“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”
2 Timothy 3:1-5 ESV
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
NEW WORLD ORDER & ONE APOSTATE RELIGION:
POPE FRANCIS CALLS FOR END OF SOVEREIGNTY & ESTABLISHMENT OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
At a meeting of the Pontifical Academy held recently, Pope Francis (shown in white) advocated a policy of decreased national sovereignty and increased global unity. A shift toward globalism is necessary, he said, in order to fight climate change and other worldwide “threats.”
"When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,” his holiness told those gathered to discuss “Nation, State, and Nation-State,” the conference theme.
Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by “an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.”
He moved on to immigration, declaring that nationalism is too easily twisted into a doctrine repugnant to the welcoming of immigrants. “The Church observes with concern the reemergence, in many parts of the world, of currents that are aggressive towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as a growing nationalism that neglects the common good,” Pope Francis said.
Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for “international organizations” to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the “state interests” with the will of the United Nations, he stated.
Speaking of the United Nations, Pope Francis announced his ardent support for the sine qua non of all globalists: “sustainable development.”
He declared that if we hope to save the planet we must accept that we are one people and unite to create "a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries in a spirit of mutual respect," and must stop what "hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals approved unanimously by the United Nations."
And the hits just keep on coming.
Pope Francis warned attendees that sovereign nations attempting to govern themselves will find they are unable to protect their populations from the myriad menaces abroad in the world. "The nation-state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit," Francis said.
For our own benefit? Who benefits from global government? Ask yourself this question: In the nearly 75 years of the United Nations' existence, have wars ceased? Has the number of wars decreased? Are the signatories to the UN Charter moved toward greater prosperity or toward deeper economic depression?
Of course, there is no need to argue whether or not the United Nations has been a blessing to the nations of the Earth. It has undoubtedly been the source of bloodshed, violence, oppression, and Marxism.
His holiness suggested that governments around the globe should "strengthen their cooperation by connecting certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests."
"When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority that is legally and concordantly constituted and capable of facilitating its implementation," the pope concluded.
Apparently, the pope has pondered our awful situation and found that small nation-based governments are the cause of great suffering, so the obvious solution to the problem of government is bigger government.
Pontifical politics, it seems, makes for strange bedfellows, as explained in a recent article by Steve Byas published in January in The New American:
“Of course, those who favor world government can be expected to praise the 2015 encyclical and the pope’s remarks this week, condemning 'nationalism.' But other positions of the Roman Catholic Church, such as opposition to abortion, are regularly belittled by many of the same globalists who are praising Francis now,” Byas wrote.
Those people pushing for unlimited access to abortion loathe the Roman Catholic Church and its centuries-long opposition to the murder of children in utero are the very people standing with the head of that church in the fight to kill sovereignty and establish a one-world government.
That seemingly bizarre and undeniably unholy alliance should be enough to compel people to question what the underlying goal of the globalists must be.
In other words, what sort of government would the pope and pro-abortion advocates find mutually commendable? Could it be that those who are in the shadows of this scheme are pleased by the pope’s support for their sinister aim, regardless of whether he appreciates the implications of the fulfillment of their plans? Of course!
When it comes to convincing Catholics and the rest of the world that their only hope for peace, prosperity, and planetary salvation is found in the surrender of sovereignty, the hands pulling the strings believe that the only bad publicity is no publicity. They may loathe Pope Francis’ steadfast opposition to abortion, but they can hold their noses long enough to make effective use of his global influence.
What Pope Francis likely does not understand is that in the United States, the people are — were — sovereign, meaning that ultimately there is no will above the will of the people. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of all people to “alter or abolish” a government if that government ceases to perform its only legitimate function: to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property.
That the entire foundation of the Anglo-American concept of self-government, liberty, and popular sovereignty is annihilated by even the theory of global government is revealed in one question: Would the UN (or whatever the global government would be called) be subject to alteration or abolition by the people of the United States of America?
There is no space for doubt. Should the pope’s plan be brought to pass, there would be no liberty as it has been understood by Englishmen and Americans for over 1,000 years.
Americans are blessed in that time yet remains for us to resist the subjugation of our military to multinational commanders, to resist the surrendering of the legislative power to supranational congresses populated with lawmakers unaccountable to the American people, to resist the eradication of state sovereignty and the protection of republican government provided thereby, and, finally, to resist the chronic disregard of constitutional principles on the part of our elected leaders.
