By L. H. Lehmann

This article is from the 1944 edition of the Converted Catholic Magazine of which former Roman Catholic priest, Leo Herbert Lehmann (also known as L.H. Lehmann) is the editor. It was first put online in PDF format by the LutheranLibrary.org. I hope you are enjoying these articles. They add important insights of both the past and the present that I have never heard from anywhere else.

[This is the second of a series of articles on “The True Nature and Structure of Roman Catholicism.”]

THE TERM HIERARCHY means “priest-rule,” and is applied nowadays to forms of authoritarian government, where all the actions of a subject group are regulated by the decrees of a small ruling caste. It is the antithesis of democracy, which is “rule by the people.” Fascist regimes are hierarchical, and, like the government of the Catholic church, rule by absolute decree issued by the “Leader” Fuehrer, Duce, Caudillo, Poglovar — and put into execution by the various “hierarchs” who hold positions of power descending by steps from the supreme power of the leader at the top.

The fundamental concept of order and authority in the Roman Catholic church is rooted in its hierarchical structure, which is as coherent and immutable as a pyramid. Other institutions outside it may come and go; but the table of basic values of the church of Rome never changes or evolves. At times during its history, the Catholic church has been subjected to very rude shocks; in temporal matters it has even made concessions, for the sake of expediency, to changing values around it. But it does not, and cannot, admit absolute progress. For the continuity of these absolute values, its fixed, hierarchical structure is essential. Hitler, who also aimed to set up a similar millennial structure of Nazism, ordered his followers to model their organization after that of the Roman Catholic church. In his Mein Kampf (page 882), he says:

Spiritual-Racial Hierarchy

So intertwined are the spiritual and racial concepts in Roman Catholic ideology, that it is difficult to explain one without the other. According to Jesuit teaching a man is in some way actually born into his fixed place in the spiritual world. If he is born a Jew, for instance, then even if he becomes a Roman Catholic he can never become a “good Catholic” — in the sense that he cannot be trusted with the direction of the policy of the church. It is for this reason that the Constitutions of the Jesuit Order itself make Jewish descent, up to the fifth generation, an impediment to membership. This was confirmed in the Fifth General Congregation of the Order in 1593, since Jews and Moors (Negroes) were held to be “infamous” (infamies habentur).¹ If, by special dispensation, a converted Jew is admitted, this rule prevents his “radiation” in the higher degrees of the Order. Polanco, a friend and coworker of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, was of Jewish descent and for this reason was barred from the generalship of the Order.

For the same reason, boys born of Protestant parents can only enter the Roman Catholic priesthood by special dispensation, and are never entrusted with confidential positions in the priesthood or hierarchy. But not only race and heretical taint are obstacles to the reception of certain spiritual benefits in the Catholic church. Sex, too, makes a difference. Women are definitely excluded from the priesthood — the first requirement of which is the male sex. The reason given is that the spiritual “power” of the priesthood, along with the choice privileges and high honors that go with it in the spiritual hierarchy, in this world and the next, does not “take” in a woman.

The Jesuit Order is itself constituted on the same authoritarian, hierarchical basis as the greater organization of the Catholic church which it controls. The Jesuits for this reason for centuries have bitterly opposed other Orders in the church, such as the Benedictines, because their constitutions are too democratic. In modern times, however, religious orders like the Benedictines, whose abbots are elected by all the members, have lost their primitive democratic setup and have been whipped into the church’s authoritarian scheme by Jesuit overlordship. Some latitude providing opportunity for dissent and free action existed in the Catholic church before the Jesuits came. Now, because of their intense centralization of power and their dogma of papal infallibility, the Jesuits have made the structure of the Catholic church more hierarchical than even that of their own Order.

Jesuit Racial Concept

In the Jesuit view of mankind, the races constitute the rungs of an hierarchical ladder in a vast cosmic system that stretches from hell to heaven, with earth between as a testing ground. Each one is fixed from eternity in his “natural” place in this cosmic pyramid. He is predestined to it and cannot leave it, even though he may make efforts and appear to do so in this earthly life. The Fifth General Congregation of the Order declared: “Though we may be satisfied with a man as to himself, still he may be disagreeable to us on account of what he has inherited from his fathers.”²

In their view, any effort to serve God in ways different to those taught by the Roman Catholic church is called “heresy,” a crime in Catholic teaching that is punishable by death. Any attempt to serve God according to one’s individual conscience is regarded as a rebellion against, being fixed in one’s “natural” place in the great cosmic scheme of God’s universe. It is useless, however, to try to change one’s place in this cosmic scheme, and all heresies, whether by individuals, or movements such as the Protestant Reformation, are looked upon as mere temporary disturbances. Thus, when a Roman Catholic becomes a Protestant, he is regarded by the Catholic church as merely attempting to stray, in the flesh, from his natural place in the fixed cosmic sphere. It is taken as a foregone conclusion that he will come back — if not in his own life, then by a kind of reincarnation process in the person of his descendants. A Roman Catholic priest today by the name of Father Paul Luther; a direct descendant of Martin Luther, is given as an example of how Catholics who break away from the church of Rome “always come back to the church.” Likewise, the Catholic church had a priest (he was killed in the war) by the name of Father George Washington, who is claimed to have been descended from the first President of the United States, and who is pointed to as proof that George Washington has, through this descendant, come back to the Roman Catholic church.

In fact, every “convert” from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism today is looked upon as merely, returning to the “faith of his fathers,” thus making up for the temporary upset caused by his ancestors in the cosmic structure of the spiritual universe as conceived by the Catholic church. The Jesuits were specially founded in the sixteenth century for this work of ” counter-Reformation,” and the whole machinery of the post-Reformation Catholic church is geared for this task of undoing the work of the Reformation — in the social as well as the spiritual order — and of restoring the balance that was upset in the cosmic sphere by the Protestant Reformation of Martin Luther and his associates in the sixteenth century. The first Protestants were all Roman Catholics, and it is the boast of Catholic propagandists today that it will not be long till the list vestiges of Protestantism will be wiped out and the descendants of the first Protestant heretics will return to the Roman Catholic church.

Not only the spiritual position of individuals and races is fixed in this Jesuit hierarchical pyramid, but also their economic standing. Pope Leo XIII, in his much-vaunted Encyclical on Labor (Rerum Novarum), categorically states:

The late Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (“Forty Years After”) implemented Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on Labor and subtitled it “On the Reconstruction of the Social Order,” to make it conform — to Mussolini’s Fascist teachings on the corporative State. Stressing the need of doing away with democracy and of reestablishing the hierarchical order of things, he says:

The influential Jesuit magazine America, in its issue of April 13, 1940, when the Axis dictators were crushing out democracy from all of Europe, also sounded the call for “a return to an integral social order, the principles of which are still preserved in our languid memory of the great medieval experiment.” In the introduction, to his textbook on the encyclical “Quadragesimo Anno,” published by the Paulist Press in New York, the. Jesuit Father Gerald C. Treacy states: “There was a real social order in the days when Europe was Catholic. Everyone believed in God and His Church.”

There is no way out, therefore, in Catholic teaching for absolute progress for mankind on this earth, whether in the spiritual, racial or economic spheres. Everything is fixed for us in these three fields in the cosmic scheme of things.

Heretical ‘Disharmony’

The outstanding exponent of the Catholic church’s spiritual-racial teachings is the well-known German Jesuit Hermann Muckermann, formerly director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for the study of anthropology, heredity and eugenics at Berlin-Dahlem. It was he, in fact, who supplied Hitler with his Nazi ‘master-race’ theories, which were carried to their terrible extremes in the ruthless annihilation of Jews and other “slave races” in the horror camps of Nazi-occupied Europe. Father Muckermann’s voluminous works expounding these spiritual-racial theories are to be found in the larger libraries of the United States. Chief among them is his textbook on racial eugenics, entitled Volkstum, Staat und Nation — Eugenisch Gesehen (“The People, the State and the Nation — from the Eugenic Viewpoint”). Next in importance is his Catholic theological work entitled, Die Siebeh Sakramente (“The Seven Sacraments”), in which he applies to the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic ritual his theories of race and heredity. This work shows realistically that the Jesuits have been endeavoring to elevate their teachings on racism to the position of a religious dogma. The Swiss Catholic magazine Vaterland, in its issue of July 17, 1936, praised this latest work of Muckermann as “both original and justified.”³

The Jesuit teaching on race, according to Muckermann, centers around the principle that mixture of races produces “disharmony” among their descendants, who evidence great difficulty in integrating themselves in the totality of a nation, or the church. It is well known that strong individuals result from the mixture of races, and the Jesuit fear of the “disharmony” which such mixtures cause can easily be understood. Such “disharmony” makes for disturbance in society and heresy in religion. The Catholic church, in order to gain its ends, works for a static condition of society similar to that of the Fascist corporative State. It cannot countenance society as a living, vibrant unity of autonomous individuals forever progressing in spiritual and physical matters. Society according to the Catholic church should be a physical and spiritual organism already completely fixed and static, in which each one, like a cell in a body, has his “organic place,” which is determined for him at the moment of his birth. No one can change this place for another, no more than a cell can abandon the place it occupies in a body. This is the way the Jesuit Father Muckermann explains it in his above-mentioned book, Volkstum, Staat und Nation, page 36 and following. He says:

This Jesuit teaching is also applied to the various groupings of professional and other workers in the State. These are also likened to organic groups of cells, which reproduce themselves apart from the others, and the fruits of whose labors must be applied entirely to the group to which they belong. Races must follow the same pattern, and are regarded also as groups of cells in a superior organism. Thus humanity as a whole, as Pope Leo XIII decreed, “must remain as it is,” with no changeover from one class to another. Each individual is forbidden to abandon his “natural place,” in which he has been fixed by birth and race. States, likewise, have each their own niche in the cosmic scale, and perpetuate themselves by “endogamy,” that is, the descendants of the various racial groups must not intermarry but remain fixed in their organic place. Muckermann explains this in detail as follows (p. 37):

It can thus be easily seen how, in the Jesuit cosmic scheme, each individual, each profession, and each race forms a rank in the hierarchical pyramid, each in its own place, and each with its own particular value. Certain individuals, therefore, are destined to rule over others; certain races also are destined to hold others in subjection. All in turn are topped and bound together by the spiritual power of the Roman Catholic religion. The “mystic” seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic church are taught to be the only channels through which this power of grace flows down through all the steps of this cosmic pyramid. As the Catholic catechism teaches, only priests, properly ordained by the church 3 of Rome, are the dispensers of this grace upon which the whole society of mankind depends.

Describing this hierarchical set-up in heaven, in the church and in civil society, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Quod Apostolici Muneris, says:

It is only in the light of the importance, in the Jesuit-Catholic view, of this scheme of things, that a non-Catholic can understand, for instance, how the death penalty for “heresy” is justified. The “heretic” is one who deliberately creates “disharmony” in this cosmic scheme of God. The Catholic Brooklyn Tablet of November 5, 1938, explains Catholic teaching on the point, as follows:

It was in this light that the Nazi-Fascist hierarchs, standing trial at Nuremberg as this is being written, justified the ruthless extermination of Jews and others who dared to create “disharmony” in the organic, static system of society that Hitler vowed to set up for the next thousand years.

From the above it can be seen at a glance how this spiritual and racial scheme of things as outlined by the Jesuits differs from, the Protestant conception of equality and freedom in religion, race and sex. Led by Luther and Calvin, the Protestant Reformation swept away the foundations of Roman Catholic authoritarianism and placed all men in direct contact with God. Their interpretation of the Christian teaching made unnecessary the hierarchical steps of a cosmic pyramid, and made the grace of full salvation available to all races and grades of society, and equally attainable by both sexes. Their Evangelical teaching made it imperative to reject the folly of racism, since the Gospel teaches that all may become the children of God. True Protestantism must defend for all, in order to safeguard equality and liberty for itself, the same equality and liberty for all others. A priest, in the Protestant concept, is as much a sinner needing salvation as the rest of mankind. It does not admit any special privileges in the order of sanctification, nor endow any ruler, in church or State, with power that is not delegated by the general body of believers.

This democratic view of religion and the social order that Protestantism brought into being by the Reformation led to the sovereignty of the people. It gave Jews, for the first time in history, equal rights with Christians in the social order, and paved the way for the “four freedoms” now held to be the hope of the world. But this democratic scheme of things is violently attacked by the Catholic church as the breeder of Godlessness in education, of secularization of the State, of the revolt of the masses against feudal labor conditions, of disregard for hierarchical authority, and of Freemasonry. All of this, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church, is the direct result of the appalling heresy of Protestantism which destroyed the organic, hierarchic, static, integralist society of the Middle Ages, and paved the way for the disintegralist, but dynamic, free, democratic society, in defense of which World War II was fought at the expense of a tremendous outpouring of blood and money.

In his very first encyclical (Summi Pontificatus), the present Pope Pius XII laid the blame for all the ills of modern society on the Protestant revolt against the hierarchical power of the Roman Catholic church. “The denial of the fundamentals of morality,” he declared, “had its origin in Europe in the abandonment of that Christian teaching, of which the Chair of Peter is the sole depository and exponent.” That was in October, 1939, a month after World War II began, and on November 16, Cardinal Villeneuve of Canada came to Washington, D. C., and repeated the same accusation in a speech before the National Press Club. According to the Catholic Register of November 30, 1939, he said:

This turning back to an hierarchical society would mean the abandonment of the sovereignty of the people, the democratic principle of authority, which Pope Leo XIII openly condemns in his encyclical Immortale Dei as follows:

The Catholic church now goes further in its accusation and states that socialism and communism are the logical and inevitable end results of the Protestant heresy. In this, Catholic thought parallels the Marxist theory that Protestantism and democracy bear within themselves the seeds of their own destruction; that individual autonomy is just a passing phase. With both, the hope is father to the thought that, after the Protestant democratic way of life has disappeared, their particular form of collectivism will inherit the earth.

But Protestant Americans should not be frightened into believing that the only choice now is between Clerical-Fascism and Marxian Communism.

[Further articles of this series will reveal the full significance of Catholic plans to reconstruct religion and the social order after the pattern of its “great medieval experiment.”]

1. “Qui etiam juxta Constitutiones titulo infamiae admitti non possumt.” Ct. Steinmetz’ History of the Jesuits, Vol. II, p. 19. See also E. Boyd Barrett, The Jesuit Enigma, p. 42.↩
2. Cf. Steinmetz, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 140.↩
3. After the collapse of Nazi Germany last summer, the Catholic Brooklyn Tablet of September 18, 1945, reported in an official N.G.W.O. dispatch from Berlin of August 20, 1945, that: “Rev. Hermann Muckermann, S.J., one of Europe’s most eminent Catholic scholars and former head of the Imperial Institute of Biology here is safe in his home.”↩

More in this series about the True Nature and Structure of Roman Catholicism

Would you call this picture "Christianity"? I call it Roman paganism. The idol they are worshiping is a wafer made of flour encrusted in what's called a Monstrance which is made of gold.

By L. H. Lehmann

This article is from the 1944 edition of the Converted Catholic Magazine of which former Roman Catholic priest, Leo Herbert Lehmann (also known as L.H. Lehmann) is the editor. It was first put online in PDF format by the LutheranLibrary.org.

This is the first of a series of articles which we believe will reveal aspects of the Catholic church never before publicized. Subsequent articles will detail the “hierarchical” and “cosmic” structure of the church, its attitude towards economics, education, medicine, its peculiar ‘moral’ code and finally, its relation to the concept of Anti-Christ. When the series is concluded, these articles will be published in one pamphlet under the general title of “The True Nature and Structure of Roman Catholicism.”

THE FAILURE OF AMERICANS to arrive at a clear and accurate estimate of the nature and structure of Roman Catholicism springs from two wrong conceptions: (1) that of certain anti-Catholics who regard the church of Rome as consciously sinister and evil, and (2) that of the over-tolerant liberals who regard its reactionary, authoritarian activities merely as an outdated carry-over from its medieval heritage. The former are convinced that Roman Catholicism is anti-Christian, anti-democratic and immoral by deliberate, diabolical intent. The latter consider it essentially good, but with a tendency to side always with the forces that are an obstacle to modern progress and human betterment.

The correct estimate is that the Roman Catholic church as an institution is inherently evil, but not known or recognized as such even by those who direct its policies. It is the world’s great religious “delusion,” which was foretold by St. Paul (2 Thess. 2:9), by which men would be so deceived “that they should believe a lie.” The present writer, who faithfully served the Roman Catholic church as a priest in trusted positions for eight years, firmly convinced that its authoritarian, anti-democratic and medieval teachings were the only salvation for the ills of the world, is a witness to this fact.

Not only have these two groups failed to correctly evaluate and check the aims and activities of the Roman Catholic church in America; they have also added further to the general confusion that has played into the hands of the church and enabled it to exercise a growing control over almost every phase of life in the United States. It is because of this confusion, for instance, that the true relationship of Roman Catholicism and Fascism has never been fully understood in this country. The extreme anti-Catholics have never doubted the identity between them, because they regard both as consciously and wholly evil. The liberals condemn Fascism as evil by nature but, because of their over-tolerant attitude toward all religions, cannot go so far as to identify Fascism with any church organization.

European View Of Catholicism

European writers, on the other hand, many of whom are Roman Catholic but anti-Clerical, are more accurate in analyzing the connection between the Roman Catholic church and Fascism. They know at first hand the long history of Roman Catholic political intrigues in Europe. Among them may be mentioned the following eminent authors: Professors Salvemini, La Piana, and Borgese; Conrad Heiden and Count Carlo Sforza.¹ But not even these have ever been fully convinced of a fundamental affinity between Roman Catholicism and Fascism. Count Kalergi-Coudenove, on the other hand, an ardent Catholic whose crusade for Pan-Europe is pleasing to the Jesuits, comes very near to defining the true nature of Roman Catholicism when he categorically states Catholicism is the Fascist form of Christianity. The Catholic hierarchy rests fully and securely on the leadership principle with an infallible Pope in supreme command for a lifetime.”²

Catholic-Fascist Identity

The fault common to all these opponents of Roman Catholicism — the liberals, violent anti-Catholics, as well as European Catholic anti-Clericals — lies in the fact that none of them realizes that neither Fascism nor Roman Catholicism is evil by sinister intent.

We know now that Fascism did not originate with Mussolini or Hitler; and that it did not cease to exist with their spectacular exit. We must also recognize that it had “moral” forces behind it. Fascism is simply the secular expression of an ideology or world philosophy which is common to both Fascist politicians and the Roman hierarchy, and which has its roots in the concept of the “perfect order,” an hierarchal, integrated, inflexible society, permanently stratified and not to be disturbed by social change. Its aim is to establish an authoritarian society of iron-bound classes, ignorant masses and a small select upper class of clergy and nobles. This has been clearly put by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Humanum Genus:

Fascism’s ‘Moral’ Code

All forms of Fascism, like the Catholic church, are based upon a “moral code” which is believed by its advocates to be a glorious heritage. Its leaders regard themselves, and are believed by their followers, to be sent by Providence. “In combating the Jews,” said Hitler, in Mein Kampf, “I am fighting the battle of the Lord.” Pope Pius XI hailed Mussolini as “a man sent by Providence.”³ Even the late, English Cardinal Hinsley, who was regarded as pro-democratic, openly stated: “If Fascism goes under, God’s cause goes with it.” To its advocates and followers, Fascism remains the only true moral order, and democracy the opposite — dis-integrative and corrupting, confused and chaotic, destructive of order, discipline and morality.

The evidence of history shows the need of people for security, both in property and person. This need has always resulted in the establishment of some system of law and order. Even in what we regard as the most cruel and depraved of societies, certain ethical, moral and legal standards were set up and maintained. In the pirate colonies of the West Indies and the Mediterranean, for instance, people bought and sold, married and reared children, cared for the old and sick, and in general obeyed the local laws and customs as though the economy of the islands was not based purely on plunder. It was a case of using every means for a supposedly good end, and the evil was mitigated and sanctioned by the ethical standards applicable within the group.

Japan to us is a bandit nation whose complete annihilation seemed the only solution of its wickedness. Yet Japan, like the Roman Catholic church, has its very strict and precise code of “morals.” Carl Crow, an authority on Japan, in an article entitled “The Jap Emperor Must Go,” in the June, 1945, issue of Digest and Review, explains how the Japanese are indoctrinated with their “moral” code and subjected to what he calls a “very highly organized system of thought control.” He goes on to say:

No nation or sizable human institution can be created and maintained as a band of pirates or gangsters purely for mutual gain. And for this reason alone, it can easily be seen that an institution of the immensity and cultural grandeur of the Roman Catholic church, with its centuries of philosophical continuity, its educational and charitable institutions, cannot be based upon a consciousness of evil. Excess of corruption and abuses may bring it to the verge of destruction, as happened at the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. But its ideology was not thereby impaired, as has been proved by its continuity in Latin-European and Latin-American countries, as well as by its rise to power even in Protestant democratic America. Likewise Mussoliniism and Hitlerism have suffered defeat in Italy and Germany, but not the ideology of Fascism which existed before them. At the very moment when their regimes were toppling to destruction under the terrific blows of the combined military might of America, Britain and Russia, Fascism under other names continued to flourish in Catholic countries such as Spain and Portugal and sprang up to full bloom next door to us in Argentina. In an uncensored dispatch transmitted by underground channels from Buenos Aires last May 30, by Arnaldo Cortesi and published in the New York Times June 1, 1945, we are told that “things have happened in Buenos Aires recently that exceed anything that this correspondent can remember in his seventeen years’ experience in fascist Italy.”

That was only a few weeks after the United States and Britain had welcomed Argentina as a member of the United Nations Conference in San Francisco.

The ideology of Clerical Fascism and anti-Semitism was rampant in parts of the United States 200 years before Hitler and Mussolini. How similar its practical application then was to what the Axis dictators put into effect in our day may be seen, for example, in the early French-Catholic history of Louisiana. Describing “The Black Code” promulgated in New Orleans by Governor Bienville in 1724, Herbert Asbury in his book, The French Quarter, tells us (p. 25):

It would be the most fatal error of all that have been made so far by the opponents of Fascism to write it off now as nothing more than an attempt of a group of bandits and murderers to control the world. Yet this error is very widespread, as can be seen in the following excerpt from an editorial in the New York Times of June 21, 1945:

It would be similar to the error of the extreme anti-Catholics who regard the church of Rome as purposefully established and consciously maintained for the destruction of all human progress and betterment. The reactionary medieval and authoritarian structure of the Roman Catholic church is indeed purposefully intended, but, from its point of view, with the best of motives. Its leaders and the millions of their followers have been convinced, in fact, that it was thus established by command of God, that its structure and ideology were blueprinted in the courts of heaven by Almighty God himself, and its charter delivered on earth to the first apostles by Jesus Christ in person. The Pope is believed to be the vicar of Jesus Christ and God’s mouthpiece on earth. The Japanese likewise believe their emperor to be of Divine origin and his commands as those of God. It is a blasphemy both in the eyes of a loyal Japanese and a faithful Roman Catholic even to think that anything in the teaching and practices of their respective institutions is anything but good and divinely ordained.

It should also be apparent that the attitude of the over-tolerant liberals in America toward the Catholic church is equally erroneous. Their opinion that the Vatican’s cooperation with Fascism, the backwardness, the cultural lag, the superstitious and reactionary activities of the church of Rome are merely incidental and curable in time by persuasion and education, is as fallacious as that of the Catholic-haters who view everything connected with the Roman church to be plotted for sinister purposes.

Means And Ends

There is nothing incidental or accidental about the aims and activities of the Roman Catholic church. It uses expediency to gain its ultimate aims while biding its time to entrench itself in a democratic country like the United States. Pope Leo XIII set forth this expedient policy in his instructions sent to the bishops of the United States in 1888:

The “liberty” here intended is the traditional power of the Catholic church to impose its dogmatic authority upon the entire world. Again, in his encyclical Longinqua Oceani (Jan. 6, 1895), Pope Leo warned the bishops of America as follows:

In order to carry its ideological principles into action, the Catholic church asserts its right to use force, if feasible, when persuasion fails. Its Inquisition lasted into the nineteenth century and was revived in all its horrors under the Nazi-Fascist dictatorships. Its right to execute heretics is officially proclaimed even in present-day America.⁴

The Catholic Ideal

In order to understand the ideal concept underlying Catholic action, and how intelligent men can consider it valid, it is necessary to know the “frame of reference” set up in the mind, say, of a cardinal, a bishop or priest of the Catholic church.

That frame of reference is formed of certain fixed notions, the first of which is that this is not and never will be a perfect world, but that it must be governed and controlled by a “perfect society,” with a supreme authority ordained by God, permanently established for all time, infallible in its pronouncements, and never hindered or inhibited by the clashing interests of’ parties or factions among the people.

In his book, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, published by the Paulist Press in New York (p. 10), the Jesuit Father Sidney F. Smith quotes Bossuet as follows:

Such a mind cannot conceive of a satisfactory government of religion or society that has to work through democratic systems of government. Although a major plan is desired, there is no authority to command its perfect execution. The plan is torn to shreds by opposing interests, and when it emerges from the democratic mill it has lost its original form’ and is often scrapped for another that is less perfect. Such a process, the Catholic church holds, in common with Fascism, must necessarily fail in efficiency and integration. If a plan is necessary, good and desired, they say, it should not be impeded or whittled down by the personal interests of petty people.

There should be an authority (they hold) who is supreme and in a position to ignore the demands of all groups, factions and interests in matters which, in the opinion of the authority, are above such concerns. It is the authority that matters, not discussion. If the governing authority is perfect, not only Will there be no need for discussion of a plan, but the plan itself will be perfectly executed.

Implicit in this is the idea that the people, as such, are incapable of acting for the interests of society as a whole. In his book, Petit Manuel des Questions Contemporaines, translated by Henry R. Burke, and published by the Paulist Press in New York in 1939, Cardinal Verdier, Archbishop of Paris, has the following:

The Catholic church has never favored the giving of power to the masses of the people. Only last March 11, Pope Pius XII warned the world of the danger in what he called “the overwhelming strength of organized masses,” which, he went on to say, “use their power to the detriment of justice and the rights of others.”

The supreme authority in the Catholic church is the Pope, who is above all question. He is chosen by God and speaks for God. All he does, therefore, is of God. His control of all moral action and principles is supreme and universal for all men, everywhere and for all time. Discussion of what he desires and plans is useless. It is destructive of ’good, disruptive of God’s will, and cannot produce necessary discipline, order and efficiency. The same Jesuit Father Smith in his above-mentioned book (p. 7) says:

This is the basic Fascist principle of “authority tied to a leader.”

Hierarchical Structure

The essential characteristics of the Catholic church’s plan for world government is its hierarchical structure, which is blueprinted not merely for this earth, but is projected into eternity. In fact, its cosmic aspect is more important, since the Catholic church claims exclusive control over all traffic in souls from this earth to heaven and hell. Everything in its teaching is referred to as sub specie aeternitatis (“under the aspect of eternity”). In this Catholic scheme of things the individual counts only as a soul, not as a person. It is his citizenship in the next life, not in this, that matters. Cardinal Newman puts it thus:

The Pope and his bishops and priests are engrossed completely in the machinery of the church’s hierarchical government. It is the project that counts. There is no concern for the ages of human suffering and misery on earth that have resulted from keeping the machinery running. As the late Pope Pius XI declared, “the Catholic church is prepared to make a deal with the devil himself if it helps its interests.”

[The next article of this series will give a detailed description of the hierarchial structure of the Catholic church and how it is projected into eternity .]

1. See Salvémini-La Piana’s “What To Do With Italy;” Heiden’s “Der Fuehrer;” Sforza’s “Contemporary Italy;”↩
2. Crusade for Pan-Europe, by Kalergi-Coudenove, p. 173.↩
3. This statement of Pope Pius XI hailing Mussolini as “sent by Providence,” is confirmed by Don Luigi Sturzo, liberal Catholic priest-leader who is obviously not anticlerical. It may be seen in his book, Italy and the New World Order, 1943, page 158.↩
4. See the Catholic Brooklyn Tablet for Nov. 5, 1938.↩

More in this series about the True Nature and Structure of Roman Catholicism

This article is from the 1944 edition of the Converted Catholic Magazine of which former Roman Catholic priest, Leo Herbert Lehmann (also known as L.H. Lehmann) is the editor. It was first put online in PDF format by the LutheranLibrary.org.

I’m posting this because I never heard of it before! Do academic institutions teach that the World War II Pope, Pius XII, actually made a concordant with Hitler and apologized for it later? Just the fact that the Pope supported Hitler speaks volumes of the Vatican agenda in the world. Satan is a control freak and that’s exactly what Nazi Germany was under according to documentaries of Nazi Germany I’ve seen. I hear Pope Francis is making deals with the Chinese Communist Party as well in spite of negative benefits for the church.

THE PITIFUL EXCUSES for the Vatican’s concordat with Hitler, made by Pope Pius XII in his speech to the College of Cardinals last June 2, 1944, scarcely call for comment. Never was the head of the Roman Catholic church placed in such an embarrassing position. With Mussolini dead in the streets of Milan, and Hitler’s corpse fairly certainly charred out of recognition underneath his blasted chancellery in Berlin and his regime smashed to bits by the conquering armies of the United States, Britain, and Russia, Pope Pius XII found it expedient and safe to condemn National Socialism by name for the first time. Even a child could see that he was frantically mending very broken fences.

The Pope’s speech merits consideration, however, for the following reasons:

[1] HIS ADMISSION of the Vatican’s collaboration with Hitler by means of the concordat, which he himself signed jointly with the despicable Von Papen. He had lived in Germany “for over twelve years — twelve of the best of our mature years —,” he said. He was there when Hitler first published Mein Kampf, and was known as “the best informed yuan in the Reich,” according to Viscount d’Abernon, Britain’s first ambassador to the Weimar Republic. “We were personally in close contact with its [Germany’s] most representative men,” the Pope admitted. The Vatican’s negotiations with the Weimar Republic, he explained, did not give “adequate guarantee or assurance” for the Catholic church’s “faith, rights or liberty of action.” Then he continued: “In such conditions the guarantees could not be secured except through a settlement having the solemn form of a concordat with the central government of the [Nazi] Reich.” In other words, he admitted that the Vatican from the beginning favored Hitler’s Nazi regime rather than the constitutional government of the German Republic. He signed the concordat with Hitler less than six months after he came to power and never made any move to revoke it. The Pope also admitted that he knew of all the cruelties and atrocities carried on up till the very end by Hitler’s henchmen. Yet he never uttered a word by way of reproach or condemnation until Hitler was reported safely dead.

[2] His failure to say anything in condemnation of Mussolini’s Fascism in Italy and his atrocities against the helpless Ethiopians. Nor did he utter any pious outcry against Franco’s Fascism in Spain where an estimated 400,000 Loyalist prisoners are still kept in concentration camps. If the Pope were really sincere in his condemnation of Fascist barbarities, why does he not, even at this late date, place the Catholic church on our side against similar barbarities being continued against us by the Japanese? He still retains General Ken Harada in the Vatican as the Ambassador of the Emperor of Japan.

We can expect that the Pope will also wait until Japan has been completely defeated before he will tell us that he is against the banditry of Japan. If Nazism was wrong after its defeat, it was equally wrong when the Pope signed the Vatican’s concordat with Hitler. The crimes of Japan and Franco’s Spain likewise are as wrong today as they will be after those countries have been freed from Fascist domination.

By J. J. Murphy

This article is from the Converted Catholic Magazine of which former Roman Catholic priest, Leo Herbert Lehmann (also known as L.H. Lehmann) is the editor. It was first put online in PDF format by the LutheranLibrary.org.

The reason I am sharing this article is because I believe most if not all antisemitism comes from Catholic sources, and primarily the Jesuits. And why? Because they are using the Jews as scapegoats and blaming them for what they themselves have done and are doing! The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were written by Jesuits! How can I say that? A quote from this article sheds light on the matter:

The spurious anti-Jewish Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that depict Jewry as the essence of evil and the Catholic church as the essence of virtue, have been spread throughout the country by the followers of Father Coughlin and other Fascist priests.

