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)

[metmom]

Accusations of *bearing false witness* are essentially calling someone else a liar, just not in so many words. And again, that implies an intent to deceive. Prohibiting that is a good idea.

If someone relates what they’ve experienced and know to be true among people they encounter, like the things that I know the Catholics I grew up with believed, that is not bearing false witness about the Catholic church to state that. It may not be in line with what someone else believes Catholic church doctrine states, but that is not bearing false witness, or lying, about Catholic church doctrine. It’s merely relating what I know to be true from personal experience, and there’s simply no way to *prove* the statement to be true so accusations of lying unless I do are out of line as well.

Relating personal experience cannot be supported with the same standard of proof that discussing actual church doctrine can. And in those cases, the *I don’t believe you* line is the same as calling the other person a liar.

If someone tells me of experience they’ve had with non-Catholics, I see no reason to not believe them or tell them they are lying. There is no reason for anyone else to do that to me or any others.

Again, a lot less controversy would be generated if someone simply stated that what the other person said was wrong, if it is and provide sources to demonstrate that and what they think the correct situation is.

[Quix]

I agree.

Well put, imho.

Thx.

[D-fendr]

I’m not against the idea, just don’t think it would have much effect. If the scale is “inflammatory” there’s a lot more inflammatory comments than “bearing false witness” that are within the guidelines that are posted much more often.

[Running On Empty]

I agree.

[D-fendr]

Thanks.

But I’m an agent of Satan, so what do I know?

:)

[Lera]

First I would like to thank you for volunteering to moderate these threads. As someone who has moderated message boards before I personally know just how much it stinks being constantly called by people bickering and making things personal.

Personally I think the more you try to define what is personal the more problems and complaints you will have to deal with.

People need to grow up . This is an open thread if you are not mature enough to handle open discussion I would suggest you not read open threads .

Be civil , after all most of you profess to be Christians. If you can not be civil with one another the rest of the world will see you as a hypocrite.

When some one does not agree with you it does not mean that they hate you personally. If you are so insecure with your own faith or your own person that you can not take any sort of criticism you probably should not be participating in these type of discussions.

If you feel the need to constantly call the moderator it’s my humble opinion that maybe you are not mature enough participate in these discussions .

[Al Hitan]

[Lera]

Ever read this ?

Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

[Cronos]

Actually DO check on the process — it is quite strict, quite unlike the fake healings of Pent-c-coastl pasters like Hinn and co

[Cronos]

So you’re basically saying all those who celebrate the Lords Day on Sunday instead of Saturday are wrong?

[Cronos]

well, it is a good question. And yet there is a valid answer: historical, religious and biblical - passages of Scripture such as Acts 20:7 ( 7On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.), 1 Corinthians 16:2(2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made., Colossians 2:16-17(16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.

Next, since you go by sola scriptura, I gave you the above, but also, historically, we see that the early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished.

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

or from Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

and Justin Martyr

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

however, let me repeat -- unless you knew of these scriptural reasons and also the historical proof that the earliest Christians celebrated on the Lord's day, Sunday, you could easily be misled as you were and as SeventhDay adventists are misled. Hence, a good question, but one that is easily answered by the above proofs, scriptural and historical

[Cronos]

Yes and Christ became flesh and His body ascended into heaven and we believe His created body still “exists”. Hence we have a case of the immaterial God becoming material.

[Cronos]

Actully no Charismatic Catholic group does this:
teachings of Kenneth Hagin. He is practicing a manifestation which is called the "Serpent Spirit." On October 12-24, 1997, he conducted a Holy Ghost meeting in Chesterfield, Mo. "On the third night he began to manifest this spirit with his tongue sticking out and wiggling like a serpent's tongue. He also began to hiss. On Thursday night, as he began to hiss, many of the people began to slither down out of their seats feet first. Some of the people would hiss back at him." ("Kenneth Hagin and the 'Spirit of the Serpent' - by Joseph R. Chambers)

[Cronos]

Of course you dabble in cults — you’re not in Christ’s Church, yet are not Jewish and show a mangled gospel led by the egotism of one (probably a paster or even individual). It’s a cult and the vehemence of a cultists mangled outbursts are visible proof of the small size of this entity. Your grouping of one is a cult or a kooky faux society like the Raelians

[Cronos]

Dr. Patrick Dixon in his book "Signs of Revival" lists six characteristics of an Altered State of Consciousness:

1. Alterations in thinking
2. Altered sense of time
3. Loss of control
4. Changes in emotional expression
5. Body image changes
6. Perceptual changes or hallucinations

The "laughing revival" is an altered state of consciousness.

A similar experience has taken place in Seattle, Washington called the "Seattle Revival Center." In 1994, three pastors, Darrel Stott of Lake Boren Christian Center, Steve Richard of Freedom Life Foursquare, and Wayne Anderson of International Church traveled to Toronto and claimed they "got drunk in the Holy Spirit."

Pastor Stott tells of his legs growing weak, falling on the floor, his legs flying in the air, laughing uncontrollably, feeling like a drunk, staggering, swinging around posts, shaking, furniture flying in the room, floor rolling, twitching, yelling, rolling down the halls, etc.. ("O Timothy" - #8, 1997 - page 2-4)

I believe these apparitions are demonic. At the Lausanne II Evangelical Conference in Manila in 1989, John Wimber testified of these supposed signs and wonders. "A member of the press panel from India refuted the claim that these miracles and signs must be from God. He said that the same charismatic-styled tongues, healings, miracles, signs and wonders are also found among the heathen religions of his native India." ("Foundation" magazine - March-April, 1997 - page 13) As Quix said " And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

[Cronos]

Apostles idea of speaking in tongues:

In the Bible, "tongues" always mean languages that really exist or existed. Only the apostles and some of those converted by their ministry spoke in tongues. Generally speaking, the sign-gifts are limited to the apostles (apart from the Lord, of course).

Speaking in tongues is only described in the book of Acts, in the three times when new groups of believers were introduced into the Assembly (or Church) -- the Jews in ch. 2, the Gentiles in ch. 10, and the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:6. The apostles spoke in different LANGUAGES (actual human, understandable languages), without asking for it

ACTS 2

4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them. 5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"

In contrast, the strange noises made by various sham pent-e-coastl groups like oinks, gargling etc. are NOT languages of this world, most are made up, some sound demonic. How can you compare this sham "speaking in oinks" to true, Apostolic speaking in tongues?

[Al Hitan]

That's a great little snippet.

I'd recommend you forward it on to the one I was responding to - you know, the guy posting the laughing dog, the laughing horse, using words about Catholics like - we'll you get the picture. So to speak.

[Cronos]

The Athanasian creed for your edification:

Athanasian Creed

---

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

[Cronos]

The difference is that while we all know what Catholics believe or do not believe in (or believe we know), it is not true for individual religions of one. So if ask why Mennonites worship XYZ, according to your rules that’s ok, yet if we ask person, say “Young Archie” about what he believes in, that’s making it personal, according to your rules. hence the disconnect.

[Cronos]

Furthermore, the rules allow posters to say things like "the Southern Baptist white hankies and rubber gospels" and direct them at particular posters, which is in other words an attack. And more to the point, it's a wide-spreading, non-topical, attack on everything that the SBC person believes in, hence it's akin to a blanket "you are bad and evil" post.

Such a statement leads to non-dialogue. While I can debate with, say a metmom or roamer who will focus on one topic and say that THAT topic is the reason why he/she does not believe the same as I do, it is impossible to talk on an internet forum with someone who says "you guys are all evil, we have nothing in common, I have more in common with Manicheans" -- there is no dialogue, no possibility of a dialogue or debate, just an empty mud-slinging.

I don't see how you can prevent this without terribly active policing, but your new rules will not help this, just exacerbate it -- the current rules, while not good enough to prevent this sort of thing, are just as good as the new proposed rules.