Where my concerns are

[mea kulpa]

In this thread i will share my concerns and i will back them up with links as to why they are of concern to me the links are in no way a full explination of the issues but mere points of reference much more information is available and i reccomend people look into them before dismissing them out of hand without consideration. I am more than open to having my concerns put to rest but i think it will be difficult.

These concerns should not be considered individual and unrelated to each other but understood as a whole leading upto a more fuller picture of concern

This is going to be the most important thread i have ever posted on christian forums .. it will be both open and shocking i post this out of love and concern for both the church and fellow catholics as well as the all human beings no matter their political or religious beliefs.

I will be making short posts that will acumulate into one.

I ask members not to mock me or attack me i am oppening up to you all out of love and concern for all.... if i am wrong i will gladly be corrected.

I post my concerns not in opposition to rome not only in respect of the magesterium but out of a deep love for Rome.

The posts will be made over time but should be seen as connected

Finallly i invoke canon law

Can. 212 §3 They (the lay people) have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

 

[mea kulpa]

Ok lets begin.

The first area of concern is the "the new world order" many hours and bandwidth has been used online regarding this topic. I have studied it intesively

The two areas of concern are

1. Is it real or just a conspiracy theory
2. Who are what is behind it.

1. Is it real while many politicians have openly declared their suport for and used the term new world order still some discussion about its nature exist. But does is its nature good or bad and is it detrimental to the church and Christianity.

Pope Benedict XV had this to say in his motu proprio bonum sane

• 
  "The coming of a world state is longed for, and confidently expected, by all the worst and most distorted elements. This state, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and a community of possessions, would banish all national loyalties. In it no acknowledgement would be made of the authority of a father over his children, or of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror."

Pope Benedict XV (1920)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonum_sane

I believe the united nations is a tool of the new world order

Pope Benedict XVI then Cdnl Ratziger said in 2000

“the principal obstacles to [a woman’s] fulfillment [as] the family and maternity.” The cardinal advised that “at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians - and not just them but in any case they even more than others - have the duty to protest.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-ratzinger-criticizes-un-proposal-for-new-world-order

And that the freemasons are behind it
Pope Leo XIII said in
Humanum Genus said

"At this period, however, the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself. They are planning the destruction of holy Church publicly and openly, and this with the set purpose of utterly despoiling the nations of Christendom"
"and now the time has come when the partisans of the sects openly declare, what in secret among themselves they have for a long time plotted, that the sacred power of the Pontiffs must be abolished, and that the papacy itself, founded by divine right, must be utterly destroyed."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xi...nts/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus.html

So i believe a conpiracy to errect a world state exists that the united nations will be the government of that world state and it is the freemasons behind it with the intention of destroying the church and the papacy.

 

[mea kulpa]

Here is a pdf of the alta vendita the plan of the freemasons.

 

[mea kulpa]

Admittance of a masonic mafia in the vatican

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...rk-in-the-vatican-im-not-sure-that-we-should/

Masonic approval of pope francis

https://veritas-vincit-internationa...does-freemasonry-openly-support-pope-francis/

 

[mea kulpa]

The intentions or the plan of freemasons is being implimented in the church today

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015...reemasons-is-being-implemented-in-the-church/

 

[mea kulpa]

That the vatican are obaying or working with the united nations (new world order)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/19/pope-francis-abortion-gays-interview/2837495/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u...rch-change-teaching-on-homosexuality-abortion

 

[mea kulpa]

That the vatican supports agenda 21and the sustainable development goals of the depopulation programme of the united nations via eugenics including contraception and abortion

In a statement on the holy sees observer mission website (even now today) we read the holy see supports word for word the programme

"We support the verbatim inclusion of the sustainable development goals "

http://www.holyseemission.org/statements/statement.aspx?id=572

 

[Davidnic]

I want to wait until you are done. If you would kindly let me know when that is so I do not start giving my opinion in the middle of it all.

 

[mea kulpa]

I want to wait until you are done. If you would kindly let me know when that is so I do not start giving my opinion in the middle of it all.

Gladly will, thank you for your paitents i have to balance family time and work time with time online

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Can we have a definition of "New World Order" ?

