Liberation Theology: The fruit of Communism and Freemasonry

Writing for National Review, Ion Mihai Pacepa explains that, "Liberation theology, of which not much has been heard for two decades, is back in the news. But what is not being mentioned is its origins. It was not invented by Latin American Catholics. It was developed by the KGB. The man who is now the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, secretly worked for the KGB under the code name “Mikhailov” and spent four decades promoting liberation theology, which we at the top of the Eastern European intelligence community nicknamed Christianized Marxism." See here.

Rita Biesemans, in a comment left at one post at this Blog dealing with masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church, had this to say: "When I was in 2nd year High School Latin-Greek Humanities in a nun-run boarding school in the 1950's, we had the 'Spekpater' (the "Bacon Priest") preaching during one of our yearly retreat weeks. One day he told us : 'For know that there are priests being trained and formed at the KRIM (Russia) to infiltrate the Church, to spread false teachings in order to corrupt and ruin the Church.' This made such an impact and impression on my soul that I will never forget it."

Anatoliy Golitsyn, the former KGB officer and counterintelligence agent, in his book entitled "The Perestroika Deception," warned that: "They [the Soviets] intend...to induce the Americans to adopt their own 'restructuring' and convergence of the Soviet and American systems using to this end the fear of nuclear conflict...Convergence will be accompanied by blood baths and political re-education camps in Western Europe and the United States. The Soviet Strategists are counting on an economic depression in the United States and intend to introduce their reformed model of socialism with a human face as an alternative to the American system during the depression." (Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception, 1990).

Golitsyn defected to the West and spent many years attempting to warn the West of long-range Soviet plans. In 1954, H. Rowan Gaither, who served as President of the Ford Foundation, told Norman Dodd of the Congressional Reese Commission that, "...all of us here at the policy-making level have had experience with directives...from the White House....The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

Now, some of you might be thinking: What is the connection? There is a fundamental opposition of Communist principles to those of Freemasonry. The Freemason believes in man but the Communist believes only in the Party, in the State.

Not so according to the Vatican. Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus, teaches that:

"In the sphere of politics, the Naturalists lay down that all men have the same rights and that all are equal and alike in every respect; that everyone is by nature free and independent; that no one has the right to exercise authority over another; that it is an act of violence to demand of men obedience to any authority not emanating from themselves. All power is, therefore, in the free people. Those who exercise authority do so either by the mandate or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers of State may lawfully be deposed even against their will. The source of all rights and civic duties is held to reside either in the multitude or in the ruling power of the State, provided that it has been constituted according to the new principles. They hold also that the State should not acknowledge God and that, out of the various forms of religion, there is no reason why one should be preferred to another. According to them, all should be on the same level. [This is why the Creed will eventually have to go, see my last post]."

"Now, that these views are held by the Freemasons also, and that they want to set up States constituted according to this ideal, is too well known to be in need of proof. For a long time they have been openly striving with all their strength and with all the resources at their command to bring this about. They thus prepare the way for those numerous and more reckless spirits who, in their mad desire to arrive at equality and common ownership of goods, are ready to hurl society into an even worse condition, by the destruction of all distinctions of rank and property....In thi mad and wicked design, the implacable hatred and thirst for vengeance with which Satan is animated against Our Lord Jesus Christ becomes almost visible to our bodily eyes."

"From the anti-social character of the errors we have mentioned, it is clear that the greatest dangers are to be feared for States. For once the fear of God and the reverence due to His laws have been taken away, the authority of rulers treated with contempt, free reign and approval given to sedition, popular passions recklessly fanned, and all restraining influences eliminated except the fear of punishment, then there will necessarily follow a revolutionary upheaval and a period of wholesale destruction of existing institutions...A complete change and upheaval of this kind is being carefully prepared by numerous associations of Communists and Socialists, in fact, it is their openly avowed aim; and Freemasonry is not only not opposed to their plans, but looks upon them with the greatest favour, as its leading principles are identical with theirs. If the Freemasons do not immediately and everywhere proceed to realise the ultimate conclusions contained in these principles, this is not because they are restrained by the discipline of the organization or by lack of determination, but partly on account of the power and virtue of that divine religion which cannot be crushed out of existence, and partly because the more balanced part of mankind are unwilling to sink into slavery under the domination of secret societies, and offer vigorous resistance to their insane endeavours."

This is why ecclesiastical masonry has infiltrated the Church. The Church cannot be destroyed from without. External persecution only serves to make her stronger. The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church as Tertullian reminded us. Ecclesiastical masonry is Freemasonry which has infiltrated the Church with the goal of subverting her from within by questioning all traditional doctrines and remaking the Church into the image and likeness of man.

It was Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski who warned, back in June of 1963, that "It is not the Communists whom we fear. What fills us with anguish is the spectacle of false brethren." Here the great Cardinal was warning of those modern-day Judases who, instead of openly attacking the Church, seek to infiltrate and penetrate her in order to introduce and impose humanitarian, naturalistic and anti-traditional ideas.

The Americanist belief system is defined in Testem benevolentiae nostrae as the minimization of spiritual development in favor of interior initiative, the minimization of Doctrine, and the minimization of the religious life. In short, the shearing religion from public society -- the separation of Church and state.

All of these have born bitter fruit in America and elsewhere -- how many Catholics vote for pro-abortion/pro-faggotry/pro-socialism candidates, because they think they can ignore Doctrine in favor of musings of their own minds? Why are there so few men and women choosing to becoming priests, monks, and nuns? The beliefs contained with Americanism have lead directly to modern liberalism.

So, without further ado, I join Pope Leo XIII in condemning the separation of Church and state -- a system that is NOT contained in the constitution, a system neither foreseen nor practiced by the Founding Fathers, a system that divorces God from the public life of a nation.

If you enjoy having a country that holds gay marriage as a constitutional right, that punishes Christians for refusing to violate their consciences by servicing gay weddings, that removes the Ten Commandments from public view, that considers the prayers of a wiccan devil-worshiper just as valid as those of a Christian, well, continue championing the things that Pope Leo XIII condemned. I sincerely hope that it wasn't his condemnation socialism that has angered you.

"Yes, that's right: the Church of Rome regards representative government [that does not answer to Rome] and the separation of church and state as wrong."

Rather than accuse you of lying, as you did to someone else, I will give the benefit of the doubt and presume that you are colossally ignorant.

Neither the Church nor Pope Leo condemns or condemned any form of government except communism/socialism. Pope Leo XIII himself stated in Au Mileu Des Sollicitudes,

"Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one's self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end—that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted."

He goes on,

21. But a difficulty presents itself. "This Republic," it is said, "is animated by such anti-Christian sentiments that honest men, Catholics particularly, could not conscientiously accept it." This, more than anything else, has given rise to dissensions, and in fact aggravated them.... These regrettable differences would have been avoided if the very considerable distinction between constituted power and legislation had been carefully kept in view. In so much does legislation differ from political power and its form, that under a system of government most excellent in form legislation could be detestable; while quite the opposite under a regime most imperfect in form, might be found excellent legislation. It were an easy task to prove this truth, history in hand, but what would be the use? All are convinced of it. And who, better than the Church, is in position to know it—she who has striven to maintain habitual relations with all political governments? Assuredly she, better than any other power, could tell the consolation or sorrow occasioned her by the laws of the various governments by which nations have been ruled from the Roman Empire down to the present. 22. If the distinction just established has its major importance, it is likewise manifestly reasonable: Legislation is the work of men invested with power, and who, in fact, govern the nation; therefore it follows that, practically, the quality of the laws depends more upon the quality of these men than upon the power. The laws will be good or bad accordingly as the minds of the legislators are imbued with good or bad principles, and as they allow themselves to be guided by political prudence or by passion. 23. That several years ago different important acts of legislation in France proceeded from a tendency hostile to religion, and therefore to the interests of the nation, is admitted by all, and unfortunately confirmed by the evidence of facts. We Ourselves, in obedience to a sacred duty, made earnest appeals to him who was then at the head of the republic, but these tendencies continued to exist; the evil grew, and it was not surprising that the members of the French Episcopate chosen by the Holy Ghost to rule over their respective illustrious churches should even quite recently have considered it an obligation publicly to express their grief concerning the condition of affairs in France in regard to the Catholic religion. Poor France! God alone can measure the abyss of evil into which she will sink if this legislation, instead of improving, will stubbornly continue in a course which must end in plucking from the minds and hearts of Frenchmen the religion which has made them so great. 24. And here is precisely the ground on which, political dissensions aside, upright men should unite as one to combat, by all lawful and honest means, these progressive abuses of legislation. The respect due to constituted power cannot prohibit this: unlimited respect and obedience cannot be yielded to all legislative measures, of no matter what kind, enacted by this same power. Let it not be forgotten that law is a precept ordained according to reason and promulgated for the good of the community by those who, for this end, have been entrusted with power. . . Accordingly, such points in legislation as are hostile to religion and to God should never be approved; to the contrary, it is a duty to disapprove them.

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in “Supreme Being”, Supreme Architect of the Universe or God.

Masonry unites men of every sect but, you must believe in a Supreme Being and an afterlife.

In North America, we pray to God, who created us.

Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, etc.

Buddhists are out, as they believe in nothing and therefore, to them, there is no Supreme Being nor an afterlife relative to a Supreme Being or God.

As for Catholic Bashing, won’t get none from me.

We are sprung from the same well of Christ’s promise and Catholics were probably the original Christians and the word Catholic itself means “Universal” which is God’s promise to man and what separates Christianity from all other religions.

God tells us “There is none worthy, no, not one” and never amends that statement, even after we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior.

So, all men are created equal under God.

Hardly.

Leo XIII understood clearly where The Framers stood, and it is where every sensible person stands. The days when the Bishop of Rome could dictate his will to the sovereign in matters that belong to the polity is over, and rightly so. Governments don't derive their just powers from the phony "donations" of deathbed converts, nor by divine right. He knew that day had come and feared for his phony-baloney job.

Thus, he manufactured a "heresy." This was his stock and trade, but the market wasn't anywhere near what it used to be. The American Revolution established there would be no room for the kind of monopoly Popes were used to. [It's no accident that there was only one Romanist signer of The Declaration of Independence; only two signed the Constitution.]

If Francis wants to use his influence to change the culture or the opinions of the electorate, he has as much right and moral authority -- and not one iota more -- than anyone else with a soapbox to try. So far, his opinion on matters that were supposed to be "intrinsic moral evil" have been [at best] "mistranslated" and [at worst] well to the left of mine.

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.

	MASONIC *PING* LIST

Send uglybiker a FReepmail if you would like on/off The Masonic PING List
The List of Ping Lists