Latest Zionist MSM Attack on the Catholic Church

[Christopher Marlowe]

I was saddened to hear Ognir say on TFC that the Catholic Church should be banned. IMHO, the pederasty scandals have been caused by a secret cabal of Masons, communists & homosexuals within the Vatican.  Banning the Church would accomplish their goal for them: they hate the Church and that is why they are trying to bring the Church down.  

I was glad to see that DBS was not roped in by the latest zionist MSM attacks on the Catholic Church.  He posted this article on TFC.  I hope Ognir gets a chance to read it:
 
http://license.icopyright.net/user/view ... kxMTMzMQ==

The name of the article is "The Times They Are a Smearin".  I can't post it here because the site charges a fee for cutting and pasting.  Fuckers.

Here are some quotes:

The real story is the American left's agenda to undermine all traditional institutions in this country, with establishment media outlets like the Times and Newsweek leading the feeding frenzy....

"Issues like abortion, gay marriage and women's ordination that's what's really driving them mad, and that's why they are on the hunt.  Those who doubt this to be true need to ask why the debt-ridden Times does not spend the same resources looking for dirt in other institutions that occurred a half-century ago.

Long is right, when it comes to the vast majority of abuse incidents by Catholic clergy.  Thirty years ago, annual abuse incidents approached 800 in number; for the year 2009 the claims against 40,000 US priests and tens of thousands of others come to a grand total of six; astoundingly small for an institution the side of the Catholic Church."

Six claims in 2009! Why doesn't the Times investigate school districts that have a much higher rate of sexual abuse claims? Because the schools already push the depraved social agenda that the zionists love to sell.

Less than three years ago, an Associated Press investigation found thousands of cases of educator abuse.  

"Most of the abuse never gets reported," the AP noted.  "Those cases reported often end with no action...many abusers have several victims. And no one, not the schools, not the courts, not the state or federal governments, has found a surefire way to keep molesting teachers out of classrooms."

But meanwhile, the Times confuses people like Ognir who are watching MTV and expecting to hear the truth.  These poor people are confused by the MSM message, and they don't know any better. So they get angry at the Church and think that they are somehow helping society by attacking the institution that Christ established to provide salvation to the world.

[Anonymous]

Ah Christopher Marlow agent of the Vatican. Not you but the alleged writer during the the time of major rift between England and the Vatican.

In the Queens corner - Willy spear shaker vs  the Vatican spokesman CM which is probably an anagram maybe an archer of sorts

Pope shift is supposed to happen according this website

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/

Anyway it's supposed to mark the end of the fish age and usher in the man carrying water.

Recently I have seen the show Spartacus which has brought me much insight of the battle between The Brotherhood - aka slaves of Rome versus the Vatican.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Christopher, i have been asking myself why the Jews decided to launch this attack on Christianity now. Any insight? They could have done this a long time ago, so now why?

[Anonymous]

Christopher, i have been asking myself why the Jews decided to launch this attack on Christianity now. Any insight? They could hvae done this a long time ago, so now why?

I believe it's an attack on Catholics and Vatican Power not necessarily Christianity.

but this is interesting on the heals of all the drama

pope to visit UK and Queen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8271556.stm

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Christopher, i have been asking myself why the Jews decided to launch this attack on Christianity now. Any insight? They could hvae done this a long time ago, so now why?

I believe it's an attack on Catholics and Vatican Power not necessarily Christianity.

but this is interesting on the heals of all the drama

pope to visit UK and Queen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8271556.stm

It's definitely an attack on Christianity as a whole. The Orthodox Church is untouchable, so the Jews know not to go there, Western Christianity is already usurped by Jewry, so the Jews know that the Roman Catholic Church is the last bastion of traditional Christianity. Root it out, just like the Jews and the Masons did during the French Revolution.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Christopher, i have been asking myself why the Jews decided to launch this attack on Christianity now. Any insight? They could have done this a long time ago, so now why?

I don't know.
1) Bishop Williamson?
2) Homosexual marriage?
3) Get the Rabbi organ trading ring out of the news cycle?

DBS says this is an attack on faith. For the longest time the media was content to present Pope JP II as a spiritual leader.  Benedict seems to have been attacked by the media from the git go.  He made a couple of good moves: he ordered seminaries to stop taking in queers. He let any church say the Tridentine Mass without permission. He took in the Pius XII bishops.

(When Benedict said "no more homo priests" that got some people mad. I used to go to mass where they had a homo priest.  This priest was all in a hissy fit, and he condemned the Pope during Mass.  Then that priest quit the biz.)

If you think about it, a lot of what we think about people is formed by the media. I don't know any of these people. All I know is what I've read and what I've heard them say. From what I know, JP II and Benedict were not that far apart politically and spiritually.  It always seemed to me that JP II let Ratzinger, as the do all the heavy lifting as the "Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith" in a kind of good cop/bad cop way. But I might have that opinion because it was formed by some story I read somewhere.  

Benedict doesn't photograph well sometimes.  He looks kind of shifty.  I knew a guy who had eyes like Benedict. He had big, scary blue eyes like Benedict.  But he was the nicest old guy.  Not a mean guy at all. And when he got older, he just got more gentle.  So looks can be deceiving.  

The media doesn't want to present the Church as a spiritual beacon. And I think the media is kind of like a gang of dogs.  One of them will snap, and if nobody does anything, they will snap again.  Pretty soon they are all snapping and its a pack of snarling dogs.  When a dog snaps at you, you have to walk up and pound him on the top of the head with your fist. Otherwise he will think you're afraid of him.  You have to let that dog know that you are willing to kick him in the balls. Same thing with the media.  You have to kick the media in the balls.  

People are becoming more aggressive in their treatment of Christianity in general, IMHO.  I read comments on blogs where people will just openly condemn "Christians" in a manner that would bring in the ACLU and the ADL if they had said "Jews".  

I think we are in the End Times.  People are going to get nastier, I think.  When a person is confronted with their own sin, they have the choice to reject sin and turn to God, or to reject God. Society is openly embracing so much sin that the people seem to naturally take the next step and reject God.  

Our media lies.
Television and the movies sell sex non-stop.  
There is rampant greed and selfishness.
Wars without end.
Sin.

[Anonymous]

I see it more as the children of Saturn are striking the children of the Sun, but to me it's about Power and not about religion.

but what do I know

to me it has been the ongoing war since the fall of Jerusalem [Constantinople] between the powers, the catholic reformation - switching from Saturn to worship a new god - Sun God, which led to the protesting reformations and the slaves of Rome plotting to overthrow those romans.

http://mind42.com/pub/mindmap?mid=d7245 ... bfadb804e5

http://deathflag.com/deathflag/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=867

http://deathflag.com/deathflag/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=866

Of all the pagan Mysteries instituted by the ancients none were
more extensively diffused than those of the Grecian god Dionysus.
They were established in Greece, Rome, Syria, and all Asia Minor.
Among the Greeks, and still more among the Romans, the rites
celebrated on the Dionysiac festival were, it must be confessed, of a
dissolute and licentious character.26 But in Asia they assumed a
different form. There, as elsewhere, the legend (for it has already
been said that each Mystery had its legend) recounted, and the
ceremonies represented, the murder of Dionysus by the Titans. The
secret doctrine, too, among the Asiatics, was not different from that
among the western nations, but there was something peculiar in the
organization of the system. The Mysteries of Dionysus in Syria,
more especially, were not simply of a theological character. There
the disciples joined to the indulgence in their speculative and secret
opinions as to the unity of God and the immortality of the soul,
which were common to all the Mysteries, the practice of an
operative and architectural art, and occupied themselves as well in
the construction of temples and public buildings as in the pursuit of
divine truth.
I can account for the greater purity of these Syrian rites only by
adopting the ingenious theory of Thirwall,27 that all the Mysteries
"were the remains of a worship which preceded the rise of the
Hellenic mythology, and its attendant rites, grounded on a view of
nature less fanciful, more earnest, and better fitted to awaken both
philosophical thought and religious feeling," and by supposing that
the Asiatics, not being, from their geographical position, so early
imbued with the errors of Hellenism, had been better able to
preserve the purity and philosophy of the old Pelasgic faith, which,
itself, was undoubtedly a direct emanation from the patriarchal
religion, or, as it has been called, the Pure Freemasonry of the
antediluvian world.

