The Pope and the Vatican Should Be Confronted about Traditional Catholic Stances against Israel

Instead of rejecting Israel as the Vatican does, evangelical leaders should do what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did

By Julio Severo

WorldNetDaily chief Joseph Farah accurately pointed the latest Vatican tragedy against Israel by saying that it is a “one-sided hostile action against Israel.” He said,

Pope Francis announced an agreement had been reached with the barbaric leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization recognizing “Palestine.”

It’s a barbarous act of political and historical tone deafness by the pope that puts the beleaguered Jewish state, the only reliable refuge for outnumbered, forgotten and abandoned Middle East Christians, deeper into the cross-hairs of international busybodies.

The Vatican’s deal was brokered with Mahmoud Abbas, the organizer of the Munich Olympics terrorist attack on Israeli athletes, a man who wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust – and still denies the Jewish death toll to this day.

The Vatican’s statement calls for the new Palestinian state to have its capital in Jerusalem – Israel’s capital since the time of King David. It calls for the Palestinian state, run by the same people who have overseen the destruction of Jewish religious and historical sites in its own territories, to be responsible for holy sites in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

What the Vatican did here was declare its unilateral and unconditional support of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization founded by Yasser Arafat.

There’s no other way to interpret this except as a one-sided hostile action against Israel.

Yet, this is not the first Catholic hostility against Israel. Jewish writer Janet Levy reports a number of anti-Jewish cases from the Vatican in her review of the book “The Vatican Against Israel: J’Accuse,” written by Catholic writer Giulio Meotti, who explores the theological foundation for 1,700 years of Catholic enmity toward Jews that led to manifold persecutory actions and atrocities through the centuries and how it continues to play out in the Catholic Church policy toward the Jewish State today.

Mr. Meotti explains how the Catholic Church has continued to undermine Jews through its politics, statements, and contemptuous relationship with the state of Israel. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the Vatican has consistently worked against the best interests of the Jewish state and aided and abetted its enemies.

This extensive, historical Vatican enmity toward the Jews and the attendant atrocities have led to today’s shocking alliance with Islam and, even more surprisingly, has prevented the Catholic Church from aiding persecuted Catholics throughout the Muslim world. By disavowing Jewish roots and forging a strategic Muslim-Catholic alliance, the Catholic Church has embarked on a precarious path for the future of Christendom.

In “The Vatican Against Israel,” the author examines how the Catholic Church has continued to be a willing and eager partner in the destruction of the Jewish people in the modern era.

The Catholic Church helped promulgate the anti-Semitic hoax of a Jewish plan for global domination as set forth in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, largely used by Nazis to justify their crimes against the Jews. The first translation of this damaging blood libel was translated by Arab Catholics and published by a periodical of the Catholic Community in Jerusalem in 1926.

When Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany, the Vatican was the first state to formally recognize the legitimacy of the Third Reich and it maintained diplomatic relations with the Nazi government through the very end of the war.

Pope John Paul II granted several audiences to Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism and the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), who had ordered and carried out attacks against Jewish civilians and was seeking publicity and legitimacy on the world stage. While openly proclaiming hatred of the Jews and plans to annihilate Israel, Arafat and his henchman were granted respectability by the Catholic Church.

In 1974, the Vatican formally recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It wasn’t until 1993, almost 20 years later, that the Catholic Church recognized the State of Israel.

When PLO Chairman Arafat died in 2004, the Pope John Paul II eulogized the terrorist as a great leader in this “hour of sadness” and spoke fondly of his closeness to the Arafat family.

Even today, many Vatican Catholic pilgrimage and tourist tour maps fail to mention Israel. Instead, the area is labeled “Holy Land” or “Palestine.”

To make things worse, evangelical leaders show that they deserve when the leftist media lump them together with the old Catholic hostility against Israel, even suggesting anti-Jewish Inquisition was not distinctively Catholic, but “Christian,” as if all Christians were equally involved in torturing and slaughtering Jews.

Even though U.S. evangelical leaders in the early America embraced the Jews and condemned the Vatican, times have changed. Today, mainline Protestant churches in U.S. embrace the Vatican and condemn Israel.

U.S. evangelicals have increasingly lost their prophetic voice about Israel and against enemies of the Jews, especially Muslims. So it is no wonder that when they meet the pope, they fail to voice their condemnation about the historic and current Catholic hostility against Israel. They also fail to condemn the Vatican alliances with Islam.

The only courageous attitude in a meeting with a pope came not from Protestants, but from a Jewish leader. In 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Pope Francis at the Vatican, and gave the leader of the Catholic Church “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain,” a book that largely revolves about Spanish Catholics questioning, torturing, and punishing Jewish converts to Catholicism, exposing how thousands of Jews were expelled from Spain or burned at the stake. Worse still, the inquisition of Catholic converts (and the use of torture to discover “heretics”) was first legally sanctioned by Pope Innocent IV, according to the Business Insider.

The Jewish Journal says that “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain,” a scholarly magnum opus and in-depth tome on the Spanish Inquisition, describes how the Catholic Church persecuted, and often executed, masses of Jewish converts to Catholicism who were accused of secretly practicing Judaism.

The Business Insider notes that “it is important to think of the context of the book, which is written by Netanyahu's father Ben-Zion Netanyahu, a well-regarded historian who worked at both Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Cornell University.”

CBS News says, “Netanyahu’s father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu, was an Israeli historian… A Zionist activist who opposed partitioning Palestine between Arabs and Jews, he was best known in academic circles for his research into the Catholic Church's medieval inquisition against the Jews of Spain.”

The Business Insider said that “the book argues, the persecution of the Jews was not truly based on religious grounds, but on a racial prejudice and financial envy that would be echoed years later in the Holocaust.”

This “envy” has been too expensive for the Catholic Church. In a fascinating piece titled “Jews prove critical to founding of America,” WorldNetDaily shows how Jews had a fundamental role in the early America’s building. Most Jews in the early America had fled Brazil, expelled, under death threats from the Inquisition and from the Catholic government. Eventually, they founded the early banking system in America. If Catholic Brazil, or even the Vatican, had embraced these Jews, they would be living today the financial hegemony enjoyed by the U.S.

But anti-Jewish Catholic culture hindered them from it. This culture was predominant in Catholic nations even recently.

As a Brazilian, I remember a boy who was ostracized by other students at a public school in São Paulo. He was a Jew and other students talked about him as some kind of “plague.” I could empathize with him. As an evangelical, I was often taunted because I did not get involved with Catholic celebrations or other inappropriate behavior at the school. So probably I was the only student that could keep a normal contact with the Jewish student.

The anti-Jewish feeling from the other students came from the culture of Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world. In contrast, respect for Catholicism was supreme.

I do not know what could be done to change the Catholic culture against Israel, but U.S. and Brazilian evangelicals should follow the courageous example of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who confronted an anti-Jewish Catholic culture just with weapon: a book on the Inquisition.

Every evangelical leader should embrace Israel and its exclusive right to the Promised Land. They should not reject Israel for the sake of the Vatican and its traditions.

And they should also give the pope books on the Inquisition and remind him that it is past time for the Catholic Church to stop being against Israel.

Yet, if they keep embracing the Vatican at the expense of Israel, all of them should also be given books on the Inquisition by courageous Netanyahus.

Without perceiving, Netanyahu became a prophetic inspiration for evangelicals in their relationship with the Vatican.

With information from the WorldNetDaily, Business Insider, Israel National News, Janet Levy, CBS News and the Jewish Journal.

Portuguese version of this article: O papa e o Vaticano precisam ser confrontados acerca de posturas católicas tradicionais contra Israel

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Jewish Issues: A Clarification to Christians about Their Perception on the Jews

Benjamin Netanyahu Under Fire for Not Bowing Down to Mythical Idol Nelson Mandela

Portugal approves citizenship plan for Sephardic Jews persecuted by the Inquisition

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION

Brazil, the Next (Regional or Global) Threat to the U.S. Economic Supremacy?

What Chuck Pierce saw about the U.S. and Brazil

By Julio Severo

In 2008, I met Chuck Pierce. He told me and a group of evangelical leaders in Brazil that God had removed his national anointing from the U.S. in 2008. For me, the confirmation came next year, when Obama (a pro-Islam, pro-sodomy and pro-abortion creature) became the U.S. president. Under his presidency, the U.S. has become the biggest exporter of the homosexual ideology in the world.

Pierce also said that God was looking for another nation to grant this anointing. He told that if Brazil got closer to Israel, God was going to give the anointing to Brazil. Then he had a vision about what would happen if Brazil began to develop into an international power: He saw the U.S. government encircling and stifling Brazil economically and militarily. He saw the U.S. filled with envy. He saw the U.S. totally determined to hinder Brazil’s economic rise.

What I understood from his vision is that the U.S., as the only superpower today, will not accept the rise of any other nation to rival its hegemony. The development of every nation is to be under the submission of U.S. interests, and these are wicked interests, because the U.S. government has abandoned the Lord long ago. The U.S. sees the economic rise of other nations as competing with its power.

I highly doubt that God is going to give his special national anointing to Brazil, my nation, because Brazil has not gotten closer to Israel. But I do not doubt that the U.S. has lost, or rejected, this anointing. As the anointing-less Saul, it will try, moved by envy, to do everything in its power to hinder and weaken any nation resembling an emergent, anointed David.

If Pierce’s prophecy is correct, God will look for another nation, not Brazil. Yet, if Brazil really changes its ways and gets closer to Israel, honoring the Jewish nation, which has always been the most honored nation by God, Brazil will prosper and rise to a superpower status, not to smash nations for economic ambitions, but to protect and honor Israel.

Probably, God will have to raise another nation, because currently Brazil is a strong moral ally of the U.S., always supporting the U.S. in every anti-family agenda in the UN system. Sadly, on abortion and sodomy, the U.S. can always count on Brazilian support. If over these reasons the U.S. lost its anointing, Brazil will not need to worry about losing what it has never gotten.

As Mary, Jesus’ mother, I kept Pierce’s vision and words in my heart, wondering if he was right about Brazil, about a U.S. envy against a possible future Brazilian rise in the global power stage, etc. Then, in 2011, George Friedman launched his book “The Next Decade: What the World Will Look Like,” by Knopf Doubleday.

Friedman is the founder of Stratfor, a Texas-based global intelligence company whose members have intelligence and military experience. With such experience, Stratfor makes strategic forecasting.

While Pierce saw America’s and Brazil’s future and their turbulences (America as an envious superpower and Brazil being stifled by her) by spiritual revelation, Friedman “saw” the future by sheer technical analysis of current events and behaviors, with U.S. intelligence data.

Pierce saw the U.S. feeling threatened by Brazil as an emerging a global superpower. Friedman saw the U.S. need to contain the rise of Brazil as a regional power.

Friedman saw no need to forecast about Brazil rising as a global superpower, because, in this respect, Brazil represents no immediate threat to U.S. interests.

Actually, only God can raise Brazil as a global superpower.

So, as forecasted by Friedman, if the U.S. should get prepared against just a regional power, what would the U.S. be capable of doing against an emerging global superpower?

Friedman’s strategic forecasting vindicates Pierce’s prophecy. Therefore, I mention several excerpts of Friedman’s book, where he says:

What happens in Latin America is of marginal importance to the United States, and the region has rarely held a significant place in American thinking.

During the Cold War, the United States became genuinely concerned about Soviet influence in the region and intervened on occasion to block it. But neither the Germans nor the Soviets made a serious strategic effort to dominate South America, because they understood that in most senses the continent was irrelevant to U.S. interests. Instead, their efforts were designed merely to irritate Washington and divert American resources.

There is only one Latin American country with the potential to emerge as a competitor to the United States in its own right, and that is Brazil. It is the first significant, independent economic and potentially global power to develop in the history of Latin America,

Right now Brazil is not a power that is particularly threatening or important to the United States, nor does the United States represent a challenge to Brazil. There is minimal economic friction, and geography prevents Brazil from easily challenging the United States.

The only challenge that Brazil could pose to the United States would be if its economic expansion continued enough for it to develop sufficient air and naval power to dominate the Atlantic between its coast and West Africa, a region not heavily patrolled by the United States.

Even though Brazil is not yet in any way a threat to American interests, the underlying American strategy of creating and maintaining balances of power in all areas requires that the United States begin working now to create a countervailing power. There is no rush in completing the strategy, but there is an interest in beginning it. In the next decade, while maintaining friendly relations with Brazil, the United States should also do everything it can to strengthen Argentina, the one country that could serve as a counterweight.

The American goal should be to slowly strengthen Argentina’s economic and political capabilities so that over the next twenty to thirty years, should Brazil begin to emerge as a potential threat to the United States, Argentina’s growth rivals Brazil’s.

The United States also should be prepared to draw the American military closer to the Argentine military, but through the civilian government, so as not to incite fears that the U.S. is favoring the Argentine military as a force in the country’s domestic politics. The American president must be careful not to show his true intentions in this, and not to rush. A unique program for Argentina could generate a premature Brazilian response, so Brazil should be included in any American program, if it wishes to participate. If necessary, this entire goodwill effort can be presented as an attempt to contain [socialist bolivarianism] in Venezuela. It will all cost money, but it will be much cheaper, in every sense, than confronting Brazil in the 2030s or 2040s over control of the South Atlantic.

The American relation with the hemisphere divides into three parts: Brazil, Canada, and Mexico. Brazil is far away and isolated. The United States can shape a long-term strategy of containment, but it is not pressing.

The United States has a secure position in the hemisphere. The sign of an empire is its security in its region, with conflicts occurring far away without threat to the homeland. The United States has, on the whole, achieved this.

Above all else, hemispheric governments must not perceive the United States as meddling in their affairs, a perception that sets in motion anti-American sentiment, which can be troublesome. Of course the United States will be engaged in meddling in Latin American affairs, particularly in Argentina. But this must be embedded in an endless discussion of human rights and social progress. In fact, particularly in the case of Argentina, both will be promoted. It is the motive vis-à-vis Brazil that needs to be hidden. But then, all presidents must in all things hide their true motives and vigorously deny the truth when someone recognizes what they are up to.

Brazil must be worked with and long-term plans for containment must, if necessary, be laid.

By Friedman’s analysis, Latin America represents no threat to U.S. interests today. By his forecasting, Brazil could, in the long run, represent some threat. Yet, by Pierce’s prophecy, it is certain that if God raises Brazil after Brazilian leaders embrace Israel, the U.S. will see Brazil as a threat to be immediately contained.

Israel is very important to God. When Bush was insisting in a two-state plan against Israel (the illegal and immoral division of the Promised Land), Pierce was guided by God’s voice to go to Louisiana and release God’s judgment. After a few months, came Hurricane Katrina, with devastating consequences.

Those, even superpowers, who confront God’s plan for Israel suffer the consequences.

Those who embrace and honor Israel are blessed, even with a superpower status blessing.

I envision a nation getting this status after its leaders fully recognize Israel and Jerusalem as its capital, make many friendship agreements with Israel, reject the two-state plan against Israel and, officially, recognize “Palestine” as a terrorist entity putting in peril the Jewish state.

Portuguese version of this article: Brasil, a próxima ameaça (regional ou global) à supremacia econômica dos EUA?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

U.S. Homosexual “Marriage” Will Affect Other Countries

Manifest Destiny in the Bible? America Is Modern Babylon, Said David Wilkerson

Justin Peters in Brazil: God Does Not Speak to You Today Through Prophecy and Revelation

U.S. Betrays Military Men Who Protected Brazil from Communist Threat

Conservative Russians Give Moral Lesson to Facebook’s Homosexual Propaganda

By Julio Severo

In celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling favoring homosexual “marriage” last week, Facebook launched an app called “Let’s Celebrate Pride,” which allowed users to overlay an image of the homosexual rainbow over their profile picture.

Facebook expected many millions of its users to celebrate, but from its 1.44 billion users, just 26 million did — less than 2 per cent. The fact is, the absolute majority of Facebook users did not want to get involved in the Facebook’s homosexual propaganda.

Compounding the failure, there was an international reaction to this propaganda.

The strongest reaction came from conservative Russians who overlaid an image of the colors of their country’s flag — white, blue and red — over their profile picture.

Russian users have also countered the homosexual #LoveWins hashtag with #pridetobestraight and #pridetoberussian.

In recent years, Russia has had a strong stance in defense of traditional family values. In June 2013, Russia passed the federal law for the “Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values,” or what is commonly referred to as the law against gay propaganda. It bans homosexual groups and individuals from giving children information about homosexuality. Violators face hefty fines and arrest. The government has also banned LGBT pride events and public rallies. And it regularly jails insolent demonstrators.

The Russian Orthodox Church has been particularly outspoken on the issue. Vsevolod Chaplin, a spokesperson for the church, called the Supreme Court’s ruling last week “godless and sinful.”

“People who like ‘American-style democracy’ and try to reconcile it with traditional values need to have a long, hard think after this decision,” he said. In part, he is right. Yet, the original American democracy was not made for homosexuality and its ideological activism.

John Adams (1735-1826), second U.S. president, wisely said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” America under Adams had a largely Protestant and moral population. Today, America has a government and big companies (Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) that totally hate Protestantism and morality and totally love immorality and homosexuality.

Some Americans answered Facebook’s homosexual propaganda by overlaying an image of the American flag over their profile picture.

With information from HuffingtonPost, Mashable and Mirror.

Portuguese version of this article: Conservadores russos dão lição de moral para a propaganda homossexual do Facebook

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

U.S. Homosexual “Marriage” Will Affect Other Countries

In the Leftist Black List, Again

In the Leftist Black List, Again

By Julio Severo

Right Wing Watch, a major American socialist group, has again “exposed” me to its U.S. leftist audience for politically incorrect views. 

Right Wing Watch “exposed”:

Julio Severo warns that “homosexuality brought destruction to Sodom, and it will bring destruction to any city or superpower embracing it. A remnant of Christians faithful to God should warn about the danger of sodomy and support efforts to protect children and their families from it.” (June 30, 2015)

Right Wing Watch exposed, at the same time, Glenn Beck, Mychal Massie, Michael Peroutka and Jim Bakker just for expressing conservative views hated by the U.S. left.

They read my view on Barbwire, a major U.S. conservative website, where I am a columnist.

Recently, in June 18, Right Wing Watch again “exposed” me by saying:

Finally, Julio Severo wants to see Scott Lively appointed “as a U.S. Special Envoy for the Human Rights of Children and their Protection against the LGBT Agenda.”

Again, Right Wing Watch read my politically incorrect view on Barbwire.

Named in the “exposé” are also the Southern Baptist Convention and Phyllis Schlafly for their conservatism.

What does Right Wing Watch, which is owned by People for the American Way, want?

According to WND, People for the American Way (PFAW) is “an atheist socialist organization which, through publications like its ‘Right Wing Watch,’ dedicates itself to the destruction of conservatives in general.”

According to its website, Right Wing Watch has a special mission to attack conservatives opposed to the gay agenda, abortion and Muslim ideology.

Right Wing Watch has “exposed” my view other times too, and I answered here: “People for the American Way’s Leftist Diatribe Against a Brazilian Conservative.”

And here: “American Left Hates Julio Severo!”

What do they intend to do?

In 2011, WND had reported on surveillance by the Homeland Security Department against my blog. What did they intend to do?

In the same year, WND reported in a headline on PayPal cutting my account after a campaign by a U.S. homosexual organization.

Why is Goliath (Right Wing Watch, Homeland Security Department, etc.) monitoring and worried about a small David?

Portuguese version of this article: Na lista negra da esquerda, de novo

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Atheist Ed Brayton: Julio Severo is a Brazilian ‘wingnut’