Good morning.
Welcome to Inquisition Update.
My name's Tom Friess and I'll be your host for the next hour.
You're listening to FirstAmendmentRadio .com.
Thanks for tuning in.
I'm going to continue now reading our current book, A Woman Rides the Beast by
Dave Hunt.
We're in the chapter entitled Infallibility and Tyranny.
And this portion of the chapter is entitled Consistent Record of Suppression.
Dave Hunt writes, In contrast to his praise of basic freedoms in North America,
to solidly Catholic audiences in Latin America, Pope John Paul II denounces
Protestants and the idea that men ought to be free to profess any religion.
The oppression, persecution, and even martyrdom of those who refused allegiance
to Rome has been her consistent policy.
For example, the concordat between Pope Pius IX and Ecuador of September 26,
1862, established Roman Catholicism as the state religion and forbade other
religions.
All education was to be, quote, strictly controlled by the Roman Catholic
Church, unquote.
A later law declared that, quote, only Catholics might be regarded as
citizens of Ecuador, unquote.
The following year, neighboring Colombia took the opposite course, establishing
religious freedom and curtailing the monopoly on education and the privileged
position that had long been enjoyed by the Roman Catholic Church.
Pope Pius IX acted angrily.
On September 17, 1863, in a papal encyclical entitled Incredibly
Afflictimore, he lashed out at the, quote, nefarious and most iniquitous,
unquote, laws of Colombia and enacted, the laws that Colombia had enacted,
citing especially the evil of following, quote, the worship of non-Catholic sects,
unquote.
His papal pen asserted his authority over that entire nation, including the right to
rescind its laws.
Here's what he said.
We, with apostolic authority, denounce and condemn all such laws and decrees with all
their consequences.
And by the same authority, we abrogate those laws and declare them entirely null
and without binding power, unquote.
Using an authority that the papacy has used throughout its history to release the
citizens of a nation from obedience to its laws.
That's the papal power that demonstrated throughout history, even in our
generation.
And it's going to be exercised even here in the United States of America.
Dave Hunt continues.
He says, Colombia ignored the Pope at that time.
In 1948, however, a new pro-Catholic government came into power.
Its concordat with the Vatican instituted the very suppression which Pope Pius IX
had earlier demanded.
Within 10 years, scores of Christians had been slain for their faith.
Scores of Protestant churches had been burned down.
About 200 Protestant schools were closed.
And even evangelistic work by Protestants was forbidden in most of the country.
Today, Protestants are still being killed for their faith in Mexico and other parts
of Latin America.
Homes and churches are being destroyed.
With as many as 10,000 Indian believers driven from their villages and fields in
the Caiapas region of Mexico alone.
Rome has not changed.
Though its opportunities for despotism are somewhat limited today, says Dave Hunt.
John Paul II is not being honest with us.
Historic evidence, and not only from the distant past, is abundant in testifying
that Roman Catholicism suppresses basic freedom whenever, wherever, and however
she can.
The claim of papal infallibility becomes the justification for such tyranny.
A tyranny which Roman Pontiffs have repeatedly expressed and enforced in
Christ's name and as his alleged vicars.
As the historian Von Dollinger himself, a devout Roman Catholic, has pointed out.
The whole life of such a man, that's speaking of the Pope.
The whole life of the Pope, from the moment when he is placed on the altar to
receive the first homage by the kissing of feet, will be an unbroken chain of
adulations.
Everything is expressly calculated for strengthening him in the belief that
between himself and other mortals there is an impassable gulf.
And when involved in the cloud and fumes of a perpetual incense, the firmest
character must yield at last to a temptation beyond human strength to
resist.
In other words, these men are conditioned from the time of their swearing in as
Pope, they are conditioned from the beginning to believe that they are the
representatives of God on earth and they stand head and shoulders above anybody and
everybody in this world.
They're deified.
The whole church is built around deification of the Pope and his papal
infallibility, making him the governor of the world, the divine right governor of
the world.
Now, Pope Gregory XVI, who reigned from 1831 to 1846, in his The Triumph of the
Holy See and the Church over the Attacks of the Innovators, is one example among
many.
Its major thesis was that the Popes had to be infallible in order to fulfill the
office of a true monarch.
As absolute monarch over church and state, Gregory rejected freedom of conscience,
not only within the church, but within society as a whole, as a, quote,
false and absurd concept.
Freedom of the press was equally madness, according to this Pope.