Who would say the Jews are evil and the Catholic church is the essence of virtue? Not Protestants! Only Catholics could say such a thing!

EVEN A PROMINENT Catholic layman like Dr. George N. Shuster of Hunter College could not deny that the anti-Semitism of his church, rooted in paper pronouncements of the past, is much in evidence in this country. He rightly added, however, that it is “seldom voiced above a whisper.”¹

A good illustration of how a Catholic whispering campaign works is found in the book Under Cover (p. 453) where the author quotes Irish-Catholic Francis P. Moran, Boston Christian Front leader:

The Roman Catholic hierarchy is, of course, much too shrewd to come out openly in favor of anti-Semitism. It can work much more safely and effectively behind such stooges as Fathers Coughlin, Curran, Brophy and Duffee. For years these priests and their organizations have carried on anti-Semitic campaigns with the full but tacit approval of the hierarchy, without whose permission they could neither write for publication nor speak in public.

In the re-editing of the Roman Catholic New Testament in English, two years ago, a footnote to Revelation 2:9 was inserted by the American bishops that did not appear in the previous edition that had been in use for many generations. It said that “the Jews are the Synagogue of Satan.” A clearer example of the anti-Semitic policy of the Catholic church is scarcely needed.

Pierre Laval was well aware of this historical and unchanging attitude of the Roman church. Speaking to a group of journalists on September 13, 1942, he justified the anti-Semitism of the Vichy regime as follows: “I am only applying to the Jews the same treatment prescribed centuries ago by the Catholic Church.” To realize how true this statement of Laval is one has only to read “How the Popes Treated the Jews.”²

The spurious anti-Jewish Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that depict Jewry as the essence of evil and the Catholic church as the essence of virtue, have been spread throughout the country by the followers of Father Coughlin and other Fascist priests. But the Catholic hierarchy never protested against this mass calumny organized within their own church. If they were at all interested in stopping this defamation of Jews they could have used their 332 publications to ridicule these vicious Protocols out of existence. They prefer instead to pretend that they know nothing about this libelous Catholic campaign.

As if there were not enough anti-Semitism in this country, several Catholic bishops invited leaders of Catholic Fascism in Mexico, known as SINARQUISTS, to come to the United States to lecture. Chicago was one of the several episcopal sees that sponsored the series of talks. The newspaper PM of last January 3 said:

A Catholic layman, Emmanuel Chapman, founded in 1939 a layman’s COMMITTEE OF CATHOLICS TO COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM. Before it got thoroughly organized, a little over a year after its foundation, it was suddenly disbanded — a thing that often happens to “false front” organizations in the Catholic church if they start to become really effective. Similar repression overtakes Catholic laymen, who start to fight strenuously against Fascism or anti-Semitism, as the recent case of Professor McMahon illustrates.

Irish-Catholic Boston has been one of the worst centers of anti-Jewish terrorism. As in New York the Catholic police force looked on with indifference. Sworn affidavits are on record in Boston where the policemen even arrested Jewish boys for defending themselves against young Coughlinites. Boston newspapers, notorious for their subservience to Clerical pressure, made no mention of these outrages. Finally, this past winter, a New York liberal newspaper forced Governor Saltonstall, an appeaser of Cardinal O’Connell, to reverse his stand and order a State investigation. IrishCatholic Police Commissioner Timilty was made whipping-boy and forced to resign, though the rest of the police force and higher politicians were as guilty as he was. Such hypocrisy promises little or no permanent relief from a disastrous un-American situation.

Anti-Jewish terrorism has occurred only in cities that are centers of Roman Catholicism, such as Boston, New York, Chicago, Providence, Bridgeport, Hartford, etc. In New York during recent months liberal newspapers exposed many hotbeds of anti-Jewish sadism. Everyone of them was a Roman Catholic neighborhood. Not only synagogues were defaced, but also several Protestant churches. No Catholic was molested, of course. New York City Commissioner of Investigation Herlands made a 170-page report on 52 anti-Semitic cases he investigated. It showed that all but three of the culprits attended church, and that all came from areas where Father Coughlin’s CHRISTIAN FRONT had flourished.³

The Rev. Allan E. Claxton of the Protestant Broadway Temple in New York City, which had been desecrated by Catholic youths, was quoted in the New York Post of last December 30 as follows:

In the same newspaper in the issue of the preceding day, the Rev. Kenneth MacKenzie of the United Presbyterian Church in the Washington Heights district of New York City said in an interview:

After describing the desecration of his own church, the Rev. Mr. MacKenzie went on to say of the perpetrators of these crimes: “I assume they are Roman Catholics because the section is predominantly Catholic.”

The same issue of the N. Y. Post quoted the following affidavit of an ll-year-old Jewish boy who was attacked by Roman Catholic ruffians, who betrayed their parochial school training by their familiarity with Roman Catholic doctrine. We quote it in part:

The most anti-Semitic district in New York City is Police Precinct No. 40, in the Bronx, where only 8 percent of the inhabitants are Jewish. In this district 333 public Coughlinite meetings were held within less than a two-year period, many of them in the open, according to Herlands’ report. There are four parochial schools in this small district. Catholic police captain John Collins, in charge of this precinct, “estimated that 85 to 90 percent of the people there are Catholics,” according to the N. Y. Post of January 11, 1944. The Herlands report observed that this mile-and-a-half area, constituting the 40th Precinct, has 279 bars and taverns and a very high rate of child delinquency.

No lasting security against anti-Semitic terrorism in New York City can be expected as long as Roman Catholics continue to monopolize the police force, especially its key positions. A showy spurt of self-interested activity against street hoodlumism first began among police officers after recent newspaper publicity. It can be expected to last only as long as the publicity campaign that occasioned it.

Algernon B. Black, well-known head of the New York ETHICAL CULTURE SOCIETY, in a broadcast over station WHN on January 2 said:

Mayor La Guardia, an inveterate politician, is extremely responsive to Catholic political pressure. He refused for months to make public the report of Commissioner of Investigation Herlands until forced to do so under threat of a City Council investigation. He did nothing about information given him a few years ago by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI concerning the presence of 1,500 CHRISTIAN FRONTERS that were already on the New York police force at that time.

Catholic Lewis J. Valentine is Commissioner of Police in New York City and a member of Our Lady of Guadalupe parish in Brooklyn. Coughlinite policemen have always been able to rely on him for protection. Last year unquestionable evidence was brought before him to show that Catholic patrolman John Drew was a fellow-traveler of the CHRISTIAN FRONT, and active anti-Semite and a contributor to four organizations now under Federal indictment for sedition. Valentine, after a departmental hearing, dismissed all charges against Drew, and restored him to active service with back pay without even giving him a reprimand. The following day Commissioner of Investigation Herlands publicly denounced Valentine’s action as “contrary to the evidence and to sound public policy.” But Catholic political power, which stood behind Valentine and the CHRISTIAN FRONTERS, never allowed the proceedings of the Drew trial to be published. It was able to laugh at the protests of Jews and liberals. As late as January 16, it “persuaded” Mayor La Guardia to have Drew on the City radio program as his “guest star” to tell the public what a broad-minded fellow he is.

The Catholic hierarchy countered recent protests over anti-Semitism by indulging in the ballyhoo that is usually featured on such occasions. Even Bishop Molloy of Brooklyn, superior over the ill-famed Brooklyn Tablet as well as over anti-Semitic Fathers Curran and Brophy, had the nerve to make an airy protest against anti-Semites! No practical move, of course, was made to remedy conditions through the Catholic press and parochial schools.

The most foreboding fact in American anti-Semitism is that prominent and wealthy Jews, as well as the Jewish organizations they dominate, contribute heavily to organizations that make a deliberate policy of appeasing political Catholicism. THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS, with its back-slapping interfaith conferences, from which the Catholic church is the sole gainer, is just such an organization.⁴

A Disease With Many Symptoms by Bernard Heller

It is very difficult for a non-Jew to realize the insecurity and the anguish which American Jews experienced after one of Hitler’s anti- Jewish harangues preceding the Nazi invasion of Poland. The American Jew attended to his mercantile or professional duties, strove to give his children ample opportunities for education. rejoiced when they selected desirable life mates. After the Fuehrer’s vindictive address, however, all his strivings and aspirations seemed unavailing. Life became despair.

The recent recurrent outbreaks of hoodlumism in the United States aroused similar emotions. Incidents of hoodlum attacks on Jewish youngsters and adults in New York City appear in a report of former Commissioner William B. Herlands. Reading the Herlands report, alarmed Jews regarded the attacks as omens of a gathering storm — and possible harbingers of the fate which befell their co-religionists in Germany.

Their thoughts can be summarized in words such as the following:

From The Humanist, Autumn, 1944 1. “The Conflicts Among Catholics” by George N. Shuster in the Winter 1940 issue of the Phi Beta Kappa quarterly, The American Scholar.↩
2. A pamphlet published by The Converted Catholic Magazine giving lengthy quotations of papal decrees against the Jews that served as a blueprint for Hitler’s anti-Semitism. 15c a copy. 229 W. 48th St., N. Y. 9. N. Y. [Also included in this present volume. —Ed.]↩
3. Mr. Kenneth Leslie. Editor of The Protestant, speaking to more than 100 Protestant ministers in New York City recently branded as sinister the attempt to whitewash the CHRISTIAN FRONT elements in the New York Police Department. Also, for a pointed distinction opposing the anti-Semitism of Catholics and being anti-Catholic see Mr. Leslie’s editorial “Is The Protestant Anti-Catholic” in the January issue of his publication.↩
4. Joseph Brainin in “The American Jewish Committee Betrays Democracy.” (The Protestant, January and March, 1944, 521 Fifth Ave, N. Y.). examines the record of appeasement of that organization in articles that support Dr. Murphy’s contended — Editor.↩

Foreword from the Webmaster:

As Christians, we should not support Zionist Antichrist Israel, but neither should we hate the Jews as a people! The Apostle Paul loved his people the Jews and went out of his way to preach the Gospel to them. I believe all antisemitism comes from non-Christians, those who don’t know true salvation by grace in Jesus Christ.

This article is from the Converted Catholic Magazine of which former Roman Catholic priest, Leo Herbert Lehmann (also known as L.H. Lehmann) is the editor. It was first put online in PDF format by the LutheranLibrary.org.

IT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED that after the war the Jewish people in Europe, as a result of wholesale slaughter by the Nazi-Fascists, will be so reduced in numbers that they will never recover from their losses. Germany, even if it loses 20 percent of its population, can make up for its losses in another generation. But not the Jews.

This wholesale extermination of a people in the twentieth century, simply because of their religious background, is something that both Protestants and Catholics have much to be concerned about. For anti-Semitism is a religious problem, intimately bound up with the most fundamental belief of Christians. It stems from the death of Christ, the central and essential point of Christian soteriology. It is only in Protestant countries since the Reformation that Jews have ceased to be regarded as the ‘scapegoat’ for the responsibility and blame in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Even in the United States, while the ruthless slaughter of Jews has been taking place in Europe, the Catholic press has kept up this accusation that the Jews killed Christ — as the picture (below), syndicated by the American Catholic hierarchy’s official N.C.W.C. News Service, shows. Implicit in this false accusation is an “explanation” of the horrors being meted out to Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe at that time.

It must seem impossible to Jews, and to Christians themselves if they give time to consider it, that the same death of Christ on the cross could bring the inestimable gift of salvation to one section of the human race, and at the same time be made the curse of another. Yet it has been officially pronounced by the Popes of Rome for centuries that the death of Christ forever made the Jews actual slaves of Christians whom the death of Christ made free. Here is how the great Pope Innocent III, and other popes for centuries after him, put it:¹

It must first be asked, is this true Christian teaching? Did Christ so plan that one part of the human race would be saved and made free and another part be made the slaves of those thus freed — all by one and the same act of his saving work? This teaching was dogmatized into the history of Europe by the Popes of Rome up till the time of the Protestant Reformation, and is the root cause of the slaughter of millions of innocent Jewish people that has taken place under Nazi-Fascist domination of Europe during the past five years. It must further be remembered that this ruthless slaughter was carried out by the Nazi-Fascist regimes to which the Vatican allied itself by solemn concordats — and to which it remains allied to this date. But it is not, and could never be, true Christian teaching.

The Protestant Reformation, out of which came democratic freedoms and equality before God of all human beings, put an end to this Roman Catholic teaching and established it so that the Jews, even while remaining Jews by race and religion, are the equal of Christians in their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is thus that Jesus Christ himself would have it, so that by justice, equality, love and kindness, the Jews might eventually be led to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Christ himself was born a Jew and all his apostles and followers were Jews. He was put to death by Roman soldiers after sentence by a Roman judge. The priests of the Jewish religion — who played politics with the officials of the Roman government over the heads of their people, much as the Vatican does today — conspired to have Jesus put to death by the Romans. “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,” they told Pilate (John 18:31). But the Jewish people had no more to do with it than the Roman Catholic people in America have had to do with the political intrigues of the Vatican with Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and other Fascist dictators.

Saint Paul was a Jew, though he claimed Roman citizenship. He taught no such doctrine that Jews were the slaves of Christians because they conspired in the death of Christ. In his desire to bring all to Christ he declared (Gal. 3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” But that was before the Romans took over control of the Christian church and established their juridical concepts of ‘interdict’, ‘delict,’ and hierarchical authority.

Jesus Christ died to save all who truly accept him as Savior. He died to set all men free, and by his death could have enslaved no one. No true Christian, grateful for having been made free himself by the death of Christ, could ever bring himself to believe that the act that made him free made his Jewish neighbor his slave. But it is only in predominantly Protestant countries that Jews have been able to exercise their equal rights with Christians before the law.

The solution of the problem of anti-Semitism awaits official recognition of similar rights for Jews from the Roman Catholic church and governments of Roman Catholic countries.

1. cf. Migne, Patrologia, Vol. 27, p. 1291. For other decrees of the Popes against the Jews, see our pamphlet: “How the Popes Treated the Jews.” [Available from LutheranLibrary.org —Ed]↩

The title of this article is what pastor Charles A. Jennings gave to his “The 13-point biblical description of the Antichrist” at the beginning of the YouTube below entitled, “70 Weeks and Logical Conclusions – Part 3. I hope you see the entire video and the first two parts as well. I am transcribing from the video only what pastor Jennings has to say about the Antichrist.

Transcript

I would like to read a description of, “The Antichrist.” And I have entitled this short article “Will the Real Antichrist Please stand up.”

So I’m going to mention several possibilities, and which man or group best fits the biblical description of the Antichrist, or the man of sin down through time.

Bible scholars and preachers have have suggested several different men to be the Antichrist, starting with Nero, Domitian, Diocletian, Mohammad, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, – naturally, of course, they got to get those in there – Stalin, FDR, JFK, Armand Hammer, Henry Kissinger, Saddam Hussein, President Obama, Ahmadinejad, a Jew or the Papal dynasty.

Let me read you a 13 point description of the Man of Sin. (I added the Scriptures that go with the points.)

1. As the little horn must come out of the Roman Empire.
   Daniel 7:8  I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
2. Prevail over the saints or the body of Christ.
   Revelation 13:7  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.
3. Sits in the temple or the Church of God.
   2 Thessalonians 2:4  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
4. Pretends to be God or the Vicar of Christ.
   Ibid. 2 Tess 2:4
5. Is “that Wicked,” that is, the direct successor of Rome’s chief religious ruler.
   2 Thessalonians 2:8  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
6. His position and power comes from the succession of the previous four world empires.
7. Speaks great things and blasphemies against God.
   Revelation 13:5  And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
8. Possessed power over all nations.
   Revelation 13:7  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.
9. Declared war on the saints, that is the true body of Christ.
   Ibid. Rev. 13:7
10. Demands worship.
    Revelation 13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
11. Is the supreme ruler of the apostate church system known as the Great Whore.
12. Represents the apostate church that is drunken with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus.
    Revelation 17:6  And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
13. Represents the apostate church that is rich, yet full of filthiness.
    Revelation 17:4  And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Now, who would you say fits that category or fits that description of the Antichrist? There is only one logical conclusion, and that is the papal dynasty.

(End of comments from Charles Jennings.)

