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)

[HarleyD]

Yet you dismiss them all as unbelievers and deny the very words of Matthew and Luke both as to who Jesus preached to with a wave of your Reformed hand.

I didn't dismiss them all. I dismissed the non-believers. There is a lesson to be learned from this text. Those who did not follow Christ up the mountain did not hear the words that God had laid out for them.

There are other incidences of similar point. In John 6 when our Lord Jesus fed the 5,000, it said they followed him around to the other side of the lake. He rebuked them and told them the reason they were following him was simply so he would feed them.

Do you think our Lord was referring to unbelievers as the "light of the world" or "the salt of the earth"??? Quite frankly I have never heard of unbelievers in those terms. Yet that is what the Beatitudes are about.

[stfassisi]

/There is NOTHING that pleases God except perfection

Choosing life(no Abortion) is perfection ,so is giving up our life(john 15:13) to "lay down one's life for one's friends "an act of perfection .

[kosta50]

just ask Adam who one little indiscretion was enough to cast his entire ancestors [sic...

Er, Adam was the first human. He didn't have "ancestors," Harley. :)

[MarkBsnr]

Yet you dismiss them all as unbelievers and deny the very words of Matthew and Luke both as to who Jesus preached to with a wave of your Reformed hand. I didn't dismiss them all. I dismissed the non-believers. There is a lesson to be learned from this text. Those who did not follow Christ up the mountain did not hear the words that God had laid out for them.

Matthew and Luke did not say non believers. They said the entire crowds of people. The lesson to be learned is that Jesus preached to all men, not some fictional elect.

There are other incidences of similar point. In John 6 when our Lord Jesus fed the 5,000, it said they followed him around to the other side of the lake. He rebuked them and told them the reason they were following him was simply so he would feed them.

Jesus taught us all; this is not a one line prooftexted rebuke. Let us all read His words.

John 6:16 10 When it was evening, his disciples went down to the sea, 17 embarked in a boat, and went across the sea to Capernaum. It had already grown dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. 18 The sea was stirred up because a strong wind was blowing. 19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea 11 and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid. 20 But he said to them, "It is I. 12 Do not be afraid." 21 They wanted to take him into the boat, but the boat immediately arrived at the shore to which they were heading.

22 13 The next day, the crowd that remained across the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not gone along with his disciples in the boat, but only his disciples had left. 23 14 Other boats came from Tiberias near the place where they had eaten the bread when the Lord gave thanks. 24 When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. 25 And when they found him across the sea they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" 26 Jesus answered them and said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, 15 which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal." 28 So they said to him, "What can we do to accomplish the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent." 30 So they said to him, "What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do? 31 16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"

32 So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 So they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."

35 17 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day." 41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven," 42 and they said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"

43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21

63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

This is not a simple rebuke or dismissal. This is the great Teaching of the Eucharist. Jesus illustrates to us about the Real Presence and the fact that so many even of those who professed to follow Him were unable to accept it. Even today, how many Christians do not believe in John 15? Most of the Protestants don't, by their own admission, calling it allegory or parable or allusion.

Do you think our Lord was referring to unbelievers as the "light of the world" or "the salt of the earth"??? Quite frankly I have never heard of unbelievers in those terms. Yet that is what the Beatitudes are about.

Jesus only called those who followed His instructions the light of the world or the salt of the earth. He said nothing of the self-appointed and self-described elect. He said that in order to be saved, one MUST do these things...

[Cronos]

Nah, the Unitarians deny the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. Also, as Old Reggie points out -- a "biblical unitarian", namely that the Unitarians use sola scriptura to justify their clims. I wonder why folks from the OPC and other groups take a Unitarian as brethern considering the UU's stance that they deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. It must be because those folks will accept anyone who attacks the CHurch -- whether they be Unitarians, JW, Mormon, OPC, leftie, etc.

[Cronos]

Unitarians do not believe in the basic Christian ideas of:
1. Christ is God
2. God is ONE - a Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Now if you as a Unitarian want to believe that, so be it, but if you then want to debate further Christian dogma, it's like someone arguing calculus when they do not agree that 1+1 = 2. Namely, it does not help those talking calculus and the topic goes on a nice merry-go-around.

It's like you or me getting on a thread between Mahayana and Hirayana Buddhism when we don't agree with their fundamental concept of rebirth.

If you as a Unitarian want to argue with us on the nature of the Trinity -- that's fair, just as you / I could argue over whether there is such a thing as rebirth with a Buddhist. But if we try to move further into various Buddhist theology, we are wasting everyone's time.

The Unitarian Universalist website states (uua.org):

"Some Unitarian Universalists are nontheists and do not find language about God useful. The faith of other Unitarian Universalists in God may be profound, though among these, too, talk of God may be restrained. Why? The word God is much abused. Far too often, the word seems to refer to a kind of granddaddy in the sky or a super magician. To avoid confusion, many Unitarian Universalists are more apt to speak of "reverence for life" (in the words of Albert Schweitzer, a Unitarian), the spirit of love or truth, the holy, or the gracious. Many also prefer such language because it is inclusive; it is used with integrity by theist and nontheist members. Whatever our theological persuasion, Unitarian Universalists generally agree that the fruits of religious belief matter more than beliefs about religion-even about God. So we usually speak more of the fruits: gratitude for blessings, worthy aspirations, the renewal of hope, and service on behalf of justice."

he Unitarian/ Universalist Association cannot be called, even by the greatest stretch of the imagination, either Christian nor a Church

The UUA does not believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. The Unitarian Universalist website states (uua.org):

"We do not, however, hold the Bible-or any other account of human experience-to be either an infallible guide or the exclusive source of truth. Much biblical material is mythical or legendary. Not that it should be discarded for that reason! Rather, it should be treasured for what it is. We believe that we should read the Bible as we read other books (or the newspaper) - with imagination and a critical eye."

The Unitarian Universalist believes that Jesus was only a man, born just like all other men. The Unitarian Universalist website states (uua.org):

"Classically, Unitarian Universalist Christians have understood Jesus as a savior because he was a God-filled human being, not a supernatural being.

[Cronos]

good points in what you say, but however, I think you said you (or was it some other poster — I apologize if it was someone else) don’t believe in hyper-Calvinism, but you believe that we all have free will for everything except the act of choosing God?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Dr. E: No doubt her torment was real. To be without Christ is a frightening place to be.

How do you know that?

Because she told us she was without Christ and that she was frightened.

I take her at her word.

[maryz]

I can't help it if you disagree with St. Paul.

We disagree with your reading of St. Paul. Paul was not writing systematic theology. You take writings full of enthusiasm and spiritual insight, groping to express ineffable realities, and treat each verse (well, at least favored ones) as if it has no more depth and richness than "Remove plastic covering. Heat on HIGH for 3-4 minutes."

[HarleyD]

Choosing life(no Abortion) is perfection ,so is giving up our life(john 15:13)

It is dumbfounding to read such statements.

[HarleyD]

Er, Adam was the first human. He didn't have "ancestors," Harley. :)

Well, you get a big

LOL!!!

on that one.

[HarleyD]

...but you believe that we all have free will for everything except the act of choosing God?

I don't know how many ways to say this, "free will" is a myth, a lie, bogus...

We are slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. We are not free. The Son sets us free from being slaves to sin. However, when He does so we WANT to do the things that are good. How many of us truly want to exercise our "free will" against God?

[D-fendr]

"free will" is a myth, a lie, bogus...

Not sure why I should believe you - you have no choice whether or not you believe it's true, even if it isn't. Right?

[maryz]

What is stranger than my belief system is that you believe throwing yourself on a grenade will save your soul.

I doubt that anyone has ever decided throw himself on a grenade "to save his soul." It seems to be more indicative that he makes a split-second decision based on self-forgetfulness (like to the eternal Self-giving of the Son), that "love of neighbor", which commandment is "like to" the first great commandment of love of God.

Of course, some don't seem to feel themselves bound by "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" or even understand what it means.

[maryz]

So I would say the Beatitudes were taught to the disciples as the scriptures states.

If you look at the structure of the Beatitudes, they are not phrased as commandments, but as statements of fact about states frequently to be found among the humanity the apostles will be sent to teach and to deal with -- perhaps immediately about the very multitudes looking on.

[maryz]

You're just as important in God's kingdom

. . . because God loves each unimaginably, and this is the basis for the second great commandment -- we are to love those whom God loves. I don't recall exceptions noted.

[maryz]

There is NOTHING that pleases God except perfection

You do realize that to speak of "pleasing" God is an anthormorphic and metaphorical way of speaking of God?

To hear one speak so "authoritatively" of what pleases or doesn't please God does make me uneasy -- it seems to claim knowing more about the mind of God than any creature can claim.

Why on earth should God care just because someone fails to do ONE sin?

Ah, the image of God as the busy executive who can't bother Himself with detail! ;-)

Does the parable of the one lost sheep ring a bell?

[redgolum]

No the MoLu does not teach that some are predestined to hell. To be honest I know of no synods that do, as that was something the Augsburg Confessions said “Not so”.

And yes we do believe in Sola Fide. Faith in God is what saves, but that doesn't mean you just say “I have faith” and do nothing else. If you truly love and fear God, you will try to do his will. In other words, you can't say you love God and live your life as if you don't. It isn't the works that save, but the love and faith from which the works come from. There was a Catholic Freeper some time ago that I debated round and round for a while on the subject of Justification/Sanctification. At the end, we both realized while our views are not the same, they are close.

Free will is something I probably can't explain in the short amount of time before work that I have. In short, we have a limited free will. As I said before, God has to make the first move, but we can reject His grace. We are responsible for our own actions, and when we sin it isn't because that is what God wanted us to do, but our own choice. You can't blame God for being a drunk or an adulterer, you made that choice.

[stfassisi]

“”It is dumbfounding to read such statements.””

Harley, when someone loves and does good they are co operating with the the law of love written on their hearts and all good comes from God

“I will show thee all good” (Exod. xxxiii, 19).
“There came to me all good things along with it” (Wisd. vii, 11).

God is merciful,Harley He does not condemn people to life without Him in Hell because they didn’t hear the Bible being read to them.God has written the law of love on all our hearts, the Spirit blows where HE wills, not where Harley D says He blows.

The Gospel doesn’t say that a person who never knew Jesus will be rejected. Christ refers to those who disbelieve Him, such as the Pharisees - when He speaks in John 3, for example. In Romans 2, Paul says that ALL men, even the Gentiles, have a law written on their heart. The Catechism details the “natural law” pretty well. Basically, God has written onto our hearts the Law of Love. Even a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ can “know” this law. If a person loves, He abides in Christ. 1 John makes that statement several times. We know that we can do nothing good without Christ abiding within us.

From the Cathechism
CHAPTER THREE
GOD’S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. “Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law.”2

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: “For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.”4

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.”12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

[HarleyD]

Not sure why I should believe you - you have no choice whether or not you believe it's true, even if it isn't. Right?

You shouldn't believe me. You should search the scriptures to find out if these things are so. If one honestly read the scriptures through a Reformed perspective (the outward and inward calling of man), then it is difficult to reject what is being said. The scriptures are not complicated in the Reformed light (well-perhaps Revelation).

I would suggest an honest reading of the Gospel of John. If people would simply take the time and read this entire gospel through the outward and inward call of man perspective, they could come to no other conclusion then God chooses men.

As Yoda said, "You must unlearn what you have learned."