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)

[Cronos]

You mean “Christians” like the Cathar who were Gnostics or Paulicians?

[1000 silverlings]

I was wrong about “no Holy Spirit in sight”. It was pointed out to me that “it’s the white thing” that looks like a duck. Pardon me, I was under the impression He is a person, one of the 3 that make up the Trinity.

[metmom]

dr. e: ‘And we can’t forget we have the testimony of Roman Catholics like Salvation who have repeatedly told us that “once baptized a (Roman) Catholic, always a (Roman) Catholic.”’

w: “Please give a link to a post of Salvation’s, I would like to see the context.”

Ask and you shall receive.....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2565303/posts?page=54#54

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2554678/posts?page=36#36

Salvation: “I hate to break this to you, but those people whom you think left the Catholic Church are really still Catholics — although they may not be practicing the faith at this time. When they were baptized a Catholic it was for life. They join famous people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck — also non=practicing Catholics.

There are three Sacraments that mark a Catholics soul. Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. Those marks are still there no matter what they or you think about it. They are still Catholics!”

[D-fendr]

It’s the New Iconoclasm:

No icons without nametags!

[metmom]

Um, Jesus is at God’s right hand. Mary didn’t displace Him according to Scripture.

Matthew 26:64
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 12:36
David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ‘

Mark 14:62
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Mark 16:19
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

Luke 20:42
David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand

Luke 22:69
But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

Acts 5:31
God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

Acts 7:56
“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Ephesians 1:19-21
19and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

Colossians 3:1
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You very clearly broke the rules of FR when you said to me...

"...a person such as yourself who claims omniscience..."

Try to squirm out of it all you want. I have never "claimed omniscience" which is a false statement on your part.

Please give a link to a post of Salvation's, I would like to see the context.

lol. Ah, yes, the ever-squishy "context." Well, in context, outside of context, above or below context, Salvation has made the statement many times. Here is just one example...

SALVATION'S POST ABOUT
"ONCE A CATHOLIC, ALWAYS A CATHOLIC."

SALVATION: "You are always a Catholics, once you are baptized a Catholic. You can come back to the church at any time."

As I said, perhaps one or both of you were "poorly catechized."

If I thought for a moment that you were actually interested in what the term "alter Christus" meant, I would address it.

Thanks for the thought but we have already learned what the blasphemous term, "alter Christus," means from Father Kenneth Baker.

The lie doesn't smell any sweeter coming from a priest.

Christians are called to become Christ-like; we do not become Christ. Christ is sufficient unto Himself for all that He accomplished on behalf of His sheep. One Shepherd. One flock. One salvation.

[Cronos]

you can refer Baptist Successionism by James McGoldrick who concluded that modern Baptists have more in common with the Roman Catholic Church than they have with the radically heretical cults acclaimed to be their predecessors by Baptist successionists. He wrote, “Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers… A careful examination of Baptist history shows…that Baptists are Protestants.”

According to McGoldrick, the Baptists were an offshoot of the Puritans, who were Calvinists:

“The Baptist movement grew out of English Puritanism/Separatism… These ‘Separatists’ shared the Anabaptist conviction that the true church would restore the doctrine and government of the New Testament, which, it appeared, the Anglicans had no intention of doing. Separatists sought to establish free churches with a congregational form of government, but, unlike the Anabaptists, most of them retained the Protestant/Calvinist view of salvation, and all of them practiced infant baptism…” (Baptist Successionism, pp. 124-5)

Norman Cohn’s book, The Pursuit of the Millennium, subtitled “Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages,” describes what happened when the town of Munster, Germany, fell to Anabaptist "prophets" from the Netherlands:

“During February 1534, the power of the Anabaptists in Munster increased rapidly… “From Antwerp a scholar could write to Erasmus of Rotterdam: ‘We in these parts are living in wretched anxiety because of the way the revolt of the Anabaptists has flared up. For it really did spring up like fire. There is, I think, scarcely a village or town where the torch is not glowing in secret. They preach community of goods, with the result that all those who have nothing come flocking.’ How seriously the authorities took the threat is shown by the repressive measures which they adopted. Anabaptism was made a capital offense not only throughout the diocese of Munster but in the neighboring principalities… During the months of the siege countless men and women in the towns were beheaded, drowned, burnt or broken on the wheel. “By then end of March Matthys had established an absolute dictatorship; but a few days later he was dead… This event gave an opening to Matthys’s young disciple, Jan Bockelson, who so far had played no great part but who was in every was fitted to seize such a chance and use it to the full… “Bockelson’s first important act was – characteristically – at once a religious and a political one. Early in May he ran naked through the town in a frenzy and then fell into a silent ecstasy which lasted three days. When speech returned to him he called the population together and announced that God had revealed to him that the old constitution of the town, being the work of men, must be replaced by a new one which would be the work of God. The burgomasters and Council were deprived of their functions. In their place Bockelson set himself and – on the model of Ancient Israel – twelve Elders… This new government was given authority in all matters, public and private, spiritual and material, and power of life and death over all inhabitants of the town. A new legal code was drawn up, aimed partly at carrying still further the process of socialization and partly at imposing a severely puritanical morality. A strict direction of labour was introduced… At the same time the new code made capital offenses not only of murder and theft but also of lying, slander, avarice and quarreling. But above all it was an absolutely authoritarian code; death was to be the punishment of every kind of insubordination – of the young against their parents, of a wife against her husband, of anyone against God and God’s representative, the government of Munster…” (The Pursuit of the Millennium, Chap. 13)

McGoldrick states, “a large majority of Anabaptists…were quite unorthodox in their perceptions of the Incarnation,” citing as examples Thomas Muntzer, Melchior Hoffman and a leader of the Munster Anabaptists who also denied that Christ received His human flesh from Mary. This false teaching was a revival of the ancient Monophysite heresy that Christ had only one nature:

Bernard Rothman (c. 1495-1535), an Anabaptist prominent in the ill-fated attempt to build New Jerusalem at Munster in Westphalia, wrote: ‘If it had been Mary’s flesh [that is, Christ born of Mary] that died for us, my God, what comfort and courage could we derive from that? That would be like paying for one sin with another and to wash and cleanse one uncleanness with another.” (Baptist Successionism, p. 102)

Another Anabaptist leader who taught Monophysitism was Menno Simons, a disciple of Melchior Hoffman and the founder of the Mennonites. Menno Simons’ view of the Incarnation is described in Harold O.J. Brown’s book,Heresies

In August, 1532, radical Protestants under the leadership of the former Lutheran priest Bernt Rothmann and the cloth merchant and magistrate Hermann Knipperdoling took control of all of Münster's churches, with the exception of the Bishop's cathedral. By late 1533, these radicals had effective control of the entire town. By this time, they had also been converted to the Anabaptist ideas of Melchior Hoffman. In 1534 the Anabaptists (specifically the Melchiorites), led by Jan Matthys (or Matthijs) and Jan Beukels (often referred to as John of Leiden), took power openly in the Münster Rebellion and founded a "New Jerusalem." They claimed all property, burned all books except the Bible, and expelled or executed dissenters. John of Leiden believed he would lead the elect from Münster to capture the entire world and purify it of evil with the sword in preparation of Jesus's Second Coming and the beginnings of a New Age

‘For Christ Jesus, as to his origin, is no earthly man, that is, fruit of the flesh and blood of Adam. He is a heavenly fruit or man. For his beginning or origin is of the Father [John 16:28], like unto the first Adam, sin excepted.’ [ff. Menno Simons, Complete Writings, ed. Harold S. Bender,…1956) p. 863]…

Article IV of the 1632 Dutch Mennonite Confession to which David Cloud refers incorporates the Monophysite heresy, that Jesus was conceived “in” Mary, rather than “of” Mary:

“ “We believe and confess further, that when the time of the promise, for which all the pious forefathers had so much longed and waited, had come and was fulfilled, this previously promised Messiah, Redeemer, and Savior, proceeded from God, was sent, and, according to the prediction of the prophets, and the testimony of the evangelists, came into the world, yea, into the flesh, was made manifest, and the Word, Himself became flesh and man; that He was conceived in the virgin Mary…” (Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia)

In contrast, Luke 1:31 states specifically that Mary herself conceived Jesus, and was not merely a vessel “through” which Jesus’ “heavenly flesh” was conceived by some other agency:

“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:30-31 KJV)

The heresy which Menno Simons taught the Anabaptist and Mennonite congregations was explicitly and frequently stated in his works:

“…I have shown and confessed to you the firm foundation of. the incarnation of the Lord, that he did not become flesh of Mary, but that he became flesh in Mary… Thus Christ Jesus remains the precious, blessed fruit of the womb of Mary, according to the words of Elizabeth, which was conceived not of her womb but in her womb wrought by the Holy Spirit through faith, of God the omnipotent Father, from high heaven, as we have frequently shown… “They say and teach, without any Scripture, ‘That the Word has put on a whole man of Mary’s flesh and seed;’ and we say and teach, according to the plain testimony of John, That the Word was made flesh, not of Mary, but in Mary. They teach, ‘That there are two different persons and sons, one divine, the other human, in the one Christ,’ without Scripture; and we say that there is but one undivided person and Son, according to the Scriptures.” (The Complete Writings of Menno Simons: Book 2, pp. 332-3, 397) (See also: The Confutation: Part Third)

The “heavenly flesh” doctrine was not a “new revelation” to the Anabaptists and Mennonites, but a major heresy that had been refuted in every particular over a millennium earlier, at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).

“We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.”(Council of Chalcedon Confession)

[Legatus]

Looks like a clothing decoration, to me.

Well it's not, it's a depiction of the Holy Ghost as a dove. A guy in a bedsheet would only confuse people and a blank space would only make people say "no Holy Spirit in sight".

[Quix]

IF YOU FIND ONE, LET ME KNOW, PLEASE.

Been doing it manually.

I’ve heard that Word out of Office 2007 does it but haven’t figured out how.

Copying from Firefox does it for things already done on the web.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You know reading thru all the various prayers and homages to the Roman Mary, (and she is the invention of Rome,) she is not the human mother of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels---now I am struck by just how thoroughly the Roman invention has managed to take all away from God the Father.

Our Heavenly Father gave his only begotten son to save mankind from sin. Jesus came to do the will of the Father. All of the prayers and worship due to God the Father is directed by Rome, towards an invention. The more I consider it, the more epic it appears.

"Epic." Exactly.

IMO, that is the main reason RC apologists hate these discussions and want to shout down the debate. When the light of the Gospel is shed on the lies of Rome, the contrast is undeniable.

And yet they persist.

[Cronos]

The author of A Trail of Blood Carroll identifies many divergent groups throughout history, claiming them as baptistic. These groups are a montage of unrelated sects and heretics, including the Albigenses, Cathari, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians and more. The Cathari and Albigenses taught that Christ was an angel with a phantom body whose death and resurrection were only allegorical and the Incarnation impossible since the body was evil, created by evil. They also rejected the resurrection of the body and the existence of hell

The Paulicians, similarly believed that there were two fundamental principles: a good God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master of the present world. By their reasoning, then, Christ could not have been the Son of God because the good God could not take human form. They were basically dualists and Gnostics.

Edward T. Hiscox, author of the classic Baptist handbook, Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1980) claims the Waldenses and the above mentioned groups held to the principle points “which Baptists have always emphasized”. Hiscox, however, doesn’t inform his readers that the Waldenses for the most part believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the effectiveness of the sacraments, infant baptism, that “the Sacrifice [of the Mass], that is of the bread and wine, after the consecration are the body and blood of Jesus Christ”, that good deeds of the faithful may benefit the dead, to name just a few. That Baptist successionists can claim the Waldenses as their ancestors-sharing a common belief and practice-is quite untenable, if not disingenuous.

[metmom]

OK, I checked the picture out again. It’s kind of small and although my eyes aren’t that bad, I don’t see a duck. Or a dove. Or some *white thing*.

Where in the picture is it?

[Cronos]

McGoldrick explains, “Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [me] that the view [I] once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers” (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [Metuchen, NJ: American Theological Library Assoc. and Scarecrow Press, 1994], 1−2).

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lolol. Poor Salvation. She speaks the truth as she has been taught by Rome, and yet her statements are denied.

[Cronos]

Baptist Successionists frequently claim that they are not Protestants. To this, Leon McBeth, professor of Church History at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary writes, “Are Baptists Protestants? One sometimes hears the question whether Baptists are to be identified as Protestants. Whether one takes the shortcut answer, or goes into lengthy explanation, the answer is the same: Yes. Such important Reformation doctrines as justification by faith, the authority of Scripture, and the priesthood of believers show up prominently in Baptist theology. Further, the evidence shows that Baptists originated out of English Separatism, certainly a part of the Protestant Reformation. Even if one assumes Anabaptist influence, the Anabaptists themselves were a Reformation people. The tendency to deny that Baptists are Protestants grows out of a faulty view of history, namely that Baptist churches have existed in every century and thus antedate the Reformation” (The Baptist Heritage [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987], pg. 62). (See a longer excerpt below.)

[metmom]

I see your link was different from mine. Three makes *repeatedly*.

[Cronos]

Perhaps the silliest are some groups among the bAptists who seem to think that John the BAptist formed a Christian denomination. They seem to be completely unaware of the history and presence of Mandaeism

Mandaeism or Mandaeanism is a monotheistic religion with a strongly dualistic worldview. Its adherents, the Mandaeans (also sometimes referred to as Sabians in Arabic), revere Adam, Abel, Seth, Enosh, Noah, Shem, Aram and especially John the Baptist.

Mandaeism has historically been practised primarily around the lower Euphrates and Tigris and the rivers that surround the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, part of southern Iraq and Khuzestan Province in Iran. There are thought to be between 60,000 and 70,000 Mandaeans worldwide, and until the 2003 Iraq war, almost all of them lived in Iraq

Mandaeans recognize several prophets.

Yahya ibn Zakariyya, known by Christians as John the Baptist, is accorded a special status, higher than his role in Christianity and Islam. Mandaeans do not consider John to be the founder of their religion but revere him as one of their greatest teachers, tracing their beliefs back to Adam.

Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John. The Mandaic word k(a)daba, however, might be interpreted as being derived from either of two roots: the first root, meaning "to lie," is the one traditionally ascribed to Jesus; the second, meaning "to write," might provide a second meaning, that of "book"; hence some Mandaeans, motivated perhaps by an ecumenical spirit, maintain that Jesus was not a "lying Messiah" but a "book Messiah", the "book" in question presumably being the Christian Gospels. This seems to be a folk etymology without support in the Mandaean texts.

Likewise, the Mandaeans believe that Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad were false prophets , but recognize other prophetic figures from the Abrahamic traditions, such as Adam, his sons Hibil (Abel) and Šitil (Seth), and his grandson Anuš (Enosh), as well as Nuh (Noah), his son Sam (Shem) and his son Ram (Aram). The latter three they consider to be their direct ancestors

[Cronos]

1000s: ...Some “primitive Baptist” churches in the early US were filled by Jews who fled the Spanish Inquisition in Spain.

wmfights: Hey, Unitarians would be welcome too!

Unitarians = those who deny the Trinity (using sola scriptura). Unitarian belief also denies the divinity of Christ: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. He was, and still is for many UUs, an exemplar, one who has shown the way of redemptive love, in whose spirit anyone may live generously and abundantly. Among us, Jesus' very human life and teaching have been understood as products of, and in line with, the great Jewish tradition of prophets and teachers. He neither broke with that tradition nor superseded it."

[Cronos]

EVen the picture of God as an old man is a symbol — remember....

[Legatus]

If that works I'll be stunned.