Gregory's successor was Pope Pius IX, convener of Vatican Council One.
He was of the same mind with regard to the most elementary human freedoms.
Popes had openly declared Rome's opposition to the United States and to its
freedom-granting constitution from the moment that the nation took birth.
Pope Pius IX did the same.
In the Catholic world, frankly, the Catholic world frankly expressed the
Roman Catholic view of the United States' form of government.
Quote, we do not accept it or hold it to be any government at all.
If the American Republic is to be sustained and preserved, it must be by the
rejection of the principles of the Protestant Reformation and the acceptance
of the Catholic principle.
What is the principle of the Protestant Reformation?
Liberty in Christ.
That we are all the temples of the Holy Spirit, God's laws written upon our heart.
He is our great high priest.
He is the church and the state.
We don't need a Pope or a king.
Okay?
We have Christ.
But what is the Roman Catholic principle?
That the Pope is the vicar, the replacement of the Son of God on earth,
and he has the divine right to rule as he sees fit, even if that is contrary to
God's holy law.
It's blasphemy.
It's tyranny.
And its history drips with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of
Jesus.
Now onto the subtitle, Contempt for Human Life.
Dave Hunt says, It is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that
many of the Popes were as contemptible of human life as they were of freedom.
Pope Gregory IX, who reigned from 1227 to 1241, declared it the duty of every
Catholic, quote, to persecute heretics, unquote.
That's you and me, right?
We're not Roman Catholic?
Pope Gregory IX declared that it was the duty of every Roman Catholic to persecute
heretics.
I'm going to ask my listeners the obvious question.
What happens if we have a Roman Catholic in the White House?
Vote no better, better, better than that.
Let me ask that correctly.
What if we have an apparent Protestant in the White House who secretly professes
Roman Catholicism and he is commanded by his Pope to persecute heretics?
What if we have a controlling power of Roman Catholics in Congress?
How about on the Supreme Court?
And they are all likewise commanded to persecute heretics.
A heretic is someone who did not give complete allegiance to the Roman Catholic
Church.
Such persons were to be tortured, imprisoned, and slain.
I ask again, what if we have a heretic in this country?
Do not wake up.
It says disloyalty to the Pope was the same as treason.
So closely were church and state united.
Quote, of 80 Popes in a line from the 13th century on, writes Peter De Rosa,
not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition.
On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of
this deadly machine.
Unquote.
Rome takes seriously the command to persecute heretics.
Rome has always made it a science to discover the most successful ways of
persecuting and killing the heretics.
Rome has not changed.
He continues, he says, nor was it only the Inquisition that trampled human rights and
life.
Even before that evil institution, Peter De Rosa reminds us, quote,
For more than six centuries without a break, the papacy was the sworn enemy of
elementary justice.
Unquote.
Nearly 400 years before the Inquisition would be established by Pope Gregory IX,
Pope Nicholas I, who reigned from 858 to 867, encouraged the king of Bulgaria,
a new convert to what he thought was Christianity, to force Rome's religion
upon his subjects.
Quote.
I glorify you for having maintained your authority by putting to death those
wandering sheep who refused to enter the fold and congratulate you upon having
opened the kingdom of heaven to people submitted to your rule.
A king need not fear to command massacres when these will retain his subjects in
obedience or cause them to submit to the faith of Christ.
And God will reward him in this world and in eternal life for these murders.
Unquote.
That's how Rome persecutes the heretics.
Praises presidents and congresses and supreme court members for devising
ingenious ways to persecute and kill heretics, Bible-believing Christians like
you and me.
Such a statement may seem an incredible relic from the dark ages, but we could
cite many like it from other popes.
Remember that the popes who condoned and practiced the persecution, torture and
massacre of all who refused to give them allegiance were the allegedly infallible
successors to Peter, the predecessors of today's Pope John Paul II, essential links
in the long papal line from whom he received his authority and power.
Nor has the Vatican ever acknowledged the evil of past popes or apologized for it.
By the time of Pope Pius IX, the tide of public opinion was turning against the
popes because of their ruthless totalitarianism.
The revolutionary ideas of freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of
conscience, freedom of the people's right to choose their rulers, and of the
separation of church and state, having been established by the United
States Constitution, were also gaining momentum across Europe.
This new breath of freedom threatened Rome and had to be smothered in Christ's name.
