l 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l

page - 2 -

Two Ways

There are two ways: One man looks at the group, at men, at the church, to see if he is in the accepted stream and flow of acceptability in “the church.”

The other person looks to God alone, knowing Him, following Him alone, hearing His Word, forsaking all for Him.

The Conflict of Jesus’ Life

This was the conflict of Jesus’ life with professed people of God-with the scribes and rabbis, and even with the multitudes. This is why they left him by the thousands after He preached the sermon on the Bread of Life. They could see that if they were to follow Christ it would bring them into conflict with the Structure and everything they had ever espoused as giving them the security of being the people of God.

The following of His Father only was why He home-schooled, why He refused to go to the Rabbinical schools. This was why He was hauled in before the Sanhedrin in John 5. This is why He said, “I receive not honor from men…How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?” John 5: 41,44.

The Chief Priests and Pharisees Believed That If Jesus Were Left Alone the Romans Would Come and Take Away Their Nation

This following of His unseen Father alone is what took Him to the cross, for He presented a national threat to the existence of the nation, the High Priest believed. In council, the chief priests and Pharisees believed that if they left Jesus alone to follow His Father only, the Romans would destroy their nation:

“If we let Him thus alone, all men will believe on Him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.” John 11:48.

The Romans did come and take away both their place and nation. However, they did not do this because of acceptance of Jesus. It happened because they rejected Jesus.

Caiaphas: To Save the Nation, Christ Must Be Put to Death

After hearing the counsel of Caiaphas, the high priest stated:

“It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not,” from that day, forth they took counsel together for to put Him to death.

“Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with His disciples.” John 11:50.53, 54.

Caiaphas’ Argument Will Be Used to Pass the Death Decree

The same argument will again be used against those who follow Jesus alone instead of going with the ecumenical, politically correct, flow.

“As the Sabbath has become the special point of controversy throughout Christendom, and religious and secular authorities have combined to enforce the observance of Sunday, the persistent refusal of a small minority to yield to the popular demand will make them the objects of universal execration. It will be urged that the few who stand in opposition to the institution of the church and a law of the state ought not be tolerated; that it is better for them to suffer than for whole nations to be thrown into confusion and lawlessness. The same argument eighteen hundred years ago who brought against Christ by the “rulers of the people.” “It is evident for us,” said the wily Caiaphas, “that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” John 11:50. This argument will appear conclusive; and the decree will finally be issued against those who hallow the Sabbath of the Fourth commandment, denouncing them as deserving of the severest punishment and giving the people liberty, after a certain time, to put them to death. Romanism in the Old World and apostate Protestantism in the New will pursue a similar course toward those who honor all the divine precepts.” GC 615, 616.

Notice: It will be considered a matter of national security.

“Thou shalt hide them in the secret of Thy face from the pride of men.” Psalms 31:20. [Hebrew translation.]

Beware of Church Fellowship That Rejects the Testimony of Jesus in the Great Controversy

For many this seduction of being accepted by the group, this receiving honor from men, instead of bearing the cross of unpopular truth involved in following Christ alone in conviction is eagerly grasped as being the evidence that they are among the faithful. In addition, the Structure-a Structure that has almost completely rejected the orientation of the Great Controversy teaches them this.

The Structure Announces To Media That Only About 1,000 People Still Believe the Great Controversy.

This rejection of The Great Controversy orientation goes right to the highest echelons of the Structure, for a Special Assistant to the GC President, Kermit Netteberg, has declared that The Great Controversy is for the nineteenth century, and that everything is going to work out differently now.  At the time of the Waco crisis, Herbert Ford, in Public Relations at the GC, told the media that there are only about 1,000 people left who believe that the Great Controversy prophecy will be fulfilled as Ellen White wrote it.

He That is Not With Me is Against Me

If a person truly loves Jesus Christ, loves His wonderful testimony given to Daniel, John the Revelator, and Ellen White, would not such a person be horribly offended by the rejection of Christ and His Testimony? Is this not a key issue in end time salvation? Of course it is. In fact, it is the key issue in the Third Angel’s Message. You are on one side or the other.

“He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” Matthew 12:30.

Is the person…or the Structure—that is not with Christ and His Testimony, not against Him?

Moreover, we know the danger of mingling with Egyptians when the judgments of God are in the land. If one has rejected the Testimony of Jesus in the Great Controversy and Revelation, what becomes of the Loud Cry, along with the Third Angel’s Message? And which side of the Great controversy is such a person on?

Only those With Battle-hardened, Battle-tested Conviction Will Stand the Shock of This Battle

Only those who believe with heart and soul, only those with battle-hardened, battle-tested conviction, will survive the shock of this battle.

Cut Loose From Its Moorings, Adrift Upon an Ecumenical Sea

The Structure has cut loose from its moorings-cut loose from Jesus’ teachings about the strait gate and the narrow way, cut loose from the orientation of the Bible, particularly the Testimony of Jesus in Daniel and Revelation, the Spirit of Prophecy. The Structure is now adrift on an ecumenical sea-a sea whose current is swiftly pulling all on its waters toward the Beast an Its Image. Its captains and captains in training, its crew and passengers are now being educated in Jesuit Spiritual Formation.

If Satan attempted to kill Ellen White before she could even write the Great Controversy, what does he want to do to those who read, believe, obey, and accept that revelation of the Testimony of Jesus Christ found in its pages?

Maintaining the Orientation of the Word

Satan’s Great Attempt to Exterminate The Vision of the Great Controversy

It would be obvious that Satan’s greatest attempt would be to exterminate that vision that orientation, found in the pages of the Great Controversy. Today, the conflict over the vision, the orientation, of Testimony of Jesus Christ, which He gave in Daniel, Revelation, and the Great Controversy, is what divides the faithful Christians from the ecumenical Structurite.

The Erasure of Protestant Memory Regarding Rome’s Character and History

One of the greatest phenomena of the last forty-five years is the erasure of Protestant memory regarding Rome. Today there is virtually no resistance to Rome from Protestantism. Indeed, Protestantism is the staunchest defender of Rome today.  The Evangelical/Roman Catholic Alliance is tighter than ever today.  What resistance there is to Rome that remains is coming from the extreme liberal, enlightenment sector of society.

The Roman Catholic Renders Supreme Allegiance to the Pope…Above the Constitution

The real concern about Roman Catholicism on the Supreme Court is that every Roman Catholic is required to render supreme allegiance to the pope and his decrees above all other allegiances including, and especially—the US Constitution. In addition, the papacy is on record as denouncing liberty of conscience and the Constitution.

“The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would be speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.” GC 564.

Semper Idem-Always the Same

There appears to be no Protestant memory remaining that the Roman Catholic Church, whose motto is semper idem, always the same, massacred an estimated 100 million souls in her history, according to nineteenth century historians. There certainly appears to be no Protestant memory of Rome’s anathemas against the Unites States Constitution.

Nor is there any memory of the fact that Hitler announced that he was cloning the Jesuit Order with the SS, and that Himmler, whom Hitler said was his Ignatius Loyola, had an uncle in the SS who was a Jesuit direct connection the Jesuit Superior General. You can read about this in Vatican Assassins.

There appears to be no Protestant memory of the Twentieth Century state that Rome considered to be her perfect creation-Croatia under the Ustashe, which massacred three quarters of a million to a million Serbs in the worst holocaust of World War II.

Handing the Nation to Rome: The Samuel Alito Hearings One More Big Nail in the Coffin

“A judge may never oblige any person to perform an act contrary to the law of God or of His Church [read, the Catholic Church]…Wherefore he cannot pronounce a penal sentence which would be equivalent to approval of such a law.” –Pope Pius XII, November. 6, 1949.

