"Dictatorship of relativism"--what's the opposite of that? A "dictatorship of objectivism"?

[fix]

The posts of friends in this thread have been helpful to me. I have come to see that I am a “dissenter,” of sorts.

I see that the policy of the Catholic Church now is to:
(1) neglect internal Church discipline (as seen in pro-abortion rights and pro-death penalty Catholic politicians receiving Holy Communion in public and as seen in their abandonment of efforts to convince Catholics to stop using condoms and birth control pills).,
(2) to refrain from converting Protestants, Muslims, and Jews to the Catholic Faith (as seen in the New Evangelization, which targets only lapsed Catholics),
(3) but to embark on endless campaigns to change the laws of the secular state to conform to Catholic moral teachings. (as seen in the bishop’s election-year campaign keep condoms and birth control pills away from Catholics by convincing Catholics that the president was persecuting Catholics with the HHS Mandate, so that Catholics would vote the president out of office and so the new president would repeal the HHS Mandate)

I don’t agree with all that. I agree with the policy of Jesus and the Apostles who did not try to change the leaders or the laws of the State, but instead trying to bring individual souls, one-by-one, to the saving waters of Baptism and to the saving body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

The Church’s reliance on the force of the State is nothing new. Roman Emperors after Constantine used the Sword of the State to suppress heretics. How were the Mexican people made Catholic? By the sword, mainly. I’ve read that the general policy of Catholic missionaries in many European nations was for missionaries to convert the pagan king, and the then pagan king enforced the Catholic faith on his whole nation. I’m against all that, based on the authority of the Scriptures and the pre-Constantine tradition.

So, I guess I really am out-of-step with the bishops and the popes. I guess I’ll just retreat to my prayer closet and let the bishops and their Cristero culture warrior knights work to take over the government. I don’t know what else to do.

Since I am apparently a dissenter, I’ll stop posting my views on this web site. I really don’t belong here. This is site is for culture warriors who are trying to take over State. Goodbye and good luck! Vaya con Dios, mis amigos! I won’t be saddling up and riding in the New Cristeros War with you, but I wish you well. When you take over the government, I hope you will go gently with “heretics” like me.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...poster.jpg/220px-For_Greater_Glory_poster.jpg

The State can only be just if it is infused with proper morality. Catholics must live their faith. That includes voting like a Catholic, being a Politician like a Catholic, making only just laws, and so on. What part do you reject?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t agree with all that. I agree with the policy of Jesus and the Apostles who did not try to change the leaders or the laws of the State, but instead trying to bring individual souls, one-by-one, to the saving waters of Baptism and to the saving body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

The Church’s reliance on the force of the State is nothing new. Roman Emperors after Constantine used the Sword of the State to suppress heretics.

Whoa there, partner. Do you have any concept of how anachronistic these analogies are? Do you understand that Jesus and his fellow Jews in Palestine lived under an oppressive Roman imperial regime? Jesus and His disciples had no participation in the making of secular laws. Their only choice was to “go to their prayer closet” and live their lives in community and then convert others to do the same.

How were the Mexican people made Catholic? By the sword, mainly. I’ve read that the general policy of Catholic missionaries in many European nations was for missionaries to convert the pagan king, and the then pagan king enforced the Catholic faith on his whole nation. I’m against all that, based on the authority of the Scriptures and the pre-Constantine tradition.

Are you Mexican? If so, do you object to being “forced” to become Catholic, if you feel that you were forced?

I guess I’ll just retreat to my prayer closet and let the bishops and their Cristero culture warrior knights work to take over the government. I don’t know what else to do.

Thanks be to God, the bishops and every other American Catholic belong to a participatory democracy, unlike some of the still-existent dictatorships in the world. We have choices not available in First-Century Palestine.

This is site is for culture warriors who are trying to take over State. Goodbye and good luck!

I could have sworn it was a site for information, questions, discussion, and references. Silly me.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The State can only be just if it is infused with proper morality. Catholics must live their faith. That includes voting like a Catholic, being a Politician like a Catholic, making only just laws, and so on. What part do you reject?

In general, I agree that our honorable Friend correctly summarizes a Catholic’s duties as a citizen in a democratic republic. I do vote. If I were called to serve on a jury in a court case, I would vote there too. If somehow I ended up in a legislature, I’d vote there too. And I would pray to God that I would not compromise my Catholic Faith in carrying out all of the above.

Still, I believe I am in conflict with the dominant view among Catholics and Evangelicals in the USA at the present time.

The solution to everything, I believe, is working zealously to get as many Americans as possible to freely convert to the Catholic Faith and to freely and zealously practice their Faith on Sundays at Mass and every day of the week. Yet, this does not take place. As I understand it, the New Evangelization is allowed to target only lapsed Catholics. As I understand it, the Vatican II decree on Ecumenism and its decree on Non-Christian Religions mean that Catholics cannot target Protestants, Jews, Mormons, etc., for conversion, but rather they must approach the Church on their own and inquire about joining.

The second solution is for bishops and priests to get serious and enforce discipline (liturgy, morals, dogma) within the Church. Anyone who had been listening to the Catholic Answers Live radio program for years knows that this is not happening in many parishes, or even most parishes, in the USA.

Regarding campaigns against gay marriage laws, I believe the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits religious entities from imposing their religious-based moral doctrines on the whole nation. The Supreme Court has said that every law must have a “secular purpose.” So, we cannot win in campaigns against gay marriage. The Constitution actually says we have no right to impose our religion on pagan America. Pope John Paul II always said we must “propose but never impose” the Faith. The USA has a secular constitution, as anyone reading its text can see for themselves. As I understand it, the USA was the first nation in history to have a secular constitution. Even today, some of the Latin American nations mention God and/or the Catholic Church by name. You can find these constitutions on the Internet.

We CAN work to impose abortion prohibitions on the whole nation since there is an obvious secular purpose in that: To stop a doctor from stopping the beating of a a human heart. It is a no-brainer that a “fetus” is a human being.

But what is the “secular purpose” in banning same-sex couples from getting a state marriage license? I don’t think there are any credible ones.

Honestly I never imagined there’d come a day in which homosexuality would become normalized in the USA or anywhere. Well, maybe I imagined it being normal in the Netherlands and Sweden. But that’s about it. But this does not worry me. God is still in charge in HIS CHURCH. Homosexuality will never become normalized in the Church. I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God, primarily, and a citizen of an earthly nation only secondarily. The proud nations of the earth come and go. Only the Kingdom of God endures forever.

 

[St_Francis]

The posts of friends in this thread have been helpful to me. I have come to see that I am a “dissenter,” of sorts.

I see that the policy of the Catholic Church now is to:
(1) neglect internal Church discipline (as seen in pro-abortion rights and pro-death penalty Catholic politicians receiving Holy Communion in public and as seen in their abandonment of efforts to convince Catholics to stop using condoms and birth control pills).,
(2) to refrain from converting Protestants, Muslims, and Jews to the Catholic Faith (as seen in the New Evangelization, which targets only lapsed Catholics),
(3) but to embark on endless campaigns to change the laws of the secular state to conform to Catholic moral teachings. (as seen in the bishop’s election-year campaign keep condoms and birth control pills away from Catholics by convincing Catholics that the president was persecuting Catholics with the HHS Mandate, so that Catholics would vote the president out of office and so the new president would repeal the HHS Mandate)

I don’t agree with all that. I agree with the policy of Jesus and the Apostles who did not try to change the leaders or the laws of the State, but instead trying to bring individual souls, one-by-one, to the saving waters of Baptism and to the saving body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

The Church’s reliance on the force of the State is nothing new. Roman Emperors after Constantine used the Sword of the State to suppress heretics. How were the Mexican people made Catholic? By the sword, mainly. I’ve read that the general policy of Catholic missionaries in many European nations was for missionaries to convert the pagan king, and the then pagan king enforced the Catholic faith on his whole nation. I’m against all that, based on the authority of the Scriptures and the pre-Constantine tradition.

So, I guess I really am out-of-step with the bishops and the popes. I guess I’ll just retreat to my prayer closet and let the bishops and their Cristero culture warrior knights work to take over the government. I don’t know what else to do.

Since I am apparently a dissenter, I’ll stop posting my views on this web site. I really don’t belong here. This is site is for culture warriors who are trying to take over State. Goodbye and good luck! Vaya con Dios, mis amigos! I won’t be saddling up and riding in the New Cristeros War with you, but I wish you well. When you take over the government, I hope you will go gently with “heretics” like me.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...poster.jpg/220px-For_Greater_Glory_poster.jpg

Oh, good, you didn’t leave I find your questions to be thought-provoking so I would hate to see you leave over this!

I have more thoughts on this but must run, so will post them later and only suggest you look into Christopher Ferrera’s book about liberty in the US, which I just ordered today.

Hasta luego!