Pope Pius IX was determined to continue Rome's autocratic rule in partnership with
autocratic governments.
To protect Rome's dictatorial powers, his papal infallibility had to be
established as an official and universally held doctrine.
So this is Rome's resort to the universal rebellion that was taking place in Europe
as a result of the Protestant Reformation.
When he had lost control of all the papal states and all the nations of Europe
because liberty had found root in God's people in Europe, the Pope resorted to
declaring himself infallible and then condemned every nation on the planet.
But the papacy has contempt for truth and freedom.
In his La Inquisicion Espanola, the Spanish Inquisition, Gerard Dufour
reminds us that, quote, the first article of the first heading of the Spanish
Constitution proclaimed that, quote, the Roman Catholic apostolic religion in
Spain and all the Spanish possessions will be the religion of the king and of the
nation and no other one shall be permitted, unquote.
So it became in Latin America.
Comte Le Meister, in his defense of the Spanish Inquisition, writes that in a,
quote, Catholic country, a man may entertain in his mind whatever religious
or irreligious opinion he likes, but he must keep it to himself or else he
is brought before the tribunal, the Inquisition, unquote.
The Constitution of the United States was condemned by the papacy because it
separated church and state and prohibited the establishment of any religion by the
government.
The Popes, on the other hand, had long required governments to make Roman
Catholicism the official religion and to prohibit the practice of any other.
In his 1864 Syllabus of Errors, which, in all fairness, contained some
truth, Pope Pius IX soundly condemned the belief that, quote, every man is free to
embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, unquote.
His syllabus decreed the union of church and state, that Roman Catholicism must be
the state religion everywhere, that the church may use force to compel
obedience, that there is no hope of salvation outside the Roman Catholic
Church, etc.
The Syllabus of Errors of 1864 has never been rejected or amended, and it also
remains the belief of the Roman Catholic Church today, though unenforceable in many
countries.
Let us take a typical example of enforcement of the Catholic-inspired
Spanish Inquisition.
In April of 1863, three Spaniards, Montemoras, Trigo, and Alamar,
were tried and found guilty of attending Protestant services.
The sentence was harsh.
Nine years each for Alamar and Montemoras, and seven years for Trigo, to be served
without time off in the galleys.
That's how you get rewarded in a Spanish country, a Roman Catholic country,
for attending a Protestant service.
It says, here was but one of thousands of instances of the church using its
quote-unquote secular arm, that is the state, to enforce its decrees in the
suppression of the common human right to worship God according to one's own
conscience.
To be true to its basic and unchangeable dogmas, Rome would today enforce a similar
denial of civil rights everywhere, if it had the power to do so.
And I will say, it's gained that power here in the United States of America.
I cannot go on amateur radio and read a book like this without overwhelming
opposition and blind attention from the FCC and the Amateur Radio Relay League.
They simply will not tolerate this type of education on amateur radio.
It says, a living death in the galleys, with at least the hope of eventual release
if one could survive, was not the ultimate punishment.
Popes had long decreed the death penalty for deviation from quote-unquote the
faith, not only through the inquisition in religious matters, but as a part of their
civil rule over the vast territories known as the Papal States.
For example, Pope Clement XII, who reigned from 1730 to 1740,
had specifically prescribed the death penalty for membership in the Freemasons,
or even for quote, rendering aid, succor, counsel, or a retreat to one of
these members, unquote.
Now I'll stop and just interject that during this time, Freemasonry was
perceived to be a Protestant organization, which has since been completely taken over
by the Jesuits.
The Freemasons served the Black Pope.
They are against Christ.
It is an anti-Christ organization.
More than that, it is an ecumenical organization.
It's a Luciferian society, and no one calling himself a Christian should belong
to Freemasonry.
Now with that said, we'll continue what the author says here.
Subtitling Pretensions to Omnipotence, the author writes, The Roman Catholic
Church fought the Protestant Reformation for more than religious reasons.
The Protestant Reformation was now spreading on a grand scale what had
previously been successfully suppressed for more than a thousand years,
freedom of conscience and basic human rights.
The desire for civil liberty among the common people was taking root and
spreading everywhere.
Nothing was more hateful to the Vatican, for civil liberty threatened its very
foundations.
As one 19th century historian wrote concerning Pope Clement XII, As soon as he
was seated on the throne of the Apostle, like his predecessor, Benedict XIII,
he declared himself to be an enemy of the democratic ideas which were filtering
through all classes of society, announced his pretensions to omnipotence,
and set himself up as the pontiff of the Middle Ages.
