ECUMENISM_OF_INCLUSION_PEACE_ENCOUNTER_AND BRIDGES_VERSUS_ECUMENISM_OF HATE_ (CHRISTIAN

"ECUMENISM OF INCLUSION, PEACE, ENCOUNTER, AND BRIDGES"
VERSUS "ECUMENISM OF HATE" (CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM)

The papacy has from its very inception boasted of its imperial power, and indeed exercised it for centuries. Thus when a new and potentially great nation appeared on the world scene -a nation which guaranteed by its constitution freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, Rome was aroused in opposition. In 1895 Pope Leo XIII expressed his disapproval of "Americanism," and particularly the separation of church and state. In 1943 the Seventh-day Adventist pastor, evangelist, and author, Christian Edwardson, published the book Facts of Faith. Chapter 26 is titled "Americanism Versus Romanism." The following is quoted from the chapter:

Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter, Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885, outlines "the Christian constitution of states," by saying that "the state" should profess the Catholic religion, and that the Roman pontiffs should have "the power of making laws." "And assuredly all ought to hold that it was not without a singular disposition of God's providence that this power of the Church was provided with a civil sovereignty as the surest safeguard of her independence."

He says of the Middle Ages: "[then] church and state were happily united." - "The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII," pp. 113, 114, 119. Benziger Bros. 1903.

"Sad it is to call to mind how the harmful and lamentable rage for innovations which rose to a climax in the sixteenth century,...spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license....

"Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature...that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose....In a society grounded upon such maxims, all government is nothing more nor less than the will of the people....

(257) "And it is a part of this theory...that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all....

"Now when the state rests on foundations like those just named - and for the time being they are greatly in favor - it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven....They who administer the civil power...defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church....

"The sovereignty of the people...is doubtless a doctrine...which lacks all reasonable proof." - Id., pp. 120-123.

In his next encyclical letter, of June 20, 1888, he calls it "the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and state," "the greatest perversion of liberty," and "that fatal principle of the separation of Church and state." - Id., pp. 148, 159.

In his letter of January 6, 1895, he says: "It would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for state and church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced....She would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority." - Id., pp. 323, 324.

Among the many authorities that could be cited, we have chosen that of Pope Leo XIII, because he is not a medieval, but a modern, exponent of papal doctrines, which no Roman Catholic would deny. Any one familiar with the phraseology of the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution cannot help but see in the expressions of Pope Leo a declared opposition to the fundamental principles upon which our government is founded. He urges his followers not to be content with attending to their religious duties, but "Catholics should extend their efforts beyond this restricted sphere, and give their attention to national politics." - Id., p. 131. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

This antagonism against democracy's guarantee of individual freedom and separation of Church and State has ever relentlessly driven the Church of Rome's policies and actions towards "the American Experiment."

(256) Some say: What of it! Are not Roman Catholics as good as Protestants? Yes, certainly they are. As individuals there is no distinction before the law, and as neighbors they are loved and respected. We, however, are not speaking of individuals, but of a church organization that claims certain rights of jurisdiction in civil affairs, and whose avowed principles are diametrically opposed to liberty of speech, liberty of press, and religious liberty in general, as understood by the founders of this republic and incorporated into its fundamental laws. (Underscored emphasis added.)

In examining the nature and work of the Christian Nationalists, there is one fundamental fact that must always be kept in mind: the controlling power of the movement is Rome!

In Facts of Faith, Edwardson lists the desirable characteristics of the lamblike beast of Rev. 13:11 which positively identify it as "the United states of America":

We have now seen that "the first beast" of Revelation 13:1-10 represents the Papacy, and that it received its "deadly wound" in 1798, when the Papal States had been abolished, Rome declared a republic, and Pope Pius VI taken a prisoner into France where he died in "captivity," August 19, 1799. (Revelation 13:3, 10.) The prophet then sees "another beast coming up." . . .

It would be a great nation, for it was equal in power to the Papacy. Verse 12. . . And yet its principles were to be lamblike, mild (verse 11), or as the Danish and German have it: "Like the lamb," - Christlike. And Christ advocated two great principles: First, separation of church and state. He said: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Luke 20:25. That is, keep the two separate. Second, religious liberty. He said: "If any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not." John 12:47. "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matt. 7:1. . .

We wish we could close the picture here, and leave its unmarred beauty lingering in our minds; but, sad to say, there is another chapter to it that must be read. The prophet continues: "He spake as a dragon." Rev. 13:11. A nation speaks through its laws. This prophetic statement, therefore, reveals that a great change in policy is to come over our beloved country. The "dragon" is a symbol of pagan Rome [and in reality Satan (Rev. 12:3-4, 7, 9, 13, 17),] that persecuted the early Christians during the first three centuries. (Rev. 12:1-5, 11.) And a similar persecution will be inaugurated against the "remnant" church, for we read: "The dragon was wroth with the woman [church], and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Rev. 12:17. And he has "great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time." Verse 12. Here we see what is meant by speaking "as a dragon," and we also see upon whom this persecution will come; namely, upon commandment-keepers.

This prophecy also reveals what influence will be brought to bear upon our lawmakers and people to produce this sad change. We have already seen that "the first beast" of Rev. 13:1-10 represents the Papacy, and by reading the eleventh and twelfth verses we see that the effort of the lamblike beast will be to cause "the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." That is: The whole trend is Romeward, therefore it must be Rome that is working in disguise to bring about such a trend. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

The validity of this analysis and its conclusion has been established with a clarity beyond what the author may have conceived. At every stage of the process of transformation in America the direct involvement and culpability of Rome can be proven conclusively.

Christian Edwardson documents the Church of Rome's "Catholic Action" in the chapter of Facts of Faith titled THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY. It was a warning about the role of propaganda. The reality of what Roman Catholic propaganda has wrought in the United States of America is sobering:

Now the "Catholic Action" is focused on America, not in an antagonistic way, but quietly, in wisely planned, systematically organized, and well directed efforts along numerous lines, so as to gain favor among Protestants, and not to be suspected as propaganda. And, remarkable as it may sound, Protestant leaders and people are totally asleep on the Catholic question, even more so than the Huguenots were in France before the St. Bartholomew's Massacre.

Dr. E. Boyd Barrett, for many years a Jesuit, and still a Roman Catholic, as far as the author knows, has the following to say about the plans of his church:

"The effort, the fight, may be drawn out. It may last for five or ten years. Even if it last for twenty - what is twenty years in the life of Rome? The fight must be fought to a finish - opposition must be worn down if it cannot be swept away. Rome's immortal destiny hangs on the outcome. That destiny overshadows the land.

"And in the fight, as she has ever fought when battles were most desperate in the past, Rome will use steel, and gold, and silvery lies. Rome will stoop to conquer." - Id., pp. 266, 267.

In a communication from Vatican City, published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Nov. 4, 1936, we read:

"The Catholic Movement, Rome's militant organization numbering millions all over the world, will be marshaled direct from Rome by Monsignor Pizzardo - next to Pacelli the Holy See's shrewdest diplomat and politician - instead of by the local bishops as before. The priest's education is to be thoroughly revised and modernized - with special attention to modern propaganda methods. In addition there will be established in each country a central bureau, responsible only to Rome, to combat red agitation with every political weapon available....The church must fight, and at once.

"Coughlin has shown us the way of getting at the modern man. He has embarrassed us by showing and using the political power of the church so openly....We know how to tackle America today, and that is our most important problem at the moment.

"Pacelli is contacting the American cardinals and leading Catholic personalities,...to explain the Vatican's plan for the new crusade....The Catholic political organizations in the large cities, like Tammany Hall, will give the church a good lever. Those contacts are also being carefully inspected by the pope's minister.

"The Vatican itself resembles a general staff headquarters preparing plans and arms for a big offensive. Since the time of the Counter-Reformation, churchmen say, no such extensive reorganization of personnel and propaganda methods has been undertaken. The whole world-wide net of Catholic organizations and sub-organizations is being contacted directly from Rome and cleared for action. The church is to be adjusted to modern political, social, and cultural conditions." - p. 10, col. 3, 4, used by permission.

This article speaks of Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, then papal secretary of state, coming from the Vatican to effect the above mentioned reorganization. He toured the United States "in a chartered airplane." Christian Science Monitor says: "The visit of a high Roman prelate to the United States on the eve of an election is as unprecedented as it is delicate." - Oct. 2, 1926.

This Catholic plan of conquest was well understood years ago. An illustration in Harper's Weekly of October 1, 1870, pictured the pope pointing to America as "The Promised Land." (Underscored emphasis added.)

Note the specific references in the Roman Catholic publications to propaganda, and "modern propaganda methods" in connection with "preparing plans and arms for a big offensive." Christian Edwardson described how the propaganda worked successfully to gain favor among Protestants. (Facts of Faith was first published in 1943.) The seduction of Protestants was essential to the "Catholic Action" plan laid under Pope Pius XI. This is how the foundation was laid for an alliance of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals thirty-six years later.

Passages quoted earlier from Facts of Faith indisputably establish the fact that Pope Leo XIII had in effect declared war on democracy, and specifically American democracy. Simultaneously, he declared the Church of Rome's determination to eradicate the principle of separation of church and state from America. As stated earlier in this paper, Christian Edwardson explained why he had chosen to quote from the encyclicals of Leo XIII. That he was correct is demonstrated by the activities of the Church of Rome under Pope Pius XI in the mid-1930s as laid out in the above passages from THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY. Leo XIII had declared war on American democracy and its constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state - Pius XI directed the development of the battle plan for offensive actions in the war and identified the army to be mobilized. Propaganda was to be the artillery of choice. There was to be adjustment "to modern political, social, and cultural conditions." Pius designated the army as "The Catholic Movement, Rome's militant organization numbering millions all over the world . . ." Roman Catholic Jesuit Dr. E. Boyd Barret foresaw the probability of a protracted war fought ruthlessly by the army of Rome. He predicted that "Rome will use steel, and gold, and silvery lies." It is evident that he did not use the word "steel" in the sense of armed conflict; but rather to symbolize Rome's ruthless destruction of the opposition, commonly by secret subversion from within. (This has happened to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.) Dr. Barret's use of the word "steel" did not indicate that Rome contemplated war in the sense of what was inflicted on the Huguenots. That was a thing of the past, although a predictor of the future after Rome emerges triumphant from her secret propaganda war. In the war in general there has been an abundance of "gold" and "silvery lies;" the last being the "modern propaganda methods."

The Roman Catholics are masters of propaganda supposedly for the "propagation of the faith." In reality it is for much more than that.

The Church of Rome's holy war to subvert and destroy America's democracy and all of its positive elements is rapidly approaching the pinnacle of victory, and its spearhead is now exposed as the ideology known as Christian Nationalism. Not very long ago it was a secretive movement carefully concealed from the body politic. Today the alarm bells are ringing on every side. They tend to point to the right-wing Protestants. Admittedly, in the Protestant world it had its roots in Calvinism. However, it is logical to presume that all Christian Nationalism has its roots in the Church of Rome. Here is what is documented about the interlocking Roman Catholic and Protestant ideologies of Christian Nationalism:

In politics, integralism, integrationism or integrism (French: intégrisme) is an interpretation of Catholic social teaching that argues the principle that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible. Integralism is anti-pluralist,[1] seeking the Catholic faith to be dominant in civil and religious matters. Integralists uphold the 1864 definition of Pope Pius IX in Quanta cura that the religious neutrality of the civil power cannot be embraced as an ideal situation and the doctrine of Leo XIII in Immortale Dei on the religious obligations of states.[2] In December 1965, the Second Vatican Council approved and Pope Paul VI promulgated the document Dignitatis humanae–the Council's "Declaration on Religious Freedom"–which states that it "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ". . .

The term is sometimes used more loosely and in non-Catholic contexts to refer to a set of theoretical concepts and practical policies that advocate a fully integrated social and political order based on a comprehensive doctrine of human nature. In this generic sense some forms of integralism are focused purely on achieving political and social integration, others national or ethnic unity, while others were more focused on achieving religious and cultural uniformity. Integralism has, thus, also been used[5] to describe non-Catholic religious movements, such as Protestant fundamentalism or Islamism. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Catholic Integralism is a tradition of thought that, rejecting the liberal separation of politics from concern with the end of human life, holds that political rule must order man to his final goal. Since, however, man has both a temporal and an eternal end, integralism holds that there are two powers that rule him: a temporal power and a spiritual power. And since man’s temporal end is subordinated to his eternal end, the temporal power must be subordinated to the spiritual power. (Underscored emphasis added.)

It is essential to keep this in mind when the contemporary Roman Catholic teaching of "Secularity" is examined near the end of this dissertation.

Dominion theology, also known as dominionism, is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation that is governed by Christians and based on their understandings of biblical law. Extents of rule and ways of acquiring governing authority are varied. For example, dominion theology can include theonomy but does not necessarily involve advocacy of adherence to the Mosaic Law as the basis of government. The label is primarily applied to groups of Christians in the United States.

Prominent adherents of those ideologies include Calvinist Christian Reconstructionism, Charismatic and Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology, and the New Apostolic Reformation.[1][2] Most of the contemporary movements that are labeled dominion theology arose in the 1970s from religious movements asserting aspects of Christian nationalism. Roman Catholic integralism is also sometimes considered to fall under the Dominionist umbrella, but the Catholic integralist movement is much older and theologically markedly different from Protestant dominionism since it is tied to the doctrine of the Catholic Church as being the only true church. . .

Christian Reconstructionism is a fundamentalist Calvinist theonomic movement.[1] It developed primarily under the direction of Rousas Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen and Gary North[2] and has had an important influence on the Christian right in the United States.[3][4] Its central theme is that society should be reconstructed under the lordship of Christ in all aspects of life.[5] In keeping with the biblical cultural mandate, reconstructionists advocate for theonomy and the restoration of certain biblical laws said to have continued applicability.[6] These include the death penalty not only for murder, but also for idolatry,[7] open homosexuality,[8] adultery, witchcraft and blasphemy.[9] . . .

Rousas Rushdoony wrote in The Institutes of Biblical Law: "The heresy of democracy has since [the days of colonial New England] worked havoc in church and state". . . and: "Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies", and he said elsewhere that "Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to spiritual aristocracy," and characterized democracy as "the great love of the failures and cowards of life".[20]

Many evangelical Christians of all types have embraced Christian Reconstructionism in part or in whole. Evangelical leaders who endorsed it explicitly or implicitly include Jerry Falwell Sr., Bill Gothard, Jay Grimstead, D. James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye, Doug Phillips, Howard Phillips, Pat Robertson, Francis Schaeffer, and Wayne Whitehead. Gothard and the two Phillipses, for example, used Christian Reconstructionism to build the evangelical homeschooling community of the 1970s and 1980s. Robertson and Kennedy hosted Rushdoony on their television programs, and Robertson also used dominionist language in his book, The Secret Kingdom, and in his 1988 presidential campaign.[32]

Grimstead, of the Coalition on Revival, summarized the position of many evangelical leaders: "'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality ... in all points of history ... and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike... It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership—James Kennedy is one of them—who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'"[33] . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological view, means, or timetable, Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.

Analyst Chip Berlet and I have suggested that there is a dominionist spectrum running from soft to hard as a way of making some broad distinctions among dominionists without getting mired in theological minutiae.106 But we also agree that:

Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.

Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.

Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or “biblical law,” should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing biblical principles.107

Of course, Christian nationalism takes a distinct form in the United States, but dominionism in all of its variants has a vision for all nations. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Calvinism's role in the interlocking Roman Catholic and Protestant ideologies of Christian Nationalism is revealed as rooted in a common source. The beliefs of both the Roman Catholic Church and John Calvin were drawn from the theology of Augustine:

John Calvin drifted from his Roman Catholic faith while studying the vast writings of Augustine, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo (354-430). He constantly praised Augustine’s work with frequent quotes and references from his writings. Many prominent Calvinists acknowledge that Calvin’s fundamental beliefs were through the writings of Augustine and were already formed while he was still a faithful Roman Catholic. He systemized Augustine’s doctrines, which have been developed, for the most part, the Five Points of Calvinism presented today. Augustine’s influence remained with him throughout his life.

The beliefs of Calvin and Augustine embody the Five Points of Calvinism presented today. Just as the Synod of Dort, (the synod which first formally presented these points as the Five Points of Calvinism-TULIP),[1] was a Calvinistic Synod, so John Calvin was an Augustinian. These Augustinian teachings that he presented in his Institutes of the Christian Religion included the sovereignty of God, which made Him the cause of everything, including sin, election, and the predestination of the elect to salvation and of the non-elect to damnation.

Professor Herman Hanko, co-authored one of several books called The Five Points of Calvinism, written to explain and defend Calvinism, says that:

We see that John Calvin took what Augustine had written and refined it. Many of our doctrines that we understand and recognize today have developed from earlier stages of belief. This is the case with the doctrines of Augustine. An example of this is the doctrine of Eternal Security. He did not teach this, but he was a crucial figure in establishing the root source that is the basis in which this doctrine could develop in to how we understand it today. With a little research, one can understand how his influence on theology as a whole goes without question. The foundational beliefs, biases, and doctrines that many believers have today, Protestants and Catholics, are to be discovered in the beliefs of Augustine. While most Calvinist and Catholic theologians agree with Augustine, some Protestants do not. However, most of them, if not all, will acknowledge his huge influence on Christian beliefs and doctrines. (Underscored emphasis added.)

THERE IS NO QUESTION that Calvin imposed upon the Bible certain erroneous interpretations from his Roman Catholic background. Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that “The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.”

In his eye-opening book, The Other Side of Calvinism, Laurence M. Vance thoroughly documents that “John Calvin did not originate the doctrines that bear his name….” 2 Vance quotes numerous well-known Calvinists to this effect. For example, Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton write, “The system of doctrine which bears the name of John Calvin was in no way originated by him….” 3 B. B. Warfield declared, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.” 4 Thus the debt that the creeds coming out of the Reformation owe to Augustine is also acknowledged. This is not surprising in view of the fact that most of the Reformers had been part of the Roman Catholic Church, of which Augustine was one of the most highly regarded “saints.” John Piper acknowledges that Augustine was the major influence upon both Calvin and Luther, who continued to revere him and his doctrines even after they broke away from Roman Catholicism.

C. H. Spurgeon admitted that “perhaps Calvin himself derived it [Calvinism] mainly from the writings of Augustine.” 6 Alvin L. Baker wrote, “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.” 7 For example, the following from Augustine sounds like an echo reverberating through the writings of Calvin:

Even as he has appointed them to be regenerated…whom he predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace, whilst to those whom he has predestinated to eternal death, he is also the most righteous awarder of punishment. 8

C. Gregg Singer said, “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.” 9 Such statements are staggering declarations in view of the undisputed fact that, as Vance points out, the Roman Catholic Church itself has a better claim on Augustine than do the Calvinists. 10 Calvin himself said:

Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. 11

The fourth century Donatists believed that the church should be a pure communion of true believers who demonstrated the truth of the gospel in their lives. They abhorred the apostasy that had come into the church when Constantine wedded Christianity to paganism in order to unify the empire. Compromising clergy were “evil priests working hand in glove with the kings of the earth, who show that they have no king but Caesar.” To the Donatists, the church was a “small body of saved surrounded by the unregenerate mass.” 12 This is, of course, the biblical view.

Augustine, on the other hand, saw the church of his day as a mixture of believers and unbelievers, in which purity and evil should be allowed to exist side by side for the sake of unity. He used the power of the state to compel church attendance (as Calvin also would 1,200 years later): “Whoever was not found within the Church was not asked the reason, but was to be corrected and converted….” 13 Calvin followed his mentor Augustine in enforcing church attendance and participation in the sacraments by threats (and worse) against the citizens of Geneva. Augustine “identified the Donatists as heretics…who could be subjected to imperial legislation [and force] in exactly the same way as other criminals and misbelievers, including poisoners and pagans.” 14 Frend says of Augustine, “The questing, sensitive youth had become the father of the inquisition.” 15

Though he preferred persuasion if possible, Augustine supported military force against those who were rebaptized as believers after conversion to Christ and for other alleged heretics. In his controversy with the Donatists, using a distorted and un-Christian interpretation of Luke:14:23, 16 Augustine declared:

Why therefore should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return?… The Lord Himself said, “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in….” Wherefore is the power which the Church has received…through the religious character and faith of kings…the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and hedges—that is, in heresies and schisms—are compelled to come in, and let them not find fault with being compelled. 17

Sadly, Calvin put into effect in Geneva the very principles of punishment, coercion, and death that Augustine advocated and that the Roman Catholic Church followed consistently for centuries. Henry H. Milman writes: “Augustinianism was worked up into a still more rigid and uncompromising system by the severe intellect of Calvin.” 18 And he justified himself by Augustine’s erroneous interpretation of Luke:14:23. How could any who today hail Calvin as a great exegete accept such abuse of this passage?

Compel? Isn’t that God’s job through Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace? Compel those for whom Christ didn’t die and whom God has predestined to eternal torment? This verse refutes Calvinism no matter how it is interpreted!

