It’s very interesting to me that Darwin’s theory of Evolution was embraced by scientists in the 19th century, but as science progressed, however, and more was learned about the human cell and its great number of components and chemical operations and the immense complexity of genetic code, scientists who are Bible-believing followers of Jesus Christ today have many reasons that show that Darwin’s evolution is not real science, it’s a mere popular belief that is accepted without evidence.

I once met a Japanese university professor with a doctorate in mathematics and told him I think numbers must be the language of God. He smiled at that. I asked him about the probability of life being created by chance. He told me the probability of chance is extremely low, but not zero. I think he might have changed his mind if I had shown him the following meme. Science today tells us the number of particles in the known universe are 10 to the 80th power, meaning a number with 80 zeros in it. Even that number is unimaginable let alone a number with 57,800 zeros in it!

I told the math professor about a scene in a film when a man asks a girl he likes what his chances are with her. “Are they one in a hundred?” He asks. “One in a million” she replied. He was elated to hear that and said, “You mean I have a chance?” LOL! I asked the professor, “Does he have a chance? “No” replied the professor, “not in real life.” But professor, we are talking about real life!

This is the continuation from Liberalism: Its Cause And Cure – Chapter Two Merger Mania

Chapter Three:
The Mainline Churches And Evolution

Although many people assume that the greatest change in theology developed in the last 25 years, the great divide actually opened up in the 19th century. One is tempted to find a single cause, whether it is a growing acceptance of evolution or the historical-critical study of the Bible. However, the influences cannot be completely separated. One influence feeds on another. Increasing doubts about the Bible in the 1870s led to increasing faith in science and the new technology. The devastation of the Civil War in America gave way to optimism about the progress of man. The United States began a period of economic and geographical expansion which did not abate until the reunification of Vietnam in l975.

In the last century, a gushy attitude toward science, combined with an optimism untainted by world war, caused intellectual leaders to embrace the theory of evolution with more enthusiasm and certainty than Charles Darwin displayed in proposing it. Although the theory of evolution had been put forward in various forms before Darwin, the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, based upon Darwin’s 1831 voyage on the Beagle, caused a sensation which continues to this day. Briefly, the theory of evolution assumes gradual and beneficial changes in organisms over a vast period of time. Some theorists claim that everything came about by chance and natural mechanisms, while others argue for some role by God in evolution.

The Social Gospel movement thrived in the same environment as evolution, promoting the same uncritical attitude about the potential of man and the same critical attitude toward the Scriptures. In some cases, evolutionary thought and Social Gospel enthusiasm coalesced. Washington Gladden (1836-1918), an early Social Gospel leader who ministered in Columbus, Ohio, popularized the new attitude toward the Bible in Who Wrote the Bible?, 1894. According to Richard Hofstadter, intellectual historian:

Some religious leaders resisted the new enthusiasm for evolution. J. B. Reimensnyder, a Lutheran seminary professor, wrote The Six Days of Creation; the Fall; and the Deluge in 1886. Reimensnyder declared in his preface:

Theodore Graebner (1876-1950), professor at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, published Essays on Evolution in 1925 in the wake of the sensational Scopes Monkey trial in Dayton, Tennessee, where teacher John Scopes went on trial for violating the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Law, was found guilty, but was fined only $100. Graebner wrote that the Associated Press, after the trial ended, falsely reported a Lutheran being excommunicated in Kendallville, Indiana, for growing hybrid gladioli, a violation of the divine plan. The excommunicated Lutheran was not a Lutheran, not a member of the church in question, and not a resident of the neighborhood for at least 18 years.³ Such were the passions kindled 65 years after the publication of The Origin of the Species.

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, known for theological leadership among the mainline denominations, prepared the way for Darwin’s acceptance in America. The 1869 appointment of Charles William Elliot, a chemist, as president of Harvard, marked the beginning of an emphasis on science and a new tolerance for unorthodox thought. At Yale, President Noah Porter accommodated himself to evolution in 1877, impressed by the fossil collection of Yale Professor Marsh at the campus’s Peabody Museum. At Princeton, President James McCosh gave a qualified endorsement of Darwinism already in 1871, long before the Fundamentalist controversy of the 1920s.⁴

Thomas Huxley, called “Darwin’s Bulldog,” was invited to address the 1876 opening of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, an institution that has remained in the forefront of scientific research. The British scientist found himself lionized by the American press but lambasted by the clergy. Clearly, evolution was the newest trend of the new scientific age, with a vast and continuing influence on American thought. Henry Adams wrote about himself in the aftermath of the Civil War:

Many found it easy to identify evolution with the best and brightest in America, the promise of tomorrow, while connecting creation with the oppressive and stultifying forces of the past.

Henry Ward Beecher and his successor, Lyman Abbott, supported evolution. Both exerted considerable influence upon American thought. Beecher called himself a “cordial Christian evolutionist.”⁶ Abbott wrote The Theology of an Evolutionist in 1897. The “scientific” study of the Bible was embraced by a growing body of European professors, who trained many of the leading American theology professors, like Walter Rauschenbusch. The Industrial Revolution, unleashed by the new technology, built up a record of gross abuses of human rights in that century. Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer provided a philosophy which appealed not only to the wealthy, but also to social reformers and to Karl Marx.

Thus, the mainline attitude toward evolution and Genesis was determined already in the 19th century. The Social Gospel movement grew and spread during the last decades of the 19th century, closely allied with liberal, optimistic theology and the new biblical criticism from Europe. By 1900 Yale Divinity School was teaching the historical-critical method. It was very appealing, in the name of scientific study of the Bible, to think that Genesis was the work of several inconsistent authors, that the mighty acts of God were in fact myths conveying universal truths.

Leaders of the Social Gospel movement were Washington Gladden (“O Master, Let Me Walk with Thee”), Frank Mason North (“Where Cross the Crowded Ways of Life”), Harry Emerson Fosdick, and Walter Rauschenbusch (A Theology for the Social Gospel, 1917). North helped write the Social Creed of the Methodist Church, 1908.

The Federal Council of Churches was formed as the institutional wing of the Social Gospel movement and used virtually the same creed. The National Council of Churches is a direct descendant of the Federal Council. Rauschenbusch had the greatest impact in the group both as writer and teacher, with phenomenal popular success during his lifetime and continued appeal thereafter. The Social Gospel movement spread through the dedicated work of The Brotherhood of the Kingdom, an elite group which met year after year to promote a revolution in the church.⁷

The new theology of that era is easy to describe, even easier to learn. Nothing divine in the Bible can be taken at face value. All the miracles have natural explanations, including the virgin birth of Christ. Jesus was simply an outstanding rabbi who taught the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood of God. Somehow Paul and the others imagined that Jesus was the Son of God and in all good faith invented appropriate myths about him. The real truth of Christianity, they argued, was that men should bring about the Kingdom of God (a key term for all Social Gospel leaders) through social reforms: child labor legislation, laws to legalize unions, old age pensions, pure food and drug regulation, and peace agreements.

The old doctrinal terms were maintained, but the meaning of those terms was distorted to convey the substance of liberal, man- centered optimism. Rauschenbusch’s Theology for the Social Gospel is an excellent example of this approach, similar in many respects to Adolph Harnack’s What is Christianity?, 1901.

Rauschenbusch penned these lines in Christianizing the Social Order, showing the same schoolboy enthusiasm for evolution as Henry Adams did in his autobiography:

One can hardly convey the childish enthusiasm with which these leaders greeted the newest insights of European scholars. They felt liberated, enlightened, propelled by inexorable Fate toward a man-made paradise. Mainline church leaders were joined by industrial giants in the New Faith. After reading Darwin and Spencer, Andrew Carnegie, the steel monopolist, intoned:

Looking at his old domain, Carnegie would now see the Rust Bowl, a symbol of the steel industry’s continuing endurance and progress.

Another person with enormous influence and bottomless pockets for exerting power was oil baron John D. Rockefeller. His efforts to create a liberal Protestant cartel through the Interchurch Movement collapsed in 1920, but the building still serves Social Gospel heirs as headquarters for the National Council of Churches and the American branch of the World Council of Churches, 475 Riverside Drive, New York City.

Rockefeller rescued Harry Emerson Fosdick from possible unemployment and installed him at the Rockefeller-funded Riverside Church in New York City. Fosdick published the famous article, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” in 1922 in Christian Century, leading to his position at Riverside Church. He was decidedly in favor of evolution.¹⁰ Considering the impact of Carnegie and Rockefeller funding, the leadership of Fosdick, Rauschenbusch, and their heirs, the marvel is that anyone in Christendom accepts the biblical account of creation as revealed in the Word of God.

The Catholic Church has been influenced through the paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., in The Phenomenon of Man, an evolutionist tract once banned by the Vatican. In 1895, Father John Zahm of Notre Dame wrote a book in favor of evolution, banned at the time by the Vatican. Etienne Gilson, a highly regarded Aquinas scholar, and Karl Rahner, a prolific author, have both made evolution more acceptable to Catholics. The New Baltimore Catechism allowed for theistic evolution, just as Protestant apologists allowed for biblical accounts subordinated to current theories. Teaching a modified form of evolution was allowed by the papal encyclical Humani generis, 1950. According to one evolutionist author, the effect of Rome’s stringent measures against modernism was “to delay the Church’s accommodation to evolutionary biology and biblical scholarship.”¹¹

When there are court cases about allowing the theory of evolution to be criticized in public school, the mainline churches file briefs along with the American Civil Liberties Union against the teaching of creation. Mainline church leaders do not consider opposing the biblical account of creation a matter of censorship but an issue of protecting innocent children from the imposition of religious views. For others, the Bible remains completely true, able to withstand the hammer blows of the most savage attacks. A Lutheran would rather stand on one Word of the Bible than join the world in attacking it.

Another Approach to Evolution

“Darwin” is carved over the west portal of Riverside Church, the symbol of mainline religion and the influence of the Social Gospel movement. For some believers, Darwin is the very symbol of the Antichrist, the source of everything evil in society today. In their zeal to defend the faith, they have often tried to portray Darwin as a poor scientist with no qualifications. Or they have shown how absurd the early statements about evolution appear to the average Christian of today, forgetting that equally foolish statements from Christians in the past do not constitute a devastating argument against the Word of God. If Darwin’s reputation were destroyed tomorrow, his influence would remain.

Many of us find ourselves in a peculiar situation today, able to see the basic flaws in evolution, but lacking the scientific training to examine closely the claims of science. As Dr. Paul Boehlke of Dr. Martin Luther College has written, if we place our trust in a particular proof of scriptural truth, such as Noah’s Ark, or the Shroud, or human footprints among dinosaur tracks, we will be devastated when the evidence evaporates. Using reason to assist the claims of the Word of God is clearly a Reformed approach to the Scriptures, one which threatens the gospel itself, even though the motives seem worthwhile.¹²

Furthermore, the typical layman or pastor cannot discuss evolution on the same level as a scientist with a Ph.D. and years of research, whose journals and textbooks assume evolution. A frontal attack might be met with such questions as this: “And where did you read this?” or “Have you earned a degree in biology, chemistry, or physics?” The authors who defend creation are not taken seriously by scientists, who may not wish to have their concept of reality challenged by a dabbler in the field. Many scientists understand such confrontations to be reminiscent of the Dark Ages, when teaching the earth to be the center of the universe was a measure of one’s orthodoxy. Galileo (1564-1642), they remember from History of Science 101, was forced by the Vatican to recant his theories, which were correct.

Darwin, Theologian and Scientist

The popular image of Charles Darwin as a fire-breathing revolutionary is hardly fair. He grew up well-to-do as the child of a physician, showing a great deal of interest in insects as a child. Medical school at Edinburgh did not hold his interest, so his father sent him to Cambridge to study theology. One religious television expert, who tried to claim that Darwin’s only formal training was in theology, evidently did not realize that the Cambridge student befriended two of the dominant men of science in Britain at the time, engaging them in long conversations. One can hardly fault Darwin as having lack of training in science or even as being prejudiced against creation. His professors belonged to the old which did not assume an antagonism between science and faith.

When Darwin left Cambridge, he still believed in the “strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible…”¹³

The effect of Darwin’s theory was a natural eroding of religious faith, since human reason made “natural causes” more appealing to the new scientific mind than the hand of God. Darwin’s wife touched upon the issue in a letter to him which still expresses today what many believers would say about evolution:

Darwin wrote at the end of this letter: “When I am dead, know that many times I have kissed and cried over this. C. D.”¹⁴

The Earthworm, Darwin’s Nemesis

Shortly after his voyage on the Beagle was over, Darwin began a study of earthworms which continued until 1881, when he published The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms With Observations on their Habits. Darwin died in 1882.

Darwin’s earthworm book is so thorough in its observations that no one has ventured to improve upon it.

The Earthworm Book stated:

Although Darwin neglected the application of his research for agriculture, his observations, combined with our new appreciation for the environment, point us toward the opposite conclusion of his first research. For that reason, the earthworm, the object of 44 years of observation, is Darwin’s nemesis.

Purpose

A scientist can observe, measure, and propose theories, but he cannot answer one basic question: that of purpose.

The beginning may fascinate everyone. How did this come about? But the ultimate question still revolves around purpose. We all know that the bee needs the blossom, and the blossom the bee. But why do they work together, toward what end?

If we look at the interdependence of nature, something we can observe in our own backyards, we can see a multitude of relationships, not only between one creature and another, but among all the creatures and plants together, along with the ever-changing elements of the weather and soil. While man-made businesses fail and powerful empires collapse, in spite of their power, energy, and efficiency, the natural world thrives without the wisdom of man, and suffers because of it. If one can envision an empire and build it, as did Alexander, Ghengis Khan, and Stalin, then one vast creative power must be the source of the organization of the natural world.

For some people, science is intimidating. They think of giant telescopes silently following the stars, taking measurements which only astrophysicists can discuss. They picture analytical chemistry labs, filled with mass spectrometers, gas chromatograms, electron microscopes, and nuclear reactors. They consider the light-speed calculations of computers and conclude, “I could never be a scientist.”

Not knowing how awesome science might become, Solomon wrote, through the Holy Spirit, on the basis of his backyard observations:

In the same way, we can look at one small corner of the universe and draw conclusions, without elaborate and expensive instruments, government grants, or graduate assistants. Our own backyards are a natural science laboratory.

Earthworms belong to the phylum of invertebrates known as Annelida, named for the rings of muscles (annellus, Latin for ring) which characterize them. The bristles that help propel earthworms through the soil earn them the title of Oligochaeta, or those bristle-footed worms with only a few bristles. Most earthworms belong to the genus Lumbricus and are called lumbricids. About 1800 species of earthworms are known to exist. The most common in the backyard are the nightcrawler (L. terrestris), the manure worm (Eisenia foetida), the red wiggler (L. rubellus), and the field worm (Allolobophora caliginosa). The Australians have a species of earthworm which is over four feet long.

The worm has been so much a symbol of lowliness that hymns stressing humility are called vermicular, from the Latin word for worm. The Bible calls man a worm in Job 25:6, and the Savior is compared to a worm in Psalm 22:6. But some hymns went too far:

First of all, the earthworm is a creature of the soil, tunneling through all varieties with the greatest of ease, a talent we take for granted until the benefits of this tunneling becomes more obvious to us. The earthworm is nothing more than a tiny hydraulic drill, using its hard, pointed prostomium to probe through soil, its mouth to swallow whatever cannot be pushed aside, its bristles and rings of muscles and intestinal pressure to worm its way through the toughest barriers. One woman put asphalt around her garage to promote drainage, only to find the tar riddled with worm holes, time after time.

The burrowing of the earthworm has a number of positive effects on the soil. The first and most obvious benefit is mixing the soil. Darwin has shown that earthworms bring soil up to the surface in their castings (excrement). All layers of soil are mixed gradually, though not completely. Many high-tech gardeners scoff at the tiny bit of soil moved by an earthworm in one day, about equal to its body weight. Unlike the gardener, though, the earthworm works continuously, without any tools, being careful to leave plants and delicate roots undisturbed The loosening effect promotes plant growth, because plants do not grow in soil but between soil particles. The most certain way to eliminate all plant growth is to walk on it daily. Soil compaction will quickly kill the roots. Footpaths are killing zones for earthworms and plant roots.

Compacted soil will not recover quickly, unless an organic covering is provided to entice earthworms back to that area. A layer of dead grass, leaves, or manure on a compacted footpath will promote earthworm activity, make the soil springy again, and promote growth.

Earthworms work in the upper twelve inches of the soil, where almost all plant life sends its roots. Even trees do most of their feeding in the top layer, called the rhizozone. Tunneling provides a number of other benefits worth considering, all essential to productive soil: aeration of the soil, infiltration of water, humification, and fertilization.

Soil without air is called a bog, noted for its bad smell and exotic plants. But unless one raises skunk cabbages, which grow only in a bog, unaerated soil is not desirable. The earthworm constantly opens up channels for air to penetrate the soil, encouraging healthy bacteria and molds to grow, promoting the constant decaying process which feeds all living things.

Infiltration of water increases as earthworms open up channels for water to penetrate. People with clay soil will see round worm holes dotting the surface. Earthworms decrease erosion by making the soil more sponge like. Instead of holding the water on the surface, the channels let the water percolate down rather than wash away with the finest and best soil particles. The more earthworms, the greater the rate of percolation. Clay soil supports a greater number of earthworms than sandy soil. Clay also needs the percolating effect of the tunnels.

The tunneling habits of earthworms improve the soil in two other ways mentioned above. First of all, worms pull organic material down into the tunnels for food. Secondly, they leave their castings in the tunnels and on the soil surface. Both habits, to be treated subsequently, add to the fertility and water retention of the soil. No gardener could improve so much soil with such meticulous care. God can and does renew the soil in time, but man in his haste to produce has often destroyed the virgin land which once produced so abundantly without him.

The earthworm excels in the arena of feeding. Not only is the feeding itself valuable, since it removes dead organic material from the surface of the soil, but the final product of feeding, the cast, is also valuable. The earthworm itself is little more than mouth, stomach, and intestine. Food, which can be soil or humus material (leaves, manure, dead grass), enters the earthworm through the prostomium at the anterior. In the pharynx, food starts to break down through mixing, moistening, and secretions (amylase, and from the calciferous glands, calcium carbonate). The calciferous glands seem to regulate pH for the earthworm, which cannot abide acid soil. The earthworms neutralize acid soil for their own benefit and thereby increase soil productivity. This liming or sweetening effect releases other soil chemicals for plants to use.¹⁷

The crop of the earthworm stores food until it is ground up in the muscular gizzard. Soil particles and very small bits of stone serve as abrasive material to grind up tough materials. In the process, soil particles and small stones are ground finer than before, as Darwin pointed out. Fine particles are easily lost through water and wind erosion, so they need to be replaced. Food leaves the gizzard and enters the intestine, which continues the digestive process. The earthworm excretes solid material castings from its anus and nitrogenous liquid through its nephridia (a simple form of kidneys). Earthworm mucus adds nitrogen to the soil.

The end result of earthworm feeding makes the soil better, for a number of reasons. The earthworm is a “colloid mill,” a small chemical plant which produces an array of chemicals, and concentrates other chemicals in its castings, mucus, and nephridia excretions. It increases the bacterial count in the soil and breaks down humus material in its castings. Earthworms may seem insignificant, weighing only 1/30 of an ounce, but they are the most abundant, active, and beneficial of the higher soil creatures. Ants tunnel, aerate, and even humify the soil to a great degree; they are indeed the hardworking undertakers of the insect world, carrying off corpses in solemn processions. Still, earthworms are never harmful pests, as ants often are, and earthworms do not have the disgusting trait of protecting and caring for other pests (as ants do for aphids). Nor do earthworms get into the house.

The final benefit of the earthworm’s contribution is realized when the creature dies. The earthworm’s dry weight is 72% protein, which is largely nitrogen, an essential component of all plant life. According to Lawrence and Millar, 70% of worm protein is available to plants two weeks after the creature’s death. The slow release of nitrogen, advertised in commercial fertilizer, is the earthworm’s life and death, for free.

A British minister noted once that earthworms “are much addicted to venery,” so we can count on them to increase and multiply. They thrive in moist conditions, so spring and autumn rains boost their population. Lawns and gardens support a large population of earthworms, and the earthworms support a large population of robins, who thrive on worms.

Likewise, rabbits devour high nitrogen food, such as grass and clover, leaving copious droppings high in nitrogen, which feed the earthworm population, which promote the growth of high nitrogen plants, such as grass and clover.

Compost

If the earthworm alone seems to be a marvel of simple complexity, then the compost pile is a global corporation involving millions of clients. Once again, the earthworm plays a role. The compost pile is an ancient concept which was adapted by Sir Albert Howard for use in India, then imported to America through the influence of organic gardening methods. The compost pile (or pit) is made up of layers of soil and organic material. The piles are kept moist, shaded, and aerated. National Geographic offers an excellent photo expedition into “The Wild World of Compost,” by Cecil Johnson.¹⁸

This is how one compost pile progressed. Wire fencing was formed into a circle five feet in diameter in the shade of three trees. The base was bare soil, allowing easy access to earthworms, who rush in at the end to celebrate the finish of composting. Grass clippings, leaves, weeds, and soil were placed in layers in the pile, about four feet high. The wire fence allowed air to reach the pile. The pile was hosed down every week and stirred somewhat for several months. All extra weeds and grass clipping were added to the top. Some rabbit manure was also added.

Composting requires high nitrogen materials, grass as opposed to tree leaves, to create the first stage of the rotting process. Thermophilic or heat-loving bacteria act first, releasing heat as they attack organic material high in nitrogen. The temperature of the pile may reach 170 degrees Fahrenheit. Even a bag of grass clippings left alone will heat up. Earthworms would melt during this stage of decomposition, so they stay away.

When the pile cools down, many things happen at once. Fungus starts to form, attacking plant structures with their filaments. Bacteria continue to work, joined by the earthy-smelling actinomycetes in the soil. Millions and millions of springtails, a tiny insect, feed upon fungi and organic matter. Mites, millipedes, centipedes, and sowbugs join the corporate effort. The higher level creatures feed on the lower level creatures, the biomass teeming with life and death, reproduction and destruction. No matter where the pile is formed, if the raw materials are present, the decomposition team will arrive and reduce the pile to the basic elements needed by plant life, shrinking it in the process.

When the compost has been recycled through millions of creatures, the earthworm begins a steady trip to the top of the heap. Shunning heat and light, the earthworm will invade no pile before its time. As the most complex of the processing units, the earthworm requires that much of the work be done first. Some of the workers will gladly dine on earthworms, but the earthworms consume only the semi- rotted material, making it even more useful for plants.

Like any other creature when given ideal conditions, the earthworm will reproduce with wild abandon in the dark moistness of compost. The egg capsules they form as the result of their mating provide a fairly strong vehicle for even more earthworms when the compost is distributed. The pile of weeds, clippings, and garbage is converted into the richest form of soil, soil chemicals stabilized in the forms most usable to plants, unborn earthworms in egg capsules poised for work at the first rain.

The rotting process binds sandy soil together, loosens clay, and breaks down humus to be used again in a new crop. Compost holds water better than a sponge. Disease pathogens are killed by the various battles within the pile. John Greenleaf Whittier even wrote a poem about the sanitizing effect of the soil’s natural process.

The compost pile seems to be a banquet for the entire animal kingdom. Birds gather to snatch fat bugs and worms from the top of the pile. Moles burrow underneath to reach the riotous mass of earthworms working their way upward through the pile. Cats and hawks gather to dine on the birds. Rabbits nibble at the greens fed by the compost pile. The chickaree squirrel curses at everyone, angry and never tired of loudly displaying his ill humor.

To test the benefits of compost, the author dug a pit four feet deep, six feet long, and four feet wide. Truthfully, neighborhood children dug the pit, fueled by promises of all the ice cream they could hold. The pit was filled for the winter with newsprint, the Christmas tree, brush, garbage, grass clippings, manure, soil, and weeds. In the spring the area was planted with Silver Queen corn, Kentucky Wonder pole beans (which climbed up the corn stalks), and Atlantic Giant pumpkins. Gourds volunteered from the compost.

An agriculture expert from Dow Chemical, who loved to raise corn, visited the plot, to see whose Silver Queen was higher. His face filled with awe as he followed the green stalks up to the peak of the garage, which first hid them from his view. “Silver Queen is a short variety. It isn’t supposed to grow nine feet tall!” He expressed the fear or hope that the giant ears were overgrown and bad tasting, only to be disappointed. The corn brought its share of critters, from the birds looking for earthworms to the neighbors whose conversation gravitated consistently to the good old days when they grew sweet corn and ate it fresh. Since the earthworm and his friends did almost all the work, the garden easily fed the neighborhood, provided for Halloween, put gourds on many tables, and offered fresh beans for children to snack on.

Why?

People who have tried to organize an event with volunteers know how difficult it can be to find a group of people who will work together for a common purpose and accomplish a task successfully in a given amount of time. If the compost pile got attacked the way most human problems are solved, human life would not survive the ensuing chaos in nature. Not only is each creature uniquely suited to his role, but all living things work together toward improving the environment. No one is late. No one is too proud to do the most disgusting and lowly work. No one gets tired or bored. No one lords it over the rest, but all work together in humble servitude.

Since intelligent life has so much trouble getting through the routine tasks, the interdependence of all life, with man at the apex, forces the question of purpose. Our poor designs and flawed execution compel us to say of each and every creature, “I see the hand of the Creator in every aspect of nature.”

For the believer who confronts the unbelieving scientist, the solution is not in proving to him that the compost pile works better than the United Nations, but in asking him why it is so. The interdependence requires design rather than random chance, and the question of purpose transcends the normal scientific quest.

For the Believer

The Christian has only one miracle to grasp, one continuing wonder—that God became man. No one can explain the mystery, which is revealed through faith. That God’s own Son died on the cross for the sins of the world must be a part of the continuing wonder. The cross and God becoming man are the same theme, a unity which places in perspective all other wonders in the universe, each of which reflects the light of the Word Incarnate.

A Lutheran pastor, who could not believe that God created the world in six days, posed an enigma for himself. He believed the Bible is completely true, without any errors or contradictions. He accepted the Lutheran confessions as genuine interpretations of Scripture. Therefore, he had to believe that God became man, and what truth is more difficult to continue to hold in this age of man becoming god? Therefore, if God became man and lived among us, full of grace and truth, then what weakness did He once have, which prevented him from creating the universe in six days rather than six billion years? Or walking on water? Or changing water into wine? Or feeding us with his body and blood until the day of his coming?

Mainline Malaise

The catastrophic decline of the mainline churches has been preceded by a retreat from the revealed doctrine of creation. Mainline malaise did not begin with doubting the divinity of Christ but with qualifying the creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve. At first, already in the 19th century, Christian leaders who might be called conservative today started accommodating themselves to the theory of evolution. Their mistake was manifold. First of all, they chose a current mode of thought over an eternal truth in the interest of being part of the current trend. The science of each era soon becomes obsolete, even comical. Some remember being taught that the universe consisted of one galaxy, ours, and that we lived in the middle of it. Now thousands of galaxies are clearly recorded on photographic film. Larger telescopes changed astrophysics, but not the Word of God.

Another error of accommodation manifested itself years later. The spirit of trendiness replaced a “Christian evolution” with evolution itself, effectively denying purpose for man and the universe, giving aid and comfort to the Enemy by undermining all the doctrines of the Word of God.

The subtlest error of accommodation is still being practiced today, by those who believe they oppose compromise. By offering a reasonable explanation for revealed doctrine which transcends reason, something which even Darwin’s wife doubted possible, they are setting the stage for new accommodation. While it is a service to describe the chemical complexities of the bombardier beetle, believers are hardly served by scientists clamoring to prove an article of faith with physical evidence. This is the spirit of rationalism, a thirst which will not be sated by more brine.

Creation

The explanation for the First Article of the Creed in Luther’s Small Catechism is rather simple:

Luther was able to answer why this has taken place:

Rather than pontificate about the “god-like ability of the mind to refashion the world,” a popular concept in current self-help courses and cults, Luther taught the centrality of God’s mercy and love, not only in providing for us, but also in saving us. Our purpose is to love and serve, thank, praise, and obey him.

The spirit of enthusiasm has been with us from the beginning, ever since Adam and Eve trusted their feelings instead of the Word of God. That same spirit of enthusiasm permeates the leadership of mainline churches, who upon forsaking the genuine Redeemer, have pursued the goal of redeeming the world for themselves. The recent Lutheran Book of Worship even contains a prayer for each setting of Holy Communion where the people pledge themselves to the redemption of the world. The spirit of enthusiasm, therefore, is man- centered rather than God-centered. Evolution has fueled this unwarranted optimism, not only in the Social Gospel movement, but also in the social sciences which have been allies in activism: social work, psychology, and education.¹⁹

The results of evolutionary thought on our society can be found in every area of social concern, from the destruction of helpless unborn babies to the health and wealth messages of pseudo-Christian teachers. Thinking it odd and humiliating to “bend the knee, while we own the mystery,” man instead worships his own progress, his own goals, and his own body.

God reveals himself in nature only to a limited degree, showing his infinite power, architectural genius, and organizational skill.

Against the me-centered message favored by men, Paul placed the Christ-centered message of the gospel.

Because God has done all this for us, apart from any merit or virtue on our part, our thankfulness is expressed in deeds of kindness for our neighbor.

Such a message is quite the opposite in origin and purpose of the once popular self-help gospel: “Every day in every way I am getting better and better.”

Devolution

Darwin began his lifelong study of earthworms to understand how boulders and ancient buildings slowly disappeared beneath the level of the soil. He concluded his study with this statement: “It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organized creatures.”20 His study showed that all the monuments of man’s ingenuity, no matter how great, would inevitably be covered up by the relentless tunneling of worms, who add 1/4 inch of soil each year.

For those who have seen the power of God, whether in the fierce and glowing magma of the volcano or the tender love of the mother robin, the earthworm’s purpose is clearly part of God’s plan to care for us. The Christian life is often described most eloquently in great hymns:

But there is no Christian life without returning to the Author of Life, who guides and nourishes us with His Word and sacrament.

NOTES

1. Social Darwinism in American Thought, Boston: Beacon Press, 1955, pp. 14f.

2. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, p. iii.

3. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, p. 5.

4. Hofstadter, op. cit, p. 19.

5. Ibid, pp. 15f; citing The Education of Henry Adams, New York: Modern Library, 1931, pp. 225-6.

6. Ibid, p. 29.

7. Frederic M. Hudson, “The Reign of the New Humanity: A Study of the Background, History and Influence of the Brotherhood of the Kingdom.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1968.

8. Christianizing the Social Order, p. 9. Cited in: Hofstadter, op. cit. p.108.

9. Andrew Carnegie, Autobiography, Boston, 1920, quoted in Hofstadter, op. cit., p. 45.

10. Fosdick is listed as a modern-day prophet in the text of the Lutheran Church in America’s Word and Witness program. The author of the chapter, Philadelphia Seminary professor John Reumann, was on the Commission for a New Lutheran Church. A Seminex contribution to the debate over evolution is William A. Schmeling, Creation versus Evolution? NOT REALLY! St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1976.

11. John C. Green, Darwin and the Modern World View, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1961), p. 17. Darwinism and Divinity, ed. by John Durant; Basil Blackwell, London, 1985. A popular treatment of the scientific problems involved in evolution can be found in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Santee, California: Master Book Publishers, 1988.

12. Paul R. Boehlke, “The Bible and Science,” unpublished paper delivered at Concordia College, River Forest, Illinois, June, 1980. “The Nature and Teaching of Science in Lutheran Schools,” unpublished paper delivered at New Ulm, Minnesota, March, 1989.

13. F. Darwin, (1888) ed. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 3 vols., London: John Murray, I, p. 146. Cited in Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda: Adler and Adler, 1985, p. 25.

14. N. Barlow, (1958) Autobiography of Charles Darwin, London: Collins, pp. 235- 7; cited in Denton, op. cit., pp. 54f.

15. Jerry Minnich, The Earthworm Book, How to Raise and Use Earthworms for Your Farm and Garden, Emmaus: Rodale Press, 1977, p. 68.

16. W. G. Polack, The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1975, p. 121.

17. C. A. Edwards and J. R. Loty, Biology of Earthworms, Ontario, California: Bookworm Publishing, 1972.

18. Vol. 158, number 2, August, 1980, pp. 273-284.

19. Henry Morris, “The Influence of Evolution”, in The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963, pp. 13-28.

20. Charles Darwin, The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Ontario, California: Bookworm Publishing Company, 1976, p. 148.

Continued in Chapter Four: Charismatics Are Liberals

All chapters of Liberalism: Its Cause And Cure

This is the continuation of the introduction and chapter one of Liberalism: Its Cause And Cure – The Poisoning of American Christianity and the Antidote

Becoming Unitarian

Houdini, the famous magician, used to astound people by having himself locked in a safe and then escaping. From working at a factory that made safes, Houdini knew what the audience did not, that safes were weaker on the inside than on the outside. For the same reason, Christianity has withstood centuries of attack from the outside, growing stronger in the process. In the last century, however, the Christian faith has been attacked from within, by those who know where the weak places are. The attacks have come from self-described liberals who lead denominations and inter-denominational agencies, teach in church- owned colleges and seminaries, and serve as pastors in congregations. Liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all, but an anti-Christian cult, an alien philosophy at war with the Scriptures, operating through deceit, manipulating the hearts and minds of sincere believers who mistakenly finance the destructive programs of apostasy.

Apostasy describes our era better than liberalism does, for apostasy literally means a falling away from the truth a believer once confessed. Someone who never trusted in Christ could not be called an apostate. However, a person who formerly believed in Jesus as the Son of God and Savior but now rejects the divinity of Christ, spending his energy in undermining the faith of others—that person is an apostate. While the laity of the church may stop attending services while still believing, the clergy become even more involved in the Church after losing their faith. Luther wrote:

Apostasy is a sign of the end, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Timothy 3. Paul warned Timothy:

He also wrote:

The most recent religious scandals have alerted people to the fact that a turning away from the truth of the Word of God has indeed taken place, and that many scoffers of all varieties have murdered the souls of countless believers by taking away their trust in Christ as Savior.

Those who study cults find a common characteristic among them, that the most basic Christian doctrines are denied: hell, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the miracles, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the Trinity. Yet cults want to be called Christian and call themselves the only true manifestation of Christianity, even while denying the doctrines of the Bible. The Masonic Lodge is an 18th-century, anti- Christian cult. Although the Masons make use of some words from the Bible, and even claim to be Christian, no one can pray in the name of Christ in a Masonic Lodge, lest he be subject to discipline. Ordinary Masons (Shriners, Knights Templar, Rainbow Girls, DeMolay) are taught that they do not belong to a religion, but the Masonic experts present the lodge system as a religion and confess it as a religion. In brief, Masons are taught that they will enter the Celestial Lodge by being good Masons.

The Mormons or Latter-day Saints, considered a renegade branch of Masonry by the Masons themselves, for copying the rituals of the Lodge, are perhaps the fastest growing 20th-century cult.

Mormons teach that people become gods by being good Mormons. The Mormon temple rituals are much like Masonic rites, because their first leader, Joseph Smith, was a Masonic leader.²

In the same way, liberalism is a cult which borrows the terminology of the Christian faith in order to extend its influence and subvert the church. How badly has the Christian faith been distorted in the last century? Consider these examples:

1. A Lutheran visited his friend at a seminary in a major city, hoping to talk about Christ. The seminarian said, “[expletive deleted], I don’t know who Christ is!” The seminarian was later ordained. The Lutheran layman joined a Pentecostal group and became quite involved in world missionary activities.

2. A Presbyterian doubted the divinity of Christ and received approval for ordination. The same year, another candidate doubted the ordination of women and was turned down. Later, a Presbyterian minister was told to leave the ministry because he had expressed doubts about the ordination of women. He promised to be silent about the topic, but the church official said, “I can’t risk it.” The minister joined another denomination.

3. A Roman Catholic woman glowed about her brother-in-law’s work as a theologian at a Roman Catholic theology school. “He wrote that there’s nothing wrong with couples living together, since so many people are doing it now. And 10 per cent are homosexual. So it must be part of God’s plan. The cardinal asked my brother-in-law into his office. We thought he was in trouble. The cardinal said, ‘The trouble with you is that you are too honest.’ The cardinal gave him a big hug before he left and said, ‘Stay healthy.'”

4. A future Disciples of Christ minister said, “At our school, one third of the divinity students are Unitarian.” During the conversation she made an obscene remark about the virgin birth, denied the resurrection of Christ, and dismissed both doctrines as “unimportant.”

5. The hymnal committee for the United Methodist Church almost included “Strong Mother God” as an addition to its forthcoming hymnal. Feminists vowed to appeal the negative vote at the 1988 convention. An avalanche of phone calls prevented the hymnal committee from deleting “Onward Christian Soldiers” for being too warlike.

6. The president of the Southern Baptist Church tried to ask the seminary professors at Louisville, their largest school, what they believed. They refused, claiming academic freedom. Yet the Wall Street Journal, considered a somewhat conservative publication, covered the Southern Baptist conflict as if the advocates of inerrancy were conducting the Salem witch trials all over again.³

7. A minister of a “conservative” group said he would not transfer members to churches of the same denomination in town, because of their vast doctrinal differences.

8. A professor in the liturgy program at the University of Notre Dame, Niels Rasmussem O. P., was discovered dead in his home with a bullet in his heart. Police found equipment nearby used in sado-masochistic homosexual rituals (whips, handcuffs, leather articles). A note left by the deceased asked that no Christian burial rites be performed. William Storey, recently retired from the Notre Dame liturgy department, urged a police investigation of the case. Storey is a confessed atheist and homosexual. Notre Dame is the Vatican-approved center for teaching the theology of worship.⁴

Some people will react to such stories by saying, “These are only isolated instances, the worst possible examples anyone could dredge up.” That notion would be comforting, if reality did not disturb our hope- filled illusions. A mainline seminary student brought his textbook, required for his biblical studies class, to an adult Bible study class. The book, Understanding the New Testament, by liberal Howard Clark Kee, claims that John’s Gospel “insists that he was born in Nazareth rather than in Bethlehem (John 7:41-42) and that Joseph was his father (John 1:45).”⁵ Those who believe that television Christianity provides an alternative to liberal apostasy will find that the stars of media religion are deeply involved in the rankest false doctrine, from occultist imaging (Robert Schuller, Pat Robertson, Paul Y. Cho) to Mormon-like deification of the self (Jimmie Swaggart, Paul Crouch) and the prosperity gospel of Robert Tilton, Oral Roberts and many others.⁶

The irony of liberal Christianity is that a tiny group, the Unitarian- Universalist Association, has seen its un-Christianity overwhelm the mainline church bodies. The U-U’s, as they call themselves, do not need to start a lot of mission congregations or join the Church Growth Movement. The liberal church bodies have enthusiastically embraced the Unitarian-Universalist heresy.⁷

Some well-known Unitarians of the past include Susan B. Anthony, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Adlai Stevenson, Frank Lloyd Wright, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Schweitzer, and Linus Pauling. Unitarian U. S. presidents include: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft. Their total membership today is only 179,000 with slightly over 1,000 churches.⁸

A Little Unitarian History

In 1785, James Freeman, a liberal Harvard graduate, decided to improve the Book of Common Prayer, removing Trinitarian references. The church was King’s Chapel in Boston, the first Episcopalian congregation in America, also the first Unitarian meeting place. Apostasy, the turning away from the Christian faith, took only a liberal religious leader and an easygoing congregation. Of course, the Unitarian spirit was in the wind, blowing over from England and Poland. Even in the time of Luther, the Socinians (mentioned in the Augsburg Confession) were actively denying Christian doctrine.

Benjamin Franklin believed in a creator, in the immortality of the soul, and eternal life—enough to get him removed from the most prestigious theological faculties today for being a Fundamentalist. But Franklin was not a Christian believer and did not attend church on Sunday. His rational and moral approach to life blossomed in New England.

When two moderate Calvinists at Harvard died, in 1803 and 1804, Jedidiah Morse demanded publicly that orthodox men replace them. Instead, after a long battle, liberal professors replaced them. The acrimony which followed helped uncover latent Unitarianism, which is based on a rationalistic approach to the Bible, rejecting the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, his preexistence, the virgin birth, his miracles, his atoning death, and his resurrection.

Morse, a Yale graduate, could see what was blowing into New England through Harvard and set about creating Andover Divinity School as an orthodox antidote to Harvard. He continued his remorseless attack on liberalism by quoting an English Unitarian’s glowing account of apostasy in America. The “quiet and dignified” William E. Channing lamented this effort in an open letter where he used the term Unitarian. Like all liberals, Channing argued that his version of Christianity was the true faith.⁹

By 1819, Unitarianism was in full flower. The Unitarian congregations devolved from the Congregationalist parishes, influenced by their Harvard-trained pastors. Yale graduates like Moses Stuart, a Hebrew scholar, countered the Harvard menace, and Unitarianism was confined largely to the “Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man and the neighborhood of Boston,” as people have joked. Some Congregationalist parishes split over doctrinal issues. Others slowly became Unitarian by the gradual process of doctrinal laxity and corruption. The political process added congregations to the Unitarian association as well.

Park Street Church in Boston was organized as a counter to Unitarianism, to preserve the Christian faith and retain a conservative Protestant approach. The recently deceased Rev. Harold Ockenga served as pastor of Park Street, helped establish Christianity Today, Fuller Seminary, and the Billy Graham Crusades. Ockenga was a pioneer in promoting ecumenical Evangelicalism, emphasizing only the positive elements which united various confessions. This led eventually to the amalgamation of Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, and the liberalism one finds today in Christianity Today, the Billy Graham Crusade, and Fuller Seminary.

Stuart charged in 1819 that Unitarianism was simply a half-way house on the way to infidelity. The Unitarians, like their descendants in various denominational seminaries, were anxious to prove they believed in something.¹⁰ In 1853 they issued a florid statement affirming that God existed and that Jesus taught the truth, if we distinguish his genuine sayings from the rest of the New Testament.

Ralph Waldo Emerson unsettled Unitarian nerves when he addressed the Harvard Divinity graduating class in 1838, declaring a pantheism which found the biblical concept of miracle a “Monster.” Unitarians were still clinging to some notion of the divine, so the battle raged for decades. This was a foretaste of mainline church struggles, where similar appeals to the “cutting edge” of theology led to disintegration of doctrinal standards, in the midst of such misleading claims as this: “The Gospel means that God remains faithful even when we are not.” The reference to 2 Timothy 2:13 has been used by mainline ministers to support their infidelity, rather than the faithfulness of God. Whenever a liberal denomination slips another notch into apostasy, the older liberal leaders, who greased the skids by first proposing and defending looser doctrinal standards, lament loudly the growth of destructive trends. Retired bishops can be most critical of the consequences of their action or inaction.

The first stage of Unitarianism was the denial of the divinity of Christ. The second stage of decline was signaled by Emerson’s Harvard speech, confessing a pantheism which is only slightly removed from atheism. A pantheist believes that everything in the universe is god, rejecting the merciful, loving God of the Scriptures. The Unitarians were pioneers in the historical-critical method, an influence which spread to the mainline churches, as detailed in “Merry Widow Waltz.”

Unitarians have the highest percentage of women clergy, 22%. More than half of the Unitarian divinity students are women. “The church is also outspoken in its defense of gays and lesbians, openly embracing them as clergy.” Unitarian-Universalist minister Rev. Betty Doty said, “As a group, we do not accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.”

Modern biblical scholarship in the Unitarian confession produced the Secular Humanist movement, which is outright atheism. Carl Sagan won the Humanist of the Year Award for his “Cosmos” television series, which bristled with anti-Christian remarks. One founder of Secular Humanism, which has been recognized as a religion by the U. S. Supreme Court, was Curtis Reese, who had been ordained as a Southern Baptist minister. A laudatory biographical sketch states: “Impressed by the higher criticism of the Bible, which undermined his biblical faith, he evolved intellectually toward Unitarianism and eventually declared his change of faith in 1913. . . .”11

Charles Potter, another Baptist minister, was smoked out by colleagues, kicked out of his denomination, and turned Unitarian. John Dietrich, who was raised in a conservative Reformed group, served as a Reformed pastor until removed from the ministry of his denomination for heresy in 1911. He also became a Unitarian minister.

Reese declared that “the outstanding characteristic of modern liberals, and indeed of all modern thinking, is the evaluation of personality as the thing of supreme worth.”¹²

A Unitarian opponent of this unblemished atheism was William Sullivan, a former Roman Catholic priest who was booted out of the church for his fondness for modernism. In 1921 he led an unsuccessful “conservative” battle to get all Unitarians to declare they believed in God. Some of the most effective Unitarian leaders have been former pastors from Christian denominations. Times have changed. Now these men would no longer have to leave their denominations to give Unitarian sermons.

The first Humanist Manifesto was drafted by Roy Wood Sellars in 1932-33 and signed by three of the ex-ministers mentioned above: Reese, Potter, and Dietrich. Augustine was correct about the decline of doctrine, even among the Unitarians. First, false doctrine is tolerated. Then, false doctrine is given an equal voice. Finally, false doctrine dominates. Today the typical Unitarian minister is likely to be an atheist who views Channing and Emerson as crusty old conservatives.

The first Humanist Manifesto declared:

Some of the original signers of the Humanist Manifesto include Lester Mondale, the half-brother of Walter Mondale, the former vice- president of the United States, and John Dewey (1859-1952), the foremost influence in American education today.

The second Humanist Manifesto, 1973, elaborated the implied agenda of the earlier version. The updated version stated:

Signers of the second Manifesto include: sex experts Sol Gordon and Albert Ellis, authors John Ciardi and Isaac Asimov, Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner (pioneer of behavioral modification), abortion activist Allen F. Guttmacher, feminist Betty Friedan, and Rev. Joseph Fletcher, the Episcopalian author of Situation Ethics.

The Unitarians helped in forming the American Humanist Association, which maintains a separate existence today, publishing its own journal of theology, American Humanist.

Some people realize the dangers of Secular Humanism, but few consider the extent of its influence through the spread of the historical- critical method through merger.

Apostasy through Merger

The history of the mainline churches in this century has been a record of institutional mergers and cooperative efforts. Mergers have been sold to unsuspecting laity as great opportunities for saving money, increasing mission efforts, and working together more effectively. Instead, the result of all mainline mergers has been:

1) Doctrinal compromise,

2) Enormous expenditures of money,

3) A catastrophic loss of members and financial support,

4) Decades of bitter infighting among the merged factions.

Except for sex education, merger is the most oversold commodity in American life and the least effective in bringing about advertised results.

If mergers are so destructive to denominations, then why are they still being pursued with unrelenting zeal? The United Church of Christ is looking into merger with the Disciples of Christ. All the mainline groups are discussing union through the Consultation on Church Union. The real purpose of mainline merger is to absorb the assets of congregations, reduce confessional standards, and displace conservative leaders. All ecumenical endeavors serve to water down the scriptural basis for the church. Consider the results of these bridge-building efforts:

1. In Marxist-Christian dialogues, do the Marxists become more Christian, or do the Christians become more Marxist?

2. In Lutheran-Reformed talks, do the Lutherans convince the Calvinists about the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, or do the Reformed persuade the Lutherans to confuse the distinctions?

3. In Jewish-Christian discussions, do the Jews confess Jesus as the Messiah, or do the Christians admit that Judaism is sufficient without Christ?

Merger produces the same bitter fruit. When a somewhat more conservative denomination merges with a liberal group, the theology of the liberal group quickly dominates the new church body. The degenerative process is actually hastened by merger, since the obvious disparities of faith drive out the more conservative members and pastors, allowing the Left to whoop it up on their own.

When a denomination with property rights merges with another group where the congregation has no property rights, the effect of the merger is to take away property rights from the conservatives, not to restore rights to the liberal group. The more liberal the denomination, the more tyrannical the rules concerning the ownership of property. In addition, newer congregations have even fewer rights than the older churches established in more democratic times.

Unionism

Hardly anyone believes that a group of Christians would allow the destructive effects of a merger based upon losing property rights and giving up the inerrancy of Scripture, yet recent history shows how easily the worst can come about. Unionism is the best explanation for the development of destructive mergers. Unionism is the display of doctrinal unity through worship when agreement in faith does not exist. The term comes from the Prussian Church Union, 1830, which forced Lutheran and Reformed churches to unite with a common worship service without resolving major doctrinal differences, such as the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion and baptismal regeneration.

Confessions of faith must affirm the truths of Scripture but also reject false teaching. The Book of Concord clearly does both. However, the modern spirit of achieving institutional unity has degraded doctrinal clarity, not only among the mainline liberals, but also among the Evangelicals. Martin Reu, a seminary professor in the old American Lutheran Church, explained the problem of unionism:

In Lutheranism, the question of unionism has played a major role from the beginning. The first Lutheran church body in America, the General Synod, was founded to keep the congregations from joining with the Episcopalians. The Pennsylvania clergy reserved the right to withdraw from the General Synod, since they were thinking about merger with the Reformed. Later, when tensions grew between the revivalists on one side and the confessional Lutherans on the other side, the conservative General Council was formed in 1867 to bring about a confessional Lutheran church body in the East. By pulling out of the General Synod, the General Council deprived the General Synod of any resistance toward revivalism and the Social Gospel movement. Nevertheless, the General Council did not resolve some major doctrinal issues, such as pulpit and altar fellowship, the lodge, and the millennium.

When the General Synod and General Council reunited with the United Synod of the South, forming the United Lutheran Church in America in 1918, many doctrinal questions went unanswered. The inerrancy of Scripture was not an issue before the 1918 merger, but it soon became an issue for all Lutherans when the newly discovered historical-critical method began working into the seminaries. Liberal Lutherans continued to merge until the 1987 formation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, whose constitution avoids the clear doctrinal standards of the past, including the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

The doctrine of the mainline seminaries may be illustrated by selections from the dogmatics textbook which is used at all the seminaries of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Christian Dogmatics.¹⁶

ELCA Doctrines, Shared with Mainline Churches

THE TRINITY

THE INCARNATION, VIRGIN BIRTH, AND ASCENSION

THE MIRACLES

THE ATONEMENT

Commenting on the Braaten-Jenson volumes, which he highly recommended, one ELCA pastor, considered a conservative, said, “They are a little weak in Christology.”¹⁷

Merger Works

The greatest achievement of merger is in establishing the theology of the Unitarians. By making all things new, the denomination can eliminate troublesome confessional statements of the past, such as mischievous articles on the inerrancy of the Bible, the authority of previous confessions of faith, and fellowship principles. A new constitution can bypass such “outmoded” language and interject the philosophies of the Social Gospel, feminism, socialism, and the quota system. The new denomination can close down conservative pockets of resistance by fiat, erasing entire departments (the sober, diligent ones which built new congregations and engaged in some forms of modest evangelism) while funding new, “creative” efforts in institutional radicalism. Merger can also get rid of congregational constitutions which stipulate doctrinal standards for the minister and members.

Mainline Churches, Home Missions for the Unitarians

Visible Unitarians have fared poorly outside of New England, although they have been over-represented in positions of American leadership. However, Unitarians take great pride in the fact that the “green wood of Unitarianism has been grafted onto the old wood” of the mainline churches. F. E. Meyer noted: “As a liberal movement it has many spiritual brethren in the Reformed churches. As a result there are undoubtedly more Unitarians outside than inside the Unitarian fellowship.”¹⁸

Unitarian theology developed from an overemphasis on the fatherhood of God among the Congregationalists and the euphoria felt over the new scientific age. Advocacy for the Social Gospel movement, delight in the theory of evolution, negative criticism of the Bible, and doctrinal liberalism were overlapping movements which gathered force in a united attack upon the Christian faith. At Yale, the integrity and authority of the Old Testament were under attack in the closing decades of the 19th century. In the opening decades of the 20th century, the divinity of Christ was denied.

Roman Catholics saw a similar decline develop later, since the Vatican opposed modern biblical criticism until after World War II. Now the head of the theology department of Notre Dame, Richard McBrien, routinely denounces the pope on national television, the department exults in its radical feminism, and Notre Dame’s seminary teaches future priests that Jesus was a male chauvinist.

The Unitarian process has completely overtaken the mainline denominations. The change has been slow but insidious. Many older clergy maintained some aspects of traditional Christianity while embracing the fatuousness of liberalism. The authority of the Scriptures became undermined when church leaders said the Bible was infallible in its doctrines but not in reporting historical, scientific, and geographical facts. Infallibility lost its original meaning by the 1930s, so some writers started using inerrancy to re-assert the original intent of the term infallibility. Now liberal church leaders assert that inerrancy is a new term, invented in the 1930s. A little truth can be very misleading.

History is never very simple or neat, but this is how denominations have turned away from their confessional standards over a period of time. The National Council of Churches denominations have completed these steps. Others, like the Southern Baptists and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, are pulling in three directions at once (conservative, charismatic, and liberal/Unitarian). Denial of historic Christianity has followed these successive steps in each denomination:

1. Old Testament narratives are no longer accepted as entirely accurate: the six-day creation, the creation of Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, the flood, the exodus. Science professors in the church-owned colleges are allowed to teach evolution as factual, Genesis as poetical.

2. Certain aspects of the life of Christ are questioned, following the methods used to undermine the authority and unity of the Old Testament.

3. A lot of noise is made about getting at the actual truth of what Christ said and did, separating that imaginary body of truth from traditional Christian doctrine.

4. A leading theologian discovers that Christ really wanted us to believe in political activism, not in him as Lord and Savior. Seminarians are urged to turn their denomination around.

5. Denominational leaders support pastors and professors on the “cutting edge,” pleading with people to tolerate new ideas.

6. Anyone can question the central doctrines of the faith with impunity. If anything, apostates are rewarded and conservatives are punished in denominational promotions and perks.

7. Denominational funds are moved out of world missions and American missions, to fund political activism. Or the mission divisions retain the same names, but the work within them is changed from evangelism to radicalism, in the name of “reaching out with the gospel.” One church official said piously, “Not one boy in our boys’ home is a member of our church, so this institution is pure mission.”

8. More and more clergy speak about the prophetic role of the denomination and denigrate such things as evangelism, worship, prayer, and home visitation.

9. Women are ordained without serious consideration of scriptural injunctions and centuries of practice.

10. Those who question the ordination of women can no longer obtain approval for ordination.

11. The denomination uses its name and funds to support abortion on demand, doing its best to hide this from most members.

12. Suddenly, a homosexual lobby appears in the denomination.

13. Charismatics grow in number as people struggle to recapture the vitality of the past or turn from corpse-cold liberalism.

Gradualism

Gradualism works well in slowly desensitizing people to the total impact of pretend-Christianity. A congregation may have a pastor who teaches the inerrancy of the Bible for 30 years. When he retires, after years of ignoring what the denomination has been doing, the congregation finds itself with pastoral candidates who waffle about every doctrinal question, who use weasel words to baffle the audience. At this point, people will not easily abandon the church building they have used for many years, and the friends they have made. Worse, liberals in the congregation are supported by the denomination, and they unite behind the minister with a fuzzy theology. The congregation is divided. Ultimately, the crypto-Unitarians will win. The members most concerned about scriptural doctrine will join another congregation. Even if conservatives work together to install a conservative minister, the denomination will prevail in the future. Thus, the green wood of Unitarianism is grafted onto the old wood of the mainline denominations.

NOTES

1. What Luther Says, 8 vols., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, I, p. 39.

2.Theodore Graebner, The Lodge Examined by the Scriptures. Jack Harris, Freemasonry: The Invisible Cult in Our Midst, Towson, Maryland: Jack Harris, 1983. Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism, Ventura: Regal Books, 1978. Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985. James R. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, An Elder’s Story, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984. Books and videotapes on the Masonic Lodge are available from John Ankerberg, P.O. Box 8977, Chattanooga, TN 37411.

3.March 7,1988, page 1.

4.E. Michael Jones, “Requiem for a Liturgist: Endgame Dissent at Notre Dame,” Fidelity, January, 1988. Jones has also published Is Notre Dame Still Catholic?, which treats the anti-Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of Notre Dame and her sister school St. Mary’s. Jones was fired from St. Mary’s for being pro-life.

5.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1983, p. 150.

6.Michael Horton, ed., The Agony of Deceit, Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1990; cited in “Heresy on the Airwaves, A New Book Slams Televangelists for Doctrinal Errors,” by Richard N. Ostling, Time, March 5,1990, p. 62.

7.The Unitarians and Universalists merged in 1961 to form the UUA, acknowledging their common lack of faith. The Universalists have their own history up to 1961, but that story is not distinct enough to merit additional space here. One good way to remember the difference: the Unitarians taught that man was too good to be condemned to hell by God; the Universalists believed that God was too good to condemn man to hell. In either case, they neglected to check on what the Scriptures revealed. The Universalists tend to be more conservative on social issues than the Unitarians, so the Universalists might be included among those more conservative groups which have suffered from merger.

8.Debra Mason, “Unitarians Seek Bigger Role in U. S. Culture,” Columbus Dispatch, October 31, p. 11A.

9.Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of America, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Ahlstrom’s treatment of Unitarianism is rapturous.

10. The walkout of liberal Lutherans at Concordia Theological Seminary in St. Louis in 1974 was portrayed in apocalyptic terms by the press, who knew the liberal seminary president John Tietjen previously in his role as a public relations director for the Lutheran Council in the USA. What the media did not show was the return of the exiles for lunch, 20 minutes later, at the same school. Tietjen’s role in history was assured when he quit after one month as ELCA’s first Bishop of the Metro Chicago District.

11. David Robinson, The Unitarians and the Universalists, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985, p. 144. When a Christian becomes a Unitarian, the U-U’s call him a “come-outer,” which sounds better than “apostate.”

12. Ibid., p. 146.

13. James Hitchcock, What is Secular Humanism? Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1982, p. 11.

14. Ibid., p. 14.

15. M. Reu, In the Interest of Lutheran Unity, Two Lectures, Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1940, p. 20.

16. Carl Braaten, Robert Jenson, ed. Christian Dogmatics, 2 vols., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

17. The Religious Bodies of America, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954, pp. 505f.

18. E. Michael Jones, op, cit.

Continued in Chapter Three: The Mainline Churches And Evolution

All chapters of Liberalism: Its Cause And Cure

By Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.

Dedication and Thanks

The orthodox Christian faith is known to us because God used faithful servants, who suffered great hardships, to hand down His Word to our generation. Although many despise the Word and neglect the sacraments today, our greatest privilege is to transmit the truth of God, unalloyed, to the next generation, so that the Holy Spirit might preserve their faith in Christ, the Son of God, until they are united with us at his throne. Therefore, this book is dedicated to the next generation of children growing up in the Age of Apostasy.

I would like to thank Pastor Mark Ochsankehl for his constant help in preparing and editing my books for publishing on Lulu. Little would have been published without his initial work and final editing.

I encourage other Lutheran writers to put their best work on Lulu so others may view and learn from them. Blogs are fun, and I enjoy writing them, but the posts of today get buried and lost. Even the author has trouble finding them.

Introduction

This book began as an attempt to explain to the ordinary church member the corruption of the Christian faith. As Martin Chemnitz said in his Examination of the Council of Trent,” These are the last and mad times of a world grown old” (Part I, p 50). The typical church member does not understand how a minister could deny the virgin birth of Christ or explain away the meaning of the cross and yet remain a pastor. Nevertheless, the oldest denominations in America, commonly known as the mainline churches, are now dominated by religious leaders who have turned away from the faith they once confessed. The biblical term for turning away is apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:3), but this sign of the end is also known as modernism or liberalism. Lutheran apostasy is treated extensively in What’s Going Wrong Among the Lutherans?, a book which prompted many of the topics in this volume.

In order to appreciate why ministers are having prayer vigils to support abortion on demand or expressing solidarity for a pastor accused of sex abuse, one must study the history of American Christianity to discover how the wrong use of reason became a weapon of destruction against biblical faith.

The first chapter, “Decline of the Mainline Churches: the Merry Widow Waltz,” shows how attacking the inerrancy of the Bible became a fixation of the mainline church leaders. The second chapter, “Merger Mania: Becoming Unitarian,” discusses how the liberal interpretation of the Bible spread through the political process of denominational merger. Evolution has been used to argue for a new view of the Bible and morality, so the third chapter outlines the American Christian promotion of Darwin’s theory and a possible response from Darwin’s own research. Since conservative Christians often feel intimidated by logical tricks of well educated liberals, “Defending Morality” exposes the logical fallacies used to promote doubtful claims of truth. Many conservative Christians have turned to charismatic and Pentecostal groups for support, so they need to realize the close relationship between liberals and charismatics, the topic of chapter four.

“The Cure” offers the antidote to the poisoning of the Christian faith, the means of grace, as taught by the Bible, defended by the church fathers, confessed by the conservative Lutheran Reformation, and handed down to us by our pastors and teachers.

Many people have helped and encouraged me with this project, offering suggestions and improvements: Clem Haberman, Dr. Paul Boehlke, Patsy Leppien, Rev. G. Jerome Albrecht, my wife Christina, and my son Martin.

“So is My Word that goes out from My mouth: It will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).

Pastor Gregory L. Jackson
The Fourteenth Sunday after Trinity, 2010

Chapter One: Decline Of The Mainline Churches –

The Merry Widow Waltz

Dean Inge, a noted theologian, said, “The church which marries the Spirit of the Age will find herself a widow in the Age to come.” In a sentence, Inge described the catastrophic decline of all mainline church bodies during the last century, a merry widow waltz at an ever-increasing speed. Loss of membership, loss of influence, and loss of financial strength in the mainline churches have been so great that Time magazine made the subject a feature story.¹ According to the Gallup organization, mainline membership has shown a major decline since 1967. Methodist preference is down from 14% to 9%. Baptists decreased from 21% to 20%. Lutheran preference dropped from 7% to 6%. Episcopalians sank from 3% to 2%. Presbyterian preference plummeted from 6% to 3%. “No preference” jumped from 2% in 1967 to 9% in 1988.²

The mainline (or liberal) churches are commonly defined as those denominations which have the longest history in America: the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Disciples of Christ, the Reformed Church in America, the American Baptist Conference, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Most of them share the following characteristics: use of the historical-critical method in the study of Scriptures, a history of abandoning former confessional standards through merger, membership in the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, and a positive attitude toward the Social Gospel movement. The Roman Catholic Church, while not considered a mainline denomination, has taken on many of the characteristics of liberal Protestantism by adopting the same historical-critical approach to the Scriptures.

Some people wrongly assume that the hallmarks of radicalism, now flaunted by bishops of various denominations, are the result of the ferment of the 1960s. They are a century late. The 1960s simply revealed some of the long-festering weaknesses of an alien religion, an anti- Christianity which still goes by the name of liberal Christianity.

Many people were awakened to the radical nature of the mainline denominations when various members of the National Council of Churches vied with each other in ordaining active homosexuals. Other believers have been disturbed over the moral and financial support given by their own church bodies to abortion on demand. Still others have been dismayed by the uncritical attitude toward Marxism and liberation theology on the part of their world mission executives. In addition, the members find almost no emphasis on worship, evangelism, or family values.

Those who fled the mainline churches for the television evangelists found themselves equally shocked by revelations of gross financial mismanagement, prostitution, and homosexuality. They thought they had found a safe harbor from the doctrinal chaos of the mainline churches, not knowing they had simply identified with another form of liberalism, Pentecostalism.

Even the most liberal member of the most liberal denomination is likely to be shocked and horrified to learn that few mainline theology professors believe in the virgin birth of Christ. A member of Planned Parenthood doubled over in horror, holding her stomach, upon learning this, even though she scarcely went to her mainline church at all.

Although social issues, such as abortion and homosexuality, have stirred mainline members to action, the substance of the problem is not the erratic course taken by church leaders on these issues, but rather the approach taken in studying and teaching the Bible. Those people who have formed conservative caucuses on the issues have found themselves speaking another language than that of their denominational leaders. Nothing they do seems to budge the executives and seminary professors. In fact, the opposition of conservatives seems to be relished by mainline leaders, serving only to encourage even more destructive decisions. The history of biblical scholarship explains why the polarization between mainline members and ministers has taken place.

The denial of the divinity of Christ is the fruit of higher criticism, commonly known as biblical scholarship, or the historical-critical method. (In the Christian Book Distributor catalog, the traditional commentaries which assume the inerrancy of Scripture, are not labeled as scholarship; however, the works of the liberal publication houses, which state that the Bible is full of errors, are listed as scholarly works.) Higher criticism has some basic unwarranted assumptions which serve as the foundation for most works of biblical scholarship:

1. The Bible is a book like any other book, no more inspired by God than Gone With the Wind.

2. Historical statements recorded in the Bible are not reliable.

3. Accurate prophecies must have been written after the fact.

4. Jesus was not the Son of God and did not consider himself the Son of God.

5. The miraculous events of the Bible (the creation, the plagues preceding the Exodus, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ) were not the work of God but coincidences or the invention of man.

6. Divine acts can be described as “myths,” with the explanation that they have power in their effect upon the religious imagination, whether the events happened or not.

These rationalistic theses evolved in Europe among a few professors who stood almost alone in their peculiar views. Now most of the Protestant ministers and Catholic priests in America are trained with these anti-Christian views and subtly teach them in their churches. Mainline Bible study programs are based upon these anti-scriptural ideas. Therefore, mainline members who take these courses to learn more about the Bible end up in having their faith undermined in subtle ways.

Reimarus: Liberal Hero

We can blame Reimarus, a German professor who died in 1768, leaving the German author Gotthold Lessing to publish the famous Reimarus or Wolfenbuettel Fragments posthumously. Reimarus, who did not believe in the divinity of Christ, contended that much of the New Testament was a pious fabrication. What he could not explain rationally, he rejected altogether.

The rationalist believes that people with psychosomatic illnesses were healed by Jesus in this way: after imagining they were sick, they started thinking they were well. Lazarus, who imagined himself dead, eventually considered himself alive! The feeding of the 5,000 was easily explained: the crowd hid their lunches until the boy shared his meager fare. Stricken by his generosity, they hauled out their own sandwiches and had baskets of leftovers. A miracle of sharing! This rationalistic explanation has been used many times in the mainline churches to support stewardship, although the miracle has nothing to do with sharing and everything to do with the power of the Son of God.

The solution to the problem of discussing the content of the Bible without believing the truth of the Scriptures was solved by David F. Strauss, a lone wolf who argued for the mythological approach to the Bible in his Life of Jesus, 1835. The mythological school, still very popular, simply asserts that the deeper meaning of the miraculous event does not depend on whether or not it happened. Some argued that the miracles were simply natural events which were exaggerated in the minds of the witnesses. Ernst Renan popularized this “naturalistic” perspective in his Life of Jesus, 1863. Fortress Press has published many of these liberal lives of Jesus in a special series. Some of them are:

Hermann S. Reimarus, Fragments;
Shailer Mathews, Jesus on Social Institutions;
Shirley Jackson Case, Jesus, A New Biography;
D. F. Strauss, The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History; and
Friedrich Schleiermacher, Life of Jesus.

Albert Schweitzer, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, summarized the German research in his History of the Life-of-Jesus Research (the German title translated literally), better known as The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1906. Schweitzer identified with the Unitarians.

The innocent bystander looks upon these weighty tomes as paying homage to the Savior, and, in a backhanded way, they do. But the intent is clearest in the D. F. Strauss title, where the Christ of faith is distinguished from the Jesus of history. These higher critics wrote with the assumption they could find the kernel of history, the real dope on Jesus, somewhere within the myths, legends, and fables of the New Testament. Those who delve into the scholarly journals of the period can find an endless supply of articles asking whether Jesus considered himself the Messiah. Almost all of the articles and books answer, “No.”

The Lutheran retreat from the inerrancy of Scriptures is discussed in great detail in Kurt Marquart’s Anatomy of an Explosion and Craig Stanford’s The Death of the Lutheran Reformation. The betrayal of Evangelicals on this issue is treated in Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible and Francis Schaeffer’s The Great Evangelical Disaster. The history of the topic is covered in Challenges to Inerrancy, edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, and Inerrancy and the Church, edited by John Hannah.³

Historical-Critical Method

In order to understand the denial of the divinity of Christ, the traditional study of Scriptures must be compared to the “modern, scholarly” historical-critical method, also known as “higher criticism.” The traditional method, commonly called the historical-grammatical method, was used by the early church fathers, Luther, and the founders of the mainline Protestant denominations. The modern style of biblical study, the historical-critical method, was borrowed from a trend in the study of Greek and Latin literature. This trend, of trying to find multiple authors and influences in each work of literature, was abandoned by the classical scholars as rather useless, but continues to be the norm of modern biblical study. A following comparison shows how the historical- critical method masquerades as scholarship while begging the question. (See “Popular Logical Fallacies” for examples of begging the question, commonly called circular reasoning.)

Comparison of the Two Methods of Biblical Study

Most laity have an innate sense about the proper method of reading Scripture. They interject, when the divinity of Christ is denied by mainline theologians, “But isn’t it clear that Jesus considered himself the Messiah? Doesn’t the Bible clearly teach that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he rose from the dead?”

One can only reply, “You are talking another language. You believe the Bible is the Word of God, his clear and infallible revelation, sufficient and authoritative. They consider the Bible another book, not very well written, full of errors and contradictions.”

Yale and the Progress of Higher Criticism

Yale University was founded in 1701. “Conservative before she was born,” in the words of Roland Bainton.⁴ When Yale was founded, New Englanders were naming their children Ichabod, because the glory of Israel was departed (Ichabod means the glory has departed, 1 Samuel 4:21). The Calvinism of the founding fathers was being watered down. Harvard was already degenerate.

Jonathan Edwards was one of the most famous graduates of Yale, a school founded to provide both civil and religious leadership for New England. Edwards’ grandson, Timothy Dwight the Elder, became president of Yale in 1795 and lectured students in the basics of Christianity, leading to a genuine religious awakening after eight years of effort. Dwight’s, Theology Explained, 5 volumes, 1818, became a classic of the era. His hymn, “I Love Thy Kingdom, Lord,” is in The Lutheran Hymnal. Timothy Dwight the Younger, grandson of the Elder, studied higher criticism in Europe but still taught the old methods at Yale when Benjamin Bacon was a student.

Benjamin Bacon

How was biblical instruction carried out at Yale when Benjamin Bacon studied there at the turn of the century? Bacon himself described it:

1) That the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel was considered established for all time;

2) Objections to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch were dismissed as the work of hostile critics;

3) The historical-grammatical method, used by Luther, was dominant, and liberalism was rebuked.⁵

Bacon saw the Yale of his youth as battling rearguard actions. Yale Divinity, after the Civil War, was like the seminaries of conservative denominations today. However, when Dwight died in 1916, the age of conservative biblical scholarship in the mainline churches was drawing to an end. The traditional faith represented by Jonathan Edwards, Timothy Dwight the Elder, and Timothy Dwight the Younger ceased to matter.

Bacon started teaching at Yale in 1881 after serving as a Congregationalist minister for 13 years. Bacon combined the three German schools of higher criticism in his treatment of the feeding of the 5,000. Following Paulus, using a rationalistic interpretation, Bacon explained the abundance of food as the sharing of hidden food. Copying D. F. Strauss’ mythological method, Bacon saw the “legendary” elements as derived from the Old Testament accounts of Elisha feeding 100 men (2 Kings 4:42-44). Emulating F. C. Bauer’s effort to find the real story behind the story, Bacon discerned in the narrative a group of early Christian controversies being settled.⁶

If Bacon was so free with the text, what did he actually believe? There are some hints in Yale and the Ministry. The Congregationalist magazine reported humorously in 1911 that Bacon was put through a mock trial, the charge being—orthodoxy!⁷

Bainton reported that Bacon and another professor made Dean Charles Brown, a Social Gospel advocate, doubtful about the Virgin Birth. When questioned about his faith, Brown “handled the question with superb finesse. He would say, ‘What do I believe about the virgin birth? Exactly what the Apostle Paul believed. And what did he believe? He never mentioned it.’ “⁸

The New Scholarship at Yale

Bacon was not entirely to blame for the shift at Yale. Such dramatic changes required institutional approval by now-forgotten board members. A key change came about when Yale Divinity was at its lowest ebb, in 1905, when Edward L. Curtis was appointed acting dean. Curtis had previously taught at the Presbyterian seminary, McCormick in Chicago, where he alienated conservatives. (McCormick is thoroughly liberal today.) Curtis battled for the new methods and theories. In his work on Chronicles in the International Critical Commentary, he judged the books worthless as history but valuable for their idealized version of the past. Bainton wrote: “After coming to Yale, Curtis put to flight armies of aliens in the battle for higher criticism.”⁹

In 1886, George Barker Stevens began teaching New Testament at Yale. Stevens, now largely forgotten, denied the veracity of the Gospel of John and rejected the atonement of Christ. Yale Divinity gradually became an interdenominational school, abandoned its prescribed creed for professors, and became much more open to the winds of change. When Douglas C. Macintosh was hired in 1907, the only question asked which was remotely related to theology involved his position on close communion.¹⁰

The Social Gospel movement, which borrowed its’ Brotherhood of Man and Fatherhood of God theology from the European liberals, arrived at Yale at the same approximate time as the new style of biblical criticism. In 1887, Washington Gladden, a minister from Columbus, Ohio, gave the Lyman Beecher lectures at Yale. In 1917, Walter Rauschenbusch gave the lectures which continue to be published as A Theology for the Social Gospel. Those three decades, 1887-1917, established the Social Gospel as the definitive form of American Protestantism. Although the terminology and agenda have changed over the years, the Pelagianism (man saves himself) of the Social Gospel movement has persevered, corrupting every denomination enchanted with so-called modern biblical scholarship.

Although it was fashionable to pooh-pooh Rauschenbusch soon after he lectured at Yale, he distilled the theology and aims of liberalism with superb prose and moving stories. To this day people in graduate school are judged by their admiration for Rauschenbusch. One critical remark can render the graduate suspect in the eyes of the professor. Rauschenbusch thought he was accomplishing a great good for mankind and the church, but his horrible distortion of the Christian faith damaged the core of Christian teaching. He considered himself an evangelist and felt he was rescuing Christianity from oblivion.

A brief summary of Rauschenbusch’s theology can help the innocent observer of the church scene see how corrupted theology was already in 1917.

Rauschenbusch was not too sure about the origin of evil, relying as he did on the historical-critical assumption of J,E,P,D as authors of the Pentateuch. His thoughts on personal salvation have nothing to do with salvation by grace, but focus instead on whether the “converted” person is good enough to be accepted into the church, whether he has the right notions, affinities, ideals.

The social gospel furnishes new tests for religious experience. We are not disposed to accept the converted souls whom the individualistic evangelism supplies, without looking them over.¹¹

In a previous work, Rauschenbusch had harsh words for Dr. Friedrich Pfotenhauer (1859-1939), the last truly conservative president of the Missouri Synod, who served from 1911 to 1935.

In Theology, Rauschenbusch praised Christian Science, perhaps aware that the dean of Yale Divinity, Charles Brown, was a certified healer with a diploma from Mrs. Eddy.12 Though he praised the fading light of Christian Science, Rauschenbusch rejected the accuracy of the Scriptures. He wrote that instances of Jesus’ use of “church” were in passages of doubtful authenticity.¹³ He also sharply distinguished between the intentions of Jesus (as he saw them) and the claims of the church— the Jesus of history as distinguished from the Christ of faith.

Rauschenbusch used the kingdom of God as his central concept, not in the sense of the invisible church, the body of believers, but in the sense of those areas where God’s justice is established by man. This is the central motive power of mainline Christianity today, that man must use the power of the church to redeem society, through legislation and boycotts, quotas and petitions, Russian assault rifles, and condoms. Rauschenbusch utterly rejected the biblical concept of inspiration, claiming bitterly that it “quenched the Spirit.”¹⁴ Needless to say, Rauschenbusch rejoiced in the fruits of the historical-critical method.

The last few pages of Theology contain the most destructive bit of propaganda published in this century. There Rauschenbusch distinguished between the prophet (himself, Jesus, and other good guys) and the priest (the Pharisees, conservatives, and other bad guys). “The priest is a religious professional.” He lusts for power, rewrites history (the Bible), and opposes free expression. He is a middleman, a selfish exploiter of religion.¹⁵ In contrast, Rauschenbusch concluded from his study of history:

By identifying Jesus with this peculiar notion of the prophet, and by connecting suffering with the prophetical to end all social injustice, Rauschenbusch ignited fires which have since burned fiercely in the mainline denominations.

Every mainline pastor who assaulted a congregation with salvation-by-works sermons earned, thanks to Rauschenbusch, the right to call himself a prophet. All opposition, the mainline seminarian was told, was due to those selfish priests and their mindless slaves. While many self-appointed prophets found other callings in time, enough survived the doctrinal wars of the last 50 years to become denominational presidents, seminary professors, board chairmen, agency directors, college presidents, and pastors of large congregations. Others found that paying lip service to social activism and remaining silent about doctrinal problems earned rewards and prevented trouble.

The original Social Gospel agenda was basically the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt: labor laws to protect union members, a minimum wage, pure food and drug legislation, child labor laws, social insurance for the elderly and disabled, justice for farmers, and repudiation of war. The first Superman comic book, issued in 1938, showed the influence of the Social Gospel agenda. Superman dealt with unfair labor practices, cheating in football, and obscene profits enjoyed by an armaments manufacturer who fomented war to increase business. The Social Gospel agenda was established first by the Methodist Church, in its Social Creed, later adopted by the Federal Council of Churches in the early 1900s.

The Federal Council of Churches was organized to serve as the institutional arm of the Social Gospel movement, uniting the liberal Protestant churches in an integrated effort to use their power to bring in the kingdom of God. After too many Reds were found under the bed, the FCC was reorganized as the National Council of Churches in 1948. The National Council of Churches helped spawn the World Council of Churches, whose work was pioneered by earlier ecumenical movements.

The National and World Councils of Churches are officially separate but cross-pollinate frequently and share the same headquarters in New York City. Statewide councils of churches and local ecumenical forums blanket the nation with a network of activist ministers and laity who join efforts to lobby for peace and justice legislation and to boycott certain businesses.

Even more fertilization is provided by the Geneva, Switzerland, headquarters of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Lutheran World Federation. The World Council of Churches is also located in Geneva and works with LWF and WARC. The groups share the same doctrinal indifference, the same identification of social activism with real Christianity, and the same enthusiasm for Marxist analysis of societal problems.

For theology, the Depression was judgment day, the fulfillment of what the Social Gospel had predicted. The 1930s brought about changes in seminaries and denominations, radical departures already established at Yale, Harvard, and Union. Princeton abandoned its Calvinistic conservatism in the 1930s. At the same time, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod was attacked from within for being out of date and too dogmatic. The Augustana Synod changed its faculty in 1931, moving toward the day when they could merge with the doctrinally vague United Lutheran Church in America.

In each case, the battles won at Yale, Harvard, and Union were replayed in the tiny, obscure seminaries of America, where the bright young professors basked in the glory of their earned doctorates. They were not the bearded old conservative fogies of their denomination’s dark past. They were modern scholars in their own right, with publications (usually heavily subsidized by the denomination’s printing house) independent of criticism from “reactionary Fundamentalists.”

Yes, the liberals sighed, the battles were tough, but once the younger clergy were trained in the new methods, the denomination would take off into new flights of creative social activism. The progressives worked very hard, practiced the strictest form of excommunication and fellowship, promoted one another and never ceased to make converts out of believers.

The process of undermining the faith of the clergy has been gradual, working best where unnoticed. The more conservative denominations of the Midwest were not affected at first. They were established by the wave of immigrants in the middle of the last century, when Iowa was still the frontier. Unlike their mainline counterparts, which had already Americanized, the new denominations continued to work in their mother tongues.

The new Americans started their own colleges and seminaries. They were isolated from the trends in the mainline seminaries. An Ivy League education was not valued at first. Instead, doctrinal fidelity and denominational respect earned pastors a place in teaching.

Later, a degree from Yale, Harvard, or Princeton seemed to lend prestige to a tiny seminary or college. As time passed, a Ph. D. was required of all professors, but doctrinal fidelity was considered a throw back to the dark ages, when old Prof. Johnson or Zweig spoke with a funny accent and displayed his obsolete perspective by denouncing evolution and doctrinal aberrations.

The historical-critical drama was replayed in each denomination and each seminary. Some became angry and quit, thereby making the next step toward infidelity easier. If a walkout was organized so that large numbers left at once, the liberals rejoiced at losing so much ballast so effortlessly. The ecumenical nature of graduate study served to draw denominations together, especially those with similar ethnic or confessional ties. Leaders also had a common bond in their complaints about reactionaries who resisted their new ideas. While the conservatives of various denominations avoided one another because of their practice of fellowship principles, the liberals worked with each other at many different levels, finding common ground in their progressive views.

Educational Victories

The capture of the newer colleges and seminaries by the historical-critical method had a slow but profound effect on each denomination. College and seminary professors have a lasting influence on their students, especially upon ministers, who remain students all their lives. One Yale Divinity professor observed, “I can tell what year a minister graduated from seminary by looking at his library.” The bulk of a minister’s library will be purchased during college and seminary, when he has the most time to study. His reference books, especially the biblical commentaries, will become familiar to him during those formative years. If he enters college believing in the inerrancy of the Bible and the divinity of Christ, a different perspective will either convert him or drive him away. Either reaction is a victory for the historical-critical method, since both alternatives purify the denomination of rejected views.

A minister’s office will be filled with books which teach the infallible truths of the Word of God, as Luther did, or attack those truths. The two different approaches can best be illustrated by the experience of one young man entering seminary. One pastor took him aside and said, “Remember this, no matter what happens, always stay with the Word of God and study it closely. Never depart from it.” A mainline pastor took the same student into his study for “a lesson you can use throughout your whole ministry.” What followed was a demonstration on how to open a new book without hurting the binding. Or, as one pastor noted, confessional ministers say, “God’s blessings” to each other, while mainline pastors say, “Good luck.”

College and seminary students want to be regarded as good students. Few, if any, want to stand out as difficult students. If they begin with a simple Sunday school attitude toward Jesus, then a complex, adult, scholarly perspective seems far better. If their denomination is just moving toward the historical-critical method, only a light touch is used. The divinity of Christ is left alone, but the historicity of Adam and Eve is left open. The professor may simply say, “Is it possible that Adam and Eve are symbolic of mankind?”

When a college and seminary have been thoroughly modernized, the student has only the tomes of the historical-critical method to read. The seminary bookstore does not sell the old books based upon the inerrancy of Scripture, if they are still in print. The professors mention them only to scoff or to offer faint praise, such as, “Lenski really knew his Greek, but he is outdated.”

The educational situation seems ideally suited for the promotion of false doctrine. If the seminary is deeply committed to teaching the denomination’s confession of faith, it must also show its students how to identify and refute false doctrine. The students must therefore read the classics of the historical-critical school and understand their approach.

If the seminary, however, is committed to the historical-critical method, the students are told to avoid the old books, if they are told anything at all. No one is told, “My predecessor in New Testament believed in the divinity of Christ, but I don’t.” Students are brought along slowly, until the denomination is so packed with progressives that a debate on doctrine will turn into accusations of disturbing the tranquility of the church, hurting the finances of the school, or trying to gain a reputation at the expense of others.

Pietistic Bridge

Midwestern Lutherans have seen their denominations move from conservatism to radicalism within one generation. Many of them went to colleges which forbade dancing, card playing, and movies. They remember straight laced professors who never expressed a doubt about the Bible, whether in a class on Christianity or in the biology lab. Now the same institutions seem to glow with pride in adopting the worst excesses of the mainline denominations. In fact, through merger, the ethnic colleges of Lutheran pietism have become mainline members.

The pietistic movement had a great impact on all Lutheran groups, but especially on the Midwestern churches, made up of Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, and Danes. Pietism began with the work of Philip Jacob Spener, whose Pia Desideria in 1635 set forth a six-point program for improving the piety of Christians. It included 1) more diligent Bible study, 2) application of doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, 3) an emphasis on deed rather than doctrine, 4) an emphasis on prayer for the erring and unbelieving rather than theological debates, 5) reform of seminary studies with a greater role for personal piety, 6) a devotional arrangement of sermons. Unlike Luther, Spener did not hold that heaven and earth depended on every point of doctrine. Influenced by Reformed theologians, Spener rejected the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Likewise, the Pietists denied baptismal regeneration, along with the Reformed.¹⁷

Spener and his successor at Halle University in Germany, Francke, pioneered the lay-led Bible study and prayer groups that characterize Pietism. Halle became the center of Pietism, training thousands of clergy, including Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, through whom Lutheran pietism was established in the General Synod in America.