Men die but Satan lives on in the spirit world. He rules the world thorough the most powerful and influential man in the world at the time, and when that one dies, Satan goes to that man’s successor or the next most powerful and influential man. I think anyone should be able to understand that concept.

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation starting with Martin Luther all recognized the office of the papacy as the seat of the Man of Sin, the Antichrist. Why are most Christians guessing today who he might be? It’s because of the work of the Jesuits and the Counter-Reformation! Jesuit Francesco Ribera circa 1585 cooked up the false interpretation of Daniel 9:27 saying the Antichrist is going to make a covenant with the Jews when in fact it was Jesus the Messiah Who confirmed the covenant that God made with Abraham, the covenant of grace though faith! I wrote extensively on this subject on this website.

This article is from, “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest“, by Leo Herbert Lehmann. It was published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

THE DOGMATIC BELIEFS and ritualistic ceremonials of the Roman Catholic Church are sustained by a thinly-intellectual veneer, called the Scholastic system of reasoning. Everything taught to and practiced by Catholics is supposed to be proved by the syllogisms of this specialized system of philosophy. It was borrowed from the Greek philosopher Aristotle, but has been so corrupted that it now has only a bare resemblance to what Aristotle taught.

Nothing has contributed more to discredit belief in God and the redemptive work of Christ than this attempt of Roman Catholic theologians to prove them by their trick syllogistic reasoning. It has driven many to atheism or complete agnosticism. Worst of all, it has caused many millions of well-intentioned and sincere seekers after God to lapse into religious indifferentism. Of all the inadequate metaphysical yardsticks to measure the immeasurable immensity of the deity and explain Christ’s way of salvation, none is less satisfying and more harmful than the Scholastic syllogism of the Roman Catholic medieval reasoners. It proves nothing beyond what is already known or believed. It begins with the assumption of the proof it pretends to show. It uses the old trick of the stage magician who only takes out of the hat what he first puts into it unknown to the audience. But it suits perfectly the structure of Roman Catholic law and theology, since nothing in Catholic teaching and practice must ever be proved to be different from what has been already established. In this way Catholic Church dogmas remain forever immutable and unquestionable.

No one was more opposed to the absurdity of trying to convert people to Christianity by trick syllogisms than Cardinal Newman, who is boosted as the Catholic Church’s greatest convert in modern times. In his Grammer of Assent he says:

Few Roman Catholics know that Cardinal Newman was very unhappy after he became a Roman Catholic. He made honest efforts to awaken Roman Catholics to the need of finding first-hand proof of God’s existence and knowledge of salvation from the Bible. For this he was distrusted and persecuted by the Roman inquisitors. In his Life of Cardinal Newman, his Catholic biographer¹ quotes from a letter of Newman to H. Wilberforce as follows:

The chief engineer of this structure of Roman Catholic philosophy was St. Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the thirteenth century. It was he who fixed the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in their syllogistic molds, as they are known and used to this day. He gathered together all the beliefs and practices that had developed in the Roman Catholic Church throughout the preceding centuries and tried to prove them all by his special system of medieval reasoning. He called his finished work the Summa Theologica. His aim was not to find out the truth about the teaching of Christ as contained in the Bible and New Testament. His task was to find reasons (or excuses) for the beliefs and practices already existing in the Catholic Church and to fix them forever as immutable dogmas that must never be questioned. He sought for conclusions to the logic of words, not for the spiritual power that makes men the children of God through Christ. Like the logicians Cardinal Newman berated, he was more set on concluding rightly than upon right conclusions.

The lack of true spirituality in the religion of Rome to this day can be traced to this juggling of words by Thomas Aquinas to sustain the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church. Like Anselm before him, Aquinas was a clever apologist for the paganization of the Christian religion before his time. He made no attempt to reform the abuses that had multiplied in the Church for over a thousand years. All he did was to brace up the structure of the papacy by the formulations of syllogistic logic. He closed his eyes to the fact that the entire foundation of the Roman religion was corrupted and eaten away. The patch-work of Aquinas made the task all the more difficult for the Protestant reformers, three centuries later, when they set forth to restore the true teachings of Christ to the world. It made it necessary for them to overturn the whole structure of the papacy from its very foundations.

The philosophical formulations of Aquinas’ work were concerned particularly with sustaining the main dogmas on which the Roman Catholic Church rests — the sacrifice of the mass, with its doctrine of transubstantiation; purgatory; confession; saint worship, and indulgences. His plan of the Incarnation and Redemption was borrowed from St. Anselm of Canterbury (A. D. 1033). To Aquinas alone goes the praise for the elaboration of such peculiar doctrines as transubstantiation. The very word itself was his own invention. Against all the principles of physical laws, he laid it down that in the mass, the substance of the wafer of bread is transmuted by the words of a priest into the living flesh of Jesus Christ. Neither Aquinas nor anyone who has come after him has ever explained how this happens, or what becomes of the substance of the bread in the wafer. It was something that was believed long before the time of Aquinas, and he found a magic word for it. He reasoned out and proved the other great dogmas of the Roman Catholic religion in the same way. Papal specifications called for an actual corporeal presence of Jesus Christ in the wafer of bread. Aquinas made up the formula, into which certain quotations from the Bible were conveniently fitted. His papal masters also called upon him to supply syllogistic formulas to substantiate the Catholic practice of confession and priestly absolution for sins, for the existence of purgatory, and saint worship. Aquinas gave them all they asked for. His magic syllogism, like the prestidigitator’s hat, produced them all — because they were all first put into it.

It was this engineering of an unreal and forced alliance of Christianity with the mere chance historical development of power in the Roman Catholic Church that has been responsible for the three great perversions of Christ’s true teachings. These three perversions are: ecclesiasticism, sacramentalism and dogmatism. They are three aspects of the papacy’s betrayal of the redemptive work of Christ. They are the three means by which the people have been robbed of religious and civil sovereignty. For these three perversions have sustained religious and civil dictatorship for nearly two thousand years. They destroy the innate rights of the common people to form a true Christian democracy.

Christianity, as rightly taught, can have nothing to do with autocracy of any kind, ecclesiastical or civil. Its development can never be stilted by cramping dogmatism. It is also opposed to sacramentalism, which injects into religion an un-Christlike notion of sacrifice with an accompanying priestly caste.

The teaching of Christ disclaimed all compromise with autocracy, and denied all need of further sacrifice after His universal sacrifice on the cross. The only sacrifice it demands is the collective burnt-offering of all the ignorance, superstition, conventional formalism, of the mass of half-truths and compromise which have heretofore stood in the way of man’s liberation. “You shall know the truth,” said Christ, “and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:22). Man’s redemption and liberation is not a problem that can be solved by metaphysics. If it were it would be unjustly confined to a favored few. Christianity is the spirit of adventure, free to all men in the great open spaces where men congregate. It ought never to have been shut up within the academic circle of the classroom, nor in the choir stalls of cathedrals.

The Christian Gospel proclaimed the good news that a man had been born who was of the same nature as God. Accompanying this message was the assurance that all men might, if they would, share the life of this man, even to the partaking of his flesh and blood. “As many as received, him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; which were bom, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12,13).

It was by this road that liberty came into the world, not as the privilege or the accomplishment of superior persons or of any ecclesiastical trust or monopoly, but as the right of every man by virtue of his very humanity. This is the pivotal point of Christianity and of all human history. If a man is just a mere creature of God, the quintessence of dust, he must be ruled, like the animals, forever by external law and dictatorship. In that case, the sovereignty of absolutism, based upon the foundations of economic and defensive necessity, would be irrevocably established. This is what Fascism and Nazism tried to make the world believe, and it is thus no wonder that their contentions were supported by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

On the other hand, if it be true, as Christ taught, that a man may become the kin of God, then for a certainty the sovereignty of the people will be established, even though it may take many more centuries of tragedy and failure to make it come to pass. It can never be established, however, by brute force, but only by the free association of enlightened and spiritually consecrated people.

The allotted work of the Christian Church was to attain this end by coordinating and ‘catholicizing’ the wills of the people for their ultimate governance of the world. It had a duty gradually to reduce the economic and police forces to a relation of organic subordination to this ideal. It would in the end abolish forever the infidel empire of musts and must-nots, since all the people, having been “born again” as sons of God would need no outside force to keep order among individuals or nations. Christianity was therefore intended to establish a universal order in the spirit of democracy, to be, in other words, the genesis of the American ideal.

The fact that Christianity has so far failed in this is the tragedy of history. And the blame for this tragedy rests on the Roman Catholic Church, which has persisted in preserving the absolutism of an imperial Christianity. In the beginning, it took the place of the decayed Roman Empire, and acted as the necessary carrier-body of man’s redemptive spirit. But it has become a monster in this, that, being only a body, it has usurped unto itself the functions of spirit. Its head, the pope, claims to be the mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost and the vicar of Jesus Christ. It naturally could not produce the fruits of the spirit. Instead, it produced, as it only could, the fruits of legalism, externalism and a mere corporate unity welded together by the evil force of papal absolutism. Bound to the Roman curia, Christianity could not be expected to bring forth the truth and freedom promised to mankind by its founder Jesus Christ. Truth and freedom are correlative: truth cannot be obtained by force and metaphysical reasoning; neither can liberty be granted by charter of any corporate system.

The modern democratic conception of liberty is nothing newer than the Christian teaching of inalienable individual rights and the mystery and awe of co-creatorship with, and sonship of God. More than ever before, it is now being realized that such an idea of liberty cannot come to terms with any kind of ecclesiastical trust or spiritual monopoly. Only recently have thinking people begun to understand that real liberty cannot be created by any system of government or legal corporate entity; that it can never be a thing hammered into shape by obscure, undefined terminology and clamped down upon people in the mass. They are beginning to see that not upon the fixity of philosophical and theological codes, but upon the sound relations of a lot of private individuals to the universe as made by God, can the expectations of the coming justice and beauty for men on earth be realized.

Liberty can only be built up synthetically by units, by individuals brave enough to find God for themselves; who do not try to shift the responsibility for their salvation to priests of any Church; who are courageous enough to reject the claims of priests that the Church is a kind of ‘spiritual insurance society’ that can guarantee them against loss of salvation in the next world; who are fully convinced that there is no human person or power, religious or legal, that is able to assume their souls. This liberty will increase when enough people fully understand that God has appointed no earthly agents with power of attorney to act for him, and that the only true sovereignty is in their own souls, not in those who sit on the thrones of kings or popes. In spite of all its grandiose claims, a Church system like the Roman papacy can excommunicate but can never exclude from salvation; the State likewise can execute, but cannot convict. A true Christian obtains the grace of salvation by himself through Christ; the sinner convicts himself by his own crimes.

The Roman Catholic Church is irrevocably bound to its medieval philosophical and theological code, which denies this conception of liberty. Its autocratic, juristic system is the enemy of every true witness of this spirit of liberty the moment he attempts to assert it. Christian democracy therefore cannot stop even to argue with the Roman papacy. Nor should it fear its threats or hesitate to prevent repetition of its political intrigues with those who, even after the defeat of Fascism and Nazism, may still try to rob the common man again of hard-won religious, economic and civil liberties.

For a fuller treatment of the development of Christianity into the communal ideology of modern democracy, see The Religion of Democracy, and The Affirmative Intellect, by Charles Ferguson, published by Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1906.

1. Cf. Ward’s Life of Cardinal Newman, Vol. II, p. 252.↩

This article is from, “Out of the Labyrinth: The Conversion of a Roman Catholic Priest“, by Leo Herbert Lehmann. It was published in 1947 and made available online by The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry LutheranLibrary.org.

NO ONE can fail to notice how much idolatry is flaunted in the faces of Christians today. Pictures of people suppliant before images abound in the secular press, and on tens of thousands of movie screens idolatrous displays and worshiping before images have become the regular diet of the American public. Protestants have become so accustomed to these things that they are beginning to lose the sense of shock to their Christian sensibilities. Our American cities, like Athens as Saint Paul saw it, are given over to idolatry, and the revived cult of Jezebel, both crude and cultured, finds an eager following.

Paganization of the life of a people is a gradual process. Satan does not make his initial attack in the open. He uses the ‘softening up’ process first, by introducing a disintegrating element, the evil of which, however, is hidden under a feeling of security and special privilege. He seduces the people of God with the attractive leaven of idolatry and its fond deceptions. He uses the evil and artful promoter of idolatrous teaching who has always been symbolized by the woman Jezebel.

The historic Jezebel was the idolatrous queen of the weak and wicked Ahab. She brought into Israel all the abominations of her heathen land. Cruel boasting and scheming, she boldly seized the God-given inheritance of Naboth after causing his death. She feasted at her table the infamous prophets of Baal, and by cunning and cruelty silenced the true prophets and worshipers of the Lord. So successful was she in this, that Elijah thought he was the only worshiper of the true God left in Israel.

This seducing Jezebel has been brought into our midst in America. The abominations she has carried with her from her heathen land have permeated all the institutions of American life. they are to be seen on the higher levels of art and literature as well as on the low levels of base pleasure and amusement. Everything is, as it were, encrusted with it. In religion, where she ranks as a prophetess, Jezebel sets forth her fascinating deceptions — a monstrous mingling of pagan and Christian elements, thus corrupting sound doctrine and perverting the truth. In the Roman Catholic Church she holds an exalted place and her teaching is authoritative. There she is adept at disguising her pagan ancestry under a thin veneer of Christian phraseology.

Converts to Roman Catholicism like Mrs. Clare Luce, prompted by Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen and other priest-tutors, put forth specious arguments in an effort to prove that Roman Catholics are not taught to worship or pray to statues and images; that they only pray before them and to the saints thus worshiped. Despite such plausible excuses, it cannot be denied that Roman Catholicism has made the second commandment of God of no effect among its people, and teaches for Christian doctrine the precepts of its Church, which are the commandments of men. In fact, it has entirely eliminated the wording of the second commandment from its version of the Decalogue in its catechisms and textbooks.¹

On Mt. Sinai God, through Moses, spoke saying: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them”

In order to explain the absence of the above commandment in Roman Catholic listings of the Decalogue, Catholic apologists will tell you, of course, that it is implicitly contained in the first commandment. But no matter what specious reasons they concoct, they cannot deny that they teach their people to make graven images and to bow down before them. This is a direct violation of the second commandment of God which specifically says: “Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image… Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them…” Roman Catholics do both. They not only make the images, but also bow down on bended knees before them, light candles to them and burn incense before them.

As a student and a priest in Rome, I had to officiate on Christmas night at the ceremony of carrying in procession a gorgeously dressed doll-image (bambino) of the infant Jesus under a Japanese umbrella.

The image was placed on the high altar, hymns were sung to it and a priest, on bended knees, offered up incense before it. Then the little doll was presented to the congregation and each one kneeling kissed its stomach, inside of which we believed was a piece of the manger in which Christ was born. When we visited St. Peter’s Basilica we were told that an indulgence could be gained by kissing the foot of a huge metal statue, supposed to be that of Saint Peter, but said to be actually an ancient image of Marcus Aurelius. All semblance of a foot had long disappeared, since it had been kissed away until only a smooth, polished piece of shapeless metal remained. Reporting the ceremonies in Ottawa, Canada, at the Marian Congress in June, 1947, Life magazine drew attention to the fact that a long procession of devout people knelt and kissed the foot of the giant statue of Mary “until the paint wore off its toes.”

Pictures in an illustrated Italian newspaper of recent (in 1947 date² show that devout Catholic people in Naples still crawl prostrate on their stomachs before the images of their Madonnas and lick the ground with their tongues on their way to the statues. The New York Department of Health was obliged some years ago to put a stop to this practice among Italian people in the Bronx, because so many cases of tetanus resulted from it.

Down in their hearts, these Roman Catholic apologists know well enough that to bow down to an image is to confess worship to it. To all outward appearance and intent, this Roman Catholic practice of kneeling and bowing before images, lighting candles before them and offering up incense to them, differs in no way from the same practice of the Buddhists in India and of pagan people in other lands.