There is no question as to the important role Augustine played in molding Calvin’s thinking, theology, and actions. This is particularly true concerning the key foundations of Calvinism. Warfield refers to Calvin and Augustine as “two extraordinarily gifted men [who] tower like pyramids over the scene of history.” 19 Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion make repeated favorable references to Augustine, frequently citing his writings as authoritative and using the expression, “Confirmed by the authority of Augustine.” 20 Calvin often credits Augustine with having formulated key concepts, which he then expounds in his Institutes . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

This last essay establishes the predominant role of Roman Catholicism in shaping John Calvin's theology. The next essay appears on a Roman Catholic web page, and documents the lifestyle and inclinations of Augustine which can reasonably be perceived as having made him a powerful agent for the conception and dissemination of false teachings. He is said to have earned the title, “the Father of Roman Catholicism.”:

We can be encouraged by Augustine’s story from the people whom we’ve placed seeds of the gospel. Augustine didn’t convert right away. Even when he intellectually accepted the truth of Christianity, it took him a while to fully commit.

Many of us may have heard of the name Augustine before. Perhaps we know a Christian who takes on an Augustinian view of free will and determinism. But what do we really know about the man and saint who lived in the fourth century AD?

No doubt, Augustine goes down as one of the most famous Christians to have ever lived. His philosophy has influenced the church as a whole, and he played an integral role in the history of the church.

In this article, we’ll dive into a brief biography of Augustine’s life, we’ll discuss how his philosophy has influenced the church as we know it today, and why we should study famous saints in our 2,000 plus year history.

If any of us had wayward or prodigal children, we could relate to Augustine’s mother’s plight when her son abandoned the faith in his teen years. Growing up with one devout Catholic mother and a pagan father, Augustine developed a strong interest in philosophy and led a hedonistic lifestyle. He indulged in such a frivolous lifestyle that he ended up becoming the patron saint of brewers. . .

Similar to C.S. Lewis’ story of how he came to the faith (as well as Lee Strobel and several other apologists), Augustine befriends a Christian mentor by the name of St. Ambrose and becomes convinced that Christianity can be the only true religion, through wrestling with intellectual issues.

Yet, it takes him a while to make the leap between an intellectual belief in Christianity and a personal one (noticia and fiducia), an important distinction.

After a lot of wrestling with the fact that Christianity would involve sanctification from his impure lifestyle, Augustine fully commits himself to Christ.

From his baptism, and after three years of devoted study of the Word, Augustine becomes a priest, and then a bishop. . .

As mentioned before, Augustine had a strong desire to investigate philosophy even before he converted to Christianity. And the fact he wrote 200 plus books and 1000 plus sermons no doubt gives us a plethora of source material to learn from his walk with Christ.

In fact, Augustine has earned the title, “the Father of Roman Catholicism.” His teachings greatly influenced current practices in the Roman Catholic church such as infant baptism and transubstantiation. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Thus we have seen the central role of Augustine's teachings in the false dogmas and practices of the Church of Rome, some of which contaminated Protestant Calvinism:

Many Protestant Evangelicals assume that their theological foundations are poles apart from that of Roman Catholicism. They are blithely unaware that both can be said to share the same 'Founding Father': Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.

On the staunchly Roman Catholic website New Advent, in the article, 'Teaching of St Augustine of Hippo' one may read the following,

"It is first of all a remarkable fact that the great critics, Protestant as well as Catholic, are almost unanimous in placing St. Augustine in the foremost rank of Doctors and proclaiming him to be the greatest of the Fathers."

"Luther and Calvin were content to treat Augustine with a little less irreverence than they did the other Fathers, but their descendants do him full justice, although recognizing him as the Father of Roman Catholicism."

There is no doubt that Augustine, bishop of Hippo (354-430AD) became the major theological 'heavyweight' whose writings largely influenced and fashioned not only Roman Catholicism, but also Protestantism, and - through that route - modern evangelicalism.

Many modern evangelicals are unaware that it is from Augustine that we get Baptismal Regeration (salvation is impossible without baptism, as administered by a priest of the church), and this is but a part of a whole system of Sacramental Theology which went straight into Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Under this system a whole elaborate framework of 'sacraments' was believed to govern one's walk with God. Of course Cyprian of Carthage and others also refined and developed this but - make no mistake - Augustine himself believed that infants that died unbaptized were headed straight for Hell - without possibility of remedy.

The 7 sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are Baptism, Eucharist, Sacrament of Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Anointing of the Sick, and Holy Orders. But Protestantism has sought explicit words from the lips of Jesus Himself to give authority to 'sacraments' reducing the number to just Baptism and Communion (or, Eucharist). For Protestants, it is the grace of God which these ordinances represent which is the all-important thing. In other words, if God's grace and favour is not with the individual, those ordinances, or procedures, become meaningless. And here - at once - is a superb irony, for the emphasis on grace itself also largely comes from Augustine, who wished to closely follow the apostle Paul in this matter.

Nobody can deny that Augustine, bishop of Hippo, is one of the greatest of all Christian theologians, but how much of Manichaeism did he take with him when he left that cult?

At the time of the 16th century Protestant Reformation, Luther and Calvin were quick to revisit Augustine and to rediscover Augustine's great stress on the grace of God. But they were unquestionably selective about the doctrinal writings of the bishop of Hippo - they had to be! So here we may observe a seeming paradox: Protestantism's Justification by Faith Alone and Roman Catholicism's Sacramental Theology both strongly credited to the influence of one influential theologian!

Augustine had unquestionably been the most pre-eminent of the Latin Church theologians. A former Manichaean sect/cult member, he had converted to Christianity in 387AD. As a Christian theologian he would strongly major on the doctrine of original sin (seen almost as a disease passed on at birth), he also 'majored' on predestination and election (apart from his aforementioned stress on grace). But I think we can say little more without some consideration of Manichaeism itself.

Manichaeism has been called the best organized, most consistent, tenacious and dangerous form of Gnosticism. Christianity had to wage a very long and persistent war against this heresy. It was, in a real sense, a rival religion and formed a syncretistic form of "Christianity." Augustine was much influenced and soon joined this group.

Their metaphysical foundation was a radical dualism between good and evil, light and darkness, largely derived from Persian Zoroastrianism. They also upheld a most rigid asceticism which strongly resembled Buddhism. Based on the false presupposition that matter is necessarily and intrinsically evil, the morality of Manes was severely ascetic. The Manichaean’s chief aim was to become entirely unworldly, as in Buddhism. To renounce and destroy all longing for pleasure, especially all pleasures of the flesh, and, eventually, to set a pure inner soul free from all the trappings of matter. It seems without question that these ideals later developed into the monasticism of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

John Calvin's contribution to theology is undeniably outstanding, but was the Geneva reformer overly affected by an already decided Augustinian approach on Election and Predestination?

A very close look at the doctrines of the Manichaeists appears to show that when Augustine finally cast this cult aside in favour of true Christianity, he did indeed take some of its 'baggage' with him. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

In the foregoing history can be perceived a "devil's brew" calculated to draw Christians away from pure biblical doctrine. Calvinism is traced to Augustinianism and the Church of Rome, which in turn reveals Satan as the mastermind (Rev. 13:2-3.) Christian Nationalism is an essential part of his master plan to conquer the world.

Interestingly, Rome under Pope Francis has corroborated the linkage between Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism, and it is important to note that it is in the context of two seemingly conflicting versions of Ecumenism. The following essay was published in the influential Jesuit monthly La Civilta Cattolica, by two authors reportedly close to Pope Francis, and portrays him as being in apparent conflict with the alliance between the American Roman Catholic hierarchy and right-wing Evangelicals (the Religious Right):

In God We Trust. This phrase is printed on the banknotes of the United States of America and is the current national motto. It appeared for the first time on a coin in 1864 but did not become official until Congress passed a motion in 1956. A motto is important for a nation whose foundation was rooted in religious motivations. For many it is a simple declaration of faith. For others, it is the synthesis of a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy.

Religion has had a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions over recent decades, especially in some US governments. It offers a moral role for identifying what is good and what is bad.

At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil. In fact, after President George W. Bush spoke in his day about challenging the “axis of evil” and stated it was the USA’s duty to “free the world from evil” following the events of September 11, 2001. Today President Trump steers the fight against a wider, generic collective entity of the “bad” or even the “very bad.” Sometimes the tones used by his supporters in some campaigns take on meanings that we could define as “epic.”

These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist principles dating from the beginning of the 20th Century that have been gradually radicalized. These have moved on from a rejection of all that is mundane – as politics was considered – to bringing a strong and determined religious-moral influence to bear on democratic processes and their results.

The term “evangelical fundamentalist” can today be assimilated to the “evangelical right” or “theoconservatism” and has its origins in the years 1910-1915. In that period a South Californian millionaire, Lyman Stewart, published the 12-volume work The Fundamentals. The author wanted to respond to the threat of modernist ideas of the time. He summarized the thought of authors whose doctrinal support he appreciated. He exemplified the moral, social, collective and individual aspects of the evangelical faith. His admirers include many politicians and even two recent presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

The social-religious groups inspired by authors such as Stewart consider the United States to be a nation blessed by God. And they do not hesitate to base the economic growth of the country on a literal adherence to the Bible. Over more recent years this current of thought has been fed by the stigmatization of enemies who are often “demonized.”

The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims. To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the “promised land,” rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels.

Within this narrative, whatever pushes toward conflict is not off limits. It does not take into account the bond between capital and profits and arms sales. Quite the opposite, often war itself is assimilated to the heroic conquests of the “Lord of Hosts” of Gideon and David. In this Manichaean vision, belligerence can acquire a theological justification and there are pastors who seek a biblical foundation for it, using the scriptural texts out of context. . .

Theirs is a prophetic formula: fight the threats to American Christian values and prepare for the imminent justice of an Armageddon, a final showdown between Good and Evil, between God and Satan. In this sense, every process (be it of peace, dialogue, etc.) collapses before the needs of the end, the final battle against the enemy. And the community of believers (faith) becomes a community of combatants (fight). Such a unidirectional reading of the biblical texts can anesthetize consciences or actively support the most atrocious and dramatic portrayals of a world that is living beyond the frontiers of its own “promised land.”

Pastor Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) is the father of so-called “Christian reconstructionism” (or “dominionist theology”) that had a great influence on the theopolitical vision of Christian fundamentalism. This is the doctrine that feeds political organizations and networks such as the Council for National Policy and the thoughts of their exponents such as Steve Bannon, currently chief strategist at the White House and supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics. . .

Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart. We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible. So, it is not just accidental that George W. Bush was seen as a “great crusader” by Osama bin Laden. . .

A third element, together with Manichaeism and the prosperity gospel, is a particular form of proclamation of the defense of “religious liberty.” The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism. But we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a “religion in total freedom,” perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.

Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.

Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.

However, the most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations. The word “ecumenism” transforms into a paradox, into an “ecumenism of hate.” Intolerance is a celestial mark of purism. Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key.

Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”

The religious element should never be confused with the political one. Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other. An evident aspect of Pope Francis’ geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends. Francis empties from within the narrative of sectarian millenarianism and dominionism that is preparing the apocalypse and the “final clash.”[2] Underlining mercy as a fundamental attribute of God expresses this radically Christian need.

Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church. Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes. Yet it is this very dynamic with a spurious theological flavor that tries to impose its own law and logic in the political sphere.

There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself. This abuse is called “authentic Christianity.” And to show its own preferences, it has created a close analogy between Donald Trump and Emperor Constantine, and between Hillary Clinton and Diocletian. The American elections in this perspective were seen as a “spiritual war.”[3]

This warlike and militant approach seems most attractive and evocative to a certain public, especially given that the victory of Constantine – it was presumed impossible for him to beat Maxentius and the Roman establishment – had to be attributed to a divine intervention: in hoc signo vinces. . .

Church Militant asks if Trump’s victory can be attributed to the prayers of Americans. The response suggested is affirmative. The indirect missioning for President Trump is clear: he has to follow through on the consequences. This is a very direct message that then wants to condition the presidency by framing it as a divine election. In hoc signo vinces. Indeed.

Today, more than ever, power needs to be removed from its faded confessional dress, from its armor, its rusty breastplate. The fundamentalist theopolitical plan is to set up a kingdom of the divinity here and now. And that divinity is obviously the projection of the power that has been built. This vision generates the ideology of conquest.

The theopolitical plan that is truly Christian would be eschatological, that is it applies to the future and orients current history toward the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of justice and peace. This vision generates a process of integration that unfolds with a diplomacy that crowns no one as a “man of Providence.”

And this is why the diplomacy of the Holy See wants to establish direct and fluid relations with the superpowers, without entering into pre-constituted networks of alliances and influence. In this sphere, the pope does not want to say who is right or who is wrong for he knows that at the root of conflicts there is always a fight for power. So, there is no need to imagine a taking of sides for moral reasons, much worse for spiritual ones.

Francis radically rejects the idea of activating a Kingdom of God on earth as was at the basis of the Holy Roman Empire and similar political and institutional forms, including at the level of a “party.” Understood this way, the “elected people” would enter a complicated political and religious web that would make them forget they are at the service of the world, placing them in opposition to those who are different, those who do not belong, that is the “enemy.” . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Many passages in the foregoing essay could have been written by a genuine opponent of papal supremacy; and that makes it dangerous. Protestantism as a whole is swallowing propaganda as genuine.

The following article which criticizes the essay is an excellent example of dangerous Roman Catholic sophistry, which has achieved its intent to mislead. It is short enough to be quoted in full. (The curriculum vitae of the author at its end is included to prove the point.):

In the July issue of the influential Jesuit monthly La Civilta Cattolica, editors Antonio Spadaro, S.J., and Marcelo Figueroa wrote a long editorial titled “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism.” (See the July 13 story, “Journal: Strip religious garb, fundamentalist tones from U.S. political power.”)

This essay has prompted much recent discussion among Catholics. Prominent among them has been Archbishop Charles Chaput’s response July 13 on CatholicPhilly.com, “A word about useful tools.”

Catholic News Service asked Jesuit Father Drew Christiansen and journalist Russell Shaw to comment on the essay from their experience as longtime observers of U.S. religion and politics.

An overreaction to a questionable problem — that was my thought on reading a piece about American politics and the religious right by two men said to be close to Pope Francis.

The article’s authors are Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, editor of the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, and the Rev. Marcelo Figueroa, a Presbyterian pastor who is the pope’s hand-picked choice to edit a new, Argentine edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

Published July 13, their free-swinging analysis — an ecclesiastical variation on anti-Trump themes common to many European media — takes on weight for appearing in La Civilta Cattolica, which is reviewed before publication by the Vatican Secretariat of State, and for being cited in the pages of L’Osservatore. The simultaneous online publication of an English translation suggests a desire on somebody’s part to get maximum attention for it.

And if this is how they see America in Rome these days, we’re all in trouble.

The authors say some interesting things about the nonpartisan approach to politics favored by Pope Francis, but when they get to the United States, they paint a nightmarish picture of the political project of something they call the “Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist” movement.

Its elements are said to include an apocalyptic vision of history pointing to the approach of the end times, a Manichean view of world events positing a clash between “absolute good and absolute evil,” and a theocratic hankering for the bad old days of religious domination of the state.

Although this program is the property primarily of some far-right Protestants, the authors believe some Catholics share its goals. That is clear from their article’s title: “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism.”

“Integralism” is the name given an ultraconservative movement in late 19th- and early 20th-century French Catholicism and today used by critics as a generic term of disparagement for Catholics of the far right. The “surprising” ecumenism of the Spadaro-Figueroa piece is said to be an “ecumenism of hate” grounded in “xenophobic and Islamophobic” attitudes.

One problem is that the view of American evangelicals adopted here conflates evangelicals with fundamentalists. Leaving it to our Protestant brethren to mark out the lines of demarcation, it can at least be said that, both theologically and politically, evangelicals and fundamentalists are not the same thing, and it misrepresents them to suggest otherwise.

Similarly, American Catholics who might fairly be described as integralists are few in number. Catholics in the United States number some 70 million, and in a body that size it’s natural to find every shade of opinion, from ultraconservative to ultraliberal, on everything under the sun. But the genuine integralists among the 70 million American Catholics are a small group.

It follows that Spadaro-Figueroa’s “ecumenism of hate,” even if it exists someplace, is hardly the huge problem the authors seem to imagine and is unrelated to the growing convergence of views among Catholics and evangelicals on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

In a statement that didn’t name the Spadaro-Figueroa piece but, coming a day later, was apparently a response, Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, an anti-defamation group, traced the start of this interfaith convergence to the 1980s and the founding of the Moral Majority by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Catholic conservative activist Paul Weyrich.

Over the years, Donohue said, it has included such prominent figures as Father Richard John Neuhaus, a Lutheran convert who was founding editor of the Catholic journal, First Things, and Charles Colson, a Watergate conspirator who underwent a religious conversion and became a prominent evangelical.

“There is much to be done. … We will not be intimidated by anyone,” said Donohue, himself active in this area.

But perhaps the most serious problem with the Spadaro-Figueroa analysis is that, by seeming to equate American Catholic political activity with participation in the political project of some ultraconservative Protestants, it hands a weapon to critics of mainstream Catholic groups.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is a case in point. Now, as for many years, the bishops have an advocacy agenda on issues that extend from abortion and same-sex marriage to immigration reform and health care. But you would never know that from an Associated Press piece — out of New York rather than Rome — suggesting, for no visible reason, that this salvo from Rome was “aimed in part at America’s Catholic bishops” and their support of religious exemptions from gay marriage laws and mandatory abortion coverage under health care.

Next, perhaps, Father Spadaro and Rev. Figueroa will enlighten us American Catholics on what moves American media to say things like that. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Russell Shaw is the author of more than 20 books, including most recently “Catholics in America: Religious Identity and Cultural Assimilation from John Carroll to Flannery O’Connor.” The former communications director for the U.S. Catholic bishops (1967-1987) and the Knights of Columbus (1987-1997), he is a prolific Catholic commentator who has published in a wide variety of periodicals, from Our Sunday Visitor to the Wall Street Journal.

Note Shaw's roles with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Knights of Columbus. The significance will become apparent later. It is within the realm of probability that Shaw is a Jesuit with the same aims as Pope Francis, notwithstanding the appearance of conflict.

The essay was published in a Jesuit journal by a Jesuit co-author to advance the policies of a Jesuit Pope. The title spotlights the ecumenical alliance between "Evangelical Fundamentalism" and Catholic Integralism; and seeks to separate Francis' ecumenism from the "spiritual war" of the latter. This bucks the long history of the Church of Rome, especially since the papacy of Leo XIII, as recounted earlier in this paper, and is beyond belief. Leo XIII effectively declared war on American democracy, and on "Americanism, "and Pope Pius XI launched the final offensive.

It would be a mistake to conclude after reading Shaw's rebuttal that there is fundamental disagreement in ultimate objectives here.

There is no escaping the fact that Pope Francis' mind is that of a Jesuit. The following is from a Roman Catholic publication:

It isn’t easy to write an intellectual biography of a man who frequently asserts that “realities are more important than ideas.” There is no doubt that Pope Francis is a highly intelligent and supple thinker, but unlike his two immediate predecessors, he did not earn a doctorate in either theology or philosophy. As anyone who has read his encyclicals and apostolic exhortations will know, this pope prefers rhetoric, the art of persuasion, to dialectic, the science of conclusive proof. That said, it would be a mistake to draw the contrast too strongly. As Massimo Borghesi shows in his comprehensive survey of the sources that have shaped the pope’s thinking, Francis has read broadly over the course of five decades. This reading informs the way he looks at the world and how he exercises the Petrine Office. . .

One reason this pope welcomes dissent and debate is his understanding of the need to respect and preserve an open-ended negotiation of the different values at stake in these polarities. It is always necessary for those representing different sides to keep talking to and with one another, as long as they realize that their unity is always greater than whatever may divide them at the moment. . .

The church for Francis is itself a rich symphony of differences and polarities, a reality that is always greater than any set of ideas. . .

Still, Borghesi does succeed in providing a compelling survey of the pope’s various intellectual sources, and in suggesting how they contributed to his fundamental understanding of the world and the church. The church for Francis is itself a rich symphony of differences and polarities, a reality that is always greater than any set of ideas. In highlighting this, Borghesi helps us grasp the intellectual roots of Pope Francis’s belief that differences and disagreements within the church must often be allowed to run their course—because no one, not even the pope, is in a position to say in advance what they may teach us. No doctrinal or theological vision, no matter how conceptually sophisticated, is equipped to resolve all the disagreements preemptively. Finally, Borghesi helps us to see that Pope Francis’s originality comes not only from the depth of his intellectual formation, but also from his practice of looking for the resolution of conflicts not only through careful listening and thoughtful reflection, but also through prayerful discernment. It is exactly the kind of originality one might expect from the first Jesuit pope. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Thus a Roman Catholic publication underscores the Jesuit identity of Pope Francis.

Revelation 13:2 (last part) reads "and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." Revelation 12:9 (first part) identifies the dragon as follows "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world." The Word of Jesus Christ exposes his character unequivocally: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." On this platform of Truth the Bible has warned us of the lies and deceptions being practiced by Rome. Those who ignore the warnings are without excuse, and God has reacted, as has been further revealed in the Bible, and will be applied later in this study.

Any Church leader or member believing God's revelation that the spiritual power behind the papacy is Satan, must of necessity also recognize that the Church of Rome is a lying and deceptive institution, and history verifies this reality. The Christianity of the papacy has been and continues to be flooded with false doctrines which contradict the plain Truths of the Bible; and most offensive to God and His people are the great words that have been declared as dogma by Rome, not one of which has been repudiated in the current great ecumenical movement. The first was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. The second was the Infallibility of the Pope in 1870. The third and most recent was the Assumption of Mary in 1950. Two of them have legitimately been called "Mariolatry," which is the idolatrous worship of Mary. Incidentally, the Roman Catholics recognize four Marian dogmas: Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and Assumption. All of the dogmas listed above, the great and the Marian, are highly blasphemous, and brazenly insulting to the God of Heaven. It can be stated categorically that no Bible -believing Christian could regard the papacy as anything more than a counterfeit "church," riddled with the lies and deceptions of Satan, great and small. Furthermore, Ellen G. White has warned that:

I have been shown that Satan has not been stupid and careless these many years, since his fall, but has been learning. He has grown more artful. His plans are laid deeper, and are more covered with a religious garment to hide their deformity. The power of Satan now to tempt and deceive is ten-fold greater than it was in the days of the apostles. His power has increased, and it will increase, until it is taken away. (2 SG, p. 277; underscored emphasis supplied.)

The Bible has warned us explicitly that the papacy is empowered by the arch-enemy of God. The Protestant Church leaders are without excuse for ignoring the Word of God.

The great apostasy of 2 Thess. 2:3-4 is now manifest at a time when a prophecy of Jesus Christ Himself signaling the imminence of the end of this world's history has been fulfilled:

What if the early Christians who dwelt in Jerusalem at the time of its siege in AD 66 had reasoned that it was the "temple mount" that was to be surrounded, not just the city encompassed. Would they have left the city when the Roman armies withdrew? No, they believed Jesus meant what He said, and at the first opportunity fled the city. Though no longer the city of God, and the people of Israel no longer the people of God, Jerusalem served as a sign in the fulfillment of prophecy. It is still a sign and will continue to be so until "Michael shall stand up." (See Dan. 11:45; 12:1) In the same Biblical paragraph in which Jesus gave the sign by which the Christians of Jerusalem would know to flee the city, He also stated that "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Ver. 24).

In this verse (24) and the one following (25), the word, ta eqnh is used four times. Twice it is translated "nations" and twice "Gentiles." This word with the article is used for the Hebrew word, hagoyim, the pagan nations apart from Israel. (See Thayer, p. 168, #4 under eqnoV) Consistency of translation would dictate that in each instance of its use in Luke 21:24, 25, it should be translated, "the nations." In other words, the second designation of Jerusalem as a sign, would involve the probation of the nations as corporate bodies.

This sign is unique and was given by Jesus to answer a specific part of the question asked by the disciples. The disciples were concerned about the destruction of the temple, and had asked, "When shall these things be?" (Matt. 24:3). But they, thinking that such an event would involve the end of the world, asked further - "What shall be the sign (singular) of thy coming and of the end of the world?" They asked not what would be the signs of the time of the end, but the sign of the end of time. Thus the answer of Jesus, in which Jerusalem is given as a sign marking both the hour for the destruction of Jerusalem, "the days of vengeance" (Luke 21:22), and "the (probationary) (kairoV not cronoV is used) times of the nations" (ver. 24), is of major importance. In its first use, the sign would be the surrounding of the city by alien armies, and its second use as a sign would be the city's restoration once again to the control of the nation of Israel. The first was fulfilled in AD 66, and the second in 1967 and finalized in 1980.

The foregoing was central to the alliance of Catholics and apostate Protestants of the Calvinist persuasion, which became known as the Religious Right. This alliance is now recognized as promoting Christian Nationalism, justifiably striking fear in both the secular and religious leadership of America.

In 1975 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published their "Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities." There is irrefutable evidence that John Paul II was in control of, and probably initiated, this very movement which has culminated in exposure of the Christian Nationalists.

In the section of Chapter 17 titled "WHY IS THIS A PREDICAMENT?" Dr. Mumford states, "In this battle, the Vatican has no qualms about destroying American institutions, including democracy itself. The liberties we hold dear have been rightly recognized as gravely threatening to the Papacy at least since the 1830s. One needs only to read the teachings of the popes themselves to prove this point." This has been completely borne out by history.

It is obvious that this study paper cannot do more than seek to stimulate an interest in reading the entire history. It is surprising and shocking. "Chapter 9 - Implications of the Pastoral Plan" is a treasure-trove of critically important information which provides an understanding of why a tangled web of secret conspiratorial organizations have sprung into action since the publication of the USCCB's Pastoral Plan. Dr. Mumford's introduction states:

"In Chapter 6, I wrote that the Vatican recognized that if the new threat to papal security-survival posed by the population movement in the U.S. were to be neutralized, American political will would have to be undermined. The purpose of the Pastoral Plan was to accomplish this goal.

Jesuit priest Virgil Blum, founder and first President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, proposed this strategy in a 1971 America magazine article titled, "Public Policy Making: Why the Churches Strike Out."54 "If a group is to be politically effective, issues rather than institutions must be at stake," Blum acknowledged. Abortion was simply the issue chosen to galvanize the movement created to achieve this effectiveness.

Blum's article set the stage for the creation of the Pastoral Plan, offering the bishops a set of well thought out guidelines which capitalized on centuries of experience of Jesuit manipulation of governments. Blum's own words make clear the true motivations of the bishops and their plan. An analysis of Blum's article was published earlier.55 Additional comments from it appear later in this Chapter and in the next. Analysis of the Pastoral Plan makes the intentions of the bishops evident. . .

The first section, "Plan of Action for Constitutional Amendment," describes a mustering of literally millions of people into a political machine completely controlled by the bishops for the purpose of protecting papal security interests -- at the expense of U.S. security interests. This mobilization includes virtually all Catholic institutions and agencies in the United States. From their list in the draft, I will discuss only a few." (Underscored emphasis added.)

The headings of the list: "1. Catholic Press Association", "2. Catholic Physicians Guilds", "3. Catholic Lawyers Associations", "4. Catholic Hospital Association", "5. Lay organizations". The following is quoted from "No. 5 Lay organizations":

"The lay organizations the reader sees listed by the bishops in their plan collectively have a membership nearly 10 million strong. Members have been asked through their organizations to take whatever steps they can against prochoice individuals and institutions and to promote the advancement of anti-abortionists into positions of power, in their careers, and socially and politically as well. . .

The Pastoral Plan specifically states that the bishops will assist each Catholic organization and agency in marshalling political power, and power to manipulate professional groups, in order to advance the objectives of the Vatican." (Underscored emphasis added.)

"The importance of ecumenism to the bishops' Pastoral Plan is made evident by the position it occupies in the description of the plan, second only to the section on the mobilization of the troops.

In another of his guidelines, Blum concluded that if the Catholic leadership is to succeed, it must make their efforts look non-Catholic.57 Blum also concluded that to accomplish this goal, the bishops must create a strong ecumenical movement.

Before the Vatican's need of ecumenism came along, the small fledgling ecumenical movement of the 1960s was going nowhere. Blum's article was published in 1971. Then, suddenly, ecumenical activity exploded. Most of the Catholic activity in the Christian ecumenical movement has taken place since that time. A leading motivation for the involvement of Catholic leadership in ecumenism has been the Catholic Church's need for wide-scale public participation by Protestant churches in the anti-abortion movement. Blum recognized early on that "ecumenism" would be an essential weapon to counter the criticism certain to come with the blatant involvement of the bishops in making public policy. He saw that constant defense of the Catholic bishops by Protestant leaders, in the name of "ecumenism," was critical. In hindsight, he was obviously correct. Protestant leaders have served as tools of the Catholic bishops to blunt criticism, by branding such criticism as anti-Catholic or anti-freedom of religion and thus un-American. Protestants with good intentions were used like pawns to advance papal security interests at the expense of our country's."(Underscored emphasis added.)

Another section of Chapter 9 titled "THE PLAN CREATED THE `NEW RIGHT" states the following:

"The Pastoral Plan specifically directed the creation of "grass-roots" organizations for the purposes of advancing the papal agenda. During the period 1976-1980, nearly all of the organizations that became known as the "New Right Movement" or the "Religious New Right" were organized. Examples are: The Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the Free Congress Foundation, the Eagle Forum, American Life Lobby, Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, Life Amendment Political Action Committee, the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, the National Conservative Political Action Committee, National Right to Life Committee, Religious Roundtable, Right to Life Party, and the Right to Life Political Action Committee. There are many others. Catholics were key players in the creation of all of these organizations and in their leadership. This assessment of the creation of this movement and its control by the bishops is well documented.68-[70]

The creation of these "grassroots" organizations by the bishops had far reaching consequences for the governing of America. Many of these consequences are widely known. Others are not." (Underscored emphasis added.)

The papacy of John Paul II extended throughout the planning and implementation of the Pastoral Plan until his death in 2005. Given that the Vatican closely follows what is going on in the world, and particularly America, it would be aware of all that transpired after the Pastoral Plan was created in 1975, bringing into the spotlight the Roman Catholic activists who advanced the cause of Christian Nationalism. From RELIGIO-POLITICAL ROME: IMPERIAL AUTOCRACY, INHERENT IMPOSTOR, SUBVERSIVE OF TRUE CHRISTIANITY AND DEMOCRACY:

The most popular origin story of Christian nationalism today, shared by many critics and supporters alike, explains that the movement was born one day in 1973, when the Supreme Court unilaterally shredded Christian morality and made abortion “on demand” a constitutional right. At that instant, the story goes, the flock of believers arose in protest and threw their support to the party of “Life” now known as the Republican Party. The implication is that the movement, in its current form, finds its principal motivation in the desire to protect fetuses against the women who would refuse to carry them to term.

This story is worse than myth. It is false as history and incorrect as analysis. Christian nationalism drew its inspiration from a set of concerns that long predated the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and had little to do with abortion. The movement settled on abortion as its litmus test sometime after that decision for reasons that had more to do with politics than embryos. It then set about changing the religion of many people in the country in order to serve its new political ambitions. From the beginning, the “abortion issue” has never been just about abortion. It has also been about dividing and uniting to mobilize votes for the sake of amassing political power. . .

In the late 1970s a curious combination of religious and political activists assembled to ponder the strategy of a new political movement, sometimes by letter or phone, and sometimes in conference rooms or at a hotel in Lynchburg, Virginia. Some of the more vocal members of the group included Southern Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell; conservative activists Ed McAteer and Paul Weyrich; Nixon appointee Howard Phillips; attorney Alan P. Dye; and Robert J. Billings, an educator and organizer who would later serve as Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Christian right.

This was an angry group of men. “We are radicals who want to change the existing power structure. We are not conservatives in the sense that conservative means accepting the status quo,” Paul Weyrich said. “We want change—we are the forces of change.” They were angry at liberals, who threatened to undermine national security with their unforgivable softness on communism; they were angry at the establishment conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans, for siding with the liberals and taking down their hero, Barry Goldwater; they were angry about the rising tide of feminism, which they saw as a menace to the social order; and about the civil rights movement and the danger it posed to segregation, especially in education. One thing that they were not particularly angry about, at least at the start of their discussions, was the matter of abortion rights.

Weyrich was “the man perhaps with the broadest vision,” according to his fellow conservative activist Richard Viguerie. “I can think of no one who better symbolizes or is more important to the conservative movement.” In matters of religion, Weyrich was personally conservative: he abandoned the Roman Catholic Church, which he believed had become too liberal, for the Melkite Greek Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. . .

Weyrich began to identify himself in the late 1970s with a movement whose name Richard Viguerie put on the title of his 1980 manifesto: The New Right: We’re Ready to Lead. Weyrich came to be known as the “evil genius” of the movement—or sometimes “the Lenin of social conservatism”—and Viguerie, who is considered the pioneer of political direct mail, came to be known as its “funding father.”

From the beginning, the New Right sought radical change. They would establish themselves “first as the opposition, then the alternative, finally the government,” according to Conservative Caucus chair Howard Phillips. “We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them and eventually destroy them,” said Weyrich protégé Eric Heubeck, writing for the Free Congress Foundation. “We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment’s rest . . . We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime.” . . .

Weyrich eventually founded or played a critical role in a number of prominent groups on the right. They included the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Free Congress Foundation. Arguably the most consequential of the groups Weyrich played a role in founding was the Council for National Policy, a networking organization for social conservative activists that the New York Times once referred to as a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country.” (Underscored emphasis added.)

There is no record of John Paul II ever commenting on or expressing disapproval of any of these developments which were in direct conflict with the "ecumenism of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges" now espoused by Pope Francis.

The Religious Right Christian Nationalists have fused Roman Catholic Integralism and Protestant Dominionism into one satanic ecumenical drive to make America a theocracy with all democratic and religious freedoms destroyed. One can acknowledge that Pope Francis was accurate in labelling this ecumenical movement as the "ecumenism of hate," and this in itself is one of the mysteries of his papacy. The history of the Pastoral Plan squarely places John Paul II on the side of the "ecumenism of hate:" but he also has been praised enormously for his work in promoting the contrasting and apparently conflicting "ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges" which has captivated and ensnared the Protestant world, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The two ecumenisms are clearly diametrically opposed to each other, thus exposing the double-mindedness and duplicity of John Paul II. This is not to say that he was not genuinely committed to non-confrontational ecumenism. Rather, it is to recognize that both manifestations of ecumenism serve the same purpose of world domination for the papacy:

When our venerable Dean, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to me requesting that I review ecumenism and interreligious dialogue during the Pontificate of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, I knew he was doing me a great honour. Nor did I doubt that every honour is a heavy burden as the Latin proverb aptly says: honor onus. Consequently, as I present my most cordial congratulations to our Holy Father on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee of his glorious, exceptional Pontificate, and thank God for giving his Church such a worthy common Father to the faithful, I hope that this venerable areopagus will not fail to show me its indulgence.

In my overview, I will, of course, take as guide His Holiness' Encyclicals, Homilies, Declarations and the Addresses he has given at meetings with representatives of different religions during his Pastoral Visits throughout the world, which now number more than 100. . .

Christian unity was Christ's dearest desire. He expressed it in his last testament as he walked toward his tragic destiny: the Cross. He prayed in his priestly prayer "that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me".1

So, Christian unity is a condition if the world is to believe. The Lord himself said so. That is why the divisions of Christians are a serious scandal, a stumbling block for non-Christians. The Second Vatican Council highlighted this at the very beginning of the Decree on Ecumenism when it said: "Certainly, such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world and damages that most holy cause, the preaching of the Gospel to every creature".2 John Paul II already felt this deeply as Father of the faithful at the time when he acceded to the throne of Peter. And it is this that has impelled him to work tirelessly for this unity, so deeply desired by Christ. "To believe in Christ", he says, "means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. This is the meaning of Christ's prayer: Ut Unum Sint".3

Far more, the ecumenical movement must be part of this context of the Church's mission, which consists in bringing the Gospel to the world. Unity and mission are inseparable. Were not the Lord's last words before he left this earth to join his Father: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"? After all, we have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all".4 The inability to share the same Eucharist is a gaping wound that causes immense suffering.

According to John Paul II, "The entire life of Christians is marked by a concern for ecumenism; and they are called to let themselves be shaped, as it were, by that concern".5 And he adds: "Thus, it is absolutely clear that ecumenism, the movement promoting Christian unity, is not just some sort of 'appendix' which is added to the Church's traditional activity. Rather, ecumenism is an organic part of her life and work, and consequently must pervade all that she is and does; it must be like the fruit borne by a healthy and flourishing tree which grows to its full stature".6 (Underscored emphasis added.)

It is worthy of note that the future Pope Benedict XVI was clearly supportive of John Paul II's work in the non-confrontational version of ecumenism. The following describes the world dimension of John Paul IIs campaign:

The religious face of this planet is changing. At a dramatic pace, more and more regions of the world are becoming environments of multiculture and multifaith. At the root of this phenomenon are international patterns of immigration. Over the past one hundred years, the profound and worldwide movement of peoples and cultures has provoked a meeting of religions that is new to history.

This historic encounter of religions is accompanied by another remarkable phenomenon—the interfaith dialogue movement. The great faiths of the world are now talking to one another in a fashion that is new, exciting and challenging. And Christianity has joined the conversation.

In the last four decades, Catholics and Protestants worldwide have been seriously rethinking their attitudes toward other religions. And the Second Vatican Council is now seen as a watershed event in this new openness toward Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Indigenous Peoples and others. Indeed, the Church has come to recognize and respect the presence of grace, truth, and holiness in other religions.

Pope John XXIII was a natural-born ecumenist. For example, while serving as a Vatican diplomat in Greece and Turkey during the Second World War, Pope John did all he could to stop the deportation of Jews. So great an impression did he make upon the Jewish community of Rome that the Chief Rabbi and a number of his congregants went to St. Peter’s Square to pray for the dying pontiff during his final days.

John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council out of a conviction that the Church was in need of a renewal. The theological breakthroughs of this “Ecumenical Council” led to ground-breaking documents on interfaith dialogue, religious freedom and religious pluralism.

Pope John’s successor, Paul VI, dreamed of a Church in conversation with all the religions and cultures of the world. Pope Paul became the chief architect of the Secretariat for Non-Christians, a Vatican department for promoting relations with other faiths. In 1964, he published Ecclesiam Suam, the first encyclical in history to promote interreligious dialogue.

But nothing could have prepared us for the “man from a far country.” Indeed, who could have predicted that this new Pope from Poland would eventually emerge as one of the most influential interfaith figures of the twentieth century?

John Paul II readily embraced Paul VI’s commitment to dialogue and quickly expanded the Church’s interreligious outreach. To the interfaith task, the new Pope brought a practical, hands-on approach and a tireless capacity for travel. He made more than 100 trips abroad, visiting 129 countries. In most of his trips, this most global of Popes met with leaders of numerous faiths. In fact, he often requested such meetings, particularly in countries where Christians were in a minority.

Interreligious encounters became a staple of this Pope’s daily ministry in Rome. A prolific writer, he was responsible for an impressive number of documents, statements and speeches on the topic of interfaith. During John Paul’s pontificate, Sister Donna Geernaert S.C. was Director of Ecumenism for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops here is how she described John Paul’s conviction about interreligious dialogue:

“The Pope is convinced that all religions need to collaborate in the cause of humanity and that they need to do this from a spiritual perspective. Religious belief which teaches the value and dignity of all life urges men and women of good will to commit their energies to eliminate hunger, poverty, ignorance, persecution, discrimination and every form of enslavement of the human spirit. Without a spiritual framework, the Pope maintains, the world will not be able to adequately face the many problems of justice, peace and human development that call for urgent solutions.” . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Not to be outdone, the protestant World Council of Churches joins in the paeans of praise:

Pope John Paul II has been among the most outstanding personalities during these last decades, with an impact far beyond the Roman Catholic Church and the Christian community world-wide. During his pontificate, the Roman Catholic Church affirmed its universal vocation and strengthened its internal coherence. His commitment to social justice and reconciliation, to human rights and the dignity of the human person, as well as to Christian unity and inter-religious understanding, will be gratefully remembered.

We recall with warm feelings the visit John Paul II paid to the WCC headquarters, early in his pontificate in 1984, where we shared a worship service at the chapel of the Ecumenical Centre and prayed together for full communion among Christians. He was not only following the steps of his predecessor Paul VI, who had visited the WCC in 1969, but also expressing his own commitment to the one ecumenical movement. . .

Having consciously adopted the name John Paul on his election to office, Karol Wojtyla was not simply seeking to honour his immediate predecessor, but to continue and complete the reforming work of Pope John XXIII and Paul VI. In his work, therefore, he also sought to promote relations with other Christian churches and engage in the search for Christian unity with them.

An immediate concern was rapprochement with the Orthodox churches, and he constantly sought to strengthen and develop the bonds between the "successors" of the brothers Andrew and Peter. In his visits throughout the world, Pope John Paul II took every opportunity to meet with leaders of other churches and to encourage his Roman Catholic colleagues to engage fully in local ecumenical initiatives and councils.

Of particular interest is his attempt to offer a vision of unity; his encyclical Ut Unum Sint draws on the insights and experiences of Roman Catholic involvement in the ecumenical movement, and offers substantial reflections on the nature of dialogue and unity. Indeed, this encyclical is unusual in citing reports from the wider ecumenical movement - notably that of the WCC Faith and Order Commission.

To further the moves towards unity, John Paul II in the Encyclical invited other churches to reflect with him on the role and structure of the Petrine ministry as a servant of Christian unity; he also invited his church to apologize for the sins committed during its history which contributed towards division. This was most evident during the Millennium Celebrations in Rome on 13 March, 2000, when he sought forgiveness from other churches for sins committed against them by representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Thus we see John Paul II on both sides of the confrontational versus non-confrontational divide. This is a perfect demonstration of the philosophical concept known as the Hegelian Dialectic, which is defined as follows:

an interpretive method, originally used to relate specific entities or events to the absolute idea, in which some assertible proposition (thesis ) is necessarily opposed by an equally assertible and apparently contradictory proposition (antithesis ), the mutual contradiction being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis)

The format of the following article is somewhat unconventional; but the content is consistent with the warning sought to be sounded by this present study - a warning that was sounded by Christian Edwardson and quoted earlier in this paper:

There are numerous world-views that are promoted today promoted as 'new thinking,' but ultimate goal is about veering away from self-evident truths. Many have been deceived through a dialectic process where those in power come together and dialogue until they reach a consensus on a matter. This is often played out mostly within religion and politics. By merging the dialectic process with the praxis, or the outworking of a specific agenda is called the 'diaprax.' It is about leading people into a predetermined movements without realizing it. This process is not new and it is an outworking of what is happening right in front of our eyes today. Unfortunately, many are blind to what is truly unfolding before them because they are feeding off of the mainstream propaganda machine. We are in a place where many good intentions of supposedly making our world a better place are based on false premises. When our society functions on a foundation of twisting truth, it starts to crumble.