[mgt23]

I see it more as the children of Saturn are striking the children of the Sun, but to me it's about Power and not about religion.

i 100% agree

[Father Brown]

Very nice posts, Christopher. I too am of the opinion that we are in some kind of end times. If not the real end, definitely the end of an epoch and a new era to begin shortly. How's that for covering my bet?

But, more to the point, I think the reason for the assault on faith is that ordinarily these hard economic times and all the lies that are told these days would normally lead many back to the faith. They, the evil-doers, have to be on guard to convince people that there is nothing to return to so they can keep them floating adrift, all by themselves, on the turbulent waters of never-ending change and excitement.  

The Church can be dangerous in times like this. A major return of the flock can actually bring Orthodoxy back and a rejection of modernism. That wouldn't be good for the NWO business, now would it?

[Christopher Marlowe]

I see it more as the children of Saturn are striking the children of the Sun, but to me it's about Power and not about religion.

I don't know what that is all about. I think if you spoke to 100 Catholic priests, they wouldn't have a clue about worshiping Saturn or the Sun.  The Catholic Church is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  

As for power and religion, I think that the former causes a perversion of the latter.  Religion is the formal version and ritual of spirituality. Power is an illusion.

Religion can be pure or it can be made perverse.  A man who sees that, by speaking the Word of God, or performing some ceremony, he will cause many to gather and to pay money. That is an illusion because people are gathering to hear the Word of God. Anyone who speaks the Word of God is only a conduit. But the man is tempted to think of what he can do with that political power, and all that money.  A man will be tempted, and he will sin inasmuch as that man turns from God's word to serve his own selfish desires.

O'er-prized all popular rate, in my false brother
    Awaked an evil nature; and my trust,
    Like a good parent, did beget of him
    A falsehood in its contrary as great
    As my trust was; which had indeed no limit,
    A confidence sans bound. He being thus lorded,
    Not only with what my revenue yielded,
    But what my power might else exact, like one
    Who having into truth, by telling of it,
    Made such a sinner of his memory,
    To credit his own lie, he did believe
    He was indeed the duke; out o' the substitution
    And executing the outward face of royalty,
    With all prerogative: hence his ambition growing--
   ....
    To have no screen between this part he play'd
    And him he play'd it for, he needs will be
    Absolute Milan.

But the struggle of power in this realm and the battle between Good and Evil are shadows of each other. I would occasionally speak of political things to some nuns I know, and after I finished they would say something like, "The evil one is always trying to work mischief in this world." They saw everything as a shadow of the spiritual battle.  

If we witnessed a fight that was reflected in a polished mirror, we would be pressed to say which was the illusion, but we would not doubt that each image displayed the same scene. We could have our own strong feelings about which was real and which was the illusion, but there would be no settlement until the mirror was cracked or otherwise exposed.  

Without trying to be too esoteric, this temptation to possess power gets at another advantage of Grace over the Law. The principle of the Law is that we can cause God to act on our behalf by being righteous, and that we become righteous by fulfilling the Law. Grace is the recognition that we are dependent upon God for our justification. It is, at its core, a recognition of our powerlessness. It should be more difficult to be tempted by the illusion of power when one recognizes that he does not possess any power, but that all his gifts flow from the Grace of God.  

IMHO, I have seen that all the power given to me is not my own. I was born into this world and given things. Even the work that I have done to improve myself was a gift from God.  After I have been given all of these gifts, should I imagine myself to be the source of all my gifts as well?  Am I the Duke of Milan? That would make me a liar because my consciousness begins with my earliest memory, and progresses only until the present. I am a creature; however exquisite, I am a creation. Finite, but for whatever spark of the divine with which I have been Graced.  All my works were given to me.  Even my appreciation of what is fine: love, beauty, truth; that too is a gift from God. For I know that there are men who profit by lying and who love to lie. So by what Grace was I born into a situation that made me love Truth more than lies?

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in
faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in
action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the
beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what
is this quintessence of dust?

[Christopher Marlowe]

I too am of the opinion that we are in some kind of end times. If not the real end, definitely the end of an epoch and a new era to begin shortly. How's that for covering my bet?

Yes.  You are not merely hairsplitting, and that might be the better way to put it.  

But, more to the point, I think the reason for the assault on faith is that ordinarily these hard economic times and all the lies that are told these days would normally lead many back to the faith. They, the evil-doers, have to be on guard to convince people that there is nothing to return to so they can keep them floating adrift, all by themselves, on the turbulent waters of never-ending change and excitement.  

The Church can be dangerous in times like this. A major return of the flock can actually bring Orthodoxy back and a rejection of modernism. That wouldn't be good for the NWO business, now would it?

I agree. In fact, that is what I see in Ireland in particular. The Faith has always been strong in Ireland, and perhaps the greatest challenge has been the "economic miracle" of the last few decades.  Now that we see the Irish people may be returning to that historical norm of crushing poverty, it could also be a chance for people to turn away from the worldly temptations and perhaps walk with the Lord.  

I don't want to make it sound as though I like hearing that Ireland has been hit hard in this way, far from it. I have mostly Irish roots, and initially I was glad to hear that Ireland was showing the world all that its people could do. But I can see that the creation of "wealth" in most countries is just an illusion. What kind of wealth is it that can disappear overnight? And when I was there, I saw the real estate boom was creating the same kinds of shitty little subdivisions in Galway that we see here in California: Miserable little pockets of cookie-cutter houses with no property that are nearby to nothing.  

And now that Ireland, the land of saints and scholars, was waking up to the fact that its wealth was central bank created funny money, I hoped that they might return to the Church. Suddenly we have the dirty laundry of scandal hung up on the lines of the zionist media.  As if to say, "Don't go to Church.  The Pope wets his bed.  He is a loser like you.  I know: Last week you were a software developer and this week you're just a white nigger.  It's not fair. There is no God.  Instead, you should soothe your worries with Paxil and Zoloft and Prozac.  Watch our funny TV shows."

[GordZilla]

I see it more as the children of Saturn are striking the children of the Sun, but to me it's about Power and not about religion.

I don't know what that is all about. I think if you spoke to 100 Catholic priests, they wouldn't have a clue about worshiping Saturn or the Sun.  The Catholic Church is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.  

As for power and religion, I think that the former causes a perversion of the latter.  Religion is the formal version and ritual of spirituality. Power is an illusion.

Religion can be pure or it can be made perverse.  A man who sees that, by speaking the Word of God, or performing some ceremony, he will cause many to gather and to pay money. That is an illusion because people are gathering to hear the Word of God. Anyone who speaks the Word of God is only a conduit. But the man is tempted to think of what he can do with that political power, and all that money.  A man will be tempted, and he will sin inasmuch as that man turns from God's word to serve his own selfish desires........

I would have, and probably should have, quoted your whole post but to save space I didn't.  I just wanted to say what a beautiful piece of work.  Well said.