Adolf Hoenecke pointed out the fundamental flaw of Pietism:

When the Scandinavian and German Lutherans settled the Midwest, they were influenced largely by the Pietism of their countries. While the emphasis on rejecting the worldliness of their homelands seemed laudable, the lax attitude toward correct doctrine and the Lutheran confessions worked like leaven through each group.

At the heart of the Pietistic dilemma was the conflict between confessional Lutheranism and the Reformed influence which insisted upon the proper evidence of the Christian life. One could not put a carefully prescribed life first and also make correct doctrine the first priority. Because Pietism influenced all Protestant groups, the Lutheran Pietists often saw great affinities with others who supported the Temperance Movement and other social causes. Working together promoted doctrinal tolerance and diversity.

Since Lutheran Pietism emphasized Bible study over correct interpretation of the Bible, advocates of the historical-critical method had an easy time in using such piety against the historic stance of inerrancy. Bible study groups and Sunday school teachers were slowly introduced to the claims of the historical-critical method. When presented by a pastor who would never drink a beer or play a hand of Old Maid, the new claims seemed sanctified by a holy life. Such a pastor might present Jonah as a parable, but never suggest that Jesus died for nothing.

Because Pietism resonated with Reformed doctrine, Lutherans who were swept up in the movement placed a greater degree of emphasis on feeling saved and doing sanctified works than on the objective means of grace. The unfortunate and artificial split between head and heart knowledge, deed and creed, prepared the Pietists for the clandestine assaults of modernism. A later Swedish Pietist, Peter Waldenstroem, 1838-1917, began a new denomination in America by attacking the Atonement. Heick, a historian of doctrine, noted:

One can see that even with the Social Gospel movement, the earnest desire to make a difference in society was a hallmark of the influence of Pietism. By emphasizing the outward signs of the faith while disregarding the pure doctrine of the Bible, Christians lost the gospel by adding the law.

The Fruit

What has been the result of this vast effort? How can we measure the fruits of liberalism? The seminaries of mainline Protestantism and Roman Catholicism teach future ministers to doubt the truth of the Bible and the certainty of their salvation. The offerings of faithful Christians are diverted from genuine gospel ministry to support political lobbying, abortion on demand, homosexuality, and worldwide terrorism. Mainline church leaders, united by efforts of the National Council of Churches, clamor to oppose American foreign policy actions while supporting the intentions of the Soviets. Court cases to support the free exercise of religion, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, are countered by briefs from mainline churches working in concert with the American Civil Liberties Union and Norman Lear’s People for the American Way. Through the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, denominational executives gather to sign statements declaring that abortion is a religious right. Mainline campus ministries use their positions to promote radical left- wing activities at colleges across the nation. Homosexual ministers receive unctuous blessings from clergy while launching vicious assaults on the Bible. Legend has it that when Julian the Apostate died in 363, after failing to make the Roman Empire pagan again, his final words were, “Galilean, you have conquered.” Now many are tempted to murmur instead, “Reimarus, you have conquered.”

NOTES

1.Richard Ostling, “Those Mainline Blues,” May 22, 1989, pp. 94- 96. See also Newsweek cover story, Dec. 17, 1990.

2.The Northwestern Lutheran, May 1, 1988, p. 174.

3.Anatomy of an Explosion, A Theological Analysis of the Missouri Synod Conflict, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977. Craig S. Stanford, The Death of the Lutheran Reformation, A Practical Look at Modern Theology and its Effects in the Church and in the Lives of its People, Ft. Wayne: Stanford Publishing, 1988; The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976; The Great Evangelical Disaster, Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1984; Challenges to Inerrancy, A Theological Response, Chicago: Moody Press, 1984; Inerrancy and the Church, Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.

4.Yale and the Ministry, New York: Harper, 1957, pp. If.

5.Bainton, ibid., p. 174.

6.Ibid., pp. 214f.

7.Ibid, p. 204.

8.Ibid, p. 207. Bainton’s merriment over the confessional agility of Dean Brown is obvious. Bainton’s Yesterday, Today, and What Next?, is an attack on the Christian faith, published by the Augsburg Publishing House, 1978. A fine book for appreciating mythological interpretation is Kerygma and Myth, by Rudolph Bultmann and Five Critics, New York: Harper and Row, 1961. Because Herman Sasse, a conservative Lutheran, seemed critical of the mythological approach, “essays which take Sasse’s line” were omitted from the Kerygma and Myth volume (p. ix).

9.Ibid, p. 179.

10.Ibid, p. 203.

11.A Theology for the Social Gospel, New York: Abingdon Press, 1945, p. 96. Rauschenbusch taught at Rochester Divinity School, which is now merged into several other divinity schools. Rauschenbusch’s father was Lutheran and could have become a founder of the Wisconsin Synod. The father’s conversion to the Baptist perspective prevented that outcome. J. P. Koehler, History of the Wisconsin Synod, published by the Protestant Conference, Sauk Rapids: Sentinel Publishing, 1981, pp. 36, 39.

12.Theology, p. 121. Bainton, op. cit, p. 205.

13.Theology, p. 131.

14.Ibid, p. 192.

15.Ibid, p. 275.

16.Ibid.

17.Otto Heick, History of Christian Thought, 2 vols.

18.Evangelische-Lutherische Dogmatik, 4 vols, ed, Walter and Otto Hoenecke, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1912, III, p. 253. See also Ernst Wendland, “Present-Day Pietism,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, vol. 49 (1952), pp. 19-35.

19. Heick, op. cit, II, p. 218.

Continued in Chapter Two Merger Mania

All chapters of Liberalism: Its Cause And Cure

I wanted to post something yesterday on this website about the Gunpowder Plot by the Jesuits in 1605 and the resultant celebration of Guy Fawkes Night by the burning of bonfires on November 5th every year, but I couldn’t find anything written by a Christian author. If any visitor of this website would point out a good resource to me, I would appreciate it.

Even Wikipedia tells the truth of the Gunpowder Plot!

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was an unsuccessful attempted regicide against King James VI of Scotland and I of England by a group of English Roman Catholics, led by Robert Catesby, who considered their actions attempted tyrannicide and who sought regime change in England after decades of religious persecution. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot)

But when I made a post about this historical event on Facebook, a censor deleted it!

If the Jesuits had succeeded in blowing up the British Parliament, the King James Version of the Bible probably would not have been published.

This is from The Enemy Unmasked by Bill Hughes.

Chapter 10
War On Terror Planned 135 Years Ago!

The basis for this entire chapter is a letter that was written on August 15, 1871, by Albert Pike to Giusseppe Mazzini quoted in the book Descent Into Slavery.

While it is clear that the Illuminati and the International Bankers are one and the same, we need to be very clear that both of these entities are simply front organizations for the Jesuit Order. Again, the Illuminati was founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776. Weishaupt was teaching Catholic Canon Law at a Jesuit University in the Jesuit stronghold of Germany known as Bavaria. The fundamental principles of the Illuminati are Jesuit-inspired and devised. Jesuit General Ricci used Weishaupt to start the Illuminati so that the Jesuits could carry out their evil deeds in the dark so that no one would detect them as the source of evil.

The International Bankers, who funded the Illuminati, were controlled by the Jesuits as well. Saussy’s book Rulers of Evil, pages 160, 161 makes it clear that the Rothschilds and the Jesuits are partners in seeking the takeover of the world. So, while Griffin mentions the Illuminati and the International Bankers as the ones palling these wars for world takeover, it is clear that the Jesuits are ultimately the ones seeking this dominion!!

Griffin declares that Albert Pike is the top Illuminist in America. We must understand that as the top Illuminist, Pike is under the control of the Jesuits, doing their bidding, and in on their most secret plans! When Pike speaks of three wars that have been planned; he is revealing the Jesuits’ plan for the world. As far back as 1871, the Jesuit Order had planned the wars of the 20th century and the current war on terror. How we have been lied to; it wasn’t the shooting of the Archduke of Austria that brought World War I; nor was it Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini that brought World War II; nor was it weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein that brought this current war on terror. These wars have been on the Jesuit chalkboard for over 130 years; to them and them alone is the responsibility for these horrors. The visible leaders that are paraded before the world are mere puppets whose strings are being pulled by their masters!!!

Pike declared that the First World War would be used to destroy Czarist Russia and then to place that land under the control of Illuminati agents. That Czarist Russia was destroyed in WWI is a fact of history. Czar Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra, along with their many children, were all slain while posing for a picture in 1917. The reasons why Czarist Russia was targeted are more skewed elements in history. The Czars of Russia had for well over 100 years been a thorn in the side of the Jesuits.

Five years later, Alexander was poisoned to death. He wasn’t the only czar to oppose the Jesuits.

This same czar, who had the audacity to bring a constitution to the Russian people, also did something else for which the Jesuits would not forgive him. At the height of the Civil War, when the balance of the war could go either way, Alexander II came to the aid of Abraham Lincoln.

By driving the Jesuits from Russia, refusing to establish a central bank, planning a constitution, and aiding the North during the Civil War, the czars of Russia had incurred the undying wrath of the Jesuit Order. Payback was imminent. The other no-no of the czars was their protection of the Russian Orthodox Church, the implacable enemy of Rome for over 1000 years.

Not only was the czarist system in Russia to be destroyed but the Orthodox Church would be toppled as well. Pike revealed that Illuminati agents would then be put into positions of power in Russia. Illuminati agents, acting as a front for the evil deeds of the Jesuits, would bring an awful reign of terror to that great land for several generations. Starting with Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, the Jesuits used them to have millions of Russians obliterated for the next 30-odd years. Kruschev and Breshnev continued the onslaught to a lesser degree for several more years. All of this was done in the name of Communism, but in truth, the Jesuits used the Communism front to carry out heinous crimes in Russia.

In order to bring America into this conflict across the Atlantic and thus violate the famed Monroe doctrine, which stated that Europe could fight her own wars and America would stay out of them, there was a planned ‘terrorist’ attack that caused the loss of many Americans lives and thus, brought America into the war. The terrorist attack that was carried out against innocent Americans was the torpedoing of the Lusitania.

The Lusitania was built to military specifications and was registered with the British Admiralty as an armed auxiliary cruiser. She carried passengers as a cover to conceal her real mission, which was to bring contraband war materials from the United States. This fact was known to Wilson and others in his administration, but they did nothing to stop it. When the German embassy tried to publish a warning to American passengers, the State Department intervened and prevented newspapers from printing it. When the Lusitania left New York Harbor on her final voyage, she was virtually a floating ammunition depot.

Does that sound familiar? Is the author talking about WWI, or WWII at Pearl Harbor, or about September II and the war on terror? In every case, the situation has been nearly identical. Create a fervor of anger against a foreign power and America goes to war and it was all planned that way!!! The Jesuits, who pre-planned the war, planned for the terrorist attacks in order to bring America into the battle!!!

What about Pearl Harbor? Did ‘American’ leaders, who were doing the bidding of the Jesuits, have any idea that Japan would attack? Did ‘American’ leaders do anything to stir up the Japanese to bring on the terrorist attack at Pearl Harbor and bring America into war? In a book written by Congressman Hamilton Fish, we read,

Fish believed that Roosevelt’s deception of the American people was an immoral and infamous act. This shrewd and astute politician covered his tracks by shouting from the housetops and denouncing the attack on Pearl Harbor as a day of infamy, blaming it entirely on the Japanese. While Roosevelt was trying to bring America into war with Japan, he was telling Americans,

In both cases, with WWI and WWII, Wilson and Roosevelt assured Americans that their sons would not be going into any war, and while they were lying, they were preparing plans to get Americans to fight in the war. Both of these men were made out by the Jesuit-controlled press as God-fearing men who would not lie. In both cases, America lost so many lives and their blood will be on the hands of those lying, wicked, and heartless politicians who were following their masters and not standing up for the rights of Americans!!!

We have watched this same scenario play out twice. In both Jesuit planned wars America was brought into war because of a terrorist attack by some foreign power. Then, the president in office, who was looked upon as a God-fearing man, and who was working to bring America into the conflict, told Americans that in order to defend freedom we must go to war. Does this sound familiar? Does George Bush meet this same mold or am I just seeing things?

Let us notice the emerging pattern that has been played out several times in America.

Illuminist Jesuit Pike declared that the second war would result in an expansion of Russian influence and the creation of a state of Israel in Palestine. Did the Second World War do those things? The influence of Russia worldwide was certainly seen following the Second World War. Due to the war, Russian expansion was certainly seen as the Russian government brought under her wings several satellite countries and even the control of East Berlin. The Second World War also brought about the creation of Israel in Palestine. The Jews were given the strip of land along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Albert Pike is batting 1.000%. Are we listening?

According to Pike, the third war would be stirred up by Illuminati agents between the Zionists and the Arabs. Since the Illuminati is a front organization for the Jesuits, the Jesuits created the current war on terror. What event was it that ignited the involvement of America in this conflict? It was the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Could it be that the World Trade Center attacks, just like the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor, were orchestrated to bring America into this conflict? To think anything else but this is ludicrous!! None of the newscasters have said this. None of the newspapers have stated this. None of our ministers have said this. The magazines haven’t declared this. Is it possible that all of these outlets are controlled by the Jesuits and they naturally would not betray their hidden masters?

This is from The Enemy Unmasked by Bill Hughes. Years ago I remember hearing from a source I don’t remember that then President G.W. Bush became angry at someone who quoted from the Constitution to him and called it just a “…damn piece of paper.” That statement is nothing short of treason and disrespect for the Founding Fathers and all laws they established that protect American liberties! And he was a member of the Republican party that is supposed to represent government by law!

The Democratic Party is using the word “democracy” in the mainstream media as a propaganda tool to make people think they will lose liberties if the Republican Party takes control. “Protect our democracy” has no meaning because the U.S. government is not designed to be a democracy, it’s supposed to a republic, a government by law, and not a government by the whims of the majority of the people. And why? Because of the sinful nature of humanity, something we were all born with. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23. Humanity needs laws and government to enforce those laws. Rather than guard our family and possessions all day with firearms to protect them from criminals, the government and law enforcers are supposed to do that for us.

If the Republican party is faithful to the American Constitution, it will enforce laws that guarantee American society will stay free! The Founding Fathers of America did not promote democracy. The word “democracy” is not found in the Declaration of Independence, and neither is it found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Laws protect the minority from the whims of the majority. The Constitution is a set of laws that protect the liberties of Americans. Laws that protect Americans from what? From the government! Constitutional laws hinder the government from becoming tyrannical!

Chapter 9
Treason In High Places

We have clearly seen from history that the Illuminati was established by the Jesuit Order as a front organization behind which the Jesuits could operate and continue to conceal their actions in the eyes of humanity. We have clearly seen that the Jesuits have created further organizations as buffer organizations (the Council on Foreign Relations, for example) so that no one detects their existence and role in various heinous and cruel activities.

Another such group, but on a much smaller scale, is the exclusive fraternity at Yale University called the Skull and Bones Society. While some understand that is an exclusive fraternity, few realize the global implications of being part of such an organization. This society has connections. Watch carefully.

The Skull and Bones Order is the entry point into the Illuminati. The Illuminati, which we have seen, is a front for the Jesuit Order. Anyone, who is working for or a part of the Illuminati, is connected to the Jesuits, the greatest foe of Protestant religious and civil liberty. To be part of the Illuminati and the Jesuits makes it impossible to love the Constitution or to uphold its principles because those groups exist for the destruction of the Constitution. No president or public official in America could ever be part of these groups because it would be impossible to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution because they are part of organizations whose great goal is the abolishment of that great document.

Are you aware of any leaders or presidents who have ever held office and who have been part of the Skull and Bones Order of Yale University?

George Bush, the father, and George Bush, the son, have both attended Yale University and are both a part of the Skull and Bones Order. Both of these men are part of the Illuminati and the Jesuits. Both of these men, by their entrance into these groups, are disqualified from being President of the United States. Both men are working for the destruction of America and its Constitution rather than to defend the Protestant principles upon which it stands. The men have and do occupy the highest position of trust in America and they are being told by their handlers to slowly, but surely destroy this great land!!! America is in deep trouble.!!!

The Bush family’s connection to the Harriman’s / Illuminati/Jesuits goes way back.

The Bush family has been connected with the people of the Illuminati/Jesuits for the last 85 years. Their influence on this family and the policies both George Bush, father, and son, have made since being in the White House have only aided the Illuminati/Jesuits in their ongoing efforts to destroy the blood-bought Protestant freedoms that make America great. We will even discover in the next chapter that the Jesuits/Illuminati have used George Bush to involve America in the awful war in Afghanistan and Iraq. How many courageous, American young men and women have died fighting in wars that the Illuminati/Jesuits have planned for over 100 years; we will look at this in our next chapter.

Before George Bush ever entered the White House in January of 2001, he was already vowing his support for the work of the Catholic Church in America. He showed that his allegiance would not be for the Constitution and the American people, but rather for a man whose position over the last 200 plus years has been opposed to the Protestant Constitution.

The President of the United States is not running the United States; a foreign dictator, whose position pushed for the slaughtering of millions of people, who never changes, and who would love to see the destruction of this country, is telling the President of the United States what to do and he is happy to do it!!! That’s a stunning, shocking, and revolting statement.

Emperors, kings, princes, and Presidents are as altar boys. What does an altar boy do? An altar boy is a willing and obedient servant/slave to the priest. When the priest tells the altar boy to do something, the altar boy carries out exactly what the priest has told him to do. He doesn’t ask any questions but does exactly what he is told. According to this priest, almost 100 years ago, the Presidents of the world are as altar boys of Rome. According to the article in the Washington Times, the president of the United States is an altar boy.

Another document, a Catholic paper called Peter’s Voice; was also quoted in Reuters News service on March 22, 2001. There was a cultural center in Washington DC dedicated to John Paul II. This is what the President declared,

The President of the United States, by those words, has committed the crime for which Benedict Arnold was hung. It is called treason. George Bush, the President of the United States, declared that we need to put the words and teachings of the Pope into action here in America, and that is treason. From the very inception of the United States of America, the Catholic church and the Jesuit order have wanted to destroy this nation and has wanted to abolish the Constitution of the United States. George Bush swore that he would defend and protect the Constitution. By his declaration at the dedication of the cultural center, he has now declared he wants to destroy the Constitution. Treason worse than Benedict Arnold ever dreamed of is being practiced from the highest office in this land!!!

George Bush is not an American. Let me share with you from the book, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, page 284, to show you the contrast between the words of the Constitution and the words of the church of Rome.

So by George Bush’s statements at the dedication of the Cultural Center, he would destroy and abolish the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The American Constitution assures the separation of the church from the state, but the Catholic Church throughout the dark ages and today has been trying to mesh them together. The result of such a union has always been terrible bloodshed and persecution. Because the Founding Fathers of America realized the evils of church/state union, they made sure in the Bill of Rights that the church and state would remain separate.

That is absolute insanity that another man believes that he has the right to tell someone what they can believe and what they can do. That is utter blasphemy.

That is laughable. As you go down through history and how one pope after another differed from previous popes and argued and there were rival popes, two or three at one time, disagreeing with each other, which infallible pope are we to accept? How many beliefs of the Pope and of the Church of Rome are even found in the word of God? Is purgatory? Is worship of the Virgin Mary? Is turning the bread in the communion service into the actual body of Christ? This is insanity, and the Church of Rome declares that the pope can punish those who don’t go along with him in faith. So for a human being to bow down and receive their faith from a man who doesn’t know what he believes is utter insanity!!!

When Charles Chiniquy wrote this in the 19th century, this was, indeed, a fact. In the 19th century in the American public school system, the children were taught that the Bishop [pope] of Rome was to be shunned as evil, and as an evil system that would attack the United States and our freedoms. The educational system in the United States for most of the 19th century was Protestant. But as Mr. Dewey and the Rockefellers began to use their immense wealth to rewrite the textbooks in the American public school system, the American public schools no longer were Protestant, and so in the 20th century Roman Catholic children in many cases, began attending public schools.

The Constitution of the United States is based on the principle that the people are the primary source of all civil power. (It’s a government of the people by the people for the people). But hundreds of times, the Church of Rome has proclaimed that this principle is impious and heretical. She says that ‘all government must rest upon the foundation of the Catholic faith; with the pope alone as the legitimate and infallible source and interpreter of the law. — ibid., p. 284.

If the principles of the Church of Rome, as George Bush has declared he would like to see happen in this country are put into practice in the United States of America, then we are entering another dark age.

We are entering a time in earth’s history when the blood of conscientious Christians will flow across this land as it did throughout Europe during the Dark Ages. George Bush’s words at the dedication of the cultural center in March of 2001 will take us to the Dark Ages again.

You say, but they’re not Catholics. How could they be part of the Jesuit Order and they’re not even Catholics? All the more reason why the Jesuit order would use them, is because no American would suspect somebody who is not Roman Catholic to be carrying out exactly what the Jesuits are telling them to do, would they? All the more reason. The only Catholic president that we know about in the 20th century was John F. Kennedy and he was the only president in the 20th- century that refused to submit to the Jesuit Order and he was the one that was killed. Every other president from Roosevelt in the early 1900s, all the way down to today, has behaved as an altar boy of the Roman Catholic church.

How about after September 11? Did George Bush stand up as a strong American president defending the Constitution? We wish he had. But we find that George Bush’s response to the terrorist attack of September 11 was his USA Patriot Act of 2001, which was proposed five days after the attacks, and these were George Bush’s words. This is taken from the Reuters News service. The title of the article is ‘ Bush Signs Sweeping New Laws to Combat Terrorism’. The article is by Patricia Wilson. If somebody is saying “Oh, but you got that off the Internet.” George Bush did not sign the USA Patriot Act of 2001 in a dark corner that only the Internet picked up. Go to the Washington Times; go to the Orlando Sentinel; go to the LA Times; go to the New York Times; it’s in there too.

President Bush signed new anti-terror laws on Friday, aggressively expanding the US government’s power to hold immigrants without charges, eavesdrop on electronic communications, and crack money-laundering schemes.

George Bush, Skull and Bones/Illuminati/Jesuit puppet endorses an act that would gut the constitutional rights of Americans. He gives federal agencies the right to read your e-mail before you do, to listen in on your phone calls and tap your phone, and then has the audacity to tell Americans, “We are destroying all your liberties, but don’t worry, we won’t bother your constitutional rights.” He thinks we are idiots!!!!

In the same article, we read a quote from the director of the American Civil Liberties Union, “We can not as a nation allow very legitimate public anxiety to immunize the administration and Congress from their obligation to protect the Bill of Rights and the fundamental values that document embodies.” The director, Laura Murphy understood that the New Patriot Act would annihilate our basic freedoms.

What else is George Bush capable of doing? He has sold himself and his country to America’s greatest enemy and the total destruction of the Constitution is their ultimate goal. George Bush and his controllers will continue to ravage our freedoms all in the name of saving them.

An Associated Press article declared this concerning Bush’s New Patriot Act. “Attorney General John Ashcroft freed the FBI to monitor Internet sites, libraries, churches, and political organizations, calling restrictions on domestic spying ‘a competitive advantage for terrorists.’” “Civil liberties groups criticized the move. But President Bush said, ‘We intend to honor our constitution and respect the freedoms that we hold so dear.’”

The president is taking away the civil liberties that Americans have had for a long time in the name of terrorism. With all of our freedoms gone, will that somehow make terrorism go away? It sounds so good to be safe from terrorism, but terrorism will not leave when all of our freedoms have disappeared. The New Patriot Act destroys freedom. President Bush is leading this nation to ruin!!!!

In yet another Associated Press article, we read,

The New Patriot Act of 2001 was a direct assault on the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our Constitution, and it was passed by Illuminist/Jesuit-led altar boy, George Bush.

In whose name are all these things being done? Newsweek, March 10, 2003, declared that

While it is clear that the President is being led by a god, it certainly is not the one in heaven, but rather the god of Rome!!! He promised Catholic bishops that he would obey the pope before ever reaching the White House and he is certainly keeping his word. With the president of the United States obeying Protestant America’s greatest enemy, the Constitution and this nation are treading on very dangerous ground!!!

This is from The Enemy Unmasked by Bill Hughes.

Chapter 8
Won’t They Ever Stop Fighting?

During the last two generations, there has been continual conflict in the Middle East. The six-day Israeli-Egyptian War of 1967, and the Yom Kippur Arab-Israeli War of 1973 are more prominent than the others. The bombing, bloodshed, crying, and the misery of war never seem to stop. Why do they continue fighting? What is the purpose of continuing this senseless killing?

The land of Israel lies at the center of an area that is completely hostile to it. Israel is of great religious and historical significance because the Messiah, Jesus Christ, walked the land of Israel for three and a half years of public ministry.

Alberto Rivera was a Jesuit who escaped the order and revealed a tremendous amount of information about them. He has written extensively about the Jesuits and their operation in the Middle East. The Jesuits greatly maligned him because of the information he provided. This information cost him dearly. He died from poison administered by a Jesuit assassin. All of Alberto’s information has proven to be true.

Here we see that the Catholic Church desperately wanted control of Jerusalem because of its location and its great religious significance. The wanted to use the Arabs to grind the Jews and Christians into the dust so they could take over Jerusalem. The Vatican also invented a ‘messiah’ figure from among the Arabs around whom the Arab world would unite.

Islam and the rise of Muhammad was an invention of the Catholic Church. The purpose of this new religion was the destruction of Jews and the followers of Christ in order to gain the Middle East, and especially Jerusalem for the pope.

The pope’s plans failed miserably. Instead of giving Jerusalem to the pope, the Moslems built their sacred building, the Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem on the very site of the old Jewish temple, thus making Jerusalem the second most holy place, next to Mecca, in the whole Islamic world. There was no way that the victorious and powerful Arab armies would give Jerusalem to the pope. Now the Arab leaders turned to new lands to conquer.

The Arab forces wanted to take over the world for Allah. The pope said no, and wars ensued. These wars, called crusades, went on for centuries throughout Europe and the Middle East. The papacy wanted, not only to keep the Arabs out of Europe but also to wrench Jerusalem out of the hands of the Arabs. Is it possible that the statement made by George Bush on September 17, 2001, had any historical reference? Bush declared that America was fighting a crusade against terrorism. Is it possible that the president realized that one of the key objectives in this current war on terrorism is to regain Jerusalem for the pope? In light of Bush’s track record of obedience to Rome, it should be obvious!

U.S. News and World Report of April 8, 2002, has a cover title that reads, “The Crusades… The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam.” The article shows that Catholicism and Islam clashed in the Crusades during the Dark Ages. In this issue, when they refer to ‘Christianity’ they are referring to Catholicism. This issue has a lengthy article that covers the Crusades.

For nearly three centuries, the Catholic armies fought the Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem, the so-called city of peace. The Catholic armies wanted to give it to the pope as a gift because the pope wanted to rule the world from Jerusalem. The Arabs wanted it because the Dome of the Rock, their second most holy shrine, was located there. War and bloodshed raged for centuries over this piece of real estate.

The First Crusade was really the only one that the papacy won. Blood ran knee-high through the streets of Jerusalem as the Arabs were slaughtered. This, however, would be the only victory for the papacy. Thereafter, the Muslims dominated the fighting.

Following the First Crusade,

The letters for help brought to their aid Richard the Lion-Hearted, England’s most temperamental sovereign.

The truce permitted the Crusaders to occupy a strip of land along the land along the coast and permitted the Muslims to continue to occupy Jerusalem, but allowed Christians to visit Jerusalem.

While the crusades of the Dark Ages failed to obtain control of Jerusalem for the pope, the most recent wars in the last 100 years have brought the papacy closer to her goal than she ever has been.

Marching into a Jerusalem captured from the Turks in 1917, a British general, Sir Edmund Allenby, proudly declared:

During WWI, the papacy, still with a strong desire for control of Jerusalem, planned a sequence of events that would finally allow the papacy to take over Jerusalem. Using nations under her control, among whom was Britain, the papacy took control of the Holy Land from the Muslim Turks. This was step 1 in the process.

We have seen that the Jesuits place great significance on Israel and have fought two major wars and the papacy’s great desire to rule the world from Jerusalem, future wars planned by the Jesuits and the Illuminati will be used as further attempts to bring the pope to Jerusalem to rule the world from there.

Their plan is that when the terrorism and killing get bad enough, the Jesuit-controlled news media will urge upon the blinded masses the need for a peacemaker to come to that troubled area to rule. This peacemaker will be the pope. Once he is enthroned in Jerusalem, the 1,700-year-old dream of the papacy will come true.

General Allenby declared upon entering Jerusalem that the wars of the Crusades were completed. This was near the end of World War I. General Eisenhower, commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, declared that he was fighting a European crusade. George Bush in 2001 declared that a crusade was being fought against terrorism. In light of Albert Pike’s statement requiring three world wars, do you suppose that each of these men recognized the significance of these three wars on regaining Jerusalem for the pope?

Will there ever be peace in Israel? There will probably be peace for a brief interval when the pope is enthroned there. However, the pope will soon thereafter start to exercise his authority to force the entire world to become Catholic as he did during the Dark Ages when he controlled the world. This will bring about terrible persecution and destruction throughout the earth. Only those who are in submission to God’s control will find safety in that awful time.

In 1969 when I was 19 years old, I received notification to report for induction into the U.S. Army. The Vietnam War under President Nixon was at its height. I wasn’t a hippy or an anti-war-protestor. I believed the government’s narrative that the purpose of the war was to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia, and that we needed stop the Communist Vietcong from taking over the South to preserve democracy. But because I didn’t want to die in Vietnam, I enlisted in the Air Force and evaded the Army and the Vietnam War legally. It was only years later that I came to understand the evil of the Vietnam War.

In 1997, I had the opportunity to visit the Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. When I saw all the names of the Americans who died, I was moved with emotion to weep. And I wept for not only them but also for the hundreds of thousands more of Vietnamese people who also died! According to Wikipedia, 415,000 Vietnamese civilians were killed.

Chapter 7:
Vietnam: Why Did We Go?

The Tragedy of America’s horrible experience in Vietnam has left us with many bitter memories. Many suffer terrible bouts of depression over their experiences in Vietnam. After 40 years, many cannot hold down jobs because of the psychological trauma they experienced. The Vietnam wall in Washington, D.C. is a grim reminder that 58,000 Americans were killed in that totally unnecessary war. Why did we go?

The tragedy of Vietnam will go down in history as one of the most pernicious deeds of the contemporary alliance between politics and organized religion. — ibid. p. 13.

Avro Manhattan was a world-renowned authority on the Roman Catholic Church and the almost total control they have of politics throughout the world. He was a writer for the British Broadcasting Corporation. He has laid the blame for the Vietnam War directly at the feet of the Jesuits and the papacy.

Let us look at some background information for the Vietnam War. Bo Dai, a French puppet, controlled all of Vietnam. By the early 1940s, a strong nationalism was developing throughout Vietnam. The Vietnamese wanted their country back. They wanted to get rid of the French and have total independence from all outside forces. By 1945, the freedom fighters, who were trying to drive this French puppet out of Vietnam, controlled a large part of the country. Unfortunately, the supposed freedom fighters were the Viet Minh, a very brutal communist front for Chinese and Russian communism. At the end of 1945, Bo Dai resigned, and all Vietnam managed to do was trade French control for Communist control. The Viet Minh was a group that was headed by Ho Chi Minh. Since Communism was a creation of the Jesuits, the Catholic Church felt right at home with the rule of Ho Chi Minh. However, the Catholics in Vietnam were in a minority because the religion of Buddhism held a strong majority.

As Ho Chi Minh gained control of the entire area of North Vietnam, he appointed many Roman Catholics to key positions in his government. When World War II finally ended, however, France tried to step back into Vietnam again, specifically into South Vietnam. As France tried to come back into the picture after World War II, war broke out between the Ho Chi Minh-controlled North Vietnamese and the French-controlled South Vietnamese.

By 1950, Harry Truman, United States president, declared that America would finance the French in fighting the North Vietnamese. By 1954, nine countries met in Geneva, Switzerland to try to resolve the conflict. They passed an agreement stating that in two years, in 1956, general elections would be held over all of Vietnam, and whoever was elected would control the country. Neither the United States nor Bao Dai signed this agreement. Ho Chi Minh was very popular. If general elections were held, Ho Chi Minh would win. In fact, Dwight Eisenhower, United States president from 1952 to 1960, made a statement in which he said, “If we hold elections in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote.” The manipulators in the American government realized that Ho Chi Minh would take over the country if elections were held. This would mean communist control of all of Vietnam. It would also mean that Buddhism would remain the most powerful religion.

The elections were never held. The agreement to hold elections that was made in Geneva was simply ignored. Who did not want the elections to take place and why? Why were the elections stopped?

Truman, Eisenhower, and John Foster Dulles, all members of the Jesuit-controlled CFR, pushed the policy of the papacy in spite of the fact that all of Vietnam looked upon Ho Chi Minh as an independent leader, and they wanted to have their own autonomous government. The Catholics wanted to be the dominant religion in Vietnam and eventually in Southeast Asia. Thus, the Buddhists had to be subdued. In the mid-1950s, it was becoming painfully evident who was dictating Vietnam policy from Washington. Most of the leaders who loved the Constitution and the American republic were forced out, and Jesuits were put in place to carry out the policies of the papacy!

The fact of the matter is that the leaders in Washington such as John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and the powerful Catholic lobbyists, greatly influenced the decision-making process of the United States.

While the papacy and the Jesuit-controlled CFR members in America refused to allow free elections, they already had a simple plan ready as an alternative.

Manhattan has thoroughly exposed Diem and the Catholics in Vietnam. What specifically did Diem do to create Catholic tyranny in South Vietnam?

Have we heard that recently? This mistaken idea of giving up civil liberties in order to be secure is becoming very popular. After the destruction of New York’s Twin Towers in 2001, and after the bombing at Oklahoma City in 1995, the cry that was made by Bill Clinton in 1995 and by George Bush in 2001 has been this: in order for there to be security in America, we need to give up some of our liberties. Both presidents have passed laws and issued executive orders, Clinton in 1995 and Bush in 2001. Clinton’s was the Omnibus Anti-terrorism Bill. George Bush’s was the USA Patriot Act, and both of them stated exactly what Diem said. Why? Because Diem, Clinton, and Bush are being directed to do what they do by the same power, the Jesuits of the Catholic Church.

An obvious word was left out of that order: terrorism. That word had not yet become popular in 1956. Today he would probably have said, “Anyone suspected of being a terrorist and a threat to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order to a concentration camp?” We could, of course, not only be talking about Diem but also about the current President of the United States.

Why was the United States agreeing with Diem, who was going directly contrary to the principles of our Constitution? The politicians in the United States were directly manipulating things in Vietnam. Eisenhower was telling Diem what he must do. The Catholic Church through American officials such as Eisenhower and Dulles was covertly manipulating things in Vietnam. The Catholic Church and Cardinal Spellman were the real problems in Vietnam.

Diem’s policies brought immediate persecution.

Are we reading what happened in Vietnam of the Dark Ages? Do we recognize that the same power that sought to annihilate all opposition to the papacy during the Dark Ages is in virtual control in America today? The same detention facilities, internment camps, etc. that Diem set up in Vietnam are already in place for when similar controls are instituted in the United States.

Diem was convinced that he had been raised up by God to force the Catholic religion down the throats of every person in South Vietnam. And if that succeeded in South Vietnam, Diem would then take his policies into the North and throughout all Asia. Many opposed him, especially the Buddhists. Several pictures in Manhattan’s book show Buddhist monks at Diem’s Palace in Saigon in 1962, and prior to that, 1956 and 1957. The Buddhists realized what was going on, and they tried to stop it by reasoning with Diem.

They first went to Diem and tried to work with him to help him understand their plight. That didn’t work, and arrests followed. Diem’s policies resulted in riots, demonstrations, and severe persecution. Catholic schools were attacked. Finally, some of the Buddhist priests decided that they would make the ultimate sacrifice. They would get a large gathering together, and in the center of this large group, they would pour gasoline over their bodies and ignite themselves. That is called self-immolation. Many pictures were taken of Buddhist monks and priests who immolated themselves in protest to what Diem was doing in South Vietnam.

For people to be driven to such an extent in their protest that they would take their own lives, shows the depths of anger and frustration these faithful Buddhist priests were experiencing under the ruthless, Catholic puppet, Diem!

We see that the CFR-Jesuit-controlled media was lying to Americans about the true situation in Vietnam. They were not telling Americans that America was funding a war in Vietnam to set up a ruthless Catholic dictator, who was trying to impose Catholicism on the country.

In spite of all the self-immolations of Buddhist priests, Diem did not change his policy in the least. This policy continued for several more months through October of 1963.

The man in the White House, John Kennedy, who had been instrumental in bringing Diem to power, and like Diem, a Roman Catholic, began to assert his authority. Kennedy saw the deplorable situation and realized that decisions had to be made. If Kennedy acted against the orders of his masters, the Jesuits, there would be definite consequences, but he went ahead and acted anyway.

John Kennedy was the only President in the 20th century who bucked the Jesuit Order, and he paid the ultimate price for doing what was right. He not only verbally chided South Vietnam and Diem, but he took definite action.

President Kennedy began a slow, but steady withdrawal of aid from Diem. Shortly thereafter Diem and his brother were slain on November 3, 1963.

Another Catholic leader died a short time after Diem. On November 22, 1963, John Kennedy was shot by multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was shot by Jesuit agents because he dared to do the right thing in Vietnam.

As Kennedy began to pull Americans out of Vietnam, the superpower group was greatly angered. They plotted Kennedy’s assassination, and immediately after Kennedy died, the U.S. re-escalated the awful war in Southeast Asia. It continued for another 10 years at an enormous cost! Who was the superpower group that so desperately wanted America to remain in Vietnam? From the evidence we have considered, this could only be the papacy.

This war eventually involved over half a million Americans in a life-and-death struggle without the Constitutional requirement of congressional approval. So President Kennedy began pulling troops from South Vietnam. The Catholic church strongly objected to this, and President Kennedy was gunned down. The very next day, Memorandum 278 was signed, which reversed Kennedy’s decision to de-escalate the war in South Vietnam.

Vietnam was a Jesuit war designed to create a Catholic superpower in Southeast Asia. The only way this could occur was by the bitter persecution of a religious giant already in the area, the Buddhists. Ngo Dinh Diem, a tyrannical Catholic dictator, was put into power. The Jesuit-controlled American press said almost nothing about the terrible religious persecutions taking place in Southeast Asia. John Kennedy began pulling America out of Vietnam but was gunned down by Jesuit assassins before he could accomplish much, and the no-win war went on for another 10 years, ending in ignominious defeat for America. What remains is a winding wall in Washington, D.C., listing 58,000 Americans that lost their lives there and millions of others not listed who have lived retarded lives as a result of wounds and afflictions received in this religious war.

Jesuit wars to destroy religious enemies continue today. Next, we will look at the Middle East and why so many die near the city of peace, Jerusalem.

The words “Deep State” are nebulous. Republicans who talk about the Deep State never define what it is or who is a member of it. This article will!

The core of the Deep State in America is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Former Hollywood playwright Myron Fagan called the CFR the branch of the Illuminati in the United States. My current research tells me the Illuminati is a branch of the Jesuits. Any politician who talks about opposition to the Deep State without mentioning the CFR is probably controlled opposition. Does Alex Jones connect the Deep State with the CFR? I don’t listen to him now but when I did years ago I don’t remember him ever talking about the CFR. Please somebody tell me if he does.

The same thing can be applied to politicians who talk about “the Swamp.” Do they name names or organizations?

The rest of this article is from The Enemy Unmasked by Bill Hughes. He does an excellent job identifying the Deep State, who is a member of it, and their goal to convert the USA to a socialist nation.

Chapter 6
The CFR: Another Jesuit Front

When Woodrow Wilson, under the direction of Jesuit agent, Edward Mandel House, failed to convince the American people and the United States Senate that they should join the League of Nations, the Jesuits realized that they had to make sure this refusal never happened again. For fifty years the Jesuits had been planning World War Two. This next war was planned to make sure that America would join their next League of Nations. This time it would be called the United Nations. In order to accomplish this, the Jesuits knew that they had to have greater control of the mass media outlets, more Congressmen in their pocket, more businesses had to be dominated, and the office of the President had to be controlled. When these things were accomplished, the Jesuits knew that they would have no trouble convincing a blinded and deluded American people into eventually surrendering their sovereignty to the United Nations. In order to accomplish these things, the Jesuits created the Council on Foreign Relations. This was to be another front behind which they would hide while accomplishing their subversion in America. In England they created a similar sister organization called the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

The agents of the Jesuits created the Council on Foreign Relations. The locations would be in the two most powerful Roman Catholic Dioceses in the American Empire, New York and Chicago. The CFR would control the Empire’s finance, government, industry, religion, education, and press. No one could be elected to the Presidency of the United States without the Council’s consent, as the office would be a tool for the Archbishop of New York subject to ‘the Vicar of Christ’ [the pope] in Rome. (One of the founders of the CFR also aided in the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. He was the ‘holy monk’, a Shriner Freemason, and agent of the Jesuit General, Edward M. House.) Its purpose was to return the world to the Pope’s Dark Ages with an economically socialist world police state. – Eric Phelps, Vatican Assassins, Halcyon Unified Services, p. 464, 465.

And it was Edward M. House, under the watchful eye of Jacob Schiff, who was under the watchful eye of the HEAD of this international conspiracy {the House of Rothschild of London and Paris}, that established in 1921 what their earlier comrades established, to overthrow the governments of France and Russia. Called the Jacobin Clubs in France in the 18th century, this aristocratic revolutionary movement today in America is called THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, INC., and its offshoot is the TRILATERAL COMMISSION. The Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. is the political side of the Illuminati today. They have produced Congressmen, Senators, and even Presidents, that they have used to pass laws that have little by little led America into becoming a Socialist country… Now when the Conspirators saw that their One World Government couldn’t be achieved using the name The League of Nations, Col. House, under the direction of Jacob Schiff, formed an aristocratic secret organization called the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. This private Secret Society is to produce enough Congressmen, Senators, and Statesmen, etc. so the next attempt to incorporate the US into a One World Government will not fail, because of the voting power they hope to have. But reader, remember, this is not a United States government-run establishment. – William Sutton, The New Age Movement and the Illuminati 666, The Institute of Religious Knowledge, pp. 240-242.

Phelps showed that the Jesuits created the Council on Foreign Relations. Therefore, the Council on Foreign Relations is yet another front organization of the Jesuit Order. The following chart shows the various Jesuit front organizations and the people in control of them.

The Jesuits

The Council on Foreign Relations is extremely powerful and has been very effective in carrying out the subversive goals of the Jesuits. This organization is so secretive that most people are not aware of their existence. The Council on Foreign Relations was instrumental in coercing America into the United Nations after World War II. Following the war, there was a concentrated barrage of propaganda from the news media to convince the people of America that the only way to have peace was to join the United Nations. Today, America is a member of this international governing body. Incidentally, instead of having the United Nations in Europe as they did with the League of Nations, they even managed to house the United Nations in New York City so that it would be a greater malicious influence in this country. Also, the United Nations charter is very similar to communist Russia’s constitution. The charter guarantees absolutely no freedoms, although the wording sounds as if it does.

For many years, David Rockefeller was the Chairman of the Board of this organization. All of these men, claiming to be loyal to the American people and its constitution, made sure that America joined this organization, whose one great intention was to destroy the sovereignty of America and all other nations. These men all held positions of influence and power in the American government; all of them were considered to be seeking America’s best when in reality, they were all members of the CFR, an organization created by Jesuit agents with the sole intent of destroying America. This was their first great goal and it succeeded only too well. Consider some of their methods for subverting America.

In order to bring America into this conspiratorial body, the CFR had to maintain the utmost secrecy. The public was not aware of the existence of the CFR.

Most Americans have never heard of the Council on Foreign Relations. Although unseen and unknown, it has exerted tremendous power and control over the decision-making process in America throughout most of the 20th century. Some of the media organizations that show up repeatedly as being run and controlled by CFR members include NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, Des Moines Register, Los Angeles Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, Fortune, Business Week, U.S. News and World Report, the news services such as Associated Press, and many of the large, influential television stations. At least, 170 journalists are controlled by the CFR. The influence of these media giants on public opinion is phenomenal, and it is done in such a subtle way that the people are not aware that they are being conditioned what to think. The people generally believe that they are independent thinkers.

John Swinton, Chief of Staff for the New York Times, who was considered to be the dean of his profession, made a most revealing statement in 1953. At a New York Press Club dinner, Swinton declared,

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my newspaper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it, and I know it. And what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” – Multiple contributors, A U.S. Police Action: Operation Vampire Killer, The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, pp. 18,19.

Swinton was honest enough to admit that he and most other journalists are told to write things that are in harmony with the plans and purposes of the CFR. Ultimately, the world’s wealthy; like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Morgans, who founded and run the CFR, are under the control of the black pope, the Jesuit General. The Jesuits are using the media to prepare the world to receive the pope as the great man of peace, to receive the pope as the ruler of the world from Jerusalem, to accept the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, and to bring the world back to the feudalism of the Dark Ages.

You can see that most of what we are told about the topics and situations today are complete lies. We were emphatically told by the CFR and the Jesuit-controlled politicians that the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was in the best interests of the American people, Instead, NAFTA has destroyed thousands of middle-class jobs in America and moved those jobs to Mexico and Red China. NAFTA is devastating the industrial manufacturing base in the United States. We have seen that the Jesuits are behind the effort to destroy the middle class in America and return to the structure that existed during the Dark Ages. The Jesuits want to undo everything that Protestantism and freedom have done for America, and NAFTA is part of that process.

The Jesuit-run CFR has accomplished two of its goals by coercing America into the United Nations and gaining control of mass media. Another goal of the CFR was to gain control over many U.S. corporations, which would help further ongoing and future projects. The following are just a few of the corporations that are controlled by the CFR and the Jesuits: Ford Motor Company, Boeing Corp., Pepsi-Cola, Heinz Co., Lockheed-Martin, Time-Warner, and Chevron. This very abbreviated list of companies makes it clear that powerful forces are being applied through the CFR to destroy America and its Constitution. Monies from these corporations and the Federal Reserve have been used to finance the Bolshevik Revolution, the rise of Adolf Hitler and the restoration of Germany, the taking over of Cuba by Fidel Castro, and the taking over of China by Mao Tse Tung, as well as the destruction of free government in Nicaragua.

Why did Harry Truman and George Marshall support the Communist butchers? Communist ideology is totally opposite to the American Republic established by the Constitution. Harry Truman and George Marshall were sympathetic to Mao Tse Tung because they were controlled by the same masters, the Jesuits of Rome, working through their front organization, the CFR.

The following quote shows one more example of how the Jesuits use the CFR- pro-Communist fronts operating in America to destroy free governments in other countries.

Using the CFR, the Jesuits placed their agents in high places in the U.S. government to destroy the freedom-loving Nicaraguan people and to place in power the Communist Jesuit, Daniel Ortega. It was from Nicaragua that Jesuit agents and CFR members, Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr., made millions of dollars through the drugs that were brought from Nicaragua to America. These Jesuit-CFR agents in the U.S. government have been working around the world destroying freedom-loving republics and replacing them with Communistic regimes that are in harmony with the goals of the Jesuits to restore temporal dominion to the pope.

The final goal of the CFR front organization of the Jesuits was to place Jesuit agents in high positions in the American government. That this goal has been accomplished is obvious.

Thus, the CFR Jesuits run the United States today! How can it be anything else since we are continually bombarded by propaganda from the controlled press and politicians? For example, they try to convince Americans to exchange their constitutional freedoms for security, as per the USA Patriot Act. How can it be anything else when continual attempts are made to support governments around the world that are anti-constitutional oligarchies? How can it be anything else when attempts are made to destroy the middle class in America?

Here are a few of the American officials who have sold their souls and America to ruin. These are the Benedict Arnolds of the 20th and 21th century. This is not a complete list by any means.

What are the ramifications of having Americans in these high positions, working for a foreign power, that wants to destroy this nation and everything for which it stands? They have almost accomplished the destruction of the United States. During elections, we are given a list of candidates for which to vote. The Jesuits make sure that all these candidates are either Jesuits or sympathizers. Actually, the Jesuits control both major political parties in this country. In other words, no matter who gets into office, the CFR-Jesuits will carry out their policy through their candidates, and it makes no difference which party the candidate chooses or which candidate is elected. This means that elections are a huge scam that is practiced on the American people in each election! From Barry Goldwater’s book, we read,

The CFR-Jesuits have gained such control of America that their policy will be put into effect regardless of who is in office!

The Nixon-Carter situation is a perfect example. Both men are/were CFR members (Nixon passed away). After Watergate and Nixon back in the early 70’s, America was fed up with corruption in government. Therefore, CFR member Nixon was replaced by CFR member Gerald Ford, and corruption in government continued as before. After Ford, another insider, with the title, born-again and Bible-believing, was picked to continue the corruption, CFR member Jimmy Carter. Always new people, but no change in policy. The CFR-Jesuits still run the show!

The CFR-Jesuits have been doing the same thing for the past several years. Many Americans were sickened by the Democrat, CFR, lying, immoral Bill Clinton. Next, they put into office a Republican CFR, moral, upstanding, born-again George Bush. Both men are controlled by the same people, the Jesuits, and are carrying out the policy of the Jesuits. What a scam! To the unsuspecting American public, it all looks like business as usual.

My wife Tess and I like to listen to Pastor Mike Hoggard’s sermons. Unfortunately he’s still under the influence of dispensationalism, but other than that he’s right on in our opinion. Nobody’s perfect.

This talk is so good and timely that I felt inspired to do a transcription of it.

Transcription

Take your Bible if you would, please. I want you to turn to two places. Turn to Psalm chapter two.cLet’s start there.

I mentioned earlier, this is a first for me. I’ve been preaching now since 1990 in a sort of a full-time capacity. I was called to preach back in 1982 and I can truly say that I think definitely my sermons have gotten longer since 1982. Maybe they haven’t gotten more substantive, but definitely longer since 82. But this is the first time I’ve ever, ever, ever preached a message like I’m gonna preach this morning.

And I want you to pray for me. Pray that the message will be comprehended and understood. I’m gonna let the scriptures break down some long-standing principles that are in people’s minds and hearts.

And I’m basically referring to church people. I never really understood, I never really understood how Christian people could align themselves with certain viewpoints and still believe that they are right with God. I never understood that.

I’m not saying that I’ve been right on everything I’ve ever taught. And I am not going to promote one political party over another. That would be unwise, that would be ignorant on my part because I think that in this world, both of them have failed this country in severe ways.

We are truly living in a time when corruption runs deep in this nation. One of the things that made me feel alarmed when I went to Kenya in 2011 was the corruption that I saw. An immigration official in the Jomo Kenyatta airport basically demanded a bribe in order for him to release our luggage. I watched it happen. And it angered me because I thought I could have my luggage full of drugs, weapons, bombs, you name it, and this guy just sold his country out for what amounted to five dollars. And I was really put out over that. But since then, I guess I’ve had the scales taken off my eyes, as it were, about the corruption that exists in our own country. And that corruption does run very deep.

In Psalm chapter two, we’re given a sort of an understanding of how things work behind the scenes, not just in this country, but around the world.

It says,

Now that phrase, “take counsel together,” that is a conspiracy phrase. That phrase tells you that there is a conspiracy at work in this country, in the state of Missouri, it occurs, I would even say in Jefferson County politics, to some extent, but definitely on a national scale, that conspiracy is at play.

And we see it in the various forms that I’m gonna preach about this morning. That the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed. That, of course, is Jesus Christ.

And I would say, because by nature of all of us being in Christ and being anointed by the Holy Spirit, I would say that it does, in some way, apply to us as well. I could just simply ask you the question, do you believe that there is a conspiracy against Bible Christianity in this nation, would you say amen to that? Absolutely, there is no doubt in my mind about it.

When you have people at a gay pride celebration that openly confess and announce their hatred for God, their hatred for Jesus Christ, their hatred for the church, church people in general, their hatred for the Word of God, even displayed by some of its members that wear shirts that have things on there like Satan bless me today, or I hate Jesus, or just things like that. They want to remove the bands.

This ring my wife gave me is a token of the bond that exists between she and I. She’s wearing hers, I’m wearing mine. It is what binds us together. It is what keeps us together. It is there as a display to our children, to our grandchildren, and to everybody who knows me and knows my wife, that we stand for marriage. And we stand for marriage God’s way. One man, one woman. That’d be a time you say amen.

They’re attempting to break the bands asunder. We are the salt of the earth, Jesus said. “But if the salt has lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is therefore good for nothing to be cast out and trodden under the foot of men.”

And we are being trodden under the feet of evil people in this country right now. All you have to do is watch one episode of The View. You will understand and know just how much they hate the views given by the Word of God that marriage exists between a man and a woman. There’s only two genders, period.

Just ask the horse. Ask the dog. Ask the goldfish, the guppies, the hamsters, all the little animals, the mice. They all know that there are only two genders in this world. But that’s just a sign and a symbol of the bands that they want to tear apart.

They also want to tear apart the bands and the bonds that make us Americans. You’re only an American if you are a citizen of America. They want to break those bands as well and cast away their cords from us.

But look at verse four.

I mentioned this during Sunday school, this thing about Sean Diddy Combs. I still don’t know what he did to get all of his money. Yeah, it’s not talent. I can’t tell you that I’ve ever heard or listened to anything that he’s ever produced. I just don’t know who he is. But apparently, he is, I guess, the Hollywood version of Epstein. And there’s a lot of people now that are very, very afraid. And if I was Sean Diddy Combs, I would either use what money I had to hire me some in-house protection, or he’ll be Epsteined as well, or I would get down on my knees and call upon the name of the Lord. I’d be asking God to protect me because I’m sure he’s marked for sudden death, certain death.

But God is gonna laugh in the end.

And we know who that is, that is Jesus Christ.

Now I want you to turn to Exodus chapter 20. If you know what is in Exodus 20, then you know where we’re headed. This is the 10 Commandments. Look at verse 13. Four simple words: Thou shalt not kill.

I want you to look up on the screen. Over 63 million abortions have occurred in the United States since Roe v. Wade in 1973. America saw more than one million abortions each year between 1975 and 2012.

Now the Supreme Court basically said, it overturned Roe versus Wade.

And I’m gonna say this, I’m gonna say a lot of things that may make some people mad. It’s not that I don’t care because I do, but I have to say them. I’ve been given the responsibility to say things that are unpopular that will get me listed in some kind of list somewhere. Even if it’s just a bunch of preachers that say stay away from Mike Hoggard, which exists. But I am gonna have to say some things that need to be said. I’ll give you the biblical argument of why I’m supposed to preach something like this.

The justification that I have for preaching this is, some people have of their opinion that politics and religion should never mix. I am of the absolute firm opinion that we do not ever take our relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ and set it aside for any reason.

Our religion is who we are. It is not just a part of us. You can’t be part of something that dishonors God and then be part of something that tries to honor God. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot have a duality about you that Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, you live for Jesus and the rest of the time, you live for the devil. They call those hypocrites and that’s exactly what they are.

Historically, you can look at this in the Bible, you can name just about any prophet that you want to and I almost guarantee you, they had a responsibility to preach to the king, to the governors, to the ones who were in charge.

Daniel even had a responsibility to tell the truth to Nebuchadnezzar. He had a responsibility to tell the truth to Belshazzar when Belshazzar saw the writing on the wall and he called in Daniel, wanted to know what it said and Daniel said, “Well, here’s the short of it, King Belshazzar, you’ve got about six hours to live because the Medes and the Persians are gonna come in here and they’re gonna take this place over and you’re gonna be a dead man.” And he had to tell him that, Jeremiah had to tell King Jehoiachin the things that God had him write down on paper. Jehoiachin thought so much of it that he took three or four leaves up after he read a few leaves of it, he took the whole thing, cut it up with a pen knife, and threw it into the fire, thus assuring Jeremiah’s stay in prison.

And it doesn’t matter who we’re talking about, Elijah. Elijah had to preach what he preached to Jezebel and Ahab. There are always examples, amen. Elijah had to preach to the king, and Nathan the prophet had to deliver to King David the bad news about he found out what happened between him and Bathsheba and the child was gonna die. Solomon had his prophets who had to tell him what he probably didn’t wanna hear, Isaiah did it, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the list goes on.

John the Baptist had to point out to King Herod that he took his brother’s wife unlawfully and for that, Herod had him put in prison. Once he was in prison, then his wife had him order that he take the head of John the Baptist off of his body, put it on a charger, and be brought to her. John the Baptist ended up dying for telling the king what he had to tell him.

I’m not putting myself on the level of those men in any way, but it is the Word of God and the Word of God is superior to all earthly kings and rulers. In fact, God even told a future king of Israel, the law was that if he became king of Israel, that the scribes had to bring him enough paper and enough ink and a copy of the law and he had to write out his own copy of the law before he was qualified to be king over God’s people. So there’s always, no matter how high the authority goes in this or any other country, there has to be a higher authority than them and that authority is the Word of God.

Just in case somebody might misinterpret, thou shalt not kill, you might question me, I’m gonna go out in November and I’m gonna try my best to kill a deer. It doesn’t mean that. Doesn’t mean thou shalt not kill anything. I believe in capital punishment. I believe in the death penalty. I think it ought to be administered more than what it is and not less.

By the way, Jesus did not contradict the death penalty. He upheld the law. He was just there to fulfill the law.

But it says in Matthew 19, he saith unto him, which Jesus said, thou shalt do no murder. When the Bible says thou shalt not kill, it is applied to killing the taking of innocent life. And there is no life, no blood more innocent than an unborn child.

Now, without saying what party I’m talking about, there’s a reason why I call it the Party of Death. Number one, they promote all forms of abortion and as late as late-term, with some promoting postnatal abortions. They call it euthanasia. They believe that they should have the right to kill the baby even after it takes its first breath. The Party of Death advocates for violent offenders. People guilty of murder, rape, incest, child abuse or molestation, physical assault, et cetera. Activist judges or district attorneys setting offenders free from prison, think COVID. Or giving them probation, parole or no prison time at all. Most, if not all, become repeat offenders.

How many times have we heard of some horrible death taking place only to find out that some activist judge put that person out on the street and that person did not belong out on the street? That happened out in California last year. If you remember, there was a California highway patrolman who died or a county sheriff deputy who was killed at a traffic stop that he initiated. Come to find out the guy that killed him, a judge set him free when she had no legal right to do so.

The prosecutor told her, listen, this is under the three strikes law. We can’t set him free on bail until his trial. The law says we have to put him in jail right now. The judge said, one more word out of you, I’m gonna have you held in contempt. And she turned that man loose and that man went out a few weeks later and killed someone who is charged with defending the people of that county.

That angers me. That’s a Party of Death. They promote open border policies, allowing third-world prisons to be emptied into not just border towns, but paying for them to be shipped all over the country.

Untold thousands have been released into this country and have committed murder, rape, assault, armed robbery, DWI-related crimes, human trafficking, and drug trafficking. Where do you think all this fentanyl’s coming in from? Canada? Think it’s coming in from Canada? Is it coming in from the ports there in New York? Now all the drug mules know that they just have to find a bunch of people that are walking freely across the border into this country. None of them are being checked to see if they’re carrying anything illegal into this country.

We are setting ourselves up for a huge disaster. Some rogue nation somewhere like North Korea or Syria or Iran, all they have to do is generate some kind of virus, and turn it loose into the migrant population as they’re going from Mexico to the United States. And with our policy now under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, they’re taking these people from the border and they’re shipping them all over the country.

Are you kidding me? All they would have to do was release a virus to those people before they crossed over and then America is gonna spread the virus for them. Now you tell me how dumb that is. And there is one party responsible for that.

Now, John chapter eight, I’m gonna give you scriptures.

So you listen to the politicians. You listen to them spread their lies, lying and getting the mainstream media to lie for them. That’s what most Americans now have come to the conclusion is they can’t trust what they hear on their evening news. The daily news cycles, the talking heads that are on Fox and MSNBC and CNN all day long and all night long, telling and retelling the same lies over and over and over again. Some people choose to believe them.

The smart people will refuse. But those who are part of the Party of Death, the originator of that is the devil. Do you not remember your American history? What political party was it that fought against Abraham Lincoln freeing all the slaves? That’s the political Party of Death.

Slavery, now, let me just say this. My grandpappy was a Southern Union Democrat. He was a good guy. I loved him, I loved him dearly. But I was too young to have any conversation with him about politics. But I know that’s what he was. My aunt and uncle, his daughter and son-in-law, Southern Union Democrats. My daddy was, for a while, until he got his eyes open, with Richard Gebhardt, Southern Union Democrat.

Needless to say, the party of Roosevelt and Truman doesn’t exist anymore. That ship has sailed a long time ago. And now you have even those Democrats leaving the ship. R.F.K. Jr. said I cannot tolerate this party any longer.

So, whatever your daddy or your granddaddy was, whatever they told you to be, told you how to vote, however your union tells you to vote, when my son was breaking into the construction trade, as a carpenter, I warned him, son, you’ve got a union job, you’re going to make a good wage, but don’t let them tell you how to vote.

I’ll never forget, when he’d come home one time real excited, and said, “Dad, boy, you should have seen it. At lunchtime, these guys brought out all this food and sodas for everybody to drink, and he said, Man, it was just like we just had this whole lunch catered to us.” And I went, “uh-huh.” And he said, “Then they had to tell us who to vote for.”

I said, don’t listen to that. Am I telling it right, son? He said, don’t listen to that. Don’t listen to it.

Whatever it used to be years ago, that’s all changed now. And I would say, to some extent, so has the Republican Party. It’s been infiltrated.

And both of them, no matter who they are, can be a sell-out to their country. 2 Corinthians chapter 3. I want you to understand, this actually, this message, has more to do with my proof from Scripture that abortion is murder. First-degree murder. Because the argument is, that life begins at birth. That’s what the Party of Death wants you to believe. That’s what the people and the industries behind the abortion mills want you to believe. But that is not what your Bible teaches you.

Paul said in 2 Corinthians chapter 3,

And what I’m trying to show you is, is that God is a God of life. Not a God of death. God even said in Ezekiel 33 that he gets no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked should turn from his ways. God even hates it to have to cast somebody into hell. It grieves God, he gets no pleasure in it. So if God gets no pleasure even from the death of the wicked, how do you think he feels concerning the death of the innocent?

One of the arguments that these young, I call them women I guess, they’re not ladies. One of the arguments that they make about what’s inside the womb of the mother is that it’s just a clump of cells. And yet, in every cell in that clump, there’s DNA. And you know what DNA is? Life. Life. Everything that lives, their life comes from their DNA. It is a book of, it’s the book of life. So even that clump of cells is a living creature. It has blood. What is blood according to the Bible? Life.

You’re just not gonna be able to sell it. The idea is that inside the woman’s body it’s just a clump of cells. Or they make this argument. It’s my body.

I’m gonna show you where that came from in a minute. John chapter one,

There are some people who listen to this message that will just not get it. They will totally not get it. And it’s because there is no light in them.

People who abide in darkness, no wonder they are people of death. John chapter five,

God is a God of life. His Son gave His life so that you could have life.

John six,

And I want you to understand this. That inside the womb of the mother the mother is giving that clump of cells its life. God fixed it so that a cord of life runs from the mother to the child so that in everything that the woman eats and takes in she then gives to that child that is in her.

Women are life givers by nature. It’s in your nature, ladies to both give life and bring forth life. And my goodness for the first two years of that child’s life who’s feeding it? The mother.

Unless you’re one of these 21st century males that walk around I won’t even describe that. John 10, 10, look at this.

That’s your Savior, that’s Jesus, that’s God. Job 24, 14, who’s the thief? The murderer is the thief. The murderer rising with the light killeth the poor and needy and in the night is as a thief. We’re talking about the devil. It is God who gives life. The devil, he just takes it away. He’s a murderer.

Acts chapter 3,

So it stands as no great mystery that there are people in this world who would choose a murderer over someone who would give life. Every time I hear some woman on The View or on CNN talk pompously about how much they desire women to be free let me tell you since God is the one who created the nature of all women God has ordained it that the woman who delivers her child over to the murderer never ever recovers from that. You never get over it. It is forgivable, thank God it is forgivable. That’s a really good God. That’s who He is. But that woman is going to be in bondage to that child the rest of her life.

(End of transcript.)

There’s a bit more! Listen to the video to hear it all.

Happy Reformation Day! I found a PDF file of this and thought it would be a great article to post today, October 31, the day Martin Luther started the ball rolling by posting his 95 Theses on the door of a church in Wittenburg Germany. The Reformation liberated half of Europe from the tyranny of the popes of Rome and led to the establishment of a republican form of government most of the nations of the Western world enjoy today. Forget Halloween. Christians should not observe pagan holidays! It’s witchcraft!

The Scriptures in the PDF file I got this from were not from the KJV. The ones in this article are.

This document was originally written for the 1993 Reformation Celebration at Audubon Drive Bible Church in Laurel, MS, as part of a worship service.

Sola Scriptura:​ The Scripture Alone is the Standard

The doctrine that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority was the “Formal Principle” of the Reformation. In 1521 at the historic interrogation of Luther at the Diet of Worms, he declared his conscience to be captive to the Word of God saying, “Unless I am overcome with testimonies from Scripture or with evident reasons — for I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils, since they have often erred and contradicted one another — I am overcome by the Scripture texts which I have adduced, and my conscience is bound by God’s Word.” Similarly, the Belgic Confession stated, “We believe that [the] holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein…Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God… Therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule” (VII).

As the Scripture says,

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law…I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name…But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (Psalm 119:18; Psalm 138:2; II Tim. 3:14-17)

Soli Deo Gloria! For the Glory of God Alone

The Reformation reclaimed the Scriptural teaching of the sovereignty of God over every aspect of the believer’s life. All of life is to be lived to the glory of God. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” This great and all consuming purpose was emphasized by those in the 16th and 17th Centuries who sought to reform the church according to the Word of God. In contrast to the monastic division of life into sacred versus secular perpetuated by Roman Church, the reformers saw ​all of life to be lived under the Lordship of Christ. Every activity of the Christian is to be sanctified unto the glory of God.

As the Scripture says,

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. (1 Co 10:31; 1 Pet 4:11; Rev 1:6; 2 Pet 3:18; Eph 3:21; Rev 7:12; Rom 11:36)

Solo Christo!​ By Christ’s Work Alone are We Saved

The Reformation called the church back to faith in Christ as the sole mediator between God and man. While the Roman church held that “there is a purgatory and that the souls there detained are helped by the intercessions of the faithful” and that “Saints are to be venerated and invoked;” “that their relics are to be venerated” — the reformers taught that salvation was by Christ’s work alone. As John Calvin said in the ​Institutes of the Christian Religion, “Christ stepped in, took the punishment upon himself and bore the judgment due to sinners. With his own blood he expiated the sins which made them enemies of God and thereby satisfied him…we look to Christ ​alone for divine favour and fatherly love!” Likewise the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 30 asks, ​”Do such then believe in Jesus the only Saviour who seek their salvation and happiness in saints, in themselves, or anywhere else? They do not; for though they boast of him in words yet in deeds they deny Jesus the only deliverer and Saviour: for one of these two things must be true that either Jesus is not a complete Saviour or that they who by a true faith receive this Saviour must find all things in him necessary to their salvation.”

As the Scripture says,

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (1 Tim 2:5-6; Col 1:13-18)

Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone

A central cry of the Reformation was salvation by grace. Though the Roman church taught that Mass is a “sacrifice [which] is truly propitiatory” and that by the Mass “God…grant[s] us grace and the gift of penitence, remits our faults and even our enormous sins” — the reformers returned to the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. Our righteous standing before God is imputed to us by grace because of the work of Christ Jesus our Lord. In contrast to the doctrines of self-merit taught by Rome, sola gratia and the accompanying doctrines of grace — total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, and perseverance of the saints — were preached by all the reformers throughout the Protestant movement. As the Baptist Confession of 1689 says, “Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified; and did, by the sacrifice of himself in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in their behalf;…their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.”

As the Scripture says,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; (Ephesians 1:3-8)

Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone

The “Material Principle” of the Reformation was justification by faith alone. As the Westminster Confession of Faith says, “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.” The Genevan Confession likewise pointed out the necessity of those justified living by faith saying, “We confess that the entrance which we have to the great treasures and riches of the goodness of God that is vouchsafed us is by faith; inasmuch as, in certain confidence and assurance of heart, we believe in the promises of the gospel, and receive Jesus Christ as he is offered to us by the Father and described to us by the Word of God (Genevan 11).

As the Scripture says,

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Galatians 3:6-11)

This is from The Enemy Unmasked by Bill Hughes.

Chapter 5
Tightening the Noose

After the Jesuits’ attempts to destroy the fledgling United States, they concentrated on another goal that had eluded them for many years. They had desperately tried to establish a central bank under Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, and Nicholas Biddle, but each attempt had failed. During the devastating Civil War, Augustus Belmont, a rabid Jesuit and Rothschild agent, tried to coerce Lincoln into establishing a central bank, but Lincoln understood the damage a central bank would cause to the country, and he refused.

In the mid-1750s, the Rothschilds and the Schiffs moved into the same residence, a large duplex house in Frankfurt, Germany, where their families lived together.

About 100 years after the two families lived together in Frankfurt, Germany, Jacob Schiff was born. He was a wizard at finances and developed the underhanded shrewdness of the Rothschilds. In 1865, as the Civil War was ending, young 18-year-old Jacob left Germany and came to America.

Between the end of the Civil War and 1914, their main agents in the United States were Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. and the J.P. Morgan Co. A brief history of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. appeared in Newsweek magazine on February 1, 1936:

Schiff’s ‘important financial connections in Europe’ were the Rothschilds and their German representatives, the M.M. Warburg Company of Hamburg Amsterdam. Within twenty years the Rothschilds, through their Warburg-Schiff connection, had provided the capital that enabled John D. Rockefeller to greatly expand his Standard Oil empire. They also financed the activities of Edward Harriman (Railroads) and Andrew Carnegie (Steel). – Des Griffin, Descent into Slavery, Emissary Publications, pp. 36, 37.

Couple that with this statement:

Thus, we see that the Jesuits-Rothschilds sent Jacob Schiff to the United States at the end of the Civil War to gain enough control over the American financial system that it would be impossible for America to refuse a central bank. Schiff used Jesuit-Rothschild money to finance J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Edward Harriman, and Andrew Carnegie. Through the companies owned by these four individuals, shipping, energy, oil, transportation, railroads, import, exports, and steel with its associate businesses, would be involved. These financial giants branched off into so many other business enterprises that it simply boggles the mind. To say the least, the financial power gained by Schiff by 1900 was absolutely staggering! We must keep in mind the statement of F. Tupper Saussy, which says:

Saussy’s reference to the “black papacy” is a reference to the Jesuits. The head Jesuit, the Jesuit general, is referred to quite frequently as the black pope.

In their relentless drive to abolish freedom in America without firing a shot, the Jesuits used their financial agents to so dominate American business and the banking system that they were able to push a central bank on the unsuspecting American people. This time, the central bank did not fail.

While Schiff was constantly increasing in wealth, influence, and power, the Jesuits-Rothschilds sent yet another agent to complete the goal of establishing a central bank in America. Their man was Paul Warburg.

At the turn of the century the Rothschilds, not satisfied with the progress being made by their American operations, sent one of their top experts, Paul Moritz Warburg, over to New York to take direct charge of their assault upon the only true champion of individual liberty and prosperity – the United States.

At a hearing of the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1913, Warburg revealed that he was ‘a member of the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. I came to this country in 1902, having been born and educated in banking in Hamburg, Germany, and studied banking in London and Paris, and have gone all around the world…’

At the end of the last century people didn’t ‘study banking in London and Paris’ and go ‘all around the world unless they had a special mission to perform!

Early in 1907, Jacob Schiff, the Rothschild-owned boss of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, warned that ‘unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far-reaching money panic in its history.’

Shortly thereafter, the United States plunged into a monetary crisis that had all the earmarks of a skillfully planned Rothschild ‘job.’ The ensuing panic financially ruined tens of thousands of innocent people across the country and made billions for the banking elite. The purpose of the ‘crisis’ was two-fold:

1. To make a financial ‘killing’ for the Insiders, and

2. To impress on the American people the ‘great need’ for a central bank.

The [Jesuit] Illuminati interests wanted to create a Central Bank in America. They wanted to build the Federal Reserve. First, they needed a bunch of banking crisis’ that would push public opinion towards a Federal Reserve system. These were provided by the Illuminati, including J.P. Morgan’s Knickerbocker Panic of 1907. Second, they needed a favorable U.S. president in office.

The engineered banking panic of 1907 did just what the Jesuits and the Rothschilds wanted it to do. It was made to appear that the only way to avoid another depression was to have a central bank.

To convince Congress and the public that the establishment of a banking cartel was, somehow, a measure to protect the public, the Jekyll Island strategists laid down the following plan of action:

1. Do not call it a cartel or even a central bank.

2. Make it look like a government agency.

3. Establish regional branches to create the appearance of decentralization, not dominated by Wall Street banks.

4. Begin with a conservative structure including many sound banking principles, knowing that the provisions can be quietly altered or removed in subsequent years.

5. Use the anger caused by recent panics and bank failures to create popular demand for monetary reform.

6. Employ university professors to give the plan the appearance of academic approval. – G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Opinion, pp. 438.

Under these pretenses, the American people were ready for the Federal Reserve Bank. The name sounds very official as if it were an entity of the American government. If people understood how the Federal Reserve Bank was going to operate, and that it would be controlled by a few of the richest bankers, they would not have tolerated its creation. The dream the Jesuits had of a central bank in America took shape at Jekyll Island. The operators and controllers of this bank are from the same groups as those who were behind the central bank in the 18th and 19th centuries: the Jesuits and the Rothschilds!

Only one step remained to complete the project. The Jesuits needed certain men in the White House and the government to pass the Federal Reserve Act. By 1912, they had their man in the White House, Woodrow Wilson. Since Jacob Schiff was already deeply into the financial scam, the Jesuits needed another man whose expertise was politics. The man they found was Edward Mandel House. It was he who controlled Wilson in the White House.

These two quotes show that Edward M. House was a key agent for the Illuminati and the Rothschilds. Since the Illuminati is a front for the Jesuits, House was a key Jesuit agent seeking to destroy Protestantism and to establish papal supremacy in America.

Two more insights into the life of Edward M. House come from Dee Zahner.

House hoped to see the teachings of Karl Marx become a living reality in America. Remember that the teachings of Marx were the codified writings of Adam Weishaupt, the Illuminist and Jesuit agent. According to Woodrow Wilson’s own words, he was dominated by House while he was president! How deceitful that the man sitting in the White House portrayed himself to the American people as a loyal American, when in fact, he did the bidding of America’s greatest enemy – the Jesuits of Rome! Several books reveal the control that House had over Wilson while he was in the Oval Office.

Woodrow Wilson was the sole property of Jacob Schiff and J.P. Morgan and other internationalist bankers, But the man who was really running things in the White House was the mysterious ‘Col.’ Edward Mandel House during Wilson’s term in office…

A key individual of the New York Archbishop’s control of the Democratic Party Woodrow Wilson was the sole property of Jacob Schiff and J.P. Morgan and other internationalist bankers. But the man who was really running things in the White House was the mysterious ‘Col.’ Edward Mandel House during Wilson’s term in office…

In their efforts to create a Jesuit empire in America, Jacob Schiff, J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, and Edward House were their agents. So many books refer to them as Illuminists, international bankers, or as Marxists, but we have seen that all of these organizations were being used as fronts for the Jesuits, and all of them do the bidding of the Black Pope, the Jesuit general!

The early 1900s were very busy years indeed. The Federal Reserve Act and a central bank, World War One, and the sinking of the Titanic were just a few of the events transpiring at that time. Two other unfortunate events were the toppling of Czarist Russia and the attempt to establish a League of Nations.

When the Czar of Russia, Alexander I, rejected the Jesuits’ effort to create a League of Nations in Europe, the Jesuits wanted to destroy him and the system of government he represented. Coupled with this, the Czar had always been the protector of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was the Vatican’s implacable enemy ever since 1054. Thus, the Jesuits felt that if the Czar could be eliminated and a new government established, they would accomplish two important goals: the Czar would be eliminated, and the Orthodox Church in Russia would be destroyed.

The leaders of the Revolutionary forces in Russia were Leon Trotsky, Nicolai Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. These three men were avowed Marxists and communists. Since Marxism and Communism can be traced back to the Illuminati and ultimately to the Jesuits through their agent, Adam Weishaupt, it should not surprise anyone that Western financiers like Jacob Schiff and the international bankers were the ones who financed the Russian Revolution. The revolutionaries were Jesuits of Rome, and they were financed by Western bankers, who were Jesuits of Rome.

Jacob Schiff, head of the New York-based Kuhn, Loeb and Co., spent $20 million on the revolution. Federal Reserve Director, William Boyce Thompson, gave the Bolsheviks $1 million. In the summer of 1917, fifteen Wall Street financiers and attorneys, led by Thompson, went to Petrograd, the center of revolutionary activity…

There are numerous other references to these facts that we could quote. These people were American citizens, and most of them took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Their acts in supporting a government whose principles are diametrically opposed to the is treason. How could these people do this? How could Woodrow Wilson and FDR support Communist Russia? They were all Jesuits working to destroy the United States. They worked together and supported each other because their masters in the Vatican told them to do this. A brief chart may be of help here to see the shape of world control.

The establishment of the League of Nations after World War One was very important for the Jesuits. They had been trying to establish the League ever since the early 1800s.

The first attempt in the 20th century to unite the whole world into a One World Luciferian slave unit was tried in history by these super-rich conspirators at the close of World War I. President Woodrow Wilson on January 8th, 1918 laid out a 14-point plan to Congress for lasting peace. Within this package of world peace was neatly hidden a plan for these conspirators to get all nations of the world to give up their sovereignty. It was labeled as ‘The League of Nations.’

Their modern money changers used World War I to make tons of money and as a toll to frighten the war-torn people of the world at that time into believing if all the governments of the world would unite into a One World Government, this would stop all wars between nations and would achieve world peace and security.

The League of Nations headquarters was in Geneva, Switzerland, and it was during World War I that our own President Woodrow Wilson in 1918 began to draw the United States citizens, along with the rest of the world, into accepting this sham. Eventually, with the help of ‘Col.’ Edward Mandel House, 63 nations joined the League, although the total membership at one time never exceeded 58. However, President Wilson was dumbfounded when he was unable to obtain the two-thirds vote in the US Senate required for ratification of a treaty, and the 10 Nations. The Second World War was necessary to convince the people of the world that they needed the United Nations in order to guarantee peace in the world. The following chapter will expose the unpublicized underhanded purposes of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This is from Christian J. Pinto’s Noise of Thunder Radio program. Chris makes some speculations on what may happen after the November election. Trump is likely to win, but will the Jesuits let him live? If not, JD Vance would become POTUS! Would the Jesuits rather have Vance to be the President of the USA? I think so. JD Vance is a Roman Catholic and therefore would probably be more obedient to directives from the Vatican.

A partial transcription is below the SoundCloud audio.

Transcription

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

Today in the show, we are going to talk about, well, we’re going to do a short program today. We’re only going to go on for about half an hour. But I wanted to talk about this issue, where at a Kamala Harris rally, they had a couple of pro-life guys, at least one who was there. And she was talking about the issue of abortion, talking about how Donald Trump appointed three judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, who were specifically there to help overturn Roe v. Wade.

And as she was talking about it, somebody shouts, Jesus is Lord. And she says, “Oh, you’re at the wrong rally.” And all of the people, or most of them, start whooping and hollering.

It’s almost unbelievable when people first started talking about it. You have to go online and you have to watch and listen.

One of them shouts, Christ is King. And the other one says, Jesus is Lord. That’s what they say. And that’s when Kamala Harris says, you got the wrong rally. And all of her supporters, most of them anyway, are shouting and whooping and celebrating the fact.

It is the open rejection of Christ and Christianity, even though Kamala Harris claims she’s a Baptist, she claims she’s a believer. We all know there’s all kinds of inconsistencies with that. But it is remarkable when you have just an outright rejection of the Name and authority of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That is it gets very, very shocking at that point for people who are claiming that they’re believers in Christ. Where Trump is concerned, even though we all know Trump is not perfect, he has his inconsistencies, but his profession is that he is a Christian. We’ve never seen or heard him do anything like this, even though yes, there are, you know, there’s some questionable moments with President Trump. Nevertheless, he publicly acknowledges Christianity, the Bible, the Christian faith and religion, et cetera. However, imperfectly he does so, he seeks to honor God by his profession of faith and by his example as a magistrate.

I think that’s very important because we’ve got a whole list of magistrates in the Bible who are obviously not perfect men, not perfect men, but publicly they honored God, gave glory to God and encouraged the people to obey God and his law and his commands and so on. Trump’s not perfect. There’s no doubt he’s got issues. Nobody could question that.

And a lot of people are questioning what is going on with the Kamala Harris campaign. There was the Al Smith dinner that happened where this is the annual, well, not annual, but it’s the traditions been going on for many years where when you have the candidates for president, typically the Republican and the Democrat candidates right before the election, they go to this Al Smith dinner and they sit on either side of the Cardinal, the Archbishop of New York, who at this point is Cardinal Dolan, and it’s supposed to be a lighthearted event where, you know, there’s all this kind of tough campaigning that’s gone on for the previous year or so. And then the candidates come together and they all just poke fun at each other and tell jokes and this kind of thing.

And it’s supposed to be all in good fun, that kind of thing. Of course, it also shows the very strong political influence of Rome in America, even though you have to admit it’s intended to be this kind of good natured sort of event. They try to sort of take the edge off all the politics.

But we also know that Rome is very, very political. The last time it is said, they made mention of this several times. I talked about it on one of the previous shows that Kamala Harris had announced she was not going to attend the Al Smith charity dinner this time.

And then the Jesuits in America Magazine said, you know, it really would be a good idea for Kamala Harris to go to this Al Smith dinner. And I said, you know, it’s going to be very interesting to see how much influence the Jesuits have over Kamala Harris. Well, it turns out she ended up she didn’t go. She did not go. She ended up recording some prerecorded video presentation that was partly a comedy sketch with a Saturday Night Live actress. And the whole thing was not really very funny and not really very well done at all.

And they made mention multiple times that the last time the last politician to refuse to go or who chose not to go was Walter Mondale when Mondale was up against Ronald Reagan. And then Mondale ended up losing to Reagan in a massive landslide. I think Mondale only got like one state in the entire country, but it was an overwhelming landslide against Mondale.

And I remember that year I was in high school when it happened. And is that a foreshadowing? Trump openly said that he thought Kamala Harris had insulted the Catholic Church by not attending the dinner. He was there and, you know, he told his jokes and whatnot. And some of them were very, very funny. But at times he was also very serious. It’s hard to tell where this is headed.

I read the America magazine article in the aftermath. They still don’t swing 100 percent in favor of Kamala Harris, but they don’t openly support President Trump either. So it’s hard to tell what’s going to happen.

Now, I’ll give you my conspiracy theory. If Rome is behind these assassination attempts, if because there’s no way that I don’t know of any way to prove it other than the general character of the Jesuits throughout history, that they’re known for carrying out assassinations against world leaders. But that’s circumstantial. If we accept what has been said about the Jesuit order throughout history, if we believe John Adams, who said all the monarchs of Europe feared Jesuit assassination, etc., if we accept all of that, then it may well be that the Jesuits have something to do with these attempts on the life of President Trump. So what could the scenario be? Well, it may be that Trump will be elected in a landslide and that they will allow that to happen.

The Deep State collectively will allow it to happen because Kamala, she’s not doing well as a candidate in a whole variety of different ways. And I think if it’s going to be a very, very hard sell to convince people that she actually won, they’re going to have to rig the election. I don’t see any way she can win everywhere that they’re going.

Even liberal media is saying when they go and talk to people in different neighborhoods, 90% of anyone, even in the black community are pro-Trump. Kamala Harris has very little support out there. So they’re going to have a hard time selling the idea that she legitimately won the election if they rig it.

Again, if. But many people suspect that they will try to rig it. So let’s say Trump gets elected and the attempts on his life continue. In fact, there’s a Breitbart News article by John Nolte and the headline is “Politico Stops Hiding Desire to see Donald Trump Assassinated.” And then Breitbart says, quote, after two assassination attempts, no decent news outlet publishes incendiary lies like this unless it is looking for a third attempt. Then it says, quote, “Politico is no longer hiding its desire to see Donald Trump murdered.”

That’s what they’re saying. But what could happen if Trump gets elected and then somehow or other, if he’s taken out or he suddenly has a heart attack or drinks a cup of tea and doesn’t wake up like Pope John Paul I, if something like that were to happen, that means the Dominican convert J.D. Vance would become the third Catholic president of America, of the United States.

And I’ve talked about on this program before the importance of remembering that J.D. Vance not that long ago was a rabid anti-Trump Democrat, worked for CNN. Yes, I’ve been watching him speak throughout this campaign. He speaks very, very well. I hope he’s sincere. But don’t forget, not that long ago, he was a hardcore anti-Trumper. Hardcore.

Was converted to Catholicism by the Dominicans and has said in the past that Catholic social teaching is his political worldview. And if you watch our film, American Jesuits, then you’ll understand what Catholic social teaching is. It’s basically the Vatican’s version of communism and socialism.

That’s what it is. Catholic social teaching is what the bishops down on the Mexican border uses the argument to justify the mass invasion of America with illegal aliens.

Up to now, until Kamala Harris did not show up at the Al Smith dinner, my belief was they want to put her in the White House because she’s a puppet that they can easily control. That has been my thought up to now. Then when I saw she didn’t actually go and her absence was perceived, when Trump said that she had insulted the Catholic Church, most of the people there at this dinner applauded as though they agreed that what she did was an insult to the Catholic Church. Now, what that is going to mean, how that’s going to be perceived, will that mean that she’s going to lose the support of Cardinal Dolan and the Jesuits at Georgetown University? They are on record. The Jesuits are on record.

If you get the book that we offer on our website, Washington in the lap of Rome, (also in text on this website) it is a saying of the Jesuits at Georgetown that if a politician is running for office, except they bend the neck, that’s what they say. They’re not going to have the support of the Catholic Church except they bend the neck, meaning you bend the neck in submission to the Pope, whoever you are, whether you’re Catholic or Protestant. If you bend the neck and honor the Pope.

Now go look at the pictures because there’s photos online of George W. Bush meeting with the Pope and look at him bend the neck to the Pope.

Then go look at Barack Obama.

Look at him with the Pope bending the neck and you’ll see what bending the neck looks like. All right. But did Kamala Harris refuse to bend the neck? I don’t know.

There’s so much back and forth and we live at a time where deception is the ongoing practice in the world we live in today. So discernment is very, very challenging on issues like this.

At the Al Smith dinner, one of the comments that I thought was very interesting, I watched most of that, not all of it. I watch it, obviously, because I think it’s very symbolic. It is part of the evidence of Washington in the lap of Rome. Watch our latest film, American Jesuits. And you’ll see lots and lots of evidence of the activities of the Jesuit order and Rome herself in our history, past and present.

One of the comments that was made at the Al Smith dinner was that when the upcoming election happens, then right afterwards, supposedly there’s going to be a civil war. Now, the way that it was presented at the dinner, because the whole thing is about comedy and taking a lighthearted approach to politics, et cetera, it was presented in a jovial manner. But then there’s other declarations that are not so jovial, that are a lot more serious.

There’s an interview from James Carville, where his words move in the direction of really seemingly inspiring some type of civil war or uprising by Democrats and liberals in the country if Trump wins. And it would appear that the reason is because Kamala Harris has turned out to be a really bad candidate. You have more and more people in the black community saying they’re not going to vote for her. You have moments like this, where she’s telling these two Christian guys that they’re at the wrong rally for saying that Jesus is Lord, et cetera.

She’s just had a number of political gaffes that are devastating. And I think lead Democrats like Carville, James Carville, of course, is famous for his comment to Bill Clinton when he said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” In other words, what’s the main issue that everybody’s concerned about? And Carville said, it’s the economy.

And so he’s been famous from then on, but he’s routinely brought out for his views of elections and politics and all the rest of it. Let’s listen to a little bit of his audio in this interview and hear exactly what he said, where he is in a little bit of a veiled way, but not so veiled, saying that Democrats and liberals should think about civil uprising if Trump wins. Listen.

Okay, so you can tell from his dialogue there, that’s James Carville, again, being interviewed, the guy who’s interviewing him, you see him kind of raises eyebrows when he’s making these comments, because it’s not entirely clear what he’s saying.

But when he talks about taking matters into their own hands and making a better country, and he’s talking about taking up arms to defend the republic and this kind of thing, and suggesting that what’s really on the ballot is that somehow or other, if Trump becomes president, then people are going to lose freedom of speech, they’re going to lose the freedom to disagree there. So even though there’s no evidence to support that at all, that’s not what President Trump did in his first administration. Why anybody would think he’s going to do that in a second administration, I have no idea.

Personally, I think this is an example of those on the left, accusing conservatives and Republicans of that which they are really guilty of. We all saw what happened with Black Lives Matter and Antifa, where they’re burning down neighborhoods, burning down businesses, all this other kind of stuff. They’re the ones who engaged in the violent uprising.

But for somebody like James Carville to be making these kind of comments is, you have to wonder, because he’s an insider. He’s somebody who’s been on the inside track of the Democratic Party and of Washington, DC. He’s been on the inside track for decades. So he’s not just some guy. He’s not just a newscaster or some sideline politician. He’s an insider. He’s been at the highest levels of our government. So it makes you wonder why he would be making those kind of comments so close to the election.

Now, exactly what’s going to happen, we don’t know. We don’t have any way of knowing. I think only the Lord knows exactly what will happen on the other side of this election. To me, I find it very disturbing.

This is really the first time in the whole history, well, at least the history of American politics that I’ve seen throughout my lifetime. I don’t remember people even making jokes like that 10, 20, 30 years ago. I don’t remember those kind of jokes being told because nobody really thought that we would be thrown into a civil war.

There’s all kinds of strange things that are going on. You have, and I’m sure many of you have seen this report, the mystery drones that swarmed around a US military base for 17 days. And whenever anybody inquired about this, the official answer from our government is, well, we’re not sure who’s behind the drones.

We have no idea. But yes, they have been swarming around and it’s very interesting. We’re looking into it.

And you’re thinking it’s kind of like when the weather balloons were floating over or these stories that we have all these Chinese spies in our country. And we’re told casually in the news, oh, Dianne Feinstein had a chauffeur who was a spy for China for years or that, or that Congressman Eric Swalwell was having an affair with a Chinese spy named Fang Fang. And it’s just sort of brushed off, you know, nothing happens.

He’s not taken into custody. There’s no questioning of him. What were you doing with this Chinese spy? I mean, there would have been a tremendous amount of alarm if something like this had happened during what we call the greatest generation.

They took those things very seriously. But now there’s this kind of casual attitude. Very little or nothing is done about these things.

I mean, these are, it’s like there is a pattern of our government abandoning its role to provide security for our country and to be the watchman on the wall, as it were, that sounds the trumpet and takes action when they see an enemy threatening the security and sovereignty of the United States of America. The open border situation is probably the clearest example that they have abandoned the protection of our country by just allowing millions of unvetted people to come in who they know are going to be, many of them, criminals, drug dealers, thugs, terrorists, all kinds of stuff. The reports are ongoing and have been given for years now.

I mean, but the people in charge of our government, it’s as though they have almost completely abandoned the idea that their role is to protect the United States of America. We have to remember that if you read the Declaration of Independence, it says in the declaration that King George III abdicated government because he declared the colonies outside of his protection. In other words, the king would not protect the colonies according to the rule of law.

So they said he has abdicated government, meaning that they no longer had to obey him. If you look up the principle online, protection and obedience, you’ll see this was a major issue during the time of the American Revolution. In fact, here’s a quote.

This is from a work we talk about in True Christian History of America said by John Adams to be one of the more popular, well-known works studied during the time of the American Revolution. The Vindicae Contra Tyrannos, which is a defense of liberty against tyranny. And it was written by the Huguenots.

At one point they say, quote, there is ever and in all places a mutual and reciprocal obligation between the people and prince. If the prince fail in his promise, the people are exempt from obedience. The contract is made void.

This is from The Enemy Unmasked by Bill Hughes.

Chapter 4
Thaddeus Stevens and the Trashing of the Constitution

Anyone who saw the Congress of the 1860s would declare that Thaddeus Stevens was undeniably in charge.

He was in his sixties at the time, slowing due to age and illness, but his mind had lost none of its invective. He was not a particularly brilliant man. He made sure that everyone knew exactly where he stood, and he expected everyone to stand with him. If they did not, he made sure that they knew he was very unhappy about it. This radical, Thaddeus Stevens, controlled the Congress and applied all his overbearing and caustic manner to bring about one of the greatest revolutions in America since 1776. Through his influence, certain hidden changes were implemented into the Reconstruction Amendments that did so much more than provide freedom and equality for the slaves but rather attacked the very rationale for the Bill of Rights.

We have seen that the banished Jesuit Order used the wealth of the Rothschild to finance Adam Weishaupt in founding the Illuminati on May 1, 1776. We have also seen that the principles laid out by the Jesuits and Weishaupt were carried out in the French Revolution. Two years after the Constitution of the United States was ratified, the Jesuits carried out their principles of government in the French Revolution. These two antagonistic forms of government were laid open for all the world to see. The Constitution guaranteed a Republican government where the government was founded on law, and every citizen was equal before the law. In France, however, the great cry was for democracy.

The United States of America is not a democracy. It is a republic, and there is a big difference between the two. A pure democracy is based solely on the majority without any restrictions on what the majority can do. An excellent example of a democracy is a lynch mob. The majority wants to hang the person, and the minority, the person to be hanged, does not want to be hanged. They have a vote and then hang the person. In a pure democracy, the minority is the victim of the majority.

In contrast, a Republic is founded on a set of laws that govern what the majority can and cannot do. The law on which the United States; Republic is founded is the Constitution. For instance, the Constitution says,

If a law was proposed in Congress to set up a national religion, and everyone in Congress voted for it, it still cannot be done, because the Constitution prohibits this type of law. The Constitution says that the government is not permitted to pass any law concerning religion. During the Dark Ages, over 150 million Christians were put to death because they would not abide by the universal religion at that time. The same thing would happen in America if America were a pure democracy.

The word democracy cannot be found in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, or in any of the state’s constitutions. Many of the Founders of the United States tried to warn about the dangers of a pure democracy.

If America had been established as a pure democracy, it would have long since ceased to exist.

The principles of democracy or mob rule have filled this world with blood. Thaddeus Stevens was most instrumental in bringing the ideals of the French Revolution to America under the guise of bringing freedom to the downtrodden slaves.

As we have seen, the ideas of Karl Marx were nothing new. He simply took the ideas of the Jesuits and Weishaupt and codified them into the Communist Manifesto.

The principles of democracy, communism, and the French Revolution, codified by Karl Marx, are seen in countless countries in the twentieth century. From the purges in Russia by Josef Stalin to Mao Tse Tung’s Reign of Terror in China, to Pol Pot in Cambodia, and numerous others, the results of Jesuitism have filled this world with misery, pain, suffering, and death. Will the United States, the greatest bastion of Republican government, fall as well?

After the Civil War, America was in shambles. The South had to start all over again. Over three million slaves, who had only known the cotton fields and hard labor, were now free. Carpetbaggers were pillaging an already depleted South. Abraham Lincoln, the man who guided America through the bloody Civil War, was dead from a Jesuit assassin’s bullet. Great struggles faced the war-torn nation.

Lincoln, like Andrew Johnson after him, wanted to allow the seceded Southern states back in the Union, but a group in Congress called the Radical Red Republicans objected. They wanted some things changed before they would allow that. They were instrumental in having the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments placed into the Constitution. The amendments, in part, are stated below and on the surface look very good. However, as after declarations were made, it became clear that freedom and equality for the Afro-American free man were used to create an entirely new citizenship, which broadened the powers of the national government and attacked the Bill of Rights. This was the same method used in France; the peasants were struggling under horrible difficulties, so the reign of terror granted them liberty and equality. Hidden beneath this was a drive to expand the power of the government and entrench the peasants in bondage still.

13th
[Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th
[Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

15th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.]

Notice the following statements from the Justices of the Supreme Court and actual cases where these amendments were interpreted. These amendments were interpreted far beyond freedom and equality for the black man.

The following statement is from the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1872. Notice how the Supreme Court interpreted the case in light of the 14th Amendment.

According to the first Supreme Court case in which the 14th Amendment was considered, it was interpreted to mean that the Bill of Rights would not be considered as privileges and immunities of 14th Amendment U.S. citizenship. This stance of the Supreme Court continued and was spelled out very clearly in subsequent cases.

Many people, who lived during that time, recognized that the Constitution was under attack by Thaddeus Stevens and his followers. That the Constitution was under direct attack after the Civil War is apparent from the books written about that era, from the newspapers, and from the speeches made by President Andrew Johnson.

The Constitution was a doormat for politicians to walk on with their muddy feet! The Constitution was in grave danger of being trashed!! These are appalling statements in the light of the glorious, Protestant principles that that document represents. It is very clear, that following the Civil War; the Constitution came under furious attack from ‘American’ politicians who were bent on bringing America under the sway of the Principles of Communism/Illuminism/Jesuitism, And they would use the good and noble, which was freeing of the slaves, in order to diabolically undermine the Bill of Rights. Is this not still happening today? We hear so much about ‘defending freedom’, which sounds great, while American liberties are trampled in the dust by Patriot Acts I and II.

Here are some excerpts from speeches made by President Andrew Johnson. While reading these, remember that Andrew Johnson was almost removed from office because he refused to go along with the Radical Red Republicans.

According to Constitutional scholar, George P. Fletcher, Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at Columbia University:

This professor at Columbia University recognized that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments brought about a completely different constitution that the one established in 1787. He declared that these amendments created a new constitution. As we have seen from subsequent court cases after the passing of those Amendments, it is clear that that is exactly what Stevens and Rome wanted to do.

In light of the heinous and destructive work of Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans, it is easy to conclude that they were the tools of Rome in destroying the great Protestant Constitution. No more wicked and diabolical men ever walked the land of the free and the home of the brave. Further insights into the life of Thaddeus Stevens add more and more evidence of Rome’s vicious involvement in the undermining of the Constitution in the name of freedom and equality.

Early in his life, Stevens was very poor. As a result, he always held a manifest contempt for the aristocrats and the wealthy. He always held that the wealthy were made that way because they had exploited the poor. Throughout his political career, Stevens always sided with the poor. However, in the famous conflict between Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle, Stevens did a very strange thing. Jackson was siding with the common man in America, fighting against the Biddle-Rothschild-Jesuit front that sought to enslave America. One would think that Stevens would automatically side with Jackson and the common people. However, this was not the case.

The contradictions in Stevens can be readily understood in light of his involvement with the Jesuits-Rothschilds. Naturally, Stevens stood with common people, but when his masters told him otherwise, then he would throw out his principles and do as he was told. How else would one explain the flagrant contradictions in this man?

Steven had no religious convictions. He never attended church. However, one very interesting note about his religious life surfaces from the book by Claude Bowers.

In light of the devilish route that Stevens took America and the beloved Bill of Rights, his close association with this Catholic priest would lead one to conclude that this priest had great influence over Stevens’ mind and served as his mentor in delineating to him exactly what path he was to pursue. That Stevens sought to undermine the Protestant Constitution declares that Stevens got the ideas from somewhere and his close association with this priest could certainly be one of the paths through which the Jesuit Order got to Stevens and twisted his willing mind!!

The other great influence in Stevens’ life from the Catholic Church came from his maid and then live-in-lover of many years; namely Lydia Smith.

At Stevens’ deathbed, we read:

From these statements by Bowers, we can glean many things. Stevens was very attached to Smith and obviously was living in an illicit relationship with her. Smith was a devout Roman Catholic and had a tremendous influence on Stevens. At Stevens’ deathbed, he was baptized by two Catholic nuns into the Catholic faith for the great service that Stevens had performed on behalf of the Catholic Church. It is clear that the influence of the Catholic priest of Lancaster and Lydia Smith were both instrumental in bringing Thaddeus Stevens to the mindset of swinging America from Protestantism to Catholicism. Only in the light of eternity will the heinous crimes of these people be fully realized.

This is from The Enemy Unmasked by Bill Hughes.

Chapter 3
Blackmailing Banker Bandits

Because Pope Clement XIV and the Catholic emperors across Europe were busy abolishing the Jesuits, they were not able to cooperate with each other well enough to stop the Protestant American experiment. If a Divine Hand had not intervened to protect the 13 colonies, there would never have been a United States with its God-given Constitution!

The Jesuits were greatly troubled because of their expulsions around the world, and they were forced to go underground. We have seen that they used their agent, Adam Weishaupt, to create the Illuminati and used the Jesuit House of Rothschild to finance it. It was not just here, however, where Rothschild’s wealth was very helpful. America was becoming a giant of financial affluence and prosperity. Already, the Rothschilds were involved in extensive trading in the Americas. Besides their financial and mercantile empires, the Rothschilds were utilizing their wealth to gain political and religious dominance in order to further the ends of the Jesuits in destroying Protestantism worldwide.

The Rothschilds believed that if they could control a nation’s money, then they could control that country. This is clearly pointed out in the following statement from biographer Derek Wilson.

Using the vast wealth of the Rothschilds, the Jesuits equipped armies to destroy countries that would not do what they dictated. They could buy politicians and through them change the very laws of a nation. This is exactly what they did in America and are still doing today! The Jesuits have been using the Rothschild’s wealth to control major events behind the scenes worldwide for the last few centuries. This was true when they first started, but today they have the central banks in each country including the Federal Reserve Bank to supply them with funds. To illustrate how the Jesuits and the Rothschilds have used countries and events to gain domination over nations and financial markets, we must look at the Battle of Waterloo between France and England on June 19, 1815.

By 1815, the Jesuits had complete control over England. If a leader did not do as he was told, money would be used to kill, smear, destroy, blackmail, or just drive the person from office. Later chapters will show that this procedure is being used today to control people like George Bush and Tony Blair. What was done in England is being done in many countries today.

As the new nation of America began to spread its wings, it would need a sound financial base from which to operate. It needed a bank, all right, but the back used America instead of America using the bank. Financial genius and opportunist, Robert Morris organized the first bank. He and his associates believed that the bank should be modeled after the Bank of England. While the first bank in North America was not as ruthless as the central banks of today, it performed many of the operations of a modern central bank. ‘Secret’ investors put up $400,000 to start this bank. This attempt failed after two short years. We will identify the ‘secret investors’ in the following paragraphs.

Please understand that the central banks being established by the Jesuits and the Rothschilds are in no way similar to the neighborhood banks that we all use to manage our money. Let us take a closer look at the central bank and see why it is so dangerous. We will use the Federal Reserve Bank as an example. Here is a very simplified scenario that pretty much explains one of the operations of the Federal Reserve Bank.

It is necessary to understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is not owned by the United States government as many believe. The central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank has a total, government-enforced monopoly in money. Before we had the central bank, each individual bank competed with other banks; the customers, the consumers, got the best deal. Not any more.

We all know that today the United States government borrows money and operates under astronomical debt. Why is this? Common sense dictates that a policy of such enormous debt will sooner or later destroy the organization that practices it, because the interest on its debt must increase beyond its income, making payoff impossible.

Now to our scenario. Here, roughly, is how the operation proceeds. Suppose the United States government wants to borrow a billion dollars. The government issues a bond for this amount, much as a water company does when it wants to raise money for a new pipeline or a new dam. The government delivers this bond for a billion dollars to the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank takes the bond and writes an order to the Department of Printing and Engraving to print the billion dollars worth of bills. After about two weeks or so, when the bills are printed, the Department of Printing and Engraving ships the bills to the Federal Reserve Bank, which then writes a check for about two thousand dollars to pay for printing the billion dollars worth of bills. The Federal Reserve Bank then takes the billion dollars and lends the billion dollars to the United States government, and the people of the country pay interest at an exorbitant rate each year on this money, which came out of nothing. The owners of the Federal Reserve Bank put up nothing for this money.

We see, therefore, that when the United States government goes into debt one dollar, a dollar plus the interest goes into the pockets of the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank. This is the largest, the most colossal theft ever perpetrated in the history of mankind, and it is so slick, so subtle, and so obfuscated by propaganda from the news media that the victims are not even aware of what is happening. You can see why the Jesuits want to keep this operation secret.

The Constitution of the United States gives to Congress the power to coin money. If Congress coined it own money as the Constitution directs, it would not have to pay the hundreds of billions of dollars of interest that it now pays each year to the bankers for the national debt, for money that came out of nothing. Money coined by Congress would be debt-free. All the central banks in other countries operate the way the Federal Reserve does.

Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, submitted a proposal to Congress in 1790 for a central bank. Interestingly enough, Hamilton had been an aide of Robert Morris in the initial experience of central banking in North America. Surprisingly, during the Constitutional convention of 1787.

Hamilton had been a strong supporter of sound money. That Hamilton completely shifted within three years and proposed a central bank, which could generate money as the Federal Reserve Bank does, shows that Hamilton’s loyalty was compromised by the Jesuits.

Note carefully Griffin’s conclusion. For Alexander Hamilton to have shifted so drastically within a few short years would lead us to believe that he had been bribed or blackmailed by the ‘secret investors’; either that or joined them. Thomas Jefferson clearly saw what a central bank would do to America. He declared,

Jefferson realized that if a central bank was ever set up in America, the bankers would have virtually unlimited amounts of money to control how lawmakers voted and to control the media and what they said. Within a short time, these bankers would essentially rewrite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the unconstitutional laws that they would pass. Thomas Jefferson was completely correct, for today we have enough laws, such as the USA Patriotic Act and the Homeland Security Act, to literally convert the United States into a police state when all the provisions of these acts are implemented.

Just like the old Bank of North America, the new Bank of the United States had eighty percent of its initial funding capital provided by ‘secret’ investors, and the government put up only twenty percent. Whoever these ‘secret’ investors were, they had tremendous power in America because they had control of the money in America. Many books written about this time period tell us who these people were.

The Jesuit – Illuminati – Jewish Connection

This is from The Enemy Unmasked by Bill Hughes. There are a lot of insights in this chapter, things I didn’t know.

Chapter 2
The Illuminati-Jewish Front

There are many books and treatises on the conspiracy theory of history. It is very difficult to find any two of them that agree. Some say the perpetrators behind the scenes are the Illuminati, and others say the Jews. The list of the conspiratorial organizations blamed includes the Communists, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Committee of 300, the Mafia, the Round Table, the Club of Rome, the Freemasons, the CIA,FBI, Mossad, and other secret societies. Of course, the New World Order, and European Union, and the International Bankers must be included in this list also. Because of all the organizations accused of conspiracy, most people tend to disbelieve the conspiracy theory of history. If they do believe it, they tend to be thoroughly confused as to which organization is responsible.

The “head” conspirators are behind each one of the organizations mentioned, and they control all of them and more. Let us investigate this and look at the evidence that shows that statement to be correct. Of course, the real conspirators do not want you to realize who they are. They do not want you to realize that they are the real power behind all of these conspiratorial organizations.

Dr. Koryagina is the economic advisor to Russian President, Vladimir Putin. In a radio interview with Rick Wiles of American Freedom News, Dr. Koryagina declared:

“Everybody knows about organized crime and the Mafia. Also, people have known for a long time about secret societies and so forth. During my research, I started to notice that those structures can be put together and joined. And I realized that right now, we have a criminal monster, a hybrid of organized crime, Mafia, and secret societies that have merged together.” (Aired Dec. 6, 2001)

All of these groups, according to this Russian economist and advisor, have merged together. All of these groups have one visible human head. The Illuminati, the Jews, and all the rest of them take their marching orders from the same mastermind, the same human leader. While some say, and very convincingly, that the Illuminati and/or the Jews are calling the shots, this chapter will show conclusively who the human leader of all these groups really is.

As we saw in Chapter 1, the Catholic monarchs and the pope, himself, were trying to ban the Jesuit Order throughout the entire world in 1773. In order to survive, the Jesuits were forced to either go underground or travel to three countries where they were still permitted to operate: England, Prussia (Germany), and Russia.

It is an unshakeable fact that the founder of the modern Bavarian Illuminati was a trained Jesuit named Adam Weishaupt from Ingolstadt University, which was the center of the Jesuit counter-reformation. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 12, page 251.)

Ingolstadt was the center where the Jesuits were flourishing in 1556. (See History of Protestantism by Wylie, Volume 2, p. 413.)

Can we really believe that Weishaupt would have been allowed to continue his professorship in a Jesuit-controlled University if he had deserted them? No way! All evidence suggests that he continued to work for the Jesuits, establishing the order of the Illuminati for them. – Sydney Hunter, Is Alberto for Real, Chick Publications, pp. 21,22.

The Apostle of Lucifer, Adam Weishaupt was born a Jew, converted to Catholicism, then turned to Witchcraft, where he became an expert, and founded another sect of the Illuminati. This sect of Illuminati was founded May 1st, 1776. – William Josiah Sutton, The New Age Movement and The Illuminati 66, The Institute of Religious Knowledge, p. 173.

On May 1, 1776, the Order of the Illuminati was officially founded in the old Jesuit stronghold of Bavaria from which the Sons of Loyola had ignited the Thirty Years’ War. – Eric Phelps, Vatican Assassins, Halycon Unified Services, page 214.

The Jesuit College at Ingolstadt is said to have issued the sect known as ‘the Illuminati of Bavaria’ founded by Adam Weishaupt; its nominal founder, however, seems to have played a subordinate though conspicuous role in the organization of this sect. – Lady Queensborough, Occult Theocrasy, Emissary Publication, p.313.

The organization…is a secret society founded in Babaria in 1776. Its founder, Adam Weishaupt, a professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt, labeled it the Illuminati Order. – Dee Zahner, The Secret Side of History, LTAA Communications Publishers, p. 26.

Canon law was the result of the infamous Council of Trent, which met from 1545 to 1563. This law revealed the Catholic Church’s stand against the Protestant Reformation and is known as the Catholic Counter-Reformation. This council not only revealed the church’s hostility toward the Reformation, but also how she would attack and destroy it.

Weishaupt established the Illuminati specifically to be a front organization behind which the Jesuits could hide. After being abolished by Clement XIV in 1773, the Jesuits used the Illuminati and other organizations to carry out their operations. Thus the front organizations would be blamed for the trouble caused by the Jesuits. Having so many front organizations would also confuse the people so that it would be virtually impossible to know who is actually manipulating the wars, policies, politics, and trouble caused by the Jesuits. The methods of many of these front organizations such as the Illuminati are carbon copies of the Jesuits’ methods and techniques.

This passage exactly describes the methods laid down by Weishaupt for his ‘Insinuating Brothers’—the necessity of proceeding with caution in the enlisting of adepts, of not revealing to the novice doctrines that might be likely to revolt him, of ‘speaking sometimes in one way, sometimes in another, so that one’s real purpose should remain impenetrable’ to members of the inferior grades.

How did these oriental methods penetrate to the Bavarian professor? According to certain writers, through the Jesuits. The fact that Weishaupt had been brought up by this Order has provided the enemies of the Jesuits with the argument that they were the secret inspirers of the Illuminati…. That Weishaupt did, however, draw to a certain extent on Jesuit methods of training is recognized even by Barruel, himself a Jesuit, who, quoting Mirabeau, says that Weishaupt ‘admired above all those laws, that regime of the Jesuits, which, under one head, made men dispersed over the universe land towards the same goal….—Nesta Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, Emissary Publications, p. 197, 198.

Here is what we have learned so far about Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati.

1. Modern Illuminism was founded on May 1, 1776.

2. Originated in Bavaria, Germany, a Jesuit stronghold.

3. The Illuminati organization is a carbon copy of the Jesuit order.

4. Weishaupt was brought up and trained by Jesuits.

5. He taught Catholic canon law at a Jesuit College, Ingolstadt University.

During the Order’s suppression from 1773 to 1824 by Pope Clement XIV, General Ricci [the head of the Jesuits] created the Illuminati with his soldier, Adam Weishaupt, the Father of modern Communism, who, with his Jacobins, conducted the French Revolution…. For the Sons of Loyola punished all their enemies including the Dominican priests, perfected the inner workings between themselves and Freemasonry, created an alliance between the House of Rothschild in establishing the Illuminati…. The Jesuit General was in control of Scottish Rite Freemasonry an now sought an alliance with the Masonic Baron of the House of Rothschild. To accomplish this he chose a Jesuit who was a German Gentile (not a Jew) by race and Freemason by association-Adam Weishaupt…. Weishaupt established the Illuminati in 1776 and joined the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge in 1777. He united the magnificent financial empire of the Masonic Jewish House of Rothschild with the opulence of the international and secret, anti-Jewish Race, Gentile Society of Jesus. –Eric Phelps, Vatican Assassins, Halcyon United Services, pp. 206, 205, 213, 215.

The House of Rothschild financed Weishaupt In his creation of the Illuminati. Phelps alluded to this several times in the preceding paragraph. He is not alone in his assertion that the Jewish House of Rothschild worked hand in hand with the Jesuits in creating and funding the Illuminati.

After he [Weishaupt] formed his organization with financial backing from the House of Rothschild, he adopted the name Illuminati… It was on May 1, 1776, that Adam Weishaupt backed and led by the House of Rothschild, formed the International Revolutionary force called the Illuminati, which later became known as Communism. – William Sutton, The New Age Movement and The Illuminati 666, Institute of Religious Knowledge, p. 175, 231.

Aware that the Rothschilds are an important Jewish family. I looked them up in Encyclopedia Judaica and discovered that they bear the title “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury….” The appointment of Rothschild gave the black papacy absolute financial privacy and secrecy. Who would ever search a family of orthodox Jews for the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church? — F. Tupper Saussy, Rulers of Evil, Harper Collins Publishers,, pp. 160, 161.

With the financial power of the Rothschilds behind Weishaupt’s Illuminati, the Jesuits and the Catholic Church have an almost perfect cover to hide their operations from the view of the public. When investigators try to trace the roots of certain events, the Illuminati is a perfect shield behind which the Jesuits can hide, and behind which investigators cannot penetrate. The implications of this are enormous. We will briefly consider two items here but will examine them in greater detail in the following chapters.

The book, Descent into Slavery, shows that there was a plan for both world wars and even a third world war.

This plan was outlined in graphic detail by Albert Pike, the sovereign Grand Commander of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and the top Illuminist in America, in a letter to Giuseppe Mazzini dated August 15, 1871. [Knowing what we know about the Illuminati, Albert Pike was speaking as one who understood the Jesuits’ plan for world dominion to bring everything back into the pope’s hands. Pike was the top Illuminist/Jesuit in America.] Pike stated that the First World War was to be fomented in order to destroy Czarist Russia and to place that vast land under the direct control of Illuminati agents. Russia was then to be used as a ‘bogeyman’ to further the aims of the Illuminati worldwide. [In other words, the Jesuits gained control of Russia near the end of WWI.]

World War II was to be fomented through manipulation of the differences that existed between the German Nationalists and the Political Zionists. This was to result in an expansion of Russian influence and the establishment of a state of Israel in Palestine. [In both instances, Pike’s plan for world wars has been precisely carried out. These plans existed 40 to 60 years before the wars took place.]

The Third World War was planned to result from the differences stirred up by Illuminati agents between the Zionists and the Arabs. The conflict was planned to spread worldwide. — Des Griffin, Descent into Slavery, Emissary Publications, pp.38, 39.

Pike shows in that quote that the Jesuits are planning for a third world war between the Zionists and the Arabs. Zionists are those who are pro-Israel like the United States and Great Britain. The so-called war on terror is part of the preparation for that war using Arabs such as Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and others against the Zionists of America and Great Britain. The Jesuits are stirring up this conflict through their lies and deception, such as the false claim that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. This lie was simply a ploy to convince the American people that we had no choice but to invade Iraq. As will be shown later, George Bush is working closely with the Jesuits to carry out their policies to the letter. The current conflict was planned over 130 years ago.

The Illuminati/Jesuit connection also impacts us in another way. In Fritz Springmeier’s book, Bloodlines of the Illuminati, we read that the two Bush Presidents were members of the Skull and Bones Order at Yale. The Skull and Bones Order is an entry point into the Illuminati. It is made to appear as just another exclusive fraternity, but in actuality, a member of the Skull and Bones order is also a member of the Illuminati. We have seen that this means that the two Bush presidents are also members of the Jesuit Order and are carrying out their wishes. Springmeier also points out that the Bush family has been tied up with the Harriman family since the 1920s. The Harrimans have been intimately connected with the Skull and Bones Order/Illuminati/Jesuits for decades. (See Fritz Springmeier, Bloodlines of the Illuminati, Ambassador House, pages 63, 320)

It is a most sobering thought to realize that the Jesuit Order controls the President of the United States. It is also a most sobering thought to think that this great Protestant nation is under the control of a man who is willingly carrying out the dictates of an Order whose stated objective is the destruction of every Protestant principle for which this nation stands. If permitted, this President would shred the Constitution. He is passing laws such as the USA Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, which totally ignore the restrictions on such laws in the Constitution.

This President has been told to engage in war in the Middle East. He has done so knowing that many lives of America’s youth would be lost. This is nothing but a deliberate act of Treason! When will Americans wake up and see what is being done to them?

Let us now examine the claim that the Jews are really the bad people who are behind the scenes manipulating the world. The propaganda in the media today tries desperately to convict the Jews as the real instigators of the trouble in the world. The Jewish belief that Christ will one day come and rule the world causes the Vatican to shudder.

The Vatican believes that if hatred for the Jews can be fomented as took place in Hitler’s Germany, then Jews will be ruthlessly eliminated. The Vatican believes that if all Jews are killed, Christ will not come, and the Vatican’s aim to rule the world will remain intact. Avro Manhattan says it this way:

It is important, although it may be difficult for some to recognize the religious nature of the Communist/Zionist/Catholic political configuration. Although deliberately muted in public pronouncements, behind the Zionist banner there was to be found the ancient Messianic hope for the coming global theocracy, as predicted by all the seers and prophets of Zion. It was to be a theocracy in which Jehovah, not Christ, was to be King.

The specter of the creation of such a theocracy has haunted the inner chambers of the Catholic church from its earliest inception and still is a dominant fear.

In the Vatican eyes, therefore, the millenarian yearning for a global Hebrew theocracy represents a deadly threat to the eschatological teachings of the Catholic church. When translated into concrete political terms, such a view spells not only rivalry but implacable enmity. — Avro Manhattan, The Vatican Moscow Washington Alliance, chick Publications, pp. 169, 170.

Why would the Jesuits use their implacable enemy, the Jews, to further their designs for world dominion? The Jesuits never do anything out in the open where they can be exposed. If they are recognized as the culprits, they will be blamed and suffer the consequences, but if they can use someone else as the cause of the world’s problems, especially an enemy they can destroy in the process, then they have simultaneously accomplished two of their objectives. The Jewish people are the perfect scapegoat. Since the Rothschilds are Jesuit agents operating under a Jewish cover, using them in forming the Illuminati back in 1776 effectively throws the onus of this conspiracy on the Jews. The Rothschilds are certainly not the only Jesuit agents that operate under a Jewish front.

The following sources indicate that Adam Weishaupt and the Rothschilds were the brains and the wealth behind the French Revolution.

History books will tell us that the French Revolution first began in 1787 or 1789, depending on which book you read. However, it was actually planned by Dr. Adam Weishaupt and the House of Rothschild almost 20 years before the Revolution took place. — William Sutton, The New Age Movement and The Illuminati 666, Institute of Religious Knowledge, pp. 172, 73.

For the main purpose of Baruel’s book is to show that not only had Illuminism and Grand Orient Masonry contributed largely to the French Revolution, but that three years after that first explosion they were still as active as ever. — Nesta Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movement, Emissary Publications, p 255.

The Jesuits have constantly mixed themselves up in court and state intrigues that they must, in justice, be reproached with striving after world dominion. They cost kings their lives, not on the scaffold, but by assassination, and equally hurtful as the society of Illuminati; they were the foremost among the crowd, at all events, who applauded the murder scenes in Paris…. — Hector Macpherson, The Jesuits in History, Ozark Book Publishers, pp. 126, 127.

The Jesuits, Weishaupt, and the Rothschilds managed to cast the blame for the French Revolution on their front organization, the Illuminati!

The Communistic ideals that came from the Reductions in Paraguay and that were exalted in France had their fruition in the writings of Karl Marx.

The ideas Lenin developed were directly from Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, and ideas found in the Communist Manifesto were directly from the writings of Dr. Adam Weishaupt, who took his orders from the House of Rothschild. — William Sutton, The New Age Movement and The Illuminati 666, Institute of Religious Knowledge, p. 193.

Karl Marx was hired by a mysterious group who called themselves ‘The League of Just Men’ to write the Communist Manifesto as demagogic boob-bait to appeal to the mob. In actual fact, the Communist Manifesto was in circulation for many years before Marx’s name was widely enough recognized to establish his authorship for this revolutionary handbook. All Karl Marx did was update and codify the very same revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of the Illuminati in Bavaria. And, it is widely acknowledged by serious scholars of this subject that the League of the Jest Men was simply an extension of the Illuminati… — Gary Allan, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, Concord Press, p. 25.

Karl Marx, ‘the Father of Modern Communism… was privately tutored by Jesuits in the huge Reading Room of the British Museum while writing The Communist Manifesto based upon the ten maxims of ‘planks’ the Order had perfected on its Paraguayan Reductions…. A Jew was chosen for this task; for, the Order anticipated blaming all the evils of the Communist Inquisition on the Jewish Race. — Eric Phelps, Vatican Assassins, Halcyon Unified Services, p. 293.

Adam Weishaupt and the Rothschild family created the Illuminati. Then both Weishaupt and the Rothschilds united their efforts to foment the French Revolution and the roots of Communism. The Jesuits next used Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto, which codified the Illuminati’s plans. The teachings of Marx were then passed to Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky. The financiers of all these men were the Rothschilds or Rothschild agents such as Paul Warburg, the first chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Jacob Schiff, and Armand Hammer. Each one of these men, being Jesuits, were Jews and operated under a Jewish front. Is it any wonder that the Jews are usually blamed for all the conspiracies?

Other Jesuits who operate under a Jewish front include the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Alan Greenspan, Arlen Specter, and Henry Kissinger.

The Jesuit Order has very effectively used traitorous Jews as their agents to carry out awful crimes against humanity. So many things have been done by Jews who were being used by the Jesuits. When the whistle is blown and someone cries foul, the Jew is left holding the bag and is blamed, while the Jesuit Order walks away clean. This has been the case time after time through the last 400 years.

The Illuminati and traitorous Jews have been used by the Jesuits and have taken the blame for many crimes that really were the Jesuits’ responsibility. We have seen many such examples in this chapter. In the Jesuits’ relentless pursuit to destroy America, she would use the Jewish House of Rothschild to gain control of the American banking system. To this, we will turn in the next chapter.

A Comparison of The Roman Empire to the United States of America

Chapter 1

DIVINE HAND OVER THE UNITED STATES

The United States of America is on the brink of total collapse. Once a great and powerful nation, the United States is now in a free fall to disaster from which she will never recover. A few more steps in its decline and it will be ruined. These are not easy words for a patriotic American to read, but, nevertheless, they are absolutely true. Tragically, it need not have come to this.

As one looks at the history of nations, from Babylon to Rome to America, it is evident that a Divine hand was protecting and guiding America. This country began as a few colonies on the Eastern seaboard of this vast land and became a great nation.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a young French philosopher of the last century, came to our shores to discover what magical quality enabled a handful of people to defeat the mighty British Empire twice in 35 years. He looked for the greatness of America in her fertile soil, her limitless forests and natural resources. He examined America’s schools, her Congress and her unique Constitution without fully understanding the source of America’s strength.

I was not, he said later, until he went to the churches of America and found congregations ‘aflame with righteousness’ that he began to comprehend the secret of this power. Upon his return to France, de Tocqueville wrote; “America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” — Des Griffin, Descent into Slavery?, Emissary Publications, p. 267.

In her youth, the United States was very good. On her money, her trust in God was proclaimed, and the great blessing of God rested upon this nation. As the United States grew to greatness, she gradually abandoned the principles that made her great until today she is approaching a very tragic end. The process of the decline of America is similar to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Let us examine a little of the history of ancient Rome and notice the parallels.

As the early Roman Empire was beginning to develop, it was building on the solid premise that the family unit was the cornerstone of society. Morality and discipline were the cornerstones of the family unit. As the empire developed, liberalism crept in, and the morality and discipline that protected society began to disappear. By the beginning of the 2nd century AD, most families had given into the liberal trends, and their children were allowed to do pretty much as they pleased.

Having given up the habit of controlling their children, they let their children govern them and took pleasure in bleeding themselves white to gratify the expensive whims of their offspring. The result was that they were succeeded by a generation of idlers and wastrels, who had grown accustomed to luxury and lost all sense of discipline. –Jerome Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, Yale University Press, pp. 78, 79.

While this was going on, Rome witnessed “an epidemic of divorces.” (ibid. p.97) From the same author, we find that a strong women’s rights movement developed in Roman society.

Some [wives] evaded the duties of maternity for fear of losing their good looks, some took pride in being behind their husbands in no sphere of activity, and vied with them in tests of strength which their sex would seem to forbid: some were not content to live their lives by their husband’s side, but carried on another life without him…. It is obvious that unhappy marriages must have been innumerable.–ibid. pp. 90, 93, 95.

Roman schools were in disarray.

They undermined Instead of strengthening the children’s morals, they mishandled the children’s bodies instead of developing them, and if they succeeded in furnishing their minds with a certain amount of information, they were not calculated to perform any loftier or nobler task.

The pupils left school with the heavy luggage of a few practical and commonplace notions laboriously acquired and of so little value that in the fourth century Vegetius [A Roman writer who wrote about the Roman military system.] could not take for granted that new recruits for the army would be literate enough to keep the books for the corps.–ibid. pp. 106,107.

This kind of education led to a continual decline in morality and discipline and also resulted in decreasing patriotism.

The Roman virtues — honesty, candor, frugality and patriotism — withered and died. What was left was a people whom neither the vices of the rulers nor the increasingly bold attacks of foreign enemies could shake out of their apathy….In all the great cities of the provinces, the theater held the same place of bad preeminence in the social life of the inhabitants.

The Roman stage was gross and immoral. It was one of the main agencies to which must be attributed to the undermining of the originally sound moral life of Roman society. So absorbed did the people become in the indecent representations on the stage, that they lost all thought and care for the affairs of real life. –Philip Myers, Rome; Its Rise and Fall, Ginn & Company, pp. 515,516.

Another leading factor in the demise of Rome was that is became a welfare country. People were encouraged to be idle and receive money from the government rather than work to make their own way. The welfare system was a leading fact of Roman life. The evils that resulted from this misdirected state charity can hardly be overstated. Idleness and all its accompanying vices were fostered to such a degree that we shall probably not be wrong in enumerating the practice as one of the chief causes of the demoralization of society. –ibid. p.523.

It is obvious that the moral fabric of America today is where the morality of the Roman Empire was nearly 2,000 years ago. Do we not see the breakdown of the home, a strong women’s rights movement, a deterioration in the school system, moral decay as espoused by the news and entertainment media and the schools, and welfare eating the heart out of the American economy? With regard to these problems, how are we any different from the Roman Empire during its decay? Why are these things happening in America? But, that’s the wrong question. The question should be: Who has brought America to the brink of destruction?

As mentioned earlier, Providence had its eye on the United States. America was the land of opportunity. It was the place where those who were being persecuted for their faith could come and worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. It was a land without a king where one could come and breathe the air of civil liberty. It was the place where one could come and earn a good living for himself and his family. America was the place where dreams came true. There once was a Divine Hand Over America.

In 1759, twenty-five years, more or less, stood between the thirteen colonies and freedom from the British. Twenty-five years and the greatest Protestant nation to ever exist in the history of nations would fly its flag. Twenty-five years and the groundwork for the Constitution — republicanism, inalienable rights, and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people — was in sight. An experiment in government never before tried in history was to become the greatest nation the world had ever seen.

Many said such a government would not work. The Roman Catholic Church had ruled the world under her dictatorial control. She was, and still is, deathly afraid of such an experiment. For over 200 years, the Protestant Reformation had challenged the papacy’s authority. The papacy gradually began losing her power. An experiment like America was certainly not in the plans of the Catholic Church; no nation would be allowed to espoused principles that would bring the papacy down.

What of the monarchs of Europe? They ruled by permission of the papacy and had wielded tyrannical control for ages with no one to oppose them. Were they now ready to watch the development of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? A clearer rationale would be that they would unite with Rome to stop this American experiment with every weapon at their fingertips.

By the 1550s the Reformation had become so extensive in Europe that the papacy began to realize that they must do something to try to stop it. They realized that if it were not stopped, it would eventually undermine the position of the Catholic Church and destroy the absolute political power they had achieved. In order to accomplish the destruction of the Reformation, a new secret organization was formed within the Vatican called the Jesuits.

One of the major purposes of the Jesuits was to destroy every trace of Protestantism and its principles, including religious freedom, republicanism, representative government, and an economy built around a strong middle class. Another purpose of the Jesuits was to greatly expand the power and control of the papacy throughout the entire world.

I cannot too much impress upon the minds of my readers that the Jesuits, by their very calling, by the very essence of the institution, are bound to seek, by every means, right or wrong, the destruction of Protestantism. This is the condition of their existence, the duty they must fulfill, or cease to be Jesuits. Accordingly, we find them in this evil dilemma. Either the Jesuits fulfill the duties of their calling, or not. In the first instance, they must be considered as the bitterest enemies of the Protestant faith; in the second, as bad and unworthy priests; and in both cases, therefore, to be equally regarded with aversion and distrust. — G.B. Nicolini, History of the Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrine, and Design, Henry G. Bohn, preface.

From their very beginning in the 1540s, the Jesuits did just that. They used any means they could devise to destroy Protestantism, including assassination to kill leaders who tried to bring freedom to their people. Two examples are William of Orange in 1584 and Henry IV in 1610. Both were slain by Jesuit assassins.

The Jesuits used deception in the extreme to bring about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572, where 70,000 Protestant Huguenots, including women and children, were slain in one night. They also created the 30 Years War from 1618-1648 in order to destroy the Lutherans of Europe. The blood that reddened European soil for centuries can all be traced back to the murderous Jesuits.

Starting in the 1600s, the Jesuits created a communist regime in Paraguay that eventually brought the Jesuits’ demise in the 1700s.

The Jesuits, as is well known, held very large regions of Paraguay under missionary control from 1650 to 1750. More than a quarter million natives worked under their direction, and no payment was made directly to them…. They were educated, trained, housed, clothed, fed and, to some extent, amused, but what became of the surplus profits of their labours, and of the extensive trading that was carried on? Over two thousand boats are said to have been engaged in carrying merchandise and goods on the Parana River; and the economic value of the Reductions was beyond doubt very great: so great in deed as to have awakened the envy of Spanish and Portuguese traders. Robertson [contemporary historian] estimated that the reductions represented at least $25,000,000 capital for the Society. – Boyd Barrett, The Jesuit Enigma, New York: Boni & Liveright, p. 211.

The Reductions were communist communes set up as manufacturing facilities using the Guarani Indians as slave laborers. The products they produced were sold in Europe and greatly enriched the Jesuit order. The Reductions produced herbs, hides, tallow, clocks, and other goods, which the Jesuits traded in Europe with their huge fleet of ships. The profits were used to finance wars against the Protestant nations they had sworn to destroy. But all this wealth and power was acquired in secret, as the kings of Portugal and Spain knew nothing about the Reductions. – Eric Phelps, Vatican Assassins, Halycon Unified Services, p. 189.

By the middle of the 1700s, the Jesuit Order had become the powerhouse of Europe. According to Barret, the Jesuit Order at last reached the pinnacle of its power and prestige in the early eighteenth century. It had become more influential and wealthier than any other organization in the world. It held a position in world affairs that no oath-bound group of man has ever held before of since… nearly all the Kings and Sovereigns of Europe had only Jesuits as directors of their consciences, so that the whole of Europe appeared to be governed by Jesuits only. – Boyd Barrett, The Jesuit Enigma, New York: Boni & Liveright, p. 209.

The Jesuits ruled the world. The monarchs of Europe, and the pope himself had Jesuits as their confessors. The plans and plots were all alike known to them. Besides this, they were amassing a vast amount of wealth that allowed the Jesuits to do whatever they chose. With them controlling the world, how could the little colonies of America have had a chance to stand against the Jesuit-controlled monarchs of Europe? In an instant, the Jesuits could utilize any army at its disposal and crush the colonies. It was at this juncture in 1759 that something strangely divine began to happen. It began in Portugal. The Portuguese king, Joseph I, banished the Jesuits from his realm.

In Portugal the culmination point was reached by an attempt to assassinate the king….the deed had been incited by the Jesuits, who had impressed ignorant and fanatical minds with the idea that no wrong was committed by killing a heretical king; that is one who did not submit to their dictation….Hence, as a measure absolutely essential to the life of the nation, the king issued a decree of banishment against the Jesuits as traitors, rebels, enemies to, and aggressors on, his person, his States, and the public peace and the general good of the people. The Jesuits were then seized, transported to the States of the Church (Italy)…. – Richard Thompson, The Footprints of the Jesuits, Hunt & Eaton, p. 217, 218.

King Joseph’s Portugal was the first Catholic kingdom of Europe to banish the Jesuits from their realm. With this first banishment, the dominoes began to fall rather quickly. Catholic France banished them in 1762. The decree of Louis XV and the French Parliament reads as follows:

“Whereupon, the investigation into the constitution and statutes of the society [of Jesuits] …resulted in the enactment of a Parliamentary decree which shows the odium then attached to the society in France. It denounced their doctrines and practices ‘as perverse, destructive of every principle of religion, and even of probity; as injurious to morality, pernicious to civil society, seditious, dangerous to rights of the persons of the sovereigns; as fit to excite the greatest troubles in States, to form and maintain the most profound corruption in the hearts of men…that the institutions of the Jesuits should forever cease to exist throughout the whole extent of the kingdom.’—ibid. p. 219

The third sovereign to drive the Jesuits from their realm was King Charles III of Spain. He banished the Jesuits in His [Charles III] greatest work, the expulsion of the Jesuits, would never have been carried out if he had not been persuaded of its political necessity. The [Jesuit] order had already been driven out by Pombal from Portugal and by Choiseul from France when Charles III was convinced that a riot in Madrid…had been promoted by the Jesuits. – Encyclopedia Britannica, The Werner company, vol. XVII, p. 341.

One year later, yet another nation banished this evil brood from their realm. Under the leadership of Fra Manuel Pinto de Fonseca, the Jesuits were forced to leave the island of Malta in 1768. Of this, we read:

In 1768 the Jesuits, having given much trouble, were expelled and their property confiscated. – ibid, vol. XV, p. 343.

The mightiest Catholic nations of Europe had banished the Jesuits from their realms. These Catholic monarchs demanded that the Catholic Church abolish the society forever. Clement XIII, the pope at that time, resisted the pressure of the European monarchs, but finally capitulated. The night before he planned to abolish the Jesuits, he was poisoned to death.

During the night preceding the day appointed for the public ceremony of announcing the abolition of the Jesuits, Clement XIII was suddenly seized with convulsions and died, leaving the act unperformed, and the Jesuits victorious. Cormenin…records this event in the terse and expressive words: ‘The Jesuits had poisoned him.’

The Catholic Monarchies of Europe, however, insisted that the Jesuits be disbanded and threatened the Pope.

Clement XIII, after endless indecision, postponements, and unconvincing delays, finally decided to do what he had been advised he should do. He capitulated.

He made ready a proclamation announcing the suppression of the Jesuit order. It was said that the document was written and was waiting for the day when it was to be made public. To the surprise of all, however, the Pope was suddenly attacked by a mysterious illness. He died on the 12th of February (a coincidence in dates) 1769 with agonizing, unexplained convulsions.

Rumors had it that he had been poisoned. The suddenness of his affliction and the convulsions both pointed to it. The suspicions, however, were never proved. It was suggested by those in the know that the Pope had been made to die before he could publish the announcement of the official suppression of the Jesuit order. – Avro Manhattan, Murder in the Vatican, Ozark Books, p. 74.

Four years later in 1773, three years before the Declaration of Independence, mark it well, Pope Clement XIV wrote an order, the purpose of which was to abolish the Jesuits forever. (Unfortunately, a later pope reestablished them in 1814.) Of this, we read:

Again, in July 1773, Pope Clement XIV wrote an order dissolving the Society of Jesus. This bull, Dominus ac Redemptor, was published 16th of August of that year. After issuing it, however, the Pope relented, in fear of the consequences, and tried to withdraw it. Too late. The Spanish ambassador had already dispatched the document by special courier direct to Madrid.

The papal brief annihilated the Jesuit order throughout the world, closed its schools and cancelled its statues. Its houses were occupied and its general and other dignitaries were imprisoned. – ibid., pp. 74.75.

In a 14-year period, from 1759-1773, the Catholic monarchs of Europe and the pope, himself, were preoccupied with abolishing the Jesuits. Emmett McLaughlin’s tremendous book, An Inquiry into the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, summarizes these events very succinctly with these words.

Even their own Catholic countries finally became surfeited with Jesuit political intrigue and financial avarice and, in self-preservation, were forced to expel them, Portugal, Angola, Goa, and Brazil took the lead in 1759. France followed in 1754. Several Italian states such as Parma, Sicily and Naples followed suit. By sealed imperial orders sent to her colonies around the world, Spain threw out all Jesuits in 1767, This decree suppressed them in the Philippines, Argentina, New Granada (Columbia), Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, New Mexico and Arizona. Austria did the same in 1773.

Finally, Pope Clement XIV in 1773 issued the document, Dominus ac Redemptor, abolishing the Jesuit Order altogether, listing eleven popes that tried to curb their excesses. Among them were Benedict XIV, Innocent XI, Innocent XIII and Clement XIII.

He cited the Jesuits for opposition to “other religious orders,” for “revolts and intestine troubles in some of the Catholic states,” and “persecutions against the church in Europe and Asia. There remained no other remedy to so great evils…and this step was necessary in order to prevent the Christians from rising one against the other and from massacring each other in the very bosom of our common mother, the holy church.” Therefore, he wrote, “after a mature deliberation, we do out of our certain knowledge and the fullness of our apostolic power, suppress and abolish the said company.” – Emmett McLaughlin, An Inquiry into the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Lyle Stuart, Inc., pp. 84, 85.

The timing of these events in Europe in fascinating. Catholic Europe was in disarray. The Catholic monarchs were pre-occupied with taking care of the problems with the Jesuit Order. The Jesuits were reeling as one Catholic country after another drove them from their realms. While Europe was shaking, thirteen colonies across the Atlantic were looking at the very real possibility of war with England. The thirteen colonies were instituting principles of government never before heard in the annals of human history. Documents would soon be written that would codify such things as inalienable rights, government of the people, by the people, and for the people, free exercise of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms. These documents would soon be the hope of mankind throughout the would longing to be free.

What if the Catholic monarchs were no distracted by their dealings with Jesuits? What if the Jesuits were not reeling by their banishment from Europe? The monarchs and the Jesuits would have utilized their wealth and military power to smash the American colonies in the New World, and the Protestant dream in America would have never been a reality. Without a doubt, there was a Divine Hand Over America!

The Popes of Rome – By Ronald Cooke

In this short study the lives of various popes are briefly discussed. The reason for this study is because certain evangelical and fundamental spokesmen have come forward to praise the papacy since the advent of Vatican II and Pope John XXIII, (or XXIV, as the case may be).

The popes of Rome are now considered wonderful charismatic spiritual leaders of the entire world community. There is even talk of moving the See of Rome to Jerusalem so that a future pope may oversee and solve the problems in Israel and the Middle East.

The last few popes have been praised not only by Roman Catholics and other religious leaders, but by evangelical and fundamental Protestants. Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe, Pat Robertson, and James Robison all sing the praises of the papacy today.

Does the papacy deserve such praise? Is the papacy worthy of the adulation heaped upon it by such men? Let the historical record answer these questions.

Ronald Cooke
RR 3, Box 486
Max Meadows, VA 24360
April 12, 1999

About the Author

Ronald Cooke

Dr. Ron Cooke was born in Northern Ireland and came to the United States in the 1950’s to better his education. Since then he has pastored churches and taken part in evangelistic campaigns. He has been preaching for sixty-two years. He has been a Professor of Theology for forty-five years and President of Breckbill BIble College for 32 years. Dr. Cooke has authored over 100 books and tracts. He founded Truth International Ministries in 1988 since then TIM has distributed over 400,000 pieces of literature to over 40 countries. TIM also funds an Orphan feeding program in the Philippines, Prison Ministry in Zambia, and works with 32 churches in Malawi, Africa. – (Quoted from https://www.truthinternationalministries.com/About-Us.html)

Chapter one An Important Issue

When one raises questions about the lives of some of the wicked popes of Rome, the response usually comes back that it is true there were some wicked popes but that was back in early times and in the Middle Ages, in modern times the papacy cleaned up its act. Modern popes, it is claimed, have not been monsters of iniquity as their predecessors were.

This, of course, is small comfort to the truth seeker. For then such a response ADMITS that for more than a thousand years the popes of Rome for the most part were very evil men. Meaning that many men, who CLAIMED to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Lord of the Earth, Supreme Ruler of Mankind, were engaged in the worst of crimes against humanity, while at the same time making such preposterous and blasphemous claims.

So how could such an office have any thing to do with Christ when such monsters obviously occupied it many times down through church history? If the office was truly from God and was truly occupied by the very representative of Christ on earth then it admits of NO EXCEPTIONS. Such men are either the Vicar of Christ or they are not. It is obvious that they are NOT!

Again, people say, why bother with such things? Why dredge up the past? Let sleeping dogs lie. The answer is that modern evangelical spokesmen have brought the issue to the fore by praising the popes of Rome, as not only Christian, but as the greatest spiritual leaders in the world today. When evangelical and self-professed fundamental leaders praise the popes of Rome they put the camps they represent on notice: either they are going to accept what the spokesmen say or reject what they say. So far we have seen very little rejection of these statements.

So if this study accomplishes no more than to separate me from such spokesmen it will be well worth the labor expended. I do not want to be identified with anyone who praises the Roman Antichrist and calls him a great spiritual leader of men in the world today!

It is true that few seem to care about truth today. The debacle of the impeachment of the President of the United States underscores this attitude toward the truth only too well. The majority of Americans, it is claimed by those who keep statistics, are more interested in the economy than in truth.

Nevertheless the truth must be presented whether the majority are interested in it or not. The truth of Christ must be presented in the face of Antichrist. God’s servants are not guaranteed to get much of a hearing in this world. Still the voice must cry in the wilderness of carnal security, and material prosperity, and antichristianity,

In the Scriptures the voice asks the question: “What shall I cry? And the answer was: “All flesh is as grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: the grass withers; the flower fades; because the Spirit of the Lord blows upon it: surely the PEOPLE IS GRASS. The grass withers, the flower fades: BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD SHALL STAND FOREVER!

The Word of the Lord states CATEGORICALLY: “But this MAN after He had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sins FOREVER, SAT DOWN on the right hand of God (Heb. 10:12). Christ put an end to all masses and to the Roman priesthood. As Dr. Ian Paisley put it so well: “God has sacked every priest that Rome ever ordained.”¹

So whether anyone listens or not the voice still must cry out in the wilderness of this world. The Word of the Lord shall stand and the refuge of lies shall be swept away whether people are interested in the truth or not. God always has a remnant that are interested in the truth, and God ALWAYS has the LAST word whether men pay any attention or not.

For centuries after the Reformation there was a definite Protestant heritage that understood the evils of the papacy. That heritage slowly but surely has been eroded away by a weak and compromising spirit. But even apart from the weakness there has been a definite attempt by the papacy to DESTROY the Reformation heritage.

This effort has been going on for centuries and it is still going strong as of this writing. The effort has as its focal point the issue of the identity of Antichrist.

At the Council of Trent the Roman Catholic Church sought to rid the papacy of the stigma of Antichrist. All the Dissenters of pre-Reformation history, and all the Reformers without exception identified the papacy with Antichrist. So Rome, since the days of Joachim of Flores around AD 1190, has been working to remove the stigma of Antichrist from the papacy.

The Jesuits spearheaded the attack on Reformation Protestantism. One of the first things the Jesuits did was to put forth two new ideas of Antichrist. Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit priest put forth his idea of an evil man who would appear at the very end times and be the antichrist. Alcasar, a Spanish Jesuit put forth the Preterist idea of Antichrist, teaching that Antichrist rose and fell in the first century before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The amazing thing about these two views is that they are now the views of almost every PROTESTANT in the world today! The two Jesuit-originated ideas of the Antichrist are taught by almost every Bible-believing Protestant in the world today.

(I have had people say to me that the Jesuits now have very little impact upon Protestantism. This may be true, but if it is, the reason is easily seen: Protestants now promote the Jesuit’s ideas for them, so the Jesuits do not need to be active in Protestant circles today except as ecumenical spokesmen.)

On one side the Reconstructionists all promote the Jesuit Alcasar’s idea of an Antichrist limited only to the first century of the church. On the other side the rest of Protestantism, with the exception of a very small minority, promote the Jesuit Ribera’s view of antichrist limited only to the very end of the age. The Reformers’ view that Antichrist was past, present, and future, and tied into the papacy, has been almost completely discarded.

For two hundred years after the Reformation the Reformers’ view of Antichrist held its own. Then various spokesmen within the confines of Protestant Anglicanism began to call for unity with Rome. The Tractarians launched an all out effort to return Anglicanism to the fold of Rome, and in so doing REJECTED the Reformers’ view that Rome was Antichrist. In other words, the first move toward modern ecumenism had to deal with the issue of Antichrist. Certainly, no one in his right mind is going to call for unity with Antichrist. So one of the very first tasks of the ecumenists was to lift the stigma of Antichrist from Rome.

Since that time the move has gained great momentum. Now it is not only Anglicans who are praising the papacy as Christian, but Baptists, Presbyterians, and other self-professed Bible- believing Christians who are joining the chorus. So that at this very hour the papacy is not only being hailed as Christian, but the pope is called one of the greatest spiritual leaders of the world!

The speed up of the news media has also contributed to the growth in popularity of the papacy. At the turn of this century the pope was only a little-known Italian prelate out side of Italy and Ireland.

In just a few short years the pope of Rome has gone from being a virtual nobody in the modern world to the best known man in the world and the man who is now looked upon as and the leader of leaders. Ethelbert Bullinger, who believed that Mystery Babylon referred to a rebuilt Babylon in the Middle East, said,

It is not my wish in any degree to minimize the awful abominations of Romanism. We see in it one of the most filthy of all streams that have flowed from Babylon; but we do try to rise above a “Local Board” when we are dealing with God’s account of how He is going to close His great controversy with Jew and Gentile.²

So when Bullinger wrote about 100 years ago he felt that the Papacy was little more than the local board as far as the end- times were concerned. It is true that the Pope was considered an anachronism back then in Britain and America. But times have obviously changed dramatically and the Pope has gone from an unknown chairman of the board to the most visible man in the world.

Bullinger never lived to see the Treaty of Rome signed. He never lived to see a common currency come into vogue in Europe. He never lived to see the United States (which in his day was the most powerful Protestant nation on earth) become a total lackey of the Vatican. He never lived to see the advent of television which now enables the blasphemy of the mass to be beamed into two billion homes at the same time. He never lived to see the pope of Rome become the best known man in the world.

The popes of Rome keeping claiming the world as their domain, they keep pushing themselves into the limelight, seeking to become the cynosure of all peoples. So they need to be closely examined as to their self-professed credentials.

When one looks at the lives of some of these men who claimed, and still claim, to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, he sees a ghastly array of egregious evils both moral and spiritual, which cannot be matched by any other group of men, or by any other organization, in the annals of history. Other men and organizations have committed great evils, but never on such a wide scale and never for such a long time.

The evils are compounded by the fact that the popes of Rome not only claimed to be “Christian” but to be the leader of all Christians in the world, and the personal representative of Christ on earth. When the lives and teachings of the popes are examined it will be seen by any impartial observer, that some of the most wicked men who have ever lived on this planet were popes of Rome. Their lives and teachings mark them out as the representatives of evil rather than the representatives of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The popes surpassed Nero and Caligula in crimes and sins. Because of their positions and their claims, they were far more evil than the most evil of the Roman Emperors. The very ideas of morality and honesty were vitiated by the monsters who sat in the papal chair. Even Bellarmine the great defender of Romanism wrote about the time preceding the Protestant Reformation:

there was no strictness in spiritual courts, no chastity in manners, no reverence in presence of what was sacred, no scholarship, in short almost no religion.³

And yet all these men up to this time of Bellarmine’s writing for the past fifteen hundred years CLAIMED TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRIST ON EARTH! During all these centuries impunity was sold to the living for a price; and deliverance even from death and purgatory could be obtained for the right amount of money.

Farrar wrote,

A priesthood calling itself the Church –a priesthood whose vices were the complaint of the theologian and the motive of the novelist, the despair of the good and the execration of the multitude –claimed absolute authority over men’s bodies and souls. . . made it easier for the rich than for the poor to escape damnation and gave even to the grace of God the aspect of capricious concession to the purchased intercessions of the Virgin Mary.⁴

Farrar elaborated:

The name of faith was prostituted by being bestowed on the abject acceptance of unproved postulates; the name of morals was conferred upon blind obedience to human traditions; the name of grace was confined to the mechanical operation of perverted sacraments; the name of truth to a mass of infallible falsehoods; the name of orthodoxy to the passive repetition of traditional ignorance. The results were frightful. There was mental coercion and moral disorder.⁵

Farrar then asked the following series of questions:

How could Rome be respected when the world saw such pontiffs as Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII., Alexander VI., Julius II., and Clement VII.? How could the world tolerate on the lips of simonists, nepotists, adulterers, and worse, the claim to absolute dominion over religion, the claim to be the sole interpreters of Scripture, and the immediate recipients of the power and authority of Christ? ⁶

Dean Fredric W. Farrar was certainly no ranting fanatic. He held the high and honored position of Dean of Canterbury, and Chaplain to Queen Victoria, and also chaplain of the House of Commons. Yet even this highly respected and mild mannered Anglican scholar, at the turn of this century, blasted in no uncertain terms the wickedness of the popes of Rome. This is why it is nothing short of incredible, that evangelicals and self- professed fundamentalists, in such a short time should now be praising the very men that Farrar so rightly condemned.

The difference is that Farrar studied and knew church history, while the men of today who are called great prophetical scholars seem to be almost totally ignorant of church history. An ignorance of church history is almost universal today. Yet prophecy cannot be understood apart from history. Perhaps the church could use some historical speakers today to help counteract the ignorant prophetical speakers which are everywhere in this generation.

Men speak of a future-only Antichrist while ignoring totally the historical Antichrist. In so doing they have invented the best of all possible opponents. In fact, it would be impossible to invent a nicer opponent. For the future-only Antichrist has NEVER affected anyone in ALL of church history, He is NOT NOW affecting anyone, and he NEVER WILL affect any Christian, because all Christians will be gone before he can even appear! When he does appear he will attack only Jews. And even at that he will only do so for three and a half years!

So a nicer opponent would indeed be difficult to invent. According to this Jesuit idea the future-only Antichrist may be a hideous monster capable of every evil imaginable and with the power to carry it out, but he NEVER EVER does anything to any Christian.

The Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Hussites, the Lollards ALL thought they were being persecuted and destroyed by the Antichrist. The Protestant Reformers all thought likewise.

It has taken several hundred years to remove the stigma of Antichrist from the Papacy that was laid upon her by all the Dissenters of church history before the Reformation, and by all the Reformers and those who followed them for two centuries after the Reformation. The Jesuit’s two views of Antichrist now rule practically all Bible-believers’ eschatology. A remarkable triumph of Jesuit casuistry!

While multitudes of Christians now follow the Jesuits, the work of Antichrist proceeds on every side. The neutralized wonder boys of modern Protestantism ignore the inroads of Romanism while warning about a future monster who harms nobody NOW. They totally ignore the work of the present Antichrist while warning everyone about a future Antichrist who will never affect one Christian if their eschatology is correct. It is a remarkable achievement of the Jesuits. No wonder modern “Christianity” is in such a pathetic state as the church approaches the end of the second millennium.

When ungodly men claim to be the Lord of the Earth, the Supreme Ruler of mankind, the Vicar of Christ, such claims mark them out as vicious sinners and blasphemers above the rank of ordinary cutthroats and apostates who never made such ungodly and blasphemous claims.

The following popes made the most blasphemous claims concerning their own persons while living lives that would have embarrassed ordinary sinners. They cannot be dismissed as if they never existed. THESE MEN LIVED! WHAT IS MORE, THEY LIVED AS THE POPES OF ROME! THEY WERE THE HEAD OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC “CHURCH.” THEY WIELDED ALL THE HORRIBLE POWERS THAT WENT WITH THAT POSITION. THEY STAND, ACCORDING TO ROMAN CATHOLIC WRITERS AND SCHOLARS, IN THE LONG CHRONOLOGICAL LINE OF THE POPES, AND YET THEY WERE SOME OF THE WORST MISCREANTS WHO EVER CURSED THE WORLD WITH THEIR PRESENCE!

References

1. Paisley, Ian, Revivalist, Oct., 1998, p. 13.
2. Bullinger, Ethelbert, The Book of Revelation, Kregel Reprint, pp. 509-510.
3. Farrar, Frederic W., History of Interpretation, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Ml, Reprint, 1961, p. 311.
4. Ibid., p. 310.
5. Ibid., p. 311.
6. Ibid., p. 309.

Chapter two Some of the Early Popes

Various Biographical Glimpses of the Popes of Rome

Pope Damasus I

Malachi Martin, who is a Roman Catholic writer, gives us a glimpse into the early days of the papacy:

At the election of Pope Damasus I in AD 366, thirty seven corpses littered the environs of the Liberian Basilica after a fracas between the followers of Damasus and his archrival Ursinus.1

Malachi Martin also recounts the actions of Pope Stephen who had his archrival brought before him with broken knee-caps, (the IRA practiced the same cruelty) and had him whipped and his eyes carved out. He then elaborates:

Within a year Pope Stephen will have used Duke Desiderius to get Christophorus, Sergius, and Gratiosus imprisoned, first their eyes cut out, then their lives ended. He will then turn on Desiderius and by December of 771 will encompass his ruin and death.2

Martin again:

The high point of Marozia’s career came at the end of her very long life when she was visited in her Roman prison by an emperor who had just seized possession of the city –Otto III, a successor of Charlemagne. He had only one reason for visiting Marozia –to lay eyes on the woman who was the mother of a pope, whom she had conceived by another pope, and who was the aunt of a third pope, the grandmother of a fourth pope, and with the help of her own mother, the creator of nine popes in eight years, of whom two had been strangled, one suffocated with a cushion, and four deposed and disposed of in circumstances that have never come to public light.3

The catalogue of evil associated with the various popes can not be matched by any other organization in the history of man. Here are a few more examples of men who claimed to be the Vicar of Christ in the early years of church history.

Formosus I -? -896

The story of Formosus is one of the most bizarre tales of the papacy. He was installed as pope in AD 891 and reigned for five years. He tried to take Spoleto by force at the head of an army but died of a stroke on the way or may have been poisoned. He was buried in AD 896 in Rome.

When Pope Stephen VII, a man who was insane and subject to violent outbreaks, was installed as pope he at the instigation of Agiltruda had his rotten corpse dug up. Martin relates the rest of this story.

Formosus had been dead and buried for over eleven months. On Agiltruda’s suggestion, Pope Stephen had the rotting corpse dug up, and brought to the Lateran Palace, clothed in pontifical vestments, placed sitting on a papal throne, and then tried for capital crimes by Stephen and his cardinals and bishops. This was the famous Corpse Synod…

Pope Stephen himself and a papal accuser cross- questioned the rotting corpse (a trembling eighteen year old deacon stood beside the corpse and answered for the voiceless Formosus). . . At the crucial confession, Cardinals Sergius, Benedict, Paschalis, Leo, John, and the others rushed on the corpse, ripped the pontifical vestments from it, tore off the first three fingers of the right hand (Formosus, like every pope, gave the papal blessing with those three fingers), and then dragged the corpse from the hall.

Marozia was there as the cardinals and clergy dragged the corpse out of the palace and along the streets. The shouts of the crowd, the smell of putrefying flesh, the stones and the mud she and the others threw at the corpse did not let up at all. And then there was the dull splash as they threw the remains of Formosus into the River Tiber. 4

Pope John XII -? -964

This is the pope who was a former gang member who carried on various affairs with his mother, his sister, and his father’s mistress. He had many mistresses and one called Joan. Since she exercized such control over him at one point, she in effect was pope. Others claim that there was an actual woman pope called Pope Joan. There certainly seems to be some authority for such a claim.

John it is claimed made a pact with the Devil and was charged with open Devil worship. But in answer to the charges John threatened the group of cardinals with excommunication, He was caught in the act of adultery by an irate husband who beat him to death with a hammer. He was then all of 27 years old.

Before his death John was also charged with the crimes of murder, adultery, and perjury, before a council convened by Otho

I. He was summoned to appear but the “Vicar of Christ” refused. He was deposes Dec. 4, 964. Leo VIII was declared his successor. John merely came to Rome later and declared the other council null and void and reinstated himself. Otho I then prepared to march on Rome again and deal with John once and for all. But he died some say of apoplexy while engaged in an “adulterous intrigue.”5 Others maintain he was dispatched by an angry husband. BonifaceVII-?-985

He is not considered a legitimate Pope by some but his name appears in the list of popes given in some chronological tables. He was Cardinal Francone before changing his name to Boniface the VII. He was elected in a riot which followed the strangling of Benedict VI in 974. 6 He was deposed a year later because of his licentiousness and cruelty. However, he was able to return to Rome in 985 and had enough power to put pope John XIV in prison where he died of starvation. When Boniface VII died his corpse was not shown any dignity and treated with disdain and disrespect.

Martin writes of this period of church history as follows:

Each of the succeeding popes from Leo III to Boniface VI

(896) were elected in a tortuous fashion. The Roman factions battled among themselves and with the ordinary people. A candidate emerged from these always rough, frequently bloody, often fatal encounters between the various contending parties who used money as well as arms and sexual subversion to enforce their wishes.7 The men who claimed to be the Vicar of Christ, at this juncture of history, were men who used bloody and fatal encounters to come to the papal throne and attempt to hold it against their opponents. In other words, MURDER was an acceptable weapon to gain the papal throne and wield power as the “Vicar of Christ” on earth!

References

1. Martin, Malachi, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, Bantam Books, N.Y.N.Y., 1981, p. 43. 2. Ibid., p. 70. 3. Ibid., p. 99. 4. Ibid., pp. 101-102. 5. McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. IV, Baker Book House, Reprint, Grand Rapids, Ml, 1981, p. 980. 6. Op.cit., Vol. 1,p. 849. 7. Martin, op.cit., p. 81. -12

Chapter three The Popes of the Middle Ages

Pope John XIX or XX -? -1034

The history and chronology of the popes is obscure in the tenth and eleventh centuries. So many were deposed, then reclaimed, or attempted to reclaim the papacy, while others were killed, that it is difficult to know for sure just where some of them are to be placed in the chronology.

John XX, who was the son of Count Gregory of Tuscany, procured the papal throne by violence and bribery, after the death of his brother Benedict VIII.1 This John was considered to be imbecilic by those who disliked him, and he practiced simony constantly throughout his ten year reign.

It is said of him that he was so engrossed in the pursuit of money, for religious placements, that he came near to disposing of the Roman supremacy over the whole Eastern Church, at that time, for some pecuniary remuneration.2 In other words he would sell any office for money with scarcely a second thought.

Clement II -?-1047

Clement died suddenly and some writers believe he was poisoned. Poison seems to be one of the more common ways in which popes were removed from office during the Middle Ages.

Clement was the first German pope and was installed through the power of the Emperor Henry III. He tried to use the power of the papacy to crush his enemies. He put the city of Benevento under the Interdict. But he did not have much time to inflict his wrath upon those who opposed him, for he died on Oct. 9, 1047 after just being installed on Dec. 25, 1046. So he did not last a year in office giving rise to the suspicion of poison causing his untimely end.

Clement was installed as a replacement of Benedict IX who was one of the worst of the popes. Since he was able to reclaim the papal chair after the death of Clement II, he may well have had him dispatched to render the papal throne vacant.

Benedict IX 1021 -1054

Benedict IX was known as the “boy” pope, and one of the worst monsters ever to sit upon the papal throne.3 He engaged in ceaseless immorality and was deposed at least three times from the papal chair by his opponents.

In AD 1045 he asked to be deposed from the papacy that he could marry an Italian princess who was also his cousin. Johannes Gratianus was installed in his place after he bought him out with a large sum of money. So he, in essence, sold the papal chair for money.

Silvester III had already replaced him earlier. So there were now three popes all living at the same time. Rome, during this time, was filled with brawls and murders.

The German King, Henry the Black, called for a general council to try to remedy the situation. Clement II was then installed as pope by the council. However, he died within a few months of his installation and Benedict came back to the papacy for the third time. He held office until AD 1048 when he was deposed again and this time it proved to be final. He died in AD 1054 a profligate to the end of his young life.

Innocent III 1161-1216

This particular Innocent has been praised by some evangelicals in recent years as one of the greatest Christians of church history. So it is important then to look at some of his major achievements.

Almost from the very start of his pontificate he sought to make the Roman See the throne of a world dictatorship. “Universal Supremacy” for the See of Rome and the pope of Rome was his never ending pursuit. He managed to make the papacy the temporal ruler of most of the civilized world, as well as its spiritual dictator.

He worked incessantly to bring the entire world to his feet and under his personal control. When the imperial throne became vacant he had a prefect appointed whom he made to swear allegiance to himself. He was able to expel Conrad, and Marcualdus, and to take over their provinces in the name of the Roman See. He put himself in as regent when the king of Sicily died so that he was able to control that kingdom also.

He also was able to get various important cities such as Tuscany and Pisa to throw off their allegiance to the empire and come under his jurisdiction. It was this occasion which called forth one of the famous letters of Innocent III.

He wrote,

As God has created two luminaries, one superior for the day, and the other inferior for the night, which last owes its splendor entirely to the first, so He has disposed that the regal dignity should be but a reflection of the splendor of the papal authority, and entirely subordinate to it.

It was in the affairs of Germany that Innocent manifested the greatness of the papal power over the world of that time. Otho and Philip were in a contest for the imperial crown. Innocent decided in favor of Otho and excommunicated Philip. Philip fought back but was assassinated. Innocent’s triumph in Germany was thus complete and Otho became a vassal of the pope.

Otho tried later to rebel against the authority of the papacy and was himself then excommunicated and Innocent’s hand picked successor put in his place. So Innocent had shown the world that he controlled Germany and the empire by making his own man the new emperor.

He was able to excommunicate some of the most powerful men in the world and they were powerless to act against him. He was also able to put various countries under the papal interdict and they had to submit to him and the papacy before the formidable ban could be lifted.

He constantly claimed that he was head of a papal theocracy and that the Pope was the Vicegerent of God on earth. He also said that he was “intrusted by St. Peter (to govern) not only the whole church, but the whole world.”5

Next to God, he was to be so honored by princes that their claim to rule was lost if they failed to serve him.”6 In short all the prerogatives which had once been attached to the emperors were wrested from them, and transferred, with additions, to the popes.

Innocent was one of the greatest persecutors of true believers who ever lived. To him, every heresy was a rebellion which it was his duty to repress and extirpate. So when the Albigenses refused to take the oath of allegiance to the papacy, Innocent sent two papal legates to root out and put an end to such heresy. The two legates were given the title of Inquisitors.

One of them, Castelman, was a cruel and severe persecutor who was murdered near Toulouse. When Innocent heard that his Inquisitor had been so rudely treated he ordered a crusade against the Albigenses in that whole territory in order to uphold his idea of an ideal “Christian” republic.

He addressed himself to all the faithful Roman Catholics exhorting them to fight against the old serpent and promising them the kingdom of heaven as a reward. He sent two legates to accompany the crusade and to report back to Rome as to its success. The report by the legate Arnaldus speaks of the taking of the city of Beziers in which the massacre of 30,000 men, women, and children took place. Zoe Oldenbourg, a modern writer recounts in details the horror of this massacre in her book Massacre at Montsegur.

She also gives us an insight into the character of Innocent III.

In November 1215 the Pope’s Ecumenical Council was at last assembled as the Fourth Council of the Lateran. It was a veritable international conference, and had entailed upward of two years’ preparation… the problem of heresy, and the means by which it was to be fought, possessed a burning immediacy. It was to defend the Church against this danger that the Council established its definitions of the (Roman) Catholic faith and of orthodoxy. Heretics, whether Cathars or Waldensians… were unconditionally condemned and anathematized…

Those temporal rulers who failed in this duty would be stripped of their rights by the Pope; he would be free to bestow their domains upon any Catholic seigneur that desired them. The Council could have hardly underwritten the work of the Crusade more explicitly (this was the crusade in which the massacre at Beziers had occurred) or defined the Church’s theocratic attitude with greater clarity. The Pope might not command the actual battalions to unseat kings; but through the decision of the Council he had arrogated to himself the legal right to do so –thus proclaiming the Church’s absolute supremacy over secular law.8

Innocent wanted to rule the world. Anyone who stood in his evil way was to be annihilated and those who did the annihilation would be generously rewarded for their trouble. The fact that he went to such pains for two years to prepare for an ecumenical council with the desired object of eradicating heretics shows just how determined he was to crush any dissenter from the See of Rome.

Innocent also used the powerful weapon of the papal Interdict against France and England. The Interdicts varied with different popes but the main issue usually was the cancellation of all public worship. When this happened in the middle ages it usually created a great impression and brought the person who had incurred the interdict, such as the king, into great disrepute and weakened his position as ruler of the country.

With the dawning of modern intelligence just around the corner, and beginning to raise its head, Innocent went to great lengths to stop it. He created the Mendicant Orders with the express purpose of stopping and purifying the church from the “spirit of modern independence and modern intelligence.”

He also wrote letters to the Emperor Alextus with the view of inducing him to acknowledge the See of Rome and thus bring the whole eastern Empire under the papacy. So he constantly strove to bring the entire world to the foot of the pope of Rome. McClintock and Strong note that “His pontificate may be fairly considered to have been the period of the highest power of the Roman See.”9

Nicholas III-?-1280

His name was John Cajetanus and he was born into a noble family. He took the name Nicholas when he became pope. He is known in papal history as Nicholas the Accomplished, because he had a lot of ability. However, he was one of the most ambitious popes who ever sat in the papal chair. His ambition was his undoing. He is known in history as a Nepotist. He worked to bring large sums of money to Rome to build splendid palaces and used his relatives to discharge many duties of his pontificate. They were merely interested in enriching themselves and their families.

One of the sources of his plunder was the Inquisition. He loved the Inquisition and is said to have made much of his large fortune from those who were hauled before it, who were either executed or imprisoned. In either case Nicholas made their possessions his. He was also involved in the massacre of the Sicilian Vespers. So Dante, in his Inferno, puts him head down in hell with his feet on fire.

Boniface VIII 1217-1303

This evil man started his rule in the papal chair by whispering through a hidden tube to the ruling pope, “Celestine, Celestine, lay down your office.” When he did this in response to what he thought was the voice of God he was locked up in prison and starved to death. Boniface claimed he was both pope and emperor. He, as McClintock and Strong note, “carried his schemes for the enlargement of the papal power to the verge of frenzy.”10

He fought with the powerful Colonna family which led him to destroy the city of Palestrina, killing 6,000 citizens. He also issued his famous Bull Unam Sanctam in which he claimed that the Pope was ruler over both spiritual and temporal powers and which enabled him to wear the Triple Tiara signifying such powers.

He robbed and plundered while having immoral affairs with his mistress and her daughter. Philip le Bel of France against whom Boniface had pointed his Unam Sanctam, caused him to be seized and imprisoned in 1303. He was later liberated by an armed insurrection and returned to Rome only to become insane. He was placed in solitary confinement where he died.

John XXIII or XXII-?-1419

This John was a worthless character by all accounts and is linked to the poisoning of Alexander V while he was still a cardinal. He called for a crusade against Ladislaus, King of Naples, because Ladislaus had driven him out of Rome. He got into a struggle with the general council he had called to meet at Constance. Sixty charges were laid against him at this council and he was deposed. He was the last pope to take the name John for many years. The name had been associated with debauchery, murder, simony, and other crimes. So the name was not chosen again until the middle of the 20th century when Pope John the XXIII or (XXIV as the case may be) was elected. The confusion in chronology is demonstrated by the fact that some historians view Cardinal Cossa as Pope John the XXII and others view him as Pope John the XXIII making the 20th century pope by that name Pope John the XXIV. Whatever the chronology Baldassare Cossa could not be saved from the charges brought against him at the Council of Constance. His court magician, Abramelin could not even save him although he tried. The 60 charges were reduced to five: lust, murder, rape, sodomy, and piracy.1 11He was found guilty and deposed.

Alexander VI 1431 -1503

His mother, Jane Borgia was the sister of Pope Calixtus III. He was originally called Rodrigo Lenzoli but later changed his surname to Borgia. McClintock and Strong euphemistically describe his youthful years as very dissolute. The fact is he had several mistresses; the main ones being Vannoza Cattanei and Guilia Farnese.

He committed his first murder at the age of twelve and fathered at least 10 illegitimate children. He bought himself the papacy. It has been said of him that he single-handedly justified the Reformation. He died after being poisoned by a draught he had prepared to poison two new cardinals, when he himself drank it by accident. He also had Savonarola the man who cried out against the sins of the papacy executed.12

He bought the papal chair by giving various Cardinals all kinds of gifts so they would vote for him. He gave Cardinal Orsino the castles of Monticello and Savriani. He gave to the Cardinal of Colonna the rich abbey of St. Benedict. To the Cardinal of St. Angelo, he gave the bishopric of Porto, and the tower which was dependent upon it, and a cellar full of wine. He also dispensed various other gifts to several other cardinals to secure his nomination to the papal chair. He became pope in 1492 and took the title Alexander VI.

His pontificate was a particularly evil one. He made everything subservient to the raising of his ten illegitimate children. Again, McClintock and Strong try to shield their readers from the coarseness and vulgarity and immorality and debauchery of this pope. They noted the following:

Of the crimes alleged against Alexander and his children, this is not the place to speak in detail; it is enough to say that his pontificate rivaled the worst years of the Roman Empire in debauchery, venality, and murder.13

His death certainly seemed to be the judgment of God upon him. He requested from Cardinal Corneto the use of his magnificent palace for a great feast to celebrate his illegitimate daughter’s marriage. All the Cardinals and nobility were invited to this great feast at which some of the Cardinals were to be poisoned. By mistake, (some might be forgiven if they thought on purpose,) Alexander was given the poisoned wine and died the same night.

McClintock and Strong also point out that even for such a monster as Alexander VI there have been those who sought to defend him and his papal reign.

Among those who doubt, or affect to doubt, the stories of his great crimes, are Voltaire, Roscoe, the Biographie Universelle of Michaud, and Appleton’s Cyclopedia. But the evidence of contemporary writers is not to be shaken by the kind of criticism employed by those who would whitewash the Borgias. See as the chief authorities. (They then give a list of the main authorities which establish their facts.) 14

References

1. McClintock and Strong, Vol. IV., p. 981.

2. Loc.clt.

3. Op.cit., Vol. I.,p. 743.

4. Op.cit., Vol. IV., p. 590.

5. Ibid., p. 591.

6. Loc.cit.

7. Loc.cit.

8. Ibid., p. 592.

9. Oldenburg, Zoe, Massacre at Montsegur, Dorset Press, NY, NY, 1990, pp. 177-178.

10. Op.cit., Vol. I., p. 849.

11. Kelly, Sean, Rogers, Rosemary, Who in Hell, Villard Books, Toronto, Canada, 1996, p. 128.

12. Op.cit., Vol. I., p. 146.

13. Loc.cit.

14. Loc.cit.

Chapter four The Popes in Reformation Times

Pope Paul III 1468 -1549

Paul’s original name was Allessandro Farnese. He was educated at the University of the Medici at Florence. He was noted for the immoral company which he kept at this time in his life. He supported various mistresses, fathered children out of wedlock, and as McClintock and Strong note, “in many ways gained uneviable notoriety.”1 He worked his way up the ranks of the “church” first as apostolical chancellor’s aide where he gained friends by his promptness to duties. In 1493 he was made a bishop. In 1499 he was created a Cardinal and then later Dean of Sacred College. On the death of Clement VII in 1534, Farnese was elected pope.

He is noted in history because of the times in which he served the papacy, the times when the Protestant Reformation was breaking out in Europe. He was pope when Henry VIII of England defected from Rome. He also was the pope who was involved with the struggles of the German and Swiss Protestants at this juncture in history. He was guilty of simony and cruelty. He put to death the leaders of the people in Perugia and built a citadel there to keep them in fear and subjugation. He attacked the Colonna, a powerful baronial family and took all their strongholds. He died in 1549 having failed to defeat Protestantism.

Leo X -?-1521

This waster was pope for only two years but it would take more than the few lines we can give him to fully describe all that he was able to do in such a short time. Malachi Martin writes of this pope:

One matter troubles Leo besides money -Petrucci. Petrucci is a name Leo never forgets. He used to love that cardinal and the other conspirators. But they did not understand; and when Leo banished Cardinal Petrucci’s brother from Siena, drove Cardinal Piera’s brother from Florence, defeated Cardinal Riario in the conclave, and refused the rich archbishopric of Marseilles to Cardinal di Saulis, they plotted against his life.2

Malachi Martin is a Roman Catholic who still believes, as far as I know, in the primacy of the pope, end that the Roman Catholic church is the true church. Yet he describes some of the worst crimes and sins, which the various popes have committed, in more detail than I do. In the above quote all these cardinals are plotting to murder the pope and yet it is the house of Cardinals who sit to elect the pope’s successor. So a group of murderous conspirators is the group from which the next pope will be chosen!

Martin continues:

Petrucci was given a safe-conduct pass by Leo on condition that he come back to Rome in 1517. Once back, Leo had him thrown, cardinal’s robes and all, into the infamous Sammarocco dungeon in Sant’ Angelo and tortured daily on the rack. “No faith need by kept with a poisoner,” Leo retorted to the Spanish Ambassador who was a guarantor of Petrucci’s safe-conduct. . . The same day Cardinal Riario and cardinals Soderini, Adrian, and di Saulis were also arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. Leo presided at their trials in which Adrian and di Saulis were fined 25,000 ducats apiece, . . . Cardinal Riario was fined 150,000, to be paid in three monthly payments, and promised a grand-niece in marriage to de’ Medici nephew. Cardinal Petrucci was condemned to death and received his sentence with a stream of blasphemies and curses. He kicked a priest in the groin who approached to confess him, and was strangled in prison by Leo’s official executioner, Roland the Moor.3

Martin also recounts the following:

For two years after this Leo lived in fear of assassination; he sought out and liquidated the family and friends of Petrucci… Leo himself said mass daily surrounded by men with drawn swords and hidden archers with arrows at the ready. .. Leo shivered at Petrucci’s confession on the rack: “Eight times, I, Cardinal Petrucci, went to a consistory with a stiletto beneath my robes waiting for an opportune moment to kill de’ Medici (Leo).”4

Leo was also the pope who declared Luther anathema, excommunicated him, and placed him under the ban of the empire to be killed on sight.5 Leo had no time for religion he liked to hunt, put on banquets, masked balls, comedies, music, dancing, and theater. He could not understand why many did not like him.

He died on Dec. 1, 1521, just as the Reformation was getting off the ground. He died suddenly and more than likely had been poisoned.

Paul IV-1476-1559

Pope Paul IV has been praised by some writers as a very efficient pope. He certainly was. One of the main areas in which he exercised his efficiency was in the strengthening of the Inquisition.

Von Ranke states that prior to the rise of Caraffa, who was later to take the name of Pope Paul IV, the Inquisition had fallen into decay. So Caraffe, who was at that time a Cardinal along with Cardinal Alvarez of Toledo, told the pope that the only way the evils of false teaching could be remedied was to set up a thoroughly efficient and thoroughly searching Inquisition.

Von Ranke noted,

Caraffa and Burgos were both old Dominicans, zealots for the purity of Catholicism… these men advised the pope to establish a supreme tribunal of inquisition in Rome, universal in its jurisdiction, and on which all others should depend. “As St. Peter,” exclaimed Caraffa, “subdued the first heresiarchs in no other place than Rome, so must the successors of Peter destroy ail the heresies of the world in Rome.” The Jesuits account it among the glories of their order, that their founder, Loyola, supported this proposition by a special memorial. The bull was published on the twenty-first of July, 1542. 6

Caraffe lost not a moment in carrying this edict into execution. Von Ranke stated,

he hired a house for immediate proceedings at his own expense; this he fitted up with rooms for the officers, and prisons for the accused, supplying the prisons with strong bolts and locks, with dungeons, chains, blocks, and every other fearful appurtenance of his office. He appointed commissioners-general for the different countries. ..

The manuscript life of Caraffa gives the following rules as drawn up by Caraffa himself; and as being the best he could devise for promoting the end in view:

“First. When the faith is in question, there must be no delay; but at the slightest suspicion, rigorous measures must be resorted to with all speed.

Secondly. No consideration to be shown to any prince or prelate, however high his station.

Thirdly. Extreme severity is rather to be exercised against all who attempt to shield themselves under the protection of any potentate…

Fourthly. No man must debase himself by showing toleration towards heretics of any kind, above all toward Calvinists.”7

Everyone was subject to the authority of the Inquisitors. The suspected were at once “to be thrown into prison, the guilty to be punished by loss of life and confiscation of property. They were thus to proceed enforcing and executing whatever might most effectually suppress and uproot the errors that have found place in the Christian community, and permitting no vestige of them to remain.”8

Persecution and inquisition now filled many parts of Europe. “Scarcely is it possible to be a Christian and die quietly in one’s bed,”9 stated Antonio dei Pagliarici. All men of letters were subjected to the most rigorous supervision.

To aid the Inquisitors to keep writers in check lest they spread any heresies, Caraffa decreed that no book, whether new or old, and whatever its contents, should in the future be printed without permission from the inquisitors. Even the officers of customs were ordered not to deliver any package whether of printed books or MSS, without first laying the contents before the Inquisition.

Von Ranke notes that these laws were carried into execution with incredible success. Though many thousands of copies of the work “On the Benefits Bestowed by Christ,” were disseminated, not one was suffered to escape; the book entirely disappeared. Whole piles of confiscated copies were burnt in Rome.10

When Pope Paul IV died there was a riotous tumult in the streets of Rome. The common people rose in insurrection, ran to the prison of the Inquisition, wounded a Dominican monk who acted as commissary, delivered all the prisoners, and burned papers. 11 They also threw down a statue of the pope, crying out, “Death to Caraffa.”

During the long centuries of the Inquisition various kings and heads of states entered into negotiations with the papacy to try to bring to pass some reformation of the hideous tribunal but without success. At times, the occupant of the papal chair would make concessions, but they were never carried out.

In Spain, the Inquisition never really died out until the last vestiges of Protestantism had been ruthlessly suppressed. Even as late as 1762 when the Grand Inquisitor was exiled to a convent for condemning a book against the king’s will the Inquisition was still operating in Spain.

When Joseph Napoleon by an edict in 1808 finally abolished the Inquisition in Madrid, Llorente calculated that from the time of its introduction into Spain in 1481 until 1808, the Inquisition in Spain alone had condemned 341,021 persons. “Of these 31,912 persons had been burnt alive; 17,659 in effigy, and 291,456 others punished severely.”12

But Spain was not yet through with the Inquisition even then. For Ferdinand VII reestablished the Inquisition when he regained the throne in 1814. McClintock and Strong wrote the following:

One of the first acts of the Revolution of 1820 was the destruction of the palace of Inquisition by the people… Yet after the restoration, the apostolical party, continued to demand its re-establishment; an inquisitorial junta was organised in 1825 and the old tribunal finally restored in 1826. The law of July 15,1834, again suspended the Inquisition, after sequestering all its possessions, and the Constitution of 1855 expressly declares that no one should be made to suffer for his faith. Yet in 1857 the Inquisition showed itself still very vigorous in persecuting all persons suspected of Protestantism, and all books containing such doctrines (were to be destroyed).13

To this day there still remains the holy Office of Inquisition in Rome. It no longer brings people before its once feared tribunals, but it does demonstrate the papacy never really changes unless forced to do so by civil governments.

Some of the popes, as Paul IV, Innocent III, and Nicholas III, with others, demonstrated great attachment to the Inquisition and increased, rather than diminished, its power. The men who called themselves the Vicar of Christ lived off the possessions they stole from those hauled before their Inquisition.

Yet the modern dunderheads continue to praise such an unholy regime as if such things were pipedreams instead of stern and hideous historical realities.

References

1. McClintock and Strong, p. 831. 2. Martin, Malachi, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, Bantam books, NY, NY., 1983, p. 170. 3. Ibid., p. 171. 4. Loc.cit. 5. Ibid., p. 173. 6. Von Ranke, Leopold, History of the Popes, P. F. Collier, and Son, NY, NY., Vol. II., p. 142. 7. Ibid., p. 143. 8. Loc.cit. 9. Ibid., p. 145. 10. Ibid., p. 146. 11. McClintock and Strong, op.cit., Vol. VII., p. 833. 12. Ibid., p. 603. 13. Loc.cit.

Chapter five The Popes of Modern Times

Pius VII

Martin describes the middle of the nineteenth century in these words:

The legacy of Pius VII was a terrible one: oppression, surveillance, a dictatorship. Between 1823 (death of Pius VII) and 1846 (when Pius IX was elected), almost 200,000 citizens of the papal states were severely punished (death, life imprisonment, exile, galleys) for political offences; another

1.5 million were subject to constant police surveillance and harassment. There was a gallows permanently in the square of every town and city and village. Railways, meetings of more than three people, and all newspapers were forbidden. All books were censored. A special tribunal sat permanently in each place to try, condemn, and execute the accused. All trials were conducted in Latin. Ninety-nine percent of the accused did not understand the accusations against them. Every pope tore up the stream of petitions that came constantly asking for justice, for the franchise, for reform of the police and prison system. When revolts occurred in Bologna, in the Romagna, and elsewhere, they were put down with wholesale executions, sentences to lifelong hard labor in the state penitentiary, to exile, to torture… Secret societies abounded. Assassination, robberies, crime in general increased.1

Nowadays millions of deluded people think that the papacy is a great defender of democracy and political freedom. The papacy has been for centuries the very epitome of hard-line dictatorship. It only gave up such a dictatorship when forced to do so by force of arms.

(Typewriter comment Adolph Hitler and worked with) Pope Pius XII This pope signed a concordat with with the Nazis in Croatia in the years 1941-1944. Anton Pavelic who was the puppet head of state for Croatia collaborated closely with the Nazis in perpetrating the worst massacre of the twentieth century at that time.

The United States and NATO are at this very moment ready to bomb the Serbs again. The Croats are considered model citizens even though they massacred the Serbs in a reign of terror aided and abetted by the Nazis.

Archbishop Stepinac was hailed as a wonderful anticommunist in the United States and Pope Pius made him a cardinal for his bloody reign of terror against the Serbs. Stepinac was the man behind the murderous Ustashi, some of whom were Roman Catholic priests, who were responsible for the massacre of the Serbs and for the forced conversion of others.

The documentation of this horrible period is now beyond question, yet it is all shoved under the proverbial carpet, so that NATO and the US can now once again kill the Serbs. Manhattan in his well documented work The Vatican Holocaust noted the following:

The Ustashi terror cannot be either minimized, excused, or condoned. For the mass murders carried out by individuals apparelled in clerical garb truly were instigated from the archiepiscopal palaces of the Catholic hierarchy. That Hierarchy knew, nay, IT APPROVED AND TACITLY ENCOURAGED THE SANGUINARY TASK. 2

Noble wrote of this infamous holocaust:

Croatia… became a Fascist-Romanist mini-state, spawning the Ustashi who brutally murdered 240,000 Serbs and forcibly converted 1,200,000 to the fold of Romanism. 3

All kinds of excuses have been made for this man but none of them come close to absolving him from his evil conduct. This man’s hands are stained with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Serbian Orthodox who were massacred in unbelievable fashion right in the middle of the twentieth-century.

This is the pope that Hockhuth, the German writer, called The Deputy in his book by that name. Meaning that the Pope who claimed to be God’s representative on earth, God’s Deputy, sat idly by while thousands of Jews were taken to the gas chambers, without so much as raising a whimper.

What Pius XII had started in his diabolical crusade against the Serbian Orthodox in 1941, his successors have carried on in a more subtle fashion, aided and abetted by the fire power of NATO and the United States. The Vatican is still trying to decimate the Serbs in the year 1999, while all the time speaking about ecumenical love.

Ecumenical love is surely one of the stranger elements in the modern world. I watched a program where a young Croatian woman was being interviewed about the struggles in Bosnia. She repeatedly said, “I love everybody.” When asked by the interviewer about the massacre of the Serbs by the Croats she said, “that was before my time, I do not know anything about that. I just love everybody.”

Then the person conducting the interview asked her should the allies intervene with air strikes and she said yes. So I could not help but wonder at modern ecumenical love expressed so neatly by this young woman. “I love everybody but I wish you would call down airstrikes upon those I love.” That in essence is what she was saying!

Professor Noble notes that Yugoslavia has been a thorn in the side of the Vatican for years:

Yugoslavia, where the particular historical thorn in the Vatican’s flesh has been the Orthodox Serbs, has been successfully dismembered following the cunningly contrived illegal secession of the Roman Catholic provinces of Slovenia and Croatia.4

The Vatican immediately recognized illegal Croatia and the United States, following the Vatican lead, also recognized Croatia. It is nothing short of amazing that new Roman Catholic states can be recognized immediately, but the North of Ireland which has been in existence for almost 80 years is NOT recognized!

Noble again:

Ominously, the planned destruction of Yugoslavia has now actually been achieved… Vladimir Zerenovski recently recognized and described Croatia’s secession from the legally- constituted State of Yugoslavia as a “Vatican plot.”. .. The Vatican’s dream of detaching Roman Catholic Slovakia and thus dividing Czechoslovakia has now also materialized.5

It is indeed sad to watch the schemes of the Vatican, and her ungodly popes, receive the support of both the United and Great Britain. The Vatican seeks to divide a nation when the Roman Catholics are in the minority and she seeks to unify divided states to crush minorities.

The Vatican instantly approved and recognized Croatia when that country illegally seceded from Yugoslavia. But she wants Ireland to be united and ruled from Dublin because that would give the Roman Catholics a majority in a unified state. The US sent a Roman Catholic ex-senator Mitchell over there to put the Vatican plan into operation. Clinton’s so-called peace initiative in Northern Ireland was really the Vatican initiative and the Protestants were sold down the river by Clinton, and Mitchell!

Pope John Paul I 1978 -33 days

This pope was only pope for thirty three days before he died. David Yallup wrote a book entitled, In God’s Name. The sub-title was “An Investigation into the murder of Pope John Paul I.”

Yallup’s book is one long expose of the murders and mysteries which surrounded the death of this pope. He believes the pope was poisoned. He died right in the Vatican so the poisoner had to be one who lived in and knew the Vatican and the habits of the pope.

Yallup wrote, “Whoever planned to murder the pope in such a way (so as to avoid detection) would have to have intimate knowledge of Vatican procedures. They would have to know there would be no autopsy. . .”6 Yallup states later: “Wishing to avoid” grave insinuations “I will make instead a categorical statement: I am completely convinced that Pope John Paul I was murdered.”7

It is interesting to note that the US news media never reported the possibility that the pope was murdered. Other countries did. Newspapers in Italy and Spain carried headlines to the effect that the pope was murdered. But the US news media, which is probably more subservient to the Vatican than any other western nation with the exception of Ireland, simply gave out the Vatican line. Yallup noted the following:

In Spain as in other countries, the controversy broke into public debate. Professor Rafael Gambra of the University of Madrid was one who complained of the Vatican “doing things in the Italian manner or in the Florentine manner as in the Renaissance.”8

meaning that the evil practices of the Borgias in the 16th century were being duplicated in the 20th century. Yallup himself agreed with Gambra:

For nearly six years (Yallup wrote his book six years after the murder of the pope) the Vatican lies concerning the late pope have gone unchecked and unchallenged. The Roman Curia would have the world believe that Albino Luciani was an invalid and a simple rather foolish man, a man whose election was an aberration and whose natural death was a merciful release for the Church. In this way they hoped to conceal murder. It is as if the past four hundred years never were: we are back with the Borgias. 9

The thing, that the reader should always call to mind, is the blasphemous claim of the Popes to be the Vicar of Christ. Here are men engaged in MURDER and the plotting of MURDER and at the same time they claim to be the spiritual ruler of the entire world, and the Vicar, the Representative of Christ on earth. What insufferable men, what unmitigated blasphemy, and yet we have evangelical spokesmen today praising unstintingly such monsters of depravity and duplicity! No wonder Christ Himself said, “when the Son of Man cometh shall he find faith on the earth?”

References

1. Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, p. 213. 2. Manhattan, Avro, The Vatican’s Holocaust, Ozark Books, Springfield, MO, 1988, p. 89. 3. Noble, Revivalist, Jan., 1999, p. 20. 4. Loc.cit. 5. Loc.cit. 6. Yallup, David A., In God’s Name, Bantam Books, NY NY 1984 pp. 217-218. 7. Ibid., p. 243. 8. Ibid., p. 237. 9. Ibid., p. 247 -33

Chapter six The Last Two Popes Paul VI and John Paul II

That there has been a colossal shift In the papacy in the past thirty years few could deny. The papacy at the end of the 19th century had been stripped of the Papal States and reduced to the smallest state in the world –the Vatican. With the loss of its territory the papacy scrambled about to enhance its power in other ways.

The Pope was declared to be INFALLIBLE in 1870. This claim to be infallible was a laughing matter outside of Roman Catholicism for years. But as time passed the Pope became more and more acclaimed by world leaders.

With the loss of the Papal States the papacy concentrated more on deception. The papacy has always been a deceitful organization but in former times it also used military might to attain its ends. With the passing of its temporal power in Europe it has concentrated more and more on pushing the Pope as a person and as world leader to the fore, while working its intrigue in political circles around the globe. The result of propaganda and intrigue has been the elevation of the pope of Rome to the position of the world’s greatest spiritual leader, and a leader of leaders.

It is almost incredible that so many Evangelicals should now be praising the Pope of Rome as a World-renowned Christian leader, while at the same time some Roman Catholics believe the Pope of Rome to be Antichrist. It is indeed an amazing reversal.

While Billy Graham, Jack Van Impe, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson continue to heap accolades upon the papacy W. F. Strojie, the conservative Roman Catholic scholar blasts the Pope as Antichrist. Malachi Martin also, while not as severe on the papacy as Strojie, seems to be alarmed at the turn the papacy has taken in recent years. So it is very interesting to say the least, that some Roman Catholics are far more critical of the papacy than self-confessed Bible believers.

W. F. Strojie has written two studies on the papacy in recent years here are some of his comments. Strojie is a dedicated Roman Catholic who believes that the Roman Catholic church is now being betrayed by the popes of Rome, Strojie notes the following:

The utter disintegration of this Church in its members, especially as it appears among the Bishops, including their chief member in the papal chair, is certainly not a sign without significance for the whole world.1

Strojie elaborates,

What sin, what multitude of the most enormous sins would a man need to commit to exceed the deeds of lust, murder and oppression of the poor by men who have already lived, or live today? What natural or unnatural vices, of lust, murder or torture, of child murders, of slavery, of general destruction, of unjust wars and of planned moral corruption of nations, have not already been committed by some can it be that any man, no matter how powerful, will exceed the sins of past great sinners, so as to deserve, IN A UNIQUE SENSE, the title Man of Sin, or Son of Perdition.. . This person cannot be simply another evil man in the ordinary sense, no matter how far reaching his evil influence may be in the secular order. Again, this person must be unique by reason of his high and unique spiritual office. Who then in a theologically exact sense can fill the office of Antichrist? I suggest that it can only be he who can effectively oppose himself to the past vicars of Christ and their doctrines from the time of Peter, and who can effectively oppose himself to the true worship of God.2

Strojie then continues,

I am convinced that it is theologically necessary that Antichrist be a pope. I agree.. . Antichrist, the Man of Sin, Son of Perdition, to deserve these titles must hold a unique spiritual office, one in which the greatest possible doctrinal disciplinary and moral corruption can be accomplished. And to oppose Christ who is all Truth the essential procedure of Antichrist will not be one of force but of deception. This follows from St. Paul’s prophecy of a great spiritual blindness in the time of Antichrist and the Great Apostasy.. . With due respect for possible non-Catholic claimants, I scoff at the notion that anyone OTHER THAN A POPE COULD BE THE ANTICHRIST.3 (emphasis added)

Strojie is not alone among Roman Catholic writers in his concerns about the modern papacy. Malachi Martin is also concerned although not as outspoken in his criticisms as Strojie. Martin speaks of a “new agenda” which the pope seems to be desirous of fulfilling which involves far more than the future of the Roman Catholic institution.

Martin also speaks of the alienation of many Roman Catholic priests, nuns, and theologians, from the traditional views of Roman Catholicism, and the reaction of others to this alienation, even to the point of calling the pope the ANTICHRIST:

(Pope Paul VI could not stem the onslaught) women who wanted to be priests, priests who wanted to be married, bishops who wanted to be regional popes, theologians who claimed absolute teaching authority, Protestants who claimed equality and identity, homosexuals and divorced people who called for acceptance of their status on their terms. .. traditional minded Catholics who BITTERLY REPROACHED HIM WITH BEING ANTICHRIST. (emphasis added)4

Martin takes up the alienation and confusion in the Roman Catholic Institution in even more detail in his later work The Keys of This Blood. There he noted the further decay within the organization:

Anybody who examines the Pontiff’s governance of his Roman Catholic institutional organization since 1978 must come away STUNNED at the DETERIORATION that began during the fifteen year reign of Pope Paul VI, and that the present Pope has neither REVERSED nor ARRESTED.5

Martin enlarges:

The overall result of that policy for the Roman Church has been profound. But in one key area -the area of papal privilege, and of the papal power embodied in the sacred symbol of the Petrine Keys –the policy has been disastrous. For it has enabled those in the Church bent on an anti-papal agenda -the antiChurch within the church –to arrive with in touching distance of their main objective; namely, the effective ELIMINATION of papal power itself.6 (emphasis added)

(So the Pope may be working to rend the Great Whore which rode for so long upon his back.)

Martin continues:

The result is something that has never existed before in the Roman Church. An anonymous and impersonal force has been created, centered in the Bishop’s Conferences around the world, which has BEGUN to exercise ITS OWN POWER in contravention of papal power. ..

It is true that this victory of in Church papal enemies is only a de facto affair; that nowhere and by no explicit statement has Pope John Paul formally renounced his Petrine Power. But that is cold comfort for those who find his huge GAMBLE with the Petrine Office the MOST FRIGHTENING ELEMENT of John Paul’s papal policy…

The effective catalyst here is the Pontiff’s abstention from exercising his power in matters critical to Church governance… 7 (emphasis added)

It is quite possible that the papacy is now looking far beyond the confines of the “church” to a New World Order where the pope will become the servant of a greater and more evil design. Where the rebellious remains of the Scarlet Woman will merely become a stepping stone to greater things.

It is now popular to set forth the idea that the Antichrist is a secular atheistic monster. In this way, every religious person in the United States can then be vociferous in his condemnation of such a person. Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics, and Protestants can all join in condemning such a rascal.

Mystery Babylon, that is, Mystery Confusion is the cage of EVERY false religion. False religions cannot be against Antichrist for they are antichristian. They are part and parcel of Antichrist.

It is interesting to note that Pacelli who was later to become Pope Pius XII, according to Martin, “in forty out of forty four addresses as papal nuncio, Pacelli inveighed against Antichrist and warned of a gigantic struggle about to begin between Satan and Jesus for the soul of Europe and the souls of men.”8

Pedro Arrupe, the former head of the Jesuits, also warned about an atheistic antichrist which was arising in the western world. So Roman Catholic spokesmen, from the pope on down, have warned about a coming atheistic monster out to control the world, for this has been the Roman Catholic teaching on Antichrist for centuries.

In the United States, Jews and Muslims seldom say much about their views on the subject of Antichrist. However, in their religious writings the issue of Antichrist is addressed. The Muslims believe that Antichrist will arise at the end of the world and that he will be a Jew. The Jews believe that the Antichrist will be a Christian. *

The Muslims claim that Mohamed taught that Antichrist would come at the end of the world and that several signs were to precede his coming. The first sign is a strange rising of the sun in the west instead of the east. The second sign is to be the rising of a beast from the earth.

The third sign is to be the capture of Constantinople and while the spoil of this city is being divided news will come of the appearance of the Antichrist. This Antichrist will be blind in one eye and deaf in one ear, and will have the name of UNBELIEVER written on his forehead. According to the Muslims this is the one that the Jews call Messiah-Ben-David.9 So the Muslims view Antichrist as a Jew who comes against the “true” religion of Islam and seeks to destroy it.

* It is interesting to note that Jerry Falwell recently retracted his statement that Antichrist would be a Jew. The Jews rose up in anger when Falwell said while preaching on Antichrist that he would be a Jew.

The Jews at the same time are looking for their coming Messiah as well as a coming Antichrist. The name given by the Jews to describe their idea of a coming evil leader is Armillus.

There are several rabbinical books in which a circumstantial account is given of him. . . There will be twelve signs of the coming of the Messiah. .. The seventh sign will be the rise of Armillus whom the Christians call Antichrist.10

After a time of great persecution the true Messiah will come and defeat Antichrist. Armillus will raise a great army of Christians and lead them to Jerusalem. But God will deliver the Israelites through the true Messiah. So the Jews see Antichrist as a leader of the Christians and his evil work an attempt to overthrow true Judaism.

This is why a secular antichrist appeals to so many today. A secular antichrist does not pit Jew against Christian, or Muslim against Jew. It does not pit Roman Catholic against Protestant nor Protestant against Roman Catholic. If Antichrist is a secular atheist then all good religious people can oppose such a monster and retain their good ecumenical spirit at the same time. The secular atheistic Antichrist is the antichrist of Ecumenism.

Whereas the very name anti-Christ shows that the Beast of Revelation is not anti-Jew, he is not called anti-Mohamed, he is anti-Christ. The antichrist is the LEADER of all false religions, not the opponent of them. Lenski the old conservative Lutheran scholar wrote the following about Antichrist:

This is an apostasy. It is therefore, to be sought IN the church visible and not OUTSIDE of the church in the pagan world, in the general pagan moral decline, in Mohammedanism, in the French Revolution, in the rise and spread of Masonry, in Soviet Russia, or in lesser phenomena. We should not confuse the little antichrists with the great Antichrist, the antichrists OUTSIDE of the visible church with the great Antichrist INSIDE of it. (emphasis his)11

The Man of Sin is an arch-deceiver. His main deception is to make people think he is the true Christ. He is anti-christ, the one who tries to take the place of Christ. It is not the radical difference from Christ which the secular view of Antichrist emphasizes, rather it is the CLOSE resemblance to Christ which the Bible depicts, which should instruct the Bible-believer.

This Man of Sin works pseudo-miracles, signs and wonders. He is a religious man and a veritable Christ to those who are deceived by him.

This is what the popes of Rome have done for centuries. They have sought to replace Christ. By deception and confusion they have effectively opposed Christ as well. They are still masquerading as the Vicar of Christ today, and multiplied millions fall down before them as Mark McGuire did recently in St. Louis, abjectly kissing the ring of the great impostor.

References

1. Strojie, W. F., Last Days of the Catholic Church, 1978, p. 3. (Self-published) 2. Ibid., p. 7. 3. Ibid., p. 31. 4. Martin, Malachi, The Keys of this Blood, Simon and Schuster, NY, NY, 1990, p. 50. 5. Ibid. p. 51. 6. Loc.cit. 7. Ibid., pp. 51-52. 8. Martin, Decline and Fall, p. 223. 9. McClintock and Strong, Vol. I., p. 260. 10. Ibid., p. 259. 11. Lenski, R. C. H., St. Paul’s Epistles, Augsburg Pub. House, Minneapolis, MN, 1961, p. 433.

Chapter seven Totus Tuus

Totus Tuus is the motto of the present pope of Rome. It is Latin for Totally yours. This motto is directed not toward Christ but toward Mary. The present pope like hundreds before him is an avowed mariolater. He also worships at shrines so is a practicing idolater.

The popes of Rome even when they were not engaging in immorality and murder were mariolaters and idolaters. So that even if some did not fall to the depths of the most wicked popes, they, nevertheless, were bad examples and blind leaders of the blind.

The depth of iniquity into which modern nations have fallen, no doubt helps out the papacy. For modern popes can at least pretend to uphold the sanctity of marriage in face of the onslaught of homosexuality and divorce.

The hideous and evil practice of abortion on demand again affords the papacy a platform to utter pious phrases in defence of the unborn. But the Word of God is clear in demanding purity of worship. The first table of the Law cannot be ignored by piously pretending to uphold the second table.

True worship is commanded and idolatry forbidden in the first and second commandments. When these are ignored then judgment must fall. The bulk of the Old Testament is a witness to the fact that God does not take false worship and wrong worship lightly. Israel and Judah worshipped under every green tree and on every high hill and for these very acts of worship were condemned and destroyed by the Lord God Almighty!

Johann August Wilhelm Neander, the great German Lutheran church historian wrote these words about the papacy:

Christ never had an enemy like this; so able to pervert the way of truth into falsehood, insomuch that the true church, with her children, is trodden underfoot. The worship that belongs to God alone he transfers to Antichrist himself to the creature, male and female, deceased –to images, carcasses, and relics. The sacrament of the Eucharist is converted into an object of adoration, and the worshipping of God alone is prohibited.

He robs the Saviour of His merits, and the sufficiency of His grace in justification and regeneration, the remission of sins, sanctification, establishment in the faith, and spiritual nourishment; ascribing all these things to his own authority, to a form of words, to his own works, to the intercession of the saints, and to the fire of purgatory.

He seduces people from Christ, drawing off their minds from seeking those blessings in Christ, by a lively faith in God and in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, teaching his followers rather to expect them by the will and pleasure and works of Antichrist.

He places all religion and holiness in going to mass, and has mingled together all descriptions of ceremonies, Jewish, heathen, and Christian –and by means thereof, the people are deprived of spiritual food, seduced from true religion and the commandments of God, and established in vain and presumptuous hopes. All his works are done to be seen of men, that he may glut himself with insatiable avarice, and hence everything is set for sale.1 *

The Papacy has vitiated the true worship of God through the only Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, and substituted in its place a hodge-podge of man-made rituals and ceremonies some of which are blasphemous and all of which are condemned by the Word of God and useless to those caught up in them.

Until we learn the first and second commandments we cannot advance to the others. For the others have no basis if the first two are ignored! God is the author of morality, and sanctity, and purity. These cannot exist where the true God is ignored and where His commandments about His worship are treated in a cavalier fashion.

*Last November (1998) Pope John Paul II announced that the year 2000 would be special holy year in which Roman Catholics can obtain special indulgences for their sins that act as wild cards to speed up their ascension to heaven. According to policy dating back to the 16th century Roman Catholics who visit the sick, contribute to charities, or who stop smoking or drinking for a day may get an indulgence, according to this news article.

No one can truly love his neighbor as himself, who has not learned first to love the Lord with all his heart, soul, strength, and mind. God’s sequence is inviolate. It cannot be broken without dire results.

When one looks at the history of the papacy and the history of the “church” and the contemporary scene within the confines of Roman Catholicism, he should be absolutely amazed that any self-confessed Bible-believer could defend such an apostate conoral conglomerate, much less praise it, and extol the present leader of such a den of iniquity, as the greatest moral and spiritual leader upon earth today. The very fact that such praise is commonplace today and scarcely ever ONE voice raised against such an enormous lie is indeed a commentary upon not only our times, but the Protestant church of our times.

The Scriptures speak of those who believe in the lie. The setting of this text is in the passage which deals with the Man of Sin. It is in this VERY AREA where people are completely deceived. They are completely fooled by the satanic power which energizes the Papacy. So when they refuse the truth they are turned to fables and will believe the lie rather than the truth because they love unrighteousness.

The Apostle Paul wrote “Let no MAN deceive you.” It should be obvious to Bible-believers, but apparently is not, that the one man in the world doing the most deceiving today is the Pope of Rome. No other man comes CLOSE to the deception practiced by the Pope. He must rank FIRST in the line of deceivers down through church history right up into the present day.

If the Word of God is true then purgatory is a lie; the Mass is a lie; enforced celibacy is a doctrine of demons; the whole Roman Catholic priesthood is a lie, for Christ has abolished the priestly line and made every believer his own priest; Mariolatry is a lie; good works as a basis of salvation is a lie; justification by works is a lie; baptismal regeneration is a lie; the whole system of Romanism is based on a lie and those who believe the lie shall be judged because they loved not the truth.

The Reformers preached the true gospel of redeeming grace. They correctly taught that good works could never be the basis of salvation, and if someone tried to make them so, they became works of iniquity. Salvation is by grace alone.

Justification is by faith alone. When the great doctrine of Sola Scriptura is jettisoned all kinds of evil flourish. The Bible must remain our only authority and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

It is surely instructive to look at how the United States is slowly but surely becoming Romanized. The “clergy” is set up on a pedestal. Two recent documentaries as of this writing dealt with the “clergy.” One showed a Jesuit priest who helped the handicapped. He was a nice man who helped others, told jokes, worked hard and blessed the entire community. The second one showed a Baptist preacher who had hired a hit-man to kill the husband of the woman who had become his mistress.

So it does not need a rocket scientist to figure out who is supposedly the true “Clergyman.” Yet the Bible indicates our faith IS NEVER TO STAND IN THE WISDOM OF MEN but only in the POWER OF GOD. The power of God is the crucified Christ. He is both the wisdom of God and the power of God. So to all true Bible-believers it is not a question of a man, whether he is “good” or “bad,” but a question of THE MAN Christ Jesus.

For there is only ONE Mediator between God and Men THE Man Christ Jesus. Historically this has always been the difference between Rome’s priests and Protestant believers. From the pope on down, the Roman Priesthood teaches that all kinds of Mediators other than Christ exist, including the most important of all, Mary. Whereas Bible-believing Protestants have always believed in ONLY ONE Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Christ ALONE saves. There is no other Name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved. When any man comes between the sinner and salvation, he is a thief and a robber. Many “clergymen” today are nothing but thieves and robbers. The faithful minister points to Christ only. He is merely a voice lifting up Christ as the only Saviour. If, for any reason, he should begin, to lift himself up, he will find out quickly that the Lord never gives His glory to another. This is why so-called great preachers many times find themselves disgraced. The true preacher points the way to Christ and tries to stay out of the way, while exalting only the Lord Jesus Christ.

O Christ in Thee my soul has found And found in Thee ALONE; The peace, the joy, I sought so long, The bliss til now unknown.

The pleasures lost I sadly mourned. But never wept for Thee; ‘Til grace the sightless eyes received Thy loveliness to see.

Now none but Christ can satisfy, None other name for me; There’s love and life, and everlasting joy Lord Jesus found in Thee.

Christ said plainly: “Beware of false prophets, by their fruits you shall know them.” The fruits of the papacy are plain to be seen both morally and spiritually and every true believer should BEWARE of the papacy and all it represents!

To those caught up in the toils of Antichrist we urge you to find a Bible-believing church where Christ is exalted and where the true unadulterated Word of the Living God is proclaimed. There you may find true salvation which can bind up the brokenhearted and true liberty proclaimed to the captive.

Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ, for whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved!

References

1. McClintock and Strong, Vol I., p. 258. -45

Treason From Within the Government

Let me start this article with a quote from Marcus Tullius Cicero. He lived from January 3, 106 BC to December 7, 43 BC and was a Roman statesman, lawyer, scholar, philosopher, and writer.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

This article is from The Secret Terrorists by Bill Hughes. When you see emphasis with “(emphasis added)” following, they’re the author’s emphasis. In places where you see emphasis without “(emphasis added)” following, they are my emphasis.

CHAPTER 10
DESTRUCTION IN OKLAHOMA CITY

Explosions demolished the Alfred E. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. 168 Americans died as a result, including a number of little children attending a day-care center housed in the building. The United States government has declared and steadfastly maintains that it was a fertilizer bomb, inside a Ryder truck parked in front of the building that caused the damage. We have seen in previous chapters that in tragic situations like this, what the government claims happened is totally unbelievable.

Benton K. Partin, a retired Brigadier General and 31 year veteran of the United States Air Force, is a premiere expert on explosives. He served as commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Lab, and was responsible for munitions development for the armed services. He is a recognized expert as a major guiding force of our modern, precision, guided, weapons systems.

General Partin did an extensive analysis of the bombing of the Murrah Building. In his report, he declares,

“It is impossible that the destruction to the building could have resulted from such a bomb alone.

To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah Building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several supporting column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage. Indeed, a careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveals a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb…

Blast through air is a very inefficient energy coupling mechanism against heavily reinforced concrete beams and columns…

By contrast, heavily reinforced concrete structures can be destroyed effectively through detonation of explosives in contact with the reinforced concrete beams and columns… The Murrah Federal Building was not destroyed by one sole truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building. The only possible reinforced concrete structural failure solely attributable to the truck bomb was the stripping out of the ceilings of the first and second floors in the ‘pit’ area behind columns B4 and By. Even this may have been caused by a demolition charge at column B3. — Benton K. Partin, Bomb Damage Analysis Of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, July 30, 1995, (emphasis supplied).

Thus, we see that it was impossible for the truck bomb to have destroyed the Murrah Building. Other bombs were strategically placed at the bottoms of the structural columns to do the damage that was done. Somebody who had access to the Murrah Building, who knew where the reinforced structural columns were, who had access to the building plans, placed the bombs that destroyed the building.

News reporters on the scene shortly after the building collapsed reported that workers were removing bombs that did not go off from within the building.

The bombs that did explode did not explode simultaneously. The bomb blasts were recorded on two seismometers, one at the Omniplex Museum, 4.34 miles northeast of the Building, and the other at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, 16.25 miles to the southeast. Both of these seismometers recorded two separate, closely spaced explosions of approximately equal intensity.

Also, several highly credible witnesses reported hearing separate explosions. Shortly after the explosions, the bomb squad defused one unexploded bomb inside the building, and were working on a second.

There is an emerging pattern here. When President Kennedy was killed, it was declared that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had committed the crime. As we saw in chapter eight, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that proves there were several gunmen. Lee Harvey Oswald took the rap, and many others went free.

When the Murrah Building blew up, it was declared that one man was primarily responsible, Timothy McVeigh. But Benton Partin, a military explosives expert, showed that it was impossible for the truck bomb to have done the damage. Others had access to the building plans and planted explosives around the columns. They were guiltier than McVeigh, but they went free. Who were the people really responsible for the Oklahoma City tragedy?

During a live-feed video interview, an Assistant Fire Chief on the scene stated that the bomb squad was at the Murrah building at seven clock that morning, two hours before the bombing took place. What were they doing there two hours before the bombing?

Immediately after the explosions, Mayor Ron Nordick, Dr. Randall Heather, Governor Frank Keating, and numerous news anchors stated that the FBI and the ATF had confirmed that high explosive bombs were taken out of the building. Now, the official story is that it was a fertilizer bomb. Were the governor, the mayor and the news anchors lying, or were they just not briefed in time for everyone to get their stories straight?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had offices in the Murrah Building. On the day the Murrah building was bombed, none of the ATF agents came to work that morning. The ATF agents, who had children in the day-care center, did not drop their children off that day. There were no ATF agents or their children on the casualty list of the Oklahoma City bombing. — Freedom Network News, June/July 1996, pp. 5, 6.

This is amazing. A United States government agency, that had offices in the building, did not report to work that day or bring their children to the daycare center. Do you suppose they knew what was going to happen to the building?

On a radio talk show ten days after the bombing,

[Mark] Boswell interviewed 28 year CIA veteran James Black and assistant Ron Jackson regarding sworn affidavits now in their possession, sworn by two Justice Department officials which state that they were part of a ‘Committee of 10’ who planned the Oklahoma bombing. — Martin O. de Brook, Cherith Chronicle, May-July, 1995, page 5.

In light of all the evidence, this is the only story that makes sense. As in the case of Kennedy’s murder, so it is in the Oklahoma City bombing. High-level agents of the U.S. government, claiming to love America and our freedom, were serving another master, carrying out his purposes. As we will see, there was a distinct purpose for the Oklahoma City bombing. How sickening that so many lives were lost to answer the call of the papacy!

Like JFK, Waco, and the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma City bombing leaves a great many questions that demand answers, but none have been given. Consider some of these questions.

1. Why was U.S. Judge Wayne Alley, whose office was located in the Federal building, warned several weeks in advance in a Justice Department memo to be prepared for an unnamed terrorist act directed against the federal building?

2. Why did the director of the University of Oklahoma’s geological survey, Dr. Charles Mankin, tell the media that according to two different seismographic records, there were two blasts?

3. Why has the information of Benton K. Partin not come to the light of day?

4. Why did the Clinton administration blame right wing radio talk shows for the incident, and demand the most draconian police state legislation ever proposed in the United States so quickly after the blasts? This proposed legislation was so well organized that it was obvious it had been prepared long before the destruction of the building.

5. Why was a blizzard of domestic terrorism bills rushed into Congress in a matter of days after the bombing? These laws include the banning of virtually all privately owned firearms. Remember Waco?

There were liberty-restricting measures in Congress just prior to the Oklahoma City bombing that were stalled. Right after the bombing they were immediately passed.

The Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995 was on a slow track in Congress and the subject of a lively debate as to whether it would violate some fundamental civil liberties, including the right to confront one’s accuser.

Now, after the Oklahoma City bombing, there are few surer legislative bets in Washington. Democrats and Republicans issued news releases Thursday calling for the bill’s quick passage. — Terror in the Heartland: Terrorism Bill Moves Very Fast, Orlando Sentinel, April 21st, 1995 (emphasis supplied).

President Clinton prodded Congress on Friday to move swiftly on his anti-terrorism legislation and avoid political ‘endless quibbling’ over details. ‘We must not doddle or delay. Congress must act, and act promptly.’ His 1.25 billion anti-terrorism package would expand law enforcement’s investigative and enforcement powers and toughen penalties for certain crimes. Republicans have reacted favorably to the proposals Clinton put forward on Wednesday, one week after the Oklahoma City bombing. — Clinton Urges Swift Action on Anti-terrorism Legislation, Orlando Sentinel, April 29th, 1995.

The purpose of the Oklahoma City bombing was to get Congress to pass the anti-terrorism bill without debate. If a debate had taken place, the issues of constitutional liberties and the creation of a police state would have been raised. The Jesuits in Congress prefer that the police state be implemented without the public noticing by creating a climate of national hysteria using a staged terrorist attack. The bill sailed through with no debate or discussion.

One of the laws considered for passage after the Oklahoma City bombing was the gross destruction of the First Amendment advocated in Charles Schumer’s bill, HR 2580. In this bill, a five-year prison sentence would be given for publicly engaging in unseemly speculation and publishing or transmitting by wire or electronic means baseless conspiracy theories regarding the federal government of the United States.

We have seen that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, several liberty-restricting laws were passed by Congress very quickly. The bombing created a climate of fear in America. In this setting, laws passed with few dissenting voices. In the midst of the hysteria, the unconstitutional laws could be quickly passed. The people want comfort and security, and they did not object to the passing of these laws. These laws seriously eroded the constitutional liberties that have been the cornerstone of American prosperity for over 200 years. It is amazing how quickly a normally slow and cumbersome Congress can act when the agenda is all set.

A conditioning program got well under way after the Oklahoma City bombing. How many freedoms would Americans give away in order to feel safe? Do we not see that the powers running our government want to destroy the Constitution?

People do not realize that governmental power is extremely dangerous. Down through history, peoples’ worst enemy has been their own government. When constitutional freedoms are gone, there is nothing to restrict government from doing anything it wants, and deadly governmental persecution is the result.

For some time to come Americans will be struggling with questions that were supposed to draw no closer than Jerusalem or Belfast or, at worst, Manhattan. Just how much can they do to make life safer from terrorist attacks? And to accomplish that, how much should they be willing to give up in convenience, money, and the freedoms they take for granted? — Time Magazine, May 1, 1995, page 68, (emphasis supplied).

Americans just don’t realize that as they give up their freedoms they are not increasing their security, but decreasing it. They are putting themselves at high risk for governmental persecution. Already the government confiscates many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of personal property each year without a trial. Already human life is not considered sacred anymore. Remember Waco?

America would not be such a prominent terrorist target if the government did not make itself so obnoxious to nearly every country in the world. One hundred years ago, the people of the world loved Americans and wanted Americans to visit their countries. That certainly is not the case anymore.

Concrete and steel can help. But countering terrorism at home raises the hard question: how much should we spend in cash — and civil liberties? — Newsweek, May 1, 1995, page 56, (emphasis added).

In this article, Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser said, “It’s so easy to do; it takes so few people; the materials are so readily available. But to counter it is so expensive in dollars and, more importantly, in civil liberties.”

Is it clear that terror was used, and is still being used, to condition Americans to give up their constitutional liberties? It was used successfully at Waco, Oklahoma City, and the World Trade Center. Doesn’t it make you wonder what will be next? (The Covid-19 pandamic.)

Who is behind the scenes leading “American” politicians to destroy civil liberty in America? Who has despised and hated our liberties for over 200 years? Who hates liberty so much that they eliminate people who stand in their way like pawns in a chess game?

One of the popes stated,

The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error — a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state. — Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Letter, August 15th, 1854.

Liberty of conscience is thoroughly detested by the papacy. Liberty of conscience is guaranteed ONLY in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights.

In 1864, in his encyclical letter, Pius IX anathematized “those who assert liberty of conscience and of religious worship.” (Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Letter, December 8, 1864.) He is saying that anybody who believes that a person is entitled to freedom to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, should be anathematized. To anathematize somebody is too confine them to hell; to consider them to be a heretic worthy of damnation. In Pius’ mind, the Constitution should burn in hell and anyone who loves it should be burned too.

Liberty of conscience is proclaimed by the United States a most sacred principle, which every citizen must uphold…. But liberty of conscience is declared by all the popes and councils of Rome, a most godless, unholy, and diabolical thing, which every good Catholic must abhor and destroy at any cost. — Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Chick Publications, page 284.

British Broadcasting journalist Avro Manhattan reported:

The Vatican condemned the Declaration of Independence as ‘wickedness’… and called the Constitution of the United States ‘a Satanic document.’ — Avro Manhattan, The Dollar and the Vatican, Ozark Book Publishers, page 26.

In the preface to Samuel B. Morse’s great book, it is written,

The author undertakes to show that a conspiracy against the liberties of this Republic is now in full action, under the direction of the wily Prince Metternich of Austria, who knowing the impossibility of obliterating this troublesome example of a great and free nation by force of arms, is attempting to accomplish his object through the agency of an army of Jesuits. — Samuel B. Morse, Foreign Conspiracy Against the United States, Crocker and Brewster, volume 1, p. 4, preface. (emphasis supplied)

Samuel B. Morse and the man who wrote the preface to his great work understood that the Jesuits and the Holy Alliance were committed to destroying the freedoms of this great Republic of the United States of America.

A former priest has written,

We will rule the United States, and lay them at the feet of the Vicar of Jesus Christ [the pope], that he may put an end to their Godless system of education, and impious laws of liberty of conscience which are an insult to God and man. — Charles Chiniquy, Fifty years in the Church of Rome, Chick Publications, p. 282, (emphasis supplied).

William Jefferson Clinton, who attended Georgetown University, which is the Jesuit college in Washington, D.C. pushed Congress to pass the anti-terrorism bill that was to be a direct assault on the liberties that we enjoy as Americans. The Oklahoma City bombing was planned, carried out, and fully known by the Jesuits, the government of the United States, and by the president. The secret players behind them all, who have wanted to destroy the liberties of this great Republic for the last 200 plus years are the Jesuits of the Roman Catholic Church.

They have wanted to put an end to the laws that guarantee our liberties as United States citizens. In order to bring that about, they carried out the greatest terrorist bombing on U.S. soil, and in U.S. history before the World Trade Center, when they did it again.

More attacks will come. Freedoms will be attacked again and liberty will be taken away. The Jesuits will continue to use many so-called “American” politicians, who are an integral part of the conspiracy of the papacy to totally demolish the Constitution and this great Republic. They are conditioning America and preparing the people for the inevitable takeover.

The Jesuit Plot to Murder Union Leaders After the Civil War

This article is from The Secret Terrorists by Bill Hughes. When you see emphasis with “(emphasis added)” following, they’re the author’s emphasis. In places where you see emphasis without “(emphasis added)” following, they are my emphasis.

Most Americans know the Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated, but not many know the assassination was planned by the soldiers of the Roman Catholic Church, the Jesuits. And I think still less know that also Vice President Andrew Johnson, Secretary of State William Seward, and Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant were also targets of assassination by the Jesuits! This article will give you lots of insights you won’t get from worldly academic institutions.

CHAPTER 4
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN

In 1856, a runaway slave named Dred Scott had sought to gain freedom in the free state of Kansas. The case was so important that it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The infamous Dred Scott Decision was rendered by the fanatical Roman Catholic Judge Taney, the Chief Justice of the United States at that time. The Taney Decision, in a nutshell, was that the Negro had no rights that the white man had to respect. This basically said that the black man was inferior to the white man and had no rights. Abraham Lincoln as a child had watched the selling of young black men and women in a small Illinois town. As he and a friend walked past a slave auction, Lincoln turned to his friend and said, “Some day, I am going to hit it hard!”

In November of 1855, Charles Chiniquy, a Catholic priest of Kankakee, Illinois, had been attacked in a series of court cases by the Bishop of the Chicago Diocese. Chiniquy had spoken often on the subject of temperance and the evils of liquor. Since many of the priests were alcoholics, and most of the others were social drinkers, Chiniquy’s talks on temperance were not appreciated. Chiniquy often quoted the Bible in defense of certain positions he held. This greatly inflamed the Catholic bishop of Chicago against him. In order to silence him, Chiniquy was framed, being accused by an immoral priest’s female relative of misconduct towards her.

Charles Chiniquy’s case had been so publicized in the Illinois c press that very few lawyers wanted to defend him. They realized that they were not just fighting against a priest in Chicago; they were fighting against the Roman Catholic Church. Charles Chiniquy learned of Abe Lincoln, a very loyal and upright lawyer in Illinois. Chiniquy sent Lincoln a wire asking for his services and within twenty minutes of Chiniquy’s wire, he got a reply that said, “Yes, I will defend your life and your honor at the next May term of the Court at Urbana. Signed A. Lincoln.”

Chiniquy relates,

The time arrived when the Sheriff of Kankakee had to drag me again as a criminal and a prisoner to Urbana, and deliver me into the hands of the sheriff of that city. I arrived there on the 20th of October with my lawyers, Messrs. Osgood and Paddock, and a dozen witnesses. Mr. Abraham Lincoln had preceded me only by a few minutes from Springfield. — Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Chick Publications, p. 273.

When Charles Chiniquy was defended by Abraham Lincoln, we read,

He then went on and depicted the career of Father Chiniquy, how he had been unjustly persecuted and in conclusion said, “As long as God gives me a heart to feel, a brain to think, or a hand to execute my will, I shall devote it against that power which has attempted to use the machinery of the courts to destroy the rights and character of an American citizen.” And this promise made by Abraham Lincoln in his maturer years he also kept. — Burke McCarty, The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Arya Varta Publishing, p. 41.

Lincoln realized that Chiniquy had been unjustly accused. The night before Chiniquy was to be condemned to prison for a crime he did not commit, an eye witness, who had overheard the plot to destroy Chiniquy, came forward and he was saved.

Abraham Lincoln made a lot of enemies as a result of the Chiniquy trial. As they left the courtroom, Charles Chiniquy was in tears. Abraham Lincoln asked him,

Father Chiniquy, what are you crying for? “Dear Mr. Lincoln,” I answered, “allow me to tell you that the joy I should naturally feel for such a victory is destroyed in my mind by the fear of what it may cost you. There were in the court not less than ten or twelve Jesuits from Chicago and St. Louis, who came to hear my sentence of condemnation to the penitentiary……What troubles my soul just now and draws my tears, is that it seems to me that I have read your sentence of death in their fiendish eyes. How many other noble victims have already fallen at their feet!” — Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, p. 280, 281.

Abraham Lincoln, as far back as 1855 and 1856, was already a marked man that Rome sought to destroy. Four years later, in 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States. As he made his way from Illinois to Washington, D. C., he had to pass through the city of Baltimore. He later said to Charles Chiniquy,

I am so glad to meet you again. . . . You see that your friends, the Jesuits, have not yet killed me. But they would have surely done it when I passed through their most devoted city, Baltimore, had I not passed by incognito a few hours before they expected me. We have proof that the company which had been selected and organized to murder me was led by a rabid Roman Catholic called Byrne; it was almost entirely composed of Roman Catholics; more than that, there were two disguised priests among them, to lead and encourage them…. I saw Mr. Morse, the learned inventor of electric telegraphy: he told me that when he was in Rome, not long ago, he found out the proofs of the most formidable conspiracy against this country and all its institutions. It is evident that it is to the intrigues and emissaries of the pope that we owe in great part the horrible civil war, which is threatening to cover the country with blood and ruins.

I am sorry that Professor Morse had to leave Rome before he could know more about the secret plans of the Jesuits against the liberties and the very existence of this country. — Ibid. p. 292.

Twenty men had been hired in Baltimore to assassinate the President elect on his way to Washington. The leader of this band was an Italian refugee, a barber well known in Baltimore. Their plan was as follows: when Mr. Lincoln arrived in that city, the assassins were to mix with the crowd, and get as near his person as possible, and shoot at him with their pistols. If he was in a carriage, hand grenades had been prepared, filled with detonating powder, such as Orsini used in attempting to assassinate Louis Napoleon. These were to be thrown into the carriage, and to make the work of death doubly sure, pistols were to be discharged into the vehicle at the same moment. The assassins had a vessel lying ready to receive them in the harbour. From thence they would be carried to Mobile, in the seceded state of Alabama. — John Smith Dye, The Adder’s Den, p. 113.

An Italian barber well known in Baltimore, a Romanist, was to have stabbed him while seated in his carriage, when he started from the depot. — Burke McCarty, The Suppressed Truth About the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Arya Varta Publishing, p. 66.

Fortunately, the first plot of the Jesuits to kill Lincoln failed, as they sought to take Lincoln’s life before he ever reached the White House!

While riding on a train John Wilkes Booth dropped a letter written to him by Charles Selby. Shortly after, the letter was found and

“delivered to President Lincoln, who after having read it wrote the word ‘Assassination’ across it, and filed it in his office where it was found after his death and was placed in evidence as a court exhibit.” — Ibid. p. 131.

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

Abe must die, and now. You can choose your weapons, the cup, the knife, the bullet. The cup failed us once and might again…. You know where to find your friends. Your disguises are so perfect and complete….. Strike for your home; strike for your country; bide your time, but strike sure. — Ibid. p. 132. (Emphasis supplied).

This letter was used to help convict Mrs. Mary E. Surratt and some of the other conspirators in the trials of the Lincoln assassination.

They wanted to stab him. If that failed, they were to shoot him, and blow him up. Those failed, so they tried to poison him. “They” were the emissaries of the Pope, the Jesuits. John Smith Dye, who was a witness to these events, tells us,

It was a dark day in our country’s history when an armed guard had to surround the hotel (Willard’s) where the Chief Magistrate had taken temporary lodging to prevent his assassination. And on the day, (March 4, 1861), of his Inauguration, he was escorted up Pennsylvania Avenue in a hollow square of cavalry, and the utmost vigilance was exercised by Gen. Scott to prevent his being publicly assassinated on the way to the Capitol to deliver his Inaugural Address from the east portico. These were terrible times…. — John Smith Dye, The Adder’s Den, p. 135.

When you remember the Council of Vienna, Metternicht, the Pope, and the Jesuit Order’s plans to destroy this country, to destroy its freedom, to destroy Protestantism and to kill Presidents, what does that tell you about the evil, vicious, malicious character of the Jesuits? When you remember their attempts on Andrew Jackson’s life, the assassination of William Henry Harrison, the assassination of Zachary Taylor, the attempted assassination of James Buchanan, the attempted assassination of Abraham Lincoln and then finally his assassination, what does that tell you about the Catholic Church? It shows you that their façade of being a church is just that, a façade. They hide behind a religious mask so that they will not be suspected of the many abominations they continually perpetrate in this country and around the world. May God help us to never have anything to do with this satanic organization.

Abraham Lincoln stated,

So many plots have already been made against my life, that it is a real miracle that they have all failed, when we consider that the great majority of them were in the hands of the skillful Roman Catholic murderers, evidently trained by Jesuits. But can we expect that God will make a perpetual miracle to save my life? I believe not. The Jesuits are so expert in those deeds of blood that Henry IV said it was impossible to escape them, and he became their victim, though he did all that could be done to protect himself. My escape from their hands, since the letter of the Pope to Jeff Davis has sharpened the million of daggers to pierce my breast, would be more than a miracle.

But just as the Lord heard no murmur from the lips of Moses when He told him that he had to die, before crossing the Jordan, for the sins of his people; so I hope and pray that He will hear no murmur from me when I fall for my nation’s sake.

The only two favors I ask of the Lord are, first that I may die for the sacred cause in which I am engaged, and that I am the standard bearer of the rights and liberties of my country.

The second favor I ask of God is, that my dear son, Robert, when I am gone, will be one of those who lift up that flag of liberty which will cover my tomb, and will carry it with honor and fidelity, to the end of his life, as his father did, surrounded by the millions who will be called with him to fight and die for the defense and honor of our country. — Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Chick Publications, pp. 302, 303.

Abraham Lincoln understood that his time was near.

In the midst of unparalleled success while all the bells of the land were ringing with joy, a calamity fell upon us which overwhelmed the country in consternation and awe. On Friday evening, April 14, President Lincoln attended Ford’s Theatre, in Washington. He was sitting quietly in his box listening to the drama, when a man entered the door of the lobby leading to the box, closing the door behind him. Drawing near to the President, he drew from his pocket a small pistol, and shot him in the back of the head. As the President fell, senseless and mortally wounded and the shriek of his wife, who was seated at his side, pierced every ear, the assassin leaped from the box, a perpendicular height of nine feet, and as he rushed across the stage, bareheaded, brandished a dagger, exclaiming ‘Sic siemper tyrannus!’ and disappeared behind the side scenes. — Ibid. pp. 307-308.

Noble Abraham, true descendant of the father of the faithful, honest in every trust, humble as a child, tender hearted as a woman, who could not bear to injure even his most envenomed foes: who, in the hour of triumph, was saddened lest the feelings of his adversaries should be wounded by their defeat, with ‘charity for all, malice towards none’, endowed with common sense, intelligence never surpassed and with power of intellect which enabled him to grapple with the most gigantic opponents in debate, developing abilities as a statesman, which won the gratitude of his country and the admiration of the world, and with graces and amiability which drew to him all generous hearts; dies by the bullet of the assassin!

But who was that assassin? Booth was nothing but the tool of the Jesuits. It was Rome who directed his arm, after corrupting his heart and damning his soul. — Ibid. p. 308.

And after twenty years of constant and most difficult researches, I come fearlessly today before the American people, to say and prove that the president, Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated by the priests and the Jesuits of Rome.

In the book of the testimonies given in the prosecution of the assassination of Lincoln, published by Ben Pittman, and in the two volumes of the trial of John Surratt, in 1867, we have the legal and irrefutable proof that the plot of the assassins of Lincoln was matured, if not started, in the house of Mary Surratt, 561 H. Street, Washington, D. C. The sworn testimonies show that it was the common rendezvous of the priests of Washington. What does the presence of so many priests in that house reveal to the world? No man of common sense, who knows anything about the priests of Rome, can doubt that they were the advisers, the counselors, the very soul of that infernal plot.

Those priests, who were the personal friends and the father confessors of Booth, John Surratt, Mrs. and Miss Surratt, could not be constantly there without knowing what was going on, particularly when we know that every one of those priests was a rabid rebel in heart. Every one of those priests, knowing that his infallible pope had called Jeff Davis his dear son, and had taken the Southern Confederacy under his protection, was bound to believe that the most holy thing a man could do, was to fight for the Southern cause by destroying those who were its enemies.

Read the history of the assassination of Admiral Coligny, Henry III and Henry IV, and William the Taciturn, by the hired assassins of the Jesuits; compare them with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and you will find that one resembles the other like two drops of water. You will understand that they all come from the same source — Rome! — Ibid. p. 309.

That arch rebel [Jeff Davis] could give the money; but the Jesuits alone could select the assassins, train them, and show them a crown of glory in heaven, if they would kill the author of the bloodshed, the famous renegade and apostate — the enemy of the pope and the church — Lincoln.

Who does not see the lessons given by the Jesuits to Booth, in their daily intercourse in Mary Surratt’s house, when he reads those lines written by Booth a few hours before his death: “I can never repent. God made me the instrument of His punishment.” Compare these words with the doctrines and principles taught by the councils, the decrees of the pope, and the laws of holy Inquisition, and you will find that the sentiments and belief of Booth flow from those principles, as the river flows from its source.

And that pious Miss Surratt, who, the very next day after the murder of Lincoln, said, without being rebuked, in the presence of several other witnesses: “The death of Abraham Lincoln is no more than the death of any nigger in the army.” Where did she get that maxim, if not from her Church? Had not that church recently proclaimed through…the devoted Roman Catholic Judge Taney, in his Dred Scott decision, the Negroes have no right which the white is bound to respect? By bringing the president on a level with the lowest [black man], Rome was saying that he had no right even to his life. — Ibid. p. 310.

Right after Lincoln’s death, John Surratt, who was part of the assassination conspiracy, fled to Montreal. From Montreal he was taken to Liverpool, England and then to Rome. When a United States official finally caught up with him, he was found in the Pope’s personal army. A conspirator in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Pope’s personal army!

Three or four hours before Lincoln was murdered in Washington, the 14th of April, 1865, that murder was not only known by someone, but it was circulated and talked of in the streets and in the houses of the priestly and Romish town of St. Joseph, Minnesota. The fact is undeniable; the testimonies are unchallengeable, and there were no railroad nor any telegraph communications nearer than forty or eighty miles from St. Joseph….

Mr. Linneman, who is a Roman Catholic, tells us that though he heard this from many in his store, and in the streets, he does not remember the name of a single one who told him that…. But if the memory of Mr. Linneman is so deficient on that subject, we can help him and tell him what was said with mathematical accuracy….

…The priests of Saint Joseph were often visiting Washington and boarding, probably, at Mrs. Surratt’s…. Those priests of Washington were in daily communication with their co-rebel priests of St. Joseph; they were their intimate friends. There was no secret among them…. The details of the murder, as the day selected for its commission, were as well known among the priests of St. Joseph as they were among those of Washington….

How could the priests conceal such a joyful event from their bosom friend, Mr. Linneman? He was their confidential man. He was their purveyor; he was their right hand man among the faithful of St. Joseph….

The priests of Rome knew and circulated the death of Lincoln four hours before its occurrence in their Roman Catholic town of St. Joseph, Minnesota. — Ibid. pp. 316, 317.

There is so much more material.

In the trial of John Surratt, a French minister by the name of Rufus King stated this: “I believe that he [John Surratt] is protected by the clergy and that the murder is the result of a deep-laid plot, not only against the life of President Lincoln, but against the existence of this republic, as we are aware that the priesthood and royalty are and always have been opposed to liberty.” — Burke McCarty, The Suppressed Truth About the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Arya Varta Publishing, p. 185.

Four people were tried, convicted, and executed by hanging for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Their names were Davy Harold, Lewis Payne, George Atzerodt, and Mary E. Surratt. They were all Roman Catholics. That information is in Ford’s Theater, in several glass cases showing many things about Lincoln, the Civil War, and his assassination. As Abraham Lincoln was being assassinated, an attempt was also made to assassinate William Seward, the Secretary of State. There was also to be an attempt on the life of Ulysses S. Grant, but Grant had to take an emergency trip to New Jersey to be at the bedside of a dying relative. Andrew Johnson, the Vice President of the United States, was also to be assassinated at this time. The man who was to kill him became scared and ran off, riding on a horse into the country, and did not carry out his part of the plan.

Lewis Payne, known as the Florida boy, an athletic young giant, who some months before had joined the conspiracy, rode up to the front of the residence of the Secretary of State, William Seward.

William Seward had been ill for three weeks, suffering from a fractured jaw, the result of the running away of his team and was under the constant care of male nurses.

Payne rang the doorbell and it was answered by the colored butler. He told the latter that he had been sent with some medicine which he must take to the sick room. The butler refused to allow him to enter, saying that he had orders to allow no one to Mr. Seward’s room. The stranger [Lewis Payne], after a short struggle, knocked him down, and went bounding up the stairs. He rushed into the sick chamber, after felling each of the two sons of the Secretary….. He [Lewis Payne] then sprang upon the sick man and seriously stabbed him three times. By a super human effort, the latter struggled out of the bed with his assailant who left him in a heap on the floor, bleeding from the wounds he had inflicted. After his murderous assault on Seward, the ruffian rushed down the stairs, yelling at the top of his voice, “I am mad! I am mad,” and he very probably was. He was entirely under the control of the hypnotic influences of the wicked people in whose power he had allowed himself to be. — Ibid, pp. 121, 122.

It was part of the plan that Michael O’Laughlin one of the conspirators from Baltimore, was to have murdered General Grant that night. This was not possible, owing to the change in the General’s plans.

To Atzerodt, it fell to assassinate Vice President Johnson, but he became frightened and spent the day riding into the country on a horse…. …he was found several days after with relatives of his below Washington. He made a written confession before he was executed which confirmed the presence of Surratt in Washington that fatal day a fact, which nine reputable witnesses had sworn to. — Ibid p. 122.

Thus, we have a conspiracy to kill, not only the President, but to bring the government of the Unites States completely into chaos. Do we not see the fulfillment of the Council of Vienna and Verona at work in 1865? Do we not see the hand of the Jesuit Order and the Roman Catholic Church to destroy this great country? It was an awful time in the history of the United States.

We have already seen that the Roman Catholic Church sowed the seed of division between the two great sections of this country, dividing North from South on the burning question of slavery.

That division was her golden opportunity to crush one by the other, and reign over the bloody ruins of both, a favored, long-standing policy. She hoped that the hour of her supreme triumph over this continent was come. She ordered the Emperor of France to be ready with an Army in Mexico ready to support the South, and she bade all Roman Catholics to enroll themselves under the banners of slavery by joining themselves to the Democratic party. — Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Chick Publications, p. 291.

Abraham Lincoln said to Charles Chiniquy,

I will be forever grateful for the warning words you have addressed to me about the dangers ahead to my life, from Rome. I know they are not imaginary dangers. If I were fighting against a Protestant South, as a nation, there would be no danger of assassination. The nations who read the Bible fight bravely on the battlefield, but they do not assassinate their enemies. The pope and the Jesuits, with their infernal inquisition, are the only organized powers in the world which have recourse to the dagger of the assassin to murder those who they cannot convince with their arguments or conquer with the sword.

Unfortunately, I feel more and more every day that it is not against the Americans of the South, alone, I am fighting, it is more against the pope of Rome, his perfidious Jesuits and their blind and bloodthirsty slaves. As long as they hope to conquer the North, they will spare me; but the day we route their armies, take their cities and force them to submit, then, it is my impression that the Jesuits, who are the principal rulers of the South, will do what they have almost invariably done in the past. The dagger or the pistol will do what the strong hands of the warriors could not achieve. This civil war seems to be nothing but a political affair to those who do not see, as I do, the secret springs of that terrible drama. But it is more a religious than a civil war. It is Rome who wants to rule and degrade the North, as she has ruled and degraded the South, from the very day of its discovery. There are only very few of the Southern leaders who are not more or less under the influence of the Jesuits through their wives, family relations, and their friends. Several members of the family of Jeff Davis belong to the Church of Rome….

But it is very certain that if the American people could learn what I know of the fierce hatred of the priests of Rome against our institutions, our schools, our most sacred rights, and our so dearly bought liberties, they would drive them away tomorrow from among us, or they would shoot them as traitors. But you are the only one to whom I reveal these sad secrets for I know that you learned them before me. The history of these last thousand years tells us that wherever the Church of Rome is not a dagger to pierce the bosom of a free nation, she is a stone to her neck, to paralyze her, and prevent her advance in the ways of civilization, science, intelligence, happiness and liberty. — Ibid. pp. 294, 295.

Lincoln said,

This war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons…. I pity the priests, the bishops and the monks of Rome in the United States when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the bloodshed in this war. — Ibid. pp. 296,297.

You are perfectly correct when you say it was to detach the Roman Catholics who have enrolled themselves in our army. Since the publication of that [the pope’s] letter, a great number of them have deserted their banners and turned traitor…. It is true also, that Meade has remained with us, and gained the bloody battle of Gettysburg. But how could he lose it, when he was surrounded by such heroes as Howard, Reynolds, Buford, Wadsworth, Cutler, Slocum, Sickles, Hancock, Barnes, etc. But it is evident that his Romanism superceded his patriotism after the battle. He let the army of Lee escape when he could easily have cut his retreat and forced him to surrender after losing nearly half of his soldiers in the last three days carnage.

When Meade was to order the pursuit after the battle, a stranger came in haste to the headquarters, and that stranger was a disguised Jesuit. After ten minutes conversation with him, Meade made such arrangements for the pursuit of the enemy that he escaped almost untouched with the loss of only two guns! — Ibid. p. 298.

Lincoln said,

The common people see and hear the big, noisy wheels of the Southern Confederacy’s cars: they call them Jeff Davis, Lee, Toombs, Beauregard, Semmes, etc., and they honestly think they are the motive power, the first cause of our troubles. But this is a mistake. The true motive power is secreted behind the thick walls of the Vatican, the colleges and schools of the Jesuits, the convents of the nuns and the confessional boxes of Rome. — Ibid. p. 305.

In fulfilling the Councils of Vienna, Verona, and Chieri, the Catholic Church divided the North and the South through their agent, John C. Calhoun. They sought to destroy the economy through Nicholas Biddle and then they used the poison cup, and the assassin’s bullet to assassinate and to attempt to assassinate a total of five presidents within a span of twenty-five years. They reddened American soil with the blood of thousands of American young men in the terrible Civil War. Oh, that we had the eyes to see that Rome never changes! What she did, she is still doing today. May God help us to understand the evil of the Roman papacy, then and now.

Opposition to the Federal Reserve Eliminated by Mass Murder

This article is from The Secret Terrorists by Bill Hughes. When you see emphasis with “(emphasis added)” following, they’re the author’s emphasis. In places where you see emphasis without “(emphasis added)” following, they are my emphasis.

CHAPTER 5
THE SINKING OF THE TITANIC

When we think of events that have transpired in history over the last one hundred to two hundred years, there are certain events that stand out as ones of great horror, great surprise and great sadness. Of the many that come to mind the most devastating have been the destruction of the the World Trade Center in New York City and the sinking of the Titanic.

The greatest tragedies in the last two hundred years can be traced to the Jesuits. We will now show that the Jesuits planned and carried out the sinking of the Titanic, and we will show why they did it.

Since the early 1830’s, America did not have a central bank. The Jesuits desperately wanted another central bank in America so that they would have a bottomless reservoir from which to draw money for their many wars and other hideous schemes around the world.

In 1910, seven men met on Jekyll Island just off the coast of Georgia to establish a central bank, which they called the Federal Reserve Bank. These men were Nelson Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip, both representing the Rockefeller financial empire; Henry Davison, Charles Norton, and Benjamin Strong, representing J.P. Morgan; and Paul Warburg, representing the Rothschild banking dynasty of Europe. We have already seen that the Rothschilds were the banking agents for the papacy’s Jesuits, holding “the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church.”

The Morgans were friendly competitors with the Rothschilds and became socially close to them. Morgan’s London-based firm was saved from financial ruin in 1857 by the Bank of England over which the Rothschilds held great influence. Thereafter, Morgan appears to have served as a Rothschild financial agent and went to great length to appear totally American….

His [Rockefeller’s] entry into the field was not welcomed by Morgan, and they became fierce competitors. Eventually, they decided to minimize their competition by entering into joint ventures. In the end, they worked together to create a national banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System. — G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Opinion Publishing, p. 209. (Emphasis supplied).

These three financial families, the Rothschilds, Morgans, and Rockefellers all do the bidding of the Jesuit Order because of Jesuit infiltration in their organizations. They do whatever is necessary to destroy constitutional liberty in America and to bring the pope to world domination. As we look back over the 20th century, we see how successful the Jesuits have been. They have continued to squander the wealth of America and continually attack its great constitution and civil liberties. Daily, the power of the pope in Vatican City increases. One day they will achieve total power again.

The building of the Titanic began in 1909 at a shipyard in Belfast, the capitol of Northern Ireland. Belfast was a Protestant haven and was hated by the Jesuits. World War One began just a few years later.

The Titanic was one of a fleet of ships owned by the White Star Line, an international shipping company.

Banking was not the only business in which Morgan had a strong financial interest. Using his control over the nation’s railroads as financial leverage, he had created an international shipping trust which included Germany’s two largest lines plus one of the two in England, the White Star Lines. — Ibid, p. 246.

There were a number of very rich and powerful men who made it abundantly clear that they were not in favor of the Federal Reserve System. J.P. Morgan was ordered by the Jesuits to build the Titanic. This ‘unsinkable’ ship would serve as the death ship for those who opposed the Jesuits’ plan for a Federal Reserve system.

These rich and powerful men would have been able to block the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and their power and fortunes had to be taken out of their hands. They had to be destroyed by a means so preposterous that no one would suspect that they were murdered, and no one would suspect the Jesuits. The Titanic was the vehicle of their destruction. In order to further shield the papacy and the Jesuits from suspicion, many Irish, French, and Italian Roman Catholics immigrating to the New World were aboard. They were people who were expendable. Protestants from Belfast who wanted to immigrate to the United States were also invited on board.

All the wealthy and powerful men the Jesuits wanted to get rid of were invited to take the cruise. Three of the richest and most important of these were Benjamin Guggenheim, Isador Strauss, the head of Macy’s Department Stores, and John Jacob Astor, probably the wealthiest man in the world. Their total wealth, at that time, using dollar values of their day was more than 500 million dollars. Today that amount of money would be worth nearly eleven billion dollars. These three men were coaxed and encouraged to board the floating palace. They had to be destroyed because the Jesuits knew they would use their wealth and influence to oppose a Federal Reserve Bank as well as the various wars that were being planned.

Edward Smith was the captain of the Titanic. He had been traveling the North Atlantic waters for twenty-six years and was the world’s most experienced master of the North Atlantic routs. He had worked for Jesuit, J.P. Morgan, for many years.

Edward Smith was a ‘Jesuit tempore co-adjator.’ This means that he was not a priest, but he was a Jesuit of the short robe. Jesuits are not necessarily priests. Those who are not priests serve the order through their profession. Anyone could be a Jesuit, and their identity would not be known. Edward Smith served the Jesuit Order in his profession as a sea captain.

Many interesting points about the Titanic are discussed in a videotape made by National Geographic in 1986. The videotape is entitled The Secrets of the Titanic. When the Titanic departed from Southern England on April 10, 1912, Francis Browne, the Jesuit master of Edward Smith, boarded the Titanic. This man was the most powerful Jesuit in all of Ireland and answered directly to the general of the Jesuit Order in Rome. The videotape declares:

A vacationing priest, Father Francis Browne, caught these poignant snapshots of his fellow passengers, most of them on a voyage to eternity. The next day Titanic made her last stop off the coast of Queenstown, Ireland. Here tenders brought out the last passengers; mostly Irish immigrants headed for new homes in America. And here, the lucky Father Browne disembarked…. Father Browne caught Captain Smith peering down from Titanic’s bridge, poised on the brink of destiny. — The Secrets of the Titanic, National Geographic, video tape, 1986.

Here is Jesuit treachery at its finest. The Provincial [Father Francis Browne] boards Titanic, photographs the victims, most assuredly briefs the Captain concerning his oath as a Jesuit, and the following morning bids him farewell. — Eric J. Phelps, Vatican Assassins, Halycon Unified Services, p. 427.

Browne went over with Edward Smith one last time exactly what he was supposed to do in the North Atlantic waters. The Jesuit General told Francis Browne what was to happen; Browne then tells Smith and the rest is history. Edward Smith believed that the Jesuit General

. . . is the god of the [Jesuit] society, and nothing but his electric touch can galvanize their dead corpses into life and action. Until he speaks, they are like serpents coiled up in their wintry graves, lifeless and inactive; but the moment he gives the word of command, each member springs instantaneously to his feet, leaving unfinished whatsoever may have engaged him, ready to assail whomsoever he may require to be assailed, and to strike wheresoever he shall direct a blow to be stricken. — R.W. Thompson, The Footprints of the Jesuits, Hunt and Eaton, pp. 72, 73.

Edward Smith was given an order to sink the Titanic and that is exactly what he did.

By the command of God, [the Jesuit General] it is lawful to murder the innocent, to rob, to commit all lewdness, because he [the Pope] is Lord of life, and death, and of all things; and thus to fulfill his mandate is our duty. — W. C. Brownlee, Secret Instructions of the Jesuits, American and Foreign Christian Union, p. 143.

There is no record in history of an association whose organization has stood for three hundred years unchanged and unaltered by all the assaults of men and time, and which has exercised such an immense influence over the destinies of mankind… ‘The ends justify the means,’ is his favorite maxim; and as his only end, as we have shewn, is the order, at its bidding the Jesuit is ready to commit any crime whatsoever. — G. B. Nicolini, The History of the Jesuits, Henry G. Bohn, pp. 495, 496, emphasis added.

Let us remember the oath that every person takes to become a part of the Jesuit Order:

I should regard myself as a dead body, without will or intelligence, as a little crucifix which is turned about unresistingly at the will of him who holds it as a staff in the hands of an old man, who uses it as he requires it, and as it suits him best. — R. W. Thompson, The Footprints of the Jesuits, Hunt and Eaton, p. 54.

When a person takes the Jesuit Oath, he is bound to his master until the day that he dies. Edward Smith had become a man without will or intelligence. He would commit any crime the Order wanted him to commit. Edward Smith had been required for martyrdom. On board the Titanic that night, Edward Smith knew his duty. He was under oath.

The ship had been built for the enemies of the Jesuits. After three days at sea with only one pair of glasses for the bridge, Edward Smith propelled the Titanic full speed ahead, twenty-two knots, on a moonless dark night through a gigantic ice field nearly eighty square miles in area. Edward Smith did this despite at least eight telegrams warning him to be more cautious because he was going too fast.

Did Edward Smith need one caution? No, he had been traveling those waters for twenty-six years. He knew there were icebergs in that area. But eight cautions did not stop this man who was under the Jesuit oath, and under orders to destroy the Titanic.

The absurdity of warning veteran Captain Edward Smith repeatedly on Titanic’s tragic night to slow down is nothing short of preposterous. The fact that Smith never listened or heeded the warnings is insane. He had been given orders from his god in the Vatican, and nothing would turn him from his course.

The encyclopedias paint a very tragic picture of Smith in his last hours. When it came time to give the order to load and lower the lifeboats, Smith wavered and one of his aids had to approach him for the order to be given. Smith’s legendary skills of leadership seem to have left him; he was curiously indecisive and unusually cautious on that fatal night. Are these words to describe a legendary sea captain with 26 years of experience, or are these words to describe a man who was struggling in his mind whether he should do his duty as a sea captain or obey his master who told him to sink the ship?

John Jacob Astor’s wife got into a life boat and was saved, while John Jacob Astor perished in the waters of the North Atlantic. There were not enough lifeboats and many of them were only half full with only women and children.

To prevent nearby freighters from responding with help, the distress flares were white when they should have been red. White flares to passing freighters state that everybody was having a party.

One of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century, the sinking of the Titanic, lies at the door of the Jesuit Order. The unsinkable ship, the floating palace was created to be the tomb for the wealthy, who opposed the Federal Reserve System. By April, 1912, all opposition to the Federal Reserve was eliminated. In December of 1913, the Federal Reserve System came into being in the United States. Eight months later, the Jesuits had sufficient funding through the Federal Reserve bank to begin World War One.