Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: radtrad on August 30, 2009, 09:39:34 PM
-
I recently read this article (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20030425.html), dated from 2003 when Seattle Catholic was still up and running.
From New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03794b.htm), Civil Allegiance is discussed, which relates to this idea.
How can traditional Catholics support a nation such as this? Are we obliged to have allegiance to the US in light of it's anti-Christ society.
I remember talking with my sister about my disdain for McCain and how I didn't consider myself an American fanatic simply due to the culture of death. She called me a socialist! haha
Anyway, regarding being a patriot and a loyal Catholic:
I'd like some feedback.
-
Patriotism is overrated. In America, it was made popular by Americanists like Carroll, who supported the Revolution, and later on men like Ireland and Gibbons.
Any flag-waving patriot in America is a suspected Freemason or supporter of Masonic principles.
Catholics aren't patriotic for the Beast.
-
Maria-Bernarda, you are a woman after my own heart.
Read in the "Crisis in the Church" section under the heading "The Purpose of Blogs" where Lover_of_Truth and I discuss this.
I go to a sedevacantist Church that is highly patriotic, where atheists like Hamilton are praised in sermons. I found this disturbing right from the get-go, but I repressed it because I figured it had nothing to do with the faith, with keeping the dogmas whole and entire. I tend to sit in the Church, knowing what I know, and letting them wave the flag if they feel like it.
But how can you see the Freemasonic takeover of Vatican II, and NOT see that this country was founded on the Freemasonic separation of Church and state as well as the Freemasonic principles of "liberty, equality, and fraternity"?
I have gone through panic attacks from time to time, fearing that my priests are Freemasons and that my baptism is invalid. Believe it or not, I asked the priest who baptized me to his face if he were a Freemason and he gave me a timeline of his life that made it seem at the very least unlikely. But anyone who sees the FULL truth, not only about the Church but about the various political cօռspιʀαcιҽs, is called "intense" or "nervous." It feels like some form of mind-control.
I have been in contact with a French sedevacantist priest and he doesn't praise Sarkozy or Le Pen -- he knows all sides are controlled, and so do ALL the French sedevacantists I've come across who have written on the Internet on sites like Mi Ca El?! ( That's what it's called... )
Why does no one know it here? Is it an honest blind spot, is American patriotism just that seductive, are they worried no one will come to Church if they take away this one last illusion... Or is it something worse? It is getting more and more alarming to me that people at my chapel routinely watch Fox News and probably think George W. Bush was better than Obama. Today someone at Church praised the new Tarantino film except for the love scene in it: "Jєωs killing nαzιs," he said all aglow. "Jєωs are against Christ," I responded with horror. Is the sedevacantist movement in America somehow Judaized?
I don't want to be too paranoid but, well, I am. Maybe it is time, with some of these traditional priests, to force their hand and make them acknowledge this contradiction.
-
I go to a sedevacantist Church that is highly patriotic, where atheists like Hamilton are praised in sermons. I found this disturbing right from the get-go, but I repressed it because I figured it had nothing to do with the faith, with keeping the dogmas whole and entire. I tend to sit in the Church, knowing what I know, and letting them wave the flag if they feel like it.
But how can you see the Freemasonic takeover of Vatican II, and NOT see that this country was founded on the Freemasonic separation of Church and state as well as the Freemasonic principles of "liberty, equality, and fraternity"?
A better question is how can you attend a chapel where you admit that their is Americanism and praising of non-Catholics at the pulpit? Can't you see you're guilty of sins of omission?
I have gone through panic attacks from time to time, fearing that my priests are Freemasons and that my baptism is invalid. Believe it or not, I asked the priest who baptized me to his face if he were a Freemason and he gave me a timeline of his life that made it seem at the very least unlikely. But anyone who sees the FULL truth, not only about the Church but about the various political cօռspιʀαcιҽs, is called "intense" or "nervous." It feels like some form of mind-control.
Your priests probably are Freemasons, or at least Masonic sympathizers. But you only have to worry about invalid baptism if you believe interior intention matters. But the Church has declared that even pagans and Jєωs can baptize. Do you believe pagans or Jєωs have any true personal motive of removing the stain of original sin?
-
A better question is how can you attend a chapel where you admit that their is Americanism and praising of non-Catholics at the pulpit? Can't you see you're guilty of sins of omission?
First of all, my priest has not said anything from the pulpit at my chapel praising an American leader. If he did I would get up and walk out -- but go back the next week. I just happen to know that some of the priests affiliated with this organization do praise them.
That being said, if you know of somewhere else I can go, please inform me. Unless it's SSPX. Why do I suddenly get the feeling you are SSPX? I know the devil is trying to get me into SSPX by playing off my obession with cօռspιʀαcιҽs, which SSPX excel in. The problem is that "una cuм" breaks with two dogmas: Infallibility and indefectibility.
Anyway, I disagree that I am committing "sins of omission." Listening to a sermon does not involve you in sin, and the political opinions of the priests do not automatically become those of the men in the pews.
People within the Church have varying political opinions. Political opinions, even political FACTS, have never been dogma. The Popes of the last three hundred years were against the separation of Church and state but you will notice they didn't give a blanket condemnation of America, nor of the various European republics. In fact, I've read a book where Pope Pius IX called George Washington "a great man." That was his erroneous opinion; he wasn't teaching on matters of faith.
All we must do is be mentally against the separation of Church and state to stay out of heresy. Yes, to be patriotic would seem to be a sin against this dogma. But the liturgy of the Mass makes no allowance for patriotism. It is just the Mass. The American sedevacantists who are mistakenly patriotic still provide the true Mass, just as many American and European priests before Vatican II, who were mistakenly patriotic -- and many French Catholics continued to love France even after it became a republic -- offered the true Mass.
Also, I cannot assume that just because a priest is patriotic, that he's a proponent of the separation of Church and state. People love America for all kinds of different reasons. Irish Catholics love it because it was once a refuge from Protestant England. I'm Polish and I know many Polish people see this place as a refuge from communism. Yeah, they're mistaken, we're run by the exact same communists who took over Poland. But it's not a sin to be mistaken about a confusing political issue.
The Church, since it exists in so many countries, has never had uniform political agreement among its members. What if I lived in England at the time of a war between France and England, when both countries were Catholic? Let's say that in this war England was the aggressor and therefore the French were in the right. But my priest was defending the English king. I would disagree with him on the principle of just war, being on the side of the French in my heart. But my priest, mistaken political opinions and all, would still be a priest.
If they are Freemasons, I need more proof than what I have. But no one has ever accused them of such and the sedevacantist world is a very small one. I strongly doubt they'd be able to hide their memberships in a Lodge.
But you only have to worry about invalid baptism if you believe interior intention matters.
It is a dogma that for a baptism to be valid there must be matter, form and intention. My priest would have to be truly evil to INTEND to take me to hell as he's baptizing me. But in these times, anything is possible.
God will protect me, and reveal what needs to be revealed in time. If he promised His apostles that they would not sink in the water, I must believe His promise also holds good for me. If necessary, I will be conditionally re-baptized.
-
First of all, my priest has not said anything from the pulpit at my chapel praising an American leader. If he did I would get up and walk out -- but go back the next week.
What is your reason for walking out? And why do you return the following week?
I just happen to know that some of the priests affiliated with this organization do praise them.
Do the priests who you receive sacraments associate with Americanists or other non-Catholics?
That being said, if you know of somewhere else I can go, please inform me.
No, I'm not aware of any.
Why do I suddenly get the feeling you are SSPX?
No. I don't think you read my entire "warning about modern authors" before praising it.
I know the devil is trying to get me into SSPX by playing off my obession with cօռspιʀαcιҽs, which SSPX excel in.
You got that right! Stay away from the SSPX.
The problem is that "una cuм" breaks with two dogmas: Infallibility and indefectibility.
I don't know about that. But it does deny that fact that Catholics are forbidden to pray in communion with non-Catholics.
Anyway, I disagree that I am committing "sins of omission." Listening to a sermon does not involve you in sin, and the political opinions of the priests do not automatically become those of the men in the pews.
1) Listening to a sermon does not involve you in sin? Ever? If a priest gave a sermon and preached heresy, and you said absolutely nothing, are you guilty of sin? Yes or no? Why or why not?
2) If a priest preaches a heretical opinion relating to politics (yes, there are dogmas relating to politics. Contrary to what some people say, the Church does involve Herself in politics), that doesn't necessarily mean everyone in the pews agree with him. This is true. But do you deny that every person in the pew who sits there and doesn't say anything when this happens is guilty?
People within the Church have varying political opinions. Political opinions, even political FACTS, have never been dogma.
The opinion that тαℓмυdic Judaism should be the official religion of the state is a political opinion. Would you say that someone who holds this political opinion is a Catholic?
The Popes of the last three hundred years were against the separation of Church and state but you will notice they didn't give a blanket condemnation of America, nor of the various European republics.
This is because they were evil and cared more about temporal peace.
In fact, I've read a book where Pope Pius IX called George Washington "a great man."
Didn't you just say something in another thread about trusting certain authors? What book was this? And when did Pius IX allegedly say this? Was it in a public docuмent?
The American sedevacantists who are mistakenly patriotic still provide the true Mass, just as many American and European priests before Vatican II, who were mistakenly patriotic -- and many French Catholics continued to love France even after it became a republic -- offered the true Mass.
The SSPX offers the "true mass". The FSSP also offers the "true mass". And the "Traditionalist" priests down the street from you and me also offer the "true mass". But when the priest is not a Catholic, you don't attend his true mass.
Also, I cannot assume that just because a priest is patriotic, that he's a proponent of the separation of Church and state.
It would depend on their level of "patriotism" I suppose. The "patriotism" of Ireland, Gibbons, and Carroll was heretical. It also depends on how you define "patriotism", which is usually defined as a devotion to ones country. What true Catholic has any devotion to a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic, anti-papacy, anti-Catholic, "Enlightened" republic? Just how "patriotic" were the true French Catholics under the "Enlightened" French Republic, when priests were forced out of the country and nuns were being raped and guillotined? I wonder, how "patriotic" and devoted to their country the non-Muslims are in Syria and Somalia?
The Church, since it exists in so many countries, has never had uniform political agreement among its members.
In non-essentials.
What if I lived in England at the time of a war between France and England, when both countries were Catholic? Let's say that in this war England was the aggressor and therefore the French were in the right. But my priest was defending the English king. I would disagree with him on the principle of just war, being on the side of the French in my heart. But my priest, mistaken political opinions and all, would still be a priest.
There have always been disputes over what constitutes as a "just war". But if your priest is publicly preaching immorality, then you stay away from him and warn others.
If they are Freemasons, I need more proof than what I have. But no one has ever accused them of such and the sedevacantist world is a very small one.
And the Catholic world is even smaller.
I strongly doubt they'd be able to hide their memberships in a Lodge.
Why? Do you believe crypto-Masonic priests just leave their initiation cards laying around or something? :laugh1:
It is a dogma that for a baptism to be valid there must be matter, form and intention. My priest would have to be truly evil to INTEND to take me to hell as he's baptizing me. But in these times, anything is possible.
It is indeed a dogma that there must be a valid form, matter, and intention for every sacrament. The form and matter of the sacrament of baptism (water and the words "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost") have been dogmatically defined. What is meant by "intention" has not been dogmatically defined. For centuries there have been conflicting opinions.
You didn't respond to the point I made after the sentence you quoted, about pagans (who don't even believe in original sin) who can validly baptize, which proves the "personal motive" position illogical. You didn't answer my question either.
I pray that I've said all that I have said (and asked all that I have asked) with sincerity and charity.
-
How can traditional Catholics support a nation such as this? Are we obliged to have allegiance to the US in light of it's anti-Christ society.
Blindly "supporting a nation" and the virtue of patriotism are not exactly the same thing.
-
...virtue of patriotism...
What exactly did they teach you at SGG?
I find it strange that this is so enthusiastically taught in all 1950's American catechisms.
-
I believe there's a difference between patriotism and love of one's country (although I guess you'd have to define "country"!)
You can (and should) love your enemies. But how many people would say they are devoted to their enemies?
-
...virtue of patriotism...
What exactly did they teach you at SGG?
Patriotism is a virtue. It is a part of justice. You may read about it below, as well as in the excellent work titled Framework of a Christian State, by Fr Cahill, SJ.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm
Justice
Justice, an essentially moral virtue, regulates man in relations with his fellow-men. It disposes us to respect the rights of others, to give each man his due. (See JUSTICE.) Among the virtues annexed to justice are:
* religion, which regulates man in his relations to God, disposing him to pay due worship to his Creator;
* piety, which disposes to the fulfillment of duties which one owes to parents and country (patriotism);
* gratitude, which inclines one to recognition of benefits received;
* liberality, which restrains the immoderate affection for wealth from withholding seasonable gifts or expenses;
* affability, by which one is suitably adapted to his fellow-men in social intercourse so as to behave toward each appropriately.
All these moral virtues, as well as justice itself, regulate man in his dealings with others. But besides these there are moral virtues which regulate man with regard to his own inner passions. Now there are passions which impel man to desire that which reason impels him forward; hence there are principally two moral virtues, namely, temperance and fortitude, whose function it is to regulate those lower appetites.
-
Are we obliged to have allegiance to the US in light of it's anti-Christ society.
Go read about the Roman martyrs, etc. If your mother is a pagan, do you still owe her a debt of gratitude, filial obedience, devotion, etc? Yes.
-
You could argue that patriotism is a virtue if that's how you define patriotism. Fulfilling one's "duties" (this word too needs to be clarified) and due obedience. But that's not necessarily what is understood as "patriotism" amongst Americans.
-
Patriotism is overrated.
The bogus version of it does tend to leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths, as it is mis/used to inspire all kinds of foul deeds. However, there is a virtue known as patriotism. I did not learn about it at sgg.org/cult, btw, although that is a nice attempt at a dig :wink:. I learned about it by reading Fr Cahill, SJ (and others), whose orthodoxy, etc., cannot be gainsaid.
-
Gladius,
Do you have a devotion to Joseph Ratzinger?
-
But that's not necessarily what is understood as "patriotism" amongst Americans.
But the way to solve the problem is not to chuck the term just because abused by demagogues, etc, but reclaim it in its true sense, no?
-
Do you have a devotion to Joseph Ratzinger?
No, as he is neither my biological nor spiritual father.
Do you have a problem simply admitting you have spoken about something of which you are at least somewhat ignorant?
-
That's a bit assumptuous*, is it not?
* not a word
-
But that's not necessarily what is understood as "patriotism" amongst Americans.
But the way to solve the problem is not to chuck the term just because abused by demagogues, etc, but reclaim it in its true sense, no?
Reclaiming it's supposed true meaning will not change anything. The problem of what's currently understood as patriotism would still exist. You can reclaim the word "gαy", that's not going to solve the sodomite problem.
-
And no one is "chucking the term", but "chucking" what is understood by the term.
-
Do you have a devotion to Joseph Ratzinger?
No, as he is neither my biological nor spiritual father.
But your country (whatever that means) is?
-
That's a bit assumptuous*, is it not?
* not a word
And I'd like to add that whether or not you're correct is irrelevant.
-
And no one is "chucking the term", but "chucking" what is understood by the term.
"Concept" is the word I was looking for. We're not "chucking" the term, but the concept.
-
That's a bit assumptuous*, is it not?
Assuming you mean my remark that you spoke, in a sense and to a degree, ill-advisedly, no.
Did you or did you not know that patriotism is part of the virtue of piety, which is a part of justice? No, you did not. This is not a crime, but it is plain that you were uninformed on that point. Now, you are more informed. This is good, no? Whether or not I am correct. btw, is highly relevant, as it is radically germane where the topic of the thread is concerned. You seem to be unable to say, "I see that you were right on that one." Fair enough. Your statements already say as much. I shall push it no further, as there is no purpose.
As for "gαy", etc., we are dealing with something taken for millenia as part of the moral virtues, not a word of lesser moment. It is the wrong idea about the word/virtue that has led to all the trouble. Do we cease using "obedience" correctly, for example, just because the fear-mongering psychopaths of the world misuse it for their own nefarious ends?
The way to correct a false idea/definition of something is to oppose it with the true idea/definition.
-
Gladius,
No one here (as far as I'm aware) is talking about your version of "patriotism".
You seem to be unable to say, "I see that you were right on that one."
If I believed I was wrong, I would say it. If I am wrong, then I pray God gives me the grace to see it and the humility to admit it.
-
No one here (as far as I'm aware) is talking about your version of "patriotism".
Actually the thread is about whether or not one can and/or should be patriotic in the modern USA. In order to proceed with a rational discussion, it is essential to hammer out the terms in use. I do not put forth "my version" of patriotism, but the correct notion thereof. To act as if the correct notion of this virtue is not germane to this thread makes no sense at all.
Blind allegiance, "My country, right or wrong", is clearly unacceptable. On this, I believe we are all agreed. That said, what IS acceptable? This question, which necessarily includes discussion of the true meaning of patriotism, cannot even be answered at all, correctly or incorrectly, without touching upon what you have suggested is "my version" of said virtue.
If I believed I was wrong, I would say it.
I shall take you at your word. Godspeed.
-
The opinion that тαℓмυdic Judaism should be the official religion of the state is a political opinion. Would you say that someone who holds this political opinion is a Catholic?...
...It would depend on their level of "patriotism" I suppose. The "patriotism" of Ireland, Gibbons, and Carroll was heretical. It also depends on how you define "patriotism", which is usually defined as a devotion to ones country. What true Catholic has any devotion to a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic, anti-papacy, anti-Catholic, "Enlightened" republic? Just how "patriotic" were the true French Catholics under the "Enlightened" French Republic, when priests were forced out of the country and nuns were being raped and guillotined? I wonder, how "patriotic" and devoted to their country the non-Muslims are in Syria and Somalia?...
...There have always been disputes over what constitutes as a "just war". But if your priest is publicly preaching immorality, then you stay away from him and warn others...
...You didn't respond to the point I made after the sentence you quoted, about pagans (who don't even believe in original sin) who can validly baptize, which proves the "personal motive" position illogical. You didn't answer my question either.
If you want me to believe that the person who wrote the words above actually found my brief comments in the other thread (on "Holy Ghost" vs. "Holy Spirit") to be too "philosophical", etc., you are clearly asking too much. That said, carry on...
-
Are we obliged to have allegiance to the US in light of it's anti-Christ society.
Go read about the Roman martyrs, etc. If your mother is a pagan, do you still owe her a debt of gratitude, filial obedience, devotion, etc? Yes.
Good point.
I checked this thread only the next morning after asking the question and there are already two pages of posts! Sheesh!
-
No one here (as far as I'm aware) is talking about your version of "patriotism".
Actually the thread is about whether or not one can and/or should be patriotic in the modern USA. In order to proceed with a rational discussion, it is essential to hammer out the terms in use. I do not put forth "my version" of patriotism, but the correct notion thereof. To act as if the correct notion of this virtue is not germane to this thread makes no sense at all.
Blind allegiance, "My country, right or wrong", is clearly unacceptable. On this, I believe we are all agreed. That said, what IS acceptable? This question, which necessarily includes discussion of the true meaning of patriotism, cannot even be answered at all, correctly or incorrectly, without touching upon what you have suggested is "my version" of said virtue.
If I believed I was wrong, I would say it.
I shall take you at your word. Godspeed.
I agree with this as well. Too many times people are going by what they think "patriotism" means.
-
I"ve often wondered this myself; whether or not we should be patriots to our country.
But Gladius does have a good point that I did not consider, Patriotism needs to be defined. The media has a tendency to mutiltate words from their true meanings. For instance, the word, "cult" is really just a group of people who believe in a certain set of religious beliefs, but it has been brought out as to be something negative, when it is actually a rather neutral term.
So yes, what is patriotism, and how should we best be devoted to the country in which we live in?
-
Since last night this thread has devolved into questions on the Catholic definition of what we must render unto Caesar IN GENERAL. That is a topic worthy of much discussion, but for now let's stick to the ʝʊdɛօ-MASONIC REPUBLICS UNDER WHICH WE ALL LIVE, so that we can help each other get out of this mess.
I try to hammer this home as often as possible. Our situation is unique. Catholics have lived under evil dictators and emperors before, but never under the dominion of Jєωs. We are not under Caesar but Caiphas, under the rule of literal anti-Christs, who have an intellectual skill and cunning to deceive souls to hell that is far more frightening than Nero's brute force. He could only take bodies.
I would aver that in such a situation, Maria-B is entirely correct, and that patriotism is unacceptable FOR THOSE WHO REALIZE OUR SITUATION. What you won't or can't acknowledge, Maria-B, is that not all priests DO realize it, and you can't assume that this blindness is proof of conscious тαℓмυdism or Freemasonic ties. You are underestimating the slow-acting poison of American patriotism, a form of magic that has been acting on us for centuries.
I am, by God's grace, completely immune to American patriotism and think it is un-Christian in general. Under Nero, the Christians did not go around waving Roman flags; watching Roman sports; or affixing "Rome the Beautiful" bumper stickers to their cars. They were separate, apart from this pagan world. However, many Catholics think this nation, because it "allows" you to be Catholic -- where other countries outlawed it -- is somehow acceptable to God. It's better than Russia or China; better than Protestant England, etc.
To continue: Maria-B, you strike me as an idealist, full of righteous anger. That makes two of us. But to be able to use our idealism effectively, we must first diagnose the current situation correctly. We can't retreat into a screechy, paranoid shell, huddling in a corner waiting for the Three Days of Darkness. One thing we can try to do, instead of rejecting these sedevac priests outright, is FORCE them to acknowledge what we are saying and give an account of themselves, at least privately to us.
Until then, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Has it occurred to you that they may be unable to survive financially if they told the full truth about our country, and would not be able to give us the Sacraments? I can tell you that much if not all of the laity would desert the sedevacantist clergy in DROVES if they said what you and I are saying, and then I wouldn't be able to go to Mass or confess at all.
Before we start -- yep, this is only a prelude -- I must tell you, Maria-B, that you are misusing the word "Americanist." Right away you are showing your eagerly intelligent but untutored side ( that makes two of us! ) "Americanism" is what is happening in Vatican II and is a label for those who aver that all religions more or less are praiseworthy. Have you read Mgr. Delassus' "Americanism and the anti-Christian Conjuration"? Even this arch-conservative never made a blanket condemnation of America.
"Americanist" has nothing to do with being patriotic about our ominous tricolor republic. That is another kind of problem altogether.
Now let me take some of your more extreme points one by one:
The opinion that тαℓмυdic Judaism should be the official religion of the state is a political opinion. Would you say that someone who holds this political opinion is a Catholic?
What you perhaps disingenuously ignore is that not every Catholic who loves America for some reason or another has specifically made a decision for тαℓмυdism in his mind. Nor have most patriots in general. Most people I know who are patriotic, but not religious, know Jєωs have inordinate power here, but ascribe this to their "industry" and work ethic and intelligence rather than a fiendish plot. Catholics have less excuse not to see through this plot, but just because they DON'T see through it, it doesn't follow that they are part of it.
Of course, you are right, America IS тαℓмυdic. "Separating Church and state," translated from Jєωspeak, means "WE'RE taking over now." "Religious liberty" is a codeword for "secret Jєωιѕн hegemony." I always say that in America you have the freedom to be Catholic, but to fight Jєωιѕн wars and worship the golden calf. They have slowly turned around the very meaning of the word "Catholic." However, I'm sure some people in the pews were aware of all this, even if most weren't.
I like to quote Daniel regarding the devil, "Truth shall be cast down on the ground, and he shall do and shall prosper." PROSPER -- that is why, in my interpretation, the supposedly Catholic, but Rosicrucian-symbol-drenched Shakespeare had a character in The Tempest called PROSPERO, representing specifically Henry VIII, and metaphorically the devil, who magicians in literature and film almost always represent, with Caliban as the Frankenstein's monster that represents the spiritually deformed children of Henry VIII's revolution. Protestantism/Anglican revolution broke the power of the Church; it eventually led to the acceptance of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracy; and the acceptance of this democracy led to communism. The devil is truly prospering, playing all of these false systems against each other. That is why we have "contradictions" like democratic America fighting in WWII with communist Russia against socialist Germany. But it is really no contradiction at all. This is what happens when the Catholic Church loses its central, privileged position, and people allow secular motives to creep into their thoughts.
We are all the children of Henry VIII's rebellion, and of his narcissistic daughter Elizabeth's even more vicious rule, with its Protestant-Rosicrucian blend, which went head-to-head with Catholic Spain and, through the power of witch- and spycraft -- ultimately the same thing -- destroyed the Church as the primary temporal power in the world. Michael Hoffman shows how the Elizabethan era is a sort of mirror of our own time, and that we are living in her insane anti-Catholic and anti-Christ dream ( although she listened to Protestant ministers and claimed to believe in Christ ). This is also the subject of books like Alice in Wonderland with its Mad Hatter, who is Satan, and Red Queen, who is Elizabeth. The new Tim Burton film casts a POLISH GIRL, representing the Catholics, as the perpetually threatened Alice, because that is who this conspiracy is really aimed against -- the Catholics. That is why the Polish Catholics were brutalized by both "sides" -- which were really, at the top, run by the same forces -- during and after World War II. Crushed by nαzιs, then abandoned by their American "friends" to communist Jєωs, as was surely pre-arranged.