I think, personally, if you cannot see - by now - that this battle is most definitely one of a spiritual nature well then I'm afraid you missing the biggest piece. This is most definitely a battle for our very souls! We do have them, souls that is, and where yours may spend eternity should be very important to you. It is most definitely important to them, and they don't want it to ascend. They do all they can to see that any decency and morality that Christianity may bring to oneself is discredited and removed. They are the true devil's advocates. Attacking the church is nothing new, it's a new story in the press but it has plenty of company thru history. However more rabbi's have been guilty of this sin than priests,  but those stories just don't seem to make the papers. This is only part of what they do to destroy the faith, many other examples can be found throughout history. Look at America; the slow decline of Christian values, removal of the prayers in schools, Christmas trees and 'Merry Christmas' becoming a thing of the past, and the general destruction of the true Christian church to be replaced by the false Judaeo-Christian church. In Russia we saw millions of Christians slaughtered, churches destroyed and priests humiliated then murdered. All done by the Jew. For what ? Power? They already had power, this is not done for power. It's something a little more real  and sinister than that. It's done out of shear hate of Jesus and anyone who follows Him. This is so fricken obvious it hurts, yet some still can't see. It's for your soul, it is to bring you DOWN. Down to their level, and it's working. Has there ever, since the days of Babylon, been a society more base and derogated than our current one? Had it not been for Christ, and His faithful, this process would have long since been over. We would have succumb to their evil a long long time ago (we may never have left Babylon at all) . Christianity is (well   ...'was' now) their biggest enemy, it has the power to expose them like rats in a floodlight. But alas that time has passed, that kind of Christianity requires devout Christians, and those types are very few. Thank God we still have a strong devout Muslim population on earth, and now they become the Jews last hurdle.

No, it's not for power. Its to see just how many sorry souls they can send down to their father's 'care'. To destroy all things good and decent, for the sake of sin. To bring them a surrounding that they are more comfortable with. A world without a devout faith in God, is a world ripe for the picking for them. It would be a time and place when their perceived 'power' can be exercised, on a global scale, much as we saw in Russia. Who could protest? On what grounds? In a world as base as the one they strive for, protesting would be mute as apathy and selflessness would reign supreme - are we close yet? Sure seems like it.

'Now' is called the 'present' for a reason; not but by the grace of God are we even here.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Great sentiments and wonderful writing above. Impressive...

The only thing I can contribute on this question is that Jews have basically brought in a highly "sexualized" culture over the West since the invention of the photographic techniques, television and movies. They have also worked anxiously in several societies to ruin and weaken the moral tone. I think Globally, the Catholic Church is no different than any other institution facing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the hands of Evil Jews with goals to bring down meekness, nobility, tradition and honor.  The Catholic Church is attacked since it is a serious power that can thwart Jewish attempts at Global Hegemony - and it appears a little corrupted than say the Orthodox Church. And the Jewish Rabbis, certainly no longer want to be "approved" in any manner, by Christians that are in any organization representing Christ.

With that said, me must look closely though at why this weakness in Catholicism persists.  Consider that the only "Celibate" Priests at the time of Jesus and his apostles, were found in the Pagan temples of Mithras. Jewish Rabbis and Scholars were married men as were the Jewish Priestly class at that time. Jesus never instituted a Church with a leadership of "Celibates". That idea is historically contrived.  

Consider that Celibacy was not proscribed to followers or early leaders in the New Testament (mostly converted Jews) but was only picked up 300 years later after Christianity was decreed by Emperor Constantine (Sol Invictus).  Celibacy has not always been present since the very early days of the Christian religion. It is simply a tradition that has developed but has very little scripture to support the practice outside of Pagan texts.  Consider that for centuries Kings, Emperors and important leaders from many different backgrounds instinctively knew that they could lose their "Power" in the event of one their trusted aides would spill "secrets" with a Honeytrap after lovemaking. Consequently, they found unmarried and often castrated confidants in their Palaces. I think the History of the Churches is no different.  The belief of imitating "Jesus's Celibacy" is not that convincing. It has everything to do with "Power" and maintaining it.  

Along with this is basically what I see as a tendency towards "perversion" that could develop among Celibate persons in a religious order. Frankly, even when I was young I never saw it as "natural or normal" and frankly always a little creepy to learn that a certain man is never expected to take a wife and marry. So, in this age of abundant Jewish perversions, the best of religious spiritual sentiments can be corrupted by Jewish filth which I think has happened to many Priests -- and now morally corrupted people are attracted to the Priesthood. I agree too, that the Jews certainly have the Churches and their traditional "Moral Order" in their sights for defilement and debasement. They want morality removed. Nevertheless, the proscription of Celibacy was in its modern origination a purely "secular" idea and that was not rooted in spiritual practice for Christians.  Jesus certainly would expect family men, like many of his apostles, to lead his Church and not a Priestly Class rooted in (Mithraic) traditions of Roman-Greek-Mystery Cultic Temple Power-Keeping... sorry if this offends but that is the only way I see it after much contemplation. If Catholicism would ever allow its Priests to marry, it would then be a huge sword across the sick Neck of Talmudic Jewry:


-------

However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single forerunner of early Christianity. Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected. Many classical heroic figures, such as Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus, were said to have been born through the union of a virgin mother and divine father. Virtually every pagan religious practice and festivity that couldn't be suppressed or driven underground was eventually incorporated into the rites of Christianity as it spread across Europe and throughout the world.

Mithras was the most widely venerated god in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ. The Christian Church borrowed numerous of his mysteries, such as birth on Dec. 25, ascension into heaven at Spring equinox, Last Supper of bread & wine with 12 disciples, celibate priesthood, etc. Mithras was venerated by the legions, who saw in him a cult of power and hierarchy.


http://www.zarkadakis.com/mithras.html

-----------

To begin with, Jesus designated St. Peter, a married man, to be the first pope. Priests had married in Judaism (the priesthood itself was a hereditary profession), and it would seem that Christ accepted this part of the tradition in his choice of Peter. Although St. Paul believed that spreading the Gospel was easier for a man who didn't have a family to provide for, he still mandated that bishops, elders and deacons be only "the husband of one wife." (Even then, polygamy among all ranks of the clergy persisted, and by the third century bishops alone were required to be monogamous.)
    The change began with the Council of Elvira in Spain in about 306, which prohibited bishops, deacons and priests from marrying. Shortly thereafter, the early church fathers began to stigmatize sex as sinful in their writings. St. Ambrose (340-397) wrote, "The ministerial office must be kept pure and unspoiled and must not be defiled by coitus," and the former libertine St. Augustine (354-430) even went so far as to consider an erect penis a sign of man's insubordination
    With the advent of the Dark Ages around 500, the upheavals in society saw a decline in clerical discipline and with it, a return to marriage and even the keeping of concubines by priests. During this time, the wealth of the church was also increasing, a development not lost on Rome. Many priests were leaving church lands to their heirs, and others handed down land of their own through primogeniture. The Holy See saw that a return to the celibacy rule would result in a real-estate bonanza, and in about 1018 Pope Benedict VIII put teeth in the Elvira decree by forbidding descendents of priests to inherit property. Later, in the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII, who had assumed vast power by declaring himself the supreme authority over all souls, went even further by proscribing married priests from saying mass; he also forbid parishioners from attending masses said by them. Scholars believe that the first written law forbidding the clergy to marry was finally handed down at the Second Lateran Council in 1139.
    Dissent persisted, though. At two 15th-century church councils, supporters of clerical marriage attempted to reintroduce the practice but were defeated by hard-liners, who tried to rewrite history by asserting that celibacy was apostolic in its origins. The law finally became official doctrine at the Council of Trent in 1563, and Rome's position on the issue has remained essentially unchanged since then.      
    But as the current crisis in the church has shown, the controversy just won't die. When reached for comment, Father Edward Deimeke, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, acknowledged that the institution of celibacy was a "human rule" which could be altered, as opposed to a moral absolute (like the church's stance on abortion). He also allowed that a majority of the priesthood, as well as the laity in America, favored the right of priests to wed. Perhaps the sentiment of those advocating a change in the church's policy is best summed up in the words of St. Paul: "It is better to marry than to burn."

