Posted on 09/07/2009 4:14:54 PM PDT by NYer
Is Germany’s Charlemagne About to Appear?
As I write this article, Germany is just weeks from electing a new chancellor. That election and events to unfold from it are going to bring devastating consequences to this world. A dangerous political structure has been built in the European Union, and it’s about to get a lot worse. History thunders its strongest warning ever! It’s time that people understood that history.
But there is a lot more than history involved in understanding European politics.
What is happening in the European superstate is a mystery to most of the world. But that mystery is beginning to be removed.
Bernard Connolly wrote a bombshell book in 1995 titled The Rotten Heart of Europe. For years he served at the heart of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for the European Union. He headed the commission unit responsible for monitoring and servicing the system. He labels the European superstate as rotten. Since he had a vital job on the inside, his comments deserve our attention.
The Spirit of Charlemagne
“It is the battle for control of the European superstate,” Mr. Connolly wrote, “in which French technocrats confront German federalists, both sides claiming to fight under thebanner of Charlemagne. The ‘collateral damage’ from this battle lies mainly in the future, but it could be ghastly” (emphasis mine throughout).
“It could be ghastly.” That is an understatement!
Who will get control of this great superstate? And just how ghastly is it going to be? The battle can be narrowed down to two nations—France and Germany. Do knowledgeable people really doubt who has already won this battle? The nation that controls the money will reign supreme. Of course, that has already proven to be Germany.
“Across the Rhine, successive German governments have, in their pursuit of a ‘European’ cloak for German ambitions, been prepared to accept an apparent cession of national monetary authority—as long as the new European monetary authority looks, sounds, smells and acts exactly as the German monetary authority now does” (ibid.).
The EU system has already been called a Trojan horse. Mr. Connolly says it is a “cloak for German ambitions.”
Just what are those ambitions? And why should every person on Earth be deeply concerned?
Otto von Habsburg was one of the key figures in creating the European Union. He had this to say about that union: “The [European] Community is living largely by the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire, though the great majority of the people who live by it don’t know by what heritage they live.”
Twenty-seven countries are members of the EU today. Most of them don’t know that they are “living largely by the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire.” It is a mystery to them.
According to Bible prophecy, the number of member nations or groups of nations will be reduced to 10 rulers. There are simply too many nations in the EU now for the Union to be ruled in the spirit of Charlemagne. Only after it has been severely reduced in member countries can the Holy Roman Empire function as it has in its extremely bloody past.
Mr. Habsburg also said, “We possess a European symbol which belongs to all nations of Europe equally; this is the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, which embodies the tradition of Charlemagne.”
Just what is “the tradition of Charlemagne”? It is far from what most people think it is—even Europeans!
Charles the Great
The Franks were the first barbaric tribe to embrace Catholicism, but it was for political gain, not religious reasons. Mostly of Germanic origin, the Franks used the Catholic Church to support their expansionist policies, while the church relied on Frankish rulers for protection. It was a union based on politics alone.
The Frankish kingdom reached the pinnacle of its power during the rule of Charlemagne (Charles the Great). Before Charlemagne’s emergence as world ruler, the political scene in Europe was greatly divided. Germany was sliced into many different tribes. Much of Italy was occupied by the Lombards. Byzantium was recognized as the successor to the eastern region of the old Roman Empire. Charlemagne, in conjunction with the papal throne, eventually changed all that—but not without much bloodshed.
Historians call his rule the First Reich—even though Charlemagne was the second ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Adolf Hitler’s rule became known as the Third Reich.
Charlemagne felt it his duty to defend the church. In 774, at the request of Pope Leo iii, he entered northern Italy and conquered the Lombard kingdom, uniting Italy for the first time in centuries. In 799, he again came to the aid of the pope, who was assaulted, brutally beaten, and thrown into prison by a band of conspirators. With the military backing of Charles and his Frankish troops, the pope was exonerated of all wrongdoing and reinstated to his ecclesiastic office.
The following year, in Rome, while Charlemagne was kneeling in prayer during a Christmas celebration inside old St. Peter’s Church, the pope placed a crown upon his head, pronouncing him “the 73rd emperor of the fourth world empire.”
At this point, we should note that throughout the Middle Ages, many scholars, theologians, even popes, knew the Roman Empire was the fourth world-ruling kingdom.Many of them even identified this fourth kingdom with the one Daniel spoke of in his prophecy (see Daniel 2:37-43). That’s why Europeans and Catholics kept trying to revive the empire! The Bible said there would only be four such empires. However, the fourth empire would have 10 resurrections, according to Bible prophecy. The last seven of those resurrections would be called Holy Roman Empires, because they were ruled by church and state.
As king of the Franks, Charlemagne was able to subjugate every single German tribe but one: the Saxons. The Saxons clung to their own faith and refused, even on pain of death, to submit to Roman Catholicism. Charlemagne determined to force his brand of Christianity on them with the sword. For years the Saxons obstinately resisted. At one point, out of sheer frustration, Charlemagne executed 4,500 Saxon prisoners. This barbarous act angered the Saxons even more.
It took 30 years for Charles to completely extinguish the “Saxon” problem, but not before multiple thousands had been executed for their religious beliefs. After more than 18 conquests against the Saxons, Charles finally prevailed. In the end, Saxons either subjected themselves to the rule of Charles, or their defiance ended in death.
The Holy Roman Empire has never been democratic. It could never be. Even Pope Pius xiisaid the church had twin enemies: the democracies and communism. He was pope at the peak of Communist power.
As emperor of the “Holy” Roman Empire, Charles felt it his duty to spread the Christian faith using whatever means necessary. The New Encyclopedia Britannica says, “The violent methods by which this missionary task was carried out had been unknown to the earlier Middle Ages, and the sanguinary [bloody] punishment meted out to those who broke canon law or continued to engage in pagan practices called forth criticism in Charles’ own circle” (“Charlemagne, Emperor”).
The violence Charlemagne used to enforce the Catholic religion on his subjects was simply unknown in earlier empires! He forced his brand of Christianity on everyone. His empire may have had distinct ties to the ancient Romans, but it was certainly not “holy”—even if there was a great church guiding it.
And yet, for centuries to come, the aim of succeeding emperors was to restore the traditions of Charlemagne in their quest to revive the Roman Empire!
Even today, Germany and a great church are working to restore the tradition of Charlemagne. They have almost completed the structure. Still, it is a mystery to most of the world’s inhabitants.
Let the world beware! That power structure is ready to burst on the world scene—again!
Charlemagne’s bloody conquests were the worst ever in the history of the previous empires. The conquests of the next Holy Roman Empire are going to be the worst suffering ever inflicted on human beings in the history of man! (Matthew 24:21-22; Daniel 12:1; Jeremiah 30:1-10).
It will all be done in the spirit of Charlemagne. Most people won’t awaken out of their stupor until it’s too late! . . .
The term “clerk” comes from “cleric,” or “priest.” Hence, “anti-clerical” (which is almost synonymous in much of the world with “anti-Catholic”) refers to hating an ordained priesthood. You could say that the Catholic church invented the bureaucracy. On the other hand, the terms “clerk” and “bureaucracy” took on money-managing connotations which are a little out of place describing people in a culture that had not adopted the use of a zero yet.
The church claims to be carrying on [Herbert W.] Armstrong's legacy and "Raising the Ruins" of God's one true church after the doctrinal changes made by new WCG leaders Joseph W. Tkach and his son Joseph Jr. The claims that Flurry is carrying on Armstrong's legacy and has received new revelation are rejected by other WCG split-offs (See Gerald Flurry), who consider Flurry one of the false prophets Jesus warned (Mark 13:22) would arise in God's church shortly before Christ's return (www.pcog.info). (Wikipedia)The PCoG are non-trinitarian heretics since they deviate from the creeds of the ancient catholic Church. Any resemblance to biblical Protestantism is purely coincidental.
One of the great developments of the later middle ages, along with the wide use of decimal numeration and real sentences.
Yes. “Charlemagne.” His name figures prominently on all European Union documents. So says the Philadelphia Crackpot Church of No-One.
-Theo
An identification and distinction which is no doubt utterly lost on the majority of readers here. I think "Protestant" for a Catholic is the equivalent of "Gentile" for a Jew.
I think they are looking at the wrong Roman empire.
The Roman empire split into two parts: east and west. The west fell centuries ago. The eastern empire continuted on (latter changing its name to the Ottoman empire) until about 1917 (WW-I).
We in the west have been so focused on ourselves (as we were part of the western Roman empire) that we have missed the fact that the eastern Roman empire ended only 100 years ago. What’s more, all of the important locations in the Bible (from Jerusalem, Bablylon, Egypt, etc...) are located in what was the EASTERN Roman empire.
Remember, Rome’s OFFICIAL capital was moved from Rome to Constaninople (now called Istanbul in Turkey.)
A empire consisting of most middle-eastern and north-african nations (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Suadi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Lybia, etc...) would constitute a revived eastern Roman empire too, and would include the official Roman capital of Istanbul.
First, they need a new Charles Martel. Then they can have a new Karl der Grosse.
The source is deceiving. I was reading this thinking that Patrick Madrid wrote it, and wondering how he went off the deep end like that.
The actual text is from a site called “The Trumpet”.
Actually the Eastern Roman Empire was conquered and destroyed by the Ottoman Empire. It didn’t change its name.
From a post of mine last October:
The Trumpet is an on-line magazine spun out of the former Worldwide Church of God, an anti-Trinitarian, Anglo-Israelism, apocalyptic personality cult:
The Trumpet has a long history of accurate forecasting of major global events based on this predictive model, tracing back to the beginnings of the Plain Truth magazine in 1934 under the direction of Herbert W. Armstrong. To explore these forecasts, read our sample issue, called “He Was Right!—Remembering five decades of accurate forecasting by Herbert W. Armstrong.”That this article would equate such heretical beliefs with Protestantism only serves witness to the moral dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy of the Catholic blogger who wrote it.
Boy, plenty of examples of a deficient knowledge of history on this thread, starting with the original article!
So I guess that the author’s point is that a New Chancellor will rise up in Germany under the employ of the antichrist (the Pope) and undo all of the great progress that Christianity has made in Europe over the past 500 years. Wow...
Oh, the irony in that statement...
...only serves witness to the moral dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy of the Catholic blogger who wrote it.
That said, I agree that there should be differentiation between "mainline" Protestantism, and "moonbat" Protestantism, just as there should be differentiation between the Roman Catholic Church and, say, the Church of Mel Gibson.
Yep. They fight dirty. The counter-Reformation never ended.
There's no question at all that the PCoG split off from the WCOG, which grew out of a splinter offshoot of the SDA church, which grew out of (several) churches which were unambiguously Protestant (Methodist and Baptist, principally).
So, yes, the PCoG are a group which "derives from Protestantism" (historically). Among their heresies is a rejection of the Trinity, which places them well outside the pale of traditional confessional Protestantism.
I hope that helps.
Take it up with the referee.
get along, Kid Charlemegne...
Arians and Pelagians have far more in common with the early catholic Church than PCoG has in common with Protestantism.
Which is only one step removed from the RCC denomination, so what is your point?
Late medieval. Not during the time of the German/Roman Empire. The books you cite deal with the late Middle Ages.
They had chanceries, yes. But if you think that the government apparatus, record-keeping, administration of as king or bishop in the Middle Ages was anything remotely like a modern bureaucracy, you’re crazier than Joe Biden. They could never have fathomed what we mean by bureaucracy. It was not thinkable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.