Author Topic: CATHOLICS WHO SUPPORT TED CRUZ MAY BE GUILTY OF SERIOUS SIN  (Read 639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Centroamerica

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2556
  • Reputation: +1545/-428
  • Gender: Male
CATHOLICS WHO SUPPORT TED CRUZ MAY BE GUILTY OF SERIOUS SIN
« on: March 14, 2016, 12:12:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Looks like I found an interesting site that supports Bishop Williamson. Here's what they inform us about Ted Cruz...




    http://tridentinecatholic.com/wp/?p=1838

    The duty of all Catholics is to vote for the candidate who best reflects Catholic beliefs and values.  Unfortunately for many Catholics these days this means nothing as evidenced by 54% of Catholics who voted for the pro-abort, pro-homosexual marriage Barack Hussein Obama.  The Church is very clear, if this action was done with full consent and knowledge then it is not only a sin but a mortal sin.

    The same thing is about to happen in this next election but this one features a red herring.  The herring’s name is Ted Cruz.  I know many Catholics lured into voting for this man because of his stance on pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.  Yes, very admirable points that are in keeping with orthodox Catholic faith.  Unfortunately there is a poison lurking below the surface that many Catholics are not aware of or don’t want to be aware of.

    The religion Ted Cruz subscribes to is the religion of his Father Rafael Cruz.  That religion is evangelical in base but its called Dominion Theology, or Dominionism.  Basically the theology of the Cruz’s is this;

    In a sermon last year, Rafael Cruz said that his son is among the evangelical Christians who are anointed as “kings” to take control of all sectors of society. This is a Christian dominionist agenda that’s commonly called the “Seven Mountains” mandate: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion. If “Seven Mountains” is too abstract, “Creeping Christofascism” puts a much finer point to it.  Just a side note, I thought the revolutionary war was fought to remove “kings” from the American landscape?

    According to Political research associates: “Dominionists want to impose a form of Christian nationalism on the United States, a concept that was dismissed as eroding freedom and democracy by the founders of our country. Dominionism has become a major influence on the right-wing populist Tea Parties as Christian Right activists have flooded into the movement at the grassroots.”

    What we are looking at here is the Christian version of the Islamic Caliphate. Power can ONLY be held by the Evangelican Christian elite.  Catholics and Jews are excluded from this power structure.  This is directly against the teaching of the Catholic church.  Canon 750 states ” …….must be believed with divine and catholic faith;it is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths”  In addition Canon 752 states, “A religious respectof intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff for the college of bishops enunciate on faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching“.

    Like Barack Obama Ted Cruz is an ideologue or as his father Rafeal says, his son is a king.  I urge all Catholics planning to vote for Cruz to take off your blinders and look into the man’s upbringing. Remember the devil will tell you 10 truths in order to pass one lie.

    In the youtube below Rafeal Cruz talks about the redistribution of wealth (sound familiar)




    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2556
    • Reputation: +1545/-428
    • Gender: Male
    CATHOLICS WHO SUPPORT TED CRUZ MAY BE GUILTY OF SERIOUS SIN
    « Reply #1 on: March 14, 2016, 12:20:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • I don't know if I agree with every word of this article. I stumbled upon it looking for another article about the subject. It is interesting, but I think there have been better articles written on this subject.
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline MaterDominici

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 5119
    • Reputation: +3797/-76
    • Gender: Female
    CATHOLICS WHO SUPPORT TED CRUZ MAY BE GUILTY OF SERIOUS SIN
    « Reply #2 on: March 14, 2016, 06:10:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Centroamerica


    I don't know if I agree with every word of this article.


    Your ALL CAPS subject line suggests otherwise.  :wink:

    (That's just a joke; I can see it's a copy/paste.)

    A voter is not guilty of sin for voting for a good which indirectly lends support to a bad, presuming the good outweighs the bad. There's much more on this topic from a thread a few months ago.

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Catholic-Voting-Guide

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    In double-effect ...

    1) the action itself must be good -- I am saving the life of the mother

    2) you must only intend the good part (and not the secondary effect) -- I am not intending to kill the baby

    3) the good effect cannot arise from the bad effect (must be the other way around) -- I am not directly killing the baby but removing a damaged organ (there are ways that this procedure can be done and ways it cannot be done in order to comply with this)

    4) the bad effect cannot be disproportionate with the bad effect -- (I cannot remove the organ simply to help the mother's mental state for example)

    So let's apply this to voting.

    I am voting for a candidate who promises to appoint Pro Life justices to the Supreme Court (assuming you can believe any of these liars).  But this candidate wants to attack some country unjustly, resulting in the deaths of many innocents.  By voting for this candidate, I intend to help put into power someone who might change the plight of the unborn and not someone who would attacks innocents in an unjust war.  In that case, the latter would be an unintended secondary effect (the double effect).  Here one can argue regarding the proportionality (the question of whether such a person's appointments will in fact make any difference vs. the probability that this person would kill innocents in an unjust war).

    But to vote for a candidate to prevent a worse candidate from arising is "lesser evil" thinking and is not Catholic.  And I vehemently disagree with those theologians who claim otherwise.  So the candidate you vote for must in fact be a good.  You cannot vote for a bad candidate in order to prevent a worse candidate.
    "I think that Catholicism, that's as sane as people can get."  - Jordan Peterson


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16