The Hegelian Dialectic is a method of argument to accept change and create the conditions to conform to a certain agenda. The intent is to create a crisis and anticipate the reaction. When the crisis reaches its climax, the manipulators will deceive the masses into believing that they are the solution to the problem. This is done by creating dialogue to resolve created conflict between opposing parties. The deception is that those who have created the 'problem' also provide the solution(s). This requires compromise in order to get closer to the ultimate goal.

PROBLEM	REACTION	SOLUTION
A problem is created.	The public reacts.	Those who create the problem create a solution.
Someone or something needs to be blamed.	The public demands a solution.	The public accepts the solution from those who created the problem and mandates are implemented towards achievement of ultimate goal.

When this process is allowed to repeat over and over, it creates the conditioning to accept a predetermined outcome. The masses will even be convinced that it was their own idea to reach the objective. . .

When the anti-propaganda law was repealed in 2013 in the USA, the mainstream media was no longer accountable for what they broadcast domestically to its audiences. Changes were made to the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) with an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. Hopefully, it should be obvious that the mainstream media does not have to tell the truth and politicians use them to create state propaganda with the use of the Hegelian Dialectic to achieve their goals.

A press that is free to investigate and criticize the government is absolutely essential in a nation that practices self-government and is therefore dependent on an educated and enlightened citizenry. On the other hand, newspapers too often take advantage of their freedom and publish lies and scurrilous gossip that could only deceive and mislead the people.

If you have been around for a while, the evolution of television and movies has brought a growing acceptance of allowing the explicit. Today, the ratings of mainstream entertainment has moved from an adult rating to a the acceptance for an adolescent audience. Our society has compromised their morals and values like a frog in a pot water that has been slowly heating up to its boiling point. We all should know what happens to the frog. . .

Through the thesis and an antithesis, people are brought to a middle ground of compromise by synthesizing two opposite or polarizing forces. In this compromise, a consensus is made forming a new decision and then the outworking of it.

For [e]xample, the religion of 'Christianity' [Apostate] has been birthed in the Hegelian Dialectic. The depravity of this religious system negates the foundation of their standards for whatever brings in the most money. They disparage the pillars of their faith as old thinking and 'new' philosophies are synthesized as the new way to God. This [is] how the religious masses have become climatized to accept deception as 'truth.'

The institutional church system is sick with deception in the same way an immunodeficiency virus functions. First, it infiltrates. Then it co-opts with the host with its own code making it think that it is its own code. Once it full takes over, it becomes contagious to other hosts. This is the way it can keep on replicating itself.

The diaprax process has made Christianity utterly apostate to their own standards. History has progressed to the outworking of the supposed 'new' revelations of the many religious agents of deceit that most love to follow. . .

Unfortunately, the depravity of our society is the result of not wanting to hear the truth because they have become to[too] vested in their own deceit. They have become too emotionally and financially invested in their deceptions to the point of willfully choosing not to look at the facts. The power of emotion has undermined the intellectual cognition of many. The depravity of those within the religion paradigm cannot do simple math to the point where basic fundamental self-evident truths have gone right out the window.

It is important to wake up and watch out and be willing to listen to the other side of the story. If we don't, we will fall for the smoke and mirrors, tricks and deceptions.

Those that remain docile will fall for the 'Hegelian Dialectic' that is happening right now within the mainstream media, politics and religious systems.

Unfortunately, the following words of Henry Kissinger have manifested today.

It's not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.

Let us not fall prey to the those who desire to enslave us, but surround yourself with those who want to be free. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Nowhere does this article mention the Roman Catholic Church or the Religious Right and Christian Nationalism. However, it perfectly depicts Rome's modus operandi of deception and stealth in advancing towards her goal of world domination.

It is extremely unlikely that Pope Benedict disagreed with John-Paul II's supervision of the USCCB's Pastoral Plan, which created the Roman Catholic-right-wing Protestant alliance now exposed for its Christian Nationalism. In fact there is compelling evidence to the contrary:

A close collaborator of St. John Paul II and the theological expert behind many of his major teachings and gestures, Pope Benedict came to the papacy after 24 years heading the doctrinal congregation's work of safeguarding Catholic teaching on faith and morals, correcting the work of some Catholic theologians and ensuring the theological solidity of the documents issued by other Vatican offices. . .

On a historic visit to the United States in 2008, the pope brought his own identity into clearer focus for Americans. He set forth a moral challenge on issues ranging from economic justice to abortion.

Pope Francis must be fully acquainted with the policies of John Paul II and Benedict. It strains credulity to believe otherwise. Moreover his identity as a Jesuit cannot be overlooked. He exudes an aura of geniality and harmlessness; but the reality of his Jesuit identity belies the assumption that he is harmless. This is inherent in the history of this Roman Catholic order:

Jesuit: Member of Society of Jesus, R.C. Order founded by Ignatius Loyola and others (1534); dissembling person, equivocator. – Concise Oxford Dictionary

When two Jesuits meet, the devil is always there to make a threesome. – Old French Proverb

The Roman Catholic Jesuit Order, which also arrogantly calls itself the “Society of Jesus”, is little known, much less understood, today. And yet, not very long ago, this organization was so well known, that “Jesuitical” was a most derogatory term; the Order was outlawed from almost every Roman Catholic nation; and it was feared and loathed by the inhabitants of all enlightened nations.

Why was this the case? What vile doctrines did the members of this Order hold, and what evil deeds had they committed, to cause such universal reactions against them? And furthermore: the Jesuits are still here; they are still going strong; they have not altered their doctrines, nor repented of their wicked deeds – in fact, they continue to perpetrate them; they remain what they have ever been – the “secret army of the Papacy”, ruthlessly dedicated to the advancement of the Roman Catholic religion, the domination of the world, and the total destruction of Protestantism! They are the most dangerous Order of priests within the Roman Catholic religion, and indeed, the most dangerous organization of men the world has ever known.

Every Christian, as well as every Roman Catholic, needs to be well-informed about the Jesuits and their doings: the Christian, because the Jesuits are the sworn enemies of the Gospel of Christ, and of the Church of the living God (and thus of Christ himself, for to persecute his Church is to persecute the Lord – Acts 9:5); and the Roman Catholic, because it is his “Church” (so-called), the Roman Catholic “Church”, that harbours this diabolical Order, and that blesses its efforts as it goes about its abominable work; and this being so, Roman Catholicism cannot be the Church of Jesus Christ; for, as shall be seen, the doctrines and deeds of the Jesuit Order are absolutely opposed to the Gospel of Christ, and any “Church” that sanctions them cannot be the Church of Christ.

Secular historian Edmond Paris, writing in The Secret History of the Jesuits, made the following pertinent remarks: “There is another reason [for writing against the Jesuits].... At the same time as new generations of readers come, new generations of Jesuits come to light. And these work today with the same tortuous and tenacious methods, which so often in the past set to work the defensive reflexes of nations and governments. The sons of Loyola are today – and may we say more than ever – the leading wing of the Roman Church. As well if not better disguised than of old, they remain the most eminent “ultramontanes”, the discreet but efficacious agents of the Holy See throughout the world, the camouflaged champions of its politics, the ‘secret army of the Papacy’.

For this reason, the subject of the Jesuits will never be exhausted and, even though the literature concerning them is so plentiful [although, as Paris declares on the same page, “most early books retracing the history of the Jesuits cannot be found any more”], every epoch will have the duty to add a few pages to it, to mark the continuity of this occult system started four centuries ago ‘for the greater glory of God’, but in fact for the glory of the pope.” This short article is designed to “add a few pages” to the literature concerning the Jesuits, at a time when so little is known of them, and yet so much needs to be known. It is designed for widespread dissemination, and it is the prayer of the author that, if the Lord wills, it will have a wide circulation in these dreadful days of ecumenism and apostasy. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

Ellen G. White has also written about the hypocrisy and danger of Jesuitism:

Throughout Christendom, Protestantism was menaced by formidable foes. The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power. (See Appendix.) The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy.

When appearing as members of their order, they wore a garb of sanctity, visiting prisons and hospitals, ministering to the sick and the poor, professing to have renounced the world, and bearing the sacred name of Jesus, who went about doing good. But under this blameless exterior the most criminal and deadly purposes were often concealed. It was a fundamental principle of the order that the end justifies the means. By this code, lying, theft, perjury, assassination, were not only pardonable but commendable, when they served the interests of the church. Under various disguises the Jesuits worked their way into offices of state, climbing up to be the counselors of kings, and shaping the policy of nations. They became servants to act as spies upon their masters. They established colleges for the sons of princes and nobles, and schools for the common people; and the children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of popish rites. All the outward pomp and display of the Romish worship was brought to bear to confuse the mind and dazzle and captivate the imagination, and thus the liberty for which the fathers had toiled and bled was betrayed by the sons. The Jesuits rapidly spread themselves over Europe, and wherever they went, there followed a revival of popery. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

"The end justifies the means." This maxim is generally attributed to the Jesuits, and while it might not be found in just that many words in their authorized books, yet the identical sentiment is found over and over again in their Latin works. Dr. Otto Henne an Rhyn quotes many such sentiments from authorized Jesuit sources. We quote from him the following:

(281) "Herman Busembaum, in his 'Medulla Theologiae Moralis' (first published at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1650) gives this as a theorem (p. 320): Cum finis est licitus, etiam media sunt licita (when the end is lawful, the means also are lawful); and p. 504: Cui licitus est finis, etiam licent media (for whom the end is lawful, the means are lawful also). The Jesuit Paul Layman, in his 'Theologia Moralis,' lib. III., p. 20 (Munish, 1625), quoting Sanchez, states the proposition in these words: Cui concessus est finis, concessa etiam sunt media ad finem ordinata (to whom the end is permitted, to him also are permitted the means ordered to the end). Louis Wagemann, Jesuit professor of moral theology, in his 'Synopsis Theologiae Moralis' (Innsbruck and Augsburg, 1762) has: Finis determinat moralitatem actus (the end decides the morality of the act)." - "The Jesuits," pp. 47, 48. New York. 1895.

"But the mischief is that the whole moral teaching of the Jesuits from their early days till now is but a further extension of this proposition, so redoubtable in its application." - Id., pp. 49, 50. (See also "The Power and Secret of the Jesuits," Rene Fulop-Miller, pp. 150-156; and 'The Secret Plan," the Abbate Leone, p. 155.)

"In actual fact, the Jesuit casuists deal with two forms of permissible deception: that of 'amphibology' and that of reservatio mentalis. 'Amphibology' is nothing else than the employment of ambiguous terms calculated to mislead the questioner; 'mental reservation' consists in answering a question, not with a direct lie, but in such a way that the truth is partly suppressed, certain words being formulated mentally but not expressed orally.

"The Jesuits hold that neither intentional ambiguity nor the fact of making a mental reservation can be regarded as lying, since, in both cases, all that happens is that 'one's neighbor is not actually deceived, but rather his deception is permitted only for a justifiable cause.'" - "The Power and Secret of the Jesuits," pp. 154, 155. (Underscored emphasis added.)

The extent to which Pope Francis practices Mental Reservation is impenetrable; but there has been research in depth on how his mind works, which sheds light on the controversy between Rome and America's right-wing Roman Catholic-Evangelical alliance:

To understand Pope Francis, we must see him through the lens of his Jesuit formation.

Pope Francis is often regarded as an enigma. Many among the clergy and the laity have expressed surprise and even consternation at the Argentinian pontiff’s vision and praxis for the Catholic Church. Some of this confusion might be due to how different Francis’s style is relative to his last two predecessors. Others, however, may be wilfully misinterpreting the present Pope for a variety of reasons: to promote a more liberal spin, for instance, or to militate against such a liberal spin. However, the key to unlocking the mystery of Francis may lie in the enigmatic religious order in which he spent most of his life: the Society of Jesus.

To understand Pope Francis, we must see him through the lens of his Jesuit formation. This means, first of all, viewing Francis’s leadership in relation to the society’s use of consultative obedience. We also must know something about the Jesuit approach to community as unity amid polarity and diversity. And, finally, we must understand the emphasis on care for the whole person, or cura personalis. . .

Consistent with the art of accompaniment, Pope Francis promotes the polyhedron model of the Church and exhorts polarities to engage rather than solidify divisions. . .

Additionally, in Let Us Dream, Francis encourages us to enter into the tension arising from opposing opinions and ideologies. Polarisation is not the answer, nor is merely regarding differences as “conflict.” Rather, even when consensus seems elusive, learning to view such differences as contrapositions enables us to engage them in “a fruitful, creative tension”.

Commenting on Massimo Borghesi’s Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Una biografia intellettuale, Fr Mark Bosco SJ offers the following connection between Pope Francis and Guardini. He says the encounter between Francis and Guardini resulted in the Pope’s reimagining of the Hegelian notion of history along the lines of dialogue rather than dialectic. Hegel proposed an understanding of history characterised by perfection and progress. Guardini, however, proposed an alternative understanding of history, one that might be characterised as “reconciliation thinking”, not a naïve, optimistically progressive process but a synthesis of polar opposites into a higher, transcendent plane.

Using the work of Guardini, the Pope promotes the importance of approaching polarities not as static coexistent entities but as living realities, with dynamic possibilities when exercised with sound discernment. When we do so, neither side is demonised, a process that Pope Francis notes is the activity of the evil spirit. Rather, the good spirit calls both sides to move toward fraternity and solidarity.

But Bosco adds that Francis “was drawn to the idea of a constructive tension of polarities through the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius. The exercises encourage a person to simultaneously have faith as if all depends on God, yet to act as if everything depends on us. This classically Jesuit position of holding polarities together allows the follower of Christ to be deeply in the world, yet open to the transcendent, to be contemplatives in action.” (Underscored emphasis added.)

The foregoing does not suggest any inclination to reverse the religious war raging in America; but rather an accommodation. Moreover, the following is another Roman Catholic publication which associates Francis' papacy with the Hegelian philosophy:

Baldisseri is Francis’ hand-picked man, and as we can see from the Holy Father’s concluding remarks, the Secretary succeeded in crafting the rhetorical framework Francis needed to situate himself on the moderate middle ground of a classic Hegelian dialectic.

For those unfamiliar with the work G.W.F. Hegel, scholars at the University of Chicago explain his philosophy of dialectic this way:

Hegel’s dialectic involves the reconciliation of ostensible paradoxes to arrive at absolute truth. The general formulation of Hegel’s dialectic is a three-step process comprising the movement from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. One begins with a static, clearly delineated concept (or thesis), then moves to its opposite (or antithesis), which represents any contradictions derived from a consideration of the rigidly defined thesis. The thesis and antithesis are yoked and resolved to form the embracing resolution, or synthesis.

Pope Francis’ final address provides us with a textbook example of the Hegelian dialectic at work. First, we have the thesis — namely, that on matters regarding marriage, sexuality, and the family, the Church should simply capitulate to the world and, in the name of mercy, adopt an attitude of pure permissiveness:

The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfill the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God… The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

Thus, with the thesis on the table representing one extreme, we move instead to the contrasting anti-thesis: the position that, with respect to marriage, sexuality, and the family, the Church should simply adhere to her time-honored Tradition, both in teaching and pastoral praxis. No changes or updating are necessary. As we have already seen, Francis rejects this position as:

[A] temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists.”

The danger of these formulations is immediately clear. While the thesis actually represents an absurd fringe position — essentially, that the Church should adopt the wisdom of the world — the anti-thesis, rather than representing an equally absurd position (such as stoning adulterers and homosexuals) instead tries to suggest that the status quo in the Church — her immutable teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the family — is somehow the appropriate ideological foil to a call for complete moral compromise. As such, in an effort to achieve a sensible reconciliation between these two ostensibly ridiculous extremes, the Holy Father is now poised to offer a synthesis. (Underscored emphasis added.)

The emphasis in the foregoing essay was on Pope Francis' organizational method of dealing with differences on doctrinal issues; however it is a cogent illustration of his use of the Hegelian Dialectic to resolve the issues. So much for his reputed denunciation of the "Ecumenism of hate!"

America's Christian Nationalism is not about to fade away. Pope Francis could have ended "the ecumenism of hate" years ago.

In both the temporal and the spiritual realm, alarm bells are ringing in the United States. The warning bells are muted, if heard at all, in the "red" (strongly Republican) States which are now hell-bent on political power in place of the gospel, to achieve dubious moral ends. The bells ring in Government circles; educational Institutions; even in the business world, which nevertheless presents a mixed picture; and in some Churches which are not actively engaged in the "culture wars "of the Religious Right. (Concerning the business world, cf. Corporate Capture Threatens Democratic Government and Majority of business leaders believe democracy is threatened: poll. Here is where a critically significant Roman Catholic influence has been concentrated.)

There is a cataclysmic battle for political and spiritual power in the land. Both point to ultimate disaster, with the wrong choices in the spiritual realm determining the destiny of mortals for eternal life or the oblivion of the Second Death. Astonishingly, apostate Church leaders seem not to realize the imperative of vigilance in recognizing and overcoming the spiritual enemy, which is Rome.

Sadly, this spiritual blindness is now rampant in the corporate body of Seventh-day Adventism, as well as in the apostate Protestantism which has flourished since the repudiation of the great Second Advent Movement of 1844. Thus, the Protestant world, joined in denunciation of the Christian Nationalists, are manifestly blinded to the reality that this extremely dangerous end-time movement is the product of the Church of Rome. Common to both Seventh-day Adventism and the Protestant world as a whole has been the abandonment of the Bible Truths which are essential for salvation. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children." (Hosea 4:6.)

In his prophecy of 2 Thess. 2, the Apostle Paul stated plainly the result of alliance with the papacy:

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (KJV)

The NKJV translates verse 11 as "And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie; and YLT (Young's Literal Translation) translates it as "and because of this shall God send to them a working of delusion, for their believing the lie." This is further backed up by the Interlinear Bible, which reads, "and because of this, God will send to them a working of error, for them to believe the lie." The translations which are based on the literal Greek all indicate that "the lie" is the correct translation, and the NKJV puts the connection with the papacy in the clearest possible terms:

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Now what true body of Christians could come anywhere near to association with the papacy, which for centuries has conformed precisely with the Apostle Paul's above description? Apostate Protestantism, including the Seventh-day Adventist corporate body, is deluded because of denial of the Truth. This inclusion of the SDA corporate body is confirmed in the following prophetic statements of Ellen G. White:

One who sees beneath the surface, who reads the hearts of all men, says of those who have had great light: "They are not afflicted and astonished because of their moral and spiritual condition." Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before Mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie," because "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved," "but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Isaiah 66:3, 4; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 10, 12.

The heavenly Teacher inquired: "What stronger delusion can beguile the mind than the pretense that you are building on the right foundation and that God accepts your works, when in reality you are working out many things according to worldly policy and are sinning against Jehovah? Oh, it is a great deception, a fascinating delusion, that takes possession of minds when men who have once known the truth, mistake the form of godliness for the spirit and power thereof; when they suppose that they are rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing, while in reality they are in need of everything." (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 8, Page 247, "Shall We Be Found Wanting?") (Underscored emphasis added.)

It takes no great spiritual perception to now see the alarming threat to democracy, as well as religious and individual liberty; but for over a century, to include the papacy of Pius XI, the Church of Rome has been working under deep cover to accomplish this very purpose. Note the role of propaganda and secrecy. Rome's apostate Protestant allies have been working, also in deep secrecy, to accomplish a similar purpose. Now the cloak of secrecy has been shed, and the unholy alliance is openly boasting about its purposes, and busily engaged in the execution of these purposes. The deluded cannot fail to see the dangers, while still failing to perceive the identity of the controlling power in the nefarious enterprise, which is the papacy.

Seventh-day Adventist publications are now astir with reports and analysis of readily apparent perils; but without getting to the heart of the matter. The following is an official statement of the Corporate body. On the surface, there is little to nothing objectionable to a Seventh-Day Adventist Church member in the statement; but it hides a lot of sins, some of which are mentioned in this paper:

January 18, 2021 | Silver Spring, Maryland, United States | By: Bettina Krause, General Conference Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department . . .

So, how can people of faith — how can Seventh-day Adventists — start to untangle these competing claims? Did the violence of January 6 stem, at least in part, from a certain view of Christianity and its perceived role in the civic affairs of the United States?

Christian nationalism as an ideology is neither new nor uniquely American. Its influence has been studied and documented in the political life of many countries through history — from Great Britain to Germany to Russia. Its impact has waxed and waned through the years, but it’s clear that forms of this ideology have at times played a part in shaping the political discourse of this country and many others.1

One of the hallmarks of Christian nationalism is an attempt to link Christianity closely with national identity — the idea that to be a true patriot, one must also be a Christian. Another common narrative is that of “threat and struggle.” That is, individuals believe that hostile forces are assailing a once-Christian nation, and Christians are therefore called to battle these forces to regain lost territory for their faith. Within this narrative, other faith groups and minorities are sometimes labeled as threats to Christianity.

It’s hardly surprising, then, that the ideology of Christian nationalism is shot through with ugly threads of hate: anti-Semitism, racism, and a sometimes violent hostility toward any ethnic or religious minority that is perceived to be out of step with the dominant form of Christianity.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is absolutely clear on how it views Christian nationalism: this ideology is antithetical to our theology and beliefs and alien to our deeply held values.

A helpful overview of our church’s unique understanding of church-state relations can be found in a document adopted by the Council of Interchurch/Interfaith Faith Relations of the General Conference in March 2002, which is posted on the Adventist Church’s website. It reminds us of the clear biblical framework and prophetic counsel that undergirds how the Adventist Church and its members should relate to the civic realm.

A key idea found here is a warning against partisanship. The principle is both clear and simple: the church, its various institutions, and its representatives will never align with any political party or political ideology.

Another principle is that as a denomination, we will not seek political preference, and we do not “use our influence with political and civil leaders to either advance our faith or inhibit the faith of others.”2 In fact, around the world, within many different political contexts, we forcefully advocate against the alignment of any religious group — Christian or otherwise — with political authority.

This idea is summed up well in the Declaration of Principles of the Adventist journal Liberty, first published as The American Sentinel in 1886: “Attempts to unite church and state are opposed to the interests of each, subversive of human rights and potentially persecuting in character; to oppose the union, lawfully and honorably, is not only the citizen’s duty but the essence of the Golden Rule — to treat others as one wishes to be treated” (see About Us & Contact).

Yes, individual church members are encouraged, where they can, to carefully and prayerfully take part in civic life through voting, or taking part in public dialogue, or even holding public office.3 However, in all these things, the individual church member acts and speaks only for him- or herself.

At times, the Adventist Church will take a position on a specific public policy issue that aligns with our values and will speak publicly about these ideas. Religious freedom is an area where the church consistently takes public positions. We work broadly to advocate for every person’s right to follow the dictates of conscience, regardless of their religious beliefs or nonbelief.

Yet contributing to the public discourse on specific issues is profoundly different from Christian nationalism’s sweeping ambitions.

The bottom line? Seventh-day Adventists should not seek to harness political power to create a uniquely Christian public square. Why? In large part because our biblical understanding and the counsel of Ellen White lead us to affirm, unequivocally, that “efforts to legislate faith are by their very nature in opposition to the principles of true religion, and thus in opposition to the will of God.”4

In any of its forms and variants, Christian nationalism will always damage our witness to the Gospel. The warning Ellen White gave almost 140 years ago remains as relevant today as it was then: “The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world.”5

Having clear theological and institutional guidelines, though, isn’t the end of the story. These don’t automatically immunize us, as individual church members, from the powerful and often insidious social forces that can distort our thinking about what it really means to be a representative of God’s kingdom. It is good, I believe, to take the time to remind ourselves of where we stand and why.

As someone who works within the public space, I’m immensely grateful for the Adventist Church’s church-state relations heritage and religious freedom advocacy. From the earliest beginnings of our church, we have tried to reflect one of our core beliefs: that every person, no matter who they are, is an individual who bears the stamp of the Creator God, someone endowed with both freedom and infinite worth.

Yet, before we become complacent, I would suggest that we have a responsibility to do more than simply stand back and affirm our church-state understanding. In whatever country we live, in whatever political context we find ourselves, we can speak out clearly and compellingly against the alignment of faith with political power. We can contribute to our communities in ways that demonstrate that every person is valued. And most important, we can actively bear witness to a God whose kingdom is not of this world; a God of love, who yearns to claim each person as His own. (Underscored emphasis added.)

It is interesting to note the reference to the Church's religious freedom advocacy. Is it in the context of the general religious freedom advocacy of the Roman Catholic church and the ecumenical movement?

All of the specifics of the Church's becoming involved in the politics, the leadership's status in the world, and the ecumenical movement, is not within the scope of this paper, except to state that the identity and leadership of the Council of Interchurch/Interfaith Faith Relations exposes the fraudulence of the foregoing statement. The following segment is copied from the paper on this website titled THE 1910 WORLD MISSIONARY CONFERENCE AND ITS AFTERMATH FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH :

Dr. Ganoune Diop is Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church. Before his election in July 2015 at the 60th General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas, he served as the church’s liaison to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, and as its representative within the international community of civic and political leaders.

A number of AdventistToday.org articles have contained well-reasoned analytical reports on Christian Nationalism. The following is superb for its analysis of Christian Nationalism and its warning to Seventh-day Adventists inclined to support the ideology. It also includes some alarming statistics:

Past generations used Christianity as a prop to support slavery and segregation. It turns out that what was once old has become new again.

With the recent rise of Christian nationalist ideas merging into mainstream American politics (especially over the last two decades), we now see Christianity being used as a prop to support white supremacy and a radical brand of Christianity that supports racial subjugation. The result is that there is a new level of cooperation between evangelical and civic leaders placing Christianity at the center of political influence. More importantly, the Christian nationalist movement sweeping America makes certain assumptions about nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, divine authoritarian control, and militarism that defy constitutional law and the American Bill of Rights.

For Christians, these assumptions fly in the face of how grace is to be lived out in their lives since it is a central concept found throughout the Bible with Micah 6:8, Matthew 7:12, and Colossians 3:12 being just three examples. Is Christian nationalism becoming the new cultural framework through which we filter all questions of Christianity in America? Is that really a problem, or just an abstract worry?

A cursory look at the news cycle on the political issues/topics of the day would lead you to believe that religion has been co-opted as a political tool. In fact, it has advanced beyond subtle to obvious, as a growing number of conservative politicians in Congress are either accepting the label or being outwardly supportive of the Christian nationalist cause. Katherine Stewart reminds us that “what today’s Christian nationalists call ‘religious liberty’ is a form of religious privilege—for their kind of religion. But privilege is never free. It always comes at the expense of other people’s rights.”[1]

From the sidelines of mainline politics, many Americans see Christian nationalism as oxymoronic, considering our increasingly pluralistic society with the protection of the 1st and 2nd amendments.

At the same time other Americans, including prominent politicians and state representatives, lament the idea of separation of church and state and proclaim it as “junk,” believing “The church is supposed to direct the government,” and not the other way around. Among the nations on earth, Christian nationalists believe that America is God’s “elect” and must lead the world back to God using its political power to implement God’s laws. Being part of God’s “elect,” Christian nationalists are able to rationalize away the practices of slavery and racial injustice, citing ancient Israel as their model and example. . .

So what happens when you are willing to trade grace for political power? What if, by using that political power, you can transform the United States into a “Christian” nation by legislation and social engineering techniques? Influencing church leaders, recruiting, and grooming school board members, changing school curriculums, helping to elect politicians who support the movement’s agenda—in these, grace and honesty is obscured by manipulation and misrepresentation. More and more Christians are joining the ranks of the Christian nationalist movement and endorsing its political agenda without realizing that grace must be diminished or given up entirely.

Without the grace of God active in our lives, there is no such a thing as Christianity. When religion is confused with politics bad things happen. C.S. Lewis says, I think almost all the crimes which Christians have perpetrated against each other arise from this, that religion is confused with politics. For, above all other spheres of human life, the Devil claims politics for his own, as almost the citadel of his power.[3]

Yancey amplifies the above Lewis quote when he says, C.S. Lewis observed that almost all crimes of Christian history have come about when religion is confused with politics. Politics, which always runs by the rules of ungrace, allures us to trade away grace for power, a temptation the church has often been unable to resist. . .

Even though white supremacy and patriarchy are at the root of the Christian nationalist movement, many Americans believe in some or all the Christian nationalist beliefs. Some statistics from the book Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, by Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, helps us understand the support given by various segments of the American population:

88% of Christian nationalists are white evangelical Protestants. Among evangelical Protestants, 80% agree with Christian nationalism.

80% of Republicans are supportive of Christian nationalism and just over one third of Democrats are.

75% of those Americans who disagree with Christian nationalism are non-Christians.[6]

These statistics show that certain segments of American Christianity have become shameless in their overt and vocal support of white supremacy. Related beliefs, including xenophobia, antisemitism, sexism, and heterosexism, are part of the Christian nationalism package that has been proclaimed under the banner of Jesus and Trump in the most recent general election 2020.

Christian nationalists and extreme right-wing politicians have a symbiotic relationship where they need each other to attain/maintain political power. In the current political culture, very few Republican politicians can achieve power and influence without effectively acting as agents for Christian nationalism.

The Republican party has embraced Christian nationalism primarily because of its power in the voting booth. Similar views supporting the “rigged 2020 election conspiracy,” abortion, gun rights, patriarchy, and making America great again by working to define it as a Christian nation help to make the political conservatives and Christian nationalists comfortable bedfellows.

Another reason the above statistics show substantial support for Christian nationalism is their use of churches and religious institutions as sites for mobilizing political and civic engagement. As a result, there is a real possibility at some churches that when you arrive at your weekly church service, Bible study group meeting, or a prayer meeting, a political rally breaks out instead.

Believing that “the nation is on the brink of moral decay” and that “God requires the faithful to wage wars for good” is the driving force behind the Christian nationalist movement.

Are Seventh-day Adventists ready to support a political movement that is ready to wage wars for what they consider to be God’s issues? Where does the admonition of Zachariah 4:6, “Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts,” fit into this picture? What kind of God is Christian nationalism reflecting to the nation?

Whitehead and Perry identify that one of the key predictors of those supporting Christian nationalism is the “belief that God requires the faithful to wage war for good, and the belief in the rapture.”[7]

Real people whom we care about are being exploited by a political power broker masquerading as a religion. Many Seventh-day Adventists who have had a long tradition of supporting conservative politics should have cause for concern in consideration of the growing and purposeful alignment of right-wing politics with Christian nationalism.

Michael W. Campbell, speaking for the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists Ministerial Association, says “this kind of Christian Nationalism is the type Adventists have spoken of prophetically. Unfortunately, many Adventists are caught up or involved in it.” It can be argued that extreme-right politicians are fast evolving into a new Republican party that is willing to advance the cause of white supremacy, racial subjugation, and dominionism.

How will Adventists respond to a movement that goes beyond being patriotic, to trying to impose Christianity in the public sphere? Placing one’s political, tribal, national, or Christian identity ahead of one’s faith reminds us of what happened with the Rwandan genocide in 1994 when Adventists killed fellow Adventists. It is a sad reminder of what extremist views can do when motivated by hate and fear, and a difficult lesson to learn about politics and how the hunger for power can turn the hearts of fellow church members against each other.

Finding ourselves in a similar political context today, Adventists have cause to reflect on who they are and what it is that truly defines them as followers of Jesus Christ. Is it grace or the desire for power and influence under the guise of a politicized Christianity? Is our faith making us complicit with the harm done to the vulnerable and marginalized of society? Does our faith inform our politics, realizing that all politics is about who is benefiting and who is being harmed? Could it be that too many people of faith are willing to attribute the power of the gospel to the ideology of Christian nationalism, rather than see it as the political movement that it is? Faith is powerful, and that is why Christian nationalism is so dangerous.

As Seventh-day Adventists, we have a responsibility to do more than simply stand back and affirm our separation of church-state understanding. Presently, the single biggest threat to America’s religious freedom is Christian nationalism. We need to speak out boldly against the alignment of faith with politics.

Most importantly, we need to make the case that there is a difference between Christianity and Christian nationalism. The former is a grace-filled religion; the latter is a threat to our freedoms and our democracy which ultimately leads to an authoritarian graceless society. God’s kingdom is not of this world. He is a God of love and grace and longs to make each person as His own. The quest for power that the Christian nationalist movement seeks is antithetical to Jesus ‘message. Only grace brings hope and transformation to a troubled world. (Underscored emphasis added.)

What fault can be found with the foregoing commentary? Really none, except for its failure to confront the active fraternization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership with the religious power which inspires and fuels the war against the separation of Church and State. Such separation is the fundamental guarantor of democracy and individual freedoms.

Returning to the secular world, the following article contends that Christian Nationalists are a powerful minority; and Democracy's 'greatest threat.' This is a valid assessment; although the statistics are not as threatening as reported in the last SDA article:

A new study released Wednesday offers unprecedented insight into the breadth of Christian nationalism in today's politics, helping bring clarity to a burgeoning—but growing—movement that has shaped the contemporary Republican Party and raised new questions about religion's role in today's politics.

The survey, conducted by the Brookings Institute and the Public Religion Research Institute, represents the most comprehensive study yet conducted of Christian nationalism, a school of thought that believes the United States is defined by and should be governed by Christian principles.

While a relative minority in today's politics—only around one-third of U.S. adults consider themselves Christian nationalists or are largely sympathetic to its tenets, according to the survey—the demographic represents a significant share of today's Republican coalition, with beliefs that have become increasingly present in mainstream conservative rhetoric.

In Florida, former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn rode a platform of Christian nationalism to help conservative activists reshape a local school board in Sarasota County. Last fall, the increasing evocation of Christian nationalist rhetoric by figures like Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert raised fears she was promoting a biblically-inspired overthrow of the federal government.

And after President Joe Biden's State of the Union address Tuesday night, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders—who is currently championing a proposal to allow government funds to be spent on religious schools in her state—delivered a Republican response accusing Democrats of forcing the country to "worship false idols" in what some saw as a clear allusion to a spiritual battle conservatives will fight at the ballot box in 2024.

The number of people who consider themselves adherents of Christian nationalism or who are at least sympathetic to it is rather small. Just 10 percent of U.S. adults could be considered ardent Christian nationalists, according to the survey, while an additional 19 percent could be considered sympathetic to the ethos.

However, their potential for growth is boundless: According to the survey, approximately 39 percent of respondents are "skeptics," meaning they—to some degree—buy into some aspects of Christian nationalism, building on a previous survey by the Pew Research Center showing 45 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should be a "Christian nation."

It's also a predominantly conservative and predominantly white movement. According to the PRRI/Brookings survey, nearly two-thirds of white Protestants consider themselves Christian nationalists—the highest rate of any group—while an overwhelming majority lean conservative.

While approximately 54 percent of Christian nationalists report themselves as sympathetic to Republicans, nearly three-quarters of all Christian nationalists say they support former President Donald Trump, with a similar percentage saying they only consume "far-right" news.

Given their stature in the Republican Party—evangelicals still represent a key part of the Republican constituency, according to various polls, and made up a substantial share of former President Donald Trump's performance in the 2016 and 2020 elections—they have significant sway over the national conversation as well as the direction of their party.

"Those 29 percent 'punch above their weight' given the centrality of their particular political visions to the platform of the Republican Party," Andrew Whitehead, a professor of sociology at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis and an expert on Christian nationalism, told Newsweek. "Given how politics functions in the U.S.—two parties, primary system—if a small-ish group is motivated and resourced, they can have an outsized influence. And that is some of what we see here."

"For almost 50 years now the focus of various political activists on the right was to bring white evangelicals into the fold," he added. "So while they are small, if elections are close, their commitment to all vote a particular way can still have an influence."

That level of influence itself is a problem not just for the Republican Party, experts say, but for American society.

At its root, author Jemar Tisby said during a panel discussion of the survey results Wednesday, Christian nationalism uses religious symbolism to create a "permission structure" for the acquisition of political power and social control that exists to reinforce the worldview of those who practice it.

In this case, that group is defined as fiercely devout white people, with very strong views on how the country should operate.

According to the poll, few Christian nationalists believe in concepts like structural racism and gender inequality—and therefore oppose policies to address them—and strongly oppose pro-immigration policies as well as the proliferation of the Muslim faith.

Supporters of Christian nationalism also tend to support obedience to authority and the concept of authoritarian leadership at significantly higher rates than the rest of the country, and are more than twice as likely to embrace the use of violence to achieve their political aims. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

It should ever be kept in mind that the Religious Right (Christian Nationalism) was conceived and carefully developed by the USCCB's Pastoral Plan with the approval of Pope John Paul II. It is an example of how Rome has concealed her ruthlessness and inherent violence by sophisticated propaganda and the deep secrecy of Jesuitism. When she is exposed, the deceptive response is that the Christian Nationalists, including their Catholic handlers, are the "Ecumenism of Hate" in opposition to her "loving" ecumenical work of winning back her "separated brethren."

"In a special sense Seventh-day Adventists have been set in the world as watchmen and light bearers. To them has been entrusted the last warning for a perishing world. On them is shining wonderful light from the word of God. They have been given a work of the most solemn import--the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels' messages. There is no other work of so great importance. They are to allow nothing else to absorb their attention.

The most solemn truths ever entrusted to mortals have been given us to proclaim to the world. The proclamation of these truths is to be our work. The world is to be warned, and God's people are to be true to the trust committed to them. . . ." (9T, p.19) (Underscored emphasis added.)

In this assigned work Corporate Seventh-day Adventism has failed miserably, so that the Church has joined the ranks of those contemplating "christian witness" in league with Roman Catholicism.

The only chance of arresting the march of Rome to victory has been lost. The Corporate Body of Seventh-day Adventists and its loyal followers have ceased to preach the Truths which inevitably provoke opposition and confrontation. Instead the leaders seek to avoid controversy by watering down the distinctive doctrines and prophetic interpretations which once distinguished the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The leaders are not inclined to take the lead in identifying and condemning the Christian Nationalists. This role is now more vigorously exercised by apostate Protestants who oppose the "Ecumenism of Hate." Representative of such organizations is the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty:

On Jan. 6, 2021, Amanda Tyler watched the attack on the U.S. Capitol unfold with a growing sense of dread—and recognition.

Like many Christian leaders, Tyler, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, immediately noticed the presence of religious symbols in the crowd. Large crosses were everywhere, carried by protestors marching to the Capitol and depicted on flags, clothing, and necklaces. Demonstrators held up Bibles and banners reading, “In God We Trust,” “An Appeal to Heaven,” and “Jesus is my savior, Trump is my President.”

Many of the people there that day cast the attack on the Capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 election as a biblical battle of good versus evil. Christian nationalism, a resurgent ideology that views the U.S. as a Christian country and whose proponents largely define American identity as exclusively white and Christian “helped fuel the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, uniting disparate actors and infusing their political cause with religious fervor,” Tyler testified on Dec. 13 at a House Oversight subcommittee hearing. . .

“I’m really grateful that members of Congress are paying attention to how Christian nationalism overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy, and how some of these extremists are being fueled by Christian nationalism, using it to try to justify their violence as being done in God’s name,” Tyler told TIME in a Dec. 15 interview.

Tyler, who says she sees Christian nationalism as a perversion of her faith, launched a grassroots effort called Christians Against Christian Nationalism in 2019 under the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a national advocacy group she runs focused on religious freedom. She says she was inspired to start the campaign after a series of alarming events during the Trump era: she watched marchers at the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. shout “Jews will not replace us,” and then saw the ideology amplified by conservative television pundits and some lawmakers who echoed the language of religious war and professed the need to “take back” the country from those who threaten a white Christian nation. Christian nationalism also influenced the deadly violence at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015; the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 2018; and Chabad of Poway near San Diego, California in 2019, Tyler told lawmakers. . .

Christian nationalism has gained steam among young right-wing personalities who have grown large followings. At a conference in March 2021, Nick Fuentes, 24-year-old white nationalist commentator, told an audience that America will cease to be America “if it loses its white demographic core and if it loses its faith in Jesus Christ,” emphasizing its role as a “Christian country.” Last month, he had dinner with former President Donald Trump at Mar-A-Lago, further raising his national profile.

Some of this language has recently been embraced by prominent politicians, adding urgency to Tyler’s sense that Christian nationalism is embedding itself into more Americans’ political identity. “I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, declared this summer. Greene, who had previously come under fire for sharing a video in 2018 alleging that “Zionist supremacists” were conspiring to wipe out white people, doubled down by selling “Christian Nationalist” t-shirts. While politicians—particularly Republicans—have long made biblical references in stump speeches, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been criticized for using language that seems to echo Christian nationalist ideas. He used a Bible verse to suggest conservatives should “put on the full armor of God” in November, casting the midterm elections as a fight of God against the devil: “Stand firm against the left’s schemes,” he said. “You will face flaming arrows, but if you have the shield of faith, you will overcome them, and in Florida we walk the line here.”

Leaders who are flirting with the language of Christian nationalism “have merged their political authority with religious authority, and are using this language of Christian nationalism to justify political stances they’re taking,” says Tyler, calling this “a high-tide moment for Christian nationalism in our time.” . . .

In the coming year, Tyler is hoping to use the focus on the issue to grow the grassroots national network to help other Christian organizations learn to notice the signs of Christian nationalism “in order not to be complicit with its spread,” and learn to address it. “To dismantle an ideology that’s so deeply seated will be a generational project,” she says. “But it’s one that’s urgent for our democracy and for the safety of the country.” (Underscored emphasis added.)

The foregoing describes a well-intentioned but ill-fated effort to defeat Christian Nationalism in America.

Unsaid and/or unrecognized is the role of the Church of Rome in bringing about the present state of affairs. (Cf. Architects and Foot Soldiers: The Catholic Influence within the New Christian Right, and this website's copious documentation, some of which is included in this paper) Rome has exercised tremendous influence by her very effective propaganda campaign. By this means she has taken over the Republican Party, State Legislatures and the Supreme Court of the nation, and is on the verge of achieving total control of the Federal Government. At the States' level, all governance down to the local elective bodies is at risk. All of this Rome has accomplished without ever gaining a popular majority in the nation. In fact she abhors majority opinion, as verified by Pope Leo XIII himself.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Christian Nationalism now surging in America flows directly from THE USCCB's "Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities" of 1975. This squarely places responsibility for what Pope Francis allegedly regards as the "Ecumenism of Hate" on the papacy, and yet this is the very power at the center of ecumenical alliances with which the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty is of necessity associated. (It is noteworthy that the BJC membership appears to include most, if not all Baptist Churches in America.) That these alliances involve abandonment of Baptist anti-Catholicism is not readily apparent from the reports on its opposition to Christian Nationalism; but the World Baptist Movement (with possibly a few exceptions) is unequivocally deeply involved in ecumenical association with the Church of Rome.

The following article recounts the difficult early stages of the rapprochement between Baptists and the papacy:

As a participant in a December 2007 round of conversations between Baptists and Catholics in Rome, I was reminded how much things have changed. The joint international delegation was cordially welcomed by Benedict XVI. In his address to the group, the pope expressed hope that the conversations would “bear abundant fruit for the progress of dialogue and the increase of understanding and cooperation between Catholics and Baptists.” Quoting the Lord’s priestly prayer “that they may all be one...so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21), Benedict reminded the audience that, in the words of Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, a lack of unity among Christians “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and harms the most holy cause of promoting the good news to every creature.”

L’Osservatore Romano declared the conversation, the second in a series of five with representatives from the Baptist World Alliance, to be a step forward in Catholic-Baptist relations. Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity that hosted the week-long gathering, described the discussions as “very fruitful” and expressed pleasure with “the atmosphere of friendship that has developed” among the members of the joint commission. Indeed, four centuries ago, who could have imagined that such an exchange could be carried out “in a spirit of openness, mutual respect, and fidelity” to the gospel?

The Baptist movement was born at a time when harsh rhetoric was common. The Second London Confession, signed by thirty-seven Baptist ministers in 1688, declared that the pope is “that Antichrist, that Man of sin, a Son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” That all but the last phrase was borrowed almost word-for-word from The Westminster Confession of 1646 indicates that the Baptists were probably as much impelled to demonstrate their agreement with fellow Puritans as they were interested in expressing their animus toward Catholics. Nevertheless, shrill caricatures like this one became entrenched in the doctrinal tradition.

These old anti-Catholic spirits were conjured up anew when R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, intoned on March 22, 2000, for Larry King Live that the pope holds a false office, leads a false church, and teaches a false gospel. And Mohler was far from alone in his view. B. H. Carroll (1843–1914), the founding president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, defended a position—held by many of the earliest Baptists, from John Smyth to Roger Williams—that identified the Catholic Church with the whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation.

The Baptist proclivity for anti-Catholicism comes out in less obvious ways too. The historic Baptist stance of religious liberty has often been a thin disguise for attack rhetoric. The May 16, 1920, address by George W. Truett, delivered from the east steps of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., is widely cited as a classic statement on Baptist identity. One of the most respected voices in Baptist life at the time, Truett defined the Baptist position by invoking oppositional rhetoric. He asserted that while Baptists defend the full liberty of conscience, the Catholic Church thrusts “all its complex and cumbrous machinery between the soul and God, prescribing beliefs, claiming to exercise the power of the keys, and to control the channels of grace,” adding that “all such lording it over the consciences of men is to the Baptist mind a ghastly tyranny in the realm of the soul and tends to frustrate the grace of God, to destroy freedom of conscience, and to hinder terribly the coming of the Kingdom of God.” . . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

The following report reveals drastic changes since 2009 when the foregoing was published:

The fifth meeting of Phase III of the international dialogue between the Baptist World Alliance and the Catholic Church took place Dec. 12-16, 2022, in Rome, Italy, hosted by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity.

The goal of the Baptist-Catholic International Dialogue is not to achieve full visible unity but to gain mutual understanding as well as clarification of theological matters and identification of possibilities for cooperation. The general topic of the current phase is “The Dynamic of the Gospel and the Witness of the Church Today.” The meeting in Rome was devoted to drafting and editing the report from the dialogue and planning for its subsequent reception, as well as to discussion of possible directions for a future phase of dialogue. . .

Each day of the fifth meeting began and ended with prayer services. On Dec. 14, Pope Francis received the commission in a private audience and engaged with them in conversation concerning different topics of common interest such as the importance of learning how to be pastors according to the gospel who avoid the dangers of clericalism; growing in mutual concern for one another as well as for the poorest and needy in the world; and establishing relationships that allow Baptists and Catholics to discuss the theological problems at the heart of their divisions. Rev Dr Tomás Mackey, elected President of the BWA, referred to the importance of growing in a mutual recognition that provides new possibilities for joint Baptist-Catholic witness to the world and expressed the readiness of the BWA for any initiative that encourages peace and reconciliation. At the end of the audience, Pope Francis and the members of the commission said together the Lord’s Prayer. . .

After the audience with Pope Francis, the commission visited the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity and met with DPCU Prefect Cardinal Kurt Koch. The program included a prayer that highlighted witnesses to the power of the gospel from both traditions, a presentation concerning the current phase of dialogue, and an exchange concerning the challenges and opportunities for the ecumenical movement in general and for Baptist-Catholic relations in particular. Cardinal Koch, in expressing his gratitude for the work accomplished by the dialogue, expressed his personal interest in receiving its final result. On behalf of the BWA, Brown evaluated positively his participation in the dialogue session and expressed openness to exploring new patterns of collaboration as well as to continuing the dialogue beyond its current phase. . .

The commission for Phase III met initially in 2017 to discuss “Sources of Common Witness” in Waco, Texas. Its second meeting in Rome in 2018 focused on the “Contexts of Common Witness” represented by six continents of the world. A third meeting examined “Challenges to Common Witness” in Warsaw, Poland, in 2019. The dialogue postponed its plans for a fourth meeting in 2020 due to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, but held a two-day continuation meeting virtually in June 2021 to discuss the written record of their work to that point and to discuss possibilities for holding a meeting in December 2021. A fourth meeting of the dialogue employed a “hybrid” format in light of the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, with an in-person meeting in Durham, North Carolina, for North American and Caribbean participants, and other commission members joining virtually; it took up the theme of “Forms of Common Witness,” recognizing ways in which Baptists and Catholics have already been engaging in a shared witness to the dynamic of the gospel and envisioning ways in which the two communions might more intentionally and more fully collaborate in offering the world a common witness to Christ.

Baptists and Catholics have been engaged in international conversations since 1984. A first phase of international dialogue took place in 1984-1988, resulting in a report in 1990 titled “Summons to Witness to Christ in Today’s World.” A second phase of the dialogue met from 2006 through 2010 and produced a report in 2013 titled “The Word of God in the Life of the Church.” (Underscored emphasis added.)

From these last two reports it is reasonable to conclude that the family of Baptist Churches must be under the curse of "strong delusion." They "did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved." They "did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." This is borne out in their history before they began to engage in dialogue with Rome. This is a sad history of spawning a profusion of false doctrines, most of which have tended to distract from recognizing the papacy's identification as the Antichrist. In fact there is one false doctrine in particular which specifically serves this purpose:

Most Protestant pastors believe Jesus will return in the future. But few agree about the details of the apocalypse, a new study shows.

A third of America’s Protestant pastors expect Christians to be raptured — or taken up in the sky to meet Jesus — as the end times begin. About half think a false messiah known as the Antichrist will appear sometime in the future. A surprising number think the Antichrist has already been here or isn’t on his way at all.

Those are among the findings of a new telephone survey of 1,000 Protestant senior pastors and their views on end-times theology from Nashville-based LifeWay Research, sponsored by Charisma House Book Group.

End-times theology remains popular with churchgoers, says Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research. But it’s not an easy topic to preach about.

This is but a small sampling of the confusion of beliefs which are rampant in the apostate Protestant churches in these end times, traceable all the way back to the Protestant Reformation. The following is excerpted from Christian Edwardson's Facts of Faith:

JESUITS UNDERMINE THE TRUTH

The Rev. Joseph Tanner, B. A., says:

“So great hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men, that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.

“Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end; namely, that of diverting men’s minds from perceiving the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the papal system. The Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring into prominence the

184

Preterist method of interpretation,... that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled at Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy. On the other hand the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the papal power by bringing out the Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A. D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the Futurist system in modern times.

“It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that ‘Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon popery.’ More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the papal Antichrist seems to make an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men’s minds. Now once again, as at the Reformation, it is especially necessary that his true character should be recognized, by all who would be faithful to ‘the testimony of Jesus.’“ -”Daniel and the Revelation,” pp. 16, 17. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898.

To undermine the work of the Reformers, these Jesuits, Alcasar and Ribera, gathered a mass of material from the writings of the Church Fathers concerning Antichrist. This gave their works the appearance of scientific research, which appealed to many Protestant leaders. (An example of this can be seen in Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. “Antichrist.”) But statements from the Church Fathers which speak of the coming of Antichrist as an event then in the future, could be no proof for Ribera’s “futurist” theory, for the reign of the papal Antichrist was then still in the future. The 1260 years of papal persecution, called the Dark Ages, had not yet begun when these Fathers wrote. The theories of Ribera and Alcasar were diametrically opposed to each other, and yet both were taught as Catholic truths, taken from the Church Fathers. From this we see how untrustworthy are these sources. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

It is on this shallow platform that all of the predictions of a future great Antichrist rests; but Rome had an even more ambitious project, born of the devastation of her blasphemous claims wrought by the Protestant Reformation. She set about undermining faith in the inspired Word of God. The following is another excerpt from Christian Edwardson's Facts of Faith:

THE second, and more effective, weapon Rome used against the Reformation was "higher criticism," in an effort to undermine the very foundation of Protestantism.

The strongest appeal of the Roman Catholic Church lies in its claim to "apostolic succession," that is, that its popes descended in direct line from the apostles. Protestants, originating in the sixteenth century, have no such appeal. Their strong argument lies in their exact conformity with the Bible in faith and morals. "The Bible, and the Bible only" is their battle cry. The Bible reveals man's utter inability to attain justification by his own works, and offers it as a "free gift," obtained by faith in the merits of Jesus Christ alone. The Bible presents good works only as the natural fruit of genuine faith. On this foundation was Protestantism built. Before going further we shall let Catholics and Protestants state their foundations.

"Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, Tradition is to us more clear and safe." - "Catholic Belief," Joseph Faa di Bruno, D.D., p. 88. New York: Benziger Brothers., 1912.

"But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, II), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses, ... we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living . . . .

The Bible could not be left to interpret itself." Therefore Catholics declare the "Church to be its acknowledged interpreter." And under the heading: "The Catholic Doctrine Touching the Church as the Rule of Faith," we read: "Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of time." But of the teachers of this body, they say: "Unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ [the Pope], it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith." They then sum up their rule of faith thus: "'Hence we must stand rather by the decisions which the pope judicially pronounces than by the opinions of men, however learned they may be in Holy Scripture." - "Catholic Encyclopedia," Vol. V, pp. 766-768, art. "Faith, Rule of." The teaching Church, with the pope at its head, is therefore the Catholic "rule of faith."

Thus we see that the Roman Catholic Church places tradition above the Bible as more safe, and substitutes the pope for the Holy Spirit as the guide. Christ promised His followers: "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth." "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." John 16:13; 14:26. That these promises are not confined to the leaders of the church, is made plain by John, who applies them to all Christians: "But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, . . - ye shall abide in Him." 1 John 2:27. In answer to these Scriptures the Catholic writers say:

"Nor can it be said that being a divinely inspired book, its prime Author, the Holy Ghost, will guide the reader to the right meaning." - "Things Catholics Are Asked About," M. J. Scott, S. J., p. 119. New York: 1927. . .

Protestants have announced as their rule of faith: "The Bible, and the Bible only," with the Holy Spirit as its sole Interpreter. William Chillingworth, M. A., says:

"The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants! I for my part, after a long and (as I verily believe and hope) impartial search of 'the true way to eternal happiness,' do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I see plainly and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. . . . In a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon." - "The Religion of Protestants," William Chillingworth, M. A., P. 463. London: 1866.

`The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!' Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant, how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. . . .

"He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing, steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from Popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism, upon the same authority." - "History of Romanism," John Dowling, D. A, pp. 67,68. New York: 1871.

This childlike faith in the Bible as God's infallible word carried the Reformers above all opposition, and swept over Europe with an irresistible force which threatened to engulf the old, decaying structure of the Roman church. This unabated force could be broken only by robbing Protestants. of their implicit faith in the Bible. They would then lose their power as surely as did Samson, when he was shorn of his locks. (Judges 16:19, 20)

Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic priest, called the " Father of Higher Criticism," in 1678 wrote "A Critical History of the Old Testament" in three books, laying down the rules for a more exact translation. He advanced the new theory that only the ordinances and commands of the books of Moses were written by him, while the historical parts were the product of various other writers. Simon's declared purpose was to show that the Protestants had no assured principle for their religion. (See edition of 1782) "This work led to a very extended controversy and the first edition was suppressed.¹ So vigorous was the opposition of the learned, that his theory lay dormant for seventy-five years. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"A French priest, Richard Simon (1638-1712), was the first who subjected the general questions concerning the Bible to a treatment which was at once comprehensive in scope and scientific in method. Simon is the forerunner of modern Biblical criticism. . . . A reaction against the rigid view of the Bible [was one of] the factors which produced Simon's first great work, the ‘Histoire critique du Vieux Testament' ['Critical History of the Old Testament'] which was published in 1678. . . . It entitles him to be called the father of Biblical criticism." - Vol. IV, P. 492 (Underscored emphasis added.)

Only opposition to God's revelation of Himself and His holy will for mankind as recorded in the Bible could inspire such a blasphemous and sacrilegious project as Higher Criticism. This opposition has largely had its desired effect on the Protestant world. The following analyses establish this fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Doubt and unbelief have been the poisonous fruit of this satanic activity.

From the dates given in the passages quoted above, it is clear that Higher Criticism was doing its insidious work at the time of the worldwide "GREAT SECOND ADVENT MOVEMENT," and this is confirmed in the following passages:

In the previous article, two major events were noted that are important to the student of Bible prophecy. First was the taking of the pope prisoner by the French army and the second was the discovery of the Rosetta stone which confirmed the authenticity of the ancient Bible records.

“So the very people who thought to exterminate the Bible were, all unconsciously to themselves, used to bring about a fulfillment of prophecy in taking away the dominion of the papacy at the end of the 1260 years, and also discovered the key to the very writings which confirm the truthfulness of the Scriptures they tried so hard to destroy.” The Great Second Advent Movement, 8, by J. N. Loughborough. . .

“Nothing in this old earth is more powerful than a prophetic truth whose time has come. When Rome was ruling the Western world, a large group of contemporary students of prophecy recognized and proclaimed the identity and fate of the fourth prophetic world empire. When Rome was in process of tenfold division, another cluster of expositors left the written record of their perception, and their fears, of the coming Antichrist. When the papal Little Horn had unveiled its real character and identity, a great host of Reformers in many lands gave their witness to this advancing and then present fulfillment of prophecy—so powerfully that it brought on the Counter Reformation with its clever counter system of interpretation. When the 1260 years were ending, this solemn fact was also proclaimed on both sides of the Atlantic as then in process of fulfillment, while men awaited the next great event.

“And now when the judgment hour was approaching, with the ending of prophetic time, and the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary and the imminence of the advent had come, suddenly the witness was heard in different continents and many lands, giving startlingly similar testimony and exposition of prophecy thereon.” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 3, 741, 742. . .

When the early expectations of the advent in 1843 did not materialize, certain rationalistic theologians denied that the prophecies connected with this event were inspired. They further stated that the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes. Rationalistic higher criticism was introduced to lead people away from the truth regarding the authenticity of the Scriptures and this led to the breakdown of the historical school of interpretation in the Old World. By turning men’s minds away from the Scriptures, Satan attempted to negate the great Second Advent message, so that people would be lulled to sleep and ultimately lost. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Those Protestant churches which rejected the "GREAT SECOND ADVENT MOVEMENT," and those which would not follow the advancing Truth as it was merging into the Seventh-day Adventist Movement, were easy prey for Higher Criticism. They had rejected the Holy Spirit Who was ordained to guide believers into all Truth, through Whom alone the Holy Bible can be interpreted:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20

Protestantism paid the inevitable price for the presumption of Higher Criticism, which opened the door to the false doctrines which have sealed them in apostasy. These sprang up concurrently with the time when the Holy Spirit was moving Christians into understanding that the great prophecy of Daniel 8:14 was about to be fulfilled, heralding the beginning of the final phase of Jesus Christ's high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. (This was not fully understood at the time; but later became clear.) The false doctrines were obviously the work of the devil.

Application of the Parable

Coming down in this line of prophecy past the fulfillment of the third sign,-the falling of the stars, -our Saviour says, "Now learn a parable of the fig-tree." This language does not apply to the generation that was living when our Lord gave this discourse, but to the generation that was to see these things fulfilled-not fulfilling, but fulfilled. The things to be fulfilled as tokens that Christ is at the door do not include the shaking of the heavens when he will be seen actually coming. These signs of his near coming include this third sign, the one in the stars. The Lord's appointed time for the people to learn a parable of the fig-tree dates this side of 1833. Here is the Lord's time for the world to be aroused to the great truth that his coming

is at the doors, and that his coming will be before the generation who hear that parable shall pass away. So we see how the time is marked out in this prophecy when the great advent proclamation should be given to the world.

In fulfillment of this prediction we find that right then and there in 1833, the Lord was raising up his messengers or ministers in various parts of the world, who from 1833 to 1834 sounded the cry of Christ's coming near, "even at the doors;" and these taught the parable of the fig-tree, pointing to these signs of his coming, even as he had instructed them to do. This message, either by the living teacher or through the agency of the printed page, went to every missionary station in the world, and to every seaport on the earth.

The extent of the message has been plainly set forth by the editor of the Voice of Truth, of Rochester, N.Y., in an issue of January, 1845:-

"The everlasting gospel, as described in Rev. 14:6, 7, has been preached to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people; saying with a loud voice, 'Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.' No case can be more clearly substantiated with facts than that this message has been borne to every nation and tongue under heaven, within a very few years past, in the preaching of the coming of Christ in 1843 [1843, Jewish time-our time, 1844], or near at hand. Through the medium of lectures and publications, the sound has gone into all the earth, and the words to the end of the world."

Some people, unacquainted with the facts, have looked upon the second advent movement as limited to a certain locality, supposing it a work connected with William Miller and a few hundred ministers associated with him in the northern portion of the United States. To such it may be a surprise to learn that the movement in America, in which Elders Miller and Himes were prominent leaders, was but a small part of a great movement that, as stated above, went "to the ends of the earth." (Underscored emphasis added.)

It was precisely during this period that false doctrines appeared to confuse the minds of Christians about end-time events:

Hal Lindsay in his book - The Late Great Planet Earth - popularized the teaching of the Secret Rapture. This concept of a secret coming of Christ for His "elect" prior to the great tribulation and the appearing of the antichrist is today "the lifeblood of the electronic church." A teacher of this theory makes the following explanation of the term, "rapture." He wrote:

Strange to say the word itself does not appear in the Bible. The English word means: "to transport to a state of happiness." It comes from the Latin word. "rapid." meaning "to seize quickly or suddenly' or "to snatch away."

If the reader will carefully consider I Thessalonians 4:13-18, he will note that in the day of Christ's sudden coming for His own. they are to be "caught up" (verse 17). The Greek word here means precisely "snatch up suddenly." From this we derive the term "Rapture" commonly used among premillennial teachers in referring to the first phase of His second advent. (The Rapture. pp. 4-5; Quoted in The Secret Rapture and the Antichrist, p. 11)

To clothe the theory in the respectability of New Testament Greek research, it's advocates have asserted that there is a difference between the parousia, or personal presence of Christ, and the apokalupsis, or revelation of Christ in His glory. However, the very text cited to associate the concept of "snatch away suddenly" with the Latin, "rapid" and hence the English, "rapture" - I Thessalonians 4:15-17 - declares "the parousia (coming) of the Lord" to be accompanied by "a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God." Hardly secret! Further Paul declares that "Wicked One" (Antichrist) will be consumed with the spirit of His mouth at Christ's parousia. (II Thess. 2:8) So the antichrist does not come after the parousia of Christ, but is destroyed at his parousia.

It is also taught that these two supposedly different comings of Christ are separated by seven years. To obtain this sum of years, the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9, are arranged so as to have the 69 weeks cover till the time of Christ's first Advent. Then is introduced a "prophetic parenthesis" till the parousia of Christ to be followed by the 70th week. This is built upon dispensationalism with the Church Age during the time of the "Gap." . . .

The Scriptures teach plainly only one second coming of Christ - not a two phased event. Jesus told His disciples: - note the time sequence by the use of "then" -

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with power and great glory. And then shall He send His angels, and shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. (Mark. 13:26-27) . . .

The fact is that dividing the second coming of Jesus into two events was not known in Christian teaching prior to the early 1800's. There are some advocates, however, of this theory who hold that certain statements of early church fathers can be used to sustain its approach to apostolic origin. One of these men is John Walvoord, who is known as the "dean" of this teaching. His conclusions are discredited in a recent publication, The Great Rapture Hoax, by Dave MacPherson (pp. 338-339).

The teaching of the rapture of the "saints" prior to the great tribulation came by a revelation to a young Scottish teenager, Margaret Macdonald, in 1830. Through this revelation or dream, Margaret introduced the "secret" rapture idea noting that Christ would first be seen by only Spirit-filled Christians. She indicated that the antichrist was still in the future, instead of the historic Protestant designation of the Papacy. From that beginning in Port Glasgow, Scotland, it was taken and developed by John Darby and C. I. Scofield into a whole futuristic schema of last day events. (Underscored emphasis added.)

The Secret Rapture is a major false doctrine, but not by any means the only one creating confusion in the minds of Protestants who failed to follow Jesus Christ into the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary in 1844. In non-Adventist Protestantism Higher Criticism paved the way for false doctrines, and undermined belief in the Bible itself, leading to the valid conclusion that the hermeneutic is bankrupt.

At the same time that the false doctrines were springing up, there was also a dramatic decline in the spirituality of the churches which had rejected the Second Advent Movement:

"In all my labors," said Miller, "I never had the desire or thought to establish any separate interest from that of existing denominations, or to benefit one at the expense of another. I thought to benefit all. Supposing that all Christians would rejoice in the prospect of Christ's coming, and that those who could not see as I did would not love any the less those who should embrace this doctrine, I did not conceive there would ever be any necessity for separate meetings. My whole object was a desire to convert souls to God, to notify the world of a coming judgment, and to induce my fellow men to make that preparation of heart which will enable them to meet their God in peace. The great majority of those who were converted under my labors united with the various existing churches."—Bliss, page 328. [376]

As his work tended to build up the churches, it was for a time regarded with favor. But as ministers and religious leaders decided against the advent doctrine and desired to suppress all agitation of the subject, they not only opposed it from the pulpit, but denied their members the privilege of attending preaching upon the second advent, or even of speaking of their hope in the social meetings of the church. Thus the believers found themselves in a position of great trial and perplexity. They loved their churches and were loath to separate from them; but as they saw the testimony of God's word suppressed and their right to investigate the prophecies denied they felt that loyalty to God forbade them to submit. Those who sought to shut out the testimony of God's word they could not regard as constituting the church of Christ, "the pillar and ground of the truth." Hence they felt themselves justified in separating from their former connection. In the summer of 1844 about fifty thousand withdrew from the churches.

About this time a marked change was apparent in most of the churches throughout the United States. There had been for many years a gradual but steadily increasing conformity to worldly practices and customs, and a corresponding decline in real spiritual life; but in that year there were evidences of a sudden and marked declension in nearly all the churches of the land. While none seemed able to suggest the cause, the fact itself was widely noted and commented upon by both the press and the pulpit.

At a meeting of the presbytery of Philadelphia, Mr. Barnes, author of a commentary widely used and pastor of one of the leading churches in that city, "stated that he had been in the ministry for twenty years, and never, till the last Communion, had he administered the ordinance without receiving more or less into the church. But now there are no awakenings, no conversions, not much apparent growth in grace in professors, and none come to his study to converse about the salvation of their souls. With the increase of [377] business, and the brightening prospects of commerce and manufacture, there is an increase of worldly-mindedness. Thus it is with all the denominations."—Congregational Journal, May 23, 1844. (Underscored emphasis added.)

From what has happened to the Seventh-day Adventist Church It can reasonably be concluded that Higher Criticism accelerated the corporate body's rejection of its appointed role in this world. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has been fatally weakened by divisive debate about the validity of Higher Criticism, and its actual application to hermeneutics by its scholars. The following essay is connected with a debate within the SDA Church about the ordination of women; but it is a valuable analysis of what Higher Criticism has done to the Church:

The question of women’s ordination dominated the headlines at the recent 2015 General Conference, but the real concern was the advancing power of “higher criticism” within the church. Many faithful Adventists in favor of women’s ordination saw the issue in simple terms of fairness and equity without realizing the true source of contention—the question of biblical authority. In reality, the foundations of current theological disagreements in the church are changing because the hermeneutical principles of many Adventists are changing.

The Reformation, which preceded the growth of modern science, made the Bible the most influential book in Western society. The exponential growth and reach of the Bible as the source of truth was astonishing. Never before had the Bible touched such a wide audience. The first book to be printed by Gutenberg Press was a Latin language Bible in the late 1400s. Many common people read or heard the Bible read, freeing themselves from the many superstitions and delusions propagated by the medieval Church. This freeing of the human spirit opened the way for modern science. Human authority could be questioned and truth could be discovered by the direct, unimpeded, study of nature and the Scripture.

As the influence of the Bible grew, it gained critics as well as adherents. The book that had freed the human mind became itself the object of an all-out assault. Skeptics placed themselves above the Scripture, and higher criticism was born. Science became emboldened to question the fundamentals of the biblical worldview, even to doubt the very existence of God. Critics of the Bible challenged the assumption that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (English Standard Version, Prov. 1:7). Modern skeptics attempted to do the impossible—find meaning and truth without reference to God.

Every possible branch of science was enlisted by enemies of the Bible to undermine its authority. Geology and biology played the most significant roles. The words of Paul in Romans 1:21 became more meaningful than ever: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

For well over two hundred years, the Bible has been attacked with devastating effect. Millions of believers have lost their confidence in the Bible. Learned authorities assert that much of the Bible is nonsense. Walking on water? Ridiculous. The virgin birth? Impossible. A world-wide flood? An entertaining story. A creation in six days? Pure myth. Gender distinctions? Don’t exist. Homosexuality? Not a sin.

The essence of higher criticism is the arrogant idea that mere mortals can speak with greater authority than the most authoritative book of all time. Higher critics stand in judgment of a holy thing. However, Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). By chipping away at this or that apparent error or this or that failure to live up to man’s expectations, higher critics claim god-like powers of discernment in their interpretations of Scripture.

At the grassroots level, where the members of the church look to the pastor for biblical guidance, higher criticism has its most serious effects. The pastor must tread lightly through the Bible. There are passages in the Bible that are hard to explain in modern terms with modern presuppositions. (A woman once turned to her husband in church, exclaiming that what the preacher had just said was highly offensive. He replied, “Sweetheart, he was reading from the Bible.”)

Pastors under the influence of higher criticism are fearful of biblical mysteries and quandaries that fall outside their own understanding. Did God really ask Abraham to kill his own son? Did God really command that all men, women, and children from a certain town be killed? Did God really command that a man be stoned to death for picking-up sticks on the Sabbath? Did Jesus really say we must hate our own families in order to follow Him? Did Christ have to die?

Unfortunately, higher criticism has offered simplistic answers to these so-called problematic concepts. The difficulties have been explained away by applying faulty means of interpretation. The obvious question becomes, Why bother studying the Bible carefully? The sad thing for the church is that many people’s Bibles are getting shorter and shorter. The number of acceptable texts is receding. If present trends continue, the Bible in one hundred years will consist of one reliable statement: “God, if he or she exists, is sometimes a nice person.” (Underscored emphasis added.)

Today, Higher Criticism has destroyed the "possibility of powerful preaching from the Word of God" by Seventh-day Adventists; and has neutralized God's commission to be "watchmen and light bearers." The Church should have been able to explain to the world that Christian Nationalism flows out of Roman Catholicism; but like all others denouncing the movement fails to do so - and is captivated by Rome's eagerness to dialogue with her "separated brethren." However, the friendly face of ecumenism is negatived by Rome's historical commitment to force, derived from the philosophy of Augustine. Note this fact from earlier in this paper, and how this also influenced Calvinism. This is now being reflected in Christian Nationalism

It should ever be kept in mind that Christian Nationalism is the product of a Rome-inspired alliance of Catholic Integralism and Calvinist Protestant Dominionism, both flowing from the Augustinian teaching on the use of force to compel conversions. However, the use of force requires the power to compel. The acquisition of this power was and is the purpose of USCCB's Pastoral Plan. Now that enough power has been achieved, the kid gloves are taken off and the mailed fist is exposed with threats, though not yet fully empowered.

Earlier in this paper, there are copious quotations from the book titled The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy by Stephen D. Mumford, DrPH. Of the many facts of critical importance to this paper, note the following quotations from Dr. Mumford's book:

On the recommendation of a prominent Jesuit priest, the USCCB's Pastoral was a means of manipulating America's governance to achieve the papacy's ends! This fact is foundational to the evidence that the Bishop's Pastoral Plan is the root of America's movement towards Christian Nationalism and political violence.

Rome's political power is nearing its zenith in America for the one purpose of destroying the nation's democracy and its guarantee of separation of Church and State and individual freedom.

"The importance of ecumenism to the bishops' Pastoral Plan is made evident by the position it occupies in the description of the plan, second only to the section on the mobilization of the troops.

A leading motivation for the involvement of Catholic leadership in ecumenism has been the Catholic Church's need for wide-scale public participation by Protestant churches in the anti-abortion movement. Blum recognized early on that "ecumenism" would be an essential weapon to counter the criticism certain to come with the blatant involvement of the bishops in making public policy. He saw that constant defense of the Catholic bishops by Protestant leaders, in the name of "ecumenism," was critical. In hindsight, he was obviously correct. Protestant leaders have served as tools of the Catholic bishops to blunt criticism, by branding such criticism as anti-Catholic or anti-freedom of religion and thus un-American. Protestants with good intentions were used like pawns to advance papal security interests at the expense of our country's." (Underscored emphasis added.)

This is very important in that the falsehood persists that the Protestants are the leaders in the Christian Nationalism movement. Rome bears responsibility all the way, and is the source of the idea that the Church must prevail over the secular in society (Integralism.)

(D) Yet another section of Chapter 9 titled "THE PLAN CREATED THE `NEW RIGHT" states the following:

What an array! But as Dr. Mumford states, "there are many others, some of which have created a shambles in the administration of justice. Some are identified in facts revealed about the creation of the "New Right" ("Religious Right,") now exposed as "Christian Nationalists."

Weyrich began to identify himself in the late 1970s with a movement whose name Richard Viguerie put on the title of his 1980 manifesto: The New Right. . .

The history of the founding and objectives of "New Right" (Religious Right) establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the whole movement was in direct execution of the "grassroots" part of the USCCB's Pastoral Plan. This brings us in particular to "the most consequential of the groups Weyrich played a role in founding," the Council for National Policy. This organization was deeply involved in the 2016 presidential election campaign of Donald Trump in nefarious and unlawful ways, and has been linked to the fraudulent claim that he won the 2020 election AND the violent events of January 6, 2021. The title of the next report lays out the charges comprehensibly, and the report provides the evidence. A major deficiency of the report is the common failure to identify the CNP as one of the USCCB's grassroots organizations:

On January 6, 2021, a stunned nation watched as protesters stormed the Capitol to prevent the certification of the electoral votes from the November election. The effort failed, but not without shining a harsh light on the fault lines of American democracy.

In the weeks that followed, analysts have struggled to define how much of the incursion was the spontaneous result of a “riot”—or a “peaceful protest” gone wrong—and how much was the result of a planned operation.

One major player in the events leading up to the assault on the Capitol was the Council for National Policy, an influential coalition of Christian conservatives, free-market fundamentalists, and political activists. Over the previous year the CNP and its members and affiliates organized efforts to challenge the validity of the election, conspired to overturn its results, and tried to derail the orderly transfer of power. This is an account of the measures they took, leading up to the deadly January 6 insurrection.

The Council for National Policy was founded in 1981 by a group of televangelists, Western oligarchs, and Republican strategists to capitalize on Ronald Reagan’s electoral victory the previous year. From the beginning, its goals represented a convergence of the interests of these three groups: a retreat from advances in civil and political rights for women and minorities, tax cuts for the wealthy, and raw political power. Operating from the shadows, its members, who would number some 400, spent the next four decades courting, buying, and bullying fellow Republicans, gradually achieving what was in effect a leveraged buyout of the GOP. Favorite sons, such as Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, were groomed, financed, and supported. Apostates, such as John McCain and Jeff Flake, were punished and exiled. The leaders of the CNP tended o favor their conservative Christian co-religionists, but political expedience came first. . .

Ultimate realization of the CNP’s agenda depended on winning a second term for Trump in November. With another four years, it could enshrine its socially regressive policies on the federal level, further blur the line between church and state, and consolidate huge windfalls for corporations and wealthy individuals. As of January 1, electoral prospects looked sweet. . .

According to The Washington Post’s unnamed sources, “The outside effort from conservative groups is expected to be led by Stephen Moore, a conservative at the Heritage Foundation who is close with White House economic officials; Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots; Adam Brandon, president of FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy organization; and Lisa Nelson, chief executive of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the conservative pro-business policy and lobbying organization with ties to the Koch brothers.”

This initiative marked a shift in the CNP profile. Going into the 2016 elections, the public faces of the organization had been prominent fundamentalists. Tony Perkins, CNP president from 2016 to 2019, is also an ordained Southern Baptist minister and longtime head of the fundamentalist lobbying group Family Research Council, and he has hosted Christian nationalists Robert Jeffress and David Barton on his radio broadcasts. Almost half of Trump’s original Evangelical Advisory Board—including Perkins—were members of the CNP, and they were in and out of the Oval Office on a regular basis. . .

CNP affiliates took action on a local level. Two days before the protest, Charlie Kirk tweeted that his organizations were “sending 80-plus buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.” (Kirk was indulging in hyperbole. Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet later confirmed to Reuters that Kirk’s organization, Turning Point Action, sent “seven buses carrying 350 students” to the rally, but added that the group “condemns political violence.”) Another tweet from Turning Point Action invited protesters to “ride a bus & receive priority entry” and “stay in a complimentary hotel.” Both tweets were deleted after January 6. In Lynchburg, Virginia, more than 100 protesters boarded buses organized by Liberty Counsel Action, chaired by CNP board of governors member Mat Staver.

CNP member Ginni (Mrs. Clarence) Thomas promoted the protest on her Twitter feed on January 6, tweeting, “Watch MAGA crowd today best with Right Side Broadcasting (https://rsbnetwork.com/), and then C-Span for what the Congress does starting at 1:00 pm today. LOVE MAGA people!!!!”

On another front, CNP member Scott Magill, a retired military physician who had joined the hydroxychloroquine campaign, summoned “fellow Warriors and Friends” to the protest on behalf of his organization, Veterans in Defense of Liberty. Magill had made a video presentation to a 2017 CNP meeting, which was accessed by Brent Allpress, describing VIDOL as a national organization made up of “battalions” and “companies,” formed to “identify and oppose all who would destroy our freedom, our Judeo-Christian values, our culture, or our morals.” It was expanded, he said, to include a “cavalry division of Veteran motorcycle riders” that could function as a “peaceful rapid response team.” . . .

The crowd moved toward the Capitol and invaded its halls, attacking Capitol police officers and vandalizing the premises. Simone Gold reprised her speech in the Rotunda, condemning the Covid-19 vaccine as “an experimental biological agent deceptively named a vaccine.” Some members of the mob clutched Bibles and carried signs reading “Jesus Saves.” Americans were stunned by shocking images of men in paramilitary gear snaking up the Capitol steps, of the mob assaulting a prostrate police officer, of extremists brandishing zip-tie handcuffs in the Senate chamber. . .

It will be months, if not years, before the details of the events in January will be fully revealed, including the identities of the organizers and underwriters and the role of the CNP. . .

The CNP’s affiliates were by no means acting alone in attempting to overturn the results of the election, or in their support for the Capitol protest on January 6. The evidence shows various networks at work: civilian and military, independent and intersecting, feckless and murderous.

What is irrefutable is that members of the CNP and their circle exerted their influence and manipulated their followers to support Trump’s lies about the stolen election and his effort to derail the electoral process. Many of these people emerged as key players in the efforts to disrupt America’s 220-year-old tradition of the peaceful transfer of power and stoked the fury of insurrectionists who desecrated American democracy on that fateful January afternoon. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Anne Nelson's evidence of CNP involvement in the January insurrection is corroborated by other sources:

The astroturfed #StoptheSteal group that drew thousands of Trumpists to the Washington, D.C. rally on Wednesday that turned into a violent insurrection at the Capitol has strong ties with the influential Christian Right Council for National Policy. . .

At least five members and leaders of the Council for National Policy (CNP) worked to turn out MAGA extremists and were scheduled to speak at the rally after Trump exhorted the crowd to march on the Capitol.

CNP is a secretive, influential “charity” composed of right-wing donors and Christian Right movement leaders and activists with deep ties to the Trump administration.

CNP convened a meeting on Nov. 12-14, 2020 to strategize on how to challenge the election results. In a panel titled “Election Results and Legal Battles: What Now?,” CNP members heard from voter fraud misinformation specialists J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, Cleta Mitchell, former partner at Foley & Lardner, and Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Mitchell, a CNP Board of Governors member, lost her job at Foley & Lardner after the Washington Post published a recording of a Jan. 2 phone call in which she joined Trump in pressuring Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough votes to declare Trump the winner in Georgia.

CNP “Action Steps "distributed from that panel and provided to CMD by investigative reporter Brent Allpress asked members to call on state and federal lawmakers to challenge the election results and appoint alternate slates of Trump electors to the Electoral College.

In November, CMD exposed that former CNP member and right-wing influencer Ali Alexander (aka Ali Akbar), was the driving force behind #StoptheSteal. Alexander organized turnout and spoke at the rally in D.C. alongside many of the same individuals who helped lead the earlier protests.

Alexander told reporters in advance of the Jan. 6 rally that he had more than 100 buses and 30,000 cars bringing protesters from across the country.

After the assault on Congress, Alexander made a statement that has since been removed by Twitter, in which he pointed to the rally on the Mall and said, “I don’t disavow this. I do not denounce this,” and attempted to distance himself from the violence at the Capitol, but then called stopthesteal.us the “home of the rebellion.” In another tweet, Alexander wrote, “Antifa Agitation!” to deflect blame for the riot.

Turning Point USA‘s founder and president Charlie Kirk, a CNP member who continues to spread misinformation of voter fraud and was listed as an organizer of the November #StoptheSteal rally in November, was also deeply involved in organizing the D.C. protest-turned-riot. Kirk, who also chairs Students for Trump, touted on Twitter that he was sending “80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.”

The right-wing Veterans in Defense of Liberty (VIDOL), led by CNP member Scott Magill, also sent troops to the insurrectionist #StoptheSteal event Wednesday. A January 3 email to “fellow Warriors and Friends,” stated that in response to Trump’s “clarion call,” VIDOL would attend the January 6 protest, and “our battle cry shall be, ‘We will not concede!'” (Underscored emphasis added.)

The involvement of the "grassroots" CNP organization in the January 6 insurrection ties the event directly to the USCCB's Pastoral Plan. Another report broadens the dimension of the breach of law and order to include the higher controlling power of Rome:

The fiery rallies that preceded the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 were organized and promoted by an array of established conservative insiders and activists, documents and videos show.

The Republican Attorneys General Association was involved, as were the activist groups Turning Point Action and Tea Party Patriots. At least six current or former members of the Council for National Policy (CNP), an influential group that for decades has served as a hub for conservative and Christian activists, also played roles in promoting the rallies.

The two days of rallies were staged not by white nationalists and other extremists, but by well-funded nonprofit groups and individuals that figure prominently in the machinery of conservative activism in Washington.

In recent days, as federal authorities rounded up those involved in the Capitol riot, promoters and participants of the rallies have denounced the violence and sought to distance their events from the events that followed. . .

Organizing warm-up events is not the same thing as plotting to invade the Capitol. But before the rallies, some used extreme rhetoric, including references to the American Revolution, and made false claims about the election to rouse supporters to challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Unless Congress responds to the protests, “everyone can guess what me and 500,000 others will do to that building,” tweeted Ali Alexander, a former CNP fellow who organized the “Stop the Steal” movement. “1776 is always an option.”

On Jan. 5, at Freedom Plaza in D.C., Alexander led protesters in a chant of “Victory or death.” . . .
Tea Party Patriots leader Jenny Beth Martin also condemned the violence and said in a statement to The Post that her group provided no financial support for the rally. “We are shocked, outraged, and saddened at the turn of events Wednesday afternoon,” Martin’s statement said. “We are heartbroken.”

Martin, also an executive committee member at CNP, was listed in promotional material as a rally speaker, though she did not ultimately speak. The Tea Party Patriots were listed as a “coalition partner” with Alexander’s Stop the Steal, RAGA and other groups.

“The rally was peaceful. You cannot blame what happened inside the Capitol on the promotion,” said Jason Jones, a CNP member and rally participant, who said he was there to speak about oppressed people around the world. He called the violence “sorrowful and tragic” but said it represented “a failure of policing and preparation.” . . .

Charlie Kirk, the leader of Turning Point USA, an organizer of conservative students, and Turning Point Action, its activist arm, also condemned the violence and called Jan. 6 “a really sad day for America,” according to a spokesman.

Before the rally, Kirk — a featured speaker at CNP meetings over the past two years and at the Republican National Convention in August — offered to pay for buses and hotel rooms for protesters.

“This historic event will likely be one of the largest and most consequential in American history,” he wrote in a tweet. “The team at @TrumpStudents & Turning Point Action are honored to help make this happen, sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.”

That tweet has been deleted. A spokesman said that Kirk eventually sent a half-dozen buses and that the student protesters had nothing to do with the violence. . .

Other establishment conservatives who condoned the protests include Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and listed last year as a CNP Action board member, who praised rallygoers in tweets.

“LOVE MAGA people!!!!” she tweeted early in the morning on Jan. 6. “GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING.”

Since the early 1980s, CNP has served as a bridge between Washington’s establishment conservatives and scores of Christian and right-wing groups across the nation. It convenes closed-door meetings for members and wealthy donors at least twice a year. CNP officials and their allies met weekly with White House officials under President Trump, in part to coordinate public messaging about the administration’s agenda, internal videos show. Trump spoke to the group in August.

Vice President Pence praised the group in a letter obtained by The Post, saying last year that “I just wanted to thank you and the Council for National Policy for your support and for consistently amplifying the agenda of President Trump.” . . .

In one meeting last summer, a CNP member warned that a “civil war” would result if Trump lost the election to predicted fraud, according to internal videos obtained by The Post.

In websites promoting the rallies, Alexander’s Stop the Steal coalition urged protesters to “take to” the Capitol steps “to make sure that Congress does not certify the botched Electoral College,” according to webpages that have been removed. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

This report of the Washington Post expands the dimension of the January 6 insurrection. The report about the CNP involvement ties the insurrection to the USCCB's Pastoral Plan. The rallies by established Washington insiders, which whipped up the crowds to a frenzy, hints at the influence of a higher earthly power. The reader will recall the revelation in Dr. Mumford's book that the Pastoral Plan followed the counsel of Jesuit priest Virgil Blum, founder and first President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. In a 1971 America magazine article titled, "Public Policy Making: Why the Churches Strike Out, "Blum asserted that "If a group is to be politically effective, issues rather than institutions must be at stake." Dr. Mumford states that "Blum's article set the stage for the creation of the Pastoral Plan, offering the bishops a set of well thought out guidelines which capitalized on centuries of experience of Jesuit manipulation of governments."

The Pastoral Plan has achieved the end recommended by the Jesuit Blum. In the process of its implementation "issues rather than institutions" have increasingly been perceived by a sufficiently large minority of the American population to be "at stake" in the culture wars.

What is in progress is a massive, and evidently terminal in the light of Bible prophecy, assault on the nation's constitutional government. The central target is the fundamental guarantee of Separation of Church and State. Why? Because once this is eliminated Rome, through this victory of Christian Nationalism (the combination of Integralism and Dominionism,) will have achieved the power to force "conversion" to her perverted version of Christianity.

The movement to achieve Theocracy is progressing in full view, and yet is rarely expressed by congressional candidates in terms of union of church and state. Of two notable exceptions in the 2022 mid-term elections, one was elected. Her statement was a display of outrageous ignorance by a candidate tor the U.S. Congress; and yet it was received with apparent enthusiasm by her church audience:

Political experts expressed concern Tuesday about misinformation spread by "extremist politicians" after Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said she's "tired" of the long-standing separation between church and state in the United States.

Driving the news: The controversial far-right lawmaker, who won her primary election Tuesday night, said at a religious service Sunday that "the church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church."

| "I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution," she added, claiming it was not how the founding fathers intended it.

| "It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does."

Between the lines: The letter was an apparent reference to Thomas Jefferson's 1802 missive to the Danbury Baptist Association, in which the author of the Declaration of Independence wrote that the First Amendment builds "a wall of separation between Church and State."

| Boebert's comments do not appear to apply to religions other than Christianity. . .

What they're saying: Boebert's claims are "false, misleading and dangerous," Gwen Calais-Haase, a political scientist at Harvard, told the Washington Post.

| She added she is "extremely worried about the environment of misinformation that extremist politicians take advantage of for their own gains."

| Annie Laurie Gaylor, a founding member of the nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation, said in an interview with the Denver Post that Boebert's comments paint the picture of a theocracy.

| "It’s not liberty when you start forcing your dogma on everybody else," she said.

| "Boebert did not come to this on her own," tweeted journalist Sarah Posner, who has written two books about the American Christian right. "She’s the product of a multi-decade campaign to elect Christian nationalists to public office and this is a central tenet of their ideology."

| Ben Stout, a spokesperson for Boebert, told Axios she is not advocating for a theocracy and that she simply believes the government should be guided by basic Christian principles. . .

Background: Boebert has been described as a white Christian nationalist. (Underscored emphasis added.)

"She is not advocating for a theocracy . . .?" What happened? Evidently she was warned against being so explicit. Meanwhile, the USCCB has published a document questioning the separation of church and state, but dressed up with deceptive language to make it appear that the papacy's position is but a type of true secularism:

For three days in January of 1077 the German emperor Henry IV stood barefoot in the snow, making penance outside the castle of Canossa. While few today know of this episode, or the dramatic showdown between royal and papal authority which preceded it, those three days in the Tuscan cold could be as important to the development of western constitutionalism as the later events at Philadelphia.

In the early Middle Ages, kings and princes exercised great influence over Church affairs. One prominent point of such influence was control over the selection and investiture (that is, the installation) of bishops. Pope Gregory VII attempted to push back on this, issuing in 1075 his Dictatus Papae (“The Dictates of the Pope”), a ringing and harsh condemnation of the practice. Henry and his bishops were initially unmoved. He responded in 1076, stating, “I, Henry, king by the grace of God, do say unto you, together with all of our bishops: Go down, go down, to be damned throughout the ages.”

But then, the pope excommunicated emperor, and in a chastening defeat the German monarch accepted penance rather than persist in conflict. However, the stunning papal victory of the penance at Canossa was hardly the end of the struggle; indeed, the Wars of Investiture soon broke out, with Gregory ultimately dying in exile. The Concordat of Worms, in 1122, calmed things for a time, and represented a kind of compromise; it was a compromise, though, out of which emerged “Western political science – and especially the first modern Western theories of the state and secular law[.]”1 What was at stake at Canossa, then – as at the Cathedral in Canterbury a century later, when the “meddlesome priest” St. Thomas Becket was murdered by another ambitious King Henry – was the “principle that royal jurisdiction was not unlimited . . . and that it was not for the secular authority alone to decide where its boundaries should be fixed.” In other words, …The ideals of limited government and constitutionalism in a very real sense owe their genesis to Gregory’s stand at Canossa.

A key dimension of religious freedom is the freedom of the Church, as a community and as an institution, to govern itself, a freedom that has been hardwon through centuries of interactions, both cooperative and conflictual, with civil authorities. It thus follows that there is a distinction between Church and state. “Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere. The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated” (Deus caritas est, 28). Pope Benedict XVI has described this Catholic conception of the relationship of Church and state as “positive secularism.” But in understanding exactly why such a prominent religious figure would promote secularism, it is important to understand what Benedict XVI did- and did not- mean by the term.

The Constitution of the United States is a helpful starting point in understanding modern religious liberty. The relevant text of the First Amendment itself- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”- only goes so far in delineating the boundaries of religious liberty. Such a lack of resolution from the text of the Constitution itself contributes to ongoing debate and differing views over the proper understanding of religious liberty and the interaction between Church and State.

There are, roughly speaking, three broad “models” for understanding religious liberty and the roles of Church and State. The first model understands religious liberty within the Constitution to be a limited liberty, constricting religion to a wholly private sphere, with little or no role to play in public life. This is the “freedom from” religion model, which takes the dimmest view of religion, considering it immature at best and a danger to the public good at worst. The second model takes a more neutral view of religion, and is more willing to recognize the place of importance that religion holds for many individuals. However, religious liberty in this model is just “liberty.” Religion is not be singled out for either special hostilities or unique protections; the law is, to the greatest extent possible, neutral toward religion.

These two previous approaches, however, fail to take into account the basic premise underlying the First Amendment: that religious freedom, in and of itself, matters. “Religious freedom,” as President Clinton noted, “is literally our first freedom.” His point was not the insignificant one that religious liberty appears first in the Bill of Rights. It was instead a call to recognize that the freedom of religion was central to the American Founders’ vision for the American political community. They understood that, unless our most sacred things are protected from the grubby goals – and also the commendable ones – of state functionaries, all our other freedoms – of the press, of speech, of conscience – are vulnerable.

Positive secularism, as Benedict XVI championed, therefore takes into account the idea of “freedom for” religion. Freedom for religion goes beyond merely treating religion as a permissible private exercise. The right to display of one’s religion in the public sphere is also protected. Further still, the government both accommodates and facilitates religion (without preference for any particular creed) with respect to both religious individuals and religious institutions. The model is “secular” in the sense that laws and policies are not supplied directly by religious authority; it is “positive”, though, in that the understanding of human flourishing that it is designed to promote includes the search for religious truth and the sanctity of religious conscience.

Positive secularism recognizes the legitimate role of the state. Civil authority is an indispensable institution for human flourishing. The state has the duty of building up the common good and ordering the life of a political community according to the natural law. According to the Second Vatican Council’s “Pastoral Constitution on the Church and the World”:

The political community exists, consequently, for the sake of the common good, in which it finds its full justification and significance, and the source of its inherent legitimacy. … It is clear, therefore, that the political community and public authority are founded on human nature and hence belong to the order designed by God (Gaudium et spes, 74).

And since religious practice is a crucial dimension of human flourishing, a well-ordered state does not merely allow for religion; it positively seeks to foster the conditions in which religious practice can thrive:

The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious (Dignitatis humanae, 3).

The Church is also indispensable. The Church orders the community to its final end, namely, God. The Church and state should cooperate with each other, but at the same time, they should not interfere with each other’s distinctive purposes. Catholic teaching does not require only one way for the Church and state to relate to one another.

In a properly functioning society, the natural law should inform the public life of the nation. And, at a bare minimum, the Church must be free to engage her mission of preaching and demonstrating the gospel of the Incarnate Lord. The state cannot impede her preaching the gospel, and it cannot encroach upon her sacramental life.

Supporting the honest search for truth for each human person does not interfere with the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church nor does such an emphasis present a threat to a legitimately established government. The Church supports the right of individuals and communities to seek the true God. And the Catholic Church is an ally of good government. When government threatens truth and love, the Church reminds governmental authorities to respect the common good. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

We need to take very seriously the passage "The ideals of limited government and constitutionalism in a very real sense owe their genesis to Gregory’s stand at Canossa." Not only does it place the stamp of approval on the naked power exercised by Pope Gregory VII; it also falsely attributes the ideals of limited government to the exercise of that naked power. The ideals of limited government owe their genesis to the Protestant Reformation which gave birth to democracy. The deference paid to the idea of "harmony between the followers of different religions" is a deception when matched against Rome's teachings on her right of pre-eminence. She has not renounced, and never will renounce, Integralism and Augustine's doctrine on the use of force. However, dissertations such as the above have fooled Protestants into believing the hypocritical promises of Vatican II. Beware when Rome undertakes to prove that her principles are compatible with the American Constitution!! Pope Leo also referred to the Middle Ages when he denounced America's Separation of Church and State and her democracy, and his views have not been repudiated by any succeeding pope.

Lauren Boebert is also a member of the congressional Freedom Caucus. Who are they?:

Contrary to most political and media expectations, democracy stood its ground in the November elections. But even before all the votes were counted and the celebrations subsided, the Washington Post unintentionally gave us a reminder of one big reason why this country remains in trouble.

In just five words – “the staunchly conservative Freedom Caucus” – the Post made clear it still hasn’t caught up with the reality of our politics today – or the truth of its own reporting. A dangerous authoritarian nationalism has infected and taken control of the Republican Party, and the Freedom Caucus is one of its power centers. . .

First organized in 2015, the Freedom Caucus is composed of about 40 Republican members of the House of Representatives, most of whom were first elected in 2010 or later and who are considered among the most unwilling to compromise on conservative policies. Originally chaired by Jim Jordan (OH) and now run by Scott Perry (PA), the Caucus is dominated by election deniers and Christian nationalists. Both Perry and Jordan have spread false claims of voter fraud and campaigned to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Members Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) and Lauren Boebert (CO), both frequently spotlighted in the news for their incendiary remarks, have openly declared their belief that the United States is a Christian nation. Greene has even declared herself a Christian nationalist and Boebert has said the separation of church and state is ”junk”.

The Freedom Caucus, led by these outspoken individuals, value loyalty to themselves and their party over their oath of office. They stand for the imposition of their views whether or not they are supported by democratic processes and in contradiction to the Constitution and laws of the United States. This makes them not “staunchly conservative” but dangerously authoritarian. . .

Members of the Freedom Caucus are undermining the integrity of our elections, scorning the processes and institutions of governing, and advocating for the imposition of a state religion. Until journalists begin to hold them accountable and portray them and their Caucus as enemies of the Constitution and American democracy, and not merely as staunch or hard-line participants in the routines of partisan politics, they will be failing in their role as watchdogs of democracy. (Underscored emphasis added.)

Resort to violence to accomplish their purpose is now firmly associated with the Republicans:

Right now, the GOP views threats of violence as offering a political advantage with no real downside. Normalization of this behavior by President Biden or the media will only make it worse.

The mainstream media’s blackout of Trump has done nothing to stop the circulation of his ideas or their ability to reshape the GOP. And these include the increasingly normalized threats of violence. When Republican Representative Paul Gosar tweeted an anime video showing him killing his Democratic colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and swinging at President Joe Biden with two swords, there was hardly an elected Republican to be found to object or say that Gosar had crossed the line into indecency. Gosar’s claim that he was just joking has become, through complicit silence, his party’s line. . .

Surveying the rise of threats of violence in public life, The New York Times reported on November 12 that “threats against members of Congress have jumped by 107 percent compared with the same period in 2020, according to the Capitol Police.” Remarkably, the situation is so bad that the paper, habitually given to framing all political disputes as the fault of both parties, was frank about the role of the GOP. The Times report noted, “From congressional offices to community meeting rooms, threats of violence are becoming commonplace among a significant segment of the Republican Party. Ten months after rioters attacked the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, and after four years of a president who often spoke in violent terms about his adversaries, right-wing Republicans are talking more openly and frequently about the use of force as justifiable in opposition to those who dislodged him from power.”

Profiling three individuals who’d made threats against elected officials, Reuters found some commonalities, including the fact that “all described themselves as patriots fighting a conspiracy that robbed Donald Trump of the 2020 election. They are regular consumers of far-right websites that embrace Trump’s stolen-election falsehoods. And none have been charged with a crime by the law enforcement agencies alerted to their threats.”

The last point is crucial. Like Gosar’s violent anime, many of the acts of intimidation that are becoming more common don’t lend themselves to a law enforcement solution. The threatening words and images are often vague enough that they fall under the legal definition of protected political speech. But make no mistake: These are words meant to intimidate—and they instill real fear.

Far from denouncing those issuing such threats, the GOP uses its political muscle to protect them. When the Justice Department indicated it was going to investigate threats to school board members over critical race theory, Republicans in Congress objected, with Representative Jim Jordan complaining of the creation of a “snitch line.”

Ultimately, these threats of violence need to be understood as primarily a political problem. They are happening because the GOP views them as offering a political advantage with no real downside. The way to combat them is to call attention to them politically, in speeches and campaigns, making clear that Trump’s gangster politics are now accepted by the Republican Party as a whole.

Biden failed to make the link between Trump and the party’s increasing extremism in the 2020 election. Like Hillary Clinton before him, he tried to distinguish between the toxic Trump and a redeemable GOP. But this sop to moderate Republicans effectively prevents Democrats from describing what’s actually happening. It reinforces the view that non-Trump Republicans, like the newly elected Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, should get points just for being more polite. Going forward, Democrats have to make sure that the public understands the politics of intimidation isn’t just a Trump problem, but a Republican one. (Underscored emphasis added.)

The above article states: "Ultimately, these threats of violence need to be understood as primarily a political problem." The threats of violence can more correctly be described as a religio-political catastrophe which must be charged against the Church of Rome. A Roman Catholic publication is one of the sources which prove that the Republican Party has become the American Catholic Party Cf. The Vatican Connection.

The following report in Church and State provides a useful summation of this religio-political catastrophe that is rapidly destroying American Democracy, and the Separation of Church and State which is the nation's only guarantee of individual liberty:

Christian nationalists believe that Christians have been, and continue to be, under attack in the U.S. They believe it’s past time to restore the nation to its so-called Christian roots. Christian nationalists had a major presence at the January 6 attack on the Capital; have soaked up and spread anti-vaccine conspiracy theories; have been consistently pro-Trump and anti-Biden; and have established a powerful infrastructure, made up of an assortment of media platforms, creating, among other entities, a parallel Christian nationalist digital world.

Sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry describe Christian nationalism as “a cultural framework that blurs distinctions between Christian identity and American identity, viewing the two as closely related and seeking to enhance and preserve their union.”

As Religion News Service’s Bob Smietana recently noted, “‘Christian nationalist’ once summoned images of fiery extremists — stark racists concerned with keeping immigrants out of the United States or politicians who argued that the Ten Commandments ought to coexist in law with the Constitution. Then came Jan. 6, and suddenly the term became a culture-war acid test: One member of Congress began selling ‘Proud Christian Nationalist’ T-shirts, while First Baptist Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress said if opposing abortion, transgender rights and illegal immigration made him a Christian nationalist, ‘count me in.’”

In his piece headlined “Who are the Christian nationalists? A taxonomy for the post-Jan. 6 world: A guide to emerging Christian nationalist voices,” Smietana describes “six loose networks of faith leaders and followers who fit some part of [Whitehead and Perry’s] definition”:

“[L]argely unorganized faithful Americans are in many cases your friends, family and neighbors who hold dear a vision of the country rooted in nostalgia for a past that is more aspirational than historical.” An October Pew Research survey found that forty-five percent of Americans believe the U.S. should be a “Christian nation,” although “researchers say respondents differed greatly when it came to outlining what a Christian nation should look like, suggesting a wide spectrum of beliefs” RNS’s Jack Jenkins reported.

These are the organizations and leaders that have been pushing a right-wing Christian agenda for more than fifty years. These descendants of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, include Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council, Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Texas faux historian and activist David Barton.

Smietana points out that “Mostly concerned with pushing anti-abortion and ‘family values’ legislation, they advocate for a Christian influence in our existing politics. While their heyday came under the Reagan administration, they can claim a new generation in such politicians as Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano and Colorado’s U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert.”

This is, to borrow from Maurice Sendak, is “Where The Wild Things Are.” The disgraced Gen. Michael Flynn, Tennessee pastor Greg Locke, and an assortment of Stop the Steal and anti-vaccine activists have been touring the country, drawing large crowds, for their “Reawaken America Tour.” “Among their supporters,” Smietana writes, “are devotees of QAnon, who often claim the world is run by a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophile Democrats.”

Where those booted off many social media platforms (although Elon Musk appears to be restoring them to Twitter) have established a popular digital presence. “Known to spout antisemitic and white supremacist rhetoric, these internet-based nationalists also include such figures as Andrew Torba, head of alternative social media website Gab who was briefly connected to Mastriano’s gubernatorial campaign. Torba recently published a book approving of Christian nationalism,” Smietana notes.

These are people that backed Trump and will likely get behind him again if it looks like his campaign gains momentum. Here is where you’ll find an assortment of mega church pastors, prayer warriors, spiritual warfare promoters, and some members of the New Apostolic Reformation, “a network of preachers who believe that church leaders have been given spiritual authority over Christian nations and seek to develop ties with leaders abroad.”

Before the ongoing sedition trial of five Proud Boys, the group – not particularly known for prayer – issued a call to supporters:“I am calling for prayer and fasting for these brothers during their 6 week estimated trial,” the Proud Boys channel posted to its 20,000 Telegram subscribers. “…If you have never fasted before, it is an act of denying your flesh, it will draw you closer spiritually to God as you send your petitions up to Him.”Smietana reported “that some members of the Patriot Front who were arrested in June for allegedly planning to riot at a Coeur d’Alene Pride event have shown connections to pastor and former Washington state lawmaker Matt Shea, a right-wing firebrand who has touted a document titled ‘Biblical Basis for War.’”

While Smietana’s categorization is useful, it is clear that there is significant crossover between the categories. One thing is certain: They all are united by a Christian nationalism whose advocates believe, according to Paul D. Miller’s excellent Christianity Today piece titled “What Is Christian Nationalism” that, “the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way.” On January 6, we saw those “active steps” manifested. (Underscored emphasis added.)

It must be pointed out that there is a deficiency in the "21st Century American Axis of Evil" image above, in that the "Weaponized Religion" component overlooks the Church of Rome and all of her activist "grassroots" organizations. With the inclusion of Integralism along with Dominionism the "21st Century American Axis of Evil" is a very apt description of the conglomerate which fuels the Augustinian Roman Catholic-Calvinist doctrine on the use of force.

The "21st Century American Axis of Evil" is ascendant in the "ecumenism of hate" while the "ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges" ensnares the Protestant world. It is the nature of the first Beast of Rev. 13:1-3 & 7; and the second Beast of Rev. 13:11-12, which has exercised satanic power to make the Image of the first Beast of Rev.13:14b-17. The Image of the Beast is approaching the pinnacle of its power. Surely the success of the "ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges" fulfils Rev. 13:3b-4 as the fruit of "strong delusion."

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph. 6:10-17.)