http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/mland~celibacy.htm (This may be Jew written but it is fairly accurate in this case -- CSR)

Keep this account of Pope Gregory VII in mind:

St Gregory VII {155th} (22 Apr. 1073 - 25 May 1085)

    * (Hildebrand) Claimed to be of Jewish blood - they called him, mockingly, Prandellus, the little one, for he was indeed a diminutive person - small, visually unimpressive, ugly and swarthy - a Pierleoni. Descriptions of the three Pierleoni Popes can be found in medieval documents. They all looked alike: "More like a Jew or a Saracen than a Christian." (That description, incidentally, was applied not by one of his many enemies, but by the Abbot of Cluny.) (PFG pp.126/7 and 129.)
    * He was against the universal "fornication" (ie. marriage) of the clergy. Ordinands were required to pledge celibacy. (VOC p.84.)
    * The pope "did not have it all his own way. For instance, the Bishop of Pavia excommunicated him for preferring clerics to have mistresses instead of wives." (VOC p.570.)
    * Against a thousand year old tradition, he made all bishops take a personal oath of loyalty to him.
    * In his Dictatus Papae (Mar. 1075): He decreed
          o xxii)_"That the Roman Church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness."
          o xxiii)_"That the Roman Pontiff, if he has been canonically ordained, undoubtedly is made a saint by the merits of St Peter".
          o xxvi)_"That he who is not at peace with the Roman Church shall not be considered Catholic." (VOC p.80 and PFG p.156/7.)
    * "In 1078 he renewed the canonical laws which prohibited giving Jews power over Christians...Jews might not be employed as tax-farmers or mint-masters." (PAC p.91.)
    * Mohammedan soldiers (c.1083) penetrated the church of St Peter, and for the first time in history the prayers of Islam were chanted like a chorus of victory. "Most of them were Saracens from Sicily and Arabs from every corner of the Arab world - soldiers under the invading Normans." (PFG pp.180/1.)

[Christopher Marlowe]

Yes. Peter was designated by Christ to be the leader after he ascended:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock  I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Peter was married:

"And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying, and sick of a fever:  And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose and ministered to them."

Obviously the law forbidding priests to marry was not created by God but man.  I think the Church would have 4 times the amount of priests if they were allowed to marry. And no homosexual priests.

and now morally corrupted people are attracted to the Priesthood

It makes me sick whenever I meet a priest who is homosexual.  It rings false. A homosexual is not holy.
St. Paul wrote:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

If a guy is not going to inherit the kingdom of God, then how can he be a priest? Does that make any sense?

If Catholicism would ever allow its Priests to marry, it would then be a huge sword across the sick Neck of Talmudic Jewry:

I think you might be right.

I looked up the Church's view on this subject, and the writer made some interesting points.  
http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibac ... sthood.asp

Jesus preached on celibacy:

Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.  For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

So celibacy can be a holy thing. But we can see from Jesus' own actions that he did not intend for all the priests, or its hierarchy to be celibate.

Also one of that article's arguments rings hollow:

In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn't wish to take such a vow doesn't have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church's blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

We don't forbid anyone to marry.  But if you choose to marry, you can't be a priest.  I think that argument was formulated by St. Hobson.

Do you think anyone in Rome is wondering: "Do you think we would have so many mincing faeries in this organization if we didn't elect candidates for the priesthood from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage?"

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

These thoughts about the Zionist attack on the Catholic Church also made me think about E. Michael Jones. Jones discusses the attacks and expects more....


http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/mf/web/ ... nesWMA.mp3

The Ugly Truth Podcast Dec 30, 2009
29Dec09

Join us for a fascinating discussion with Dr E. Michael Jones, author of the must-read book 'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History' and publisher/editor of the magazine Culture Wars discussing the theme of his book and how it is being played out in the world today in the political, cultural, social and religious realms. Please visit Dr Jone's website at http://culturewars.com.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Here's the show source page for Mark Glenn's The Ugly Truth (Great site btw...)

http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/2009/12 ... c-30-2009/


Here's the Audio on Media Fire:
http://www.mediafire.com/?cgmy0dozmne

Dr. Jones really says that the attacks are going both ways and basically sides are being taken...

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Just caught this as well:

---------------

Winds of war and economic crisis behind the attacks on the Pope
by Maurizio d'Orlando
Led by the New York Times, the violence campaign against Benedict XVI is meant to undermine his moral authority and that of the Catholic Church ahead of a possible war against Iran and the bankruptcy of the US Treasury.

Milan (AsiaNews) – Paedophilia is a great scandal. The fact that it involves Catholic priests is an even greater scandal. Especially for a devout Catholic, this pain is like few others. It is good thing that it is coming to light. It would be worse if we allowed such a cancer to slowly consume souls and let it pollute and destroy the structure of relations of the Church from within. No one could find a better pretext to attack the Catholic Church than this. We saw this recently in the wanton attacks against the Pope that culminated in the obviously ones-sidedness of an article by Laurie Goodstein published in the New York Times.1 Paradoxically, the Pope, who recently called for zero tolerance in cases of paedophilia, was targeted more than ever and more than others. Various Vatican media outlets have already described who did what, refuting charges against the Pope. But even the Wall Street Journal in an editorial challenged the defamation of the Pope by the New York Times article.
Notwithstanding the lies, there are some disturbing coincidences. Why so many accusations (some going back 40 years) appeared all at once in various countries around the world? This is a peculiar coincidence, but there are others, far more complex, that lead to a somewhat more disquieting picture.

New York Times' anti-Catholicism

Laurie Goodstein is the Times' national religion writer. She is known for her specifically anti-Catholic acrimony, as Mgr Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York, pointed out in an article that appeared on the diocese's website with a telling title "Anti-Catholicism,"2 which the NYT refused to publish.

The Times (but also other US newspapers) likes to focus on scandals in the Catholic world, whilst refusing to cover other paedophilia scandals, like that involving Yehuda Kolko, a teacher at the Yeshiva Torah Temimah in Brooklyn.3 Similarly, the paper refused to cover Dov Hikind, a rightwing Zionist, who refused to testify about thousands of complaints collected following the broadcast of a radio programme about paedophilia and incest among Jewish communities in New York, especially Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox Jews). There was a story there, and a lawyer, Dowd, well known for class action suits that bankrupted many Catholic religious communities and dioceses, had called for him to testify.

It is another coincidence that whilst some stories involving Catholic priests go back 40 years, other, more recent and more serious cases of paedophilia were not4 (one case that is particularly noteworthy goes back to 2003 and involves a Scottish girl, Hollie Greig, former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson and Chancellor of the Exchequer and current British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a story that Tony Blair sealed away for 100 year as a state secret).

Preparing an attack on Iran

The fact that that the Times applies a double standard is not a problem since few people view the paper as a good authority anymore. British hypocrisy over its own dirty secrets is also unimportant because it is expected. What is more worrisome is the fact that on the day Laurie Goodstein's article was published, Reuters ran a story out of Jerusalem, reprinted on 26 March 2010 by the Washington Post,5 a story that eventually disappeared from the "independent" Anglo-American press and that of almost all of the rest of the world, namely the possibility that Israel might use tactical nuclear weapons in a preventive attack against Iran.

