Home ] Up ] The Controversy ] Online Books ] Study the Word! ] GOD's Health Laws ] Religious Liberty ] Links ]

 

Chapter 49

John Paul II - Part 3

 

The new Bush administration of 2001 seems set to unite conservative Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants even closer together, in selecting John Dilulio as head of the office of faith-based and community initiatives. The London Economist, February 10, 2001 described Dilulio as "a high powered social scientist who happens to be a Roman Catholic." In this program, announced within a couple of days of his assuming the Presidency, Bush promised eight billion dollars of Federal funds for religious charitable work. Make no mistake, some of that money will find its way into Church coffers.

No doubt many churches, mosques, synagogues and temples will act nobly, but it is undoubted that when church activities are government-funded, charity giving by the parishioners will drop. Despite administrative claims to the contrary, evangelistic activities will benefit. Rice Christians, those who join churches in order to receive charity, still exist. Also, some religious entities will handsomely overvalue their overhead costs and thus benefit from government funds. Further, Christians should be asking the question, Should churches be binding themselves to government regulations, requirements, and dictates, which may meet the government’s political aims rather than social needs? Many issues are at stake, but George Bush will be a friend—of this there is little doubt—of the Christian Coalition. The February 2001 Web site lists the Roman Catholic Church as the first member of the coalition despite its Evangelical Protestant front.

That John Paul II has woven a clever net around American Protestants cannot be doubted. Using the anti-abortion issue as its focus, the Roman Catholic Church has discovered a masterful way of using Protestant America to foster its political agenda. This method serves its political and religious aims well. We ourselves are opposed to abortion for all but the most critical circumstances, involving the life of the mother. Russell, who has delivered almost a thousand babies, has never once encountered such a need. We oppose abortion on Biblical grounds, and Russell having witnessed the medical consequences, and Colin the psychological results of this procedure have, in addition to our moral convictions, other compelling reasons to abhor the practice.

But this belief does not provide us with the right to use our convictions as a lever to penetrate and subvert the religions of others and the political activities of nations. This Rome is doing very effectively as it manipulates the United States to perform its bidding as Revelation 13:11—18 prophesied. The Bulletin, Australia’s premier weekly news magazine, in a revealing article published February 13, 2001, revealed this.

Commencing with the confirmation, by fifty-eight votes to forty-two in the United States Senate of John Ashcroft as Federal Attorney General, the article states:

The confirmation as attorney-general of former Senator and religious right hero John Ashcroft also ensures an escalation of the US’ holy crusade. . . . As head of the Department of Justice, Ashcroft has huge powers: to prosecute or not; to investigate or not; and to interview or not in dozens of legal areas. . . . Yet during his Senate confirmation hearings, he promised to uphold the present laws "as written" and not to enforce "his personal preferences." The word "preferences" falls far short of his beliefs, which as an adherent of the Pentecostal church, the Assemblies of God, he regards as divinely inspired.

The article described Ashcroft as "The most powerful religious radical to achieve such high office."

Speaking of the Christian Coalition the article went on to explain:

The movement is associated with right-wing Protestants, yet little known was that it was sponsored by the Catholic Church right up to the Vatican and Pope John Paul II himself. It is well documented by scholars, but little reported, how Catholics launched anti-abortion politics in the U. S. soon after the Roe judgment [1973].

Paul Weyrich, a Catholic and founder of the ultra-right Heritage Foundation, coined the phrase "Moral Majority" and drew up the agenda for the organisation of that name. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Southern Baptist, assumed its leadership until it became notorious in the 1980s, declined and was replaced by the Christian Coalition under Dr. Pat Robertson, the religious broadcaster and former presidential candidate. Yet behind these evangelists, [sic] the Catholic Church, fearing accusations of a "papist plot" from the remnants of the anti-Rome activists, also maintained a powerful, although less prominent presence. (Ibid.)

The strategy of the Papacy was revealed in this article.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops . . . in November 1975, issued the pastoral plan for Pro-Life Activities, a document describing in detail how to influence and infiltrate the US democratic processes. . . . The Vatican approved the plan, and it contains remarkably inflammatory language. . . . In a 1980 court challenge to the removal of abortion subsidies, Federal Judge John Dooling heard evidence that the movement was a grass roots, moral force that grew spontaneously. But in his 328 page decision, Dooling, a Catholic, outlined the movement’s origins in the Pastoral Plan. (Ibid.)

After Judge Dooling died "his opinion in the New Jersey court records ‘mysteriously disappeared.’" (Ibid.)

A 1995 Papal encyclical declared that—

Christians are called upon under grave obligation to conscience, not to co-operate formally in practices, which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. (Encyclical—Gospel of Life)

The theme of this encyclical is perfectly proper. But the design of Roman Catholic prelates to sabotage and infiltrate the political process is not the duty of a church of any persuasion.

This design is no doubt similarly used to achieve Vatican aims in other areas, not only within the United States, but around the world. A worldwide church which is also a sovereign nation is a peril to the nations in which their hierarchy is established. The Curia is not unmindful of this.

If Malachi Martin was accurate when he wrote—

that the chosen purpose of John Paul’s pontificate—the engine that drives his papal grand policy and that determines his day-to-day, year-to-year strategies—is to be the victor in that competition, (The Keys of this Blood, p. 17)

then John Paul might as well stand on the gold medal podium now.

When John Paul visited New York in 1976, two years prior to his election as pope, he was an obscure cardinal from Poland, yet his words, reviewed in retrospect, have a startling ring:

We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation the world has gone through . . . a test of two thousand years of culture and Christian civilization, with all of its consequences for human dignity, individual rights and the rights of nations.

Chilling was his assessment of the American scene on that occasion in relation to his assertion.

Wide circles of American society and wide circles of the Christian community do not realize this fully.

It is this American Christian lack of perception that John Paul has fully exploited, not to raise the rights of individuals and nations, but in order to subvert them.

On February 21, 2001, John Paul consecrated forty-four new cardinals in St. Peter’s Square, Rome. This was the largest number consecrated at one time in the entire history of the Papacy. The number of living cardinals reached 185. Those under eighty years of age, the age mandated by Paul VI to be the upper limit of those eligible to vote in a papal conclave, was 135, fifteen above the limit set by Paul VI. The press widely reported the overwhelming number of new appointees were "conservative." This was ominous in view of the medieval mentality of the Pope and such conservatives. Curiously, there was one exception. The German Cardinal Karl Lehmann, Archbishop of Mainz, was a well-known liberal who had long supported the "reform" movement in Latin America. Why did the Pope deign to make such an exception? Lehmann was rewarded for services and assistance to Polish Roman Catholics during the period of Communist rule. The Polish Pope had not forgotten this assistance.

Two cardinals, secretly appointed in 1998, openly received their red birettas, the symbol of their rank. One was the Archbishop of Riga, the capital of Latvia. Thus this strongly Lutheran nation had a cardinal. We do not know why his appointment was initially secret. But we do know that the Roman Catholic Church and the World Lutheran Federation were coming close to their precedent-shattering agreement at that time. Now that that agreement is history, perhaps the Pope felt that he was free to name the cardinal without causing any impediment to the signing.

Three Eastern-rite cardinals were appointed. One was Lubomyr Husar, Archbishop of Lviv in Ukraine and head of the Eastern-rite Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. John Paul was determined to make inroads into the Eastern Orthodox faith by such appointments.

The Melbourne Age newspaper, February 23, 2001 reported,

After the cardinals, dressed in their new scarlet robes, recited in unison an oath of obedience and fidelity to the Pope and his successors, John Paul II received them one by one at his golden throne, handing them as they knelt before him the red biretta, a silk square ridged hat that symbolizes their rank as "princes of the church."

What a scene! The pope claiming to be vicar of the One born in a stable, sitting on a kingly throne, the cardinals accepting the rank of princes of the realm. The contrast between our Savior and these forty-five Roman Catholic leaders could not be greater. Jesus was humble. He was a Servant of servants.

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)

The Pope and his cardinals were appointed to exert authority over the flock. For Peter, along with the other apostles, Christ told them that it was secular rulers and pagans (the Gentiles) who exerted authority, but they themselves were prohibited from doing so.

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. (Matthew 20:25—27)

Surely John Paul had no right, as an "infallible," authoritative ruler accepting an oath of obedience to himself, to claim either to be the Vicar of Christ or the successor of Peter.

The Pope, in requiring the cardinals to bow before him, accepted a privilege due only to God. Even the holy angels forbade such submission to themselves.

And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. (Revelation 22:8, 9)

The Melbourne Age went on to explain,

The colour red traditionally symbolises the cardinal’s willingness to shed his blood to defend the faith. The Pope put it another way: "Is this colour not a symbol of the passionate love for Christ? In that flaming red is there not the fire of love for the church which must nurture in you the readiness, if necessary, to even the supreme testimony of blood?"

These were high words indeed! Was it love for Christ that caused many cardinals of the past to shed not their own blood, but rather the blood of faithful Christians? Far more cardinals have been implicated in the shedding of the blood of others than have yielded their own blood for Christ. Perhaps the blood symbol of the red in full display is more appropriately worn as a symbol of the blood of those martyrs their colleagues of the past have shed. John Paul still upheld the papal pomp of medieval times.

Reporting on the disappointment of Australian Roman Catholics that the archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, was not created a cardinal, the Sydney Sunday Telegraph stated:

Powerful rumours were abroad in Catholic circles last week that George Pell, the archbishop of Melbourne, would be made a cardinal. But his grace missed out upon a berth among the thirty-seven conservatives [later in the week the Pope added another five] elevated to the Scarlet. He will have to be content with arch-episcopal purple instead of red. (February 3, 2001)

"Scarlet and purple"? Are these colors not appropriate for the religious power of the Papacy, for the Scriptures have symbolized that power as a woman "arrayed in purple and scarlet colour" (Revelation 17:4)?

Secular historians will unquestionably remember John Paul as the man who dismantled European Communism. Students of prophecy, while acknowledging that accomplishment, will remember him as the pontiff whose actions and policies finally brought the Papacy back to the prophesied pinnacle of power and influence. And we will not, surely, have long to contemplate this achievement, for these signs assure us that Christ is coming soon, very soon.

Our minds return to Hildebrand, the German prelate who became pope in 1073. Hildebrand was impressed by the information contained in a book written by the reforming Cardinal Peter Damiani entitled The Book of Gomorrah. In this book, Volume 4, page 76, Damiani set out to condemn the sodomy, fornication, bestiality and adultery he claimed to be rife in the lives of large numbers of priests and prelates.

Hildebrand, himself no saint despite his later canonization, set out to reform the clerical immorality. He successfully achieved the thwarted agendas of a series of previous German Popes. Their aims had been fourfold:

They would suppress simony or the traffic in sacred offices; they would enforce celibacy and chastity upon the bishops, priests and monks; they would recover the Temporal Power of the Papacy; and they would strengthen its spiritual authority until no king or noble would dare raise a finger in any cause whatsoever when the pope forbade it. (Joseph McCabe, A History of the Popes, N.V. Douglas Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand, Circa 1939, p. 6)

All these aims Hildebrand as Pope Gregory VII achieved. He has been the envy of later popes.

Ever since Hildebrand, Pope Gregory VII, (the pope who summoned King Henry IV of Saxony to repent before him), died in 1085, the Roman Catholic Church has sought to find another Hildebrand. It has taken just seven years short of nine centuries to achieve this aim, but in John Paul II. they have at last discovered him.

The deadly wound is now fully healed!

 


Back ] Up ] Next ]