypha, and what it consists of in total, though you can disagree with her and me on this based on your reasons.

Their decisions are infallible because they are councils of the infallible Church Universal.

Rome also uses the term "univeral" to refer to itself as well as its jurisdiction (whether those without agree to it or not). You need not read the block quotes but

In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*)

This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff...

This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ.

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" (8*) they show universal [loosely defined] agreement in matters of faith and morals.

The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council.

23. This collegial union is apparent also m the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church.

The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, (31*) fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church.(32*) For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity. - DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

THE ROMAN CURIA - In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

More http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

So, would it be correct to get from this that you are asking for God’s forgiveness in the relational realm? You have it in the eternal realm already but do not have His forgiveness in the relational realm, so this is the forgiveness you are necessarily asking for. Would that be a correct statement in your view?

No, I am actually thanking God for his forgiveness in the relational realm. He says he IS faithful and just to forgive us. My act of confession is my way of admitting my wrongs and, in the confidence that God will and has forgiven me, I can continue in that relationship refreshed, clean and joyful of his everlasting love. I am not estranged from him relationally.

I get the impression you think I believe I just "accept the Lord" and then go about the rest of my life living any old way I please. I have sincerely tried to explain that is NOT what I think at all. But let me ask you a question or two.

Do you believe that God knew before he created the world that you would be born and everything you would do?

Do you believe that when you go to confession, and are genuinely contrite, that God would withhold forgiveness from you when you ask for it?

Thanks for your reply:

No, I am actually thanking God for his forgiveness in the relational realm.

But the statement I'm asking about is:

“we pray to God and ask for forgiveness every day”

Not thanking, not confessing, but "ask for forgiveness."

I feel like I'm hectoring you, but I'm trying to stay on topic: If you believe you are already forgiven for your sins - past, present and future - why ask for forgiveness?

I get the impression you think I believe I just "accept the Lord" and then go about the rest of my life living any old way I please.

Honestly, I don't. As I look at Calvinism, one must forget or ignore the underlying theology: what it says about God, our choices, and in this case confession and asking for forgiveness. I believe the theology gets in the way of growing as a Christian. In this case, as Christians, we confess our sins and ask His forgiveness - but this violates the theology that we already have it.

So, I'm not doubting your walk, just that it contradicts the theology.

Do you believe that God knew before he created the world that you would be born and everything you would do?

Yes, but He also chose to create me with free will - by definition He does not make all my choices. And, logically, foreknowledge does not equate to causation.

Do you believe that when you go to confession, and are genuinely contrite, that God would withhold forgiveness from you when you ask for it?

I believe in a loving merciful God. If I follow Calvin's theology, I don't see that God there. Simple answer is yes I believe if I am genuinely contrite and trying my best to follow Jesus's commandments, He forgives me when I miss the mark.

I'm grateful for His grace that I miss it by a smaller angle than before.

Am I genuinely, perfectly contrite always? I doubt it. By far my most common prayer is "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner."

So I cannot think in terms of: "Am I contrite enough to be forgiven enough to get to heaven?" On the contrary, acting with this motivation grows the self, which needs to die.

I wish to be with God. I move away from Him when I sin, and I harm others. I try my best to examine my conscience, grow in discernment, decrease in sin and self, confess and ask His forgiveness and grace. But I pray most for His mercy.

I am not God, the final judgement is His; I'll find out what that is soon enough.

I will answer only brief.l

And I suppose that if Rome also considers Prots to be part of the body of Christy, (though Dominus Iesus relegates Protestant churches as not being worthy to be called churches "in the proper sense) it would need to have their consent to have a true ecumenical council.

The Prots left the Church. Ecumenical Councils are gatherings of the bishops validly ordained, which exlcused the Protestants.

Dominus Iesu only recognizes the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church as "true" churches, with the latter "lacking" in fullness because of the non-communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Ecumenical councils are the gathering of the "true Church," and true Church only. Therefore the Prots are not needed.

i have proved substantial sources pointng to Trent as fulfilling her criteria for infallible affirmation of the apocrypha

Your work is much appreciated and well documented but lacks, in my opinion, to understand that Trent only made the canon legally binding, such that if someone refused it one could be anathematized (condemned).

I realize that some Catholic individuals made statements calling it "infallible" (which it is, but no more than any other proclamation of the Church, or the Church itself of which the Council is a part).

The difference is that some proclamations have greater canonical (legal) weight, and nothing has a greater canonical weight than the Ecumenical (General) Councils.

Rome also uses the term "univeral" to refer to itself as well as its jurisdiction

Yes, of course it does, that's what catholic means. But so does the Orthodox Church. The official Orthodox Church title is not "Eastern" but Orthodox Catholic Church.

As far as the Dogmatic Constitutions, this is an ecclesial issue. The Latin Church is not ecclesially structured as the Undivided Church of the 1st millennium, whereas the Orthodox Church is.

PS The new Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is a document from aground the beginning of the 1900s and is somewhat outdated. It is also not the official publication of the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it endorsed by it. It is actually manged by a single individual. And It's title is misleading.

I am not saying that what you copied form it is wrong, just that it's comments and attitudes reflect a schismatic viewpoint as compared to more recent ones. Remember that the anathemas of 1054 were mutually withdrawn in 1964 and "committed to oblivion."

As I look at Calvinism... If I follow Calvin's theology...

Maybe that's why we seem to be talking past each other. I am not Calvinist, either! I agree that God has foreknowledge but, in mystery, he does not predestine us against our own free will.

If I used the words, “we pray to God and ask for forgiveness every day” - which I don't think was my particular post - I think it is rhetorical in a sense. Yes, we all sin, Scripture says "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves", but as Christians, we have the assurance that our sin no longer separates us from God because the debt has been paid in full through Christ.

When we sin, in the "relational" sense we are estranged from our Heavenly Father and it puts a barrier up to our fellowship with him because of our own guilty feelings. We know he has seen everything and, like Adam and Eve, we want to hide. God desires for us to be freed from that guilt and restored in unity with him. So he tells us to confess our sins. He then promises to forgive - he is faithful to forgive us. He knows our hearts and sees true contrition.

As far as, "Am I contrite enough to be forgiven enough to get to heaven?", that question is already settled after we first come to the Lord in true repentance and acceptance of Christ as our savior. We are "born-again" into his family and he holds us in his hands where nothing can separate us, no one can pluck us out, he will not lose us, forsake us or cast us out. We are saved by grace and we are kept by that same grace.

Thanks for the discussion. I hope you have a peaceful and restful night.

And my point was that as far as the canon of scripture, this is not significant. They were scriptures, period. Not on the level of the Gospels, but part of the canon

The infallibility of the councils, no matter how small or big, is from the Church. There is nothing inherently "infallible" about the councils except by proxy.

The extent to which council declarations are binding depends on the nature of the council. A local council is binding locally. A general Council is binding generally.

The canon of Carthage was legally (canonically) binding to the Latin Church but not to the other Patriarchates. Canonical weight is a legal clause that allows for condemnation and sanctions (for breaking the law).

Trent declared (although in a strange way) the canon of Carthage as canonical for the entire Church in order to be able to prosecute and punish Protestants who denied it. It has nothing to do with infallibility.

A prayer or a petition for forgiveness should follow, but in the Protestant world that is pointless.

I'd like to hear why you think that statement is true.

As a protestant, here is a slight peep into my alone time with my Heavenly Father. "Dear Lord I am so sorry that I was rude to another poster of FreeRepublic. I lost my patience and took his words personally and instead of letting it go, I shot off a snarky answer to try to hurt his feelins. I should not have done that and I feel great remorse for doing it. I sent him a private message apologizing for it and asking him for his forgiveness. I come to you Lord, because I know it deeply hurt you, too. I should not let my anger cause me to sin. I am sorry and promise to try harder through your grace to speak to others in a way that brings honor to you. Thank you Lord so much for your forgiveness. I love you and praise your holy name. Help me to be a stronger Christian and to remember that I am the face some people only see of you. Give me the grace to grow to be the woman you want me to be. To your honor, glory and grace. In the name of Jesus, I pray. Amen."

As a protestant, here is a slight peep into my alone time with my Heavenly Father

I'm sure you've seen the act of contrition but here one is again anyhow:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all, because I have offended you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of your grace to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. Amen.

Another version which is similar but different in some key aspects:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because of Thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin. Amen.

Some variation on one of those is prayed by penitent Catholics at the end of every sacramental confession. In theory (and in practice at my house) Catholics pray something to that effect at the end of every day following an examination of conscience.

You'll notice that in both versions there is the matter of offending God, I'm curious about your use of the word "hurt". Not going for a gotcha or trying to back you into a corner, was there a reason you used that word and is it used in the sense that we would normally use the word?

Anyhow, I want to be clear on this: If the motivation for the sorrow and horror at our own sinfulness is the pure love of God Catholics believe that God forgives immediately whether you're in the confessional or not. In a sense (and ONLY in a sense), sin excommunicates us and so there is a normal procedure for restoring us to communion. The Church has used private confession for 1000 years as that normal procedure, it could change, the procedure is not dogmatically defined.

It's also the NORMAL procedure, God's not looking to zap people on the way to confession or saying "gotcha" to people who honestly forget a sin in confession. If something happens out of the ordinary... like you're dying on a cross next to Jesus Christ before the Church was even established... then the "ordinary" rules fly out the window. It's like speeding, if you've got someone dying or giving birth in the passenger's seat a good cop won't give you a ticket, he'll escort you to the hospital... God is a good cop (er, so to speak). On the other hand if you say "Go away fuzz, I don't buy into your rules" expect to lose your license.

Thanks for your post dear Friend

KOLO-””Now, there are two differences between the Orthodox conception of the Assumption and that of the Latins. The Latins believe that the Theotokos was assumed into heaven while alive; that she never died””

The ACTUAL Dogma(MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS) uses many references about Mary dying before being Assumed into heaven and DOES NOT say she was alive before being Assumed into heaven

Here is a few excerpts from MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS(Emphasis ,mine)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the BONDS OF DEATH, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.

it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the DEAD BODY of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt

Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. “It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even AFTER DEATH

in like manner St. Francis de Sales, after asserting that it is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself observed, in the most perfect way, the divine commandment by which children are ordered to honor their parents, asks this question: “What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise AFTER HER DEATH if he could?”(38) And St. Alphonsus writes that “Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted AFTER DEATH

<The new Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is a document from aground the beginning of the 1900s and is somewhat outdated. It is also not the official publication of the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it endorsed by it. It is actually manged by a single individual. And It's title is misleading.

Isn't New Advent the online version of the 1913 (or is it 1917) Catholic Encyclopedia? It is supposed to have the stamp at least, not that that means it will always conflate with other stamped material: "The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published."

The organ ETWN likewise says,

“The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.”

“I am not saying that what you copied form it is wrong, just that it's comments and attitudes reflect a schismatic viewpoint as compared to more recent ones”

Well, we ca go one about Trent beng ecumenical and authoritative/infallible versus Carthage, but the debate it still on sources so maybe we can email the pope!

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.