And Saul killed Christians before becoming Paul.I’ve explained that already in dozens of posts I’ve contributed on this thread, moreover, this was not about the Ukraine, i.e., I was taking umbrage with you calling Putin holy, which quite frankly is false. Here’s a little taste of who the “holy” Putin is:
The US.
“Freedom of speech” is a Protestant heretical idea. The founders of the US founded it on Freemasonic/Protestant heresies so the US has no legitimacy. A government that murders 55 million babies is not legitimate.
You mean the same freedom of speech which is allowing you to denounce your own government without fear of reprisal, do you think we should take that away from you because it’s “heretical”?The US.
“Freedom of speech” is a Protestant heretical idea. The founders of the US founded it on Freemasonic/Protestant heresies so the US has no legitimacy. A government that murders 55 million babies is not legitimate.
Did all the early Christians leave the Roman Empire?
There have been many cars with bumper stickers reading: “Love it or Leave It”. Sounds like a great idea for some.
No, because their tactical error is allowing me to spread the truth. If it were replaced with a Catholic legal system then yes.You mean the same freedom of speech which is allowing you to denounce your own government without fear of reprisal, do you think we should take that away from you because it’s “heretical”?
No, because their tactical error is allowing me to spread the truth. If it were replaced with a Catholic legal system then yes.
You are thinking with a philosophy of Americanism.
Those old tactical errors allowing free speech … who would have guessed! There are several “Taliban” type governments - like the old U.S.S.R. that don’t seem to make those type errors. Too bad!
How odd it is then that those “Freemasonic”, “Protestant” heretics who founded America have been singled out for praise in past papal encyclicals. Washington was revered by Pope Leo XIII for his friendship with and protection of the Catholic community in the United States:The US.
“Freedom of speech” is a Protestant heretical idea. The founders of the US founded it on Freemasonic/Protestant heresies so the US has no legitimacy. A government that murders 55 million babies is not legitimate.
“…We traverse in spirit and thought the wide expanse of ocean …] To this We apply Ourselves with the utmost zeal and care; because We highly esteem and love exceedingly the young and vigorous American nation, in which We plainly discern latent forces for the advancement alike of civilization and of Christianity …] For when America was, as yet, but a new-born babe, uttering in its cradle its first feeble cries, the Church took it to her bosom and motherly embrace …] Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church…That your Republic is progressing and developing by giant strides is patent to all; and this holds good in religious matters also…Another consideration claims our earnest attention. All intelligent men are agreed, and We Ourselves have with pleasure intimated it above, that America seems destined for greater things. Now, it is Our wish that the Catholic Church should not only share in, but help to bring about, this prospective greatness. We deem it right and proper that she should, by availing herself of the opportunities daily presented to her, keep equal step with the Republic in the march of improvement, at the same time striving to the utmost, by her virtue and her institutions, to aid in the rapid growth of the States…”
And in 1805, Servant of God Pope Pius VIII said this about the United States:***- POPE LEO XIII LONGINQUA (ENCYCLICAL ON CATHOLICISM IN THE UNITED STATES), 1895 ***
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_VII#Relationship_with_the_United_States_of_AmericaOn the United States’ suppression in the First Barbary War of the Muslim Barbary Pirates along the southern Mediterranean coast, who kidnapped Christians for ransom and slavery, Pope Pius VII declared that the United States “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages"
I was wondering about that, myself. What a coincidence they had all those insignia-less uniforms lying around. Or are the insignia attached by velcro so they’re easily removed?Just obtaining and outfitting the thousands of Russian forces in uniforms, hats, packs, etc. without insignia would take months.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htmHow odd it is then that those “Freemasonic”, “Protestant” heretics who founded America have been singled out for praise in past papal encyclicals. Washington was revered by Pope Leo XIII for his friendship with and protection of the Catholic community in the United States:
And in 1805, Servant of God Pope Pius VIII said this about the United States:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_VII#Relationship_with_the_United_States_of_America
Can the same be said for Russia? Why has it never been singled out for such praise by a pope? Under the Tsars, Catholics faced persecution, under the Soviets they faced it and under Putin there situation has not improved, in fact his former ally Yanukovych persecuted Ukranian Catholicism most severely.
The United States is far from flawless and has done some atrocious things in its history (slavery, expansionism in North America etc.) however it has received a far more favourable view from the Catholic Church than Russia ever has.
From the 1910 Catholic Encycloepedia:
And I will note that the same article says this about Tsarist Russia:The United States at all times attracted the attention and admiration of Pope Leo. He confimed the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), and raised to the cardinalate Archbishop Gibbons of that city (1886). His favourable action (1888), at the instance of Cardinal Gibbons, towards the Knights of Labour won him general approval. In 1889 he sent a papal delegate, Monsignor Satolli, to represent him at Washington on the occasion of the foundation of the Catholic University of America. The Apostolic Delegation at Washington was founded in 1892; in the same year appeared his Encyclical on Christopher Columbus. In 1893 he participated in the Chicago Exposition held to commemorate the fourth centenary of the discovery of America; this he did by the loan of valuable relics, and by sending Monsignor Satolli to represent him.
In Russia Soloviev’s attempt on Alexander II (14 April, 1879) and the silver jubilee of that czar’s reign (1888) gave the pope an opportunity to attempt a rapprochement. But it was not until after Alexander III came to the throne (1883) that an agreement was reached, by which a few episcopal sees were tolerated and some of the more stringent laws against the Catholic clergy slightly relaxed. But when in 1884, Leo consented to present to the czar a petition from the Ruthenian Catholics against the oppression they had to suffer, the persecution only increased in bitterness
Your quote deals with the expansion of the CHURCH in America. If the Church is expanding in a geographical location it is a good thing.
Where in Catholic doctrine does it say that freedom of speech is heretical? And the Russian government is not attempting to eliminate abortion, it is trying to reduce it because at present there are more abortions than there are live births, i.e., it is a matter of demographics for Russia to restrict abortion. Are you aware that Poland has many more restrictions on abortion than Russia, and it is part of the EU? What of Ireland and Malta who are part of the EU?You are thinking with a philosophy of Americanism.
Is a government that sanctions that murder of 55 million babies legitimate? What about a government that is attempting to eliminate abortions and prosecutes those who desecrate churches?
Think less about the rights of man and more about the rights of God.
Pius IX’s 1864 encyclical specifically marks for condemnation that:Where in Catholic doctrine does it say that freedom of speech is heretical? And the Russian government is not attempting to eliminate abortion, it is trying to reduce it because at present there are more abortions than there are live births, i.e., it is a matter of demographics for Russia to restrict abortion. Are you aware that Poland has many more restrictions on abortion than Russia, and it is part of the EU? What of Ireland and Malta who are part of the EU?
liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way. (section 3)That the will of the public is supreme and overrides any other law, human or divine
That "in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right."
That the outlawing of public begging and almsgiving is sound policy
That parents have no rights with respect to their children's education, except what the civil law grants them
That Catholics have no moral obligation to obey the church's laws unless they are ratified by the state
That the state has a right to take the property of the church and the religious ordersSo a Catholic legal system would not allow for freedom of speech, conscience and the like??No, because their tactical error is allowing me to spread the truth. If it were replaced with a Catholic legal system then yes.
Pius IX’s 1864 encyclical specifically marks for condemnation that:So a Catholic legal system would not allow for freedom of speech, conscience and the like??
You miss the point entirely. Pope Leo XIII was praising the fact that the church was allowed to expand in 19th century America, whereas it wasn’t in Tsarist Russia, Imperial Germany and was even facing problems in France.Your quote deals with the expansion of the CHURCH in America. If the Church is expanding in a geographical location it is a good thing.
You ignore the condemnation of the so called separation of church and state in the encyclical completely. We need a Catholic government not a Freemasonic government.
**Interview of Benedict XVI during Flight to the United States, April 15, 2008: **
“…And naturally, interreligious and ecumenical meetings are part of this Visit, especially an additional Meeting in the Synagogue with our Jewish friends on the eve of their Passover Feast. This is, therefore, the religious and pastoral aspect of the Church in the United States at this moment in our history, and the Meeting with all the others in this common brotherhood that binds us in a common responsibility…
**What I find fascinating in the United States is that they began with a positive concept of secularity, because this new people was composed of communities and individuals who had fled from the State Church and wanted to have a lay, a secular State that would give access and opportunities to all denominations, to all forms of religious practice.
And:Thus, an intentionally secular new State was born; they were opposed to a State Church. But the State itself had to be secular precisely out of love for religion it its authenticity, which can only be lived freely. And thus, we find this situation of a State deliberately and decidedly secular but precisely through a religious will in order to give authenticity to religion**…"
In the United States, Catholics and Jews in places like 19th Century New York and Boston fought hard for secularism in the public schools. The idea was to prevent Protestantism from imposing its forms of Christian prayer and bible reading on everyone. Thus did “American exceptionalism” produce a Catholic Secularism that differs from the European “laicité,” with its virulent anti-clericalism and stale rants about medievalisms.
faithstreet.com/onfaith/2009/09/21/catholic-secularism-vs-atheistic-secularism/1847**Recently, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, a respected conservative prelate close to the Vatican, embraced the United States’ model of secularism, linking it to Pope Benedict XVI’s praise of “positive secularism.” ** For the Cardinal, secularism is a necessary platform for the public forum. Catholics should not fear to be secular, said the prelate, because in its essence secularism requires only that Catholics use reason and logic to promote public policy. You don’t have to be an atheist to be rational.
Ukraine’s neighbor Romania has offered to mediate between Kiev and Moscow, with the country’s President Traian Basescu proposing to lead those negotiations
. “In case they decide to create a format of negotiation for easing off tensions between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, as a consequence of the actions taken in Crimea, Romania must belong to the format of negotiation,” said Basescu on Thursday in a statement made before leaving for Brussels where he will attend the European Council dealing with the situation in Ukraine, Romanian National News Agency AGERPRES reports.
Basescu pointed that in Romania there are more than 400,000 Romanian speaking Ukrainian citizens, and that the country is the EU member state nearest to Crimea.
"Last but not least, Romania is not dependent on the gas imports from the Russian Federation. Therefore, it is not heavily dependent on gas imports from the Russian Federation and can replace them with other forms of energy supply or even with gas, through the interconnector to Hungary we can receive gas from Norway too.