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)

[OLD REGGIE]

Keep on worshipping [sic] “Tath,” whoever that is

Nothing is more pathetic than ridiculing someone's my typo (which I immediately corrected) with a typo of your own! How is crow, with feathers, for you today?

How do you want your crow cooked?

[OLD REGGIE]

“”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:

Dates and documentation for "ancient" please.

[Kolokotronis]

"Dates and documentation for "ancient" please."

Over 1600 years, OR, maybe more. There is a writing from the late 2nd century called "The Book of the Passing of the Most Holy Virgin, the Mother of God" attributed to Bishop Melito of Sardis. Once we get to the 4th and 5th centuries the belief is all over Eastern Christendom. In Christianity, will you not allow that that is "ancient"? What this means, of course, is that the bishops who determined the canon of scripture in the 4th century were likely conversant with this traditional belief. If you want 2000 years, I cannot give you that.

[bkaycee]

The Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

"The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste" (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).

History proves that when the Transitus teaching originated the Church regarded it as heresy. In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis.

In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble. And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius.

Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520.

Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:

In the 3rd of 4th century there was composed a book, embodying the Gnostic and Collyridian traditions as to the death of Mary, called De Transitu Virginis Mariae Liber. This book exists still and may be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (tom. ii. pt. ii. p. 212)....The Liber Transitu Mariae contains already the whole of the story of the Assumption. But down to the end of the 5th century this story was regarded by the Church as a Gnostic or Collyridian fable, and the Liber de Transitu was condemned as heretical by the Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis, attributed to pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. How then did it pass across the borders and establish itself within the church, so as to have a festival appointed to commemorate it? In the following manner:

In the sixth century a great change passed over the sentiments and the theology of the church in reference to the Theotokos—an unintended but very noticeable result of the Nestorian controversies, which in maintaining the true doctrine of the Incarnation incidentally gave strong impulse to what became the worship of Mary.

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html

[OLD REGGIE]

“The Orthodox may have somewhat earlier, though not numerous, beliefs in the assumption but even then it was not until the 4th century that it saw the light of day.”

But since the 300s, we have, virtually all of us, believed firmly that the Most Holy Theotokos was assumed bodily into heaven. As I said, however, this is NOT dogma in The Church in the East and thus all of us are free not to believe it.

Here is a late (14th century) sermon on the Dormition by one of the greatest Fathers of The Church, +Gregory Palamas. I post it to you because it is best sermon on the doctrine I am aware of and it is particularly scriptural.

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/dormition.html

As I said; 4th century.

You have believed since the 300's? Wow! And I thought I was old. :-)

[Kolokotronis]

Orthodox Christians will care very little about what modern Roman Catholic writers say about Holy Tradition, even less about what Hormisdas wrote. Gelasius rightly called the book apocryphal and no one, at least no one I have ever heard of, says that it is reliable history. It is clearly not heretical however and if in fact Gelasius thought it was, today he would be excommunicated as a heretic in his own city for not subscribing to the story it contains.

The belief in the Assumption of the Theotokos, for 300 million Orthodox Christians and about 60 million Anglicans is theologoumenon, a pious belief which no Christian is compelled to accept, nothing more, nothing less. For 1 billion Roman Catholics, it is a mandatory belief. That some modern Western Christians think that the Holy Tradition surrounding the Assumption shouldn’t be believed because it isn’t found in the canon of scripture The Church gave them is an opinion, which, truth be told, makes no difference at all to the overwhelming Christians of Christians in the world.

BTW, the last line of your post just destroys whatever credibility the preceding lines may have had. No Orthodox or Latin or Oriental Orthodox Christian “worships” the Most Holy Theotokos. There is even a declaration of an ecumenical council to the effect that worship is reserved only to God.

[Kolokotronis]

“And I thought I was old. :-)”

And let that be a lesson to you, sonny! :)

[OLD REGGIE]

"Dates and documentation for "ancient" please."

Over 1600 years, OR, maybe more. There is a writing from the late 2nd century called "The Book of the Passing of the Most Holy Virgin, the Mother of God" attributed to Bishop Melito of Sardis. Once we get to the 4th and 5th centuries the belief is all over Eastern Christendom. In Christianity, will you not allow that that is "ancient"? What this means, of course, is that the bishops who determined the canon of scripture in the 4th century were likely conversant with this traditional belief. If you want 2000 years, I cannot give you that.

"The Book of the Passing of the Most Holy Virgin, the Mother of God" attributed to Bishop Melito of Sardis"

Not good.

I appreciate your effort but I'm so old (not over 1600 years old, but old enough) and set in my ways I am firm in my belief that the Early Church Fathers most likely knew the Apostles and could speak with some "authority". Of course sorting out the many forgeries is a monumental task so it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine fact or fiction.

[OLD REGGIE]

The Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

"The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste" (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).

Very interesting. What is certain is that the Early Church was silent on the subject.

[daniel1212]

The bottom of the New Advent page reads "Copyright © by Kevin Knight, Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary." I odn't see any imprimatur statement in it.

In saying “The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published,” i think he meant the original imprimatur from John Murphy Farley, who was Archbishop of New York at the time of its printing. Knight and others transcribed the original material, and maybe some are a compilation. I do see some pages that have the stamp listed, which includes the one that i referenced as regards the Trent decrees being the first infallible pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.

In a site search of Vatican.va, i could not find any precise statement as to the first infallible proclamation. It did say,

“The Church’s recognition of these Scriptures as canonical, after a long period of critical discernment, was at the same time an act of obedience and of authority..”

And in “The Jewish people and their Sacred Scriptures,” the it states,

“Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New. In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon.”

The infallibility of the Church does not depend on, or originate from, ecumenical councils or papal ex-cathedra proclamations both of which are rare and far in between, and are considered "extraordinary" manifestation of infallible teaching of the Church or "Sacred Magisterium". The more common or usual or "ordinary" manifestation of ecclesial infallibility is made through the "Ordinary Magisterium." They are distinguished respectively as de fide credenda (revealed) and de fide tendenda (based on tradition and circumstance).

Roman Catholic assured infallibility is based on her say-so, but insofar as she defines the doctrine, this is true, but such requires a fulfillment of her criteria, and examples of infallible teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium are typically harder to declare as infallible, since these may not be contained in any one specific document, but common teachings found among the Roman Bishops dispersed through the world.

It is also held that solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, or the ordinary universal Magisterium) require an assent of faith (or “theological assent”), with the opposite being heresy, while the “ordinary assent” (or religious submission of will and intellect) which is required for non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium may allow for a limited amount of dissent, as such teachings may contain error and are subject to revision or even revocation, while those of the General Magisterium may include the possibility of significant error. Source.

Anyway, i am rather busy now and cannot follow this thread much.

[daniel1212]

“To imagine oneself “Begging” as if there is any possibility He would not forgive unless I beg hard enough or strong enough does not compute with the Christ I have know.”

This is true insofar as Jesus promises to respond to anything asked in His name, (Jn. 14:14) which is consistent with His character and will, in faith. And the reason the poor in spirit belong to the kingdom of heaven, and the meek shall inherit the earth is not due to their own holiness, but because such is a characteristic of salvific faith. Those to whom Jesus gives eternal life to are those who follow Him, (Jn. 10:27,28) and repent when convicted of not doing so. And thus God chastens believers, so they will not be condemned with the rest of the world. (1Cor. 11:32)

[Kolokotronis]

“I am firm in my belief that the Early Church Fathers most likely knew the Apostles and could speak with some “authority”.”

Well, see, you are using the term differently than we do. We call the Fathers who may or likely did know one or more of the apostles the “Apostolic Fathers”. They are generally thought of as being Barnabus of Alexandris, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Mathetes and the authors of the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. None of them speak about the Dormition (some of them likely died before Panagia did)and, you’ll find this interesting, it is highly likely that any of them understood the canon of scripture the same way you do and none of them accepted it as being limited the way we Christians, I mean all of us, have since about the 9th century. Ironically, it is certain that their theology and ecclesiology, as far as it went, was virtually identical to that which we see in that of The Church in the East today and all but antithetical that that which has developed in the West in the past 500 years.

[MarkBsnr]

The reason the Bible is adamant that no one can take your sins is because that would make them guilty of something they did not commit, which is not possible. How can a lamb be "guilty" of your sins?!?

That's the point - the One who is sinless took all the sins of humanity upon Himself.

Why was he "alone?" If you are in communion with God, you are with him no matter what, especially if your faith is perfect as Jesus' is believed to be. The "aloness" comes when sin separates you from God's presence, when you feel the Spirit "left." You can't tell me that a man of perfect faith, such as Jesus is known in his humanity, would feel that God had forsaken him unless his faith failed at the last moment.

An interesting argument. Yet, the Mother Teresa types and the OT prophets who were as sinless as men could be (obviously not sinless, but more than such as you and I) often wrote about a gulf between God and themselves, even though their faith was, at least as described, still strong. Did Jesus in His humanity, feel a sundering, if only momentarily at that awful moment? I surely don't know.

[MarkBsnr]

If God forgave you everything then God is "blind" to your moral excesses against him; in other words, the "saved" can do no wrong in God's eyes. So the whole thing a pathetic rationalization apparently concocted through some very bad biblical scholarship (and corrupt translations) in order to give Protestants something to do on Sundays.

As long as Sundays do not coincide with Christmas. This rationalization has given mostly the non Creedal Protestants a free pass if Christmas occurs on Sunday, at least around here. The Catholics, Episcopagans, some of the Presbyterians, and Lutherans are open for business. Most of the rest are off doing whatever is it that non Creedal Protestants do during this time. Since there are so few Baptists here, I have no idea if they are open or not.

[MarkBsnr]

Even St. Paul acknowledge that Jesus brings one to salvation after the second Judgement, but that one’s works - deeds whether committed or omitted - are burned up as through fire. Your sins may have been forgiven in this temporal world, but God makes all of your deeds public at the second Judgement but you are not purifed of them yet. You must be as pure as God and the angels in order to enter heaven. How pure are you and I right now this very second? Pure enough to enter Heaven? Not I. I am going to need all of God’s efforts in order to get me to that state. That I will acknowledge.

[MarkBsnr]

No, I am actually thanking God for his forgiveness in the relational realm. He says he IS faithful and just to forgive us.

Forgiveness of sins is not just. Quite the opposite. It is unjust because it is merciful. Christianity is not a belief in justice - it is a belief in mercy. We Catholics and Orthodox pray Oh, God, we pray that you have mercy on us, a sinner. We do not pray that God takes His Justice upon us. That would be a bad thing for us, and would sentence all of humanity in with the lord of this world in the end.

[MarkBsnr]

Ps 34:18 The LORD [is] nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

Applause. We petition God for forgiveness and mercy. We do not petition God for justice.

[MarkBsnr]

The elect are not born regenerated and Will believe when the Gospel is presented. Paul addresses antinomianism in Rom 6 and various other places. Those who "sin all the way", prove they are not Christians.

Where do you draw the line? What is 'not all the way' that gives evidence that one is a Christian?

[boatbums]

Forgiveness of sins is not just. Quite the opposite. It is unjust because it is merciful. Christianity is not a belief in justice - it is a belief in mercy. We Catholics and Orthodox pray Oh, God, we pray that you have mercy on us, a sinner. We do not pray that God takes His Justice upon us. That would be a bad thing for us, and would sentence all of humanity in with the lord of this world in the end.

I'm sorry you don't like how that verse was worded in I John 1:9, but I'll quote it again for you:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

Again with the torturing of words! ;o)

God showed us mercy for the very reason that he took the justice we deserved when Jesus died in our place. Christ TOOK our justice upon himself so that we might be made the "righteousness of God in Christ". That is mercy AND grace, my friend. We do not get what we deserve and do not deserve what we get.

[MarkBsnr]

Forgiveness of sins is not just. Quite the opposite. It is unjust because it is merciful. Christianity is not a belief in justice - it is a belief in mercy. We Catholics and Orthodox pray Oh, God, we pray that you have mercy on us, a sinner. We do not pray that God takes His Justice upon us. That would be a bad thing for us, and would sentence all of humanity in with the lord of this world in the end.

I'm sorry you don't like how that verse was worded in I John 1:9, but I'll quote it again for you:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

Again with the torturing of words! ;o)

God showed us mercy for the very reason that he took the justice we deserved when Jesus died in our place. Christ TOOK our justice upon himself so that we might be made the "righteousness of God in Christ". That is mercy AND grace, my friend. We do not get what we deserve and do not deserve what we get.

The only possible way to interpret this is to say that God is faithful and just to the promises that He made to us. He knows that we are all unfaithful and we all sin. Justice in the arena of Judgement would be to consign us all as a job lot to the lord of this world, wash His hands of us and start over with a new batch. No, He has promised us mercy if we fulfill certain conditions. This is one of the biggest contentions here on the RF. Many people here say that there are no conditions, in spite of the preponderance, indeed, the very weight of the Gospels (and Paul...) that very much in depth say otherwise. Mercy is a polar opposite of Justice, by the way.