The Samuel Alito Hearings

Today Protestants are eagerly handing over the most powerful stations in government, such as the Supreme Court, to Rome. The staunchest defenders of this process are the Republican, conservative evangelicals. The confirmation hearings of the Roman Catholic Samuel Alito were most interesting. Samuel Alito is a devout Roman Catholic. He appears personally to be a very conscientious person with regard to his faith-conscientious to Rome to a fault, and a very humble person also.

The Real Issue

The issue is that America no longer perceives the danger of handing over the keys of its power to Rome, for every true Roman Catholic is a cat’s paw for the papacy and its power to crush out freedom.

The problem is that, according to Roman Catholic law, a Roman Catholic judge is duty bound, where there is a conflict of interest, to disregard state law and go with Church Law. Furthermore, a Roman Catholic Judge is duty-bound to impose Roman Catholic Law on all citizenry of the district over which he presides-in this case, the nation of America, now that he is confirmed.

A Five to Four court in Favor of Rome

Now that Samuel Alito is confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will become the fifth Roman Catholic Judge, putting Roman Catholicism in the majority. Rome has worked to have a majority on the Supreme Court for decades. All across America in Roman Catholic centers, there is great excitement, for that day is now here.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate determiner in law as to what the Constitution means. This means that now that Samuel Alito is confirmed, Rome now has a majority on the Court to determine the interpretation, the meaning, of the Constitution.

What About Religious Liberty?

The concern of religious liberty and liberty in general is what our focus is here, not generally perceived ideas about Samuel Alito’s humility, brilliance, and intellectual judicial ability.

In the superficial senatorial questioning, it was apparent that Samuel Alito buried his apparent answers in the mystique of the judicial mental process. Over and over again, he repeated himself as senators on the extreme left explored enlightenment issues with Alito.

No Questioning of Alito On the Basis of the Concerns of Protestantism

However, there was no questioning on the basis of the concerns of Protestantism-namely the Roman Catholic judge’s supreme allegiance to the papacy, and the pope, an office that has anathematized the Constitution of the United States.

Pope Innocent III Called Magna Carta “A Diabolical Document”

Indeed, the papacy, which swears that it never changes, attacked the foundation of Western Law and Liberty, the Magna Carta. “It solemnly condemned it and forbade all Christians to accept the principles it embodied…Pope Innocent III, after having called it ‘a diabolical document,’ pronounced the following:

“In the name of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and by authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, after having taken counsel with our brothers, we wholly reject and condemn this charter.” –Innocent III, quoted in Avro Manhattan, Vatican Imperialism in the Twentieth Century, p. 141.

Your Principles; Our Principles

“When we Catholics are in a minority, we demand freedom in the name of your principles; when we Catholics are in the majority, we deny freedom in the name of our principles.” –attributed to Louis Veuillot, died 1883, quoted in Manhattan, 147.

Catholic Church Denounced Doctrines of US Constitution As “Diabolical”

The Catholic Church denounced the doctrines of the American Constitution as “diabolical.” (Manhattan, 145). “The Holy Inquisition, as most effective instrument of the Catholic Church, was put to work in an attempt to stamp out the diabolical doctrines of North America democracy. In Brazil the Constitution of the U.S.A. was put on the prohibited reading list.” Manhattan, 141.

In Spain, it was a crime to possess a medallion inscribed with the words ‘American Liberty.’ “Anyone caught supporting the principles which set the United States free was officially accused of ‘heretical ideas.’” Manhattan, 141.

A Catholic Judge is Bound to Obey Church Law Instead of State Law

Catholics Must Obey Laws Enacted in Rome

The brilliant BBC author Avro Manhattan writes, “Catholics, having to obey laws enacted in Rome, must act according to such laws. Their enforcement is restricted neither to religion nor to moral problems. It trespasses across social boundaries. By raising grave social issues, it clashes with the individual faced with a double loyalty, with the society charged with dealing with such laws, and with the State, whose authority they challenge.

“The contention that, by binding only Catholic consciences, they do not infringe upon those of the State is erroneous, dishonest and untrue. The bind not only individual Catholics as individuals, not only Catholics as professional men-e.g. Doctors forced to respect the precise laws laid down for them by the Church-but also Catholics as legislators, and hence as leaders of a party, of a government and of a State.

Catholics Must Disregard Laws of the State to Obey Laws of the Church

 “This means that Catholic laws must be obeyed by politicians who are Catholics, be they town-councilors or premiers, and that, because they are Catholics, they must disregard the laws of the State to obey those of their church.

“When this occurs the clash between the laws of the Church and those of the State is neither restricted to the theoretical field nor does it remain the concern of the conscience of the individual Catholics. It becomes a public concern: the concern of the state, and hence the concern of the people. For it is against the authority of the people that the laws of the Church are enacted and enforced….

Loyalty to His Church Replaces That Due to the State

“…Laws which the individual, as a politician concerned with the welfare of the people, judges to be worthy of enactment, must be modified or even entirely abandoned by this same individual, because the Catholic Church frowns on or disapproves of them. He is bound to scrap them because the Catholic in him comes before the citizen. Which means that loyalty to his church replaces that due to the State. In short, that he must bow before the laws of the Church by forsaking those of the State, thus acting as a Catholic first and as a citizen second.” –Avro Manhattan, Vatican Imperialism in the Twentieth Century, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965, pp. 119, 120.

The Papacy’s Position Regarding Roman Catholic Judges

The Roman Catholic Judge

The Catholic who is also a magistrate or a judge, therefore, by obeying his church first, becomes a disloyal citizen, a treacherous magistrate, and a betrayer of trust bestowed upon him by the state.

The Papacy Lays Special Claim to Control of Juridical Activity

This is so because the obligation applicable to all Catholics – blind obedience to their church as the ultimate authority in ‘faith and morals’ – is applicable equally to them. In addition to which they must obey injunctions specifically applicable to the juridical profession, insofar as their church claims to be the ultimate authority also in the juridical field, because ‘juridical activity remains included in fullness in Church’s life,’ as Pope Pius XII declared. [Pius XII, October. 1947].

A Catholic Judge Must Apply the Laws of His Church Upon the Citizens of the State

What is the meaning of this? That the Catholic who is also a judge must obey the laws of his church instead of those of the State; must apply the laws of his church upon the citizens of the State that employs him as a judge to enforce the State’s laws, not upon citizens who are Catholics or members of any other church, but upon citizens who are subject only to the laws of the State and not to the laws of any specific denomination.

Catholic Judges are Compelled to Disregard the Laws of the State in Obedience to the Church

One typical injection whose concreteness is its most specific attribute is the one compelling Catholic judges – all Catholic judges, it should be noted – to disregard the laws of the State in obedience to those of the Catholic Church. Here is the official Papal pronouncement:

“A judge may never oblige any person to perform an act contrary to the law of God or of His Church [read, the Catholic Church]… Wherefore he cannot pronounce a penal sentence which would be equivalent to approval of such a law.” – Pope Pius XII, November. 6, 1949.

“In other words, Catholic judges, whether citizens of a communist, democratic, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or even non-Christian nation, are explicitly forbidden to obey the laws of their country if such laws do not harmonize with those of their church.” –Avro Manhattan, Vatican Imperialism, 128.

The Dominance of Political Correctness

Of course, the line of questioning demanded by true Protestantism would be politically incorrect, and would result in the end of the political life of the questioner. Of course, political correctness itself was the child of Soviet communism, of Lenin’s Minister of Education. In addition, Communism is the product of Jesuitism, which developed it from 1600 to 1750 in Paraguay. Thus, Jesuitical communism gave birth to “political correctness” which today has silenced the concerns of Protestantism and freedom.