This is linked to other news that appeared two weeks earlier, which also disappeared from the "independent" press, namely that US President Obama had special "bunker-buster" bombs, originally destined for Israel, diverted to the US base in Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, for possible use in an attack on Iran.6 Located about a thousand miles south of India, between Mauritius and the Persian Gulf, the island is ideally placed to launch an air strike against Iran. According to an expert, US bombers are already capable of hitting 10,000 objectives in Iran in just a few hours, and totally destroy the country.7 Once the weapons are deployed (presumably in one or two months), the disposition for attack will be in place and a military operation could be ordered at any time. In other words, the United States wants to have all options available, whilst Israel wants to press the accelerator and threatens to use tactical nuclear weapons if the US decides not to do what Israel wants.

On 9 April 2010, Russia and the United States signed an agreement in which the two parties agree not to use atomic weapons against countries that have signed the non-proliferation treaty (leaving out Iran and North Korea as well as Israel, although this is not said). Recently, Obama and Sarkozy have worked together to get an international consensus on new sanctions against Iran. This might be achieved in a few weeks, or even a few days. It is thus clear that sanctions could be followed by a catastrophic attack against Iran.

Iran is not the only country that might have violated non-proliferation agreements. Israel for example, in violation of all treaties, has built 200 to 400 nuclear warheads. It has even threatened to use them (albeit "tactical" nuclear weapons, as if that was less disquieting). As it is well known, Iran might (perhaps) build some, a few, nuclear bombs. We must stress "might" given the value of the information some secret services have provided the world. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was said to have weapons of mass destruction. After the country was invaded and 1.3 million Iraqis died, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Given such claims, doubts are understandable, which does not mean that that either Saddam Hussein or the Iranian regime are in the clear. Yet those who voice such doubts are often dismissed as providing support for Islamist terrorism or even of anti-Semitism (when it is used against those who criticises the policies of the Government of Israel).

The reality is that sanctions are a prelude to an attack against Iran. Some may not realise that the destruction of Iran, perhaps using tactical nuclear weapons, could set off World War Three. Some 10,000 Russians are working near Iran's electricity-generating nuclear power plants, and China has good relations with Iran. Undoubtedly, the Iranian regime is a cause for concern, but it is hard to believe that one would risk triggering a worldwide conflict with unimaginable consequences only to stop the possible development of a few nuclear bombs.

The great economic failure

Perhaps, there is more to this, namely the use of war to hide a great economic failure. A new wave of insolvent loans and "toxic" securities might be on the way. A fraud with at the centre HSBC, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan-Chase is expected to come to light soon, involving physical bullion markets and other raw materials, one that is so big that the Madoff affair would appear as kids' stuff. By the way, when the scandal in Britain's top echelons was hushed up, Gordon Brown sold (sold off) gold from the UK's reserves.8 More importantly, public debts in many countries have reached such proportions that they have not only become unmanageable but they can no longer be concealed or their repayment put off much longer, for the future is upon us, now.

According to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), not AsiaNews or some extremist or daft blogger, the US debt/GDP ratio is expected to reach 400 per cent. This means that the huge fraud involving selling precious metals short in London and New York, that no one can now meet, must be covered up. The power system that controls big media must especially find ways to justify the inevitable and certain insolvency of the Federal Reserve and US Treasury.

History teaches us that rulers use war to swamp everything with hyperinflation. The Falklands War is one example (led by Argentina's bankrupt military junta); Yugoslavia's civil war is another. It is a simple and ingenious way, tested over the millennia.

What more can be said? The Catholic Church and the Pope had to be targeted; their moral authority attacked at any cost. But perhaps this is just a coincidence.



1 The campaign launched by the press and television has however left its mark. Paedophilia has come to be seen as a problem that affects only or mostly Catholic priests. Required to be celibate by the tradition and law of the Church, they are easy to accuse. In the United States, 4 per cent of Catholic priests have been charged, but only 1 per cent of them have been found guilty. For some, covering up for paedophile priests is seen as the main concern of Catholic bishops as if there were no rules of faith and Canon Law or judges and courts in the United States quite willing to take on Catholic religious leaders. If anything, the opposite is true. Many media outlets and legal groups have shown that they are moved by malevolent preconceptions about Catholicism and the Catholic hierarchy.

2 See Timothy M. Dolan, "Anti-Catholicism," in Archdiocese of New York, 29 October 2009.

3 See http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed ... exual.html

4 Other notorious cases are the Marc Dutroux affair in Belgium, which involved paedophile groups as well as a police chief and European Commission President Jacques Delors, and the Boy Scouts in Australia and even the United States, cases that were completely ignored by mass media.

5 Dan Williams, "Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran," Reuters, Friday, 26 March 2010. See also http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01354.html

6 Rob Edwards, "Final destination Iran?" in The Herald Scotland, 14 March 2010, and "Obama blocks delivery of bunker-busters to Israel," in The World Tribune, 18 March 2010.

7 Obama's order also stopped shipment to Israel of other attack weapons (helicopters and long-distance, in-flight supply planes) needed for an offensive against Iran, which George Bush had previously held back. The former president had refused to release them in late August 2008, during the US election campaign, just a few weeks before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. The effect was to move the US Jewish lobby's support and funding from McCain to Obama.

8 See Tyler Durden, "Did Gordon Brown Sell UK's Gold To Keep AIG And Rothschild Solvent? More Disclosures on How the NY Fed Manipulates Gold Prices," Zero Hedge, 24 March 2010.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Winds-of ... 18138.html

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/222755

[Free Truth]

...the Roman Catholic Church is the last bastion of traditional Christianity.

Is it? What exactly is traditional Christianity?

The Catholic Church is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Is it?

People are becoming more aggressive in their treatment of Christianity in general, IMHO.  I read comments on blogs where people will just openly condemn "Christians" in a manner that would bring in the ACLU and the ADL if they had said "Jews".

Good point, but what "Christianity" is it that they're opposing? What kind of "Christians" are they condemning?  

For a while now I have thought that Catholicism is an attack on Christ. It's pagan...
 
The opulence, the pedophilia, the idols, MARY (the Goddess, Semeramis), the trinity, the monstrance, the eucharist, the clothing...  

Catholicism is, well, bullshit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with people that have been fooled; it's a shame though, people through history could have been a true Christian force!
I guess it's kind of like "Judaism."

I recommend the book 'The Two Babylons'!

I would occasionally speak of political things to some nuns I know, and after I finished they would say something like, "The evil one is always trying to work mischief in this world." They saw everything as a shadow of the spiritual battle.

I do find that interesting.

It's done out of shear hate of Jesus and anyone who follows Him. This is so fricken obvious it hurts, yet some still can't see. It's for your soul, it is to bring you DOWN. Down to their level, and it's working. Has there ever, since the days of Babylon, been a society more base and derogated than our current one? Had it not been for Christ, and His faithful, this process would have long since been over. We would have succumb to their evil a long long time ago (we may never have left Babylon at all) . Christianity is (well   ...'was' now) their biggest enemy, it has the power to expose them like rats in a floodlight. But alas that time has passed, that kind of Christianity requires devout Christians, and those types are very few.

Exactly. True Christianity would not tolerate Israel yet alone support it without question. I'm not saying the Catholic church supports Israel, but I can say I don't see them against it.
If the Vatican, Catholicism, or "Christianity" were any kind of force for good and for Christ in the world then all the shite we know of would have been opposed.

Christians must oppose Israel and support the Palestinians (after they've been shown the truth). Otherwise, that's not a Christian, I say...

Christopher, They could have done this a long time ago, so now why?

That is the question...

(haha, CSR was such a gentleman   )

[Christopher Marlowe]

Good point, but what "Christianity" is it that they're opposing? What kind of "Christians" are they condemning?

For a while now I have thought that Catholicism is an attack on Christ. It's pagan...

Actually, Catholicism is based on the teachings of Christ. Listen:

The opulence,

And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper,  There came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he was at table.  And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste?  For this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.  And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

 For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.  For she in pouring this ointment upon my body, hath done it for my burial.  Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memory of her.

Is it the opulence that is wasted on Catholic schools that educate 2.2 million children in this country?  A variety of studies by scholars at the University of Chicago, Northwestern, the Brookings Institution, and Harvard, have all supported the conclusion that Catholic schools do a better job educating children, especially the poor and minorities, than public schools.

Is it the opulence wasted on feeding the hungry and clothing the naked?  Every day across this country, thousands of people in the US are coming to one of the local Catholic Charities agencies to seek assistance— 171 agencies with 1,668 affiliates in all 50 states and the U.S. territories.  
Recent 2008 figures show  Catholic Charities agencies provided assistance to 1.2 million consumers in soup kitchens, 1.2 million through congregate dining, 2.9 million through food banks and pantries, delivered 274,000 meals to homes, and assisted more than 490,000 people through other food services.

the pedophilia,

Keep watching the Jewish MSM. They training you very well. The author of the piece CSR  quoted earlier on mentioned an article  that you definitely shouldn't read, or you might start to change your mind.  

Anti-Catholicism
Thursday, October 29th, 2009

The following article was submitted in a slightly shorter form to the New York Times as an op-ed article. The Times declined to publish it. I thought you might be interested in reading it.

FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York

October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!

Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.

It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people," while John Higham described it as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history." "The anti-semitism of the left," is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic "the last acceptable prejudice."

If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:

    * On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize "religious sensitivities," and no criticism was offered of the DA's office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases "internally." Given the Catholic Church's own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of "selective outrage."

Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation's public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.

In case you didn't read the Shakeshaft study, this is what she had to say:

"[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/ ... 3687.shtml

So I'll bet you hate public schools for the same reason: all of the "pedophilia", right?  Or do you think of that when you think or public schools?  Or do you only put "pedophilia" together with priests because the MSM has trained you to do so?  

And what is pedophilia? Isn't that the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children?
Aren't the vast majority of alleged sexual abuse made against priests really about adolescent boys? And wouldn't that more properly be termed "pederasty", which is the age-old wicked practice of homosexual men. Why doesn't the MSM train people to use this term? Perhaps people might begin to see where the problem lies.

the idols,

People should not worship false idols, nor should people people anything before God.  But does that mean that artists should not create statues or paintings that remind people of Holiness? Shouldn't we think of how Saints lived in obedience to God?  The Church doesn't teach idolatry.  The MSM does.  

MARY (the Goddess, Semeramis)

I don't know who semeramis is.  But I do know this:

And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. 4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

"What is that to me"... These words of our Saviour, spoken to his mother, have been understood by some commentators as harsh, they not considering the next following verse: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye, which plainly shews that his mother knew of the miracle that he was to perform, and that it was at her request he wrought it; besides the manner of speaking the words as to the tone, and the countenance shewn at the same time, which could only be known to those who were present, or from what had followed: for words indicating anger in one tone of voice, would be understood quite the reverse in another.

And this:

When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.  After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

And Catholics have this beautiful prayer to Mary, the Blessed Mother:

Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Where did that come from?

And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

What a beautiful prayer.  And it was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

the trinity,

The Trinity is a mystery. Catholics believe that there is only one God, and that God is manifested in Three Persons.
The Nicene Creed has it:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things seen and unseen.

God, the Father.
   

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

God, the Son. The Holy Ghost inspired Elizabeth to say that Jesus was the Lord. And the Gospel of John says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.  If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us.  Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father?  Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

 Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?  Otherwise believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do.  Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do. 15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

The Creed speaks of the third Person:

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; He has spoken through the prophets.

As I said, the Trinity is a mystery. The Holy Ghost has been described as the Love of the Father for the Son, and the Love of the Son for the Father.  Jesus promised the Holy Ghost would come:

And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. 17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.

Paráklētos is a Greek word meaning:  "one who consoles, one who intercedes on our behalf, a comforter or an advocate".  That is the third Person. Why? I don't know.  It is a mystery.

the monstrance, the eucharist,

The gift of the Holy Eucharist is often misunderstood. It is a mystery.
When Jesus began to speak of how he would turn himself into food for us, many turned away:

Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled.  Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.  They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?  Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.  They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?

 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.  Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.  For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.  They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not.  All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.  Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.  Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.  And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?  Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.  No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.  It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

NOTE: "Draw him"... Not by compulsion, nor by laying the free will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of his heavenly grace.

Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.  Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life.  Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.  This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?  Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

NOTE: "Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood"... To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?  But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?  If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?  It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.  But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

NOTE: "If then you shall see"... Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

NOTE: "The flesh profiteth nothing"... Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

NOTE: "Are spirit and life"... By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.  After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.  Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?  And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.  And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

So Jesus could have said, "I am speaking only figuratively, of course."  But He did not.  He was saying that he would give us his flesh to eat.  How?

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.  And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.  For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

So Jesus promised to give us His Flesh and Blood to eat so that we would have eternal life. He did this by transforming Bread into His Flesh and wine into His Blood.  How? I don't know. It is a mystery.
Jesus commanded us:

Do this for a commemoration of me.

During the Mass, the Catholic Priest asks Jesus to turn the bread into His Body.  This is referred to as "Transubstantiation." We adore the Eurcharist because Christ is present.

the clothing...

I think a holy nun in a modest habit is as beautiful as a flower.

Catholicism is, well, bullsh*t.

That is very sad. But a wise person once said: "I don't have a problem with people that have been fooled".  
I guess it comes from watching too much Jewish movies and television.  Those pagan forums hate God and His Holy Church. They don't want people to come to the light.  

I recommend a Book called: The Holy Bible.

[Anti-Zionist League]

TheAZL.com has an article on this subject:
http://anthonyhmura.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... -hell.html

Christopher Marlowe has posted:
"IMHO, the pederasty scandals have been caused by a secret cabal of Masons, communists & homosexuals within the Vatican. Banning the Church would accomplish their goal for them: they hate the Church and that is why they are trying to bring the Church down."

Judeo-Freemasonry has infiltrated the church in order to destroy it for hundreds of years. Karl Rothschild gained control of the Vatican's finances in 1820s, and built up the "Alta Vendita" Lodge, which had the objective of infiltrating and killing the church. A former Communist, Bela Dodd, converted to Catholicism and blew the whistle on the fact that Judeo-Freemasonry had been recruiting MANY communists into the Church since at least the 1930s. The book, "Good bye, Good men" examines the increasing numbers of active homosexuals (and even transvestites) inside the Seminaries in recent years. This was not the case in the past...and can not have happened without an express strategy (and likely, even recruitment).

Even "Opus Dei" expresses a Judaic, Cabbalistic concept: "The Work of God". Only servants of the "Grand architect" ...occultists, alchemists, etc consider themselves to be "the sons of their own works". The dividing line between religion and the occult would seem to be where "Thy will be done" gets usurped and changed to "my will be done". The unGodly, false asceticism of "Opus Dei" is merely a tool for mind programming and weeding out those who are not quite as submissive. Good tools end up getting used for more Judeo-Masonic subversion.

When it comes to rabid anti=Catholic books like "The Two Babylons" by Hyslop, there is always the same error of simplification. The problem with "Two Babylons", like "The Christ Conspiracy" today, is that it presumes that just because the Marion beliefs and Catholic Christology shares some common aspects with previous nature religions, then it has everything in common with previous nature religions. All too simplistic. Hey, look: Mary's holding the baby Jesus in her hands...just like a previous mother Goddess. Therefore the Catholics are Goddess-worshippers. Other  erronious presumptions being made are often just as simplistic. Hysop can not deny the"woman clothed with the sun" in Apocalypse (Revelation). Is she too, merely the babylonian the mother Goddess...how does the "sola scriptura" crowd miss this?