Fifty years later, Thomas Jefferson congratulated the citizens of the United
States for having abolished religious intolerance under which mankind so long
bled and suffered.
Thomas Jefferson was speaking specifically about papal tyranny, and how the American
people had risen up to throw off that tyranny.
He urged that, quote, public reason, freedom of religion, and freedom of the
press, unquote, be preserved.
Such freedoms were the fruit of the Protestant Reformation.
One hundred years after Jefferson, Pope Pius IX was still hoping for exactly
the opposite, for a growth of Roman Catholicism there which would eventually
turn the United States into a Roman Catholic country so that all of its
citizens could enjoy the blessings of Roman rule.
And Pope Pius IX set a course for this country.
Roman Catholics in this country have responded, sought positions of high
political power, and have thus turned this once Protestant country into a Roman
Catholic country.
And we're about to see its consequences.
We are seeing the consequences of this return to Romanism in the United States,
and we will suffer inconceivably because of it.
We'll be right back.
I know you all want answers, and believe me, so do I, and I'll do my best to get
them.
Have you seen the Left Behind movies?
Have you read the Left Behind fictional book series?
Not everyone believes Left Behind is true prophecy.
Some may even regard as conspiratorial the mainstream re-release of the Left Behind
movie, with actor Nicolas Cage portraying the main character as an attempt to
further reinforce, in the minds of all, this perception of false prophecy,
in order to condition the masses for the play about to begin.
Because they see the world stage shaping to fulfill what they have been led to
believe is sound biblical interpretation, a Left Behind rapture scenario,
this false view of prophecy is reinforced in the mind, not only of its adherents,
but also includes those who have been merely exposed to the specific media.
Is it possible that false prophecy can be fulfilled?
The rapture theories have always been in dispute.
Pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib disputes have risen up in exclusively evangelical
circles of recent history, so that when true believers don't suddenly disappear,
this element will easily go by the wayside when all see a new Jewish temple begin to
be built.
Will this be part of the great delusion that will come upon the whole earth?
It seems that this great prophetic delusion has already overcome practically
the entire American evangelical and Christian world.
Get the book, The Rapture Will Be Cancelled.
To learn more, visit crosstheborder.org.
That's C-R-O-S-S, crosstheborder.org.
Visit crosstheborder.org, C-R-O-S-S, crosstheborder.org, to get your print,
e-pub, or PDF version of the book, The Rapture Will Be Cancelled.
That's crosstheborder.org.
I know you all want answers, and believe me, so do I, and I'll do my best to get
them.
Despite Nicolas Cage's promise to do his best to get left-behind rapture answers
for us, don't hold your breath.
Not everyone believes left-behind is true prophecy.
Some may even regard as conspiratorial the mainstream re-release of the left-behind
movie with actor Nicolas Cage portraying the main character as an attempt to
further reinforce, in the minds of all, this perception of false prophecy in order
to condition the masses for the play about to begin.
If you want true Bible prophecy answers, get the book, The Rapture Will Be
Cancelled.
The author exposes the Latin rapture origin, the seven-year tribulation
deception, true Bible revelation of Daniel's 70 weeks, the abomination of
desolation, the restrainer, America, in the revelation, the image of the beast,
and the mark of the beast, and the truth about God's chosen people, and so much
more about Bible prophecy.
This book will shatter the left-behind paradigm of future events.
Get the book, The Rapture Will Be Cancelled.
Visit crosstheborder.org, C-R-O-S-S, crosstheborder.org, to get your print,
e-pub, or PDF version of the book, The Rapture Will Be Cancelled.
That's crosstheborder.org.
Welcome back from the break.
You're listening to the second half hour of Inquisition Update on First Amendment
Radio.
If you'd like to support the program, please support First Amendment Radio,
who sponsors Inquisition Update.
And if you'd like to contact me, please do by e-mail, tom at cwaves.us,
tom at cwaves.us.
Now back to the book.
A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt.
He said, The Second National Council of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of the United
States met in Baltimore in October of 1866.
Presided over by Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore as Apostolic Delegate
representing the Pope, the Council pointed out the difference between a Protestant
form of government, as in the United States, and a Catholic form of government,
as in most Latin American countries.
The former, it was noted, derived its direction and power by a vote of the
people, whereas the latter looked entirely to the Pope in obedience to his direction
and authority.
One commentator noted, quote, The two systems stand in direct antagonism with
each other.
The Protestant has separation of church and state.
The Papal proposes to unite them once again.
The Protestant has founded its civil institutions upon the will of the people.
The Papal proposes to reconstruct and found them upon the will of the Pope.
The Protestant secures religious freedom.
The Papal requires that every man shall give up his conscience to the keeping of
ecclesiastical superiors.
In other words, to the Roman Catholic priests right on up to the Pope.
You just give up your manhood, and you submit to these mere men,
who claim to be the representatives of God on earth, to strip you of any personal
responsibility.
Just like blind, deaf, and dumb cadavers, you just walk into the church and do and
think and say whatever the church tells you to do, think, and say.
That's Roman Catholicism.
Protestantism demands that we all be accountable for our actions independently
and to Christ alone, under the direction and leading of the Holy Spirit and the
written word of God.
That's Protestantism.
And it works, if it's not corrupted by Romanism.
Now the National Council of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, though comprised of
presumably loyal Americans, unanimously expressed its preference for the Catholic
form of government, and its absolute submission to papal authority.
It sent a cable to Pope Pius IX, wishing him long life, with the
preservation of all the ancient and sacred rites of the Holy See.
So pleased was the Pope by this expression of loyalty from America, that he had it
published in Italy as an example for his own rebellious Italian subjects to
consider.
Even as Pope Pius IX planned Vatican Council I with its declaration of papal
infallibility, however, the papal empire in Italy was crumbling.
We covered that rebellion against the papacy by the Italian people in the
previous book that we read, The Footprints of the Jesuits by R.
W.
Thompson.
We won't dwell on it anymore, other than at this period of time, the papacy was
being rejected all over the world, except right here in the United States of
America.
Americans were rising up in support of the papacy, and against those who were
liberating themselves from papal tyranny, and especially the Italians, right there
in the shadow of the walls of the Vatican.
Unbelievable, in a Protestant nation, that we should tolerate such open offense
to our civil liberties, to our Protestant form of government.
And still, Americans are timid about raising their voice against this papal
tyranny that has overtaken all of us.
It's incomprehensible that God's people are so fearful to utter the truth.
Now under the subtitle, The Winds of Freedom, Dave Hunt writes, In 1861,
the newly formed Kingdom of Italy, with King Victor Emmanuel II at its head,
had declared Rome its capital, though the Pope and his military forces
still held and ruled it.
It was the first time ever that Italy, still long the pawn of European powers,
had been united under an Italian head of state.
A crowd gathered along the Corso shouting, Viva Italia!
Viva Vittorio Emanuele!
The papal police immediately fired upon them.
Absolute power had corrupted the papacy absolutely, and the people of Italy were
determined to throw off that papal yoke.
A leading Italian at the time wrote that the tribunal of the Holy Inquisition was
still very much alive, and that its, quote, secret power was felt not only in
religious questions, but in every other.
Under such a system, the man who had murdered or plundered another had nothing
to fear from papal justice, unquote.
If he did not espouse basic human freedoms, quote, and were a firm adherent
of the temporal power of the Pope, unquote.
In other words, there was no justice in a papal government.
What matters to the Pope is that everyone obeys him.
It's the Pope's rights that matters.
The people's rights do not matter.
Now, in 1864, in Pope Pius IX's encyclical entitled Quanticura, Pope Pius IX
denounced what he called, quote, that erroneous opinion most pernicious to
the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by our
predecessor Gregory XIV, the insanity, namely, quote, that the liberty of
conscience and of worship is peculiar, is a peculiar right of every man,
which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right openly
and publicly to express their ideas by word of mouth, through the press,
or by any other means, unquote.
There you have Pope Pius IX's official statement regarding freedom of the press,
freedom of conscience, freedom of speech.
He called it insanity.
Pope Pius IX called it insanity.
And he wasn't the first Pope to do so.
He quoted a predecessor, Gregory XIV.
The papacy has always held these beliefs.
You may not speak a word against the papacy, against the vicar of Christ.
You may not speak a word against the Roman Catholic Church, or its laws, or its
priests, or its pedophiles.
You may not speak a word against the government of your country, if it be
allied with that sacrosanct institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.
Because if church and state are united, the state shares the sanctity of the
church.
The state enjoys equal sanctity with the church.
They're married.
Both then become sacrosanct.
Inviolable.
And that's why people in the United States today who are lifting up their voice in
opposition to the tyranny that is being imposed upon the people by our own
government, they're being treated as heretics.
They're being treated as heretics and labeled enemy combatants, or any other
pejorative that puts them in a negative light.
It has always been the liberty of the people to question our government,
to have a say in our government.
That's not the case today.
Because Rome is in control of the government, and now enjoys the same
sanctity as the Roman Catholic Church, and may not be spoken against.
Liberty of speech and liberty of the press, liberty of conscience have been
destroyed in this country.
It's time for the American people to wake up to the real cause of it.
It's an historical cause, it is a prophetic cause, and we do not risk error
in proclaiming that Rome has control of our government today.
Now, one might again ask how this statement by a predecessor could be
reconciled with Pope John Paul II's claim that Rome is and has always been the
champion of human freedom?
Into what mental black hole do people today consign the obvious fact in order to
believe that the church nourishes basic human rights?
How many sincere Catholics are deceived because church authorities sound so
convincing?
When an article in the Catholic world credited the Roman Catholic Church with
giving England the great charter of human rights, the Magna Carta, how many readers
knew that Rome had in fact done everything she could to destroy it?
Can you imagine the brazen audacity of the Roman Catholic Church to claim that she
was the one who proposed the Magna Carta?
It's absurd.
It defies all of her history.
It defies Bible prophecy.
The papacy is, was, and always will be a tyrant.
Human freedom is the least of the concerns of the papacy.
It's liberty of the Pope to rule unhindered that most concerns the papacy
today, and to say that the Roman Catholic Church, to believe that the papacy had
anything but contempt for the Magna Carta, is an expression of, if nothing else,
abject ignorance of the facts.
All of her history is defined by an attempt to destroy human liberties.
And the world should be outraged that Rome claims credit for having established human
rights or being a defender of human rights.
It ought to outrage everyone in this country.
But we're all oblivious to history.
Rome can say anything she wants.
She appears to be a lamb, and people are loath to look beneath the wool,
to see the wolf that lies within.
A subtitled backlash against dictatorship, Dave Hunt says, The French and American
revolutions in the previous century had ignited a spark of resentment against
autocratic rulers that was being fanned into flame across Europe.
No monarch was more dictatorial than the Pope himself.
Pope Pius the Ninth still reigned as quote-unquote king of Rome and its
environs, as his predecessors had for centuries reigned over the entire papal
states.
The growing sentiment for democracy was a threat to papal authority, a threat which
Vatican Council I would surely put down by its dogmatic declaration of papal
infallibility.
That would, the Pope hoped, settle the matter.
The year before the encyclical of Pope Pius IX, in preparation for Vatican
Council I, partially quoted above, Abraham Lincoln had addressed himself at
Gettysburg to the same issues.
No two men could have been more at odds.
Lincoln's words, intended to pull the nation together in that crisis,
were at the same time a rebuke, though probably unintended, to the basic
dogmas underlying Roman Catholicism and papal tyranny.
Nor could Pope Pius IX have been ignorant of the famous Gettysburg address,
so that his words could only be regarded as a harsh response to those of Lincoln.
Here's what he said, quote, That from these honored dead we take increased
devotion to that cause for which we gave the last full measure of devotion.
That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain,
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government
of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Unquote.
Can you imagine how that resounded in the ears of Pope Pius IX?
Freedom for Americans?
That means they won't be subject to me, the Pope, the vicar of Christ.
That made Abraham Lincoln an enemy of the papacy.
Now I'm not going to say that Abraham Lincoln was the end-all and be-all of our
democracy or of our republic, but he was an enemy of the papacy, and they
eventually killed him for what he said.
Now Lincoln's ideal was the antithesis of Roman Catholicism.
Popes had sought to prevent such freedom, but nothing could stop it here in America
or elsewhere.
The Italian people, too, long the pawns of tyrannical monarchs from France,
Germany, and Austria, were in a struggle for independence.
Nor was it lost upon them, in spite of their religious fervor, who was the worst
enemy of freedom.
That's right.
All of Europe knew who the worst enemy of freedom was, and we ought to learn right
here in the United States today.
A military hero in the fight for independence appealed to his fellow
Italians.
Before fighting against this external enemy, the French and the Austrians,
you have internal enemies to beat down, and I'll tell you that the chief of them
is the Pope.
I am a Christian, as you are.
Yes, I am of that religion which has broken the bonds of slavery and has
proclaimed the freedom of men.
The Pope, who opposes his subjects and is an enemy of the Italian independence,
is no Christian.
He denies the very principle of Christianity.
He is Antichrist.
The people of the province of Rome, where the Pope still ruled, endorsed this
view in a resounding vote of 133,681 to 1507, for the independent Italy free of
foreign influence and papal control.
Pope Pius IX fought back viciously.
He executed hundreds of Italians who held the heretical views of civil government
free from Roman Catholic Church domination.
About 8,000 were confined to the papal jails under intolerable conditions.
Quote, many chained to the wall and not released even for exercise or sanitary
purposes.
The English ambassador called the dungeons of Pope Pius IX the opprobrium of Europe.
Unquote.
An eyewitness described this monument to the Pope's infallibility.
Quote, from dawn till nightfall, the miserable captives would cling to
their iron bars of their horrible dwellings and perpetually call upon the
passers-by for alms in the name of God.
A papal prison.
How I shudder in writing the words.
Human beings were heaped confusedly together, covered with rags and swarming
with vermin.
Unquote.
You see how Rome treats heretics?
Put you in the dungeon.
Bind you with iron chains in the dark, in the cold.
No food, no clothing, no water, no medical care.
And you may be eaten of vermin.
That's how they were treated.
And not just in one part of history.
That's Rome's entire history.
Rome's palace of the Inquisition still stands next to the Vatican.
The headquarters of that same infamous institution now called the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, the CDF.
That hated structure would have been burned to the ground by a mob when Pope
Pius IX was deposed as King of Rome had not the new government persuaded the
people to keep it for, quote, some charitable purpose.
Unquote.
It was open to the public to, quote, let the citizens see with their own eyes
the secret mechanisms of the papal system.
Unquote.
An eyewitness describing the horror of those who came to that open house wrote,
quote, they did not need any evidence to know that the only crime of serious moment
in the states of the church was liberal thought.
That is advocacy of basic human freedoms in religion and politics.
That their friends and relatives had been spirited away and immured in prison they
also knew very well.
And when the prison doors were opened these emaciated heretics had a sad tale to
tell of cruel suffering and ingenious torture.
Unquote.
That's what's coming to America.
Cruel suffering and ingenious torture.
That's what's coming to God's people in this country because they fear to cry out
against Rome.
Under the subtitle Denying History to Build a Lie, Dave Hunt says the fall of
papal Rome was still almost a year in the future when Pope Pius IX formally opened
Vatican Council 1 on December 8, 1869.
Yet even prior to that grandiose event, the opposition to papal infallibility,
which all now knew the Pope intended to push through the council, had built to
enormous proportions among bishops and lay members alike.
It was no longer the Middle Ages with forged documents to bolster papal
authority.
The bishops well knew that papal infallibility had never been accepted by
the church, but had been repeatedly denied.
To accept it now would be to go against centuries of Roman Catholic Church
tradition as well as the scriptures.
Those in favor of papal infallibility when the council began were a small minority.
Nevertheless, they had a concrete plan of action to take control of the key
positions in the council bureaucracy and the church's news media.
In this, they were aided by the, quote, the Pope, most of the Curia,
and the Jesuits, unquote.
To gain votes, this pressure group, quote, did not flinch from intrigues,
promises, and threats.
Quoting further, he says, everything is in readiness here for the proclamation of
papal infallibility, unquote, said Lord Acton, who wrote to Great Britain's Prime
Minister William E.
Gladstone on November 24th, 1869, two weeks before the council officially
convened.
The English charge d'affaires at the Holy See commented that preparations to pushing
through infallibility had been so well organized that, quote, foreign bishops
find it quite impossible to express their own opinions freely.
They will be unpleasantly surprised to find themselves forced to sanction
something which they actually wish to condemn, unquote.
Much of what we know about the sinister intrigue behind the scenes and the
dishonest conclusions of Vatican Council I is owing to the work of Swiss historian
and scholar August Bernard Hassler.
During his five years in the Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity,
Hassler had access to the Vatican's secret archives.
What he learned thereby about Vatican Council I was so disturbing, the whole
business amounted to a clear manipulation of the council, that he felt compelled to
write how the Pope became infallible.
Hassler met an untimely death just after the manuscript was finished.
How convenient for the Pope, right?
For writing the book's introduction, Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung was,
quote, stripped of his ecclesiastical teaching privileges, unquote.
The facts of the matter is, Pope Pius IX, the Jesuits, and those who propounded
papal infallibility would brook no opposition to that papal dogma.
And they would even resort to murder to accomplish their aim.
No discussion was allowed.
Devout Roman Catholics today have sincerely believed the deceitful
impression given by the Roman Catholic Church that Vatican Council I's
declaration of papal infallibility represented the mind and the will of the
attending bishops.
Quite to the contrary, many bishops were strongly opposed to affirming
infallibility, both on scriptural and traditional grounds.
Some left in protest before the final vote had been taken, and only affirmed it later
under Vatican threats and for the sake of church unity.
Bishop Lecourtier was so distressed by the fraud that he, quote, threw his conciliar
documents into the Tiber and left Rome, unquote.
For that act, he was removed from his bishopric.
Attending bishops were virtual prisoners.
Exit visas were deliberately withheld to prevent anyone from leaving.
Among those fleeing Rome were two Armenian bishops, one of whom was Placidus
Cassinian, abbot general of all Armenian Antonite monks.
From the other side of the Roman border, outside papal jurisdiction, he wrote both
the pope and the council that under the constant threat of imprisonment and owing
to his serious illness, he had feared for his life and thought his only safety lay
in flight, unquote.
Oppressive rules were imposed which were designed to stifle opposition and to
eliminate free discussion.
Quote, there was to be no discussion in small groups, speeches at the council
could not be printed, making it virtually impossible to study the arguments and give
a careful response to them, and bishops were forbidden under pain of mortal sin to
say anything about what took place in that great hall of the council, unquote.
The world was hoodwinked at Vatican Council 1.
The Roman Catholic Church was hoodwinked.
The world lies in the balance because the world has acquiesced.
There's a good reason for that.
Corporate advertising dollars come with strings that limit program content.
So without your help, these programs cannot continue on satellite, internet,
or our several affiliates.
If you benefit by the educational law programs, we ask you to give.
If you are admonished or nurtured by the Bible and ministry programs, we ask you to
give.
If some voice a cause that you are passionate about, we ask you to give.
If you believe in any of these, we ask you to support them as you would a
missionary on a continual basis, as if giving a tithe for missionary radio.
These programs are not commercially viable and must be supported by those faithful to
the cause of truth.
Look for the button to sponsor your favorite programs at our Listen and
Schedule pages on the internet.
We will also give you unlimited archive access to all of our programs.
We're asking you to give much less than a tithe so that you may also send support
directly to a particular program host, cause, and anywhere else the Spirit may
lead you.
Do all to the glory of our God and Creator, for His holy nation, the only
kingdom that will last forever.
Thank you for listening.
Visit crosstheborder.org, C-R-O-S-S, crosstheborder.org, to get your print,
e-pub, or PDF version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled, When the Third Temple is
Built.
That's crosstheborder.org.
When it comes to prophecy today, much of the Evangelical Christian world
has their eyes on Israel, waiting and watching to see when the Third Temple will
begin to be built.
The plans are drawn, the Jewish people are eager, most Evangelical Christians today
believe that the rapture will happen before the Third Temple is built.
Hi, I'm Michael Eugene.
I was taught that Daniel's 70th week was in the future.
Is that really what the Bible teaches?
Have we searched the scriptures and found this to be true?
Why is it so important for a re-established Israel to build a Third
Temple in Jerusalem?
Is it necessary to build a Temple on the same location already occupied by the Dome
of the Rock?
Is it necessary for sacrifices to take place in the Temple on Temple Mount?
Is there really a rapture followed by seven years of tribulation?
What is the New Testament Temple?
Can we identify history and prophecy?
Who is the first beast in Revelation Chapter 13?
Who are the seven kings in Revelation 17?
I have asked all these questions and I have found Nicholas Arthur's new book,
When the Third Temple is Built, answers all these questions and more using
scripture to interpret scripture.
The Bible says that no prophecy of scripture is of any private
interpretation.
Nicholas shows us in his new book, When the Third Temple is Built,
how the Bible interprets prophecy and not man's private interpretation.
Visit crosstheborder.org, c-r-o-s-s, crosstheborder.org, to get your print,
e-pub, or pdf version of Nicholas Arthur's new book titled, When the Third Temple is
Built.
That's crosstheborder.org.