Posted on 03/11/2016 5:22:36 AM PST by JosephJames
There is no such thing as "Jewish naturalism." There is only naturalism, which secular Jews subscribe to. This makes them better than Catholics, who subscribe to naturalism even when they are religiously orthodox!
You're getting a bit mixed up comparing evolution, for example, to the author's impression of Jewish naturalism. Catholic thought on the matter fundamentally seeks to explain how God chose to accomplish something, rather than explain God away.
Catholics choose to dismiss Genesis 1-11 as "mythology" because the world we read about there doesn't seem to operate like the world that we know today. The same hypocrites then turn around and wax rapturous about how a human woman conceived a child without a sperm and the child was then born by passing miraculously through her side without tearing her hymen. Needless to say, this is also totally at odds with the operations of the world today, but that doesn't keep them from believing it. Genesis, though, is a "fairy tale" written for stone age savages. What diabolical hatred drives this hypocritical double standard!!!
The tendency in Jewish naturalism is to seek to somehow preserve "Jewish life" or the "Jewish experience" without the sole reason for the existence of Judaism -- God Himself.
You mean like Catholics with their proud Irish/Italian/Spanish/French/Polish/Vietnamese/Filipino heritages that they can't shut up about? How far-sighted of them to be born into all the new "chosen peoples!"
The proof is in the pudding. Jews in the US are overwhelmingly non-practicing, and 90% of Jews in Israel, last I saw a number, identify as non-practicing. And yet, they maintain their identity as a Jewish people and a Jewish state.
Kinda like Ireland and Massachusetts, huh?
The reason for this is the implicit, and in some circles explicit, rise in Jewish naturalism.
And again, there is no such thing as "Jewish naturalism." There is only naturalism. And you are avoiding the fact that naturalism arose among Jews in recent times (Spinoza and the "enlightenment") while the evolutionist Nazi Fahey is attributing the Jewish rejection of chrstianity two thousand years ago to "naturalism." That is a lie. The ancient Jews rejected J*sus for the same reason Catholics reject Martin Luther. They already had the True Religion from G-d Himself. Chrstianity is a later, unorthodox deviation.
There has been quite a lot of scholarship on the subject, but the gist is that to the vast majority of Jews, most particularly Israeli Jews, have developed a sense of identity, a form of religion-based nationalism, if you will, that is devoid of God.
Like Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army? Like radical left wing pro-abortion Hispanics who carry the "lady of Guadalupe" with them as they reconquer the United States for the freaks and perverts in the Democrat party???
The form, the functions, the rituals (Bar Mitzvahs, etc), are all mere tools that reinforce the communal sense of a Jewish identity.
Oh, like the baptism of a Kennedy!
I would hazard a guess that most Israelis don't go around thinking, "my outlook on life is informed by Jewish naturalism."
There is no such thing as "'Jewish' naturalism."
It gets stickier, in terms of polite discussion, when this sense of Jewish identity butts heads with Catholicism, but the truth is that the Social Kingship of Christ is incompatible with Jewish naturalism.
As I have said at least three times, there is no such thing as a specifically "Jewish" naturalism. And your "social kingship of Chr*st" is a fraud. It places the so-called "messiah" as a purely metaphorical, non-literal "king" who allegedly "rules from Heaven." The actual Messiah (in Fundamentalist Protestantism as well as Judaism) is a literal king who rules a literal kingdom at the end of time. But of course, Catholic hypocrites are allergic to literalism unless it's something from the "new testament." They don't even believe the events in the Book of Esther happened!!!
It's interesting to trace the rise of Jewish naturalism
You're just saying that to be a jerk.
going back all the way to the OT.
There is no naturalism in the "old testament." But maybe you think it's a Masonic book or something.
The Jews existed not just as an ethnic group, but an ethnic group that was chosen by God.
Like every traditionally chrstian ethnic group in history from good ol' American rednecks to the Ethiopians.
While the Romans, Greeks and everyone else freely adopted and renamed and worshiped each other's gods, the Jews, those peculiar people, refused to even acknowledge any God but their own.
That must bug you. Too darn bad.
Getting beat on by just about every other nation in the ancient world at one time or another made them dig in their heels even more and hold their identity close. And so it went right up to the 1940's, and into today.
But if there had been no "enlightenment" following centuries of persecution, no Jews would have latched onto naturalism as "the official Jewish doctrine in opposition to fideistic chrstianity." Thanks so much for creating the conditions for that--not!
There is no other example of a group of people clinging so tenaciously to a religio-ethic identity, even in the midst of the abandonment of faith itself except maybe Catholic Spain, which of course doesn't date back anywhere close as far as the Jewish.
Wrong. All chrstians are ethno-nationalist pretenders to the "chosen people" title. The "universal abstract religion" is a complete fraud.
This isn't antisemitism.
It isn't? Defending a Nazi like Denis Fahey for saying that the Jews rejected and "murdered" J*sus two thousand years ago even though they "knew" he "fulfilled the prophecies" and because they were already planning on creating a "universal secular republic" isn't anti-Semitism? You don't know what you're talking about.
It's merely a study on the social trajectory of Jews through history. I won't deny that some people can mix in antisemitism when discussing the incompatibility of the Social Kingship with Jewish naturalism
Your non-literal "messianic kingdom" IS naturalism, you insufferable hypocrite--especially since after claiming that your "messianic kingdom" is "not of this world" you begin waxing rhapsodic about the restored House of Bourbon or the "Great Catholic Monarch" who essentially fulfills the role what what a messiah actually does.
(just as those coming from the other end of the argument can mix in anti-Catholicism), but that doesn't mean that any and every acknowledgement of the incompatibility includes and arises from some kind of hatred towards Jewish people.
Anyone with the guff to talk about "Jewish naturalism" while defending an evolutionist, science-worshiping, Bible-hating, Genesis-hating, Esther-hating, Jonah-hating religion like Catholicism (and evolutionist Nazis like the accursed Fahey) has no business talking.
Good day, boor.
I hear what you are saying, and agree whole-heartedly. At the same time, much of the message can be corrupted by the delivery. In this case, a very powerful message about the power of deception and the devil was diminished by tail end about Jews and Masons.
Also, when a priest begins to speak out against his bishop, there is likely a detailed story. It is possible for a well-meaning priest to run afoul of a not-as-well-meaning bishop. It is also possible for a well-meaning priest to do a lousy job. I don’t know the details in this case.
Consider this possibility: 10 people from Spain are visiting the US and want to see a baseball game. They know very little, but are interested to learn. Would they want somebody to give a detailed history of the balk, followed by any number of statistics? Or, would somebody who explains the basics of game, allowing a curiosity to develop into a love? While both are important, they are more appropriate to different audiences.
In this case, I was overwhelmed by the ERA of 1987 Toledo Mud Hens’ relief pitcher.
There is no "Jewish plot" to create a "universal republic" (there may be a Masonic plot, but that has nothing to do with the Jews other than Masons use the Hebrew Bible in their rituals and myths and that there are, though I don't know why, Jewish Masons). "Zionism" (contrary to the belief of evolutionist Nazi Denis Fahey) is not a "plot to rule the world." If your religion requires you to believe that then you're going to believe it, but it doesn't exist. Zionism is merely a nineteenth century secular European nationalism no different from all the other nineteenth century European nationalist movements (including Irish, Polish, and Czech nationalism). Anyone who defines "Zionism" as a "plot to rule the world" is a Jew-hater. And this very much includes evolutionist hypocrite Fahey, with his phony war on "naturalism."
It doesn't matter how many secular Jews own things. It wouldn't matter if secular Jews owned everything Secular Jews are among the lowest life forms on earth, and nothing about this (except their neshamot) has the remotest connection to actual Judaism. I can say this because Judaism has a definition--that definition is the Holy Torah (which hypocritical naturalist evolutionist Catholics hate so much). Everything outside Torah falls outside the definition of Jewishness. It doesn't matter what secular Jews may think or what they identify with.
You Bible-hating higher critical evolutionists have a lot of gall. But I'll call you on it every time, and I will continue to report every single post that defines Zionism as a "plot to rule the world" or says the Jews have been "plotting" against G-d for two thousand years.
Get used to it. When I came here this place was loaded with Nazis. I'm still here and most of them aren't. And I didn't ban a one of them.
I agree, and this plays into what both Father E. Sylvester Berry and Monsignor Dillon wrote. It seems that we look only at the titles of the books and we conclude without reading what they wrote.
What Wyrd bið ful aræd wrote and my reply to him, I would like to offer also to you. As Wyrd bið ful aræd wrote: “The difference is that non-practicing Christians don’t tend to cling to a Christian identity, and do tend to be dispersed in society. The Jews have nation that is build on their identity, along with the collective experience of being a distinct, unique religio-ethnic group dating back to deep antiquity.”
I replied to him: “I agree, and this plays into what both Father E. Sylvester Berry and Monsignor Dillon wrote. It seems that we look only at the titles of the books and we conclude without reading what they wrote.”
As I wrote before, I truly believe that Catholic bishops have received much grace from God, but are free to use that grace against God and thus can do much more damage. Does this mean that I hate bishops?
Christ, as true Christians, love the sinner but hate the sin. Homosexual activists do not make this distinction and thus accuse true Christians of hating those with the homosexual tendency. Christians hate sin, in this case the homosexual act. We all have temptations. If we pray, with God’s help, we can overcome temptation. “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26). How many today that their sin is impossible to overcome and condemn those who seek to overcome sin, sin according to the 10 Commandments.
The last several Popes have said that the greatest sin today is that there is no sin, we have lost the sense of sin, and we are angry with anyone who indicates that sin still exists and who who want to help their children to overcome sin too in a decent society.
Did you check out the references in the article regarding the priest being sent away from his parish?
(“The Hidden Broad Road to Perdition”; http://spir-food.blogspot.it/2015/05/road-perdition.html).
Please don't hold back, make certain that you display ALL your ignorance....no need to keep some people in the dark....!!!!!!
Read it. Sadly, I think the priest needs some help. His letter to the Cardinal was all over the place and “sounded” to me a bit manic.
I don’t know whether a pastor can or can not prevent a priest in his parish from preaching a certain way. It appears as though the priest was spoken to many times about his homilies and chose not to make adjustments.
Additionally, he should have met the Auxiliary Bishop. To refuse the meeting was bad form.
Finally, the devil has been with us since the beginning. He will be with us until the second coming.
If we seek truth and wisdom, I'll wager dollars to donuts that it is more likely to be found in traditional thought than in any progressive ideal.
I’m not sure if I understand correctly; are you saying that the only way to understand Scripture is as being completely literal?
You wrote: “Information is not true simply for being new. In fact, I would say that the quest for novelty is a peculiarly modernist sentiment.”
Is this statement directed at the posted article? If so do you put into the same category of “the quest for novelty” those who are diligently seeking the truth in a very confusing world and even a very confusing Church today, as Pope John Paul II encouraged us to do?
I see your identity as: “TradicalRC (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.)”. You might find interesting:
“QUESTION 3. How may one understand the dictum “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” without falling into either a false triumphalism or indifferentism? (Ecclesiology of the Catholic Church; http://schis-trad.blogspot.it/2008/03/ecclesiology-of-vcii.html).
Dear SpirituTuo,
If you have the patience, may I respond to your note. My words might seem a bit strong, but for me we are dealing with arriving to heaven or hell for all eternity. Lucia told us Our Lady of Fatima was always sad, and even showed the three children the horrors of hell, which few priest today have the courage to be politically incorrect and talk about the consequences of mortal sin.
You wrote: “It appears as though the priest was spoken to many times about his homilies and chose not to make adjustments.”
Make adjustments according to what criteria? Did Christ make adjustments according to the religious leaders of his time? Why was Christ crucified, because he got along with the establishment? Why were most of the prophets of the Old Testament killed? Would you write to the prophets of the Old Testament “to make adjustments”? Again, according to what criteria?
You wrote: “Additionally, he should have met the Auxiliary Bishop. To refuse the meeting was bad form.”
You wrote: “Read it.” Where did you find in the article that this priest refused to meet with the Auxiliary Bishop? This priest was called in to meet with the Auxiliary Bishop on October 13, 2015, and he went. He also obeyed the decision of the two bishops, even though this priest was not consulted before the decision.
This priest wrote about a recent annual retreat for the priests of his diocese in which the priest who gave the meditations never mentioned Our Lady, and during the retreat there was no Eucharistic adoration but rather adoration of the cross, without the corpse of Christ on the cross, as is common in the protestant churches, with the cross placed in front of the altar with a spot light on it, and the tabernacle behind in darkness. (http://spir-food.blogspot.it/2016/02/children-of-woman.html).
You wrote: “Finally, the devil has been with us since the beginning. He will be with us until the second coming.”
Again the same question: How do we distinguish the nice words of an “angel of light” (2Cor 11:14), from the uncomfortable Truth of Christ transmitted through His Catholic Church?
Do you really understand the gravity of the situation in the Church today? What was Saint Paul trying to warn us about when he wrote that before the second coming of Jesus Christ “that day will not come, unless THE REBELLION (APOSTASY) COMES FIRST, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2Thess 2:3-4). What was Saint Paul talking about when he wrote: “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Thess 2:11-12).
I get the impression that you would write, “you sound to me a bit manic”, to:
Mother Angelica of EWTN! “Go Get ‘Em, Mother!” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=—lYEOmSO4Q).
Double Barrel Church Militant 20,900 views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91BCCe2xwCM).
Mother Angelica on Blasphemy, the Second Vatican Council, and WYD 1993 Matthew Olson 21,203 views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCvX94US7SY).
The Battle Heats Up Church Militant 25,103 views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS7DjPv-0kc).
I get the impression that you would write, “you sound to me a bit manic”, to:
Cardinal Burke, who said: “After the Synod in October 2014: “Many have expressed their concerns to me. At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a rudder”?
I get the impression that you would write, “you sound to me a bit manic”, to:
the five cardinals who wrote the book, “Remaining in the Truth of Christ”, in defense of marriage, because after all, this book was not allowed into the Synod of Bishops in October 2014?!? Why did Our Lady of Good Success warn us (January 20, 1610), that when the Sacrament of Matrimony will be attacked and deeply profaned in our century, “in this supreme moment of need for the Church, the ONE who should speak will fall silent!”?!? Why did Our Lady send Saint Michael the Archangel to Garabandal (Spain, 1965) to tell us: “Many Cardinal, many Bishops and many Priests are on the road to perdition and with them they are bringing many souls”!
I get the impression that you would write, “you sound to me a bit manic”, to:
Pope Paul VI, because after he issued his prophetic encyclical, “HUMANAE VITAE” (1968), there was an incredible negative reaction not only on the part of the laity who wanted to enjoy the pleasures of sexual relationships without any responsibility or openness to life by using artificial birth control, but even on the part of a great number of priests and bishops, even entire Episcopal conferences (e.g., the ‘Winnipeg Statement’ of the Canadian Bishops)! BEFORE 1930 ALL MAINLINE PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS WERE IN ACCORD WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that the use of artificial birth control was a grave evil and a serious sin. When the Anglican Church changed its stance in 1930 (Lambeth Conference) the other protestants churches quickly followed suit while Pope Pius XI reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching on this grave evil in his encyclical Casti Cannubii (1930). When the Anglican Church first approved the use of contraception in 1930 it was only for serious reasons and only for married people who have been generous for life. However, by providing an opening for contraception, the qualifying phrase “for serious reason” was quickly ignored. Subsequently the use of contraception was viewed as virtuous behavior, and even the silent holocaust of abortion has become a private ethical choice of birth control. The unborn, unwanted babies no longer have any legal protection; they are now ripped to pieces after they are brutally murdered. BABIES DO NOT CHOOSE TO DIE! Is this not a good example of the slippery slop? The former Hippocratic oath for health care workers read: “I will administer no abortafacient to a pregnant woman.” The original Hippocratic oath acknowledged that abortion was a form of doing violence not only to the child but to the woman as well.
I get the impression that you would write, “you sound to me a bit manic”, to:
Pope Paul VI after he pronounced the dramatic words on June 29, 1972, after the Second Vatican Council, denouncing that “By some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God… One no longer trusts the Church; so many trust in the first profane prophet, who speaks to us in a magazine or in some social slogans, in order to run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we do not realize instead that we have already become lords and teachers. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it has entered through the windows which were meant to have been opened to the light. This state of uncertainty reigns even in the Church. It was hoped that after the Council there would be a day of sunlight in the history of the Church. Instead, there came a day of clouds, of darkness, of groping, of uncertainty…”
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html).
A few months before Pope Paul VI died, on September 8, 1977, he confirmed this grave judgment in a conversation with Jean Guitton. Here are the words of Paul VI recounted by the French philosopher:
“There is a great disturbance at this moment in the world and in the Church, and what is in question is the faith. It happens now that I find myself repeating the obscure saying of Jesus in the Gospel of Saint Luke: ‘When the Son of man returns, will he find faith on the earth?’ It happens that books are published in which important points of the faith are undermined, that the bishops are silent, that these books are not found to be strange. This, according to me, is strange. I read again every once in a while the Gospel of the end times and I realize that in this moment there is emerging some signs of the end times. Are we near the end? This we will never know. It is necessary to always be ready, but everything can still last quite a while. What strikes me, when I consider the Catholic world, is that a non-Catholic type of thought seems to predominate sometimes within Catholicism, and this non-Catholic thought might become the stronger one within Catholicism in the future. But it will never represent the thought of the Church. A small flock must remain, however small it may be.”
(http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/23572?).
Perhaps even Our Lady of Akita, Japan “sounds a bit manic”!
Our Lady of Akita, Japan (1973), told us: “As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead... The work of the devil will infiltrate even the Church in such a way that one will see CARDINALS OPPOSING CARDINALS, bishops against other bishops... the Church will be full of those who accept compromise …” (http://www.miraclerosarymission.org/akita.htm).
Christ offered mercy but without compromising the Truth, as do many prelates today, in the name of “mercy”! Thus would Christ be considered “a bit manic”? Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote: “Rarely affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish.” Have we allowed ourselves to slide into the culture of relativism which does not distinguish right from wrong according to the norms of God?
Have we arrived to the point of: “Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God” (Jn 16:2; Is 66:5). “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Is 5:20). What was Our Lady of Good Success, 400 years ago, warning us about regarding the destruction of the Sacrament of Matrimony? Compromise after compromise. If someone is not “politically correct” is this person “a bit manic”?
Again I ask, what is the criteria of what leads to heaven and what leads to hell? The opinion or consensus of the majority?
Very few Catholics today, immersed into relativism, realize that to change, even an “iota” of the saving laws of God (Mt 5:18; Lk 16:17; Mk 13:31), will bring very great destruction to eternal souls. Wars were fought in the first centuries of the Church due to disputes over the doctrine of the Church; now very few Catholics even care. If we are not alert with much prayer and study, the same old tricks of our adversary, with different dressings, will be used to lead us astray and away from God Who is the Truth and the way to eternal life. This is why we cannot rest until death, because our very intelligent enemy does not rest even at night; our enemy works in the dark!
Was Ratzinger’s forgotten prophesy on the future of the Church unfounded and perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger is “a bit manic”? (http://www.lastampa.it/2013/02/18/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/ratzingers-forgotten-prophesy-on-the-future-of-the-church-h7DcrYFxNmAleoeDLkekzN/pagina.html).
You can hear Cardinal Ratzinger express the same idea in an exclusive interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the World Over Live (EWTN, 2003; “Conversations The World Over - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Pt. 1”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TO6mzCPWbg), Raymond Arroyo asked Cardinal Ratzinger what did Pope John Paul II mean by “a new springtime in the Church”. Cardinal Ratzinger replied:
“This does not mean that there will be great masses of conversions; this is not the way of God. Essential things in history begin always with small but convinced communities. The Church began with the 12 apostles. And even the churches of Saint Paul diffused in the Mediterranean with little communities, but these communities had in themselves the future of the world, because they had the truth; and the force of true conviction. I think also today it would be an error to think that now in 10 years in a new springtime all people will be catholic. This is not our future or our expectation. But we will have really convinced communities. This is the springtime, a new life in very convinced persons with the joy of the faith. But from these small numbers we will have a radiation of joy, an attraction.”
Did Cardinal Biffi at the Annual Lenten Retreat for the Pope n (Feb. 27, 2007), exaggerate when he said that the masses will follow the antichrist with the false prophet, with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants who will resist and will say to the Antichrist: ‘You give us everything, except what interests us, Jesus Christ’.” For Cardinal Biffi, this narrative is a warning: “Today, in fact, we run the risk of having a Christianity which puts aside Jesus with his cross and resurrection.” (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07030101.html).
Dear SpirituTuo, pray for me so that I may follow our unpopular and politically incorrect Savior, Jesus Christ.
I will pray for you.
I see your identity as “Zionist Conspirator (The “end of history” will be worldwide Judaic Theocracy.)”.
I do not know if I am writing to a Catholic, but if you are interested the Catholic Church has offered us certain guidelines regarding millennialism. You might check out: “Catholic Prophecy Today” (http://markbeast.blogspot.com).
May I offer another source that you might find interesting:
“The Dissipation of the Darkness, the Origin of Masonry”, by G.S. Lawrence, tells us that the original name of the ancient Masonry was “The Mysterious Force”. Hiram Abiud, the king’s adviser, who was the real founder of ancient Masonry, proposed the name of the association, as the “Mysterious Force”…
After the death of King Agrippa, Hiram was designated as president of the Central Temple of Jerusalem and President General of the Association, “The Mysterious Force,” in a legal election realized by the eight founders, achieving the unanimous vote of the seven.
The terrible oath of the nine founding members:
“I bind myself to work for an increase in the number of its members. I bind myself to attack whoever follows the teachings of the impostor Jesus and to combat his men until death. I bind myself not to divulge any of the secrets preserved among us, the nine; either among outsiders or among the affiliated members.” (http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/downloads/Dissipation-Masonry.pdf).
I appreciate the time you took to write the response.
I mis-read the section about meeting with the Auxiliary Bishop. I thought he wrote a letter to the Cardinal, instead of meeting with the Auxiliary.
That said, I return to my primary point, which is about communicating the truth. I am in agreement with just about everything that was written. However, due to the writing style, the message is obscured.
Communication requires not only transmission, but also reception. The post transmitted an enormous amount of data, but again, due to its style and arrangement, make it difficult to read thoroughly. Sadly, a very important message was drowned out by a flood of other data, including the whole Jews-Mason thing.
I agree about the writing style. This priest wrote in one of his blogs:
“I must admit that I am not a professional writer. I received my BA degree in mathematics and science from UCLA in 1974, not in English nor in History nor in other liberal arts (not that these disciplines are bad in themselves). I was ordained a priest in Italy on August 31, 1996. But at least in the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s there was much less influence of the secular humanists (who have undermined reason and logic) in the mathematics department; two plus two are still four! Virtue is still virtue, sin is still sin, heaven and hell still exist according to the Creator of the universe even though these culture destroyers have convinced us otherwise! As Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to say: “The truth is the truth even if no one believes it; error is error even if everyone believes it.” I even remember in 1969 my fallen away Catholic high school teacher of science posed the philosophical question to us students: If a tree falls in a forest where there is no one to hear or see it, did the tree fall?”
(”Letter to fellow Priests”; http://spir-food.blogspot.it/2014/12/letter-to-fellow-priests.html).
- - -
Regarding “the whole Jews-Mason thing”, besides incouraging to read the original document and not just the titles, I wrote to Zionist Conspirator:
“I see your identity as “Zionist Conspirator (The “end of history” will be worldwide Judaic Theocracy.)”.
I do not know if I am writing to a Catholic, but if you are interested the Catholic Church has offered us certain guidelines regarding millennialism. You might check out: “Catholic Prophecy Today” (http://markbeast.blogspot.com).
May I offer another source that you might find interesting:
“The Dissipation of the Darkness, the Origin of Masonry”, by G.S. Lawrence, tells us that the original name of the ancient Masonry was “The Mysterious Force”. Hiram Abiud, the king’s adviser, who was the real founder of ancient Masonry, proposed the name of the association, as the “Mysterious Force”…
After the death of King Agrippa, Hiram was designated as president of the Central Temple of Jerusalem and President General of the Association, “The Mysterious Force,” in a legal election realized by the eight founders, achieving the unanimous vote of the seven.
The terrible oath of the nine founding members:
“I bind myself to work for an increase in the number of its members. I bind myself to attack whoever follows the teachings of the impostor Jesus and to combat his men until death. I bind myself not to divulge any of the secrets preserved among us, the nine; either among outsiders or among the affiliated members.” (http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/downloads/Dissipation-Masonry.pdf).";
- - -
If you understand Italian, you might check out:
The Jewish origins of Freemasonry and the Masonic attack on the Church
Le origini ebraiche della massoneria e l’assalto massonico alla chiesa
(http://antimassoneria.altervista.org/le-origini-ebraiche-della-massoneria-e-i-suoi-scopi/)
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.