Here is the Red Queen from the new Alice film, showing who she really is, another production of Kabbalistic Hollywood and its demon-possessed magicians, taunting the lobotomized hoi polloi --
(http://7.media.tumblr.com/7hu2U4T6CphhdmanrPKoYm4go1_250.jpg)
Elizabeth Tudor, with the help of her ( most likely Jєωιѕн ) magus John Dee was like a witch who put the world under her anti-Catholic spell, one of the most monstrous figures in history, a woman who dared, and in the 16th century no less, to place herself at the head of a church and order all to submit to her "spiritual" as well as temporal authority or die -- it's so fantastic that you wonder how the Anti-Christ can top it for sheer science-fiction weirdness, but it really happened. You can read about the "Christian Kabbalism" that flourished under her reign and culminated in Vatican II, where the name of Christ is used to mean something completely different.
The mystery of iniquity did not begin with Elizabeth, but she really got it rolling. Once the key Catholic power of Spain was defeated by her, we began to see the formation of that shadowy, ghoulish web of plotters and planners, where wars are not begun by greedy kings for money but for some mysterious, unstated purpose, which, with 20/20 hindsight, reveals itself as the destruction of the monarchies. Some of the monarchs had socialist tendencies and worked for their own destruction, just as the VII Popes try to reduce the powers of the "Papacy," which the Modernists not-so-secretly hate. All of this is part of the alchemical, Kabbalistic stratagem that will -- or did -- ultimately enthrone Anti-Christ, or at the very least a precursor.
I could go on and on about this, showing how the devil, piece by piece, has reduced his ancient enemy, the Catholics, to a handful and put the entire world into a dream state that would seem inescapable. I could talk on and on about how we are witnessing the hour of his greatest triumph, the WITCHING HOUR, where witches, male and female, outnumber Catholics to a far greater degree that Catholics once outnumbered witches in the Middle Ages. But I'll refrain. I mention all of this just to show you that I fully understand the тαℓмυdic, occult significance of our wretched nation, so it would be much appreciated if you gave me some credit and stopped acting like I was some kind of rat-fink compromiser and not worthy to call myself Catholic.
I am not the only one who knows all of this, either. Not by a longshot. There are others who have put the big picture together to a greater or lesser degree, on this website and especially in France ( preparations for the Monarch? ) But it's very few. How many can comprehend that an entire, teeming, populous and diverse nation is a trick of the devil, just one more move on his chessboard, and then live and work and raise a family here at the same time? To acknowledge this is to put yourself into a world of pain, it will end your chance to have any kind of normal life. Just as very few can see through Vatican II, it takes another kind of grace to see through America as well, the patriotism having been so ingrained in us since birth. For some reason, people are half-and-half -- either they are conspiracy theorists who get the "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr" but have no faith and aren't Catholic; or they are Catholics who are "Republican" and watch Fox News. Only a handful have figured out the cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and on top of THAT are believers with the grace of God. Just knowing about cօռspιʀαcιҽs doesn't mean you'll attain the gratuitous gift of faith; and having a lukewarm faith, that is really worldly comfort, probably won't be good enough to tune you into the full truth of our era.
To sum up, if you have borne with me through this crude and abbreviated history lesson, you are drawing incorrect conclusions from your premise. You assume that every Catholic who doesn't see the тαℓмυdic plot is automatically part of it. But what if they just don't get it?
ALMOST NO ONE GETS IT, whether this is because of denial, lack of grace, or having not read the right things and put the puzzle together. You can go back through the history of the Church and I doubt you will find many Catholic priests in any country who said, as cut-and-dried as we are saying, that America is тαℓмυdic, let alone, as I am saying, that it's Elizabethan/Rosicrucian/magical i.e. Mystery Babylon. It takes a certain kind of frenetic, passionate mind to be able to even comprehend just how detailed and devious the plans of Satan have been. Most people just don't have that kind of mind. But pretty soon, I believe, what I am whispering here will be shouted from the rooftops. Soon it will be impossible to ignore the anti-Catholic conspiracy. We are in the vanguard of a great awakening, which may be the promised Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. So let's pray God uses us to His advantage.
Moving on ( this is going to be lengthy ) you criticize all the Popes of the last 300 years thus:
This is because they were evil and cared more about temporal peace.
You are trafficking here in some dangerous "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" philosophy. Should the Church have allowed itself to be crushed out of existence by refusing all compromise with the likes of Garibaldi and his kind of republic? What about all the fractious kings and princes during the Middle Ages who tried to reduce its power, or even French kings like Louis XIV, essentially Gallicans with their own Church, who did not fully obey the Pope? Should the Church have refused all contact with them?
You seem to want the Church to have TOTAL TEMPORAL POWER over the whole world, to the point where anyone who thinks otherwise is a heretic, at the same time as you complain that it's temporal at all... You want no compromises, no diplomacy, no politics. Again, you are a victim of perhaps the most perfect idealism I have ever seen. You want heaven and you want it here and now. That is admirable, and I relate, but it's not reality.
About Pius IX saying Washington was a "great man":
Didn't you just say something in another thread about trusting certain authors? What book was this? And when did Pius IX allegedly say this? Was it in a public docuмent?
This is from a book by one John Cassidy, an American seminarian in Rome who met Pius IX on several occasions. The book dates from the 19th century, obviously, so I'm not contradicting myself nor trusting a Vatican II author. The book is called "Personal Reminiscences of Pope Pius IX," you can find it on Google Books, and the quote in question is on page 24.
"The occasion of the first visit to our college will long be remembered by all present, and especially in the memories of the inmates it will ever be treasured as one of the brightest spots in their existence. Dignitaries and detachments from other colleges envied our success in giving the Holy Father a grand ( they said unequalled ) ovation. They envied us too, and with reason, the more than ordinary complacence and interest he displayed in us; but their envy was a holy one. He walked with us through the college halls, and when in front of a bust of the "Father of his country," he remarked that 'Washington was a great man'..."
Undoubtedly if you were there Maria-Bernada, living up to your principles, you would have called him a тαℓмυdic, turned on your heels, and gone back to your Catholic Church of one. But in REALITY this is a private comment. Everyone in the Church, including the Pope, let alone garden-variety priests, can entertain error about politics. Popes throughout history have made disastrous political mistakes. The Church is only perfectly truthful when it teaches on matters of faith and morals from the Magisterium.
I admire your spunk and I'm not insulting you in this post. On the contrary. But to say that all priests who are patriotic are Freemasons or Freemasonic sympathizers is way off base, and borders on fearmongering. It's more accurate to say they have been infected by living in a Freemasonic bubble all their lives, as have we all, more or less.
We must be on our guard against patriotism though because it may suck us into yet another unjust war, in this case one that would have as its motive the restoration not of Christ the King, but of the Constitution. I have often felt that people like Alex Jones are setting up a 2nd American Revolution against the likes of Obama, who is probably a stooge meant to rile people up. Many Catholics here will go along with such a cινιℓ ωαr. You'll be able to find me on a boat to France. I am thoroughly unconcerned with my "rights" and "liberty" as promised by the Freemasonic Constitution, because it's a scam. I will only fight for the Church.
You didn't respond to the point I made after the sentence you quoted, about pagans (who don't even believe in original sin) who can validly baptize, which proves the "personal motive" position illogical. You didn't answer my question either.
One of us should open another thread about the baptism question. I don't want to muddy the issues here. Freemasons are different than pagans because they are deliberately setting themselves in opposition to Christ where pagans simply don't believe in Him. That means a Freemasonic baptism could have Satanic intent.
-
I would aver that in such a situation, Maria-B is entirely correct, and that patriotism is unacceptable FOR THOSE WHO REALIZE OUR SITUATION...
Hogwash. There is still a duty to love your patria. Was ancient Rome less corrupt? Were the Martyrs of those days just ignorant of their situation?
-
Raoul,
Have your ever read Bp Sanborn's comments about the USA, the founding thereof, what it means to be a patriot, etc? If not, you would likely profit from them. Look up his article "The Cult of Liberty", as it is excellent.
-
What I would like to know is what allegiance do I owe a country that I have no heritage in except the past 150 years or so? Im not AngloSaxon, my ancestors have no association with the "Founding Fathers" and my parents are direct descendants of vassals of Catholic monarchs whom their families served until their land was annexed and confiscated (Mexican American War) or they were forced to relocate during the (post WWI Austria), and all this government has done the past century and a half is steal from my family, (temporally, spiritually, and most of all, culturally). What does an Austrian/Spaniard who wants to foster the traditions of his people and pass down those gifts to his children (if he ever has any :wink: ) owe the the USA who is determined to rob him and his descendants of their Spanish cultural identity?
Until then....
NON SERVIAM AMERICA! :cowboy: :farmer: