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)

[Judith Anne]

Good luck with an explanation or an apology. The usual suspects think they are doing God’s work, and frankly, that reeks of pride. Very unseemly.

[OpusatFR]

“...1/4 is not predestined to be saved, and therefore it doesn’t matter if they are baptized or not. If not, what might the reason be?”

It makes everything about it moot. ( -;

*definition - of no legal significance (as having been previously decided)

I think it fits the whole fiddley-diddley concept of the prestidigitation that is predestination.

[RnMomof7]

The muslim says the same thing about the wrath of God falling on you if you don't follow their beliefs,so if you take that approach you are no different than them.

Well John Paul seemed to think it was ok..interesting he would kiss a Koran , that has a false god and catholics call that love, but they hate Luther and the reformers that love the one true God.. just kinnda interesting.

Showing love(what God is)towards others offers the best chance to change hearts of man.

Only if that "love" includes the gospel, otherwise, like John Paul all they have done is convert people to themselves, like John paul did. We know he never presented the gospel because the world loved him, Jesus said the world would hate us

They may accept that love and BE open to the Gospel or may kill you just like many martyrs that have died for love of God, but they cannot ever destroy the love you exuded because it lives on through the witness of our lives even after death

What is the gospel? How can one give what they have never heard?

Until you grasp this you will never understand the strength of love (who God is)

I know the debts of Gods love, because I know how much He loved me when He poured out the wrath I deserve on Christ ...How do catholics know how much God loves them ?

[stfassisi]

Why was suffering necessary to do that.

Since sin entered into man completely attached to man's free will it was a free gift by God to suffer for atonement for our sins.God does not have to do ANYTHING. The cross is an act of Love

How does that cross "save" us?

By the Resurrection destroying death.Without the Cross there is no Resurrection

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your rely. I'm going to leave double predestination out for now and just focus on the free will aspect.

God puts His Spirit in us to walk in His ways. WE can decide which way to choose but our Heavenly Father watches over us and guides our paths. If we choose poorly, God knows this, allows it and He uses this to teach us. God also guides us to do good things for His kingdom-which, if left to our own, we would not do.

There is no free will.

To me the second sentence denies the preceding paragraph. Free will entails choice and if we "can decide which way to choose" we therefore have free will. I'm starting to agree that it's not semantics. But I think we are reaching the point where words and concepts have trouble, because we are dealing with things that cannot be completely communicated using them.

if you actually had a choice to choose God's way or your way, then why don't you choose to go God's way in every single decision that you make? The answer is that you are not truly free.

Neither are we completely bound. I think a major problem in your view, and Calvinism in general, is to dichotomize and fatalize. Everyone is either all one thing or all the other. Forever. Coming into self-realization, when we first realize there is "me," our first words tend to be "mine." This is our "nature." But it is our pre-adolescent nature.

We do not remain pre-adolescents. We can, and God has created us such that we can, grow in compassion. Compassion means shared suffering. We repent. God transforms us, changes our wants.

We become more "free" to choose God.

You described this process in the paragraph I quoted from you at the top of this reply. I submit that God has created man such that this is the normal healthy process of human development - abundant life: physically, mentally, spiritually. The wages of sin are death here also.

I think part of the reason for our disagreement is what we are calling "free." I believe you see this as, again, an erroneous dichotomy, as in 'why don't we choose God's way every single time?" In other words, it's not free because we don't make the obvious choice. Since we don't make the obvious right choice, we must not be free to make it, in your view.

But all it takes to destroy this premise is for one person to not make the right choice one time and make the identical right choice the next time. Is there anyone who hasn't done this? In forward and reverse order? Are we flipping back and forth between free and not?

What has changed between making the "right" and "wrong" choice above? A plethora of possibilities.

Part of our "nature" is to not be aware, to be selfish, to be habitual. Part of our choices is to become more aware, to shift our focus from self to others, to starve bad habits and feed good ones. This is integral to spiritual practice. In my experience, this can result in more "right" choices and fewer "wrong" ones. No, we are not saving ourselves, we are not doing things pleasing to God. I believe if this is our motivation, we are acting out of self - a bad habit.

So why make these choices if not for our self and not to "please" God? Faith is the closest answer.

You emphasize in your post that we can do nothing pleasing to God.

I would go further: We can't disappoint, displease, earn the love of or earn the hate or wrath of God. All of these are humanizing God and making Him subject to passion, subject to change.

We and scripture speak in these terms in order to try to communicate, but we are, in the end, describing what can't be fully described. Theology is reasoning about the Divine. It is useful, but incomplete.

God can't be drawn down fully into reason. Cronos has posted about the holding of contradictions both fully in the mind. When we reduce the Divine into reason, often that is what results - two contradictions. In this case free will vs. predestination. I believe the way to hold them simultaneously is with faith and with relationship to the Divine, free will guided by the Divine light, the growth toward union where the boundary between our will and God's will disappears.

I think Calvinism, ever logical, systematic theology, looks at the contradiction and picks one side as true, the other false. In so doing it reduces both man and God. I see good people there, my only reason for opposing it is that, IMHO, it teaches a view of God that is harmful. It is used too often to portray a hateful God and needlessly impedes other's path. [Look at the long posts recently on God's hate and wrath for example, and imagine a child reading them.]

Thanks again for the discussion. My apologies for my length in reply.

[Judith Anne]

Only if that "love" includes the gospel, otherwise, like John Paul all they have done is convert people to themselves, like John paul did. We know he never presented the gospel because the world loved him, Jesus said the world would hate us

I seem to recall a post by you, saying somethng about "Catholics following their pope into hell." Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes, hate-filled people reap what they sow.

But JPII was a man who tried to live for Christ, and bring others to salvation, by showing Christ's love to the nations. Somehow, I don't think that someone who tries to show God's hate to the Catholics has quite the same power.

[RnMomof7]

Negative. She was not an unbeliever; she, following in a similar experience to some of the great Christian mystics such as Mother Teresa is not the only modern saint to have undergone such a trial of faith; one thinks also of precursors like St. Paul of the Cross, and St. Jane Frances de Chantal (1572-1641), and Ste. Thérèse of Lisieux (1873-1897), the French Carmelite famous for her “Little Way.”
She had no atheism or unbelief; she had an intense spiritual struggle which many people are spared. She endured to the very end, as Jesus and Paul and indeed, much of the NT message teaches us. I don't find her to be worthy of the contempt shown by many. I see the depth of her struggles, comparing them to the fatuous and sneering smugness of the OSAS crowd or the predestination crowd, and find her, not them, as Paul tells us, to imitate him as he imitates Christ.

Could you show us some Nt examples of doubt and disbelief in the disciples after Pentecost?

Mother Teresa was a poor unsaved , very nice lady that hopped work would take her to God if there was one..

2 Corth 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, [is] God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

1Jo 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.

Those apostles were tortured and murdered and never had a "dark night of the soul"..Because they Knew that they knew... Poor Mother Teresa had no assurance

[MarkBsnr]

you know that is a very good point HD. Jesus had no free will, He came to do the Father's will.

That is a very interesting statement. The Lord God Almighty through whom all Creation was Created is a puppet? A robot slave?

This is not the Nicene Creed; it most certainly is not the Athenasian Creed. The True God is not a robot slave.

[maryz]

Those apostles were tortured and murdered and never had a "dark night of the soul".

Christ did. Eli, Eli, lema sabacthani -- what Chesterton describes as the awful time "when God was forsaken of God."

In any case the apostles didn't leave diaries.

[RnMomof7]

You guys give me Paul and Isaiah. I give you Jesus.
Actually Mark, I quoted Jesus to you.. but we need to remember that all the words of scripture are equally inspired. It was the Holy Spirit that brought to mind all os the NT accounts and quotes ..there was no one taking notes or recording the words of Christ.. the memories are Holy Spirit inspired as is Acts and the epistles

Generally speaking, you guys post Paul, and then Isaiah. Rarely is Jesus posted, except in out of context snippets. I will say that in the specific post you did post John, and five verses in a row, at that. However, the verses did not address what you claimed;

They address that there will never be unity between the catholics and the Born again believers be they orthodox or protestants

Read it again mark

There will never be "unity" with the elect and the catholic church, only other un-regenerates will join Rome. The saved will never come, they resisted the inquisition, being on hit lists and being burned at the stake .. Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. Jhn 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

HIS Sheep hear Him ..and follow HIM..not traditions , not popes and NO ONE can pluck them out of the hand of God.. They will not be deceived

but we need to remember that all the words of scripture are equally inspired.
Only if you believe that the words of the Chroncler are equal to those quotations from Christ. As an orthodox Christian, I reject that view. And your statement is NOT supported anywhere in Scripture itself. Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and He is God. The words of Jesus are more important to me than, say, Obadiah.

Do you realize that the gospels are actually Old testament? They record for us that Jesus kept the jewish laws perfectly. They tell us about the miracles God preformed through Him preformed to verify His divinity

But the New Testament , the New Covenant began after the resurrection of Christ. The old testament was law keeping, the New testament is grace and mercy through the cross..

Mark some of the most important discourse that Christ had was never recorded.. it happened on the road to Emmaus when Christ revealed how all the OT pointed to Him

The entire scripture comes from God ...No one was following jesus around with a recorder.. God breathed the memories that were to be reported for our benefit in the scriptures..

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jesus thought the OT was inspired.. He quoted all the time.. "it is written"... "Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?"

[MarkBsnr]

I gave you scripture

You dumped a series of explained one liners from the OT, plus a one liner from Paul, plus a small quote from Jeremiah and another from Nahum.

Catholics are free to ignore the scriptures at their own peril

We believe that quotations from Jesus carry more weight than those of Nahum. We look to those first.

One does not need to believe in the wrath of God to experience it

The teachings of Jesus include the offer of universal love and mercy. The only wrath is directed at those who reject Him; their behaviour or non behaviour is met with repercussions. All of Matthew 25 is most instructive.

I wonder what Catholics think Christ suffered on the cross or why He did it..

From the Catechism's summaries:

619 "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (I Cor 15:3).

620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: "This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19).

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

623 By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).

A ransom, to reclaim us all from the fallen or wounded state that came to us in the Garden.

[stfassisi]

RN-””Well John Paul seemed to think it was ok..interesting he would kiss a Koran , that has a false god and catholics call that love, but they hate Luther and the reformers that love the one true God.. just kinnda interesting.””

First of all kissing a book is not a big deal,it’s just a book and if it helps a relationship towards peaceful dialog perhaps good can come out of it

Secondly, we do not hate Luther and the reformers we recognizance some of what they teach is heretical and flawed but we don’t run around saying they are going to hell like ignorant protestant religious zealots do to muslims ,Catholics and mormons

From Dominus Iesus In regards to protestant communities
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

Dominus Iesus in regards to other religions...

“we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.20

For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which “makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently”,21 then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute.22

This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.

The Church’s tradition, however, reserves the designation of inspired texts to the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, since these are inspired by the Holy Spirit.24 Taking up this tradition, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council states: “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself”.25 These books “firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”.26

Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors’”.27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.

The rest of your posts reminds of something that I would hear from a fundamentalist religions zelot that scares people away and is afraid of loving someone who differs in their belief

[OpusatFR]

“The Lord God Almighty through whom all Creation was Created is a puppet? A robot slave?”

Are they tripping into Arianism - Jesus was different from God and secondary to him?

[RnMomof7]

Since sin entered into man completely attached to man's free will it was a free gift by God to suffer for atonement for our sins.

But if God is not angry with men, why did Christ have to SUFFER ? Why was an atonement necessary? Why did God have to inflict so much pain on Christ if He was not angry with men?

By the Resurrection destroying death.Without the Cross there is no Resurrection

So the cross and the suffering were inconsequential , only the resurrection has meaning? Could Christ have lived to be an old man, then die and have a resurrection? Would that have defeated death? BTW What does defeated death mean?

[MarkBsnr]

I just can't believe anyone posted that. Honestly, it reeks. American men, some of them my relatives, fought, suffered, and died in battle with Moslems

When one has an enemy in mind and is implacable demonstrating that hatred, believe it. The Protestant countries overall waited with bated breath during the Siege of Vienna in 1683, and in fact, the leader of the Hungarian Calvinists, Imre Thököly, was the one who started the invasion by inviting the Turkish Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, to invade Vienna and garnered the support of the Hungarian army.

Turkish domination of Eastern Europe down through the Balkans was fairly set, and the Calvinists wanted them to destroy Catholic Europe in order come in behind like vultures and pick up whatever pieces were left over. And that mindset continues to this day.

[Judith Anne]

But if God is not angry with men, why did Christ have to SUFFER ? Why was an atonement necessary? Why did God have to inflict so much pain on Christ if He was not angry with men?

There you go, trying to understand the heart and mind of God with limited human abilities. Remember, God LOVES the world, and it was the WORLD that inflicted pain on Christ, not God. Christ (God Incarnate) accepted that for our sake, to make us His sisters, brothers, children of God. He ransomed us from sin and death, His death paid our price.

Every sinner is guilty of the death of Christ.

[trisham]

But if God is not angry with men, why did Christ have to SUFFER ? Why was an atonement necessary? Why did God have to inflict so much pain on Christ if He was not angry with men?

So the cross and the suffering were inconsequential , only the resurrection has meaning? Could Christ have lived to be an old man, then die and have a resurrection? Would that have defeated death? BTW What does defeated death mean?

**************************

Interesting questions. I hope you don't mind me pinging someone much more knowledgable than I. :)

[RnMomof7]

RN-””Well John Paul seemed to think it was ok..interesting he would kiss a Koran , that has a false god and catholics call that love, but they hate Luther and the reformers that love the one true God.. just kinnda interesting.”” First of all kissing a book is not a big deal,it’s just a book and if it helps a relationship towards peaceful dialog perhaps good can come out of it

It is not Just a book.. It is a SACRED book ..Did the Imam kiss the Bible in return? Of course not they will not compromise their faith

Secondly, we do not hate Luther and the reformers we recognizance some of what they teach is heretical and flawed but we don’t run around saying they are going to hell like ignorant protestant religious zealots do to muslims ,Catholics and mormons

Well the Pope sent an army out to kill him, and even today he is dragged over the coals, and trent cursed us ..... and yes taught that only Catholics could be saved ..The PC Roman church has tapped that down ..but then they teach muslims can be saved to.. makes me think they are clueless on what is necessary for salvation.

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:
We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

The rest of your posts reminds of something that I would hear from a fundamentalist religions zelot that scares people away and is afraid of loving someone who differs in their belief

Actually I love people enough to let them hate me in the name of Christ.. all beliefs are not equal all gods are not equal, they do not save.. there are not many roads to heaven..there is one, and it is narrow ... It is Christ.
Not traditions , not good works, not sacrifices, not rosaries

There is a way that seems good to a man, but that leads to hell .

[trisham]

Thanks, Mark. I confess that is very disheartening.

[stfassisi]

But if God is not angry with men, why did Christ have to SUFFER ?

The Jews expected a angry wrathful God of what they thought was strength,but Christ showed humility through suffering is love that is stronger than anger and wrath

So the cross and the suffering were inconsequential , only the resurrection has meaning?

NO! It's all one event to God.You cannot separate them