"Bro. Benito Juarez"
Masonic Emblems, 33rd Degree - Mexican President Benito Juarez
Don't believe it? Visit the The National Palace Benito Juarez museum section.
http://www.delange.org/PresPalace3/PresPalace3.htm
Posted on 07/08/2011 7:56:10 PM PDT by topher
One of the reasons there are so few Hispanics on FR is because of people with attitudes like yours.
I sure wouldn’t come on this forum if I were Hispanic. Sometimes it seems like there’s nothing but raving anti-Hispanic comments. It’s a pity, because there are actually many conservative Hispanics, and we’re driving them away.
That said, Mexico was actually a very important place in the 19th century, and was the focus of much European interest (and interference), expressed in the French invasion and the plan to make Mexico part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under the Hapsburg dynasty. It had a very active artistic, intellectual and political life (which was why European intellectuals often emigrated and/or fled to Mexico), and Mexico City still reflects some of the glories of the 19th and 20th centuries in its arts and institutions.
Its mid-19th century was certainly no more tumultous than ours, with our Civil War and its huge death toll, including the assassination of our president.
May I suggest that the ignorance works both ways? Many people in the US have absolutely no idea of the history of either Mexico or Canada, which they should certainly understand because of the proximity of these countries. Also because of the lousy teaching of history in our schools, they don’t understand the place of these two countries, particularly Mexico, in the context of world history. Of course, in the case of Mexico, the hatred of Hispanics evidently felt by many in the US (partly motivated by entrenched US anti-Catholicism dating back to the Know-Nothings and beyond) prevents them from ever learning anything.
BTW, there are many kinds of Hispanics ~ then there's Mexico.
My concern is their apparent inability to ASSIMILATE to our culture and standards ~ and they have to get off this idea that they really did inherit ALL the former Spanish lands to their North. That's just BS. Most of that vast area, particularly the Canadian Tundra, was a wasteland or desert. They did nothing whatsoever to develop it, and except for a handful of brave Spanish, American and Russian souls out on what became the Santa Fe trail or along the Pacific shore, there were VERY FEW people in that territory.
Aztlan never existed ~
Indeed, the stuff they trot out is insane.
That big “G” between my square and compass stands for GOD,and God is the center of all Free Masonry.
BTW, I am a past master of our lodge several times over, and am a 33rd degree Mason. Also, very conservative, as is everyone I have come across from our blue lodges, to the Shriners or Scottish Right over the past 25 years. There may have been an exception, but they did not make that known.
It is pointless to argue these things to some people. Just like the libs need Haliburton, some folks need Masonry to blame for all the ills of the world.
Except that if a believer states he believes in God through faith in Christ, he will be denied membership into Freemasonry. Such manifestation of their thinking begs the question, what god do they really worship?
Philipe III undertook the great task of carving the place up when his father Philipe II died in 1598.
That year saw the arrival of the first Swedes along the James River, the founding of Santa Fe, the de-militarization of Florida, the first French (Protestants) at St. Sauveur (Bar Harbor ME), etc.
Philippe III called a conference to be held in 1604 where he imposed the Treaty of London on the Europeans. He had almost everyone of any consequence at the conference, and some things were thrashed out. However, he decided that England and France would begin settlement in precise areas, and they could let OTHER Europeans into the game. Surveyors were sent out to mark the boundaries of Virginia, and New France. A boundary was set between Russian and Spanish interests in the West, and a line was drawn between New France to the West of Hudson's Bay and New Spain. Yup, Western Canada was part of New spain ~
I'm currently on the trail of the surveyors who did the job of putting in the benchmarks for later surveys.
Mexico got "created" as a separate area of interest for Spain ~ it had population for one thing. The rest of North America was pretty empty.
Over the next century (1604 to 1702 Spain was the dominant authority in the region and for the most part the bounds set by Philippe III were respected.
It's right there in 1702 that Spain's, and Mexico's fortunes collided. We call it Queen Anne's War in our history books ~ everybody else calls it the War of Spanish Succession. There are a lot of briefs on it that are worth reading through ~ just picked up a note I'll remember. 400,000 people died in that war. In a Western Europe/America with maybe 30 million people that is a whopping big war!
Coming on top of the earlier mid-century carnage of the Thirty Years War it was obviously important to many people that the development of America should be reinitiated if only to provide refuge. This is about the time the "America as God's Given Land" literature begins to appear throughout the West.
By the middle of the 1700s the Brits were wiping up New France, and by 1775 a new nationalism appeared that would forever set the British colonies apart from everyone else ~ still does.
In the meantime Mexico continued to progress separately ~ mostly as an agricultural venture with serious mineral mining on the side.
It's a separate development.
Attributing later conflicts to religious differences would be in error ~ Mexico simply never rose out of the torpor of the Hapsburg Empire, and when that influence was gone, they became a failed state ~ the Spanish holdings to the North that'd never been seriously developed ended up in the hands of the United States ~ where they were, in fact, developed. That area that could hardly sustain a population of more than 25,000 people prior to the Mexican Cession now has MILLIONS ~ about half of them of Mexican ancestry ~ which suggests the vast technological and cultural differences between being part of Classical Mexico or Modern America.
Did somebody want to argue Spain v. England stuff? How about arguing Spain v. Spain stuff!
Especially if they were manufactured and imported from China. ;^(
One of the better summations of N American history I’ve read, although the population numbers I question.
After the Revolution of Ayutla, nearly all of the top figures in the government were Fremasons and fierce anticlericals.[3]
The 1917 Constitution outlawed teaching by the Church, gave control over Church matters to the state, put all Church property at the disposal of the state, outlawed religious orders, outlawed foreign born priests, gave states the power to limit or eliminate priests in their territory, deprived priests of the right to vote or hold office, prohibited Catholic organizations which advocated public policy, prohibited religious publications from commenting on public policy, prohibited clergy from religious celebrations and from wearing clerical garb outside of a church and deprived citizens of the right to a trial for violations of these provisions.[9][10]
Another article of the Constitution emboldened Marxist and then Communist labor unions which subsequently incited even more anti-religious governments.[11]
Recent President Vicente Fox stated, “After 1917, Mexico was led by anti-Catholic Freemasons who tried to evoke the anticlerical spirit of popular indigenous President Benito Juarez of the 1880s. But the military dictators of the 1920s were a lot more savage than Juarez.”[12]
Fox goes on to recount how priests were killed for trying to perform the sacraments, altars were desecrated by soldiers and freedom of religion outlawed by generals.[12]
Sources:
3) Werner, Michael S., Concise Encyclopedia of Mexico, p. 88, Taylor and Francis 2001
9) Ehler, Sidney Z. Church and State Through the Centuries p. 579-580, (1967 Biblo & Tannen Publishers) ISBN 0819601896
10) Needler, Martin C. Mexican Politics: The Containment of Conflict p. 50, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1995
11) Ehler, Sidney Z. Church and State Through the Centuries p. 580, (1967 Biblo & Tannen Publishers) ISBN 0819601896
12) Fox, Vicente and Rob Allyn Revolution of Hope p. 17, Viking, 2007
Sorry, Google translate often does a very poor job.
Your video?
1. The CO-group she mentions has NO CONNECTION with any accepted group,...
2. Her “book” ..released Date: April, 15 2011
3. She looks like another make-upless hippie chick who is trying to prove she is a man.
4. Talk about a stretch.
Because someone states something in a book and releases a video on the web Does Not make it fact.
Like relying on “Fact Check” hee hee hee
Total Nonsense.
Hmmm There were a "lot" of people who were anti-cleric around 1917 because of the connection between the Catholic hierarchy and the Monarchies. There are some here on FR who still would defend Monarchy as an acceptable form of government. Now that is a statement.
Where do you get your misinformation? My lodge begins each meeting with a prayer and our chaplin ends it "in Jesus's name".
I am beginning to think you are only here to stir up others by insulting them with lies. I regret any post to this thread, I knew better from previous experience. Such ignorance.
From the book: In the Kingdom of the Spirit by Josyp Terelya, p 129-130, Abba House, 1995:
In many of my trips, good Catholics - disturbed by the affairs of the Church - ask me questions about these affairs that are taking place around us. I met with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. He gave me one of his statements, with the express approval of the pope, in answer to the question whether the views of the Church on the organization of the masons has changed in the new Code of the Canon Law. The canon specifically condemning membership in freemasonry is not repeated from the previous codex. The sacred congregation simply states that circumstances brought about the revision of the new canons of the so that no mention is made about such organizations. But the negative attitude of the Church in regard to the masons has remained unchanged. Membership by Catholics is forbidden. Those who join are in serious sin and cannot receive Holy Communion. MASONIC STATUS IN CHURCH LAW
This was from an interview of Josyp Terelya with Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI...
- It's undisputed... http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/aldworth.html
There is a famous story of Saint Padre Pio.
Basically, it occurred in Italy, and a Freemason wanted to convert/confess his sins at this death. Brother freemasons surrounded the house to not allow the mason to convert.
However, the wife was pregnant, and gave birth. A priest was allowed to come to the house to baptize the baby.
This gave the man the chance to convert to Catholicism on his death bed, confess his sins, and receive the last rites.
Why his brother Freemasons opposed this, I do not know.
But this occurred in Italy.
You've been misinformed -- that is absolutely not true. :-)
Just as Catholics are accused of worshiping saints, believing in salvation through works, of forbidding the bible to believers, and a host of other vile misrepresentations, so too are Masons misrepresented.
Just like with Catholics, when it comes to Masonry outsiders sometimes have an implicit distrust. Just about everything we believe in and stand for can be readily found online or in a library -- from Masonic sources, I might add. But no matter how often we try to correct misrepresentations people assume we are just trying to "hoodwink" them (again, due to that implicit distrust). I'm sure that, as a Catholic, you know EXACTLY how that feels, when you correct a particular bit of misrepresentation from a Protestant for the umpteenth time.
Now, there are two times when a believer would be asked about their faith in God -- first during their initial interviews and second during their initiation as an Entered Apprentice. Faith in God through Jesus Christ is absolutely an acceptable answer. There is furthermore a point during the Master Mason degree when the man being raised to that degree is told to attend prayer. That prayer is allowed to be verbal and can certainly be made in the name of Jesus Christ.
For the record, if someone expressed a faith in "Satan" or "the Devil" during an initiation, I have little doubt that they would be hauled out of the lodge by their neck. That would be an unacceptable answer.
Admittedly, what is usually NOT done is for the chaplain to make prayers in the name of Christ. This isn't some sort of vile trick to aim worship at the devil or some other mysterious being. Instead, it is for the same exact reason that we do not allow prayer to be made in the name of Allah, or Vishnu, or Buddha, or any other name given to God by a particular sect. We tend to have a variety of religious outlooks present at a Lodge meeting. The prayer that is said is said on behalf of everyone at the meeting. If it was aimed at God as he is believed in by a particular sect rather than made in general language, it would not represent everyone.
It should be made clear as well that this is not a prayer of worship were talking about. It's a prayer for God's good guidance before setting about the business of the lodge. Freemasonry teaches that no important endeavor should ever be started without first seeking the guidance of Deity through prayer. Last I checked, there is only One Deity. It's just that Masonry really ISN'T a religion -- it's a fraternity of men with a firm belief in God but different outlooks as to His characteristics.
The prayer might be overly ecumenical for the Catholic Church's comfort (and I can respect that) but it is NOT ill-intended.
I guess I was mistaken about this because of Lee Meriwether. This actress was/is a member of Rainbow Girls.
I was under the impression that if one was a Rainbow Girl, one was a mason. However, Rainbow Girls are a community service organization.
I will have to find in which book Terelya references this.
However, Josyp Terelya states the following in his book In the Kingdom of the Spiriton page 126: ... Today's false ecumenism is in close with non-ecclesiastical political organizations and also with manifest and secret international organizations that are hostile to the Church of Christ, especially freemasonry. This is a fact. The masons do not hide this. From the very beginning, all the high ranking communists of the U.S.S.R. have been members of various Masonic lodges.
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.