Skip to comments.Intended Catholic Dictatorship
Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
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.]
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.
You betcha. As I said, we have the common ground of the Scriptures and of the validity of their narration that a man, Jesus Christ, who was God, was born into this world, served this world, died by this world and rose from the dead into heaven.
I used to find that common ground with you, too. But as you've said, you've moved away from believing the Scriptures as authoritative and God-inspired to the point now where you doubt the existence of God.
As goofy as some of these FR Roman Catholics are, according to their own words not one of them doubts the existence of God.
If I were Greg Bahnsen or Van Til I could debate you with more sincerity. They were great debaters against agnostics and atheists. I simply have not learned the knack. I argue from Scripture. When that Scripture is dismissed as fiction, my only response is to reply "I hope you find again what you once thought you had because I still have it and it sustains me every day."
One last try. 8~)
Hoisted by their own petards. (What exactly is a petard and how is it hoisted?)
Not even a tiny little bit.
just out of curiosity, does your home page accurately reflect what you believe? thanks
Shhhhhhh! Pretend this is Japan. We'd be held in a place of honor.
Oh, I'm certain he is very happy to have you on his side. He did a little swimming too. :-)
Oh, I'm certain he is very happy to have you on his side. He did a little swimming too. :-)
I would hope you could distinguish the difference in promising the parents of the unbaptized The Church hopes for the salvation of your child" and the shopping list of Hope you have listed.
I am with the Priest who ignores the teaching of the Church and says "your child is in heaven with God."
Does it accurately reflect what I believe? Yes. Do I accurately reflect what I believe? HAH!
Although... I often find myself asking my children "Do you think you're better than your brothers and sisters?" and when they say no I wonder out loud why they act like they think they're better. You'd think our words and deeds would accurately reflect what we really believe. Maybe we fail to live up to what we aspire to, but we never fail to accurately reflect what we really believe... which is horribly depressing.
no need to get all hysterical, just asking
Etymology: Middle French, from peter to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from Latin peditum, from neuter of peditus, past participle of pedere to break wind; akin to Greek bdein to break wind
Somehow I don't think what they had in mind. :-)
"Blown up by your own bomb." is more likely.
huh, and all these years I envisioned a sock or something attached to a jock strap device
Here’s what I find from google:
“For ‘tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
petar” — Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv. “Hoist” was in Shakespeare’s
time the past participles of a verb “to hoise”, which meant what “to
hoist” does now: to lift. A petard (see under “peter out” for the
etymology) was an explosive charge detonated by a slowly burning
fuse. If the petard went off prematurely, then the sapper (military
engineer; Shakespeare’s “enginer”) who planted it would be hurled
into the air by the explosion. (Compare “up” in “to blow up”.) A
modern rendition might be: “It’s fun to see the engineer blown up
with his own bomb.”
I think that's pretty much the bottom line here isn't it? When an attempt is made to demonstrate what is meant by the word "hope" from a Catholic theological perspective it's dismissed as a "shopping list".
A moment when a priest could explain that our "hope" is in Jesus Christ who never fails "placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit" is just ignored for a platitude as if our HOPE in Christ is a pedestrian, pious facade. The theological virtue of Hope isn't "I hope we have chicken for dinner".
I did put the more "correct" definition in tiny font.
Here's the problem (as I see it) in a nutshell. Within Catholicism, the definition of "outermost circle of Christianity" is the two-pronged "apostolic succession/papal submission" and "valid Eucharist" (transubstantiation). All other doctrinal issues, while not ignored, are secondary considerations. In this mindset, if you're a "real" Christian you must be Catholic. And if you're not Catholic, you're at best a member of an "ecclesial community" (Protestants), of a "defective church" (Orthodox), or not a Christian at all. Thus, the mindset of Catholicism towards the corporate exercise of Christianity is exclusivist by design. You're either (already) Catholic, or you're well outside the safety zone.
Now using that mindset, when Catholics look upon Protestant denominations, they believe that all denominations must similarly be fully exclusivist towards all other denominations. They think that Protestants exclude all denominations/members not their own from the full body of Christ, because that's how it Catholics themselves approach others. While some "Protestant" congregations and denominations (using those terms loosely) may act that way towards outsiders, the majority do not (and the creedal ones IMO less so).
I find it amusing that it was Calvinists and Presbyterians who came up with the "Five Fundamentals" (where the perjorative "fundamentalist" comes from) as an ecumenical tool to find common ground with Christians of all persuasions (including Catholics and Orthodox). I myself can find fruitful, common ground with any and all Trinitarian Christians (Trinitarianism being my personal "outermost circle" for defining Christianity. Sure, we might argue doctrine, we might argue about what are "doctrines of demons" or what is the "gospel of Satan", but those are inter-family squabbles as far as many of us are concerned. Catholicism and Orthodoxy cannot reach across the aisle and say the same, IMO.