 

[St_Francis]

The posts of friends in this thread have been helpful to me. I have come to see that I am a “dissenter,” of sorts.

I see that the policy of the Catholic Church now is to:
(1) neglect internal Church discipline (as seen in pro-abortion rights and pro-death penalty Catholic politicians receiving Holy Communion in public and as seen in their abandonment of efforts to convince Catholics to stop using condoms and birth control pills).,

Agreed.

However, disagreeing about a tactic does not make you a dissenting Catholic…

(2) to refrain from converting Protestants, Muslims, and Jews to the Catholic Faith (as seen in the New Evangelization, which targets only lapsed Catholics),

I do not think all dioceses are responding in the same way…

(3) but to embark on endless campaigns to change the laws of the secular state to conform to Catholic moral teachings. (as seen in the bishop’s election-year campaign keep condoms and birth control pills away from Catholics by convincing Catholics that the president was persecuting Catholics with the HHS Mandate, so that Catholics would vote the president out of office and so the new president would repeal the HHS Mandate)

Wow! There seem to be 3 main points you are making here: 1. that the bishops try to affect US law, 2. that the bishops should not have tried to affect the HHS mandate, and 3. that they did so to get a particular candidate (whom you did not like?) elected.

I would disagree with you on all three points. 1. The bishops have as much right as anyone else to try to affect US law–they are US citizens, too, and they represent US citizens as well; 2. the bishops were fighting for the right of orthodox Catholics not to have to choose between obeying God or obeying the government, and the bishops were *not *trying to overturn the mandate altogether; and 3. I doubt that the bishops were trying to get the “other” candidate elected, since most of them seem to be much more sympathetic to the party which proposed the mandate, and certainly supported the law from which thea date stemmed!

I don’t agree with all that. I agree with the policy of Jesus and the Apostles who did not try to change the leaders or the laws of the State, but instead trying to bring individual souls, one-by-one, to the saving waters of Baptism and to the saving body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

As has already been pointed out, Christ and His Apostles were not in a position to affect government policy.

The Church’s reliance on the force of the State is nothing new. Roman Emperors after Constantine used the Sword of the State to suppress heretics.

And used the Sword of the State before Constantine against Christians, no?

How were the Mexican people made Catholic? By the sword, mainly. I’ve read that the general policy of Catholic missionaries in many European nations was for missionaries to convert the pagan king, and the then pagan king enforced the Catholic faith on his whole nation. I’m against all that, based on the authority of the Scriptures and the pre-Constantine tradition.

I’ve read differently… Few of those 10 million living in that area converted until after Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared, when the majority converted within a few years, voluntarily.

So, I guess I really am out-of-step with the bishops and the popes. I guess I’ll just retreat to my prayer closet and let the bishops and their Cristero culture warrior knights work to take over the government. I don’t know what else to do.

Well, I have to wonder what you mean by this. Christ is King of Heaven and Earth–what do you think this means?

Since I am apparently a dissenter, I’ll stop posting my views on this web site. I really don’t belong here. This is site is for culture warriors who are trying to take over State. Goodbye and good luck! Vaya con Dios, mis amigos! I won’t be saddling up and riding in the New Cristeros War with you, but I wish you well. When you take over the government, I hope you will go gently with “heretics” like me.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...poster.jpg/220px-For_Greater_Glory_poster.jpg

 

[devoutchristian]

The State is morally obligated to support the Catholic religion, but it can be practically any form of government. It would be possible to have a multiparty Catholic Republic in which there were multiple parties which all agreed on essential Catholic teaching.

 

[Abu]

Bartolome Casas #23
As I understand it, the Vatican II decree on Ecumenism and its decree on Non-Christian Religions mean that Catholics cannot target Protestants, Jews, Mormons, etc., for conversion, but rather they must approach the Church on their own and inquire about joining.

From past experience, the “understanding” of the Church’s teaching by this individual too often has been a “misunderstanding”.

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”

It is through Christ’s Church alone, which is the general means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained, and that same Catholic Church “has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all the means of grace.” (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, 4.). Mysterium Ecclesiae, SCDF, 1973].

U.R. #11: “Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.
At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.”

“The objective fullness of Christ’s heritage to the Church – totality of His revelation, totality of His sacraments, and totality of authority to rule the people of God in His name – resides in the Catholic Church, of which the bishop of Rome is the visible head.” [Fr John A Hardon, S.J.,* The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday 1975, p 213].

 

[PHSshamrock]

The freedom of objective truth.