 

[mea kulpa]

I am concerned there has been a coup in the vatican at some point either recently or in recent history or perhaps both that has somewhat stiffled the holy father (s) and perhaps even recently usurped the seat.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/gay-vatican-blackmail-mightve-pushed-pope-out.html

http://www.onepeterfive.com/vatican-conspiracy-against-pope-benedict-for-pope-francis/

Pope benedict xvi told he had to resign

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-original-story-when-jesuit-cardinal.html?m=1

Secret group of mafia cardinals conspiracy to elect pope francis in violation of UDG 81 incured excommunication

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...l-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor-lobbied-for-Pope.html

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015...conspiracy-to-overthrow-the-church-of-christ/

UDG 81 & Pope francis

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/ivereigh-udg-81-a-radical-problem-for-the-pope/


I think this will do for a basic overview. There is further things like the one world religion and a vast number of prophecies that back these things up i could post a lot more and will do so but this should surfice to give the basis of my concerns. That being said i still hold out hope for francis while i struggle to believe he is the true pope and we are being led into a one workd religion based on freemasonic principles of indifferentism it is possible that francis is being a fox and i wont go further into that side. So i welcome your input and thank you for reading these

 

[mea kulpa]

Can we have a definition of "New World Order" ?

"Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote the preface to a book by Michel Schooyans entitled The Gospel: Confronting World Disorder. The book is a kind of Catholic anti-globalist manifesto. Cardinal Ratzinger first denouces the NWO (specifically using the terminology "new world order") as more or less a culmination of Marxism. He goes on to say that a Christian is "obliged to protest" against it and that the NWO cannot "reduce liberty to silence." Here is the preface in full.

http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/ap052005b.html

 

[Davidnic]

First I want to say I do not dismiss your concerns but i do disagree with the conclusions and would say that what is presented is a conspiracy theory.

First, my job requires that I help with research projects. We guide students to materials and aid in assessing validity of sources. This is important in all research. You need to vet the source. You also need to keep quotes from primary documents in context. Once a source starts taking parts of primary documents out of context to prove a point, there is an issue. And many of the sources and stories you are relying on would be massive red flags for that reason. I have read them before and again as you posted them this morning.

This is a common thing, not always done by these sites in malice.

Take for example all the sites that will list teachings of the Church to show how we worship Mary above God. How we are no more than pagans in vestments. And all of it out of context and twisted. Sometime not twisted in hate but in fear. Because any good conspiracy theory relies on the fear and love of the person it is trying to seduce. It plays on a predilection to believe out of either fear, hate, pride or an echo chamber of what someone thinks they already know.

In your case I believe it is playing on an honest love of the Church and fear that she has been compromised.

And for those who love the Church the though of Her being taken over or destroyed are horrifying. And then things start to move in a sound chamber.

There are several things at play here. Let me address them one at a time. And again, I know your concerns come from a place of love and that you are concerned about the Church.

Let's start with the Vatican and the UN. The Vatican engages with the UN. It is also constantly attacked by the UN. The quote you have with accepting the goals verbatim were the acceptance of the goals. Not the method. The Vatican has constantly stood against the population control goals, eugenics and abortion parts of the UN agenda. The part you quote is immediately followed by a conditional statement about the moral norms of local governments being respected. That brings us to the many many many times the Vatican has stood against the one world government issue. In fact implicit in the documents of Vatican II on religious freedom is a rejection of that ideology. The documents require nations and people must keep their identity and freedom. In addition the Church constantly opposes the infringement on the sovereignty of nations in the global south by ideological colonialism.


That leads us to the implications that Pope Francis furthers the concept of a one world government. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has railed against ideological colonialism his entire life. And that concept is the core of a NWO as most people mean it.

So the first thing we have to look at when we think something might be a conspiracy theory is not where things seem to connect but where they obviously do not. This is important. Anyone can connect things with a mountain of out of context circumstance. What these theories can not do is refute where they are directly disproved. This is why they remove facts from context and create their own.

The entire career of this man is in opposition to ideological colonialism. He repeatedly recommends the book "Lord of The World" to the faithful as an example of dangers to the Church in our time. Would he raise awareness of this work (and you should see the library requests and books sales and downloads of out of copyright work for Benson since the Pope mentioned him). And do all this if her was, willingly or unwillingly, part of it? This is like when people accused the Papacy and Church of being Nazi sympathizers when history shows at the time that would have been laughed at. We can look at the theories of the Church worshiping Mary, Helping the Nazi's, Satanic Nuns and all that and shatter them by what does not fit.

Theories like this, as I said, play on fear and love. They take a mountain of concepts and tie them together by omitting things and lacking context. They substitute the context they remove by creating a false context. Much like a virus inhabiting a healthy part of the body in disguise.

So what we need to do is take each piece of evidence and place it into its proper context and see what that shows.

I have done that with the Vatican relation with the UN. Almost 70 years of interaction, including even last month, refutes the charge that the Vatican is in agreement with the Population agenda. To support the goals of such a thing is not the same supporting the methods. In particular because the Vatican has vocally and at great cost opposed the methods.

Another is the context of the course of the life of Pope Francis and what he has fought for and against. And it is totally opposed to the ideology of a one world government and ideological colonialism.

Why would people who support such a thing endorse and proclaim him. That is one question you pose. Maybe they do not understand and his love of the poor makes them think he is new for the Church. That is wrong. His love of the poor is very old in the Church. Maybe they do it because they hated JPII and B16 and this is more about that than loving Francis. Or maybe they know that the sure way to limit an opponent is to make people doubt him. Stoke confusion and distrust with those who will be fearful and vocal. Because ideological colonialism has no greater hurdle to clear than a Pope who attacks it who is loved, trusted because of his simplicity,seen as credible because he is from the impoverished global south and seen as genuine and honest by secular people. It can be any of that.

But what does not fit is thinking that the man who has fought against ideological colonialism is for a NWO. He wants the world united as brothers and sisters but not at the cost of their cultural and national identities. He just wants those identities instructed by love.

This will be an ongoing discussion with many facets but those are my initial framing thoughts.

 

[Davidnic]

I am concerned there has been a coup in the vatican at some point either recently or in recent history or perhaps both that has somewhat stiffled the holy father (s) and perhaps even recently usurped the seat.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/gay-vatican-blackmail-mightve-pushed-pope-out.html

http://www.onepeterfive.com/vatican-conspiracy-against-pope-benedict-for-pope-francis/

Pope benedict xvi told he had to resign

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-original-story-when-jesuit-cardinal.html?m=1

Secret group of mafia cardinals conspiracy to elect pope francis in violation of UDG 81 incured excommunication

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...l-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor-lobbied-for-Pope.html

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015...conspiracy-to-overthrow-the-church-of-christ/

UDG 81 & Pope francis

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/ivereigh-udg-81-a-radical-problem-for-the-pope/

We have talked about this one back and forth. And we can some more but I have an observation and a question.

The observation is there has always been Cardinals politicking around conclaves. There was a whole book (I think called
Conclave: The Politics, Personalities, and Process of the Next Papal Election) years before JPII died that talked about how many were already lining up to put B16 on the Papal throne. And this was recently confirmed by the same Archbishop who talked about the expanded Papacy. He admitted there was a pro Benedict Faction (so to speak) or more correctly Cardinals who were for him, those against and those in the middle. And this was known before the conclave. From the article links elsewhere:

The German prelate especially highlighted Regoli’s account of “a dramatic struggle” that took place in the 2005 Conclave between the “so-called ‘Salt of the Earth Party’” (named after the book interview with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) comprising “Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina" and their adversaries: "the so-called St. Gallen group” that included “Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor” ​

What JPII forbid in the rules was making vows and promises that prevented the Cardinals from voting freely. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence that groups had their favorites. Same as it has been for centuries.

So my question is why does the pro Benedict group get a pass? Is it because blogs have not spun it and used charged nicknames like Team Benedict or the Benedict Mafia? We know it existed, John Allen knew it existed in 2002. Even I knew it existed by reading statements and watching who supported who when CDF comments were made. Do you think that Cardinals Lopez Trujillo, Ruini, Herranz, Ruoco Varela or Medina did not meet between 2002 (earlier even) and during the 2005 conclave to push their choice? And then with the Pope resigning they did not meet again before and during the last conclave in order to push either Ruini or Sodano? I think given the known existence of both groups that is a stretch to think they did not. Or again to think this is not common. The Holy Spirit overcomes all this and uses it actually.

As John Paul II declined the Cardinals gave much thought as to where the Church would go in the future and two basic factions developed. The next two conclaves were part of that dynamic. And likely so will the the next two in the future.

There were groups that favored and pushed each candidate,if this invalidates the conclave then no conclave has ever been valid.

What you do no want is strong arming and binding vows and promises. There is not evidence of either. What JPII forbids is the rigging of the conclave, not the voting blocks and sides that have happened in every single one. This is a matter of taking something and isolating it in history so it can be blown out of context.

 

[Davidnic]

I have to do laundry and work on a retreat teaching kids about Mary after Pentecost so I may be away for a bit.

 

[mea kulpa]

First I want to say I do not dismiss your concerns but i do disagree with the conclusions and would say that what is presented is a conspiracy theory.

First, my job requires that I help with research projects. We guide students to materials and aid in assessing validity of sources. This is important in all research. You need to vet the source. You also need to keep quotes from primary documents in context. Once a source starts taking parts of primary documents out of context to prove a point, there is an issue. And many of the sources and stories you are relying on would be massive red flags for that reason. I have read them before and again as you posted them this morning.

This is a common thing, not always done by these sites in malice.

Take for example all the sites that will list teachings of the Church to show how we worship Mary above God. How we are no more than pagans in vestments. And all of it out of context and twisted. Sometime not twisted in hate but in fear. Because any good conspiracy theory relies on the fear and love of the person it is trying to seduce. It plays on a predilection to believe out of either fear, hate, pride or an echo chamber of what someone thinks they already know.

In your case I believe it is playing on an honest love of the Church and fear that she has been compromised.

And for those who love the Church the though of Her being taken over or destroyed are horrifying. And then things start to move in a sound chamber.

There are several things at play here. Let me address them one at a time. And again, I know your concerns come from a place of love and that you are concerned about the Church.

Let's start with the Vatican and the UN. The Vatican engages with the UN. It is also constantly attacked by the UN. The quote you have with accepting the goals verbatim were the acceptance of the goals. Not the method. The Vatican has constantly stood against the population control goals, eugenics and abortion parts of the UN agenda. The part you quote is immediately followed by a conditional statement about the moral norms of local governments being respected. That brings us to the many many many times the Vatican has stood against the one world government issue. In fact implicit in the documents of Vatican II on religious freedom is a rejection of that ideology. The documents require nations and people must keep their identity and freedom. In addition the Church constantly opposes the infringement on the sovereignty of nations in the global south by ideological colonialism.


That leads us to the implications that Pope Francis furthers the concept of a one world government. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has railed against ideological colonialism his entire life. And that concept is the core of a NWO as most people mean it.

So the first thing we have to look at when we think something might be a conspiracy theory is not where things seem to connect but where they obviously do not. This is important. Anyone can connect things with a mountain of out of context circumstance. What these theories can not do is refute where they are directly disproved. This is why they remove facts from context and create their own.

The entire career of this man is in opposition to ideological colonialism. He repeatedly recommends the book "Lord of The World" to the faithful as an example of dangers to the Church in our time. Would he raise awareness of this work (and you should see the library requests and books sales and downloads of out of copyright work for Benson since the Pope mentioned him). And do all this if her was, willingly or unwillingly, part of it? This is like when people accused the Papacy and Church of being Nazi sympathizers when history shows at the time that would have been laughed at. We can look at the theories of the Church worshiping Mary, Helping the Nazi's, Satanic Nuns and all that and shatter them by what does not fit.

Theories like this, as I said, play on fear and love. They take a mountain of concepts and tie them together by omitting things and lacking context. They substitute the context they remove by creating a false context. Much like a virus inhabiting a healthy part of the body in disguise.

So what we need to do is take each piece of evidence and place it into its proper context and see what that shows.

I have done that with the Vatican relation with the UN. Almost 70 years of interaction, including even last month, refutes the charge that the Vatican is in agreement with the Population agenda. To support the goals of such a thing is not the same supporting the methods. In particular because the Vatican has vocally and at great cost opposed the methods.

Another is the context of the course of the life of Pope Francis and what he has fought for and against. And it is totally opposed to the ideology of a one world government and ideological colonialism.

Why would people who support such a thing endorse and proclaim him. That is one question you pose. Maybe they do not understand and his love of the poor makes them think he is new for the Church. That is wrong. His love of the poor is very old in the Church. Maybe they do it because they hated JPII and B16 and this is more about that than loving Francis. Or maybe they know that the sure way to limit an opponent is to make people doubt him. Stoke confusion and distrust with those who will be fearful and vocal. Because ideological colonialism has no greater hurdle to clear than a Pope who attacks it who is loved, trusted because of his simplicity,seen as credible because he is from the impoverished global south and seen as genuine and honest by secular people. It can be any of that.

But what does not fit is thinking that the man who has fought against ideological colonialism is for a NWO. He wants the world united as brothers and sisters but not at the cost of their cultural and national identities. He just wants those identities instructed by love.

This will be an ongoing discussion with many facets but those are my initial framing thoughts.

Like i say i know the church has opposed the new world order for many years. The culture of death is what is to be understood as the new world order. Yet i have no doubt that freemasonic infiltration has too place in the vatican i do actually still hold out hope that francis is doing a very specific job against the new world order if he is or is not pope is fundemental to this mission not because potentially he does not have the best interests at heart but preciesely because his love maybe for the church above all else. I dont want to go to far into that side of things for i hope it is obvious reasons about its succesful implimentation suffice to say he is a jesuit and all i can do is encourage everyone to seriously hold fast to tradition and even if francis pope or not leads the church in a way that undermines the faith and traditions of the fathers to NOT go along with it.

 

[Davidnic]

What I can say to you is something my father-in-law said once when someone said they didn't want to go to church because they didn't like the priest. He said I don't go there for him he's not the Eucharist.

I pray for the Peace of your heart. I know you come from a deep love of the church and all in it. At times I may be very rough on some of the theories that you linked to. that is in no way a desire to be that way with you and my brother. I will Endeavour to deal with these theories by placing their claims in context. This is not an attack on what has you concerned worried or deliberative. Because you are those things because you care.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

"Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote the preface to a book by Michel Schooyans entitled The Gospel: Confronting World Disorder. The book is a kind of Catholic anti-globalist manifesto. Cardinal Ratzinger first denouces the NWO (specifically using the terminology "new world order") as more or less a culmination of Marxism. He goes on to say that a Christian is "obliged to protest" against it and that the NWO cannot "reduce liberty to silence." Here is the preface in full.

http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/ap052005b.html

I'm sorry I completely disagree with your interpretation of the good Cardinal's point.

While mentioning 'Marxism' in passing he seems only to use it as a pretext on which to support his disgust for the Cairo and Beijing conferences no women and the environment. His definition of "new world order" is seems to be not based on Marxism but rather the reproductive health of women and the equality in social power that access to reproductive healthcare grants women.

He goes on for paragraphs about how the Cairo and Beijing conferences are creating a new paradigm of maternity and pansexualism that somehow will be created by allowing women to control their own bodies. He actually seems to make the suggestion that without enforced maternity on women society will somehow become secular and basic liberty will collapse.

This, of course, is expected given the Church's (and Ratzinger's) complete obsession with all things pelvic. (Especially as pertains to women)

I have no problem with what concerns you but i'd prefer if we could at the very least get the facts straight on the principles and documents on which you are basing these concerns.

Because given the document on which you've based your current concern it seem your fear over the "New World Order" is based on the fear that women worldwide are getting some support in ensuring that the are not systematically oppressed by the societies in which they live.

 

[mea kulpa]

I'm sorry I completely disagree with your interpretation of the good Cardinal's point.

While mentioning 'Marxism' in passing he seems only to use it as a pretext on which to support his disgust for the Cairo and Beijing conferences no women and the environment. His definition of "new world order" is seems to be not based on Marxism but rather the reproductive health of women and the equality in social power that access to reproductive healthcare grants women.

He goes on for paragraphs about how the Cairo and Beijing conferences are creating a new paradigm of maternity and pansexualism that somehow will be created by allowing women to control their own bodies. He actually seems to make the suggestion that without enforced maternity on women society will somehow become secular and basic liberty will collapse.

This, of course, is expected given the Church's (and Ratzinger's) complete obsession with all things pelvic. (Especially as pertains to women)

I have no problem with what concerns you but i'd prefer if we could at the very least get the facts straight on the principles and documents on which you are basing these concerns.

Because given the document on which you've based your current concern it seem your fear over the "New World Order" is based on the fear that women worldwide are getting some support in ensuring that the are not systematically oppressed by the societies in which they live.

Well i mean i have tried to explain that my issues are that this new world order exist that it has to do with the un and freemasonry the way benedict xv in 1920 explained it sounds like socialism or communism... of course your free to make up your own mind on the subject but i think its quite a reduction from what i posted to simply believe its simply a feminist issue. I am not saying modern feminism isnt part of it but i think its just a very small part... in my opinion your too focused on a small part of a much much bigger picture

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Well i mean i have tried to explain that my issues are that this new world order exist that it has to do with the un and freemasonry the way benedict xv in 1920 explained it sounds like socialism or communism... of course your free to make up your own mind on the subject but i think its quite a reduction from what i posted to simply believe its simply a feminist issue. I am not saying modern feminism isnt part of it but i think its just a very small part... in my opinion your too focused on a small part of a much much bigger picture

The question as hand, though, is a clear definition of the "New World Order".

Right now, with the document you have given me "New World Order" evidently means "women having equal rights to education, healthcare and societal power".

Is this really what keeps you awake at night ?