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)

[Mr Rogers]

Well, this Baptist has gone at it hammer and tongs with some of the Catholics on this thread...and after many hundreds of posts over months, I think we largely agreed that we disagreed on many doctrines, but agreed on the saving grace of God, the sacrifice of Jesus, the need for all to repent of their sins and ask God in the name of Jesus to forgive them and to change them by the indwelling Holy Spirit. We agree on God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

So I call them my brothers and sisters in Christ, and will rely on God to correct each of us in His time...or to wipe our tears away when we see Him and repent of our fighting.

In like manner, I’ll note the Society of Evangelical Arminians says, “If you agree with our statement of faith and our recognition of Calvinists as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and you are committed to engaging this issue with love and respect for all, and you would like to join the society, please contact us with a request for membership...”

I have no doubts whatsoever about RnMomof7’s sincerity or that she has been saved and God is preparing a place for her. I’ve read too many of her posts to believe she is either a troll or a malicious person. Her disagreements with me spring from love, not hate - as do mine with her.

I must always remember that my sincerity doesn’t mean I cannot be wrong, or that most of the tears shed on that Day may be mine for my many erroneous posts. Maybe I’m wrong about Calvin. Maybe I’m wrong about the real presence in the Eucharist. Or maybe I’m right, but arguing for my pride rather than in love. I’m saved, but a saved sinner still prone to sin and error.

When I remember that, I can participate on these forums and rejoice for Christians who disagree with me. The thief on the cross didn’t pass a theology test - he merely believed Jesus (”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”) I would hope to do more than the thief, but it will suffice if I do not do less...

[Natural Law]

"Though some Hellenized Jews may have read one or more versions of the Septuagint they were hardly the "Jews"."

I guess some Jews were just not Jewish enough. Oy Gevalt!

[maryz]

So how do you explain away the numerous Scriptural verses Mr. Rogers adduced to support his point of view?

[Mr Rogers]

The question is “Does God limit himself for his purposes?” Obviously none of us can resist God. If he chose to save us irresistibly, he could and would.

But when the Philippian jailer asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, they didn’t reply, “Nothing! Monergism, Dude!”

Instead they replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. - Acts 16

[D-fendr]

He must lack the power to His will.

Or has the power and chooses to allow free will. And not manipulate free will to force love. Perhaps the reason is to allow real relations with human beings instead of imaginary ones.

Having power and using power are two different things.

[Legatus]

I agree. Your remark that it was done away with after VatII is what prompted my comment. Yeah, unfortunately it was discarded after VatII... and replaced with nothing. So now we have a situation where children are taught the mechanics of glue, glitter and cardboard and then go straight to algebra without ever learning how to add, subtract, multiply and divide. It’s no wonder they turn into material and formal Protestants.

[OLD REGGIE]

It is a waste of your time. I’ve read every verse with ‘faith’ in it, and saving faith is never referred to as a gift.

Ephesians 2:
[8] For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God --

[RnMomof7]

If God wanted to save us by grace thru election, then of course he could choose to do so. But that isn’t what scripture says he chose to do

God's election preceded the creation of the world.. Grace follows the election .That is what Gods word teaches..

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

There are so many scriptures that speak of the power of God and election.. and the power of His grace..

John 5:21, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."

The reason it is called irresistible grace is that it ALWAYS accomplishes what it is sent to do, it never fails

It is an internal work of God on the hardened human heart
Acts 16:14 14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.

Everyone God calls to salvation will come...

[boatbums]

FTR...I am in agreement with you on this theology.

[OLD REGGIE]

No, the helpless infant Jesus was not the same as the adult Jesus. He still had much to learn.

Who told you this? This sounds like some sort of convoluted heresy derived from Arianism and Nestorianism.

To say that our Lord "still had much to learn" when He was an infant denies His Divinity.

Luke 2:
[52] And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.

[Mr Rogers]

Please see post 5,183...Ephesians 2:8 does NOT teach that saving faith is a gift, although in an English translation it can look that way.

[OLD REGGIE]

I'm not well versed in all this, but my impression, FWIW, is that Unam Sanctam is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for Old Reggie's view that no teaching cannot be refined into something almost its opposite, or whatever OR says.

On the contrary I believe THERE IS NO CATHOLIC TEACHING WHICH IS SO CLEAR IT CANNOT BE DENIED, MODIFIED, OR REINTERPRETED AS REQUIRED!

[D-fendr]

For comparison, to see what is the ideal: what is the clear consistent UU teaching throughout the ages on Jesus Christ?

[OLD REGGIE]

I have learned the hard way that old age and senility do not work as excuses. :-)

I believe you and I are contemporaries. My oldest is 56. If nohing else works; cry.

[D-fendr]

My mistake, you do believe in double predestination.

[1000 silverlings]

“that” refers to the entire previous statement about salvation, not only the grace but the faith. Man’s own power cannot exercise saving faith.

[1000 silverlings]

if you could save yourself, there would be no need for Christ. Does your faith come from God or from yourself. What is the rock upon which the church is built? Is it Christ or Peter

[jjotto]

You are correct. Jewish history is clear that the original Septuagint was The Five Books of Moses only. No known copies of the original Septuagint survive.

Some Christians are anxious to claim all old Greek manuscripts as ‘Septuagint’ and claim they were ‘canon’.

Jews were literate folks, of course, and always had translations and commentaries in other languages and these might have been used in synagogues. That doesn’t make the ‘canon’ any more than similar works today are canon.

[OLD REGGIE]

Did you READ my answer?

Of course I did. However, Honorius was convicted of heresy and excommunicated. We are not speaking of his "private" life, we are speaking of his teaching, we are not speaking of the standard excuse of "impecability", we are speaking of the impossibility of a Pope teaching heresy.

[metmom]

OTOH, you get people premeditadedly flying airplanes into buildings.

Yes, there is a failure to choose good over evil, but there is also the choice to do evil in that.