It is easy enough to understand how such corruption of religion begins and develops, and how God’s awful prohibition and condemnation are eventually sidestepped. The natural heart of man is prone to the worship of images, is attracted to the tangible creature that in the end completely takes the place of God. This tendency springs from an aversion in the unregenerate heart to the perfect purity of God, despite a sense of dependence and guilt before God. The nearer man gets to the Holy One, the deeper becomes his sense of guilt. He naturally turns aside from a direct fellowship with One so much higher and holier than himself. He wants to be cleansed, but is unwilling either to confess himself a sinner, or to believe that God has so loved him that He gave His only-begotten Son as an all- sufficient Saviour from sin. He turns instead to what the apostle Paul calls the “beggarly elements” (Gal. 4:9) and offers worship to an inferior creature, superior, however, to himself, in order to intercede for him. He feels that he can fellowship with this creature, who is inferior to God but much higher than himself, but still a creature on the same level with himself.

In this way all idolatry and paganization of religion are explained. And of this the Roman Catholic Church has taken profitable advantage. Its apologists make excuses for the worship of images and the use of inferior mediators by teaching that sinful man is not worthy to approach directly to God. Jesus Christ, they say, only brought justice, not mercy on earth, and that we must look to His mother and His special friends, the saints, to obtain mercy for us. Thus Mary is made the “Mediatrix of all graces,” and they quote Saint Jerome that “God will not save us without the intercession of Mary.”

Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen, in his book, Preface to Religion,³ makes the same excuse to uphold the doctrine of purgatory. “The necessity of purgatory,” he says, (p. 138),“is grounded upon the absolute purity of God… If there were no purgatory, then the justice of God would be too terrible for words, for who are they who would dare assert themselves pure enough and spotless enough to stand before the Immaculate Lamb of God?”

Here can be seen Satan’s deceptive teaching that no one can dare expect such mercy from God that all his sins can be completely forgiven, or that he can be saved “to the uttermost.” This is true, of course, according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that man can and must earn his own salvation. If by our own works we are saved, then indeed would we have to tremble and fear that we could never adequately atone for our sins. Then indeed would it be presumptuous to dare assert ourselves, as Monsignor Sheen says, pure enough and spotless enough to stand before the Immaculate Lamb of God! Then indeed would we have to seek and look to creatures higher than us in sanctity who have earned more than we can, and to whom we could turn to intercede for us.

But that is the pagan way, the way of Jezebel. The true Christian way is, as Paul tells us (Rom. 5:1, 2): “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” And again Paul flatly contradicts Monsignor Sheen (Heb. 10:19-20): “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh.”

The Scripture teaching here clearly answers Monsignor Sheen’s question and assures us that we can dare to enter into the holiest of holies, because of this “new and living way” of Christian teaching. Monsignor Sheen prefers the old pagan way, and he is logical and correct in saying that, by this pagan way of the unregenerate human heart, we can never be pure and spotless enough to stand before the terrifying presence of the Immaculate Lamb of God. But he surely is not so blind that he does not see the vast difference between the two. Complete spiritual blindness alone can excuse his failure to see it. If he is not spiritually blind, then he must be downright dishonest. He stands convicted of either one or the other by the above text of Hebrews.

I consider it a most extraordinary thing now that these defenders of saints and their images should seize upon the “absolute purity of God” as excuse for focusing the worship of their people downward to things of earth. By doing so, they are actually playing upon the aversion in the unregenerate heart of man to this perfect purity of God. They pander to the tendency in sinful man to spurn and reject the love of God as manifested in Christ, the one mediator and all-sufficient Saviour. This also serves to enhance and protect the power of the priest. It makes it necessary to set up an image which the people can see and which the priest can handle. For vain man must be master of his God. Priests in all religions have made it a cardinal principle of their teaching to make sure that the power of God they worship does not get out of their control. For this reason they made victims of their Gods so that they could handle and sacrifice them at will.

To be pitied therefore are the faithful followers of the priests of the Roman Catholic Church who are taught to reject the love of God and his plan of Christian redemption whereby they can be so purified by “a new and living way” that they can stand before God holy and blameless. Instead they are provided with idols and told that they dare not hope to have the boldness to enter into the holiest and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. They are not taught that our Lord has consecrated that new way for them through the shedding of his blood in his all-sufficient sacrifice on Calvary. Instead of that one great sacrifice of Calvary, they are given the idolatrous sacrifice of the mass, an affair of the hands and the magic of the breath of a priest whereby a sinful creature is believed to be able to create the God who made him!

Thus the wafer of bread in the Roman Catholic mass, made by human hands as all bread is made, is called God and adored on bended knees. This is the climax of the abominations of Jezebel. Without this caricature of Calvary, the Roman Catholic Church could not survive. “Jezebel… painted her face and tired her head, and looked out at a window.” (2 Kings 9:30).

Today this same Jezebel has taken her place at the window. She is in the public eye. She is bold, for her time is short. She has painted her face, thus masking all the coarseness and vileness of her withered soul. She is defiant. She has decked her head, given herself a magnificent triple crown. Arrayed in her own pagan splendor she stands in the way of those who have a right to the crown of life and to receive the crown of glory. Jezebel derides the people of God — and Elijah has fled. He who stood on Mount Carmel and exposed the prophets of Baal for the miserable impostors they were and brought down the fierce judgment of God upon them, has quailed and fled before the threat of Jezebel. There is here, I think, a lesson for the timid Protestant leaders of our day, a picture of the people of God standing in awe in the face of onrushing idolatry, with few dissenting voices, all afraid of Jezebel!

But now that she flaunts her painted face from her lofty eminence, Jezebel’s destruction, as of old, will be certain and swift. The fury of God will come up in his face and he will cast her down. For Christ, the image of the invisible God — the only image and only rightful object of worship — must conquer in the end. Jezebel, the idolatrous teacher of vanities and deceptions, will in due time be cast down and utterly consumed. Like the historical Jezebel who was eaten of dogs, all idolatrous systems of worship shall be found no more — “so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel.”

1. See, for example, My Sunday Missal, by Father Joseph Stedman, p. 299, and the versions of the Catholic Baltimore Catechism, taught in all parochial schools.↩
2. L’Europeo, April 5, 1947.↩
3. P. J. Kenedy and Sons, 1946.↩

This is from the June 1944 edition of the Converted Catholic Magazine.

THOSE who insist that Peter was the first Pope entirely disregard the fact that he left in writing, as part of the Bible, instructions as to how the Christian church should be ruled. They read intently the encyclical letters of Pope Pius XII. but either ignore or are unaware of the letters of the Apostle Peter, which no Pope today would dare to emphasize.

For Peter preached and put into writing the principles of the real New Order of the Christian dispensation. He would have been untrue to his Master had he taught that one man could be an autocrat over other men, either in spiritual or political matters. “Ye are a chosen generation,” he told the early Christians, “a royal (kingly) priesthood.” (I Peter 2:9). Peter’s doctrine is that each one is his own king and his own priest. This is democracy with a vengeance! In civil government each one was to possess the highest governing power, and, as in our American democracy, merely delegate this power by election, for a limited time, to those he chooses to represent him in the work of governing.

Most important of all, Peter taught that in religious matters each one is his own priest, a member of “a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” (I Peter 2:5)

Peter furthermore expressly forbids the ministers of the Christian religion to lord it over the flock. He exhorts them as elders, as he himself is just an elder, not to use force in the ordering of things within the church. How then can the Pope of Rome, who claims to be Peter’s successor, consider himself an autocratic king in temporal affairs and the sole mouthpiece of God on earth? The history of the Popes is in direct contradiction to the teaching of Peter. Instead of following Peter, the Popes have imitated the Caesars of the Roman empire and the Pontifex Maximus of the pagan religion of Rome, whose title they appropriated. They have always supported tyrannical monarchs and brutal dictators who oppressed the people, who are true priests and kings in the Christian sense. They have killed this right of the people by condemning it as “socialism” and “communism.” No doubt, if Peter were on earth today, the Pope would brand him too as a Communist — and a Jewish Communist at that.

This is from the October 1921 edition of the Converted Catholic Magazine.

In a sermon published in “The Western Watchman” (St. Louis) of June 27, 1912, the editor, Rev. D. S: Phelan, LL.D., then dean of the Papal press propagandists in this country, said: (Italics ours. Bold, the webmaster’s.)

“We Are Catholics First”

Just how far this Papal writer’s statements were accurate in respect of the individuals making up the lay membership of the Church, there is, of course, no means of knowing. But he received no censure from his superiors for these utterances so far as the public knew at the time. Nor did he retract or modify them in any way in consequence of remonstrances from individual Catholics.

An important point to bear in mind is that we must assume that all the teachers in Catholic educational establishments stand for these pronouncements of the authorities of their Church, especially those of the Popes, and that fact in the opinion of many of our readers makes the continuance of their work with the young a menace to this Republic and its free institutions.

(End of text from the Converted Catholic Magazine.)

In my opinion, this article clearly identifies the Roman Catholic Church as a political organization. If you would say, “The Christians of the world love Jesus Christ more than they do their own governments” I would certainly agree with that. We are indeed supposed to love the Lord more than anything. But we don’t go to war with the government or commit acts of violence toward the government, we just refuse to obey any government mandate that go against our conscience, things we know are morally wrong and against what the Bible says. That’s what all the martyrs throughout the centuries did.

Acts 5:29  Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Introduction by the webmaster.

This is from the December 1920 edition of the Converted Catholic Magazine. If the Vatican wielded so much power in 1920 according to the article, think how much it wields 104 years later in this present day. In my previous article The Vatican’s Immigration War, Christian J. Pinto says the following:

So there you have it, the Jesuit / Vatican plan for America in a nutshell. I believe it. That’s how I see it. And I also think those who may not believe it are the ones who don’t know history! This is why I am posting a lot of history on this website. A friend tells me we don’t need to know history to correctly interpret Scripture, all we need is the Bible. I disagree. I think knowing history is very important. The Bible indicates in 1 Corinthians 10:11 that knowing the history of how God dealt with people in the past is important!

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

So this article is more history for you to be able to correctly understand the present a little better.

The Vatican is again (in 1920) a great power in world politics. It has been my business to examine many of the manifestations of this immense revival, and not in one, but in practically every country in Europe, and to a considerable extent in Canada and America. There are certain phenomena that are occurring all over the globe in which the Church of Rome is playing indubitably a prominent part after some years of comparative political extinction, and it is impossible not to put together the various movements and events and come to the conclusion that once bound Romanism has become a huge force to be reckoned with.

It always has been necessary to take Romanism seriously into the reckoning, but never anything like so much as now, and the Vatican is out to capture more and more control of world affairs. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the Vatican controls the world in a much more real and widespread way than any other individual Government. Governments are striving, each from its own center, to control the world, and are keenly realizing how powerless they are in the confusion of things—how their writ does not run far or effectively beyond their own realm; whereas the Vatican, which has no territorial realm, which has only a center, has its spiritual kingdom everywhere.

Power of the Vatican

To it politicians, no matter what their creed, are turning for help. Apparently, the statesmen find it impossible to preserve order in the complex and topsy-turvy universe without its influence. It is so vital a factor in restoration that even Protestant (or rather agnostic) Englishmen like Mr. Arthur Balfour are asking that the moral authority of the Vatican be utilized on the League of Nations in order to make the League something of a reality; that even the anti-Catholic rulers of France are willing to make any concessions that public opinion would stand to enlist the diplomatic support of the Pope in the government of Alsace-Lorraine and the formation of a great Catholic bloc in Central Europe to counterbalance the aggressive and Protestant Prussia; that even the Italian King and authorities are seeking something more than “frozen enmity”—a real reconciliation—with the Pope, who regards them as usurpers on his proper territory, because without Papal assistance they may be swallowed up in the revolutionary vortex; that even—but we shall see how manifold are these manifestations of a new respect for the political power of the Curia (the body of congregations, tribunals, and offices through which the pope governs the Roman Catholic Church).

Before proceeding to elaborate on these statements and show their practical importance for America, let us consider for a moment how inevitable is this revival. There have been bad blunders made by the political directors of the Holy See, and there has been great opposition to them, with some reversals of fortune perhaps not altogether deserved. But nothing could rob this tremendous organization, with its 300,000,000 of adherents forming a solid bloc in almost every civilized country, of its influence on affairs. The Church, unlike others except the Mohammedan Church, is a worldwide institution. All other forms of Christianity are essentially national. Rome stands eternal, and if the Papal possessions are gone, the influence of Rome transcends all questions of territory. It has no frontiers. The orders of Rome mean more than the orders of any other outside authority, and often more than the orders of the inside authority, and this power goes everywhere. It is shut up in no watertight department of State.

It would be strange, indeed, if no use were made in the political sphere of this might. Its powers, transmitted from one center through an endless chain of functionaries, an unbroken, trained hierarchy, will have an amazing potency.

Power in United States

The Czech can be affected by the same decision of the same authority as the Irish-born American. There is certainly no other power to compare with that of the Vatican, in spite of its vicissitudes of the last hundred years or so. And in point of numbers the Church controlled from Rome is growing at an incredible rate. Take the case of America. There were in 1910 something over 12,000,000 members; in 1915 nearly 14,000,000, and in the last year 16,000,000. I am giving official figures. It would be hard to match this progress, and if the Church has grown so remarkably in America it has always been far and away the largest individual Church, the Protestant bodies being broken up into a score of sects.

Sixteen million active adherents! What a wonderful voting organization, and how could the Vatican fail to direct in some measure the policies of candidates, of the eventual President? That in fact this pressure was used is well known. Individual priests like Dr. Mannix, of course, mean something, but prove nothing. He helped the fiery crusade; but he is a single and rather compromising person; and it is perhaps good tactics to repudiate him. What is much more important is the general attitude of Catholic agents of all kinds, an attitude that is not expressed in wild gestures, but in quiet work.

Influence in Ireland

In Ireland itself the influence of the priesthood may be more clearly discerned. All who have had occasion to visit that unhappy country have borne testimony to the responsibility of the priests for the strength of the national movement. It is not my purpose to assess the moral values of the fact; but that the Vatican could have exercised a decisive influence —and in fact did—on events is obvious. The interest of the Vatican as conceived by Cardinal Gasparri, who is the astute political director, is to obtain the largest measure of liberty for Roman Catholic populations everywhere in the world, in order that Romanism itself may be strengthened in a religious sense and in its diplomatic relations with the Courts and foreign offices.

For many ages [we may quote from the Statesman’s Year Book] until Pius IX.’s reign, with some comparatively short breaks, the Popes or Roman Pontiffs bore temporal sway over a territory stretching across Mid-Italy from sea to sea and comprising an area of some 16,000 square miles, with a population finally of some 3,125,000 souls. Of this dominion the whole has been incorporated with the Italian Kingdom. Furthermore, by an Italian law dated May 13, 1871, there was guaranteed to his Holiness and his successors for ever, besides possessions of the Vatican and Lateran palaces and the villa of Castel Gandolfo, a yearly income of 3,225,000 lire, or £129,000, which allowance (whose arrears would in 1915 amount to 145,125,000 lire, or £5,805,000, without interest) still remains unclaimed and unpaid.

The central administration of the Roman Catholic Church is carried on by a number of permanent committees called Sacred Congregations, composed of Cardinals, with consultors and officials. There are now eleven Sacred Congregations, viz., Holy Office, Consistorial, Discipline of the Sacraments, Council, Religious, Propaganda Fide, Index, Rites, Ceremonial, Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, Studies. Besides these there are several permanent commissions, for example, one for Biblical studies, another for historical studies, another for preservation of the faith, in Rome, another for codification of canon law. Furthermore, the Roman Curia contains three tribunals, to wit, the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, and the Sacred Roman Rota; and, lastly, various offices, as the Apostolic Chancery, the Apostolic Datary, the Angaiglic Chamber, the Secretariate of State, etc.

The States wherewith the Holy See maintains diplomatic relations were (before the break-up of Europe) Austria-Hungary, Bavaria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain and the United Kingdom (1914), together with most of the American republics, except the United States and Mexico.

Thus it will be observed that there is, in spite of the alleged loss of temporal, or rather territorial, power, a State Department at the Vatican to which are attached Ambassadors. Now, it is precisely the number of Ambassadors or other Ministers attached to the Holy See which will serve to prove the reality of the diplomatic power of the Pope and the extent of that power.

