Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Technical Difficulties

I have recovered my ability to post pics, colors and bold. I cannot though publish post once I do anything.

Stay tuned as it appears Blogspot is pushing us over to new Beta format, run apparently by Google.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

NOR Right on Just War

The So-Called War on Terror

November 2006

We received a letter from Joe Furka of High Bridge, New Jersey: "You've done yeoman's work putting forth the argument that the war in Iraq is unjust. I hate you for it. As an ardent supporter of the war when it started, you've brought me kicking and screaming to see it in a light I never imagined -- and it sickens me. I'm left with one question: Can you offer your readers insights into how you think this ‘war on terror' could be fought justly?"

Yes, we'd be happy to. There would be no need for any U.S. "war on terror" if the U.S. had an evenhanded policy in the Middle East.

Before 9/11, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda had grievances against Israel for its presence in Jerusalem and its treatment of Palestinians. Listen to the 2004 9/11 Commission Report: The "mastermind of the 9/11 attacks" was Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and his "animus toward the United States stemmed…from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." And listen to Osama bin Laden's videotape of October 29, 2004, explaining the reasons for the 9/11 attack: "Our patience ran out and we saw the unjustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon [prior to the war in the summer of 2006]…. Contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom, let him explain to us why we don't strike, for example, Sweden?"

Because the U.S. has not been a neutral and honest broker in the Mid-East and has overwhelmingly sided with Israel, radical Muslims have resorted to terror. And there are many imitators of Osama, and terror has spread far and wide. This is not good for America or the world. Both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- are stridently pro-Israel, and neither has an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East. All the U.S. would have to do is have a fair-minded policy in the Mid-East. Why is that so hard to do?

One answer, given by two academics of the realist conservative school of foreign policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, is that the Israel Lobby -- particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) -- has a stranglehold on U.S. policy in the Mid-East (The London Review of Books, March 23, 2006). Of course, Mearsheimer and Walt were smeared as "anti-Semites." But they're said to be Jewish; however, we can't confirm that. Over the past thirty years, Israel has taken 33 percent of U.S. foreign aid.

The NOR condemns terror, because it is objectively murder. Why can there not be nonviolent resistance? Why is there no Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or Lech Walesa when we need them? Unfortunately, many groups have resorted to terrorism, even the Zionists when they were trying to establish the state of Israel. And the U.S. resorted to terrorism on a massive scale. The U.S. deliberately and intentionally murdered innocent civilians toward the end of World War II. At a time when Germany and Japan were essentially defeated, the U.S. firebombed Dresden and other German cities, and used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that time, General Curtis LeMay said, "There are no innocent civilians," and that's what Osama says. America's hands are definitely not clean.

The Muslims resent the U.S. for its cultural decadence -- its music, films, pornography, feminism, homosexualism, etc. -- that's been foisted on their Islamic culture. Who can blame them? That's their problem, and we hope they can overcome it. But they shouldn't resort to terrorism because of that.

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- by the way, the democratically elected President -- said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." There is no way Iran could wipe Israel off the map. Israel has nuclear weapons (an estimated 200 nuclear warheads). At this point, Iran has none.

What has seldom been reported is that Ahmadinejad said the Zionist state should be moved to Europe or North America. Before World War I, among the sites under consideration for a Jewish homeland were Argentina and British East Africa -- so this is not such an outrageous idea. Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post (July 18 and 25), referring to the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war, says he supports the Israeli's "disproportionate military response" in Lebanon, saying, "You slap me, I will punch out your lights." Nevertheless, Cohen says, "Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, [Israel's] most formidable" enemies. Cohen says, "Israel is, as I have often said, unfortunately located…[in] a pretty bad neighborhood."

Nevertheless, the NOR has no objection to the Zionist state being where it is right now, if that's where the Zionist state wants to be.

However, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father and the first Prime Minister of Israel, said, "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel…. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that [the Arabs'] fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country" (Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox). You can understand why Ahmadinejad said the Zionist state should be moved to Europe or North America. Certainly, the Israelis would live in peace there. Moreover, the ultra-orthodox Jews oppose the state of Israel, saying the restoration of Israel can only be accomplished by the expected Messiah. And the overwhelming majority of Israelis are secular Jews, so they don't believe the state of Israel is "God's Promised Land."

Nevertheless, Israel is an established fact in the Mid-East, and some Arab countries have made peace with Israel. If the U.S. had an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East, we think that the Israelis and Muslims could live in peace.

Because of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (on Iran's eastern border) and Iraq (on Iran's western border), and because of the U.S.'s relentless hostility to Iran, the Iranians are said to want nuclear weapons. Why? Because no nation with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked by another nation. It's called deterrence.

If the U.S. could live with 30,000 Soviet nuclear weapons and missiles, the U.S. and Israel can easily live with a smattering of Iranian nuclear weapons. The NOR believes all nuclear weapons should be done away with. The Nonproliferation Treaty was signed in 1970 and committed member states to impending nuclear disarmament. It was led by the U.S. However, Israel did not sign the Nonproliferation Treaty.

There are worries that if the Iranians intend to get nuclear weapons, they could pass some of their nuclear weapons to terrorists. If Iran were to do that -- and it's extremely unlikely -- the U.S. would no doubt bomb the Iranians back into the Stone Age. And the Iranians know it. Much more likely is that terrorists would get nuclear weapons from the still-unsecured ex-Soviet nuclear sites.

As for the U.S. "war on terror," the U.S. is bogged down in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making a comeback and Osama has not been caught, and in Iraq, where the principal winners are the Shia fundamentalists, who are close allies of Iran. (Moreover, the U.S. knocked off Saddam, Iran's arch-enemy.)

The U.S. is creating more terrorists than it is eliminating. But don't take it from us: A leaked classified National Intelligence Estimate ("Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States") reported that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has triggered a new generation of Islamic radicalism without any direct connection to al-Qaeda, that overall terrorism has increased since the 9/11 attacks, and that Muslim terrorism has spread across the world. All this because of our invasion of Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents in the intelligence community, and they are approved by John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (The New York Times, Sept. 24).

This "war on terror" makes no sense. As H.L. Mencken said, "The American public…detest more violently…those who try to tell them the truth."

Senator Ernest Hollings wrote an op-ed in the Charleston Post and Courier (May 7, 2004): "With Iraq no threat [to the U.S.], why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel." Sen. Hollings said this right after announcing his retirement from the Senate. Nothing to lose. Of course, he was branded an anti-Semite by the neocon Weekly Standard and the Anti-Defamation League. This was intended to choke off debate. And it usually works. We have received many letters criticizing Israel, but most of their authors insist on withholding their names, because they fear being slurred as anti-Semitic (some letters are anti-Semitic, but most are not).

To automatically brand anyone who criticizes Israel as anti-Semitic is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It's just diversionary name-calling. Or, as the Catechism says, it would be "rash judgment" and "calumny" (#2477).

When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently expressed some support for Hezbollah, Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, blasted him as anti-Semitic. How would he know? We do believe Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic -- in vino veritas (one speaks freely under the influence of alcohol) -- and that takes nothing away from his magnificent Passion of the Christ. But how would Dean know whether al-Maliki is anti-Semitic?

To criticize Israel is seldom anti-Semitic. As Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, said in a lecture on February 28, 2002, "We are wrong to see all criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Zionism, let alone anti-Semitism. No nation is perfect. No nation is above criticism."

Nevertheless, to this day one dare not criticize Israel or the Jews, but you can dump on the Arabs and Muslims all you want. There is such a thing as anti-Semitism, but can there be no such thing as anti-Islamicism? (Hey, we think we just made up a new word!) Insult Israel or the Jews and you're cast into the outer darkness, but insult the Arabs and Muslims and you'll be praised and lionized.

In a story in the Washington Post (Aug. 16, 2002), titled "Israel Urges U.S. to Attack," it was reported that "Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein." Michael Kinsley, an American Jewish columnist, said at Slate magazine (www.slate.com) on October 24, 2002, that Israel's primary role in the upcoming war on Iraq is "the proverbial elephant in the room. Everybody sees it, no one mentions it." Kinsley noted that it was the fear of being tarred as an "anti-Semite." Kinsley is an honest man, but maybe only Jews can point to Israel as the major factor in the Iraq war, but even they do so at their own risk (being called Jew-hating Jews).

In the Washington Post (Nov. 27, 2002), it was reported that American political consultants who had advised Israeli politicians had drafted a memo to Israeli and Jewish leaders on the best way to frame the war on Iraq: "If your goal is regime change…. you do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel [but] rather…to protect America."

And remember that both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- supported the invasion of Iraq. Only when the invasion and occupation of Iraq wasn't going so well did the Dems (in part) object to it, but not to the so-called war on terror.

When Israel bombarded Lebanon in the summer of 2006, virtually all of the Democrats and Republicans supported Israel. Never mind that Israel's was an incredibly disproportionate response: One of the criteria for a just war is that "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism, #2309).

Oddly, Saddam Hussein protected Christians in Iraq (mostly Catholics), and they thrived. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, half of all Iraqi Christians have fled Iraq. Apparently, the U.S. doesn't care about Iraqi Christians, and their exodus is certainly downplayed by the media.

Israel would be happy to have the U.S. fight its wars -- and who wouldn't? The U.S. is Israel's sugar daddy. The pro-Israeli neocons have a dominating influence on Bush's foreign-policy establishment; however, these neocons do not reflect the Jewish community in America. Poll after poll shows that America's Jews are more opposed to the war on Iraq than the overall American population. The perennial Jewish question is: "Is it good for the Jews?" The invasion of Iraq is not good for the Jews. It has inflamed the Muslims and Arabs. After there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, Bush tried to justify his war on the grounds that it would bring democracy to the Mid-East. But that too is backfiring. Through democratic elections, Hamas has come to power in Gaza and the West Bank, Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran, Iraq is now dominated by pro-Iranian Shia fundamentalists, Hezbollah has a dozen seats in the Lebanese Parliament, and in Egypt the radical Muslim Brotherhood has been strengthened. All this because of democratic elections.

There are more terrorists than ever before. Iran is the winner in the Iraq war. Israel is too small a country to subjugate the Muslims and Arabs -- it will never work. So don't blame the Jews; blame it on the lunatic neocon domination of U.S. foreign policy. Why do we call them lunatics? Because U.S. policy in the Mid-East is not working, and the U.S. is losing in Iraq. But don't take our word for it: "Israel's top military historian, Martin van Creveld of Tel Aviv University, whose book The Transformation of War is required reading for all U.S. military officers, has called the U.S. invasion of Iraq the biggest military blunder since Augustus Caesar invaded Germany 2,000 years ago. Writing for the Jewish weekly, The Forward, November 25 [2005], van Creveld declared that…the United States has lost" (The Wanderer, Dec. 8, 2005). More cautious is neocon Max Boot, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. An ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, Boot now says the U.S. is "losing" (San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 27, 2006). And Newt Gingrich, a Republican who supports the war in Iraq, said, "this campaign to create a free and stable Iraq is clearly failing" (National Review, Sept. 11, 2006).

The U.S. can live with North Korean nuclear weapons; the U.S. can live with Chinese nuclear weapons; but Israel cannot live with one Iranian nuclear weapon (which would take three to ten years to develop). Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear warheads, with more in the works. Regarding Iran, Bush said in March 2006 that "we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel." Both the Republican and Democratic parties -- in their majorities -- will use military might to protect Israel. Again, it's all about Israel.

And the so-called war on terror goes right back to Israel. The Muslim terrorists say so themselves. On CBS's Face the Nation (Sept. 3), Howard Dean said the Dems are as committed to the war on terror as the Republicans, but the Dems will fight it more effectively. It doesn't matter who will fight it more effectively. There will be no relief from terrorism in the world until the U.S. has an evenhanded policy in the Mid-East. Why can't the U.S. figure that out? If the U.S. doesn't figure that out, the so-called war on terror will go on and on and on, ad infinitum.

The Christian Zionists do want war in the Mid-East, nuclear war, especially nuclear war with Iran. There are about 25 to 30 million Christian Zionists in America. They are represented by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and many others who support Israel to the hilt. These Christian Zionists are right about abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. but they are wrong about the Mid-East. The Christian Zionist eschatology is basically dispensational premillenialism, therefore the more turmoil and terrorism there is in the Mid-East, the sooner the battle of Armageddon, the rapture, and the Second Coming of Christ will occur. This is heresy for Catholics. Moreover, many Christian Zionists support Israel's interests over American interests.

If there is a war with Iran, the same Just War principles that applied to the war on Iraq will apply to Iran. Preventive wars, which the war on Iraq was and any war on Iran would be (barring the extremely unlikely event of Iran attacking the U.S. first), are automatically immoral and unjust and wars of aggression, according to Catholic Just War doctrine.

If there is war with Iran, you can expect neocon Catholics to champion the American Empire (for the benefit of Israel) and spurn Catholic Just War doctrine. On his website, the former Editor of The Catholic World Report, the neocon Domenico Bettinelli Jr., has an advertisement for T-shirts that say "NUKE IRAN." On Ave Maria Radio, filling in for Catholic Al Kresta was Catholic Michael Coren, who said the U.S. should strike Iran with nuclear weapons (Sept. 6, 2006). And they call themselves Catholics? If the U.S. used tactical nuclear weapons on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Defense Department estimates that it would kill (actually, murder) up to a million or more people -- that is, indiscriminately. That makes 9/11 look like child's play. As the Catechism says: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" (#2314).

An Editorial in The Forward (April 14), an American Jewish weekly, said that an attack on Iran "fought for Israel's benefit is a delusion," because it would have "disastrous consequences," and quoting Jack Straw (the Foreign Minister of Britain, our most reliable ally) said it would be "completely nuts." Iran could hardly fight back against a U.S. attack, but it would unleash massive terrorism, primarily on Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah, and secondarily on U.S. soldiers in Iraq via the Iraqi Shia militias. Perhaps most ominous of all, on Iran's eastern border and Afghanistan's southern border is Pakistan, whose wobbly dictator is a U.S. ally. He would surely be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists with close ties to Osama. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

No, an attack on Iran would not be good for the Jews. Nor would it be good for Catholics. We commend the National Catholic Register (May 21-27) for printing a letter from Michelle Coldiron: "I believe that Islamic fundamentalism is a ruse, thrown at us by the devil in order to confound us and allow a victory on his part. The real enemy in this world war is secularism. And what is secularism? It is ourselves." We couldn't have said it better.

On 9/11 there were 3,000 murders. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion has murdered 50,000,000 babies -- that's five times the number of people murdered in Hitler's death camps. It's so much easier to fight wars -- rally 'round the flag, shock and awe, we'll punch your lights out -- than to confront abortion. You can see why Satan wants to take our eyes off the Abortion Holocaust.

The war on terror is a delusion.

DOSSIER: Iraq & the Just War

Monday, November 06, 2006

Mason Watch

CR-Still, without me making any changees, there is no tool bar to add colors, bold or pictures. I tried to email the webmaster and got a bounced email.

Stay tuned as my may need to use alternative blog (manicfish still inoperative too)

The first article is from Zenit, of note, the Spanish bishops hire as their chief at their radio a Protestant????? There is a problem in itself. 2nd article is in the link, please see it to see pictures as of course we cannot post presently.

Date: 2005-01-30

Freemasonry's Influence in Europe

Incompatible With Christian Religion, Says Historian

MADRID, Spain, JAN. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- To understand what is happening in Europe, the phenomenon of Masonry must be taken into account, says Protestant historian César Vidal.

The director of the program "La Linterna" of the Spanish bishops' COPE radio network, Vidal has just written a book, "Los Masones: La Historia de la Sociedad Secreta Más Poderosa" (The Freemasons: History of the Most Powerful Secret Society), published by Planeta.

Among other things, the book addresses the Masonic influence in the most important events of recent Spanish history, especially since the election last March of the Spanish Socialist Labor Party (PSOE).

Vidal says that "the secularist current promoted by the government headed by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero shares more than enough Masonry's rank anti-clericalism."

The author explains that the Freemasons have an enormous role in the European Union and, by way of example, says that "the project of the European Constitution has been driven by a Freemason," Valéry Giscard D'Estaing, "who has excluded mention of the continent's Christian roots and, in addition, has insisted on the inclusion of an article that subjects the churches of the different nations but frees 'philosophical organizations' from that obligation."

Vidal has doctorates in history, philosophy and theology, and a law degree.

Q: Which outstanding personalities in Spain were and are Masons, a fact known by very few people?

Vidal: The list would be too long and some, only some, are mentioned in my book "The Freemasons." Suffice it to say by way of illustration that the Grand Master of the great Spanish east is Dr. Josep Corominas, PSOE deputy; that the special five-member commission that established Felipe González as the PSOE's secretary-general has three Masons among its members -- one of them the future president of the Senate -- and that Rodríguez Zapatero's grandfather was a Freemason.

Q: Can it be said that Masonry is behind the secularist current that is being witnessed in Spain?

Vidal: What can be said without danger of exaggeration is that the secularist current promoted by the government that José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero heads shares, more than enough, Masonry's rank anti-clericalism.

Q: What role does it have and might have in the European Union?

Vidal: Enormous if one takes into account that the project of the European Constitution has been promoted by a Freemason who has excluded mention of the continent's Christian roots and, in addition, has insisted on the inclusion of an article that subjects the Churches to the different nations but frees "philosophical organizations" from that obligation.

Q: In what way, over the last century, has Masonry been present in the history of Spain?

Vidal: Repeatedly and lamentably. A very important role must be attributed to Masonry in the pro-independence movements of Cuba and the Philippines, in anti-clerical and secularist campaigns, in the erosion of the parliamentary monarchy of the Restoration, going so far as to take recourse to terrorism, in the proclamation of the Second Republic and, very especially, in the redaction of a Republican Constitution which created a social break that led to the Civil War.

Q: Can you tell us about concrete events that prove its struggle against Catholicism?

Vidal: That is the history of Masonry since the 18th century, but suffice it to recall, by way of example, that Rodolfo Llopis, Freemason and Socialist, became secretary-general of the PSOE [and] promoted the anti-Christian educational legislation of the Second Republic; or scandals such as that of the Banca Ambrosiana which were linked directly to the Masons' action.

Q: What were Masonry's origins?

Vidal: The real origins of Masonry date back to the end of the 17th and early 18th centuries, when groups of individuals attracted by occult gnosis founded meeting places in which, supposedly, it was transmitted.

Of course, they talk about origins that refer to pagan religions, to gnosis, to a nonexistent personality of Solomon's time and also to the druids.

Q: What are its most characteristic features, objectives and present structure? Is it a religion?

Vidal: Though Freemasons deny it, the truth is that the Masonic cosmo-vision is not one proper to a philanthropic society as they often say, but that of a religion. That circumstance explains, precisely, the repeated condemnations of the Holy See and of the other Christian confessions, which consider membership in Masonry incompatible with Christianity.

Masonry might be described as a secret society, with an initiative structure, a gnostic cosmo-vision, and an existential manifestation which makes it easy for its members to help one another when it comes to occupying important posts in society.

Q: What percentage of Freemasons are there at present?

Vidal: Without a doubt, very small. In France it is said that they are not more than 0.6% of the population. However, that has not prevented their controlling the Socialist International or their spreading in the Right itself, through personalities such as Giscard D'Estaing.

Q: In what vital points of our society -- especially in economic, political and intellectual circles and the media -- are Freemasons present?

Vidal: There are sectors that have always been of interest to Freemasons. Needless to say, politics where they control the Socialist International and have entered powerfully in parties of the Right. No less is their weight in the world of communications and, very especially, their interest in education, justice and the armed forces.

In France, for example, the "affaire des fiches" revealed to what extent Masonic officers were promoted and Catholics, on the contrary, blocked from promotion.

It's Halloween every day for global guardians
By Judi McLeod

Thursday, November 2, 2006

As JasGrave333 notes, "The picture centered above is not a cultic CGI chapel from a computer game, but the Temple of Understanding at the United Nations.

"Notice the symbol at the bottom of the UN Temple central alter (sic)? "Yes, the crossed symbol of the Square and Compass, the Free Masonry symbol."

Free Mason symbols are not just at home in Manhattan and Washington, they are maintained in just about every corner of the globe.

Masonic Lodge 911 is located on Delaware Road in Kenmore.

Courtesy of Dan Walther, a major in an Army National Guard unit based at the Connecticut Street Armory, there's now a Masonic lodge in Iraq.

"A third-generation Mason, Walther joined Master Builder Masonic Lodge 911 in Kenmore when he was 21, eventually serving as the lodge's master.Now 46, the Town of Tonawanda resident is returning to his base just north of Tikrit after a 15-day leave. (Ryan Haggerty, The Buffalo News, June 21, 2005). "He rejoined the National Guard's Engineer Brigade, 32nd Infantry Division, and will serve as the master of Land, Sea and Air Masonic Lodge 1, the only Masonic Lodge in Iraq.

"The United States is home to more than 13,000 Masonic lodges, whose members adhere to a motto of "friendship, morality and brother love," according to the Grand Lodge of the State of New York's Web site.Masons are dedicated to doing good, not operating underground, Walther said.

"Masonry is not a secret society," he said."Masonry is a society with secrets.If we were a secret society, we wouldn't have signs outside our buildings."

Opening a lodge outside Saddam Hussein's hometown required help from Masons across New York, Walther said.

Saddam and the Masons have a lot in common: both have a love affair with the occult.

"The Grand Lodge of the State of New York and all the Masons have been extremely supportive of everything we've done," Walther said."When the word got around, there was a bunch of red tape to cut through, and everybody jumped up and said, "What can I do?"

New York's Masonic War veterans provided Walther with the supplies he needed at no cost.

The Masons' tight knit relationships should attract new members from the base, Walther said.

"Walther's commitment to Masonry is so deep that he kept his return home a secret from everyone, including his family, so that he could surprise his friend Kent Dorney when Dorney was sworn in as master of the Kenmore lodge.Walther arrived home on Memorial Day, but he had to hide from Dorney, who lies a half-mile away, until the ceremony five days later.The surprise was worth the wait," Dorney said.

Saddam, whose mother was a fortuneteller, merely "reads" the desert sands.

As untold tourists can tell you, the UN has its own soothsayer, Sri Chimnoy, who "reads" hands upon request.

But surely among bureaucratic babble centers, the European Union holds the most unique position in the world of the occult.

Located in the City of Brussels where spelling "Christ" with a capital "C" can get you a fine, the EU has a love affair with the number 666.

Included in the Report on the opening of the Fifth Elected Parliament of Europe in Strasbourg and its occupancy of the new Parliament Buildings, by Ian R.K. Paisley, M.P., M.E.P., is a description of the vacant seat Number 66 in the European Parliament:" The prophetic significance of the European Union has been revealed as the saga unfolds. (See our first two articles on "The Conspiracy behind the European Union".)First, the sign, which it chose as its symbol, was the Woman riding the Beast.This comes from a prophecy in Revelation 17.The depiction of the harlot woman was reproduced on the centenary stamp of the European Union, in a huge painting in the Parliament's new building in Brussels, and by a huge sculpture outside the new E.U. Council of Ministers Office in Brussels.The new European coinage, the Euro, bears the same insignia.The Tower of Babel has been used on the posters emanating from Europe—a truly suggestive prophetic sign.

"Now, a massive Crystal Palace tower (unofficially called the Tower Building) houses the Fifth Parliament of Europe.

"It is certainly a building of the Space Age.The seats of its massive hemicycle are designed like the crew seats in the Star Trek space machines.There are 679 of them—but wait for it!While these seats are allocated to Members, one seat remains unallocated and unoccupied.The number of that seat is 666.The relevant section of the seating-plan provided to each member reads as follows:

655 Couteaux

656 Fitzsimons

657 Hyland

658 Kuntz

659 De La Perriere

660 Marchiani

661 Montfort

662 Quiero

663 Souchet

664 Thomas-Mauro

665 Zissener

666 ----------------

667 Cappato

668 Turco

669 Bonino

670 Pannella

671 Dupuis

672Della Vedova

673 Dell'Alba

674Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso

675 Gobbo

676 Speroni

677 Bossi

678 Formentini

679 Crowley

"Revelation 13:18: "Here is wisdom.Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six Hundred threescore and six."That is 666.

"Today this scripture is being fulfilled before our very eyes.

"The Antichrist's seat will be occupied.The world awaits his full and final development.The Lord will destroy him by the spirit of His mouth (the Word of God) and by the brightness of his coming (2 Thes. 2:8).The coming of the Lord draweth nigh."

Thursday, November 02, 2006

More Grumbling from European Clergy

Pope's Latin Mass Plans Spark Concern
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor, Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - It isn't official. It may not even happen. But reports that Pope Benedict could soon revive the old Latin mass are stoking heated debates among European Catholics with some fearing this will turn the clock back.

CR-turn back the clock? This is dialectic that we most move continually forward toward “progress”-for what, I guess for progresses sake. This is an area of the world known for decrepit secularism. Depression, suicide, substance abuse and general malaise is high in Europe. It also assumes that “turning the clock back” would be akin to caveman dwelling and grunting in the dark ages of savagery. I have heard similar comments in regards to Luther, leading us out of this dark.

The uproar is loudest in France, where clergy and laity are ringing alarm bells against bringing back the old liturgy.

CR-See my previous critique:

Church leaders in Belgium and Germany have also grumbled, saying demand for the old Tridentine mass in Latin was minimal and warning the traditionalists could use it as a wedge to smuggle more divisive issues into the world's largest church.

CR-Demand in, say 1960, may have been minimal for clown masses and hideous art, depressing sermons and teeth-grinding music. What would these “wedge issues” be? Maybe it would be a call for ending the welfare state that is killing rapidly aging and low birth rate Europe. Maybe calling an end to abortion, gay “marriage”. Maybe it would be a call for evangelization. Yes, that is scary-isn’t it.

"The (Tridentine Latin) rite is only the locomotive -- the issue is the carriages that are pulled behind it," Brussels Cardinal Godfried Danneels said last week. "Behind this locomotive are carriages that I don't want."

CR-again, what carriages? A call to actually do the job of a bishop, which is to preach the Gospel w/o fear. What does this Cardinal not want? End the Globalization, abortion, welfare, sodomy so saturated in Europe. Does the Cardinal then wish to be popular or do his job-that of preaching the Gospel in season and out-especially to his Queen, a Bilderberger globalist and daughter of Nazi sympathizers?

These rumblings hint that Benedict might alienate many mainstream Catholics if he opts for a deal to heal an 18-year schism with the Society of Saint Pius X, a Swiss-based group that rejects the landmark Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).
CR-the would is deep, the body very chalky white and hemorrhaging already, thanks to the “mainstreaming” of the Church in these last several unfortunate months. Also, define mainstream?

"We risk creating a front of sadness, discouragement and disappointment with the Holy See," said Toulouse Archbishop Robert Le Gall, using the Vatican's official name. "The liturgy is just the tip of the iceberg."

CR- Your Eminence, look around, the world is a mess. Your country is part of the problem, as is Europe, the land that gave us Charlemagne, the Hapsburgs, the great warrior kings that repulsed the attack at Vienna, Lepanto. Again, every indicator I have heard is that Europe is even a bigger mess of booze, drugs, sex and depression/suicide.


The Tridentine mass is seen as a symbol of rejecting modernizing reforms such as more participation by the faithful, respect for Judaism and cooperation with Protestants.

CR-As one that just attend, last night, the TLM-I can tell you that participating in the TLM is more engaging for the concerned Catholic then the NO, where many are sitting around listening and watching the pageantry with a rhapsodic expression to ‘One Bread. One Body” and women rifling through the tabernacle and passing out the Eucharist like a free coupon to Chick-Fil-A. TLM requires constant prayer-praying the Mass, not just saying it or sitting through it. As for Judaism, are goal is a call to call them to convert to the new-and only-covenant with God. Nothing in V2 negates the need for this. We had more Protestants convert PRE-V2 then after. Many today wish to bend the Church to a sort of Roman Protestantism. Others want their own Hebrew Rite. Can you imagine Edith Stein calling for this? No.
See my prior article:


Find me one sentence in one V2 document that says the Jews are saved by being Jews or Protestants do not have to convert. Find me the documentation that things were terrible between Catholic and Protestants pre-V2. FCFC, Bart Brewer, Chick-all came on after V2.

Most of the world's 1.1 billion Roman Catholics attend Sunday or daily mass in their own language rather than Latin which Vatican II sidelined. Many agree with the respect for other religions that Vatican II made official Church policy.
Cr-Most attend NO because they had no choice, nor were they ever given one. SO many agree to something, as Pope JP2 states in the mid-80’s visit to the USA, ‘The Church is not a Democracy”. The poor teaching and example of these grumblers has led to many thinking V2 was doctrinal or that we were all in some dark slum prior to V2-throwing out sacred music, ornaments and Traditions. As Pope Pius XII hid thousands of Jews, many in the Vatican and his summer palace, I would say that was respectful without indifference or syncretism. Again, see my article about Pope Gregory X.
Priests can still say mass in Latin. All they need is permission from their bishop.
CR-easier said then done in most dioceses. No doubt, difficult to impossible in these Grumbling shepards territories.

But in fact, few Latin masses are said and few faithful turn out for them, the German bishops conference noted last month after conducting an internal study. "We could not see any growth in interest in it, as some have asserted," they added.
Cr- interest in religion in Germany is largely non-existent, especially since those in love with V2 told us for years the evils of pre-V2, the TLM and that all the past 2000 yrs were a mistake and out the door like so many vessels, copes, instruments, etc.

The Society of Saint Pius X, which has about 1 million followers worldwide and is especially strong in France, does not just champion the solemn old Latin mass but flatly rejects what founder, late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, called "neo-modernist and neo-Protestant" reforms of Vatican II.

Cr-so what, they still cooperated wit the Holy See for years after ward. They are not Sede’s. The V2 was not doctrinal, but pastoral. SSPX chooses to do what liberals have done for years, ignore it. Why the punishment for them alone.

Benedict shares their love of Latin and the traditional liturgy and seems keen to bring them back into the fold so they don't set up a permanent parallel Catholic-like church.

CR-the parallel church is that of the NeoCatholic, New Churchers-embracing indifference, syncretism and Assisi pagan prayer meetings, while ignoring that pre-V2 dark, ghetto Fatima appearance and Our Lady’s messages. And warnings. Least we forget:

I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy ... A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God ... In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?' ... I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past"

Prophesy of Pope Pius XII (Msgr. Georges Roche, "Pie XII Devant L'Histoire", p. 52-53).

Reports from the Vatican say he is also ready to meet their main demands -- which are the unconditional revival of the Tridentine mass as an alternative to the modern liturgy and the lifting of excommunications of the four SSPX bishops whom Lefebvre consecrated in defiance of the Vatican in 1988.

Cr-and? I thought that the TLM, allowed by bishops, was ok-was it not?


Paris Archbishop Andre Vingt-Trois bluntly spelled out the problems the traditionalists would bring at a Paris conference attended by Cardinal Francis Arinze, the Vatican official in charge of liturgical issues such as how to say mass.
"Under the cover of a campaign to defend a certain type of liturgy, there is a radical critique of the Vatican Council, even outright rejection of some of its declarations," he said.

CR-what was radical was the stripping of altars, throwing out the art, the vessels and brining in the shames that we have documented-radical is allowing clowns and rock Masses. V2 should have no critiques at all? Some clergy apparently wish not to be held up to scrutiny

"The rejection of new liturgies was followed by public insults against the popes and crowned by violent acts such as the forcible seizure of a parish church in Paris and an aborted attempt by the same people to repeat this," he said.

CR-oh, how loyal they are-that’s right, no Pope is allowed to be criticized and held to the same standard. When the late Holy Father JP2 tried to clamp down on liberalism, where was this loyalty then on the part of liberals and do-nothings? New liturgies-there you have it. Forcible seizures? Possible out of righteous anger, but…where then is the criminal charges?

The warning from Vingt-Trois came after a rising chorus of criticism from other clergy in France, where the schism also has strong political overtones because of the links some SSPX followers have with royalist or far-right movements.

CR-there we go again, trying to link Trads to nefarious groups. As the Church is a monarchy, what is wrong with brining back this to France? Is the French Revolution-inspired by Masons and marked by vast bloodbaths better? Far right?-does he mane like trying to police immigration, end welfare and bring back some sense of Christian thought in politics? Yes, lets stick with these liberals, after all, we can see their fruits on society, especially when JP2 was trying to get even a mention in the EU Constitution of Christian history.

In an open letter, 30 young priests said Benedict, 79, should encourage them "to work in the world as it is ... rather than plunge us back into the liturgical life of another age."

CR-nice use of lingo, the young opposing the 79 yr old Pontiff. Message-they are the energetic youth against the old, mean Papa. Reminds me of something-I think it was Chris Ferrara said-the V2 was surrounded by the celebration of youth and the enamorment with being young and hip.

Besancon's Bishop Andre Lacrampe said he would like to welcome traditionalists back into the Church but not in a quick deal that avoided answering the Vatican II question.

CR- if the SSPX are allowed their own leadership, he has no say. And should not.

Danneels, an outspoken moderate in the overwhelmingly conservative College of Cardinals, urged the Vatican to be tough in its negotiations with SSPX.

CR-Get tough? Again, Europe’s condition tells me he can’t even get tough with his own flock.

"I've never heard their leaders say even once that they accept Vatican II," he told the Brussels daily De Standaard.

CR- so, should we have a sort of reverse Oath Against Modernism? Should every clergy member and laity have to sign or publicly endorse V2/ Again, it was PASTORAL, not doctrinal.

"I think the Vatican should demand this."

CR-And I think the Vatican ought to review these grumblers fruits, leading to a reduction in pay, benefits or outright dismissal for poor results. The SSPX, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, etc is growing and outgrowing their facilities. Many new monasteries and convents are growing, not out of New Church, but from the Traditionalist movements. Not secularized Europe or the compromised European Church.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

All Saints Day

CR-still not bolding, colors or picture abilities available

All Saints

A solemnity celebrated on the first of November, it is instituted to honour all the saints, known and unknown, and, according to Urban IV, to supply any deficiencies in the faithful's celebration of saints' feasts during the year. In the early days the Christians were accustomed to solemnize the anniversary of a martyr's death for Christ at the place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighbouring dioceses began to interchange feasts, to transfer relics, to divide them, and to join in a common feast; as is shown by the invitation of Saint Basil of Caesarea (397) to the bishops of the province of Pontus.

Frequently groups of martyrs suffered on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all. The first trace of this we find in Antioch on the Sunday after Pentecost. We also find mention of a common day in a sermon of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (373), and in the 74th homily of Saint John Chrysostom (407).

At first only martyrs and Saint John the Baptist were honoured by a special day. Other saints were added gradually, and increased in number when a regular process of canonization was established; still, as early as 411 there is in the Chaldean Calendar a "Commemoratio Confessorum" for the Friday after Easter. In the west, Pope Boniface IV on 13 May 609 or 610, consecrated the Pantheon in Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs, ordering an anniversary. Gregory III (731-741) consecrated a chapel in the Basilica of Saint Peter to all the saints and fixed the anniversary for 1 November. A basilica of the Apostles already existed in Rome, and its dedication was annually remembered on 1 May. Gregory IV (827-844) extended the celebration on 1 November to the entire Church. The vigil seems to have been held as early as the feast itself. The octave was added by Sixtus IV (1471-84). --- Francis Merseman, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright 1907


Scripture quotations are from the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1965, 1966 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.