Not only has Judeo-Freemasonry usurped the Vatican, but that truth is the very message in the 3rd Secret of Fatima. (Though I do not presume that dark forces can not come telling such truths, with signs and wonders as well, in a p lace like Fatima). LOOK INTO THE LIKELY ASSASSINATION OF SISTER LUCIA, the FATIMA VISIONARY....MURDERED BECAUSE SHE HELD THE TRUTH (from the messenger in her Visions...MARY?) that the Vatican was to be usurped totally by 1960 and shortly afterwards.

Though I claim on certainty on the true source of the Fatima phenomena (all of which DID happen): The murder of Sister Lucy is worth investigating. Sister Lucy the Fatima visionary was certainly on target with the messages she received and conveyed to Popes about the comping "apostasy" in the Vatican, from the TOP Down. See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s1KPfTY ... re=related


Total apostasy in the Vatican is the real messsage of Fatima. ? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING:
http://anthonyhmura.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... -hell.html  

Investigate recent, JudeoMasnic anti-opses in article: What Happened to the Vatican in 1958> it appears that Cardinal Siri was the truly elected Pope in 1958, but was usurped by Bnai Brith (Jdeo-Freemasonry) during the conclave. To support the idea that he was threatened with a waiting nuclear bomb in the Vatican, Jim Condit asserts at realnews247.com that John Kennedy told a journalist that the Russians had planted a nuke in their top floor of their embassy during his presidency which they threatened to denate on all of Washingon if Kennedy went too far....:
http://anthonyhmura.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... -hell.html

rest assured, The Catholic Church has been a huge target for Judeo-Masonry and world Zionism; just as Christ has been targetted by the same race supremacists in his day. The message of fatima conveys just that. "Mystical Russia" is Khazaria...the "nation" which must be consecrated back to God...if not for God's mercy then assuredly for his JUSTICE (finally) upon the rest of us.

Oh, incidentally: 87 year old WW2 Vet and leader of the Anti-Zionist League Tony Hmura has been assaultd and given death threats. AZL journalist has also been directly threatened with death by an identified man who clams to be "a Mossd Killer and proud of it". See that at www TheAZL .com and hear about it in the two most recent shows at http://AZLroundtable.podbean.com
Note: Suggest hearing sedond show on that list (with AZL co-host Charles Giuliani) fist or alongside Tony Hmura's account so have a bigger picture.  This window is shaking and can't even see type...God bless folks. It owuld appear that there is a very SPIRITUAL dimension not only to this struggle of ours, but to its conclusions. and means for victory.

The Marian prophecies at Fatima are not easily debunked. Surely "the woman clothd with the sun" and bearing a child is not debunked by any comparison to nature religion. It is in the scripture and jsut as the incedble phenomena at Fatima, it needs to be reckoned with as such; not reduced to prefernces. Such is always the way: avoiding the "new and the fantastick" in one's theorizing regarding Divine revelation. Although when we ourselves feel settled on some clear vision of Divine truth and theology, we'll let folks konw. We have a new theory floating through our heads every day...like everyone else. Perhaps that's why the old advice is best: taking each of those specious arguments (today's bogus "Zeitgeist film, see debuning video on that) with a grain ofsalt. It is largely based on the bogus book The Christ Conspiracy..which is written by a faction which has ties to the Mae Brussell school of sonspiraoogists..tied to ZIonism...to the extent that Brussell's father was Rabbi in/for the Nixon white house.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Worth a view. Might see some things you may not have considered before. It has a slow start and covers well known ground at first.  I don't subscribe to this entirely but it raises more "questions".

Uses a lot of John Allegro's work.

---------
The Pharmacratic Inquisition by Jan Irvin

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.sw ... en&fs=true

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Free said "Is it? What exactly is traditional Christianity?"

By today's standards, anything that hasn't liberalized and homosexualized and Zionised with the rest of them. I say this with the knowledge that Catholicism is full of pagan infiltration. Nonetheless, it stands as for Christ, even in its own unorthodox version.

Doctrine is completely absent from modern Churches.

[Free Truth]

Is it the opulence that is wasted on Catholic schools that educate 2.2 million children in this country?  A variety of studies by scholars at the University of Chicago, Northwestern, the Brookings Institution, and Harvard, have all supported the conclusion that Catholic schools do a better job educating children, especially the poor and minorities, than public schools.

I'm sure that the quality of the education in Catholic schools is better.

Is it the opulence wasted on feeding the hungry and clothing the naked?  Every day across this country, thousands of people in the US are coming to one of the local Catholic Charities agencies to seek assistance— 171 agencies with 1,668 affiliates in all 50 states and the U.S. territories.  
Recent 2008 figures show  Catholic Charities agencies provided assistance to 1.2 million consumers in soup kitchens, 1.2 million through congregate dining, 2.9 million through food banks and pantries, delivered 274,000 meals to homes, and assisted more than 490,000 people through other food services.

The Catholic church has surely done good for communities and the less fortunate.
So do the Masons.

the pedophilia,
Keep watching the Jewish MSM. They training you very well. The author of the piece CSR quoted earlier on mentioned an article that you definitely shouldn't read, or you might start to change your mind.

I read it...
To say that I am watching and being trained by the jewish MSM is practically hyperbole.
 

So I'll bet you hate public schools for the same reason: all of the "pedophilia", right?  Or do you think of that when you think or public schools?  Or do you only put "pedophilia" together with priests because the MSM has trained you to do so?

Given the numbers of students and schools the stats would have to be measured properly...
But yes, I guess most people are unaware of the pedophilia in public schools and other areas of society because of the spotlight being shone mostly on the priests only.
And when I think about it, I can see how the church continuously being associated with pederasty in pop culture and the MSM may have affected me, CM...
But the Catholic pedophilia is indeed there...

BTW, I never said I "hated" anything.

And what is pedophilia? Isn't that the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children?
Aren't the vast majority of alleged sexual abuse made against priests really about adolescent boys? And wouldn't that more properly be termed "pederasty", which is the age-old wicked practice of homosexual men. Why doesn't the MSM train people to use this term? Perhaps people might begin to see where the problem lies.

That's a good point.
I intend to use pederasty in place pedophilia more now.

the idols,

People should not worship false idols

You'll find them bowing down to all kinds of inanimate objects at the Vatican.

...a wise person once said: "I don't have a problem with people that have been fooled".

I don't think that sounds all that wise...

I recommend a Book called: The Holy Bible.

Thanks. Just New Testament!
But it would be a good idea to check out what I mentioned.

The gift of the Holy Eucharist is often misunderstood. It is a mystery.
.................

The Trinity is a mystery. Catholics believe that there is only one God, and that God is manifested in Three Persons.

There's a few things that you admit is still a mystery even to you...
See 'The Two Babylons'
A must read, my friend.

A lot of focus is put on Rothschild moving on the RCC and corruption taking place over time, but I'm talking about it's very inception being the issue.  
Catholicism took away from all that Christianity could and should have been.

Ever since I started looking into it I've been of the opinion that Catholicism is like a creation of the anti-Christ! A tolerable version of Christianity for the owners...?

Catholicism is the mystery religions veiled.


PS

CM (and anybody else that would like to share), may I ask:

What is your stance on the Old Testament?

What do you think of Yahweh?

[Free Truth]

There's a few pages like this that are worth a look.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm

http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/monstr.htm

Would I be considered  "anti-Catholic?"

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Free, Yahweh is the Jewish war god. The god of thunder. Yahweh (The tetragrammaton) is not Biblical, it is Kabbalist.

[Christopher Marlowe]

What is your stance on the Old Testament?