France and the Vatican

One of the outstanding facts for me in European politics —if not in its ultimate results and its multiple reactions altogether the most important fact—is the renewal of French relations with the Vatican. As I write, this resumption of relations is practically accomplished. There is a strange reversal of policy in France—for France has been for two generations bitterly anti-Clerical, The triumph of the Vatican is one of the most surprising events for all who have known the violent opposition of France, and of the very Ministers who are now turning to Rome, to anything that savored of Vaticanism. The explanation is simple. It is that French diplomacy imperatively calls for the aid of the Vatican for its fulfillment, and the Vatican in return, of course, demands French recognition and French representation. Almost without a murmur, France, for whom republicanism has always meant anti-Clericalism, has accepted this new orientation. The man in the café may not always understand the complicated machinery, he may not know why the diplomatic wheels turn as they do, but he does understand that conditions have changed, and he is inclined to forget past quarrels with a dim belief that it is better for France to turn Rome-ward.

What the man in the café does not altogether comprehend, the politician knows. He knows what are the guiding lines of French policy. He knows that it may be regarded as influenced by four main considerations—especially in Central Europe—social, commercial, military and Catholic, and the greatest of these is Catholic. It is upon Catholicism that all the rest depend, and the Vatican saw its opportunity and made its bargain. In Middle Europe it is supreme.

Alliance Against Bolshevism

First, France is anti-Bolshevist as is no other country in the world. That is to say, she is actively and consistently so. There have been attempts to make peace with Bolshevism in every other country: in France, never. It is the Catholic Party—the Bloc National contains many elements, all republican, most of them now impregnated with Catholicism, which is the most implacable opponent of Bolshevism—that directs this resistance. M. Jacques Bainville, one of the ablest of all writers on foreign affairs in France, wrote the other day these words, which certainly deserve quotation:

“Will France not dare to be that which she really is, and that which she has appeared to all the world since her rupture with Bolshevism—that is to say, the country of resistance and of counter-revolution? Why pretend, why blush? It is a fact so clear that the epithet reactionary is applied to us everywhere. In the present state of the world it is for us to guard that description. It brings us sympathetic agreement more and more, since there is only France which will consent to bear that name, since there is a growing need of order that only France can satisfy.”

She was led by this anti-Bolshevist spirit to attempt to form a ring of States around Russia. The idea of a Roman Catholic confederation was bound to arise. Immediately there grew up at the Quai d’Orsay the notion that the Danubian States might be welded together. Unfortunately interests clashed. Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, formed what is known as the Petite Entente, because they were afraid of the proposed French grouping of Catholic Bavaria, Austria and Hungary. That only helped to give body to the idea. France established herself in Hungary, as her Danubian headquarters; and quickly commercial considerations reinforced the social consideration, for the advantages of controlling that magnificent waterway, which is the key to the commerce of a dozen countries, are obvious, There was also the military, that is to say the more strictly political, consideration, All these things fit in with the Roman Catholic conception which now impels French policy.

Policy in Central Europe

We shall understand why the Vatican is so valuable to France if we remember that France considers that there are two political necessities in the new Europe. The first is the dismemberment of Germany—that chimera which haunts many minds; and the second is the construction of some solid geographical unity in Central Europe, where the sledgehammer policy of pounding Austria-Hungary into a powder of little states is believed to have been a blunder. The capital fault of the Versailles Treaty was to grind Austria to dust and to assure at the same time the unity of the Reich. That the treaty consecrated this unity is perhaps the greatest grievance that France has against M. Clemenceau. There is little hostility, indeed there is much sympathy, felt for docile Austria, and it is clear that Austria’s junction with Bavaria and Bavaria’s detachment from Germany would satisfy at once the two parts of the present French political conception.

Under M. Millerand, in spite of the treaty, there has been, and there will continue to be, this return to the ancient French plan of denying the Bismarckian unity, of attempting to destroy it, by means of a rapprochement under French auspices of the Roman Catholic populations of Southern Germany and the Roman Catholic population of Austria. If this were accomplished, certainly German hegemony would be gone forever. Indeed, one might look for French hegemony to be definitely established.

It will, I trust, now be clear why France for its Middle Europe policy has need of the Vatican, and time alone will show how the project will develop. There dovetail into each ether so many advantages—a bulwark against Bolshevism, a control of the commercial waterway of the Danube, the smashing of the power of Germany, and the putting together and consolidation of jig-saw Middle-Europe.

France and Catholic Germans

The general idea, though not all its political consequences, is sustained in Parliament and in the press by M. Maurice Barrés. M. Barrés expounds and defends the theme with his accustomed eloquence, though often with a strange absence of logic. With regard to Germany he would detach all the Roman Catholic States without annexing them. Political annexation of the Rhenish provinces, for example, however much it may be desired, is impossible. But M. Barrés would have a sort of intellectual annexation. France herself must be regarded as a Roman Catholic country; the quarrel with the Vatican is better gradually closed, and there is a distinct poussée (thrust) in the direction of reconciliation.

Nowhere has Roman Catholicism regained something of its lost empire so much as in Middle Europe and in France. The present French Ministry is officially represented at functions in which it would not have taken part a few years ago. The return of Alsace-Lorraine, faithful Roman Catholic provinces, has also helped, as I myself pointed out in the English diplomatic review, “The New Europe,” in this new orientation toward Rome. Just as President Wilson distinguished between the German rulers and the German people, the Roman Catholic party (whatever may be its name) is beginning to distinguish between Prussia and the rest of Germany. An intense propaganda is proceeding both sides of the frontiers. Some surprising statements have been made in the most important journals respecting the part that was taken by Southern Germany in the war. One would be tempted to believe that Southern Catholic Germany had always been on the side of the Allies!

Forces Working for Austria

Let me quote by way of showing that always this Austrian idea—this Roman Catholic idea—was working in France even during the war, a remarkable passage in the remarkable book of M. Jean de Pierrefeu, the writer of the French daily communiqué, entitled “G. Q. G.” M. de Pierrefeu was at headquarters and heard the views of Marshal Pétain and other high officers freely expressed. He writes:

“Pétain was not a partisan of the dissolution of Austria. After the necessary reforms that the Entente should impose regarding the autonomy of peoples, for example, he considered that the empire was alone capable of maintaining union and order between races naturally hostile who, delivered to themselves, would not cease to make war and compromise peace in Europe. He believed in a policy of alliances between France, England and Austria to counterbalance Germany, especially if Germany were not divided. As we can no longer lean on Russia, which is in a state of anarchy for twenty years, he held, it is necessary to put our money on Austria. France must always have a friend in the East!”

The friend in the East is at present Hungary, but there must be an extension of the scheme and always the good offices of the Pope are needed. Is it surprising, then, that there should be the appointment of an Ambassador after so many years of rupture? One should remember, too, that Poland, another friend in the East, is Catholic. Why, even in her diplomacy in Asia Minor France is dependent on the good-will of the Pope. It is the French Catholic community of Beirut that gives her the greatest moral claim to control Syria. Certainly France has the largest interests in Europe, and all her interests are bound together diplomatically by Catholicism; and at the center of all the strings is the Vatican.

Situation in Italy

An entirely new situation has arisen in the world, of which Cardinal Gasparri—for he is the political genius of the Vatican—knows how to take legitimate advantage. The Vatican had lost practically all its power; as by a miracle it has regained its old power and more. (Note: Could this be the fulfillment of Revelation 13:3?  And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.) In Italy the Church of Rome has tried desperately hard to stay the tide of Red Socialism. It formed the Partito Popolare Italiano, or Catholic People’s Party, as a counter-blow to revolution, and it held the balance of power, making and unmaking Ministries. I have written much of it, but I am content on this subject to quote from that reputed observer, E. Sefton Delmer. He says:

“The party, with its 103 members, after the Socialists, is the best organized and best disciplined party in the Italian Parliament. Like the German Centrum it is the tongue of the parliamentary balance.”

This article is a transcription of an audio on Christian J. Pinto’s Noise of Thunder Radio program which was posted on February 20, 2024. On this website I have many articles what the Jesuits and the Vatican did centuries ago. The post is what the Jesuits and Vatican are doing today!

There is a lot of information I never knew in this article! It contains insights into the current border crisis that have historical roots from the 19th century.

Okay, praise the Lord you guys and welcome. I’m Chris Pinto. This is Noise of Thunder Radio.

Today on the show, we are going to talk about the Vatican’s immigration warfare against the United States of America. This situation is very rapidly progressing in our country and over in Europe as well. It’s really unbelievable. I mean, I don’t know how much longer we have as a nation.

And who knows what’s going to happen here in 2024, especially if President Trump is not reelected. I think he’s about the only politician who would at least slow down the rapid takeover of the United States of America.

This open borders warfare has gone on where they’re just bringing in millions and millions of these migrants that are being brought in. And if you study some of the cases, they’re talking about how now they’re trying to talk people into allowing the migrants to come and live in their homes. And they had a case of a woman up in Massachusetts who agreed to this and they showed the so-called migrant family that had come in. And these were people who didn’t look like migrants at all. I mean, they were wearing designer clothing. They looked like they were well-to-do people. They didn’t look like refugees at all.

These refugees, most of them now, there are some families. There are some women and children, but that’s really a small percentage. Most of them we’ve heard over and over and over again are fighting age, males, age 18 to 45 or so. There are exceptions, of course, but that’s the vast majority of them. And you’ve got people who are very, very suspicious, especially the guys that work down on the border.

Now, the reason I wanted to talk about this today, and of course, you guys have noticed I have not done a Noise Of Thunder radio episode for several weeks. And the reason is that I have just been focused on editing our new film, American Jesuits, bringing it to that completion point. We are almost there. Our projection now is to be able to ship copies in March next month. And that’s a very, very realistic expectation. We’ve already been setting it up with the duplicator. But for those who have pre-ordered the film, you’re going to get a lot more information.

Right now, the film is right at about two and a half hours. I’m trying to make sure we don’t go to three hours. But it’s a good lengthy presentation. Of course, most of our films are. There’s lots of information. You’re going to learn a lot of things about the Jesuit order through the 19th and 20th centuries that most people don’t know. And we’re going to show you really how the plan, the Vatican’s plan and the Jesuit plan back during the American Civil War to try and really destroy our Republic, because that was their ambition, to destroy our Republic. During the time of the Civil War, we’re going to show you how that plan unfolded. What happened? I’ve already kind of tested the waters by talking to people about some of this information. People have no idea what went on. And when we show it to you and we document it for you, it’s all going to suddenly make sense as to what is happening today.

What’s happening today with our southern border is a continuation of what went on during the American Civil War. That’s what it is. It’s a modern continuation of it. It’s plan B. Plan A did not work out for the Vatican and the powers of Europe. That didn’t work. So they’ve gone to plan B. Plan B is to try and invade our country with all of these immigrants. And they’re not trying. They’re doing it right now.

But here’s something that I wanted to point out, a new story that I saw. And this is something that a lot of us have been waiting for. This is, this is very, very disturbing. And when I say waiting for it, what I mean by that is we knew that things were moving in this direction. Anybody who grew up back in the 1970s and 80s, if you saw the film, Doctor Zhivago (1965) which is about the communist takeover of Russia, where Zhivago goes off to war. He was this doctor. He had a nice home with his family. He goes off to war. When he comes back, now communism has completely taken over the country. He walks into his house, and his wife and his family are there. But then there are also several other families living in his home. The communist leaders come in and they tell him that his home was big enough for more than one family. And so they’ve moved people into his home. And he really doesn’t have any choice because that’s what happens under communism. That’s why it’s one of the reasons why they abolish private property. So you don’t have control over your own house anymore. The state does and they decide who’s going to live in your home.

This is why both the Third and Fourth Amendments are so important in our Constitution, folks. It’s also why Castle Doctrine is so important. Why the writings of Sir Edward Cook, Sir Edward Cook who developed the Petition of Right of 1628, Sir Edward Cook who said, “A man’s home is his castle” for his protection and his defense as well as his repose.

In English law, it was always the case. Well, it was certainly since the time of the Reformation and since the time of Sir Edward Cook and that whole generation forward, that private property was protected from the government. The government did not have the right to violate a person’s private property. That’s why we have the tradition here.

Well, now we have a story here. And I saw this on Infowars. They picked it up from the Daily Mail. But the headline on Infowars is, “Elderly UK couple ordered to sell home to house migrants.” This elderly couple over in the UK got a letter telling them that basically their property was going to be given to migrants. They need to get out supposedly. Now, the story is a little bit more complicated than that when you go and get the whole story. But let me play you just some of the audio of a discussion from a journalist interviewing this elderly couple and listen to some of the dialogue about what’s happened, the letter that came to them. And I’m reading this off the Daily Mail website. Let me just read you part of this letter. The letter that they got says this:

“The resettlement team at North North Hampshire Council supports asylum seekers and refugees across three different projects, homes for Ukraine, Afghan resettlement, and asylum dispersal. At present, we are seeing a considerable increase in positive immigration decisions being made in favor of asylum seekers, mainly single men.”

That’s what it says. Asylum seekers, mainly single men. This is back to what we’re hearing coming through the Mexican border. This mainly fighting age men are the ones. These are the so-called asylum seekers. And it goes on from there.

All right, so let me play you some of the audio from this elderly couple there in the UK and their discussion with a journalist. Here it is.

Okay. So that gives you an overview of what’s happening over there, at least with this, with this elderly couple. Now, as a follow-up to this, you read the whole story. Apparently, once they communicated with the council and complained about this, the council said that they made a mistake somehow and that they were sorry that they got that letter, that they were troubled by it. But they’re also saying that the apology that they’ve given does not go far enough. We’re not sure exactly what that means just yet.

This story will be one to watch for people over in the UK and people right here in the United States of America. Because what they are doing in Western Europe and in the UK is what they are planning to do right here in the United States. Remember, the UK journalist Katie Hopkins warned about two years before it began in the United States. She was at a conservative gathering here in the US, and she was talking about how the schools over in the UK were transitioning children, boys to girls and girls to boys in the schools without parental consent. And she said at the time, this is coming to the United States of America. They’re planning to do the same thing in the US. And within about two years, at least based on my recollection, that’s when it began.

The open borders problem has only just begun. They have flooded our country with millions and millions of these illegals that they brought in. And now they’re trying to get people to volunteer to accept these migrants in their homes. It’s going to be very interesting to see what happens as the migrants come into people’s homes and how long they stay there. Right now, the people who are saying yes to this, I’ve seen at least one story where a woman welcomed a migrant family into her home and everything appears to be very positive in this sort of thing right now. It should be interesting to see what’s going to happen six months and a year from now, maybe two years. Are these migrants going to then leave the homes that they’ve been welcomed into? And where will they go? And who will pay for it? And how’s all that going to work? Or are there going to be situations where the migrants do not leave? They stay in the home and then the homeowners can’t get them out, you know, and the courts won’t allow them to expel the migrants from their homes? Again, we don’t know what’s going to happen. We’re going to have to wait and see. But it’s obvious that the direction that this communist movement is headed is to completely abolish private property.

They’ve already told us through their commercial ads and this kind of thing, what the World Economic Forum and the globalist powers are planning to do. They’ve already told us you’ll own nothing. You’ll pay rent. And supposedly you’re going to be perfectly happy. How are people going to own nothing? I believe this is a step in that direction. They are moving things in the direction of a Dr. Zhivago-type scenario right here in the United States of America.

Now, the title of this program has to do with the Vatican’s involvement, the Vatican’s immigration warfare. And I am convinced that that’s what is going on. Because the number one player in this whole illegal immigration game of irredentism, which is immigration warfare, is Rome and the Catholic bishops and the Jesuits right here in America. And I’m going to play you some audio when we come back from the break and you’re going to listen to a Catholic bishop explain Catholic social teaching and how they have a right, so they believe, to violate our border laws.

(Station break.)

We are going over the Vatican’s immigration warfare against the United States of America. And that’s really what I believe this is, as we’re going to show you in this new documentary, American Jesuits.

Many people don’t realize what happened during the American Civil War. We have a whole section on the American Civil War, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which was really just one event. A lot of Americans don’t realize today what was going on south of the border.

Now, there is a book that we are quoting in the film called An Inquiry into the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by a Catholic priest in the 20th century named Emmett McLoughlin. And he really became an ex-Catholic priest. But he published this book back in 1963. And he obviously agreed with the writings of Charles Chiniquy, the Catholic priest who knew Abraham Lincoln, because when he’s writing about the assassination of Lincoln, he has on one of the early pages a drawing of John Surratt, the son of Mary Surratt, dressed as a Papal Zouave, one of the Pope’s soldiers during that time. And we explain all of that to you in the film.

Anyway, that’s part of what he talks about. But then he has a chapter, chapter four in his book. Chapter four is called Conspiracy South of the Border. He says,

“It is impossible to grasp the relationship between Rome and Washington, Vatican and presidency, ecclesiastical power and secular strength without viewing what was taking place south of the Rio Grande. The ultimate aims of their Catholic apostolic magistrates, including the conniving empresses, and Pope Pius IX, as well as Secretary of State Cardinal Antonelli, were summarized by the historian A.R. Turnour.”

He talks about the occupation of Mexico by the French army under the emperor Napoleon III, who was in charge of France at that time. He was in cahoots with Pope Pius IX, and then they were in cahoots with the monarchy in Austria, who set up one of their guys, Maximilian I, to become the new emperor in Mexico, in the country of Mexico, just south of our border. This is back in the 1860s. This was all part of a greater plan to create a Roman Catholic empire from Mexico up through the United States, including Texas, California, and potentially all the way up to Canada. All right, this was the plan.

So what they did was they literally had the French army invade Mexico to take it over. Now the original plan was they were going to get control of Mexico, and then from Mexico send French troops up into the southern part of the U.S. to help the Confederacy defeat Lincoln and the Union. Now their purpose wasn’t really so much that they loved the Confederacy, although as we show in the film, the Pope was the only world leader to officially acknowledge Jefferson Davis as the president of the Confederate States of America. And we even show you the letter in the film. And this is all real history, but the purpose of it was to help the Confederacy. And yet all these Catholics involved in the Confederacy that a lot of people don’t know about today, but we go over that in the film, and to use the Confederacy really to defeat Lincoln, that was part of the plan, and from there, to really destroy the United States of America, that was their ambition. It wasn’t so much that they loved the Confederacy. They wanted to use it as an instrument to destroy the United States. That was their plan. And that’s what Emmett McLoughlin talks about here.

Also, we have quotes from General Thomas Mayley Harris, who was a Union general who served on the committee that investigated the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. We go over all of that with you. I mean, this is powerful information. Now, I’m not going to go over all of it on the program today, simply because I want you guys to be able to see it in the film and all the details.

But what actually happened was the French army invaded Mexico. They tried to conquer Mexico but were stopped short at the historic Battle of Puebla in 1862, the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. The Mexican army to everyone’s surprise, actually defeated the French army that invaded. And this is the reason why every year you have the celebration Cinco de Mayo. A lot of people don’t know that, but that’s the reason Cinco de Mayo is celebrated the 5th of May, because of the defeat of the French army that invaded Mexico.

Now, what happens is afterward they have a temporary victory. They stopped them short. But what happened was they delayed the French by about a year. And so that prevented France and the Pope from getting military aid to the Confederacy to help them fight the North. This is part of, I mean, if you go and you start looking this up online, you find historians who speculate what would have happened if the Mexicans had lost and the French army had continued. Could that have turned the tide of the Civil War? That’s a question people ask anyway. But that didn’t happen. They were defeated at the Battle of Puebla.

They came back later on and won at the second Battle of Puebla. And then they took Mexico City and they installed their emperor Maximilian I, this Austrian guy. Because they wanted this to be a European monarchy in Mexico that would then stretch up into the rest of North America. But this was a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine from James Monroe was to the powers of Europe – “Don’t try to colonize in North America.” Remember, we had had a number of wars. We had the French and Indian War. We fought the Spanish. Then of course we fought England. So we’d already fought European powers over this territory, and claimed it, and basically said to the powers of Europe, “Look, this is the United States. This is our country. It’s our territory. Keep out! You can come here and visit and send some tourists, but don’t try to colonize here.”

Now, what’s happening is 150 years later, according to Charles Chiniquy, who wrote two books, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, that’s where he describes the assassination of Lincoln, along with his life as a Catholic priest and so on, then he wrote another book afterward called Forty Years in the Church of Christ. In that book, this is where he goes into more detail about the attempt to invade America through Mexico. And the purpose is to destroy the United States of America, that’s the purpose, it is really to destroy our republic. Because they hate the idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That is what they hate. I believe they also hate the fact that when Samuel Adams signed the Declaration of Independence, he said, I trust from this day forward, the reign of political Protestantism shall commence. Because they know that our government is based on the principles of Protestantism. And so that just doesn’t sit well with the powers in Rome.

Now Chiniquy in his writings then goes on to warn that there was a meeting of Catholic bishops who basically came up with Plan B. The French invasion didn’t work, so Plan B is to flood our country with Catholic immigrants and send them into the major cities primarily. And then from there to get control of the country eventually. And really for the last hundred years and more, that is what Rome has been trying to do. And that’s what she’s been doing. That’s why so many Catholic immigrants came from Ireland back in the late 19th century. And then into the 20th century, you had so many that were coming in through New York and so on.

Now I have to be honest, I have to make full disclosure here. My father’s side of the family, my grandfather came into this country who was Catholic, came from a Catholic background, came from Sicily in the early part of the 20th century.

(Webmaster: Both my Catholic grandparents came from Poland in the early part of the 20th century. My grandmother was an illegal immigrant for 50 years! :-))

So yes, my father’s family were Catholic immigrants from Sicily, and then my grandmother was from Italy, her family. So yes, half my family are Catholic immigrants. So we have nothing against Catholic immigrants, but of course, they came here, they obeyed the laws, and they respected our Constitution Republic. My father served in the US military for 23 years in the US army, as I’ve told you guys before.

Now on my mother’s side of the family, I’ve talked about my grandfather Ziggy, Zigman Zadarowski. He was our adopted grandfather, he had come from Poland, and he was also Catholic. My biological family on my mother’s side was the Bowens, my grandfather’s last name was Bowen, and my grandmother’s maiden name was Pullen. So the Bowens and the Pullens actually came from England and Wales back in either the 1700s, I’ve traced them back that far, possibly earlier, but at least by the 1700s we had family members that served during the time of the American Revolution. But again, they came over from Wales and from England, Northern England, from what I understand, the Pullens. But anyway, I’ve never gone and gotten all the details on that, I’ve just kind of seen an overview of the history of those family names.

But anyway, so I have Catholic immigrants in my family. I don’t think anybody is really against Catholic immigrants. Nobody’s against legal immigrants coming into the country. The problem is the massive flood of illegal immigrants that are being brought in deliberately by the Jesuit Joe Biden and by the Jesuit (Alejandro) Mayorkas. Mayorkas who’s been impeached now, thankfully, is a Jesuit through and through. You research that guy, he’s a Jesuit. And he is doing this on behalf of Rome. There is no question about it. This is all part of the Vatican’s agenda that goes back 100 years, more than 100 years.

There have been a few people like Steve Bannon in at least one interview, even though Steve Bannon is Catholic, he’s confronted the Catholic hierarchy because he knows that they are behind a lot of this illegal immigration.

Now, what I want to do is play some audio. This is from EWTN, the Catholic channel. And they interview the Catholic Bishop, Bishop Mark Seitz, S E I T Z, who I believe is a Jesuit. He’s not a Jesuit priest, but you find him being interviewed on the AMDG podcast, Breaking Bread and Borders with Bishop Mark Seitz on the Jesuit border podcast. Okay. So at Jesuits.org, breaking bread and borders. Just think of how bold they are. “Oh, we’re just breaking the border.” And they have a picture of Bishop Seitz wearing a rainbow scarf around his neck, which kind of gives you, although it, I guess could look like it’s Mexican. Maybe that’s it. But definitely pro-Mexico, pro-illegal immigrant. And you’re going to from this interview, you’re going to hear them because there’s a Catholic host, a woman, and then this Catholic Bishop openly declaring that they believe they have a right to bring illegal immigrants into our country because that’s what the Pope says they can do.

Here it is. Listen.

Lady interviewer: Joining us now is Bishop Mark Seitz of the Diocese of El Paso, Texas, and the chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Migration. Your Excellency, thank you so much for your time today. We really appreciate it. The topic of migration certainly seems to be a hot topic in the United States and is even causing a divide. However, Catholic social teaching has been rather clear on its stance on the issue. Can you talk to us about that?

Bishop Mark Seitz: Yes. Well, thank you very much for having me. And you’re right. Catholic social teaching, of course, is just an elaboration of what we find in the gospel. As a matter of fact, for those who went to Mass today or read today’s gospel reading, we have a pretty good example of Jesus’ teaching. The question comes to Jesus, who is my neighbor? And then he gives the parable of the good Samaritan. So that is the basis for everything we do. As Catholic Christians, we try to set aside some of our own, you know, inbuilt kind of fears of the person that we don’t know so that we can do what Jesus has called us to do. And we find that when we take the risk, if you will, and follow him, very often there are great blessings in that experience.

Lady interviewer: Yeah, and Saint Pope John Paul II said that we should defend against, you know, the unjust restriction of migration and give attention to the rights of migrants, even those doing so illegally. That being said, how do we adhere to that? When the volume of migrants and their needs really seem to be stretching many cities thin, we heard from Eric Adams in New York and then also the mayor of your city in El Paso recently said that they’ve reached the breaking point. So how do we find a balance?

Bishop Mark Seitz: Well, we have to do things smart, right? We’re not going to serve people well if we’re not really trying to think about big-picture issues and trying to adapt the flow in such a way that we can do it in an orderly manner, and that people can go to places that have expressed a real need for people to help them in various jobs that are going on. We’ve been simply sending people to places like New York that have, as they say, reached their capacity and not thinking about how we might help migrants find places where in fact they will have a better reception and opportunity to work and to live, which is all that you really, really want.

(End of the audio interview with Mark Seitz.)

Okay, so you heard what I consider to be Jesuitical sophistry from both the Catholic reporter who’s interviewing this bishop and the bishop himself. If you research this guy, you’ll see that even though he’s not apparently a member of the Jesuit order per se, there are videos where he’s closely associated with Jesuits online. There’s even one where he’s giving a presentation to Boston College, which is a Jesuit institution. So he has that association. And the Jesuits, of course, are right in the middle of this whole illegal immigration movement because this is the continuation of a program that the Vatican initiated over a hundred years ago to try and get control of the United States of America. That is what they are working to do. And now they are using this slow, steady immigration tactic, but somewhere here, once they got Joe Biden into the White House, they’ve just decided to open the floodgates and try and get as many people in here as possible.

Let’s address very quickly, and then I want to talk about this story with Governor Greg Abbott and the Constitution. Very quickly, the bishop’s claim about being a good Samaritan, and that supposedly the message of the good Samaritan. Noticed how everything is wrapped with, “Oh, we’re just promoting the gospel and the message of Jesus and being a good Samaritan. That’s why they’re bringing in illegal aliens into our country,” supposedly. There’s nothing in the parable of the good Samaritan that has anything to do with illegal immigration or the idea that the illegals who are really guilty of committing crimes are somehow or other in the position of the victim of the parable, who is a man. If you go to Luke chapter 10, that’s where we find the parable, in verse 30, we read,

A man went down from Jerusalem. What that is generally understood to mean is that he was Jewish. He was a Jewish man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. Jericho at that point, and for generations, was seen as a very treacherous area. If you read the commentaries on it, it was said to be a haunt of thieves and robbers and bandits and so on. That there were caves and there was kind of a rocky, rough terrain and wilderness around it. So it was a place where it was easy for bandits to hide and lie and wait for people traveling by. It was sometimes called, according to one commentary, the red or bloody land because of all the blood that was shed by robbers against innocent people passing through. So the person who’s being attacked by thieves is not a criminal. He’s not an illegal alien. He’s not breaking the law. There are no laws that he’s breaking. The people who are breaking the law are the bandits who attack him.

All right, so then verse 31:

Meaning that they just basically saw the guy and moved around him. Now the priest and the Levite are presumably Jewish, just like he is. So this is one of their fellow Jewish citizens who has been set upon by thieves, beaten up, and left for dead, and they’re seeing their fellow citizen, their fellow Jew there, and they refuse to help him. They just move on.

Verse 33,

And then the story goes on from there. So let’s just talk about the relationships here. You have a Jewish man traveling. He’s set upon by thieves and bandits and so on. They beat him, strip him, leave him for dead. Then two other Jewish citizens, one a priest, and another one a Levite, pass by him and they do nothing. They’re apathetic about what’s happened to him. And here a foreigner, a Samaritan, really, and the Samaritans were from the northern kingdom. This goes back to the division between the North and the South. After Solomon passed away, God had said he was going to give 10 parts of the kingdom to Jeroboam. They had a civil war. So Jeroboam took the north and Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, continued in the south, which was called, from that point Judah in the south, and then the north was called either Samaria or Israel.

And so the Samaritans now, what Jeroboam did was he set up the alternative temple, which was against God’s law. God punished him severely for it. And there they began worshiping the golden calves and they blended the worship of the golden calves, apparently with the worship of the Lord. And so they were seen as apostates with a corrupted faith. That’s why the Jews in Judah looked down upon the Samaritans.

So here’s what’s happening. You have a priest and Levite who know the law of God and they should know better than to abandon one of their own people. They should reach out and help this man, try to find a way to help him, but they don’t. They just passed by. So all the theology that they had was not such that they would reach out and help somebody who had been wrongly harmed by these bandits and their own countrymen at that. But a Samaritan had compassion on him and helped him.

Now this bishop is trying to suggest that the parable of the good Samaritans somehow or other applies to this situation of illegal immigration and that we as a country are supposed to just be taking tens of millions and millions and millions, an unending train of immigrants with cell phones and designer clothing who are supposedly the equivalent of this Jewish man who was set upon by thieves. Now, I’m going to argue that there’s nothing to support what the Catholic Church is and the Catholic hierarchy is arguing about illegal immigration, nothing in the story of the good Samaritan.

That’s actually quite the opposite because the bandits are these illegals who are coming into our country. They’re coming and they are basically robbing the resources of the American people, which they are not entitled to. And they’re going into neighborhoods, they’re going into towns and cities and so on, and they are committing many, many crimes against the American people.

It’s the American people who are in the position of the guy set upon by thieves. They’re the ones who are being raped, robbed, murdered, killed in these vehicular homicide situations. They’re the ones who are being victimized by these illegal bandits that are being brought in. And what’s happening? What are their fellow countrymen doing? When Americans are suffering at the hands of these criminal bandits that are coming in, how do their fellow Americans respond? Do they respond in a charitable manner? No, not at all.

You look at how people have suffered, how the families and the victims of these illegal aliens have suffered, how do all of our leaders, how do the Democrat leaders treat them? Just like the Levite and the priests, they walk right past them. They could care less. Your loved one was killed by an illegal alien. Well, who cares? They just walk right by. You were victimized by the illegals? We’re not interested. Doesn’t matter. We don’t care. They don’t care about anything.

Even the news media pays very little attention to the thousands and thousands of U.S. citizens, tens of thousands of U.S. citizens who have been victimized by illegal immigration into our country. So the news media pays no attention to it. They put all of their focus on the bandits, on the illegals, the criminals who are breaking the law.

And let’s bear in mind, border laws are not some strange, unusual law that America came up with. Every nation on the earth has border laws. It’s part of the common laws of all the nations of the earth. It’s a common law issue. So the story of the Good Samaritan really does not support in any way what these bishops are telling us, not at all.

But you can hear all the stuff about Catholic social teaching, really social justice or socialism. We have a whole section in the new film where we’re going to show you right from the word go, how the Jesuits and ultimately the Vatican developed social justice, socialism and communism back in the 19th century. And we show you the origins of it. We show you also that the association of Rome with communism and socialism is not something that is some new relationship. This goes back to the very beginning of it in the 19th century. And we show you one quote after another, after another from ministers and historians and researchers back in the 19th century who saw what was happening.

And I think it’s very, very important because people are acting today. They find out that Pope Francis is a communist and they’re all surprised. They’re shocked that he’s a communist. They find America magazine promoting communism, the Jesuit magazine, and they’re shocked. And the only reason anybody’s shocked, the only people who are shocked are people who don’t know history. If you know the history, then you know that that is simply all part of Rome’s agenda that goes back more than 150 years where communism is concerned.

So let’s look at this post from Governor Greg Abbott in Texas. Governor Abbott. I keep hearing mixed reviews on Governor Abbott. Some people say he’s, he’s ultimately going to support the World Economic Forum. Other people say, no, he’s a patriot who’s pushing back against the flood of illegals coming through Texas.

So here’s a post on Twitter or X rather that says it’s by Greg Abbott. He says Texas has the constitutional right to defend itself from invasion. What Texas is doing is exactly what James Madison said would be protected by the Constitution.

“One of the most crucial rights granted in the US Constitution is a state’s ability to secure its own border. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, emphasized that article one, section 10, clause three would allow Virginia state militia, ‘to be called forth to suppress smugglers who had endangered their state.'”

Smugglers are basically illegals. They smuggle stuff into your territory. And of course, the drug smugglers, that’s what they’re doing. They are smuggling drugs. They’re also smuggling people with human trafficking. I think that fits perfectly the situation they’re dealing with. And we could even argue that the Democratic Party is smuggling illegal voters into our country by bringing them in because they don’t just want to bring them in. They want to bring them in and give them the right to vote.

So, Governor Abbott’s post continues. He says, quote,

“Those smugglers were bringing contraband into the state and threatened the sovereignty of Virginia’s borders. Madison knew that states must have the means to defend themselves. John Marshall reinforced this right held by states. He too was an important advocate for ratifying the Constitution and later a Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. Marshall explained that Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary to respond to an invasion or imminent danger. Today, Texas faces a similar but starker threat than Virginia smugglers with Mexican drug cartels that operate as paramilitary forces on our border. The criminal smuggling activity faced by Texas far exceeds Madison’s criteria for use of a state militia.

We completely agree with that. He finally says, quote,

We will continue to build barriers that deny illegal entry into our state, arrest immigrants that cross illegally and fulfill our duty to secure our border.

I have always liked Governor Greg Abbott. I hear that he has these globalist leanings, which I hope is not true. But even if it is true, what he’s doing right now, if he’s protecting the border now, I think Americans should support him now. I mean, really, what else can you do? Hopefully, somebody’s going to find a way to turn this whole thing around.

If perhaps Trump gets elected, if we can get a fair and legal honest election, that I think Trump will be elected overwhelmingly against Joe Biden, despite what the naysayers are saying. I think he’s going to get a huge majority. All they’ve done by attacking him is to show that the globalists and the Deep State in Washington consider Trump to be a threat.

I still don’t think that four years, another four-year Trump administration is not going to solve all the problems of our country any more than the first four years did. That’s my opinion. But I’d rather have Trump in there than somebody like Biden, at least a Trump administration will, I think, slow down the radical left progression in our country and hopefully prevent us from going over the cliff into full-blown socialism and communism. Although right now you’ve got people arguing that we already live in a communist country based upon how the courts are operating, based upon how the Deep State and the government and everything else is operating, some people argue that we are full-blown communism. Now, I don’t agree with that. The reason I don’t agree with it is, if the communists had complete control, they would not be pushing for further destabilization. You see, once they get complete control, they don’t destabilize everything anymore. They crack down and they demand law and order and everybody has to be obedient.

So if they were fully in control of the country, they would not be allowing this open borders situation. The reason they’re doing it is because they need more destabilization. They need to build up a foreign population in our country to counter constitutional Americans who believe in our heritage, our history, and our faith. In order to overturn our culture and our history, they need to bring in foreigners who cannot relate to that history and then teach an alternative history to them. That’s, I believe, where they’re headed with all of this.

I just want to follow up once more on the new film on American Jesuits. And we just hope and pray that this film will be a blessing to many people, and also be a warning to the American church about having a relationship with Rome. And we hope, hearken to the warning of Scripture, which is come out of her, my people, lest you be partaker of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues.

I would argue that America’s joining hands with popery after World War II has everything to do with the many of the problems that we’re suffering in our country. The problems of the Deep State, the problems of illegal immigration, you can trace these things directly to Rome. But we’ll talk more about that as things move forward. In the meantime, we trust the Lord one day at a time. We believe Bible prophecy is being fulfilled. And that’s always good news because it demonstrates to us that the Word of God is true, which we believe, praise God. All right, brethren, that is going to do it for us today. That is our show. We’ll stop it there. But we will be back next time as the Lord leads us. Until then, God bless you guys. I’m Chris Pinto and you’ve been listening to Noise of Thunder Radio.

Listen to the audio!

By WALTER A. LIMBRICK, F. R. HIST. S., LONDON, ENGLAND.

This is from the July 1920 edition of The Convert Catholic Magazine.

“Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.”— Luke 23: 43.

Beyond all question the Christian religion is supremely important in connection with the subject of Death. The universality | of the fear of death makes it so. Death to the unconverted man is a terror.

Death subjects man to an ordeal through which countless millions have passed, but which none can explain. No wonder that nature trembles before it. Reason justifies the fear; religion never makes light of it; and he who does, instead of ranking with heroes, can hardly deserve to rank with a brute.

It teaches us that a believer’s death is the departure from defiling corruptions into perfect purity; from heart-sinking sorrows into perfect joy; from entangling persecutions into everlasting freedom ; from distressing persecutions into full rest; from pinching wants into universal supplies; from distracting fears into highest security; from deluding shadows into substantial good. If this be, as it must assuredly be, the message of Christ to our hearts as we stand by the open grave, how serious a thing it is for any religious system calling itself Christian to oppose such a precious truth. And yet this is precisely what the Church of Rome does. She claims to be exclusively the one true Church of Christ, and advances as a doctrine to be held on peril of everlasting damnation the entry of the righteous at death into a flaming Purgatory. She indefinitely delays the entrance of the believer into the joys of Paradise, and makes merchandise of the miseries which she alleges the believer is enduring.

Let us look at this doctrine of Purgatory in its origin and development.

1—Purgatory is a Pagan, and Not a Christian, Conception.

You will search in vain for anything like it in the Scriptures, or in the primitive writers of Christianity. For the origin of horrors of Purgatory the pages of heathen poets like Virgil must be consulted. In their imaginings-of the life after death you will find the miseries of those who pass hence fully in accordance with medieval Roman teaching. Like so many of the doctrines and practices that are peculiar to the Roman Church, Purgatory finds its source in the darkness of heathendom and in that vain effort to “make merit” which is common to the religions of Pagan and Papal Rome.

2—Purgatory Was Developed as a Doctrine and Promulgated in the Middle Ages, and Not in the Days of Primitive Purity.

This tenet finds no advocate among the early Christian writers. Its first cautious sponsor is said to be Pope Gregory, whose Pontificate closed the sixth century of the Roman Church’s history; although it should be added that there is some doubt as to whether the work in which the doctrine is advanced is really his. As we advance farther into the spiritual night of the Dark Ages, so the old idea of giving thanks to God for the bright example of brave Christians, was the primitive practice, is left behind, and prayers for the dead are substituted. At last the belief in such prayers was everywhere held, and its inevitable corollary, Purgatory, was officially taught.

Here is the formal language of the Creed of Pius IV.: “I constantly believe that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls confined therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.”

And here are some further words which have the seal of the Roman Church on them: “There is a purgatorial fire, tormented in which the souls of the pious make expiation for a certain period, that an entrance may be opened for them into that eternal country where nothing that defileth can enter.”

3—And for Whom is This Place of Torment Intended?

Does the Roman Church offer, as many foolishly suppose, a “second chance” to those who are careless about their spiritual state here? By no means. For the Romanist who dies “in mortal sin” there is no hope. For the Protestant who refuses to submit to the Roman Church there is nothing but eternal hell. Purgatory is not for such. It is, as you have seen from what I have said, for “the souls of the pious.” It always seems to me a ghastly caricature of Christianity that confronts one on entering a Roman Catholic Church. “Of your charity,” the notices run, “pray for the soul of” such a person, it may be a Pope or a cardinal, or a priest, or the superior of a convent, who died fortified by the last rites of the Church. Purgatory is, you see, for good Romanists, not for the unconverted or the wicked. At the dying bed of the poor Romanist the priest attends with his holy oils, his prayers, his last absolutions; there is much ritual and ceremonial.

But what a mockery it all appears when one remembers that its utmost value is to set the departing soul on its way to terrors which are, so a great Roman theologian asserts, as awful as hell, only not eternal! I will not detain you by examining the few texts in the Old and New Testaments upon which this dogma is said to rest. It is-sufficient to say that they have no real bearing upon the matter of the state of the departed, and the more serious and learned of Roman Catholic controversialists have abandoned them as proofs. Nor does the apocryphal passage from the 2d Maccabees help the Roman Church. Indeed, it cuts clean against her teaching, for the persons on whose behalf she asserts (as I think wrongly) that Judas Maccabeus prayed for died in mortal sin, the sin of idolatry.

This is from the June 1920 edition of The Convert Catholic Magazine.

When I was a kid and saw little Protestant churches in my largely Catholic Chicago neighborhood, I used to look down at them thinking how much greater and unified the Catholic Church is. After I got saved, I sought out and fellowshipped with members of all the different non-Catholic churches I could find. I wanted to see how they differ from each other. I learned true Christian Church unity is solely in Jesus Christ and the Bible-based doctrine of the Gospel.

I like the insights in this article and am inspired to share it.

It is constantly urged by Roman Catholic priests that the Church of Rome has one faith, and one practice: We deny the former, while we partly admit the latter. The reverse is the case with Evangelical Protestantism; which in a great measure holds “one faith,” although its various churches differ from each other in their forms of government and public ordinances. It has considerable unity, though not uniformity.

Christian unity must be free. The congruity (points of agreement) of the Church of Rome is dependent on mental apathy.

If an order comes from the Vatican, that some new dogma is to be received by the masses, some novel ordinance to be practiced, or some additional forms and ceremonies to be observed, all must, at what time they hear “the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music,” (Please read Daniel 3 to understand this in context) immediately conform to the decrees that “Our Lord God the Pope” hath set up. No approval of the understanding is asked, no consent of the will is obtained. Implicit obedience is sternly required; and if it is withheld—anathematizes it. The new decree or canon may be in flat contradiction to a former one, but no questions upon the subject are allowed, no freedom of opinion is permitted.

The dogmatic authority of the Church of Rome produces the uniformity of an inert, listless, involuntary mass of mind, which will not think because it dares not differ. Here is no union of soul. It is the fellowship of a gang of convicts, who conform to the rules imposed upon them with sullen apathy. It is the uniformity of the dead, who are moved about by others offering no resistance. How different is this forced sameness of appearance from the agreement of an active and vigorous company, all bent on pursuit, though not taking the same way to accomplish their common object! The minds of men cannot be dulled like the instincts of brute creatures. The compulsory uniformity of Romanism either deprives its votaries of all conscience in matters of religion, or makes them put on a mask of hypocrisy, which tends ultimately to drive them into infidelity. If minds are to expand, they must have free play. Rome has persecuted her best philosophers, fearing the development of the human faculties.

It is not the object of this editorial to enumerate the schisms which have taken place in the Church of Rome, the conflicting decrees of different councils, and the changes that they have made in the articles of faith and practice; the oppositions of contemporary Popes and Councils, their mutual anathemas, and the bloody wars that they waged; the rise of hostile sects and orders of monks, differing in creed and manners, hating each other, and engaging in bitter controversies; or that detestation of the priesthood which has frequently pervaded a great mass of the people, so that only some political reason, or the presence of an armed force has kept them subject to a yoke under which they have groaned and writhed.

All these are matters of history: and the millions of men and women, including every age and rank, and episcopacy itself, who have been put to death, imprisoned, or banished for their alleged heresies, yield evident proof that Rome has been far from having unity in herself.

Rome has no cause to glory in her pretended unity. When weighed in the balances, it is found wanting. Even its claims to uniformity must be conceded with some limitations. It contains many elements of internal discord, and bears many marks of outward disagreement. It is uniform, however, in its arrogant claims of superiority, its intolerant spirit, its grasping covetousness, its despotic government, and the relentless cruelty with which it persecutes the true Church of Christ. It is uniform in its tyranny over the judgment and conscience of its adherents, and in repressing every free thought and noble aspiration of the human soul. It is uniform in trying to prolong the night of ignorance, to veil the mental sight by superstition, and shut out every gleam of spiritual light that would harbinger an approaching day of evangelical righteousness. It invariably opposes the spread of Divine truth, which would expose the falsity of its pretensions, the corruption of its manners, and the heavy chains with which it has succeeded in binding so many captive to the decrees of a soul-destroying power.

abomination /ə-bŏm″ə-nā′shən/
noun

1. Abhorrence; disgust.
2. A cause of abhorrence or disgust.
3. The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing.

This morning on Facebook I commented on a friend’s post who says, “The Abomination of Desolation is Jewish Temple Worship.” I took issue with that because they Bible doesn’t explicitly say so.

The phrase, “abomination of desolation” appears only twice in the Bible.

They are both referring to the same thing, the abominable Roman army desolating Jerusalem and the Second Temple. How do I know that? Because it’s a fulfillment of the latter parts of the prophecies of Daniel 9:26 and 27! Daniel 9:26 is the clearest:

And if that’s not clear enough for you what the Abomination of Desolation really means, the Gospel writer Luke makes it as clear as crystal in Luke 21:20!

Luke wrote his Gospel to the Greek Gentiles who did not read Daniel chapter 9. He interpreted for them the meaning of “abomination of desolation” as “Jerusalem compassed with armies,” the armies of Rome which were an abomination to the Jews! And what do armies do? Make desolation of every place they fight a war at.

This discussion inspired me to list all the verses in the Bible to see how the word “abomination” is used. In the KJV that word occurs 76 times in 69 verses in 54 chapters in 18 books. The plural of the word, “abominations,” is not included in this Bible study.

Abominations to the Egyptians

• Genesis 43:32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
• Genesis 46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
• Exodus 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?

It’s interesting to me that the first three times the word abomination is used, it’s something that was abominable about God’s people to the Egyptians. In the Bible Egypt is sometimes used as a metaphor for the world, the Establishment, the Powers that Be.

Abominations to you

• Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
• Leviticus 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
• Leviticus 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
• Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
• Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
• Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
• Leviticus 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.
• Leviticus 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

Abominations to God

• Leviticus 7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.
• Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
• Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
• Deuteronomy 7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
• Deuteronomy 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
• Deuteronomy 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
• Deuteronomy 17:1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
• Deuteronomy 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
• Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
• Deuteronomy 25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
• Deuteronomy 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
• 1 Kings 11:5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
• 1 Kings 11:7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
• 2 Kings 23:13 And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
• Proverbs 3:32 For the froward is abomination to the LORD: but his secret is with the righteous.
• Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
• Proverbs 8:7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
• Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.
• Proverbs 11:20 They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.
• Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
• Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
• Proverbs 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
• Proverbs 15:26 The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.
• Proverbs 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
• Proverbs 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
• Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.
• Proverbs 20:23 Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.
• Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?
• Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
• Isaiah 1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
• Isaiah 41:24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.
• Isaiah 44:19 And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
• Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
• Jeremiah 2:7 And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination.
• Jeremiah 6:15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
• Jeremiah 8:12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
• Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
• Ezekiel 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
• Ezekiel 18:12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,
• Ezekiel 22:11 And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour’s wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father’s daughter.
• Ezekiel 33:26 Ye stand upon your sword, ye work abomination, and ye defile every one his neighbour’s wife: and shall ye possess the land?
• Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
• Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
• Malachi 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
• Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
• Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Abomination to others

• 1 Samuel 13:4 And all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten a garrison of the Philistines, and that Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines. And the people were called together after Saul to Gilgal.
• Psalms 88:8 Thou hast put away mine acquaintance far from me; thou hast made me an abomination unto them: I am shut up, and I cannot come forth.
• Proverbs 13:19 The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but it is abomination to fools to depart from evil.
• Proverbs 16:12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness.
• Proverbs 24:9 The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.
• Proverbs 29:27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.
• Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
• Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judæa flee to the mountains: