2. Glorious Revolution of 1688
Source of research Catholic Encyclopedia
Understand there has been only one country(meaning the Government) that has been truly protestant. The two missing links(Royal Declaration and The Glorious Revolution) have been covered up and buried from the protestant world. England is the only country that has ever legislated Catholicism illegal. In America it became legal(mass) what was illegal(mass) in England with freedom of religion. The American Revolution was not about tea and taxes, it was about religion.(Hon. Mellen Chamberlain in an Address before the Webster Historical Society in Boston, January 18, 1884 on John Adams the Statesman of the American Revolution said "Perhaps the prime cause, without which the Revolution would never have begun when it did and where it did was ecclesiastical rather than political.") It was to separate us from Protestant England and to make legal(mass) what was illegal(mass) in England. Now fast forward to 2012, 28 Jesuit Universities, over 200 Catholic Universities and 6 out of the 9 Supreme court Justices are Catholic. You might say they have been very successful since 1776. Prior to 1776 it was illegal for Catholics to hold office.
I think history is really interesting. History tells us that America(Don't forget South Amerigo) was named after Vespucci Amerigo a Italian explorer that just happened to be a Catholic. The Capital of Amerigo, the District of Columbia is named after another Catholic Explorer Christopher Columbus. And the White House is named after a Jesuit Andrew White. Then Daniel Carroll(Catholic) gives the land for our National Capital. Then after 26 years of Jesuit education John Carroll(Catholic) founded Georgetown University in 1789 the same year we became a country. We can't forget Charles Carroll(Catholic) the wealthiest man in the colonies being the Commissioner of War during the Revolutionary war. And the first mayor of the District of Columbia Carroll's nephew Robert Brent a Catholic. That is really interesting how the Catholic pieces fit and it seems their are no protestants pieces to the puzzle. What part of the Constitution protests Rome?
Below is the preface to "Washington in the lap of Rome" by Justin D. Fulton. This book was written in 1888. The Jesuits founded this country and Rome had a Strangle hold already by 1888. Again the American Revolution was not about tea and taxes, it was
How have they kept the world ignorant to this history?
Quote from "Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States" by Samuel Morse 1835. The food of Popery is ignorance. Ignorance is the mother of papal devotion. Ignorance is the legitimate prey of Popery. Ignorance: The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uniformed.
To many, history might be dry and boring, yet if we have a burning desire to understand what is truth, then history becomes vibrant and alive. History sheds light on our present world and also gives understanding for the future. It is through history that we find our roots, and has become the reason and object of why much of our history today has been thoroughly censored; so that our roots will be purposely obscured. The day is approaching, perhaps, when the only historians will be amateurs who study history as self-help, who examine the past in order to make sense of the present and not be caught unprepared by the future. Lopsided, slanted, and gone from history are the true factual events purposely hidden from history. When a nation has no true past history, the minds are molded by false history. False history makes the present fiction with out anyway to understand the future.
This will allow you to believe in something that
Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past.
Who Controlled the dark ages? Who controls the present?
Psst!!! The first Question Answers the second Question.
In this world it really does not matter what your personal religious beliefs are, but what is happening in the world today has everything to do with Lucifer Sun Worship. It does not matter if you believe in Lucifer Sun Worship or not, if the people who believe in Roman Catholicism(Lucifer Sun Worship) are in government this will most assuredly affect you.
Understand this is being written from a Roman point of view
This comes out of the Catholic Encyclopedia
This is the name most commonly given to the solemn repudiation of Catholicity which, in accordance with provisions of the "Bill of Rights" (1689) and of "the Act of Succession" (1700), every sovereign succeeding to the throne of Great Britain was, until quite recently, required to make in the presence of the assembled Lords and Commons. This pronouncement has also often been called "The King's Protestant Declaration" or "The Declaration against Transubstantiation" and (but quite incorrectly) "The Coronation Oath". With regard to this last term it is important to notice that the later coronation oath, which for two centuries has formed part of the coronation service and which still remains unchanged, consists only of certain promises to govern justly and to maintain "The Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law". No serious exception has ever been taken by Catholics to this particular formula, but the Royal Declaration, on the other hand, was regarded for long years as a substantial grievance, constituting as it did an insult to the faith professed by many millions of loyal subjects of the British Crown. The terms of this Declaration, which from 1689 to 1910 was imposed upon the sovereign by statute, ran as follows:
Internet Catholic Encyclopedia
"I, A. B., by the grace of God King (or Queen) of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any such dispensation from any person or authority or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning".
1912 Catholic Encyclopedia
"I, A. B., by the grace of God King (Or Queen) of England, Scotland and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me by the Pope, or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning."
The terms of the document are important, for even the extravagant and involved wording of the "long rigmarole" at the end added much to the sense of studied insult conveyed by the whole formula. Not only is the Mass stigmatized as idolatrous, but a false statement of Catholic doctrine is implied in the reference to the "adoration" of the Virgin Mary and the saints "as now used in the Church of Rome", while the existence of a supposed dispensing power is assumed which the Catholic Church has never asserted. What added still more to the just resentment of Catholics at the continued retention of the Declaration was the consciousness that, in the words of Lingard, it owed its origin "to the perjuries of an imposter and the delusion of a nation". The formula was no one drafted by a Parliament in its sober senses. With the object of excluding Catholics from the throne, the Bill of Rights, after the deposition of James II in 1689, exacted of the monarch a profession of faith or "Test". The test selected was one which already stood in the statute book, and which was first placed there during the frenzy excited by the supposed Popish Plot of 1678. It was amid the panic created by the fabrications of Titus Oates, that this Test was drafted (not improbably by himself), and it was imposed upon all officials and public servants, thus effectually excluding Catholics from Parliament and positions of trust. By a curious inversion of history the declaration which was drawn up in 1678 to be taken by every official except the king, had come two hundred years later to be exacted of the king and of no one else. Although statements have been made contending that the substance of the Royal Declaration is older than Titus Oates' time, an examination of these earlier formula shows little to support such a conclusion (see a full discussion in "The Tablet", 13 Aug., 1910). A brief account of these formula, and of the attempts which were made in 1891 and subsequent years to abolish or modify the Royal Declaration, has already been given in the article OATHS. It will be sufficient to cite here the terms of the new Declaration which was formally carried by Mr. Asquith's Government in August, 1910, in time to relieve King George V from the necessity of wounding the feelings of his Catholic subjects by a repetition of the old formula. In virtue of Mr. Asquith's "Accession Declaration Act" the brief statement, which now replaces that quoted above, runs as follows: "I, N., do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power."
Now that you have read the Royal Declaration.
What part of the Constuition(USA) is Protestant?
But the reality was, full freedom for Catholics to function in the colonies just could never happen without constant obstructions, so long as they were under England's rule.
And what did the Protestants gain and what did they loose?
Now it was legal(mass) what was illegal(mass) in England.
Now we know the rest of the story and what the Loyalists suffered.
Because the true motive has been erased from history, the real perpetrators go unknown.
Understand this is being written from a Roman point of view
This comes out of the Catholic Encyclopedia click here
English Revolution of 1688
Please note Rome calls it a English Revolution,
Protestants call it the Glorious Revolution
James II, having reached the climax of his power after the successful suppression of Monmouth's rebellion in 1685, then had the Tory reaction in his favour, complete control over Parliament and the town corporations, a regular army in England, a thoroughly Catholic army in process of formation in Ireland, and a large revenue granted by Parliament for life. His policy was to govern England as absolute monarch and to restore Catholics to their full civil and religious rights. Unfortunately, both prudence and statesmanship were lacking, with the result that in three years the king lost his throne. The history of the Revolution resolves itself into a catalogue of various ill-judged measures which alienated the support of the Established Church , the Tory party, and the nation as a whole. The execution of Monmouth (July, 1685) made the Revolution possible, for it led to the Whig party accepting William of Orange as the natural champion of Protestantism against the attempts of James. Thus the opposition gained a centre round which it consolidated with ever-increasing force.
What the Catholics as a body desired was freedom of worship and the repeal of the penal laws; but a small section of them, desirous of political power, aimed chiefly at the repeal of the Test Act of 1673 and the Act of 1678 which excluded Catholics from both houses of Parliament. Unfortunately James fell under the influence of this section, which was directed by the unprincipled Earl of Sunderland, and he decided on a policy of repeal of the Test Act. Circumstances had caused this question to be closely bound up with that of the army. For James, who placed his chief reliance on his soldiers, had increased the standing army to 30,000, 13,000 of whom, partly officered by Catholics, were encamped on Hounslow Heath to the great indignation of London which regarded the camp as a menace to its liberties and a centre of disorder. Parliament demanded that the army should be reduced to normal dimensions and the Catholic officers dismissed; but James, realizing that the test would not be repealed, prorogued Parliament and proceeded to exercise the "dispensing and suspending power". By this he claimed that it was the prerogative of the crown to dispense with the execution of the penal laws in individual cases and to suspend the operation of any law altogether. To obtain the sanction of the Law Courts for this doctrine a test case, known as Hales's case, was brought to decide whether the king could allow a Catholic to hold office in the army without complying with the Test Act. After James had replaced some of the judges by more complaisant lawyers, he obtained a decision that "it was of the king's prerogative to dispense. with penal laws in particular instances". He acted on the decision by appointing Catholics to various positions, Lord Tyrconnel becoming Lord Lieutenant of Ireland , Lord Arundel Lord Privy Seal, and Lord Bellasyse Lord Treasurer in place of the Tory minister Lord Rochester, who was regarded as the chief mainstay of the Established Church. The Church of England , which was rendered uneasy by the dismissal of Rochester, was further alienated by the king's action in appointing a Court of High Commission, which suspended the Bishop of London for refusing to inhibit one of his clergy from preaching anti-Catholic sermons. The feeling was intensified by the liberty which Catholics enjoyed in London during 1686. Public chapels were opened, including one in the Royal Palace, the Jesuits founded a large school in the Savoy, and Catholic ecclesiastics appeared openly at Court.
At this juncture James, desiring to counterbalance the loss of Anglican support, offered toleration to the dissenters, who at the beginning of his reign had been severely persecuted. The influence of William Penn induced the king to issue on 4 April, 1687, The Declaration of Indulgence, by which liberty of worship was granted to all,Catholic and Protestant alike. He also replaced Tory churchmen by Whig dissenters on the municipal corporations and the commission of the peace, and, having dissolved Parliament, hoped to secure a new House of Commons which would repeal both the penal laws and the Test. But he underestimated two difficulties, the hatred of the dissenters for "popery" and their distrust of royal absolutism. His action in promoting Catholics to the Privy Council, the judicial bench, and the offices of Lord lieutenant, sheriff, and magistrate, wounded these susceptibilities, while he further offended the Anglicans by attempting to restore to Catholics some of their ancient foundations in the universities. Catholics obtained some footing both at Christ Church and University College, Oxford, and in March 1688, James gave the presidency of Magdalen College to Bonaventure Giffard, the Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District. This restoration of Magdalen as a Catholic college created the greatest alarm, not only among the holders of benefices throughout the country, but also among the owners of ancient abbey lands. The presence of the papal nuncio, Mgr. d'Adda, at Court and the public position granted to the four Catholic bishops, who had recently been appointed as vicars Apostolic, served to increase both the dislike of the dissenters to support a king whose acts, while of doubtful legality, were also subversive of Protestant interests, and likewise the difficulty of the Anglicans in practicing passive obedience in face of such provocation. Surrounded by these complications, James issued his second Declaration of Indulgence in April, 1688, and ordered that it should be read in all the churches. This strained Anglican obedience to the breaking point. The Archbishop of Canterbury and six of his suffragans presented a petition questioning the dispensing power. The seven bishops were sent to the Tower prosecuted, tried, and acquitted. This trial proved to be the immediate occasion of the Revolution, for, as Halifax said, "it hath brought all Protestants together and bound them up into a knot that cannot easily be untied". While the bishops were in the Tower, another epoch-marking event occurred — the birth of an heir to the crown (10 June, 1688). Hitherto the hopes of the king's opponents had been fixed on the succession of his Protestant daughter Mary, wife of William of Orange, the Protestant leader. The birth of Prince James now opened up the prospect of a Catholic dynasty just at a moment when the ancient anti-Catholic bigotry had been aroused by events both in England and France. For besides the ill-advised acts of James, the persecution of the Huguenots by Louis XIV, consequent on the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, revived old religious animosities. England was flooded with French Protestant refugees bearing everywhere the tale of a Catholic king's cruelty.
Unfortunately for James his whole foreign policy had been one of subservience to France, and at this moment of crisis the power of France was a menace to all Europe. Even Catholic Austria and Spain supported the threatened Protestant states, and the pope himself, outraged by Louis XIV in a succession of wrongs, joined the universal resistance to France and was allied with William of Orange and other Protestant sovereigns against Louis and his single supporter, James. William had long watched the situation in England, and during 1687 had received communications from the opposition in which it was agreed that, whenever revolutionary action should become advisable, it should be carried out under William's guidance. As early as the autumn of 1687 the papal secretary of state was aware of the plot to dethrone James and make Mary queen, and a French agent dispatched the news to England through France. The Duke of Norfolk then in Rome also learned it, and sent intelligence to the king before 18 Dec., 1687 (letter of d'Estrées to Louvois, cited by Ranke, II, 424). But James, though early informed, was reluctant to believe that his son-in-law would head an insurrection against him. On the day the seven bishops were acquitted seven English statesmen sent a letter to William inviting him to rescue the religion and liberties of England. But William was threatened by a French army on the Belgian frontier, and could not take action. Louis XIV made a last effort to save James, and warned the Dutch States General that he would regard any attack on England as a declaration of war against France . This was keenly resented by James who regarded it as a slight upon English independence, and he repudiated the charge that he had made a secret treaty with France. Thereupon Louis left him to his fate, removed the French troops from Flanders to begin a campaign against the empire, and thus William was free to move. When it was too late James realized his danger. By hasty concessions granted one after another he tried to undo his work and win back the Tory churchmen to his cause. But he did not remove the Catholic officers or suggest the restriction of the dispensing power. In October Sunderland was dismissed from office, but William was already on the seas, and, though driven back by a storm, he re-embarked and landed at Torbay on 5 Nov., 1688. James at first prepared to resist. The army was sent to intercept William, but by the characteristic treachery of Churchill, disaffection was spread, and the king, not knowing in whom he could place confidence, attempted to escape. At Sheerness he was stopped and sent back to London, where he might have proved an embarrassing prisoner had not his escape been connived at. On 23 Dec., 1688, he left England to take refuge with Louis XIV; the latter received him generously and granted him both palace and pension. On his first departure the mob had risen in London against the Catholics, and attacked chapels and houses, plundering and carrying off the contents. Even the ambassadors' houses were not spared, and the Spanish and Sardinian embassy chapels were destroyed. Bishops Giffard and Leyburn were arrested and committed to the Tower. Father Petre had escaped, and the Nuncio disguised himself as a servant at the house of the envoy from Savoy, till he was enabled to obtain from William a passport. So far as the English Catholics were concerned, the result of the Revolution was that their restoration to freedom of worship and liberation from the penal laws was delayed for a century and more.(Psst 1776)
So completely had James lost the confidence of the nation that William experienced no opposition and the Revolution ran its course in an almost regular way. A Convention Parliament met on 22 January, 1689, declared that James "having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant", and "that experience had shown it to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince". The crown was offered to William and Mary, who accepted the Declaration of Right, which laid down the principles of the constitution with regard to the dispensing power, the liberties of Parliament, and other matters. After their proclamation as king and queen, the Declaration was ratified by the Bill of Rights, and the work of the Revolution was complete. English Catholics have indeed had good cause to lament the failure of the king's well-meant, if unwise, attempts to restore their liberty, and to regret that he did not act on the wise advice of Pope Innocent XI and Cardinal Howard to proceed by slow degrees and obtain first the repeal of the penal laws before going on to restore their full civil rights.(Psst remember Rome always likes to be legal) But on the other hand we can now realize that the Revolution had the advantage of finally closing the long struggle between king and Parliament that had lasted for nearly a century,(psst 1776) and of establishing general principles of religious toleration in which Catholics were bound sooner or later to be included.(psst American Revolution)
304 to 306
FREEDOM FOR CATHOLICISM TO
FLOURISH TOP GOAL
Biding her time for a global holy war, the whole world is being set up for a massive purging, and sadly, America has been chosen to do the work. And by that same system of Babylonian Romanism that brought on the religious terrors of Europe of not too long ago, that were so bloodcurdling real, par excellence, with its Crusades, Inquisition, and instruments and tribunals of torture. No other organization in all of known history has ever employed such continued methods of cruelty and barbarity. And they were implemented many years before there were people known as 'Protestants'. Terrifying people out of their wits as a means to keep them docile and adhered to her absurd false doctrines, cries loudly that something is terribly wrong. No wonder she can boast to be the largest religion in the world. She exercises control over her victims either by superstitious bondage or stark terror! And Romanism has the utmost advantage - teaching that it is not morally wrong to deceive, brutally kill and butcher to accomplish her goals. Not only true followers of Christ, but most of humanity, can't even begin to comprehend such cruelty, and are horrified to believe that you have to whip and terrorize another into submission in order to keep them in the fold. Our Lord never so much as hinted at such a practice. To systematically torture another human being, is nothing less than Satanic.
The terrified people that were fleeing the European Continent in masses, were fleeing the oppressions and persecutions of Romanism. Even the afflicted people of England who were fleeing to America, were fleeing from nothing less than a Church that had inherited and retained all the corrupt doctrines and severe intolerance from the Mother Church of Rome; but denied the pope as its head. Can it be conceived by any stretch of the imagination, that the ragged, tattered, tired, frozen, shoeless, feet bleeding soldiers of George Washington, defending what they believed to be the liberty and freedom established by their forefathers, who had fled the terrors of Romanism in the OId World would have so severely suffered and died for the detestable purpose of reestablishing Romanism in the New World - unless they had been coerced or deceived into believing otherwise??
The American people were lied to and deceived right from the outset. The issue of independence was advocated by nobody, and a little earlier John Adams said that it would not have been safe even to discuss it. But as Patriots gained control, colonists were bullied into accepting separation from England, or literally losing all they had ever worked for and being chased out of the country.(Loyalists) For the majority of colonists, even though they loved England, there really was no choice; they had to stay. Every calculated move of the Patriots was done with caution. Each step had to be developed, before going on to the next. This kept the American people deceived of their true intentions, to completely separate from England. This way, the general population stayed calm with the least amount of opposition. That is, until another crisis could be provoked, giving the propagandists new material to work with, so to clamor against abuses, and for giving support anew in favor of total separation from such a tyrant as Mother England.
The idea of establishing a Catholic colony among the Protestant North American colonies, with the intention of later separating it from England, was more than just a suspicion, as far back as year 1630, when the First Lord Baltimore George Calvert and the Jesuits began scheming for the Catholic Maryland colony. As briefly mentioned in Chapter 13, page239, the suspicion was so great and so real at the time, that a convincing answer of rebuttal had to be given to it before the emigrants could leave England. As doggedly as the Jesuits worked to subvert and reestablish the Roman Church in the nation of England, there can be no doubt that it was always their full intention to do the same also in England's North American colonies. That's pure logic. And as obvious proof, in spite of the colonies being adamantly Protestant, who were ruled by the mother country who was also rigidly Protestant, the Jesuits relentlessly pursued to establish themselves, not just in Maryland, but Pennsylvania and New York, or anywhere else they could get a foothold. Freedom to function and flourish has always been to the Jesuits and the wealthy Catholic nobility an absolute top priority goal - bar everything else.
But the reality was, full freedom for Catholics to function in the colonies just could never happen without constant obstructions, so long as they were under England's rule. The solution then, was to prod a movement that 'appeared' to be motivated by the Protestant colonists; that would cleanly separate them from the mother country. This was just the type of work Freemasonry was meant to do. And so well was this 'appearance' accomplished, that Protestant colonials didn't even know what was happening even at the time of the Revolution - and very few know yet, even today. Because the true motive has been erased from history, the real perpetrators go unknown. It is only by recognizing that the American Revolution was Roman Catholic and Jesuit inspired, who worked through Freemasonry, as bizarre as that may sound today, do you grasp the full significance of the many elusive and strange improprieties that seemed to occur during those times.