IMHO, all the Bible, soup to nuts, is about Jesus Christ.
The OT could be broken down into component parts of History, Prophecy and the Law.  
St. Paul spoke about the Law, which is the system of worship in the OT and the way those people attempted to put themselves right with God prior to Jesus Christ. In contrast to the Law of the OT, we now have the Spirit that Jesus gave us.  

The History of the OT tells of what led up to Jesus.

The Prophecy of the OT spoke about Jesus. The Prophets of the OT were killed because the teachers of the law didn't like what they were saying. And when Jesus came, he condemned them because they placed their own law above God's law.

But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.  And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.  For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.  And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.  For Moses said: Honour thy father and thy mother; and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die.

 "Doctrines and precepts of men"... See the annotations, Matt. 15. 9, 11.

 But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban, (which is a gift,) whatsoever is from me, shall profit thee.  And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother,  Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do. And calling again the multitude unto him, he said to them: Hear ye me all, and understand.  There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man.

The OT provided a context for the NT. Jesus was the Messiah, but how does one show that Jesus was the Messiah?  He fulfilled the scriptures. He meets the predictions of all the prophets. He so perfectly fills that spot that God's divinity is revealed. The Light shines in the darkness. The chalk writes on the board. There is no understanding without context.

People who read "The Anti-Christ", or similar stuff, become set against Paul, and they miss out on a lot. Paul studied the Law under the greatest scholar of the Law of the time: Gamaliel. So Paul understood the weaknesses inherent in that system. I've often read that Paul was instilling the pharisaic system into the Christian faith, but really he was combating that system. The best arguments against the law come from Paul's letters.  

Much of the substance of Paul's letters deals with showing why the Law was not sufficient for our salvation, and that the Law was no longer necessary because it has been replaced by the new covenant of Jesus Christ.  The purpose of the Law was God's way of showing us that we need God. The Law reveals our sinful nature. St. Paul said:

For we have charged both Jews, and Greeks, that they are all under sin.  As it is written: There is not any man just.
[ "There is not any man just"... viz. By virtue either of the law of nature, or of the law of Moses; but only by faith and grace.]

No man is just: we are all sinners. We might look at ourselves and say: "I'm not so bad.  I'm not evil."
But this point might be made differently: "If left to our own devices, we would create hell." Most of us are kept in check by our environment: We act in public differently than we would in our rooms alone. We don't say things that would offend our families.  Even our consciences have been formed by our upbringing.
These external checks on behavior can be viewed as a blessing because they can help to keep us on the virtuous path.

But What about people who have these external checks removed? They often times become grotesque. Why? Because they can do everything they want to do.
It is the recognition of this imperfection in everyone that causes me to say that we are all sinners.

But the law does not heal us.  The law does not make us perfect. The Law shows what is right and what is wrong, but we can't justify ourselves through the law. As the reverend Chris Rock explained,

"I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb mother******! What kind of ignorant sh*t is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having mother******!

We are human and we will fail to live up to the law, and then we will be condemned.  

For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law."  And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for "the one who is righteous by faith will live."

Even if we do every ritual and follow every sabbath the law cannot save us from our sinful nature. We are still dependent upon the law.

Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him.

The whole premise of the law points out the flaw in our nature. If we try to justify ourselves through the law, we are saying that we are in control. That is the lie.  Some say that the idea that we could justify ourselves is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator.
Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one.
Is the law then opposed to the promises (of God)? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law.

So the Law will not save us, but instead we see that the Law gives power to sin.
I showed above how Jesus condemned the teachers of the Law because they put their own laws above God's law. That is the nature of the Law. Even those who recognize the Law try to embellish it.

And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it.
And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?  And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.

There you have just one law and Eve was already embellishing it.
One trying to justify himself is not trying to please God, but rather trying to enable his own sinful nature.  He is trying to control when he is not in control.

How did Satan trick Eve? Using the Law.
And what does Satan mean? The accuser.  

Now the sting of death is sin: and the power of sin is the law.

And who was given the power of the Law?  The Levites.

For the Levites have no part among you, but the priesthood of the Lord is their inheritance.

And thou shalt set the Levites in the sight of Aaron and of his sons, and shalt consecrate them being offered to the Lord,

And Aaron shall offer the Levites, as a gift in the sight of the Lord from the children of Israel, that they may serve in his ministry.

And they shall be the ministers of their brethren in the tabernacle of the covenant, to keep the things that are committed to their care, but not to do the works.

And the tabernacle of the testimony shall be carried by the officers of the Levites and their troops.

The Levites were the descendants of Levi, who distinguished himself by using his tribe's man-made law of circumcision to trick their enemies.

The sons of Jacob answered Sichem and his father deceitfully, being enraged at the deflowering of their sister: We cannot do what you demand, nor give our sister to one that is uncircumcised, which with us is unlawful and abominable.  But in this we may be allied with you, if you will be like us, and all the male sex among you be circumcised:
 "Deceitfully"... The sons of Jacob, on this occasion, were guilty of a grievous sin, as well by falsely pretending religion, as by excess of revenge: though otherwise their zeal against so foul a crime was commendable.
 Then will we mutually give and take your daughters, and ours: and we will dwell with you, and will be one people:  But if you will not be circumcised, we will take our daughter and depart:  Their offer pleased Hemor, and Sichem his son:  And the young man made no delay, but forthwith fulfilled what was required, for he loved the damsel exceedingly, and he was the greatest man in all his father's house. ...  And they all agreed, and circumcised all the males.  And behold the third day, when the pain of the wound was greatest, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dina, taking their swords, entered boldly into the city, and slew all the men:

And just as the Levites were the bearers of the Law for the Jews, they prefigured the Jews of today: The keepers of the Law; who embellish the Law with with their evil Talmud; who use the Law to trick and swindle and get the upper hand.
The Levites lived only in cities.

besides the Levites, who received no land among their brethren:

Each shall give towns to the Levites according to the extent of their inheritance.

And the Levites lived off of what the others had.

Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites out of their possessions...

Out of the moiety also of the children of Israel thou shalt take the fiftieth head of persons, and of oxen, and asses, and sheep, and of all beasts, and thou shalt give them to the Levites that watch in the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.

Is the judgment of the Jews also prefigured in the Levites?

The priests and Levites, and all that are of the same tribe, shall have no part nor inheritance with the rest of Israel

-----------------------

What do you think of Yahweh?

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

The proper name of God  in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion

We see this name for God used many times. God spoke to Abraham:

Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. And he said to him: I am the Lord who brought thee out from Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land, and that thou mightest possess it.

Therefore say to the children of Israel: I am the Lord who will bring you out from the work prison of the Egyptians, and will deliver you from bondage: and redeem you with a high arm, and great judgments.

As I said earlier, the whole Bible is about Jesus Christ. So God reveals himself as the one who draws us out of sin.

He is also one who heals us:

Saying: If thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God, and do what is right before him, and obey his commandments, and keep all his precepts, none of the evils that I laid upon Egypt, will I bring upon thee: for I am the Lord thy healer.

He makes us Holy:

that you may know that I am the Lord, who sanctify you.

All of these are attributes of Jesus Christ.  

And we see once again that Jesus fulfilled the promises of the OT by revealing the meaning of YHVH or YHWH:

And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.  This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.

 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am the King of the Jews.  Pilate answered: What I have written, I have written.

We often see the inscription above the Crucifix written with the abbreviation of what Pilate had commanded:
Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum = INRI.
But if we look at what the writing was in Hebrew, we see it translated as:  
Yeshua Ha'Netzeret V'mlech Ha'Yehudim = YHVH

The chief priests of the Jews wanted to change Pilate's inscription because they saw that Pilate had unknowingly named Jesus to be God.  Pilate's inscription proved that Jesus was telling the Truth when he said:

Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.