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.

"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."

You seem to claim that every "sensible person" wants God removed from the public square. No thanks.

"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.]"

The removal of God from the public life of a nation is an abomination, which has lead to where we are now. Pope Leo didn't "manufacture" this truth. The Americanist system is merely an umbrella that covered specific heresies that lead towards contempt for God in the public square, and which were beginning to assert themselves. And the reason only three Catholics signed the founding documents, is maybe, just possibly, related to the fact that Catholics comprised about 1% of the population at the time, and that Catholics were forbidden to practice law, (among other things), which meant very few Catholics were able to achieve the social and professional status that would befit the signer of said documents.

Maryland was established by Catholics, and with the Toleration Act of 1649 was the only colony to permit freedom of worship to all Christians. Protestants fleeing Anglican persecution in Virginia were granted land charters by the Catholic governor of Maryland...After establishing sufficient numbers, they overthrew the Catholic governor, burned nearly every Catholic Church in the colony, and outlawed Catholicism -- but at the same time levied a double taxation rate on Catholics.

Even in the wake of the American Revolution, some of the Framers (John Jay comes immediately to mind) still called for Catholics to be suppressed -- although I don't know of a any protest he made against the guns, money, and blood of ostensibly Catholic France that aided the United States during the Revolution.

It's really no surprise that the tiny, tiny number of Catholics in the colonies weren't involved in politics (although they gave disproportionate yeoman service to the Continental Navy). They'd have taken their lives into their hands.

You seem to claim that every "sensible person" wants God removed from the public square.

It "seems" that way because you're under the mistaken belief that the Pope is God. No. He isn't. The correct removal of a meddlesome foreign churchman from America's governance doesn't equate to the removal of God. I demand the former, and abhor the latter.

That is what the Founders advocated, That is what I advocate, and that is what Leo XIII found to be a "heresy."

A good bit of the rest of what you write is nonsense. There was, for example, complete religious freedom in Pennsylvania. Catholics could not participate in the political life of the English colonies for the same reason that could not participate in England: the oaths required of them by the Crown were oaths they could not take. That was their choice.

The real truth is that adherents of the Church of Rome were not important in the Founding of America in any sense; and most importantly not in any ideological sense. The "Americanist Heresy" was established long before Leo XIII, because the "Americanist Heresy" was really the "heresy" of the Scottish Enlightenment, which the Roman Church could not abide.

"It "seems" that way because you're under the mistaken belief that the Pope is God. No. He isn't. The correct removal of a meddlesome foreign churchman from America's governance doesn't equate to the removal of God. I demand the former, and abhor the latter."

I don't believe the pope is God. You'd apparently rather have homos grinding Christians into the dust so long as no "meddlesome" Churches are able to get involved.

"A good bit of the rest of what you write is nonsense. There was, for example, complete religious freedom in Pennsylvania."

Nearly FOUR decades after the Tolerance Act of Catholic Maryland. The Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges was not established until 1683, and revision of the charter did not cease until 1701. By the time the Pennsylvania Charter was firmly established, Protestants in Maryland had already overthrown the tolerant Catholic government of the colony.

"Catholics could not participate in the political life of the English colonies for the same reason that could not participate in England: the oaths required of them by the Crown were oaths they could not take. That was their choice."

Yes, and you can choose not to bake for a gay wedding -- you just have to accept the resulting fines and jail time. Some choice. You're parroting the same line as the democrats.

"The real truth is that adherents of the Church of Rome were not important in the Founding of America in any sense; and most importantly not in any ideological sense. The "Americanist Heresy" was established long before Leo XIII, because the "Americanist Heresy" was really the "heresy" of the Scottish Enlightenment, which the Roman Church could not abide."

Before you said Pope Leo XIII manufactured the heresey in question. Now, you're saying it existed long before. Make your mind up -- which is it? Separation of Church and state, resulting, as we see, in the persecution of Christians, is a heresy. The state does not need to establish a religion, but it does need to acknowledge Jesus Christ as sovereign king and use scripture as the basis for any and all laws, which would necessarily make all legislation compatible with the teachings of any Church worth taking seriously.

Until then, enjoy your SCOTUS coming down on the side of butt-rangers.

The state does not need to establish a religion, but it does need to acknowledge Jesus Christ as sovereign king and use scripture as the basis for any and all laws

The first part of your sentence is ENTIRELY incompatible with the second. What you are calling for is no different from Sharia.

English law is not -- and never has been -- descended from scripture. English law came to us from Roman law. Palestine was a backwater of Roman civilization. Neither the Jews, whom the Romans regarded as savages, nor their Abrahamic successors had any influence in the formation of those laws. And thank [the REAL] God for that.

Yes, and you can choose not to bake for a gay wedding -- you just have to accept the resulting fines and jail time. Some choice. You're parroting the same line as the democrats.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. The thread of the argument is why Romanists didn't participate in the Revolution. Given that it was The Crown and not the colonials that forced them to take oaths contrary to their conscience in order to participate in public life, why didn't they raise arms in a revolution to throw off the King? They had everything to gain. Yet only two men did so. And one of them may have been a de facto excommunicant.

Before you said Pope Leo XIII manufactured the heresy in question. Now, you're saying it existed long before.

Again, the reading comprehension problem rears it's ugly head. Please do try to keep up and actually read what's been posted to you. Leo's "heresy" only affirmed what the Church had known all along: that reformed Christianity in general and the Scottish Enlightenment in particular would take secular power away from his church forever. It posited authority in the minds and hands of those governed.

He chose to call it the "Americanist Heresy" to strangle the baby of liberty in its cradle. The British ship had already sailed. He could hardly assault The Enlightenment directly without even the dullards of his own flock understanding what a totalitarian kook he was. But, if you read the document, it's clear that his "Americanist Heresy" was nothing more than an assault on representative government itself.

And you yourself have now posted several pages in support of that very assault.

It’s a fraternity, nothing more, nothing less.

The fraternity has no religious beliefs, nor any theology.

The requirement of believing in G-d is simply to make sure the oaths are trustworthy.

Now, have a lot of freemasons written a bunch of pseudo-religious tripe? Anti-Roman Catholic tripe? Yep. Lots of stupid freemasons have existed.

Lots of smart ones, too, from George Washington to John Wayne.

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.