SEE: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2019/may/documents/papa-francesco_20190502_plenaria-scienze-sociali.html; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Thursday, 2 May 2019
Dear sisters and brothers ,
I welcome you and thank your President, Prof. Stefano Zamagni, for his kind words and for having accepted to preside over the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences . Also this year you have chosen to deal with a topic of permanent relevance. Unfortunately, we have under our eyes situations in which some nation states implement their relations in a spirit of opposition rather than cooperation. Furthermore, it should be noted that the frontiers of States do not always coincide with demarcations of homogeneous populations and that many tensions come from an excessive claim of sovereignty on the part of States, often precisely in areas where they are no longer able to act effectively to protect the common good.
Both in the Encyclical Laudato si ' and in the Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps this year, I drew attention to the global challenges facing humanity, such as integral development, peace, care for the common home , climate change, poverty, war, migration, human trafficking, organ trafficking, protection of the common good, new forms of slavery.
St. Thomas has a beautiful notion of what a people is: "Like the Seine it is not a river determined by the flowing water, but by a precise origin and riverbed, so that it is always considered the same river, although the flowing water is different, so a people is the same not for the identity of a soul or of men, but for the identity of the territory, or even more, of the laws and the way of life, as it says Aristotle in the third book of Politics "( Spiritual Creatures, to. 9, ad 10). The Church has always urged the love of its people, of their homeland, to respect the treasure of the various cultural expressions, customs and habits and the right ways of living rooted in peoples. At the same time, the Church has warned people, peoples and governments about the deviations of this attachment when it concerns the exclusion and hatred of others, when it becomes conflict nationalism that raises walls, indeed even racism or anti-Semitism. The Church observes with concern the re-emergence, almost everywhere in the world, of aggressive currents towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as that growing nationalism that neglects the common good. Thus there is the risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation,
It is a common doctrine that the State is at the service of the person and of the natural groupings of people such as the family, the cultural group, the nation as an expression of the will and the profound customs of a people, the common good and peace. Too often, however, states are enslaved to the interests of a dominant group, mostly for reasons of economic profit, which oppresses, among others, the ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities that are in their territory.
In this perspective, for example, the way in which a nation welcomes migrants reveals its vision of human dignity and its relationship with humanity. Every human person is a member of humanity and has the same dignity. When a person or family is forced to leave their land, they must be welcomed with humanity. I have said many times that our obligations towards migrants are based on four verbs: welcoming, protecting, promoting and integrating. The migrant is not a threat to the culture, customs and values of the receiving nation. He too has a duty to integrate into the receiving nation. Integrating does not mean assimilating, but sharing the kind of life of his new homeland, while remaining himself as a person, the bearer of his own biographical story. In this way, the migrant can present himself and be recognized as an opportunity to enrich the people who integrate him. It is the task of public authority to protect migrants and to regulate migratory flows with the virtue of prudence, as well as to promote reception so that local populations are trained and encouraged to consciously participate in the integrating process of migrants who are welcomed.
Even the migration issue, which is a permanent feature of human history, revives the reflection on the nature of the national state. All nations are the result of the integration of successive waves of people or groups of migrants and tend to be images of humanity's diversity while being united by values, common cultural resources and healthy customs. A state that arouses the nationalistic sentiments of its people against other nations or groups of people would fail in its mission. We know from history where they lead similar detours; I am thinking of the Europe of the last century.
The nation state cannot be considered as an absolute, as an island with respect to the surrounding context. In the current situation of globalization not only of the economy but also of technological and cultural exchanges, the national state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit. When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace.
While, according to the principle of subsidiarity, individual nations must be given the power to operate as far as they can, on the other hand, groups of neighboring nations - as is already the case - can strengthen their cooperation by attributing the exercise of certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests. It is to be hoped that, for example, in Europe the awareness of the benefits brought by this path of rapprochement and harmony between the peoples undertaken after the Second World War will not be lost. In Latin America, on the other hand, Simón Bolivar urged the leaders of his time to forge the dream of a Great Fatherland, which knows and can welcome, respect, embrace and develop the wealth of every people.
Humanity would thus avoid the threat of resorting to armed conflicts whenever a dispute arises between national states, as well as avoiding the danger of economic and ideological colonization of the superpowers, avoiding the oppression of the strongest over the weakest, paying attention to the global dimension without losing sight of the local, national and regional dimension. Faced with the design of a globalization imagined as "spherical", which levels differences and suffocates localization, it is easy for both nationalisms and hegemonic imperialisms to re-emerge. In order for globalization to be of benefit to all, we must think about implementing a "multifaceted" form, supporting a healthy struggle for mutual recognition between the collective identity of each people and nation and globalization itself,
The multilateral instances were created in the hope of being able to replace the logic of revenge, the logic of domination, oppression and conflict with that of dialogue, mediation, compromise, harmony and the awareness of belonging to the same humanity in the common home . Certainly, these bodies must ensure that states are effectively represented, with equal rights and duties, in order to avoid the growing hegemony of powers and interest groups that impose their own visions and ideas, as well as new forms of ideological colonization, often disrespectful of the identity, customs and habits, dignity and sensitivity of the peoples concerned. The emergence of these trends is weakening the multilateral system,
I encourage you to persevere in the search for processes to overcome what divides nations and to propose new paths of cooperation, especially with regard to the new challenges of climate change and new forms of slavery, as well as that excellent social good which is peace. Unfortunately, today the season of multilateral nuclear disarmament appears outdated and does not stir the political conscience of nations that possess atomic weapons. Indeed, a new season of disquieting nuclear confrontation seems to open up, because it erases the progress of the recent past and multiplies the risk of wars, also due to the possible malfunctioning of highly advanced technologies that are always subject to the imponderable natural and human. If, now, not only on earth but also in space will offensive and defensive nuclear weapons be placed,
Therefore, the State is called to greater responsibility. While maintaining the characteristics of independence and sovereignty and continuing to pursue the good of its population, today it is its task to participate in building the common good of humanity, a necessary and essential element for the world balance. This universal common good, in turn, must acquire a more pronounced juridical value at international level. I certainly do not think of a universalism or a generic internationalism that neglects the identity of individual peoples: this, in fact, must always be valued as a unique and indispensable contribution to the larger harmonic design.
Dear friends, as inhabitants of our time, Christians and academics of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences , I ask you to collaborate with me in spreading this awareness of a renewed international solidarity with respect for human dignity, the common good, respect for the planet and for the supreme good of peace.
I bless you all, I bless your work and your initiatives. I accompany you with my prayer, and you too, please do not forget to pray for me. Thank you!
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Question: "Does the Bible prophesy a one-world government and a one-world currency in the end times?"
Answer: The Bible does not use the phrase “one-world government” or “one-world currency” in referring to the end times. It does, however, provide ample evidence to enable us to draw the conclusion that both will exist under the rule of the Antichrist in the last days.
In his apocalyptic vision in the Book of Revelation, the Apostle John sees the “beast,” also called the Antichrist, rising out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1). Combining this vision with Daniel’s similar one (Daniel 7:16-24), we can conclude that some sort of world system will be inaugurated by the beast, the most powerful “horn,” who will defeat the other nine and will begin to wage war against Christians. The ten-nation confederacy is also seen in Daniel’s image of the statue in Daniel 2:41-42, where he pictures the final world government consisting of ten entities represented by the ten toes of the statue. Whoever the ten are and however they come to power, Scripture is clear that the beast will either destroy them or reduce their power to nothing more than figureheads. In the end, they will do his bidding.
John goes on to describe the ruler of this vast empire as having power and great authority, given to him by Satan himself (Revelation 13:2), being followed by and receiving worship from “all the world” (13:3-4), and having authority over “every tribe, people, language and nation” (13:7). From this description, it is logical to assume that this person is the leader of a one-world government which is recognized as sovereign over all other governments. It’s hard to imagine how such diverse systems of government as are in power today would willingly subjugate themselves to a single ruler, and there are many theories on the subject. A logical conclusion is that the disasters and plagues described in Revelation as the seal and trumpet judgments (chapters 6-11) will be so devastating and create such a monumental global crisis that people will embrace anything and anyone who promises to give them relief.
Once entrenched in power, the beast (Antichrist) and the power behind him (Satan) will move to establish absolute control over all peoples of the earth to accomplish their true end, the worship Satan has been seeking ever since being thrown out of heaven (Isaiah 14:12-14). One way they will accomplish this is by controlling all commerce, and this is where the idea of a one-world currency comes in. Revelation 13:16-17describes some sort of satanic mark which will be required in order to buy and sell. This means anyone who refuses the mark will be unable to buy food, clothing or other necessities of life. No doubt the vast majority of people in the world will succumb to the mark simply to survive. Again, verse 16 makes it clear that this will be a universal system of control where everyone, rich and poor, great and small, will bear the mark on their hand or forehead. There is a great deal of speculation as to how exactly this mark will be affixed, but the technologies that are available right now could accomplish it very easily.
Those who are left behind after the Rapture of the Church will be faced with an excruciating choice—accept the mark of the beast in order to survive or face starvation and horrific persecution by the Antichrist and his followers. But those who come to Christ during this time, those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 13:8), will choose to endure, even to martyrdom.
Recommended Resource: End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware