Jerusalem Belongs to Christ the King and His True Church, part two

This past Sunday was Palm Sunday.

Palm Sunday was the day that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entered triumphantly into Jerusalem astride a donkey to shouts of “Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”

It would be but a scant five days later that most of the same people who greeted him with shouts of praise as they waved palm fronds and the branches from olive trees cried out for the release of the insurrectionist and murderer, Barabbas, rather than for the One they had hailed five days earlier as He had come in the name of the Lord:

And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus saith to him: Thou sayest it. And when he was accused by the chief priests and ancients, he answered nothing. Then Pilate saith to him: Dost not thou hear how great testimonies they allege against thee? And he answered him to never a word; so that the governor wondered exceedingly. Now upon the solemn day the governor was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner, whom they would.

And he had then a notorious prisoner, that was called Barabbas. They therefore being gathered together, Pilate said: Whom will you that I release to you, Barabbas, or Jesus that is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. And as he was sitting in the place of judgment, his wife sent to him, saying: Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and ancients persuaded the people, that they should ask for Barabbas, and take Jesus away.

And the governor answering, said to them: Whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said, Barabbas. Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.

Then he released to them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him unto them to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor taking Jesus into the hall, gathered together unto him the whole band; And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak about him. And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews. And spitting upon him, they took the reed, and struck his head.

And after they had mocked him, they took off the cloak from him, and put on him his own garments, and led him away to crucify him. And going out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they forced to take up his cross. And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is the place of Calvary. And they gave him wine to drink mingled with gall. And when he had tasted, he would not drink. And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. (Matthew 27: 11-15.)

Most sadly, the Roman soldiers who mocked Christ the King, Who was their own very King and that of their empire's, have much company today.

Indeed, each of us mocks Christ the King when we sin by pride, when we make ourselves the arbiters of moral right and moral wrong, when we think that we do not need the graces that He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to grow in virtue in this life and to persevere at all times in a state of Sanctifying Grace so as to be ready to meet Him as Our Divine Judge after we have died.

The anti-Incarnational world of Modernity has long mocked Christ the King, doing so as early as the hideous Martin Luther himself, whose bloody revolution against the Divine Plan that God instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church is the proximate source of our social problems today, including the rise of the monster civil state that is the devil's perverse replacement His Social Kingship over men and their nations:

The rending of the Mystical Body by the so-called Reformation movement has resulted in the pendulum swinging from the extreme error of Judaeo-Protestant Capitalism to the opposite extreme error of the Judaeo-Masonic-Communism of Karl Marx.

The uprise of individualism rapidly led to unbridled self-seeking. Law-makers who were arbiters of morality, as heads of the Churches, did not hesitate to favour their own enterprising spirit. The nobles and rich merchants in England, for example, who got possession of the monastery lands, which had maintained the poor, voted the poor laws in order to make the poor a charge on the nation at large. The enclosure of common lands in England and the development of the industrial system are a proof of what private judgment can do when transplanted into the realm of production and distribution. The Lutheran separation of Church from the Ruler and the Citizen shows the decay in the true idea of membership of our Lord's Mystical Body.

"Assuredly," said Luther, "a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a prince. The man is Christian, but his function does not concern his religion." (As quoted in Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.) 

Perhaps it shoud be called to mind that Jews helped to propagate the Protestant Revolution and had actually planted a good deal of the heretical seeds for it long before Martin Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1571, something that the great historian, William Thomas Walsh, documented in his massive biography of King Philip II of Spain (see Appendix A below).

Modernism embraced Martin Luther's heresy of the separation of Church and State upon which which the modern civil state is founded. Pope Saint Pius X recognized this fact as he gave a frank assessment of the heresies and errors of Modernism in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

But it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Besides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world., with which she must necessarily have dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, that, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us. The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophers and historians. [According to the Modernists] The state must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Conciliarism's embrace of "religious liberty" and the "separation of Church and State" places its adherents on the side of Martin Luther and Freemasons and various modern social revolutionaries and Modernism itself as they mock and reject the Social Reign of Christ the King. The twin cornerstones of conciliarism's world view--"religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State"-- were condemned repeatedly on numerous occasions by true pope after true pope prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. This means nothing, of course, to those who have endorsed Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” or Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned view of dogmatic teaching and past papal pronouncements as being "conditioned" by the historical circumstances that produced them and are thus in need of "modification" and "reinterpretation" as the conditions in which men themselves change over time, which Bergoglio and friends are honest enough to admit is dogmatic evolutionism.

Thus it is that Catholics around the world, including here in the United States of America, believe that there is some kind of naturalistic or inter-denominational or non-denominational way to "solve" social problems that have as their remote root cause Original Sin and as their proximate root causes the Actual Sins of us all. Catholics choose "Barabbas, "whether of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" or of the naturalist "left," to lead them into the "promised land" of national security and economic prosperity at home.

No thought is given to how much naturalism is responsible for the rise of a social structures and a "popular culture" that is oriented to the "here and now" without any regard for man's First Cause and Last End.

No thought is given to the simple fact that our social conditions worsen no matter who gets elected in the biennial and quadrennial farce of partisan politics.

No thought is given to the simple fact that social conditions must continue to worsen and the power of the civil state will continue to grow the more that men sin unrepentantly.

No thought is given to the simple fact that nations whose civil laws enshrine the commission of grievous sins under cover of law and whose popular culture glorifies such sins must be punished by God for their wanton violations of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that mock His Sovereignty over the whole of creation, including, yes, believe it or not, the United States of America, the supposed land of the "free" that has engaged in war after war to spread the American way of sin and idolatry around the globe.

Vote for Donald Trump, Get Neoconservative Foreign Policy

As happens during every presidential election cycle, ordinary human beings got caught up last year in the utter irrationality of an election campaign, closing their eyes to harsh realities, especially the harsh reality that Donald John Trump had surrounded himself with Talmudists and Kabbalists through the course of his life. Otherwise rational human beings projected their hopes and dreams onto a man who has live an immoral life without any kind of repentance, hoping that he would restore sanity to American domestic and foreign policy-making after decades of profligate spending on unconstitutional programs at home and unconstitutional and immoral wars and military interventions abroad.

Guess what?

To quote the late Dorothy Parker’s famous line about downtown Oakland, California, “There’s no there there.” In other words, there is no “there” to the intellectual or moral compass of a man driven by passions, Donald John Trump.

Yes, as I have been trying to explain to the readership on this site (and to those who have viewed my You Tube videos), President Donald John Trump is guided by no particular philosophy or ideology. Additionally, he has no grounding in any kind of understanding on matters of faith and morals. He is a man who responds mostly by gut instinct, not clear-headed thinking based upon facts and a reasoned-assessment of circumstances based on even a minimal foundation of logic and morality.

The current president is notorious for fits of rage, displayed usually on Twitter, as he does not know how to curb his emotions and his passions. Although his ready surrender to the “neoconservatives” who have now enlisted him in their never-ending crusade for to make the Middle East “safe” for “America’s only ally” in the region, the Zionist State of Israel, is not in the least bit surprising as he is surrounded by Talmudists, some of whom (the Kushers and Council of Economic Advisers Director Gary Cohn, a former employee of Goldman Sachs) are in the ascendancy within the White House power struggle, it does demonstrate the extent to which the president responds viscerally to fast-breaking evets without very little in the way of circumspect reflection. Mr. Cohn, who is a registered Democrat and a globalist with close ties to the nefarious George Soros, a Jewish atheist from Hungary, is apparently so much on the rise within the White House that he might supplant the beleaguered Stephen Bannon as a presidental counselor (see Globalists Eye Takeover As Bannon Takes Heat).

Ah, you doubt my word?

Consider the fact that, as I suspected was the case but had no documentation to cite three days ago (there is sometimes a benefit to being unable to complete articles as quickly as I used to), none other than the Kabbalist by the name of Ivanka Trump Kushner was one who convinced her Daddy, President Donald John Trump, to launch military airstrikes in retaliation for what the use of Sarin nerve gas on innocent civilians on Tuesday, April 4, 2017, upon the orders, it is alleged of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad:

DONALD Trump’s decision to rain down 59 Tomahawk missiles on a Syrian air base was sparked by his daughter Ivanka’s “heartbroken” response to Assad’s chemical attack, insiders have claimed.

Trump has long opposed military intervention in Syria – both as a private citizen when he criticised Obama’s intervention in the region, and as President.

But the Republican firebrand is believed to have made his dramatic U-turn after being convinced by his daughter Ivanka’s impassioned response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons on Tuesday.

A source close to the first family said: “Increasingly, Ivanka is having more and more influence over her father.

“She often counsels her father and was very clear that action needed to be taken against Assad in some form.”

“Ivanka was infuriated over the lack of a direct response in the immediate aftermath of the Syrian attack.”

Responding the morning after Assad’s attack, The President’s eldest daughter tweeted: “Heartbroken and outraged by the images coming out of Syria following the atrocious chemical attack today.

Following her comments, the President’s stance on a military response began to shift, quickly claiming the attack was an “affront to humanity” and blasting Assad’s “heinous” actions.

And the following day, hours before launching a flurry of 2,900lb missiles into the country, the President had shifted from isolation to intervention.

He said: “I think what Assad did is terrible.

“I think what happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity and he’s there, and I guess he’s running things, so something should happen.”

After the missile strike, Ivanka wrote on Twitter: “The times we are living in call for difficult decisions. Proud of my father for refusing to accept these horrendous crimes against humanity.”

The insider added: “Ivanka has her own mind.

“While her dad is driven by his ego and political point-scoring, Ivanka could not be more opposite.

“She has genuine concerns for others and wants to do what is right.

“As she was feeding her kids on Wednesday morning, she thought enough was enough and tweeted her thoughts for everyone to see.

“The response was quite immediate and clearly helped changed her father’s views on the issue of Syria.” (Ivanka Trump Kushner Urged Missile Strike Against Syria.)

There are three things that come to mind at this point.

First, Ivanka Trump Kushner has no business advising her father on matters of public policy, whether foreign or domestic.

Second, Ivanka Trump Kushner has no business advising her father on matters of public policy, whether foreign or domestic.

Third, Ivana Trump Kushner has no business advising his father-in-law on matters of public policy, whether foreign or domestic no less undertaking diplomatic and trade missions in his behalf.

Here are three additional points that come to mind:

First, Jared Kushner has no business advising his father-in-law on matters of public policy, whether foreign or domestic, no less undertaking diplomatic and trade missions in his behalf.

Second, Jared Kushner has no business advising his father-in-law on matters of public policy, whether foreign or domestic, no less undertaking diplomatic and trade missions in his behalf.

Third, Jared Kushner has no business advising his father-in-law on matters of public policy, whether foreign or domestic, no less undertaking diplomatic and trade missions in his behalf, and it appears that the very young Mr. Kushner is exercising an outsized role at the National Security despite administration denials that this is the case (see New Front in White House Civil War As Kushner Asserts Authority at National Security Council and Ivanka and Jared Kusher Operate With Ruthlessness).

Are these points clear?

Good.

President Donald John Trump lives by viscera just as much as the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio despite their differences on various matters, and it is because Trump lives by viscera that he has never studied anything about authentic history and knows nothing of a Just War Theory that a statesman who is concerned about governing in a prudent manner must consider and attempt to apply to various events. As Saint Augustine taught us, however, one cannot give what one does not have, and Donald John Trump has nothing in the way of clear-headed rationality to offer that can withstand emotional appeals from his daughter or to restrain his own emotions after viewing images of the innocent victims of an unjust and immoral military assault.

Applying the Principles of the Just War Theory to Contemporary Circumstances

Here is a review of how a commander-in-chief of his nation’s armed forces should have looked at the deadly Sarin gas attack in Syria on Tuesday, April 4, 2012:

First, armed force, which must be authorized and deployed by a duly constituted authority, is always a regrettable last resort after the exhausting of all other avenues to achieve a peaceful resolution of a conflict and/or to remedy a wound to justice. Trump undertook a “surgical” military airstrike as the first resort, not the last.  

Second, one must seek to ascertain and to determine the facts of a given situation. In this instance, of course, there was simply a reaction to horrible images of children who had been gassed to death. The American intelligence community, whose leaders gave repeated assurances in 2002 and early-2003 that Iraqi President and dictator Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction” and from whose offices grave violations of law have been committed to leak information to the mainslime media, assigned responsibility for the dastardly attack upon Bashar al-Assad even though the Syrian strongman may not have been responsible.

Although the gassing of innocent civilians in Syria is a horrific crime no matter who is responsbile for ordering its commission, the fact remains that nearly three thousand five hundred innocent human babies, each of whom is beautiful in the sight of God in that they have immortal souls made in His very image and likeness, are slaughered with legal impunity every single day in the United States of America alone. (See the chilling statistics found at Number of Abortions.) Yet it is that anyone displaying the graphic images of butchered babies is said to be engaged in a form of "terrorism" or, at the very least, of indecent behavior by same of the very same people who were rightly horrified by the images of gassed children in Syria. Significantly, Ivanka Trump Kushner, who has not stated her position on baby-kiling, has sought to find "common ground" with the leader of Planned Barrenhood, Cecile Richards, heedless of the fact that this organization has been evil from its very inceptions, which is the largest single butcher of the preborn in the United States of America and the world.

What Ivanka Trump Kushner and her father do not realize that is if we lived in a Catholic world, which we do not, a coalition of Catholic kings and princes would have as much grounds to stop the carnage of the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn, to say nothing of the direct, intentional killing of the sick and eldlerly in hospices and hospitals, in this country as Trump asserted for dispatching Tomahwak Cruise missiles to destroy that Syrian airfield and fully twenty percent of Syria's military aircraft.

Not every injustice in the world can be rectified by military means. It is nothing short of completely hypocritical for Trump to respond viscerally to the gas attacks in Syria while standing next to the leader of Red China, Xi Jinping, where violations of human rights continue under a Communist regime that suppresses dissent of any kind and which persecutes underground Catholics, who are, of course, being sold out to the Chicom rump church, the so-called Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, by another of the world's current figures of Antichrist, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Trump and Xi, whose country is responsible for the deaths of close of over sixty million human beings after their births (without even citing the numbers killed by abortions, forced or "elective") in order to keep China under Communist captivity. 

Significantly, the man who saw horrible images in Syria did not want to discuss the Chicoms violations of human rights, including its coercive abortion policies and its persecution of underground Catholics, with Xi Jinping:

(CNSNews.com) - The Communist government of the People’s Republic of China continues to impose a “coercive birth-limitation policy” that is enforced by “measures such as mandatory pregnancy examinations and coercive abortions and sterilizations,” according to the Country Report on Human Rights in China released by President Donald Trump’s State Department.

President Trump had dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Thursday evening.

China changed its coercive family planning policy last year by lifting the limit on children from one per couple to two per couple.

To make sure women do not have more children than the Communist government believes they should, the government engages in both forced birth control and forced abortion.

“The government considers intrauterine devices (IUDs) and sterilization to be the most reliable form of birth control and compelled women to accept the insertion of IUDs by officials,” said the State Department report.

“As in prior years,” said the State Department, “population control policy continued to rely on social pressure, education, propaganda, and economic penalties as well as on measures such as mandatory pregnancy examinations and coercive abortions and sterilizations.”

The State Department reported, for example, that provincial regulations in Hunan state: “Pregnancies that do not conform to the conditions established by the law should promptly be terminated. For those who have not promptly terminated the pregnancy, the township people’s government or subdistrict office shall order that the pregnancy be terminated by a deadline.”

“Other provinces, such as Guizhou, Jiangxi, Qinghai, and Yunnan,” said the State Department, “maintained provisions that require 'remedial measures,' an official euphemism for abortion, to deal with pregnancies that violate the policy.”

China still sees more male than female babies born, which the State Department attributed to both cultural factors and the child-limitation policy.

“According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China,” said the report, “the sex ratio at birth was 113 males to 100 females in 2016, a decline from 2013, when the ratio was 116 males for every 100 females. Sex identification and sex-selective abortion are prohibited, but the practices continued because of traditional preference for male children and the birth-limitation policy.’

Baby girls who are not killed in a gender-based abortion could then face hazards including infanticide and abandonment, the State Department reported.

“Female infanticide, gender-biased abortions, and the abandonment and neglect of baby girls were declining but continued to be a problem in some circumstances due to the traditional preference for sons and the birth-limitation policy,” said the report.

The law in the People’s Republic of China, according to the State Department, prohibits people with “certain mental disabilities” from marrying and unborn babies discovered to have a disability in utero could be subjected to a government-mandated abortion.

“The law forbids the marriage of persons with certain mental disabilities, such as schizophrenia,” says the State Department report. “If doctors found that a couple was at risk of transmitting congenital disabilities to their children, the couple could marry only if they agree to use birth control or undergo sterilization. In some instances officials continued to require couples to abort pregnancies when doctors discovered possible disabilities during prenatal examinations. The law stipulates that local governments must employ such practices to raise the percentage of births of children without disabilities.’

In a background briefing at the White House on Tuesday, senior administration officials suggested that human rights would not be a central element of Trump’s discussions with the Chinese leader when he visited Mar-a-Lago.

A report asked if “religious persecution in China” was something that the U.S. would bring up in the meeting.

A senior administration official responded that he thought it was more likely the Chinese leader would bring it up than Trump would.

“I think to the degree that issue is brought up, it would be brought up, I would expect, by the Chinese as opposed to the United States,” said the official. “We’re obviously aware of the issues and prepared to address it, but it’s not something that that I would anticipate we’re going to be raising.” (China's Population Policy Still Enforces Coercive Abortions.)

Trump the Businessman has made many deals with the Red Chinese. He couldn't let such trifles as forced abortions and the persecution of underground Catholics get in the way of a nice chat with an atheist thug. 

Assad had no "deals" to offer, and thus could be punished even if the Russians might be angered as a result. This proves yet again that emotional reactions to terrible events are no way to conduct any kind of foreign policy and that the supposedly "pro-life" Donald John Trump has not thought too deeply about the slaughter of babies and religious persecution in Red China.

It was only after Xi Jinping, whose country executes more "criminals" each year than every other country tin the world combined, left the United States of America that President Trump began to talk tough to the Chicoms about North Korea, whose leader, the Pillsbury Dough Boy (Kim Jung-un), has delusions of sending intercontinental missiles armed with nuclear weapons across the Pacific Ocean to the United States of America. (See Trump Tells Chicoms to Solve North Korea or He Will.)    

All of this talk of war during Holy Week is nothing other than a continued Judeo-Masonic mocking of Christ the King, Who was crowned with thorns by Roman soldiers on Good Friday to expressed contempt for what they saw as His "pretended" Kingship.       .

A naturalist by the name of Eric Margolis saw further hypocrisy in the fact that thousands upon thousands of children have been burned alive by the American bombing of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan in the past fifteen and one-half years:

It seems that every new US president has to prove his machismo…or make his bones, as wiseguys say…by bombing the usual Arabs.  By now, it’s almost a rite of passage.  The American public loves it.

So we just saw the US launch 59 or 60 $1.5million apiece cruise missiles at a western Syrian airfield to express President Trump’s outrage caused by seeing injured children allegedly caused by a Syrian government toxic gas attack.

But what, Mr. President, about all those Iraqi, Syrian and Afghan babies killed by US B-52 and B-1 heavy bombers?  Or the destruction of the defiant Iraqi city of Fallujah where the US used forbidden white phosphorus that burns right to the bone?

Washington claimed its radar had conclusively identified Syrian warplanes dropping chemical weapons.  This sounds to me to be unlikely.  Where was the US radar? Hundreds of miles away aboard ships? Was the info from Israel or Turkey, both with axes to grind?  Is US radar so sharp that it can tell the difference between a chemical and high explosive bomb at great distance?  Sounds highly fishy to me. (Bomb the Usual Arabs. A caveat: As is the case with many other libertarians, Mr. Margolis appears to be quite sanguine about Communism and the legitimacy of the Red Chinese oligarchs, something that can be see in the rest of this commentary.)

Third, even if the intelligence community’s assessment of responsibility for the Sarin nerve gas attack is correct, what happened in Syria, as horrible as it is, posed no imminent threat to the national security of the United States of America that required armed American intervention (see a very good commentary on this point that was written by Judge Andrew Napoitano: The Missiles of Holy Week). One nation has no right to attack another sovereign nation even if, as Trump administration is not, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on the American Broadcasting Company television network's This Week program yesterday, Palm Sunday, that there is no intention to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Then again, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said yesterday that Assad had to go:

Trump's United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley, said the United States had "multiple priorities" in Syria and that stability there was impossible with Assad as president.

"In no way do we see peace in that area with Assad as the head of the Syrian government," Haley told NBC's "Meet the Press."

"And we have to make sure that we're pushing that process. The political solution has to come together for the good of the people of Syria," she said.

Her comments appeared at odds with those of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who said the U.S. missile strike was aimed solely at deterring the use of chemical weapons by Assad.

"There is no change to our military posture" in Syria, Tillerson said on ABC's 'This Week' program.

Tillerson said the U.S. priority in Syria was defeating Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS. Once ISIS is defeated, the United States could turn its attention to trying to help bring about a "political process" that could bring about stability in Syria, he said.

"It is through that political process that we believe the Syrian people will ... be able to decide the fate of Bashar al-Assad," Tillerson said. (Officials Differ on the Fate of Assad.)  

Policy coherence?

Nikki Haley says one thing, Rex Tillerson says another. 

Hey, wait a minute. 

Rex Tillerson's got the memorandum from Nikki Haley. "Regime change" is still a possibility. Tillerson is now onboard the Wafare Party's Syrian Regime Change Express:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Tuesday that “the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end,” taking a firmer stance on Syria and aligning himself with statements from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley – after the two top diplomats seemed to take a different view toward the Syrian regime’s future. 

He made the fresh comments shortly before arriving in Moscow, for the first trip to Russia by a Trump Cabinet official. He is in for a tense visit, as the U.S. prods Russia to split with Bashar al-Assad, and Russia blasts the U.S. over last week's Syria missile strikes.

In the wake of those strikes on an airbase controlled by Assad, who allegedly carried out a deadly chemical weapons attack, Tillerson had said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “we are hopeful” about navigating a “political outcome in which the Syrian people, in fact, will determine Bashar al-Assad's fate and his legitimacy.”

 

Yet Haley, on CNN, more bluntly said they expect regime change and “there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime.” 

As Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and others noted an apparent disconnect in such statements, Tillerson seemed Tuesday to align himself more closely with Haley, as he spoke to reporters in Italy before boarding the plane to Moscow. While the secretary did not speak directly of regime change, as Haley had, he telegraphed to the Kremlin that that is his view as well.

 

“It is our policy for a unified Syria that is governed by the people of Syria. … It's clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end. But the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria,” Tillerson said. “… But I think it is clear that we see no further role for the Assad regime longer term, given that they have effectively given up their legitimacy with these type[s] of attacks.” (Tillerson in Moscow Getting in Line With Haly on Tough Syria Talk.)

"Regime change" still might be the outcome that American policy-makers decide is "necessary." Indeed, "regime change" is a probability now. Can war with Russia be far behind? 

Truly head-spinning.

Well, perhaps it should be recalled that Candidate Donald John Trump seemed to understand the failure of American interventionism when he gave a major foreign policy address at the Center for the National Interest, which was founded by former President Richard Milhous Nixon  before his death on April 22, 1994, on April 27, 2016, in Washington, District of Columbia:

Unfortunately, after the Cold War our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another.

They just kept coming and coming. We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper. Very bad. It all began with a dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interests in becoming a western democracy.

We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of Americans and just killed be lives, lives, lives wasted. Horribly wasted. Many trillions of dollars were lost as a result. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill that void much to their really unjust enrichment.

They have benefited so much, so sadly, for us. Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision. No purpose. No direction. No strategy. Today I want to identify five main weaknesses in our foreign policy.  (Transcript of Trump Foreign Policy Speech.)

Well, it must be remembered that Donald John Trump was reading a speech nearly a year ago. The real Donald John Trump reacts to events without circumspection, and the neoconservative war hawks who are now advising him were more than happy to ignite to encourage him in his resolve to act “decisively” to send a “message” to Bashar al-Assad even though the latter’s forces did not attack the sovereign territory of the United States of America and that there is no constitutional justification for an American president to use armed force as a first resort when the national security of the country is threatened by an imminent attack. 

Donald John Trump's lack of convictions was noted in an commentary by a naturalist by the name of Robert Merry in The American Conservative:

Getting back to the Trump constituency, this isn’t what these people came to expect from him based on his campaign rhetoric and his attacks on the country’s foreign-policy aggressiveness of the past two decades. Those are the people who put him in the White House, and he owes them at least a recognition of that. He owes them a measure of political gratitude.

And this is where his weakness comes in. His campaign convictions seem to be devoid of the courage required to uphold them. In the campaign he talked big. He had the swagger down nicely. He conveyed the image of a man who wouldn’t be swayed by conventional vogues of thought or the opprobrium of elites. He would go his own way because that’s the only way he could drain the Washington swamp, craft new political dialectics, create a new governing coalition, reduce the level of American foreign-policy adventurism.  

But that takes real guts. It’s psychologically difficult to venture into entirely new political territory, where no one has gone before. Talking about it is easy; actually doing it requires a fortitude beyond the capacity of any political weakling.

We are now reading that the conventional thinkers and the establishment denizens of the Trump administration are decimating the administration people who were with him during his campaign, when he devastated the conventional thinkers and establishment denizens who now are taking over his administration. In domestic policy, perhaps the stakes aren’t so high; the biggest loser is likely to be Trump himself. But in foreign policy the stakes are immense, and the loser could be the entire country.

How does one account for these signs that Trump’s governance is going to be significantly at variance with his campaign advocacy? It’s difficult to resist the suspicion that some of it has to do with a lack of conviction. He’s winging it—and has been since he descended that famous Trump Tower escalator in June 2015. And yet he talked as if he were a man of ironclad conviction, someone whose words presage his actions. In politics, when words and actions don’t mesh, we call that phoniness.

The Syrian drama has yet to play out completely, and so perhaps this episode won’t be quite the window on the Donald that it seems at these musings. But the signs don’t look favorable on this particular matter, as they also don’t on many others. (This Isn't the Foreign Policy Trump Campaigned On. Another such commentary can be found at The War on Syria.)

What Mr. Merry does not realize is that Donald John Trump's one and only conviction has always been and continues to be to do what pleases Donald John Trump. One does have to descend to the sordid details of his personal life to demonstrate that a man consumed with money and pleasure his little time for logic and any kind of intellectual substance, whether natural or, more importantly, of course, supernatural. This is why I urge the very few readers of this website to see all the events of their own lives and those that take place in the world through the eyes of the true Faith. What Part of Christ or Chaos Is Hard to Understand?                      .

Fourth, the end to be undertaken must be clearly defined and have a reasonable chance of being achieved. As will be seen below, no recent president defined how a particular mission's "success" could be judged. To wit, Iraq is still a mess fourteen years after the injust, immoral and unconstitutional Amerian invasion and occupation. Afghanistan is still a mess fifteen and one-half years after Amerian bombs started falling from the sky on Sunday, October 7, 2011, and Libya will never be the same country again following "regime change" there effected by Obama/Soetoro and his then Secretary of State, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

What is the measure of "success" in  Syria?

Preventing further use of a chemical agents that might have been employed six days ago without the knowledge, consent or approval of Bashar al-Assad? If Assad is not responsible for the Sarin gas attack, then is it not possible the agents provacateur who approved the attack might try again to goad President Trump into taking action that might result in the overthrow of Assad and the inevitable rise of the brutal killers of the shadowy organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria? If he is responsible, which is possible, the Russians are moving to punish any further American attempts to intervene militarily in Syria. Where does this stop? It doesn't. 

There is nothing by which to measure "success" in Syria, and no one has appointed the government of the United States of America as the arbiter as to what happens there.

Fifth, any situation requiring the use of force—something that the deadly attack in Syria did not require—must be undertaken only after a thorough effort is made to determine whether the possible evil consequences (the unintentional wounding and killing of innocent civilians, destruction of property and infrastructure, escalating a conflict beyond a localized area) that usually occur when armed force is deployed outweighs the good end to be sought in remedying a wound to justice. This is called the moral principle of Proportionality, which teaches us that an otherwise good end would be illegitimate to pursue if a reasoned determination is made than more harm than good would be done if a legitimate course of action was undertaken.

(The principle of Proportionality must not be confused with the late Father Richard McCormick, S.J.’s heretical principle of Proptionalism, which asserts that a preponderance of “good motives” and extenuating circumstances can make an objectively evil action licit to pursue. Even the conciliar Vatican condemned Proportionality in 1975, although it is precisely what a lay Jesuit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes and that serve as the basis of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016.)

Nothing But A History of Disaster and Chaos

Perhaps it would be instructive to consider how Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro proceeded in military actions without any consideration of the principle of Proptionality:

Date: October 7, 2001.

Place: Afghanistan.

Event: American bombs start falling on Afghanistan as a reprisal for the tragic events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Legal justification under the Constitution of the United States of America: None.

Results: Under the patronage of billions upon billions of American taxpayer dollars ($653 billion) and the loss of over 2,200 American lives, a "coalition" of military forces, led by those of the United States of America, succeed in installing a corrupt Bag Man in a Karakul Hat as the Mayor of Kabul, Afghanistan, although they call humor him with the title of "President" of the entire Afghan nation.

Conclusion: A moral, legal, economic and geopolitical disaster.

Date: March 20, 2003.

Place: Iraq:

Event: After eighteen months of covert planning and over twelve months of beating the war drums to rid Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of an alleged stockpile of "weapons of mass destruction," most of which had been supplied to him by the government of the United States of America during the presidential administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan for use in Iraq-Iran War (Reagan's special Mideast Envoy, a chap named Donald D. Rumsfeld, the former and future United States Secretary of Defense, arranged for the transfer) and had been expended during Hussein's attack on the Kurds following the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, American forces invade Iraq.

Legal justification under the Constitution of the United States of America: None.

Results: A sovereign nation is invaded on false pretenses. American forces overthrow and eventually capture Saddam Hussein, who is later executed by his fellow Iraqis. Iraq's borders were made porous that waves of Iranian-trained "freedom fighters" were able to enter and attack American troops and contractors. Over 100,000 of innocent Iraqis have been killed as a result of the mayhem that ensued, including "accidental" American bombings and shootings, violence caused by international sectional disputes and attacks by Iranian-trained and financed "freedom fighters. Chaldean Rite Catholics and Orthodox Christians have been attacked with utter impunity and without a word of protest from George Walker Bush or his successor, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. Over three-fourths of the Catholic population of Iraq has been forced to leave the country. The entire infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed, being rebuilt in such a slipshod manner by American contractors that much of it had to be rebuilt again with American taxpayer dollars.

Conclusion: A moral, legal, economic and geopolitical disaster. (See Longer Than World War II.)

Date: March 19, 2011.

Place: Libya.

Event: As part of the so-called "Arab Spring" that had begun in Tunisia, Mohammedan insurgents in Libya, which had been under the control of Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi since September 1, 1969, began to revel in this north African nation. Gaddafi had controlled Libya by strong arm methods and by using the country's riches derived from the exporting of its crude oil to buy own tribal chieftains in this very fractious land. The entire social fabric that held Libya together was rent asunder by the so-called "Arab Spring" that saw the recrudescence of the primacy of tribal chieftains and cells of al-Qaeda  trained Mohammedans ready to fill in the void. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro decided to act in conjunction with member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which had been formed in 1949 to protect western Europe and the United States of America and Canada from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, if you will recall, to enforce a "no fly zone" over Libya to prevent Gaddafi's military from striking the rebels and their supporters.

Legal justification under the Constitution of the United States of America: None.

Results: After six months of bombing by NATO forces, Gaddafi, who had fled Tripoli, Libya, after it had fallen to the rebels on August 28, 2011, was wounded while hiding in a drain pipe in a remote province on October 20, 2011. Gaddafi was tortured and killed by his captors. Libya has become divided once again amongst various tribal factions and has become a magnet for various al-Qaeda cells composed of faithful, thoroughly orthodox Mohammedan killers who have pored into the country from country of Mali, which borders Libya's immediate southern neighbor, Chad, to the southwest on the continent of Africa.

And, of course, as has been  much discussed, the administration President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., engaged in an active cover-up of the fact that the attack that took place upon the American delegation in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, was the work of American-supported and funded insurgents, who took arms out of the delegation that the Obama and his then Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were going to ship to Syria for use by the Mohammedan rebels there, where a civil war has been raging since March 15, 2011. The blood of four Americans, including the United States Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, is on the hands of these odious pro-aborts and pro-perverts. Few Americans seem to care that repeated requests for Americans who were under siege at the Benghazi compound were denied repeatedly by the geopolitical engineers in Washington, District of Columbia.

Arrogant to the core of her feminist being, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton was so bold as to ask "What difference does it make?" to United States Senator Ronald Johnson (R-Wisconsin), who wanted to know why requests made by Americans at the Benghazi compound for military assistance were denied. Johnson explained in a column in USA Today on Wednesday, January 23, 2013, that the truth about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, matters, especially since lies were told during the midst of a presidential election to provide cover for the re-election of a man who had claimed that "terrorism" had been defeated with the killing of Osama bin Laden on Monday, May 1, 2011:

During her Senate testimony, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that approximately 25 Americans who were on the ground or who witnessed the terrorist attack in Benghazi were immediately evacuated. Secretary Clinton also revealed that neither she, nor her senior people, debriefed or spoke with those people immediately after the attack, or for months afterward, to understand what happened. She stated that she didn't want to be later accused of playing politics.

When I questioned her about the misinformation disseminated for days by the administration, most notably by Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Sunday news programs five days after the attack, she asked, "What difference does it make?"

If you don't expeditiously debrief the people who witnessed the attack, how can you understand who initiated it, what weapons they used and who may have been involved? How do you initiate a proper response if you don't know what transpired? How do you move properly to protect other American assets and people in the region? How do you know what failures occurred, so that you can immediately correct them, if you have not debriefed the very victims of those failures? And lastly, how do you tell the truth to the American people if you don't know the facts?

Our diplomatic forces in Benghazi were denied the security they repeatedly requested for many months before Sept. 11, 2012. Secretary Clinton stated that she was not told of those desperate requests in the most dangerous region in the world. As a result, our people in Benghazi were ill-prepared to repel or avoid that attack, and four Americans were murdered. For many days after the event, the American people were also misinformed as to the nature and perpetrators of that attack.

In truth, Benghazi is a failure of leadership — before, during and after the terrorist attack.

To answer Secretary Clinton, it does make a difference. It matters enormously for the American public to know whether or not their president and members of his administration are on top of a crisis and telling them the truth. (Sen. Ron Johnson: Secretary Hillary Clinton, you failed.)

The United States of America had no business intervening in Libya.

Period.

Conclusion: A moral, legal, economic and geopolitical disaster.

Date: 2011-2013

Place: Egypt.

Event: The destabilization of Egypt as a result of the overthrow of corrupt President Hosni Mubarak and the rise to power and subsequent military overthrow of the "Muslim Brotherhood."

Type of American Involvement: Massive economic and military assistance given to the government of Egypt during the reign of Mohammedan dictator Mohammed Morsi, who was overthrown by the Egyptian military on July 3, 2013.

Result: Just re-read Francis and Barry's Religion of Peace.

Date: Current.

Place: Syria.

Event: Syrian Civil War that pits Mohammedan insurgents against secular Mohammedan Bashar al-Assad, a client of Russia, who is the son if the late Hafez al-Assad, who was a complete client of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Over 470,000 people have been killed in the past seven years in this ancient country to which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sent Saul of Tarsus to meet Ananias on Straight Street in Damascus after He had converted Saul while he was en route to Damascus to persecute Catholics there with the ferocity that he had shown in Jerusalem against Saint Stephen the Protomartyr and the country in which Saint Peter reigned as Bishop of Antioch until he left for Rome.

The government of the United States of America has now intervened in a “limited” and “surgical” manner in Syria to the Syria military, which is controlled by forces loyal to President Assad, who has, despite his personal brutality, sought to protect ancient Christian shrines and churches, many of which have been destroyed by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) prior to the onset of the civil war on March 5, 2011, from employing Sarin nerve gas again.

A Syrian Rite Catholic bishop, who is, of course, a true bishop despite his association with the counterfeit church of conciliarism, noted that Assad, much like Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is a patron of Christians and Christian churches and shrines despite his indisputaby tyrannical method of governing:

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Two prominent Catholic leaders in Syria criticized the U.S. missile strikes against their nation, wondering why they occurred before investigations into the origins of chemical attacks reported April 4.

But U.S. President Donald Trump said Syrian President Bashar Assad "launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians" and "choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children."

"No child of God should ever suffer such horror," he said April 6, announcing that he had ordered the strike against the air base from which he said the chemical weapons attack was launched.

Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignace Joseph Younan called the attack an aggression and told Catholic News Service: "It is a shame that the United States administration didn't wait until an honest United Nations investigation was thoroughly made into what is said to be a chemical air strike in Khan Shaykun."

"The agglomerate media and the supremacist policy of the USA just want the killing and destroying conflict in Syria to continue, and this primarily to kill whatever attempt to resolve the bloody crisis," added Patriarch Younan, who was born in Syria and served for 14 years as bishop of the New Jersey-based Diocese of Our Lady of Deliverance for Syriac Catholics in the United States and Canada.

Bishop Georges Khazen, who serves Latin-rite Catholics in Aleppo, told the Rome-based Fides news agency that he was baffled by "the speed with which it was decided and carried out, without any adequate investigation into the tragic massacre with chemical weapons which took place in Idlib province."

He said the attack "opens new disturbing scenarios for all."

The U.S. launched 59 missiles from the USS Ross and USS Porter in the Mediterranean early April 7 local time. U.S. officials said they targeted Shayrat Air Base's airstrips, hangars, control tower and ammunition areas. . . .

Patriarch Younan, who said he passed Shayrat Air Base after the strike, en route to celebrate a funeral in Hafar, noted the U.S. was accusing Syria -- a U.N. member -- of using chemical weapons, but had not investigated the charge.

"The Syrian army was fighting successfully to end the bloody conflict going on for long. It did not need any military intervention that would be condemned by international agencies, such as using chemicals," he said. He added that Christians would suffer the consequences, and the final results of displacement and persecution would not be known for decades.

After the chemical attack was reported, Chaldean Bishop Antoine Audo of Aleppo told Fides that although he understood things were not always what they seemed, he could not imagine the Syrian government "is so naive and ignorant to be able to do such 'errors.'"

He said the Syrian government and opposition continued to blame each other for the 2013 chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus.

"Two days ago, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Assad is part of the solution of the Syrian problem. Now he makes statements that say the contrary," Bishop Audo told Fides. "There are interests of regional powers involved in the war. We should always take this into account, especially when certain things are repeated with similar dynamics, and trigger the same reactions and the same effects already experienced in the past." (Catholic Leaders in Syria Criticize United States Missile Strikes.)

It is easy to bomb a place when one does not have to live with the results and if one does not concern himself with the law of unintended consequences. Catholics are suffering much in Syria, something that I noted three and one-half years ago in Whither Syria's Catholics.

Expectations of the current intervention in Syria: In plain English, here we go again into another moral, legal, economic and geopolitical disaster. 

Legal Justification Under the Constitution: None.

United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) explained the unconstitutionality of Trump's boming of Syria in very clear terms:

Every American condemns the atrocities in Syria, and we cannot help but be shaken by the images of innocent women and children dying.  It is also true that often in foreign policy, things are not as simple as they appear, and actions often have consequences well beyond the obvious.

It is for this very reason that the Founders wanted a deliberate, thoughtful foreign policy, and when military action was needed, they wanted it debated and authorized by Congress.

Make no mistake, no matter who is president or what their party is, it is my firm belief that the president needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution. I call on this president to come to Congress for a proper debate over our role in Syria, just as I did in 2013 when President Obama contemplated acting in Syria.

Every American condemns the atrocities in Syria, and we cannot help but be shaken by the images of innocent women and children dying.  It is also true that often in foreign policy, things are not as simple as they appear, and actions often have consequences well beyond the obvious.

It is for this very reason that the Founders wanted a deliberate, thoughtful foreign policy, and when military action was needed, they wanted it debated and authorized by Congress.

Make no mistake, no matter who is president or what their party is, it is my firm belief that the president needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution. I call on this president to come to Congress for a proper debate over our role in Syria, just as I did in 2013 when President Obama contemplated acting in Syria.

I believe that nothing about this situation has changed.  Military action is not in our national security interest and should not be authorized.  Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.

There is no doubt Assad is a brutal dictator.  But if we seek to remove him, we must ask what comes next.  Assad is fighting radical Islamic rebels, including large parts of ISIS.  Who would take over Syria if Assad is deposed?  Experience in Libya tells us chaos could reign, and radical Islamists could control large parts of the country.

Make no mistake, bombing Assad means the United States is fighting on the same side as ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria.  This is a dangerous and morally wrong policy.

But no matter your view of the merits of engaging in Syria, every member of Congress should stand up today and reclaim our Constitutional authority over war.

The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president.  Even the War Powers Resolution, shoved forward by hawks as justification, clearly states criteria under which the president may act – a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.

That’s it.  Absent those criteria, the president has no authority to act without congressional authorization.  Congress must stand up and assert its authority here and now.

No president is above the law or the Constitution.  I said so when it was Barack Obama, and I will say so when it is Donald Trump.

Our Founding Fathers had this right, and we should heed their wisdom about allowing the president to have war powers.  They were concerned the president could rule like a king.

Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates – that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it.  The Constitution, therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.

Before any act of war, we should have a serious and thoughtful debate over the ramifications.

In Syria – what is our goal?  What happens if we depose Assad?  Will the Islamist rebels, as they have threatened, turn their weapons and attention elsewhere, including Israel next door?

I will hold accountable and oppose the actions of any president who takes military action without proper legal authority and congressional consent. (Another Unconstitutional Rush to War. Also see Terence Jeffrey's commentary about Obama/Soetoro's "red line" in Syria four years ago: Constitution Gives Obama No Power to Use Force in Syria.).

Senator Paul is entirely correct. So is Patrick Joseph Buchanan:

Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?

For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve gas attack on children, certain to ignite America’s rage, for no military gain?

Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false flag operation to stampede America into Syria’s civil war.

And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him — to keep us out of unnecessary wars — may not be standing by him.

We have no vital national interest in Syria’s civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for.

 

For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al-Qaida, it is about driving the Crusaders out of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds. . . .

Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans without a fight.

And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?

A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim heretics? LGBT rights?

In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria.

We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue: Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?

If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war, the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now. (Is Trump Enlisting in the War Pary?)

Very well put, Mr. Buchanan.

The truth, of course, is that President Trump knows about as much about the Constitution of the United States of America as he does about First and Last Things. He cares about neither. He sees, he reacts. Trump simply desired to distinguish himself from Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who said that Bashar al-Assad had crossed a “red line” by using, it was contended, Sarin nerve gas against innocent civilians on May 9, 2013. (This contention was disputed by German intelligence, which based its conclusion on “communication intercepts. It is most likely the case that elements of the Syrian military undertook the attack on their own initiative. See Assad Not Responsible for Gas Attack, German Intelligence Says.)

Without signaling what he was going to do, Trump used a joint press conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah II to boast of his “flexibility” by changing his views about how his administration would deal with Syria, contrasting his immediate predecessor’s inaction after make what turned out to be hollow threats:

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I like to think of myself as a very flexible person.  I don’t have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go the same way, I don’t change.  Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I’m proud of that flexibility.  And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact.  That was a horrible, horrible thing.  And I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that.  

And I have that flexibility, and it’s very, very possible -- and I will tell you, it’s already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.  And if you look back over the last few weeks, there were other attacks using gas.  You’re now talking about a whole different level. 

And so, as you know, I would love to have never been in the Middle East.  I would love to have never seen that whole big situation start.  But once it started, we got out the wrong way, and ISIS formed in the vacuum, and lots of bad things happened.  I will tell you, what happened yesterday is unacceptable to me.

Q    Can I follow up, sir?  Last year, you seemed to be reluctant to get involved -- or to intervene in Syria directly.  Is that one thing that’s changed after yesterday?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, one of the things I think you’ve noticed about me is, militarily, I don’t like to say where I’m going and what I doing.  And I watched past administrations say, we will attack at such and such a day at such and such an hour.  And you, being a warrior -- you would say, why are they saying that?  And I’m sure you sat back in Jordan, and you said, why are they saying that?

I watched Mosul, where the past administration was saying, we will be attacking in four months.  And I said, why are they doing that?  Then a month goes by, and they say, we will be attacking in three months, and then two months, and then we will be attacking next week.  And I’m saying, why are they doing that?  And as you know, Mosul turned out to be a much harder fight than anyone thought, and a lot of people have been lost in that fight.

I’m not saying I’m doing anything one way or the other, but I’m certainly not going to be telling you, as much as I respect you, John.  Thank you. (Renarks of President Trump and King Abdullah II, Apri 5, 2017.)

Leaving aside the fact that Trump is indeed very flexible, which is why a lot of his loyalty workers and surrogates during the campaign did not receive positions in his administration, the president made a fair point about Obama/Soeotro’s signaling enemies of his intentions far in advance of military operations. That, however, begs the question as the armed forces of the United States of America have had no business being sent to fight and die in sovereign nations that American interventionism have destabilized and made a haven for terrorist activities.

As the Leaders of Israel Cheer As Trump Does His Bidding For Them

As we know only too well, though, the American military presence in the Middle East has done nothing to bring “peace” and “stability” to the region has been undertaken in order to make it “safe” for the only “democracy in the area, America’s “friend,” the Zionist State of Israel, whose creation was specifically rejected by Pope Saint Pius X when he met with the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, something that was noted last in part one of this commentary but will be repeated here yet again given given the passage of time since its publication:

HERZL: Yesterday I was with the Pope [Pius X]. . . . I arrived ten minutes ahead of time, and without having to wait I was conducted through a number of small reception rooms to the Pope. He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss. Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t. I believe this spoiled my chances with him, for everyone who visits him kneels and at least kisses his hand. This hand kiss had worried me a great deal and I was glad when it was out of the way.

He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor affairs, and invited me to sit by his side. He smiled in kindly anticipation. I began:

HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:

POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.

HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

HERZL: [At this point Conte Lippay had himself announced. The Pope bade him be admitted. The Conte kneeled, kissed his hand, and joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in the Bauer beerhall at Venice. The miracle was that he had originally intended to stay overnight in Padua, and instead, it turned out that he was given to hear me express the wish to kiss the Holy Father’s foot. At this the Pope made no movement, for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay proceeded to tell how I had expiated on the noble qualities of Jesus Christ. The Pope listened, and now and then took a pinch of snuff and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. It is these peasant touches which I like about him best and which most of all compel my respect. Lippay, it would appear, wanted to account for his introducing me, and perhaps ward off a word of reproach. But the Pope said:

POPE: On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.

HERZL: [As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me, until he dismissed us:]

POPE: Not possible!

HERZL: [Lippay stayed on his knees for an unconscionable time and never seemed to tire of kissing his hand. It was apparent that this was what the Pope liked. But on taking leave, I contented myself with shaking his hand warmly and bowing deeply. The audience lasted about twenty-five minutes. While spending the last hour in the Raphael gallery, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling before a seated Pope and receiving the crown from his hands. That’s how Rome wants it.]   (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)

Not exactly how the conciliar "popes" have spoken to the adherents of the Talmud whenever they have permitted themselves to have been treated as inferiors in Talmudic synagogues and as Talmudic choirs have sung about how the Talmudic Jews of today are "waiting for the Messiah," now is it?

Pope Saint Pius X sought the conversion of souls, making no accommodations to the nonexistent legitimacy of false religions. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis was a regular visit of Talmudic synagogues in Argentina, and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited three of them, including one in Rome itself (see Saint Peter and Anti-Peter.)

No one can contend that Pope Saint Pius X did not understand Catholic teaching the conversion of some of the Jews in end times and that such a convesion is not premised upon their being located physically in the land from which Our Lord Himself expelled them by using the pagan Romans to disperse them as a punishment for their refusal to respond to the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles after He had granted them a thirty-seven year period to do so. Pope Saint Pius X opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine as he knew this to be opposed to the very will of God. Judaism became a false religion after Our Lord breathed his last breath on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and the public pronouncement of this fact was made by virtue of the destructiom of Jerusalem by the Romans in fulfillment of His own prophecy. 

As noted in part one of this commentary three and one-half months ago now, the widespread belief that the establishment of a Jewish state is the fulfillment of God's will was engineered personally by Theodore Herzl and the Zionists who continued his work after his death by influencing Protestants to produce a commentary on Sacred Scripture that contained interpretations favorable to Zionism. Once again, let me provide you the words of Father Louis J. Campbell, the pastor of Saint Jude Shrine, Stafford, Texas, that demonstrate any interpretation of Sacred Scripture favorable to Zionism and to the State of Israel is Zionist-influence Protestant origin, not of authentic Catholic Scriptural exegesis or doctrine:

Since the time of the Apostles, the Holy Catholic Church has preached the Gospel by the authority granted it by Jesus Christ. The Church was preaching the Gospel years before the Four Gospels were written down, and has continued to this day to fulfill Our Lord’s command to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk.16:15). 

The Church collected the Scriptures that make up the Bible. But the heretic, Martin Luther (1483-1546), weeded out some of the books of the Bible he didn’t like, and the Protestant version of the Bible was born. The Bible itself was then touted as the sole authority subject to the “private interpretation” of the believer, thus denying the Church’s authority to preach the Gospel and interpret the Scriptures. However, it seems “the believers” are willing to believe much that is not to be found in the Bible.

No doubt many of us are puzzled by the strange phenomenon of Christian Zionism. Many Evangelical Christians, like the Baptists, the Pentecostals and the Charismatics, are enthusiastic supporters of Jewish Zionism, although not all Jews are Zionists, and many of them dispute the Zionist claims.

The Jewish Zionist Movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. Its chief aim was the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the “Land of Israel” in the Bible. The Temple would eventually be rebuilt, and the ancient religious rites resumed. Since they believe they have a right to the lands promised to Abraham by God, the Zionists have little sympathy for the Palestinians, who were squeezed into the West Bank and the Gaza strip after the creation of the Jewish State of Israel in 1948. Misusing Old Testament Scriptures, the Jewish Zionists believe they are destined to rule the world.

So what could have turned famous Protestant preachers like Billy Graham, Hal Lindsay, John Hagee and Pat Robertson, into Christian Zionists, enthusiastic supporters of the aims of Jewish Zionism? Could it have been – the Scofield Bible?

The Scofield Reference Bible is widely used in Protestant seminaries, especially among Evangelicals, such as Baptists, Pentecostals and Charismatics. Recently someone sent me an article by a Mr. C.E. Carlson about the Scofield Bible, which seems to get to the root of the problem. Much of what follows is from Mr. Carlson (http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/carlson01.htm). 

One of the schemes of the Jewish Zionists was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. One Cyrus I. Scofield (1843-1921) was funded by Zionist agents to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. It was first published in 1909 by Oxford University Press, which still holds the copyright. 

 Scofield produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James Version. Oxford's promoters made the Scofield Bible, with its Christian Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. And they all followed like sheep – even Hagee, Lindsay, Robertson, Van Impe, and the revered Billy Graham. So much for private interpretation!

After Scofield’s death, the Oxford University Press turned the Scofield Bible into a manual for the Christian worship of the State of Israel. Scofields’s un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian mass media evangelists or most other American church leaders, including the so-called U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul contradicts the claims of the Scofield Bible:

“The promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. He does not say, ‘And to his offsprings,’ as of many; but as of one, ‘And to his offspring,’ who is Christ… For you are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to promise” (Gal.3:15b,16;26-29).

This makes it clear that to be a blood relative descended from Abraham is of no advantage to those who do not have faith in Jesus Christ. And Scofield and the Oxford University Press are liars when they try to prove that those who are known today as “Jews” are the heirs to the promises of Abraham. We read this whopper on page 1136 of the 1967 edition: “All Jews are natural descendants of Abraham…”  

This is absolutely false and absurd. The great majority of the so-called Jews who control Israel today are not descendants of Abraham at all. They are the Ashkenazi Jews, descendants of the Khazars of Eastern Europe. They are imposters, with no right to the lands of the Bible! Although known as “Jews” they are such neither by blood nor by religion, because the Jewish religion their ancestors adopted in the eighth century is not the true religion of the ancient Jews of the time of Christ, but the false Talmudic Judaism which blasphemes Jesus Christ and deifies the Jewish race.

And on page 19 we find this blatant lie: “God made an unconditional promise of blessings through Abram’s seed… to the Nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever.

What a deception! The televangelists and their huge following have accepted this abominable lie, and have led the whole country into vassalage to the Godless modern State of Israel. Jesus Christ is Abraham’s heir, not the State of Israel. The promises God made to Abraham are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Jewish Zionists have no true understanding of the Scriptures. And who would have thought that the “Bible believing Christians” would have stumbled after them into the darkness? 

“Did you never read in the Scriptures,” said Our Lord to the Pharisees: “‘The stone which the builders rejected, has become the corner stone; by the Lord this has been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’? Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits” (Mt.21:42,43).

St. Paul understood it well:

“You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief corner stone. In him the whole structure is closely fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord, in him you too are being built together into a dwelling place for God in the Spirit” (Eph.2:20-22).  (Father Louis J. Campbell, Seventh Sunday after Pentecost.)

Father Campbell's sermon should help disabuse some of you in the readership from using any Protestant "minister" as an "authority" on anything other than how to offend the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. The American evangelical movement is a wholly-owned enterprise of Zionism. Then again, so is the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Obviously, it is not only Protestants who have fallen prey to the lies of the Scofield Reference Bible. Most Catholics, influenced by the religious indifferentism that has characterized social life in the United States of American since its founding and by the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s celebration of false ecumenism, accept “support for Israel” and its policies as a “duty” in order render assistance to “America’s only ally” in the Middle East.

The State of Israel was created by the shedding the blood of the innocent and by the stealing of the homes and land of the Palestinian Arabs who had been living there for centuries upon centuries as they, the Palestinian Arabs, were rounded up and sent to "detention centers" (concentration camps), all with the support of the government of the United States of America (which has its own interesting history of targeting civilians, including the members of various Indian tribes who simply wanted to retain custody of their own lands and, of course, the horrific fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany, on February 13-14, 1945, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, on, respectively, August 6 and 9, 1945, to say nothing of the innocent civilians killed in the past foruteen years in Iraq and those killed in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001), which always supports the amoral military campaigns that have been launched time and time again by the bloodthirsty killers of Tel Aviv who have no regard for innocent civilians. (Please see Selective Chutzpah, Moral Monsters, Monsters of Modernism, Monsters of Modernity, Worthy Successors of Herod the Great,  Let's Talk About Invented People and Invented States, and When AIPAC Calls, John Boehner and Eric Cantor Listen for a review of the crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Force at the direction of Israeli Prime Ministers.)

No amount of brute military force will ever be able to end all of the regional conflicts in the land sanctified by Our Lord whist He walked the face of the earth. Such conflicts, which involve battles between Mohammedans and Talmudists, each of whose immortal souls are captives to the devil by means of  that will be ended only when all of those involved are converted to the Catholic Faith and see in each other the impress of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and say, "Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord."

Although he was careful to keep out of the limelight until after the American airstrikes in Syria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu, coud not contain his glee in the aftermath of President Trump's decision, which he was informed about beforehand, to send Tomhawk Cruise missiles raining down on the Syrian military airfield four days ago.

"Israel fully and unequivocally supports the presidents decision and hopes the clear message will reverberate not only in Damascus but also in Tehran, Pyongyang and other places. (I Support Trump's Decision to Bomb Syria.)

It will only be when the principals write their memoirs whether Netananhyu added his Talmudic voice to that of Ivanka Trump Kushner's and the voices of the neoconservative war hawks who are in the ascendancy in the National Security Council in urging President Donald John Trump to launch a military strike on Syria. Only someone who is willfully naive can believe that the Israeli Prime Minister did not encourage Trump to act as he did. When Bibi calls, The Donald listens. The Talmudists do not adhere to the Just War Theory, which The Donald has never heard or nor would be in the least bit interested in familiarizing himself with it.

A Deserved Chastisement

This is all a chastisement, of course, for our own sins and those of the world world, and it is a chastisement for the refusal of those to whose ancestors the Gospel was first preached to recognize that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is their Messias and that He greatly desires their conversion to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

As it stands, however, the Zionists in Israel and their Mohammedan neighbors are playing their respective roles as the instruments of Antichrist to usher in the events that will lead to the final battle. Every false religion belongs to the devil, including Judaism, and it is because this is so that events in the land sanctified by Our Lord's presence two millennia ago will become the focal point of the next world war. It would be quite ironic that such a global war might occur in 2017, one hundred years after the United States of America entered the "war to end all wars," World War I, which President Thomas Woodrow Wilson desired to use as the means to "make the world safe for democracy," meaning "safe" for secular, Judeo-Masonic oligarchies to decide the fate of men and their nations under the guise of "democracy." And it was one of the main principals at the Versailles Peace Conference that laid the foundation for World War II, British Foreign Minister Arthur James Balfour, a Freemason, who had a "plan" for the creation of the sort of Zionist state in the Holy Land that Pope Saint Pius X knew to be completely opposed to the ordained will of God:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,
Arthur James Balfour (The Balfour Declaration.)

The Zionist State of Israel was all the working of Judeo-Masonry. The world that was engineered by the "Council of Four" (British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Emmanuele and American President Thomas Woodrow Wilson) has created nothing but disaster, violence and death in the past century. Behold the world created by the twin-interrelated agents of Antichrist, Freemasony and Judaism.

Freemason is a tool of the devil.

So is Judaism.

Too harsh?

Judaism is the tool of the devil?

Consider the reiteration of Catholic teaching on this point as found in The Catholic Church and Salvation, which was written by the eminent theologian, Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943-1963:

It is highly important to understand that this process is quite complex. The terminus a quo, the undesirable condition, from which men are removed in the process of salvation is basically sin, the status of aversion from almighty God. A man is said to be saved, absolutely and simply, when he is taken out of the condition of original or mortal sin and brought into the status of the eternal and supernatural life of grace. Ultimately that process in achieved and perfected when the person saved comes to possess the life of grace eternally and inamissibly, in the everlasting glory of the Beatific Vision. There is genuine salvation, however, when the man who has hitherto been in the state of original or mortal sin is brought into the life of sanctifying grace, even in this world, when that life of grace can be lost through the man's own fault.

There is, however, a definitely social aspect to the process of salvation. In the merciful designs of God's providence, the man who is transferred from the state of original or mortal sin into the state of grace is brought in some way “within” a social unit, the supernatural kingdom of the living God. In heaven that community is the Church triumphant, the company of the elect enjoying the Beatific Vision. On earth it is the Church militant. Under the conditions of the new or the Christian dispensation, that community is the organized or visible religious society which is the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth.

We must not lose sight of the fact that people in the condition of aversion from God, in the state of original or mortal sin, belong in some way to a kingdom or an ecclesia under the leadership of Satan, the moving spirit among the spiritual enemies of God. Hence the process of salvation involves necessarily the transfer of an individual from one social unit or community to another, from the kingdom Satan to the true and supernatural kingdom of the living God. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, pp, 134-135.)

This is important to emphasize as anyone who is unbaptized, a condition that applies to Jews and Mohammedans and pagans, belongs to an ecclesia under the leadership of Satan, which predisposes them to a hatred of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, His Holy Cross and His Holy Church and predisposes them as well to wage wafare against all to do with Our Lord, His Church, His Divine Revelation and even the binding precepts of the Natural Law. Amorality must be the result of such hatred.

Monsignor Fenton explained that the Jewish ecclesia had ceased to exist with Our Lord's death on the wood of the Holy Cross, and that Saint Peter, our first pope, sought to bring them out their adherence to false beliefs that could only wind up damning them for all eternity:

This intrinsically social aspect of salvation is brought out in the account, in the Acts of the Apostles, of the end of St. Peter's sermon on the first Christian Pentecost and of the results of that sermon.

Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their hearts and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that receive his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers. [Acts, 2: 37-42]

According to the inspired word of God in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter exhorted the men who listened to him of that first Christian Pentecost to “save themselves from this perverse generation.” Furthermore, we are told that the individuals who “received his word” received the sacrament of baptism, and that they were “added” to the number of the disciples of Christ who had been with St. Peter and the other disciples before he delivered his sermon. The society of the disciples of Jesus Christ, the organization which we know now as the Catholic Church, continued with this great number of new members, to do exactly what it had been doing since the day of Our Lord's ascension into heaven.

We read that the group, composed as it was of these new converts who had come into the Church as a result of St. Peter's Pentecost sermon and of the disciples who had entered the group during Our Lord's public life, was “persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.” And we read the same sort of account of the activity of the original band of disciples that returned to Jerusalem immediately after the Ascension.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey.

And when they were come in they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Batholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.

All these were persevering with one mind in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [Acts 1. 12-14]

Both the text and the context of the Acts of the Apostles assure us that the people who heeded St. Peter's injunction to save themselves from this perverse generation entered the true Church of God, the kingdom of God on earth. They entered the Catholic Church.

Now, if St. Peter's words on this occasion meant anything at all, they signified that the individuals to whom he was speaking were in a situation which would lead them to eternal ruin if they continued in it. They were described as belonging to a “perverse generation.” They were told to save themselves by getting out of it. The institution into which they would enter by the very fact of leaving “this perverse generation” was none other that the society of Our Lord's disciples, the Catholic Church itself.

The clear implication of St. Peter's statement is that the Church, the kingdom of God, was the only institution or social unit of salvation. Not to be within this society was to be in the perverse generation within which a man was faced with eternal and entire spiritual ruin. To leave the perverse generation was to enter the Church.

In other words, the clear teaching of this section of the Acts of the Apostles is precisely that given by Pope Leo XIII in the opening passages of his encyclical Humanum genus. The central point of this teaching is that the entire human race is divided between the kingdom of God, the ecclesia, and the kingdom of Satan. To be saved from the kingdom of Satan is to enter the kingdom of God. In this context it is not difficult to see how, by God's institution, the Catholic Church, the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth, is presented as a necessary means for the attainment of salvation. By God's institution the process of salvation itself involves a passage from the kingdom of Satan into the ecclesia.

Now, for the proper understanding of this doctrine, especially in view of the teaching on this subject contained in some recent books and articles, it is imperative to understand the religious condition of the people to whom St. Peter delivered his sermon on that first Christian Pentecost. Again, the Acts of the Apostles contains essentially important information.

This book describes them in general with the statement that “there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven.” The homelands of these men are enumerated in the statement attributed to the multitude itself.

And they were all amazed and wondered saying: Behold, are not all these that speak, Galileans?

And how have we heard, every man, our own tongue wherein we were born?

Parthinians and Medes and Elamites and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,

Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers from Rome,

Jews also and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. [Acts 2: 7-11.]

According to the text of the Acts, a great many of these people were pilgrims, men and women who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the great Jewish feast of Pentecost. Our Lord had died on the Cross only a little over seven weeks before St. Peter delivered that sermon, and many of the people who listened to St. Peter must have been on their way to Jerusalem at the very time Our Lord died. They had begun their pilgrimage as an act of worship in the Jewish religion at the very time when the Jewish religion was the one approved especially by God and when the Jewish politico-religious commonwealth was actually the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the ecclesia of the Old Testament.

These people as individuals probably had nothing whatsoever to do with the persecution and the murder of the Incarnate Word of God. They had started on their journey as members of God's chosen people, the people of His covenant. Their journey to Jerusalem was made precisely in order to worship and honor God. They were truly devout individuals.

Yes, seven weeks before, the religious body to which they belonged had ceased to be God's ecclesia. The Jewish politico-religious social unit had definitively rejected Our Lord, the Messias promised in the Old Testament. This company had hitherto enjoyed its position as God's ecclesias or His congregatio fidelium by virtue of the fact this it had accepted and professed its acceptance of the divine message about the promised Redeemer. In rejecting the Redeemer Himself, this social unit had automatically rejected the teaching God had given about Him. The rejection of this message constituted an abandonment of the divine faith itself. By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan.

While the great Jewish social unit was rejecting Our Lord and thus repudiating its acceptance of the divinely revealed message about Him, the little company of the disciples, organized by Our Lord around Himself, retained its faith. It continued to accept and to obey Our Lord and to believe the divinely revealed that centered around Him. Thus at the moment of Our Lord's death on Calvary, the moment when the old dispensation was ended and the Jewish religious association ceased to be the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord's disciples began to exist as the ecclesia or the kingdom.

This society was the true continuation of Israel. The men who were within it were the true sons of Abraham, in that they had the genuine faith of Abraham. This society was the new association of the chosen people. Its members were, as St. Paul called them, the elect or the chosen of God.

It must be understood, incidentally, that this society was actually God's supernatural kingdom on earth in a much more complete and perfect sense than the old Jewish commonwealth had ever been. The old Israel had constituted the pople of the covenant. According to God's unfailing promise, the Redeemer was to be born within that company. Yet conditions had never been such that a man had to be within this company in order to attain to eternal salvation. 

(Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, pp, 136-139.)

It cannot get any clearer than the following sentence in the seletion from Monsignor Fenton's masterpiece of Catholic theology just quoted:

By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, p. 139.)

The true Israel has nothing to do with the territory of the Holy Land. The true Israel is supranational. It is Holy Mother Church, the Catholic Church. Catholics must not permit themselves to be in error on this point. While some number of the Jews will be grafted onto the vine of Our Lord that is the Church in end times, they do not have to be located in a particular country, no less one that is founded in direct opposition to God's definitive decree, which has never been revoked, that expelled them from Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. Jerusalem belongs to Christ the King and His true Church, not to the Zionist State of Israel. Catholics are the true spiritual children of Abraham. No one else.

The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton taught nothing new. Indeed, it was well over fifteen centuries before that a Syrian bishop and doctor of Holy Mother Church, Saint John Chrysostom, wrote the following: 

Let that be your judgment about the synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of those holy men." (Saint John Chrysostom, Fourth Century, A.D., Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews.)

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)

By the way, Saint John Chrysostom wrote the words above to warn Catholics about participating in Jewish ceremonies, something that the past three conciliar "popes" have done as "popes" and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio did as the conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina. In other words, he condemned Nostra Aetate some 1,578 years before it was issued by the "Second" Vatican Council on November 28, 1965, a condemnation that extends as well to the words and the actions of the conciliar "popes" themselves.

To state all of this is not to express hatred for individual Jews or to wish them or their places of false worship harm. Of course not. It is, however, to express an opposition to all false religions because each is loathsome in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. The most virulent anti-Semites in the world are the conciliar revolutionarines and their comrades in various Protestant sects who believe that Jews can be saved by means of their adherence to the blasphemous Talmud, which is the work of the devil himself.  We wish well to all men and we are to bear ourselves kindly to all men, but we must pray for their conversion to the true Church before they die as no one is a friend to anyone else if he is silent on the matter of a friend's salvation in order not to lose his friendship. It is better to lose a friendship in this life, as painful as this may be, for the sake of speaking the truth in a kindly manner than to have the enmity of one's earthly friend in hell for letting human respect get in the way of inviting him into the true Church.

The great champion of the Social Reign of Christ the King, Father Denis Fahey, explained the proper distinctions that must be made on a matter that is used by Talmudists to tar-and-feather as anti-Semitic anyone who dares to speak the truth of the diabolical nature of Judaism and who seeks to work against the promotion of its falsehoods in the world:

On the one hand, the Church condemns race hatred in general and hatred of the Redeemer’s race in particular. On the other hand, the Church insists, as we have seen, on the duty of combating naturalism in public and private life and approves of love of native land and extols true supernatural patriotism. We have the right and the duty to defend our country and our nation against the unjust aggression of another nation. This duty is still more strongly urged upon us when it is a question of our country’s fidelity to Christ the King. We must, therefore, combat naturalism in general always and everywhere, and we must be vigilant in regard to the naturalism of the Jewish nation in particular. The tireless energy with which His own nation pursues the elimination of the influence of the supernatural life is doubly painful to our Lord’s Sacred Heart. The combat against naturalism in general and, therefore, against the organised naturalism of the Jewish nation, is urged upon us, for example, by Pope Leo XIII (Tametsi, 1900) and Pope Pius XI (Quas Primas, 1925, and Quadragesimo Anno, 1931). . . .

Given the naturalistic messianic ambition of the Jewish nation to impose its rule on the other nations, anti-semitism for the Jews logically means whatever is in opposition to that ambition. The situation since the Second World War is being cleverly exploited to prevent anyone from opposing Jewish aims, through fear of being dubbed an “anti-Semite.” I n my book, The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganisation of Society, I pointed out that the disordered National Socialist action against the corroding influence of Jewish naturalism on German national life led not only to measures of repression against the Jews, with regrettable violations of their personal rights, but also to persecution of the Catholic Church. Comparatively little information concerning the anti-Catholic measures ever reached the great newspaper-reading, cinema-going public, while hardly anyone could fail to be aware of what was done to the Jews. The term “anti-semitism,” with all its war connotation of Nazi cruelty, is now having its comprehension widened to include every form of opposition to the Jewish nation’s naturalistic programme. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish naturalism is keeping Catholics blind to the consequences of accepting the term with its Jewish comprehension. According to the leaders of the Jewish nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is to be an anti-Semite. (Father Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)

Judaism is a dead, superseded religion and is to be accorded no honor or respect by any Catholic, including a putative "pope." We are expected to pray for the conversion of the Jews in the spirit that Pope Pius XI noted we should have to seek the conversion of all non-Catholics to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, less yet peace among nations:

36. This charity, intelligent and sympathetic towards those even who offend you, does by no means imply a renunciation of the right of proclaiming, vindicating and defending the truth and its implications. The priest's first loving gift to his neighbors is to serve truth and refute error in any of its forms. Failure on this score would be not only a betrayal of God and your vocation, but also an offense against the real welfare of your people and country. To all those who have kept their promised fidelity to their Bishops on the day of their ordination; to all those who in the exercise of their priestly function are called upon to suffer persecution; to all those imprisoned in jail and concentration camps, the Father of the Christian world sends his words of gratitude and commendation. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Very few Catholics understand or accept this, which is why most Catholics, including most of those who accept the fact that the See of Saint Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, are so supportive of the Zionist State of Israel and sanguine about Talmudism as a perfectly valid religion. 

We Must Pray Not to Lose the Holy Faith

Lest we get haughty, however, we must recognize the fact that our own sins transcended time during this Week of Weeks, Holy Week, to cause Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity the effects of the very antithesis of His Sacred Divinity, sin, during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem us.

It was our sins, having transcended time, that helped to fuel the hatred of the Jews who cried out for Our Lord's Crucifixion and who reviled Him, spat upon Him, mistreated Him and blasphemed Him as He walked the Via Dolorosa on then hung for three hours on the infamous gibbet of Roman cruelty, the Cross, to redeem the human race, pay back in His own Most Precious Blood that debt of Adam's sin that was owed to Him in His infinity as God.

It was our sins, having transcended time, that caused Our Blessed Mother to suffer unspeakable sorrow as the Sword of Sorrow was pierced through and through her Immaculate Heart, whose triumph will come when a true pope conserates Russia to this Heart with all of the true bishops.

It is our sins now that worsen the state of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large.

We are too indifferent to our sins.

We are too comfortable with the world and its delights.

We are too complacent with ourselves and own Venial Sins, each of which have worsened the state of the Church Militant on the face of this earth and of the world at large. 

We have too often played the role of Judas by being the sort of unworthy Christians whose lukewarmness made it more possible for the Jews of the Sixteenth Century to be as successful as they were in helping to bring about and then to spread the heresies of the Protestant Revolution, which resulted ulitimately in the triumph of Judeo-Masonry soon thereafter.

William Thomas Walsh described described such unworthy Christians as follows in his book on King Philip II:

It must have been apparent to a man [King Philip II] of his shrewd common sense (in most matters) that even those Jews who persisted in the iniquity of attempting to destroy the Church could have accomplished very little without collaboration from within, from unworthy Christians. It always takes a Judas to complete the work of Annas and Caiaphas. (William Thomas Walsh, Philip II, published originally in 1937 by Sheed and Ward and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1987, p. 252.)

We need Our Lady's help to make us truly worthy Christians who help to build up the Mystical Body of Christ earth rather than being instruments of her being brought low before non-Catholics. We must beg her to send us the graces we need to sanctify and to save our souls as the consecrated slaves of her own Divine Son, Our Crucified Redeemer, Christ the King, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart that suffered in complete communion with His offering of Himself to His Co-Eternal and Co-Eternal God the Father in atonement for the sins of men, most especially our own.

We need to keep close to Our Lady, especially by means praying the Sorrowful Mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary during this most solmen week of the year, Holy Week.

Remember, this is the year 2017, which is the five hundredth anniversary of Luther's revolution, the three hundredth anniversary of the foundng of York Rite Masonry,  the one hundredth anniversary of Our Lady's Fatima apparitions and the fifty-fifth anniversary of the beginning of the "Second" Vatican Council. The gathering storms of war may very well indicate that the hand of God will no longer be stayed Our Lord's Divine Son's Kingship over men and their nations is mocked and the leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism promote falsehoods and commit blasphemies that stir up the Divine anger. Sin abounds, and it is protected by the civil law, celebrated in the world and excused by Judas Bergoglio and his follow revolutionaries.

Keep close to Our Lady. 

Beg her to stay in a state of Sanctfying Grace.

The time of the reckoning for us all may close at hand.

The Principal Responsibility Rests With the Lords of Conciliarism and Their False Beliefs

We bear our own grave resonsibilities for the state of the world today. 

It is also true, however, that the principle proximate responsibility to the descent of the world into the abyss rests with the conciliar "popes" and their false beliefs. It is they more than others who have played the role of Judas to Caiphas and Annas, especially by reaffirming adherents of false religions, including Jews and Mohammedans, in their falsehoods and by propagating heresies, errors and unspeakable blasphemies against Our Lord, His Most Blessed Mother and the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church.

The conciliar "popes" and their false teaching stands in stark contrast to the holy life and zealous example of Pope Saint Leo the Great, whose feast is commemorated today, Tuesday of Holy Week:

Leo was an Etruscan who ruled the Church at the time when Attila, king of the Huns, whose surname is the Scourge of God, invaded Italy, and after a siege of three years, took, sacked, and burnt Aquileia. Thence he was hurrying to Rome, on fire with anger, and his troops were already preparing to cross the Po, at the place where that river is joined by the Mincio, when he was met by Leo, moved with compassion at the thought of the ruin which hung over Italy. By his God-given eloquence, Attila was persuaded to turn back, and when he was afterwards asked by his servants why, contrary to his custom, he had so meekly yielded to the entreaties of the Bishop of Rome, he answered that he had been alarmed by a figure dressed like a Priest, which had appeared at the side of Leo while he was speaking, holding a drawn sword, and had made as though to kill the king unless he consented. And so he returned into Pannonia.

While Leo went back to Rome, where he was received with rejoicing by all men. A while later, Genseric entered the city, but Leo, by the power of his eloquence and the authority of his holy life, persuaded him to abstain from fire, insult, and slaughter. When Leo beheld how the Church was assailed by many heresies, and in dire trouble through the Nestorians and Eutychians, to purify the same and establish her in the Catholic Faith, he called the Council of Chalcedon, where, in an assembly of six hundred and thirty Bishops Nestorius was again condemned, along with Eutyches and Dioscorus; the decrees of which Council were confirmed by the authority of Leo.

After these matters, this holy Pope set himself to the restoration and building of Churches. By his advice that godly woman Demetria built the Church of St Stephen upon her farm on the Latin Road, at the third milestone from the city. He himself built another Church upon the Appian Way, which Church is called that of St Cornelius. He restored likewise many other Churches, and the holy vessels used therein. He built Clergy -houses at the three Basilicas of Peter, Paul, and Constantine. He built a monastery hard by the Basilica of St Peter. He appointed for the graves of the Apostles certain keepers, whom he called the Chamberlains of the said Apostles. He ordained that in the action of the Mystery should be uttered the words An holy sacrifice, an offering without spot. He ordered that no nun should have the covering of her head blessed 4 until she had made trial of her virginity for forty years. After doing all these and other illustrious works, and after he had written much that is both godly and easy to be understood, he fell asleep in the Lord on the eleventh day of April, in the year 461. He held the Papal See for twenty years, one month, and thirteen days. (From the readings for Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Pope Saint Leo the Great wrote much during his twenty years on the Throne of Saint Peter, including on the very nature of the papacy and about the fact that the jaws of hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church:

When the Lord, as we read in the Evangelist, asked His disciples Who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe that He, the Son of Man, was; blessed Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father, Which is in heaven and I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thus therefore standeth the ordinance of the Truth, and blessed Peter, abiding still that firm rock which God hath made him, hath never lost that right to rule in the Church which God hath given unto him.

In the universal Church it is Peter that doth still say every day, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every tongue which confesseth that Jesus is Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bands of his prisoners. This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. This teaching it is, my dearly beloved brethren, which maketh the keeping of this Feast to-day to be our reasonable service, even the teaching which maketh you to know and honour in myself, lowly though I be, that Peter who is still entrusted with the care of all other shepherds and of all the flocks to them committed, and whose authority I have, albeit unworthy to be his heir.

When, therefore, we address our exhortations to your godly ears, believe ye that ye are hearing him speak whose office we are discharging. Yea, it is with his love for you that we warn you, and we preach unto you no other thing than that which he taught, entreating you that ye would gird up the loins of your mind and lead pure and sober lives in the fear of God. My disciples dearly beloved, ye are to me, as the disciples of the Apostle Paul were to him, (Phil. iv. 1,) a crown and a joy, if your faith, which, in the first times of the Gospel, was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. i. 8, abide still lovely and holy. For, albeit it behoveth the whole Church which is spread throughout all the world, to be strong in righteousness, you it chiefly becometh above all other peoples to excel in worth and godliness, whose house is built upon the very crown of the Rock of the Apostle, and whom not only hath our Lord Jesus Christ, as He hath redeemed all men, but whom also His blessed Apostle Peter hath made the foremost object of his teaching. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Well, it is all there, isn’t it?

One must engage in all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to believe that the contagion of heresy is not rife within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is why all those who are not yet convinced of the truth of our ecclesiastical situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal should re-read these words:

This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has esteemed the symbols of idolaters. So have Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and “Saint John Paul II” before his own election as the head of the false conciliar sect on March 13, 2013, and Bergoglio has shown repeatedly that he has no belief in the integrity of the Catholic Faith or even in the true God of Divine Revelation. So have his predecessors in the past fifty-eight and one-half years. Yet it is that so most Catholics alive today who know better stay silent in the face of the sort of blasphemies, sacrileges and heresies that caused Pope Saint Leo the Great to explain those who refuse to condemn blasphemies are guilty of it themselves:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

The cowardly silence of the "conservative" "cardinals," "bishops" and traditionally-minded priests/presbyters is deafeaning, many of whom choose not to defend the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity in order to retain their status in a false religious sect that has been headed by heretics from its very inception, is thus culpable unto them at their Particular Judgment.

We need to pray to Pope Saint Leo the Great to drive out the Judaizing Huns who occupy Rome and the institutions of the Catholic Church during this time of conciliarism when all of the errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, having received the conciliar stamp of approval, make it appear as though the Social Reign of Christ the King is "unrealistic" and that we must make our peace with some kind of naturalism, whether of the false opposite of the "left" or of the "right" as a means of knowing "peace" and "prosperity."

We need to beg Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, and her Most Chaste Spouse, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, to help us to preserve to our dying breaths in the truths of the true Faith no matter what it may cost us in earthly terms.

We are here to please God, not to curry the favor of men by hiding what we know to be true because we fear being ostracized or ridiculed as being “extreme” and “disloyal.”

May the example of  Pope Saint Leo the Great inspire us to see wolves disguised as “shepherds,” and to flee from these false shepherds once and for all and to beg him to pray to Our Lord to hasten the day when a true pope will be restored to the Throne of Saint Peter and subsequently consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary with all of the wold's bishops. 

Remember, the Heart that was pierced by Swords of Sorrow as she stood so valiantly beneath the wood of her Divine Son's Most Holy Cross this very week of weeks will triumph in the end no matter how hard the contemporary figures of Antichrist in the world and in the false conciliar sect try to impede it. 

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.  

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Leo the Great, pray for us.

Appendix A

William Thomas Walsh on the Influence of Jews on the Protestant Revolution and Its Spread

In Spain to which Philip had returned, the instinct of a society to preserve itself had been sharpened by a keen awareness of the pattern of crucifixion running through the whole living epic of Christianity, especially in a country than had groaned and struggled under the violence of so many heretical movements. To the descendants of Iberian crusaders Protestantism was not the new and forward- looking institution that many of its new advocated in the north imagined. To Spaniard it was rather the recurrence of something as old as the Church.

The Spanish mystic felt about heresy as the Jews had always felt about idolatry. Against the iterated calvary of human endeavor he saw the eternal Christ as the heart, the foundation (as He said, the cornerstone) of the Catholic Church, the human member of the which might always be a fallible as the little group constituting the primitive Church – the materialistic and plausibly dishonest as Judas, as angry as James, as sluggish as Thomas, as uninteresting as Andrew, as ambitious as the youthful John, as rash and self-confident and mendacious, as penitent and long-suffering as Peter – this Church would welcome sinners worse than Mary Magdalen and publicans more despised than Levi before he was Saint Mathew; it would even stretch out its net to include rich Simon the Pharisee, if possible, and would pluck hard-handed centurions from under the eagles of Caesar redivivus a thousand times.

Nevertheless, in its vast and complex ramifications, as it grew to take in the whole world, there would always be a central and unchanging unity of doctrine, always the Holy Spirit, always Christ, daily renewed in the Eucharist. Also, in literal fulfillment of the prophecies of Christ, the hatred that had mocked, slandered and baited Him, misrepresented His teachings and actions, sought repeatedly to kill Him, and finally, by trickery, induced the power of Caesar to crucify Him – this too would always remain. There would always be a Caiaphas, the spiritually blind Abet Din, misleading the synagogue, always some crafty Anna, the Nasi or political Prince directing and corrupting the Sanhedrin. To these the Judases would flee when the Church rejected them, and these the Caesars of every age would use and despise. Even as good Jews would help furnish the sinews of the Church in many ages, so men remarkably like those scribes and pharisees whom Christ had called the children of the devil would perpetuate the hatred that had once crucified Incarnate Love.

No philosophy of history that leaves out of account this gigantic aspect of reality can be considered realistic. It is for this reason that the best hints for a philosophy of history may be found in the encyclicals of various Popes.

The intense hatred that Jesus foretold would follow all who sincerely believed in Him was manifested in the earliest days of the Church. When Saint Paul went to Rome to preach “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” he encountered such opposition from his own race that he somewhat bitterly wrote of “the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved.” It must be noted however, that later on he sent a letter to the Christians at Rome sternly warning them against the wickedness of Jew-baiting. The Acts of the Apostles abundantly testify that most of the first Christian converts were Jews. Jews of good-will formed the sinews of the Church. Everywhere another type of Jew, perhaps in a small minority, refused even to listen to the arguments he condemned, and prevented well-meaning Jews, as well as Gentiles from hearing the Gospel.

The author of the Apocalypse, too, adverts more than once to the same astonishing concentration of hate that followed the children of Christ as they scattered through the Roman world: “I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty, but thou art rich; and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.” And “Behold I will bring a synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore  before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.” The first major persecution of Christians in the Gentile world, that of Nero, was probably set in motion at the instance of the Jews surrounding his wife Poppaea.

There were Judases in every age to attempt to pervert the Church from within. Not a few of the later scandals of Christendom were the result of their work. Simon Magus, perhaps a precursor of Gnosticism, was only the first to attempt to purchase the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Arius, the Catholic Jew, would yet made an insidious attack on the divinity of Christ that would divide the Christian world for centuries. Valentinus, called the chief of the Gnostics by Saint Irenaeus, was a Jew of Alexandria.

As the colossal struggle continued century after century, the chief means employed by the Annas and the Caiaphas of each age to keep the mass of the Jewish people in ignorance of the true nature of Christianity, and to fan their misunderstanding of it to hatred, was the Talmud. This melange of wisdom, tradition and superstition contained the most scurrilous and vindictive blasphemies against Christ. Wherever its true character became known, it was condemned by Christian authorities; as in France under Saint Louis, and in Rome under Pope Paul IV, who had thousands of copies burned. Yes it survived, to carry into the modern world the spirit of the Pharisees who rejected Christ, with those rabbinical interpretations which made it, as Lazare noted, “the creator of the Jewish nation and the mold of the Jewish soul.” The most vituperative parts were omitted in translation. In dangerous times they were handed down orally by the rabbis.

The historical importance of this book may be judged from the opinion of the Jewish historian Graetz, whose inaccuracies, omissions and wrong judgments have poisoned the whole Jewish world, but whose interpretations of that world cannot be ignored. He goes so far to say, “We can boldly assert that the war for and against the Talmud aroused German consciousness and created a public opinion without which the Reformation, like many other efforts, would have died in the hour of birth, or perhaps would never have been born at all.

In the Middle Ages it was customary for Jews to deny that the Talmud contained anti-Christian libels. Pretense in the modern world is no longer necessary. The Talmud is recognized as a sort of link between the early Gnostic onslaught on the Catholic Church, and the even more serious modern assault behind the mask of Freemasonry. Celsus the Gnostic may or may not have been a Jew. “Yet there are connections between Celsus and Judaism that must be emphasized,” says a Jewish authority; “for example, he asserts that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a certain Panthera, and again that he had been a servant in Egypt, not when a child as according to the New Testament, but when he was grown, and that he learned there the secret arts. These statements are frequently identical with those of the Talmud. Celsus might have heard this from the Jews.” From this it is not difficult to guess the source of the modern legend of freemasons seeking to disparage Christ the Redeemer in subtle fashion by claiming him as one of their “initiates.”

Another Jewish book that had a powerful effect not only on Jews but on the history of the world was the Kabbala. Originally that part of the Mosaic Law which was handed down by tradition, it had become by the thirteenth century, a collection of occult and esoteric doctrines borrowed from Buddhism, Gnosticism, the neo-Platonists and all manner of eastern pseudo-mystics. Out of the dark labyrinth of its imagery came many heresies and revolutions; rosicrucianism, theosophy, and all modern freemasonry. As Rabbi Benamozegh wrote, “It is quite certain that Masonic theology is at root nothing else than Theosophy, and that it corresponds to the theology of the Kabbala.” [Droleskey note: You don't think that Ivanka Trump Kushner's and Jared Kushner's practice of Kabbala matters? Think again.]

For a thousand years after she had emerged from the Catacombs – say roughly from the time of Constantine in the fourth century to the middle of the fourteenth – the Catholic Church successfully defended herself from such attacks both within and without. At times the very existence of the State and of society was threatened. In such crises, the Church not only permitted the use of force to avert worse evils, but even cooperated with it.

The Crusades were the defense of Christian homes, Christian women and children, Christian civilization, against an Islam deliberately bent upon exterminating them. A crusade ended the anti-social insanity of the Cathari who opposed marriage but taught suicide in that part of southern France known as Juea Secunda. The Inquisition followed them to Spain, and later saved the Christian Spanish State from the secret treachery of the pretended Catholics who were in league with the Moors in the war of liberation. As the ancient Jews had fought and slain idolaters, and had stoned spiritualists and similar dark heretics to death, so the Catholic Church, heir of the Jewish revelation, protected her children from destruction of body and soul while they were building the happiest and most balanced culture and civilization that have ever existed in this world.

The turning point in this vast drama (so far as our vantage point in time allows us to see) was the Black Death in 1346. It seemed to men as if Satan himself had burst the chains that had bound him for a thousand years. More than half the priests in the world died. Christendom was still staggering under this blow when other blows fee, one after another: the papal exile at Avignon, the Great Western Schism, the return of paganism under the guise of the Renaissance – all these onslaughts in the City of God itself while the Turks struck from without, gaining and laying waste on Christian country after another. Corruption and disorder were inevitable under these circumstances. Confusion became so widespread that only a divine institution could have survived it.

At the very moment when Columbus was claiming the new western world for Christianity and announcing the beginning of the Last Age of which he thought God had made him the harbinger, the stage was set for the most serious and widespread disaster the Church had yet had to face. It was something more important than the mere preaching of an exasperated monk against the abuse of indulgences; it was deeper than even the discontent of saintly men like More and Ignatius Loyola.

In the Protestant Revolt there was something more than the mere breaking away of the northern communities from the jurisdiction of Rome; much more that the nationalism to which Professor Carlton Hayes ascribes perhaps too much importance. There was a spirit of Protestantism in its first phase that sought something more than freedom; it sought nothing less (and this was more evident in Calvinism than in Lutheranism) than the utter destruction of the Catholic Church. Here was a hatred that began manifesting itself by the burning of churches and convents, the violation of nuns, the torture and execution of priests, the defiling of the Cross and the unspeakable desecration of the Blessed Sacrament.

It was an old and international hatred. It was the hatred of the church-burning Donatist, the hatred of Islam, the hatred that had opposed Saint Paul in Rome and Saint James in Jerusalem, the hatred of Annas and the scribes and pharisees crying, “Come down from the Cross, and we will believe!” There was nothing new about it except the form it took; but the preparation and organization were better, and the time was ripe.

Nor was this Protestant phase of the revolt a peculiarly northern or German product, though it has been convenient to make it appear so. It might have happened in southern Europe. In fact, it almost did happen in France, especially in southern France, before it happened in Germany. Lefevre, under the patronage of Marguerite of Angouleme and other of the anti-Catholic House of Navarre, taught justification by grace before Luther did, and profoundly influenced Beza, Farel, Rousel, and other leaders who passed quickly through a Lutheran phase to the more radical organization of Calvinism. The roots of the revolution went deeper that the German affair. It was not local, but international.

If we may believe Graetz and other Jewish historians, the Jews played a much more important part in all this than Christians, for some mysterious reason, have generally admitted. Incalculable was the number of this virile and gifted race who had settled in all countries of Europe during the so-called Dark Ages and the Middle Ages; incalculable the number who were assimilated as sincere Catholics, or who, as pretended Catholics, formed the nucleus for any international revolt. They were everywhere, in communication with one another and with the Jews of the Synagogue. There were so many of the latter in England and France that one Jewish writer of the sixteenth century, often cited by modern Jews, attributed to this fact, “the inclination of the English and the French” to Protestantism. Dispersion, secrecy and organization gave them a power out of all proportion to their numbers, a power so remarkable that Napoleon Bonaparte suspected that the political structure of the Jewish State had survived under cover for eighteen centuries. Was there any historical foundation for such a theory?

There may or may not be significance in the fact that the title of Nasi (Prince or King of the Jews) which belonged at the time of the Crucifixion to Annas, father-in-law of the High Priest, or Ab et Din, Caiaphas, was assumed by one of the bitterest, most intelligent and more persistent enemies of King Phillip II – Joseph Miques or Menes, the Jewish international banker of the Spice Trust of Portugal and Antwerp, who had in his debt William of Orange and many other noblemen of the Low Countries. About the time when Philip was returning to Spain, this millionaire was establishing himself in Turkey, throwing off the last pretense of Christianity and assuming the antique and princely title of Nasi.

He was not the first rich Jew after the dispersion to be so designated. Every now and then, like a bell-wether among the stray sheep of Israel, there appeared some grave and powerful man who took this title. There was, for example, the learned Jew of Babylon, Machir, who settled at Narbonne in the time of Charlemagne. If it is only a legend, as the Jewish Encyclopedia affirms that he was appointed head of the Jewish community by the Emperor at the request of the Calif Haroun al-Rashid, there is no doubt, according to the same authority, “that he soon acquired great influence over his coreligionists. It is not certain, however, whether he himself bore the title of Nasi (Prince or King of the Jews) as his descendants did, who continued to direct the affairs of the Jewish community.” There was, for instance, a Nasi Levi who presided over a meeting of delegated from all the Jewish communities in southern France in 1215, as Annas had presided over the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Even then, among the Jewish communities of southern France, the anti-Christian Revolution was being silently prepared. Prosperity and wealth had reward the industry and intelligence of the exiles in Montpelier, Nimes, Tarbes, Carcassone – a score of places in that part of France where later the Huguenots would flourish – until they almost rivaled the medieval empery of their brethren in Spain. Slave-traders, purveyors of silks and other luxuries, usurers – they excelled generally in the commerce of intangibles, in the handling of money per se. Culture and power followed upon wealth. It was their great-tragedy that, having failed to understand Who Christ was, they could not get rid of the messianic consciousness for which they had been chosen and consecrated. Finding closed to them the only spiritual door to salvation, they were constantly driven to seek redemption in the here and now, in the resources of matter, in gold and power, in anything, anywhere but Christ. When all their kingdom had turned to dust in their patience hands, and the inevitable scourge of persecution came to scatter them again and again, they still followed leaders who kept them blind, and remained missionaries of what Saint John called “the spirit that dissolves Christ.”

In the thirteenth century, when the Catholic Church rejoiced in the full burgeoning of that rich and generous civilization she had reanimated and purified, the Jews were creating at Troyes a remarkable school of exegesis in which were being forged most of the arguments to be used by Protestant preachers against the Church and to be turned by the “higher critics” of later times aginst the heart of Christ Himself. The center and master of the group was a very rich Jew named Isaac Chatelain, better known now as Isaac of Troyes; a man learned in the Talmud, author of elegiac poems, endowed with many of the great Jewish virtues, such as deep and passionate loyalty to family and to race, but cursed with the intransigence of ancestors who perhaps had cried in a black hour, “His blood be upon us and our children.” He and his family incurred the wrath of the Christian populace, for the usual reasons. On Good Friday April twenty-fourth, 1288, the mode seized them, spurned their offers of gold and burned them.

The shocking holocaust avenged a long period of exploitation and of undermining of the foundation of Church and State. The heroism of some of the victims makes one regret the more that they were not in Italy, where the Pope or the hierarchy would undoubtedly have protected them. The wife of Isaac through herself into the flames. Her two sons and her son-in-law followed. Her two daughters also were burned, as was the wife of her son Alakadmenath, with Simeon the Scribe of Chatillon, Isaac Cohen, Baruch Tob Elem d-Avirey, and some others.

Rabbie Salamon, the son of this hapless Isaac, became famous inter the name of Raschi as founder of the Talmudic school of Champagne and the chief rival of Maimonides. Through Raschi the ideas of Isaac were transmitted to Protestantism. They were adopted early  in the fourteenth century by a Franciscan monk of Jewish descent, Nicholas of Lyra. The arguments of this Nicholas of Lyra powerfully influenced Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. “Raschi and the Toraphists made Nicholas of Lyra,”  wrote the nineteenth-century Christian apostate Renan, whose writings were financed and published by Jews, and who borrowed many of his brilliant sophistries from the arsenal of Narbonne, "and Nicholas of Lyra made Luther.” this has been said more wittily in the familiar epigram.

Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus no saltasset.

Another Jew who did valiant spade work for Luther's sowing was Elias Levita, founder of the modern Hebrew grammar and teacher of many Christians. “He, with Jacob Loans and Obadiah Sforno,” observes a Jewish historian, “must be allowed a large share in producing the Protestant Reformation.” Sforno was the teacher of Reuchlin and many others. The so-called Reformation, adds Abrahams, “drew its life blood from a rational Hebraism.” Luther naturally employed Jews in preparing his German Bible. Jews were the most successful agents in the printing and distribution of Protestant Bibles and tracts in all parts of Europe.

Not only the ideas of Luther, but the very occasion for their dissemination, was furnished by the fertile activity of Jewish minds. The Battle of the Books, preliminary skirmish in the way of ideas about to commence at Wittenberg, could never have occurred if the Talmud and the Kabbala had not first done their deadly work. There sat on the throne of Saint Peter at that time a Pope, Leo X, for whom very little is to be said from the Catholic point of view, except that, like all the Popes, he was orthodox in his pronouncements on matters of faith and morals. He was also a patron of literature, music and art; the employer of Raphael.

His chief concern, however, was not the welfare, much less the needed reform, of the Church, but his own amusement and gratification. There is evidence in Leo's conduct to lend color to the assertion that on being elected, he remarked jovially, “Let us enjoy the Papacy, since God has given it to us.”

In the most critical and decisive age of the Church, this descendant of Florentine usurers, this son of Lorenzo de' Medici, kind and generous intellectual, Cardinal at thirteen, Pope at thirty-seven, was too busy with his pictures, his hunting and his plays to give sufficient attention to the ruin of the world. The Jews have always been well pleased with him. Like all the Medici, he surrounded himself with them and showered them with favor and protection, even to the extent of allowing the printing and dissemination of the Talmud, of whose true nature he was perhaps in ignorance. This genial collector, to whom Luther was only a joke, went to his death (too suddenly for the last sacraments) with little more than a suspicion of his own share in the business, not only by the abuses permitted in connection with indulgences, but by his long negligence and vacillation in the matter of the Jewish books.

Johann Reuchlin, a friend of Erasmus, started the famous Battle. Saturated, like young Pico della Miranola, with the imagery and fanatical theosophy of the Kabbala, which he imagined he understood, he urged all Christians to study this and other Jewish books, for a better understanding of their own religion. A Dominican of Cologne, Jakob Hochstraten, replied to him publicly in 1519, protesting against the notion that the pseudo-judaism of the Jewish mind in revolt against its own Messias could possible cast anything but a baleful light on Christianity. As the controversy continued, there entered into the lists against Reuchlin another Dominican monk, Johan Pfefferkorn. This man was a Jewish convert to the Faith. Graetz calls him, with more vigor that truth, “an ignorant, thoroughly vile creature, the scum of the Jewish people.” Reuchlin, who defended the Jewish books, was of course, “a pure, upright character,” with admirable love of truth and a soft heart.” The fact was the Pfefferkorn was a good sincere man, a none too brilliant student, who carried the zeal of the convert to the verge of fanaticism; his vileness apparently consisting of his being a true Jew in the sense in which the Apostles understood the term. He recognized the divinity of Christ and the untruthful obscenity of the Talmud. Urging the people of his race to turn from the man-made books of the rabbis to the living Christ in the Catholic Church, he defended the Jews, against the worst charges made against them, including the ritual murder accusation. This did not save him from the lasting enmity of the Annases of his day. As for Reuchlin, Graetz might have added that he had not only a soft heard but a rather soft head.

Pfefferkorn accused his, in a pamphlet called Handspiegel, of having been paid by the Jews to disseminate their propaganda. Reuchlin replied with a violent denial in his Augenspiegel and after further vituperation, pro and con, appealed to the Pope. By means of a flattering letter, he gained the favor of the influential Jew, Bonet de Lattes, physician to Pope Leo X. The physician naturally had no objection to interceding with the Holy Father in such a cause. The upshot was the pleasure-loving Pope handed over this mere squabble of monks, as he considered it, to the Bishop of Spires, a youth of twenty-seven, who in turn passed it on to Canon Truchsess, a disciple of Reuchlin; who gave the decision to his friend, completely exonerating the Augespiegel.

The more discerning friends of the Catholic Church were highly alarmed. The Inquisition, better aware from long experience of what was going on among the Jews, appealed from the verdic to the Pope. Leo summoned both disputants to Rome in 1514. delay followed delay, until Reuchlin, by a false statement, got the case transferred to another judge at Spires, who again exonerated him. Another appeal was filed. The Pope continued to delay, however, as various rich patrons of Reuchlin, and such liberal but not very profound Catholics as Erasmus, brought pressure to bear upon him; as did also the Emperor Maximilian I. It was not until the Lutheran bombshell exploded in 1517, on the hard-fought field of the Battle of the Books, that the real significance of Reuchlin's proposals became generally evident. Even then the easy-going Pope made no decision.

At last, in 1520 the finding at Spires were reversed. The Pope forbade the Augenspiegel as a scandalous and offensive book, unlawfully favorable to the Jews, and condemned Reuchlin to pay the costs of litigation. By that time it was too late to stop the avalanche. The young humanists were now united behind Reuchlin. One of them, Hutten, attacked even the Holy See. These men became the nucleus of Luther's party. The real anti-Christian Revolution (for such time would reveal it to be in essence) appeared full-panoplied on the stage of Christendom.

I have not been able to find any evidence to Dr. Margolis's assertion that Luther was drawn into the controversy on the side of Reuchlin, or of Lewis Browne's, echoing that of Hyamson, that Luther was “a disciple of Reuchlin.” If Reuchlin had never existed, Luther might well have challenged the preachings of Eck. What is certain is that the bull-necked Augustinian, who despaired of human nature because he could not at once achieve perfection in his cell, found the soil well ploughed for him for such men as Franz von Sickingen and other pupils of Reuchlin; without which he might have made no more disturbance than Huss or Wycliff had. What is equally certain, but strangely kept well in the background of most historical research, is that the Protestant Revolt, far from being an “advance” or a “progressive step,” was a long retrogression toward the moribund Judaism of the Pharisees of the time of Christ. Its multitudinous offspring of more than 200 sects would lead in the course of time to a return of the dismal skepticism of the Sadducees. Caiaphas was a Pharisee, Annas a Sadducee. It was old Annas, the Nasi, who would have the last word.

If there is exaggeration in that astonishing but almost unnoticed statement of Cabrera, himself of a Spanish Marrano family, that “most of the heresiarchs and heretics of this present century have been of those people.” it is beyond question, as a Jewish historian says, that the first leaders of the Protestant sects were called semi-Judaei, or half-Jews, in all parts of Europe.and that men of Jewish descent were as conspicuous among them as they had been among the Gnostics and would later be amog the Communists.

The origin of Calvin (whose real name was Chaurvin) is obscure, as is that of his chief aide and successor, Theodore Beza. But Farel, Rousel and others of the stormiest preachers who carried their propaganda through Europe were of Jewish descent. Michael Servetus may have been, and was certainly influenced by Jews. At Antwerp in 1566 the chief minister of the Calvinist synod, which was the center of the most telling Protestant intrigue and propaganda in the Netherlands, was a Spanish Jew.

Modern research by Jewish historians has made it clear that in the sixteenth century large numbers of the English Protestants (and doubtless the most active in propaganda and organization) were Jews who had put on the convenient mask of Calvinism at Antwerp. For example, “from an early period,” says Dr. Lucien Wolf, “the Marranos in Antwerp had taken an active part in the Reformation movement, and had given up their mask of Catholicism for a not less hollow pretense of Calvinism. The change will readily be understood. The simulation of Calvinism brought them new friends, who, like them, were enemies of Rome, Spain and the Inquisition. It helped them in their fight against the Holy Office, and for that reason was very welcome to them. Moreover, it was a form of Christianity which came nearer to their own simple Judaism. The result was that they became zealous and valuable allies of the Calvinists.”

There was something more in most Calvinists teaching than the desire for religious freedom and the reform of abuses. It was more like the ancient hatred which had followed the Catholic Church from her cradle, seeking not her reform but her utter destruction. Calvin himself was as ruthless in this regard as Mohammed. One of his letters to English Protestants declares that those who refuse to give up the Roman Catholic faith must be put to the sword. Calvinism quickly became an international movement, with a world capital at Geneva and with Calvin as a Pope ruling over a city with a regimentation uncomfortably suggestive of some totalitarian state of the future.

The most active intelligence, liaison officers and propagandists of this international army were the Jews. Only four years after Luther's first outburst, Cardinal Aleander, papal nuncio, reported that Jews were printing and circulating the German monk's books in Flanders. From the Netherlands they sent Bibles even to Spain, concealed in double-bottomed wine-casks. In Ferrara, a great Jewish financial center, they printed heretical bibles for distribution in Italy and elsewhere. No less a person than Carranza, now languishing in the prisons of the Inquisition in Spain, said that this was the reason why the church had to discourage the reading of the Bible in the vernaculars, save in approved versions. Even Jewish physicians and men of business were spies and propaganda agents. In the very year after Philip returned to Spain to stamp out Protestantism there, the Jewish Doctor Rodrigo Lopez, who was to find so unhappy an end in England, was passing over from Antwerp to London as a good Protestant.

A new spirit was abroad in the world, surely. It was not the regenerated Christian thing that Luther imagined it to be. It was the reappearance, in the most formidable array, of something older and far more terrible. The Cambridge Modern History tells us its effect was “to transfer the allegiance of the human spirit from clerical to civil authority,” or to put it more bluntly, to deliver Christ once more into the hands of Caesar. The Jewish historian Graetz expresses it otherwise: “the interest of the marketplace had driven the interests of the church into the background.” Is this not a way of saying that after the great betrayal the money changers were flocking back into the Temple from which they had been ousted by the medieval Church when she was most free and vigorous.

That was the thing, the old and evil thing, the insidious and destructive thing, that Philip was resolved to destroy, if possible, before it ruined the world. It would be far-fetched to say that he saw all its potentialities in 1559. He could hardly have seen what Pope Pius IX saw in 1849, when he declared that all the evils of the modern world (including Communism and its attendant miseries) had their origin in the tragic sixteenth-century assault on the Catholic Faith in the name of Protestantism.

Did Philip imagine, then, that the Jews were to blame for all the ills of humanity? Not even his bitterest enemies could fairly accuse him of that. A Jew-baiter in the vulgar sense he certainly was not. When an attempt was made to introduce into Spain an organization know as the Order of the White Sword aimed against Jews as Jews, he put his foot down against it.  He knew and employed too many excellent men of Jewish ancestry to be taken in by any stupid and vicious theory of “Nordic” or “Aryan” superiority. It must have been apparent to a man of his shrewd common sense (in most matters) that even those Jews who persisted in the iniquity of attempting to destroy the Church could have accomplished very little without collaboration from within, from unworthy Christians. It always takes a Judas to complete the work of Annas and Caiaphas. (William Thomas Walsh, Philip II, published originally in 1937 by Sheed and Ward and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1987, pp. 239-252.)

Appendix B

From Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton's The Catholic Church and Salvation

The Concept of Salvation

The concept of eternal salvation runs throughout the entire New Testament. It is one of the basic notions in the teaching which Our Lord preached as the divine message He had received from His Father. He described Himself as coming to save what was lost. “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” [Matt. 18: 11; see also Luke, 19, 19: 10.] Christ is Our Saviour. His work is preeminently that of our salvation.

Now, the term “to save,” employed in sacred theology and in the English translations of the New Testament as the equivalent of the Latin “salvare” designates the process by which a person is removed from a condition in which he is destined for ruin or death and is transferred to a condition in which he may live and prosper. Basically, that is the meaning expressed by the expression “saving someone,” employed in ordinary terminology. Thus, years ago, when we frequently read in the newspapers about the feats of the then young first officer of the steamship America (later Commodore Harry Manning) in saving the lives of the crews of several fishing boats that had been swamped in the Atlantic storms, we all understood that this man and the mariners under his command had taken the victims off the wrecked boats to which they were clinging and had brought them to the safety of the ocean liner to which he was assigned.

The men were saved, in the sense that they were transferred from positions in which they would inevitably have drowned very soon into the security of the liner, and eventually to the shores of their own countries. Med who were transferred at sea from on seaworthy vessel to another could never have been described as “saved”.

The salvation of men, described in divine public revelation, is a salvation in the strict or proper sense of the term. It is a process by which men are removed from a condition or status which would involve them in everlasting death if they remained within it, to a condition in which they may enjoy eternal life and happiness.

It is highly important to understand that this process is quite complex. The terminus a quo, the undesirable condition, from which men are removed in the process of salvation is basically sin, the status of aversion from almighty God. A man is said to be saved, absolutely and simply, when he is taken out of the condition of original or mortal sin and brought into the status of the eternal and supernatural life of grace. Ultimately that process in achieved and perfected when the person saved comes to possess the life of grace eternally and inamissibly, in the everlasting glory of the Beatific Vision. There is genuine salvation, however, when the man who has hitherto been in the state of original or mortal sin is brought into the life of sanctifying grace, even in this world, when that life of grace can be lost through the man's own fault.

There is, however, a definitely social aspect to the process of salvation. In the merciful designs of God's providence, the man who is transferred from the state of original or mortal sin into the state of grace is brought in some way “within” a social unit, the supernatural kingdom of the living God. In heaven that community is the Church triumphant, the company of the elect enjoying the Beatific Vision. On earth it is the Church militant. Under the conditions of the new or the Christian dispensation, that community is the organized or visible religious society which is the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth.

We must not lose sight of the fact that people in the condition of aversion from God, in the state of original or mortal sin, belong in some way to a kingdom or an ecclesia under the leadership of Satan, the moving spirit among the spiritual enemies of God. Hence the process of salvation involves necessarily the transfer of an individual from one social unit or community to another, from the kingdom Satan to the true and supernatural kingdom of the living God.

The opening paragraph of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical against Freemasonry, the letter Humanum genus, brings out the relations between these two communities with unmatched clarity and accuracy.

The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, “through the envy of the devil,” separated into two diverse parts, of which the one steadfastly contents for truth and virtue, the other for those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it so as to gain salvation must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God.

This twofold kingdom St. Augustine keenly discerned and described after the manner of two cities, contrary in their laws because striving for contrary objects; and with subtle brevity he expressed the efficient cause of each in these words: “Two loves formed two cities: the love of self, reaching even to contempt of God, an earthly city; and the love of God, reaching even to contempt of self, a heavenly one.” At every period of time each has been in conflict with the other, with a variety and multiplicity of weapons and of warfare, although not always with equal ardor and assault. [This passage is found in Father Wynne's edition of The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1903), p. 83]

This intrinsically social aspect of salvation is brought out in the account, in the Acts of the Apostles, of the end of St. Peter's sermon on the first Christian Pentecost and of the results of that sermon.

Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their hearts and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that receive his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers. [Acts, 2: 37-42]

According to the inspired word of God in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter exhorted the men who listened to him of that first Christian Pentecost to “save themselves from this perverse generation.” Furthermore, we are told that the individuals who “received his word” received the sacrament of baptism, and that they were “added” to the number of the disciples of Christ who had been with St. Peter and the other disciples before he delivered his sermon. The society of the disciples of Jesus Christ, the organization which we know now as the Catholic Church, continued with this great number of new members, to do exactly what it had been doing since the day of Our Lord's ascension into heaven.

We read that the group, composed as it was of these new converts who had come into the Church as a result of St. Peter's Pentecost sermon and of the disciples who had entered the group during Our Lord's public life, was “persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.” And we read the same sort of account of the activity of the original band of disciples that returned to Jerusalem immediately after the Ascension.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey.

And when they were come in they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Batholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.

All these were persevering with one mind in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [Acts 1. 12-14]

Both the text and the context of the Acts of the Apostles assure us that the people who heeded St. Peter's injunction to save themselves from this perverse generation entered the true Church of God, the kingdom of God on earth. They entered the Catholic Church.

Now, if St. Peter's words on this occasion meant anything at all, they signified that the individuals to whom he was speaking were in a situation which would lead them to eternal ruin if they continued in it. They were described as belonging to a “perverse generation.” They were told to save themselves by getting out of it. The institution into which they would enter by the very fact of leaving “this perverse generation” was none other that the society of Our Lord's disciples, the Catholic Church itself.

The clear implication of St. Peter's statement is that the Church, the kingdom of God, was the only institution or social unit of salvation. Not to be within this society was to be in the perverse generation within which a man was faced with eternal and entire spiritual ruin. To leave the perverse generation was to enter the Church.

In other words, the clear teaching of this section of the Acts of the Apostles is precisely that given by Pope Leo XIII in the opening passages of his encyclical Humanum genus. The central point of this teaching is that the entire human race is divided between the kingdom of God, the ecclesia, and the kingdom of Satan. To be saved from the kingdom of Satan is to enter the kingdom of God. In this context it is not difficult to see how, by God's institution, the Catholic Church, the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth, is presented as a necessary means for the attainment of salvation. By God's institution the process of salvation itself involves a passage from the kingdom of Satan into the ecclesia.

Now, for the proper understanding of this doctrine, especially in view of the teaching on this subject contained in some recent books and articles, it is imperative to understand the religious condition of the people to whom St. Peter delivered his sermon on that first Christian Pentecost. Again, the Acts of the Apostles contains essentially important information.

This book describes them in general with the statement that “there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven.” The homelands of these men are enumerated in the statement attributed to the multitude itself.

And they were all amazed and wondered saying: Behold, are not all these that speak, Galileans?

And how have we heard, every man, our own tongue wherein we were born?

Parthinians and Medes and Elamites and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,

Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers from Rome,

Jews also and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. [Acts 2: 7-11.]

According to the text of the Acts, a great many of these people were pilgrims, men and women who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the great Jewish feast of Pentecost. Our Lord had died on the Cross only a little over seven weeks before St. Peter delivered that sermon, and many of the people who listened to St. Peter must have been on their way to Jerusalem at the very time Our Lord died. They had begun their pilgrimage as an act of worship in the Jewish religion at the very time when the Jewish religion was the one approved especially by God and when the Jewish politico-religious commonwealth was actually the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the ecclesia of the Old Testament.

These people as individuals probably had nothing whatsoever to do with the persecution and the murder of the Incarnate Word of God. They had started on their journey as members of God's chosen people, the people of His covenant. Their journey to Jerusalem was made precisely in order to worship and honor God. They were truly devout individuals.

Yes, seven weeks before, the religious body to which they belonged had ceased to be God's ecclesia. The Jewish politico-religious social unit had definitively rejected Our Lord, the Messias promised in the Old Testament. This company had hitherto enjoyed its position as God's ecclesias or His congregatio fidelium by virtue of the fact this it had accepted and professed its acceptance of the divine message about the promised Redeemer. In rejecting the Redeemer Himself, this social unit had automatically rejected the teaching God had given about Him. The rejection of this message constituted an abandonment of the divine faith itself. By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan.

While the great Jewish social unit was rejecting Our Lord and thus repudiating its acceptance of the divinely revealed message about Him, the little company of the disciples, organized by Our Lord around Himself, retained its faith. It continued to accept and to obey Our Lord and to believe the divinely revealed that centered around Him. Thus at the moment of Our Lord's death on Calvary, the moment when the old dispensation was ended and the Jewish religious association ceased to be the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord's disciples began to exist as the ecclesia or the kingdom.

This society was the true continuation of Israel. The men who were within it were the true sons of Abraham, in that they had the genuine faith of Abraham. This society was the new association of the chosen people. Its members were, as St. Paul called them, the elect or the chosen of God.

It must be understood, incidentally, that this society was actually God's supernatural kingdom on earth in a much more complete and perfect sense than the old Jewish commonwealth had ever been. The old Israel had constituted the pople of the covenant. According to God's unfailing promise, the Redeemer was to be born within that company. Yet conditions had never been such that a man had to be within this company in order to attain to eternal salvation.

On the contrary, the new and faithful Israel was completely identical with the supernatural kingdom of God on earth. It was the true ecclesia or company of the faithful in the sense that no man could attain to eternal salvation unless he passed from this life “within” it. This organized society, within which unworthy members would be intermingled with the good until the end of time, was actually Our Lord's own Mystical Body.

So it was that when St. Peter spoke to the crowd on the first Christian Pentecost, the society of which he had been constituted the visible head was actually the ecclesia Dei, the necessary terminus of the process of salvation. His hearers who, a few weeks before had belonged to God's supernatural kingdom on earth by reason of their membership in the old Israelite commonwealth, now actually found themselves in the “perverse generation” precisely by reason of that same membership. When St. Peter first spoke to them, they were in a position from which they needed to be saved. They were no longer members of the chosen people.

By heeding and obeying the words of St. Peter they regained the position they had formerly possessed, and their new possession of the dignity of membership in the ecclesia was much more perfect and complete than that which they had formerly enjoyed. Previously they had been within a company which had been God's congregatio fidelium by reason of the profession of its acceptance of the divine message that centered around the promise of a Redeemer. When they accepted St. Peter's teaching, performed their duty of penance, and by their reception of the sacrament of baptism, were “added” to the society of Our Lord's disciples, they entered the supernatural kingdom of God which enjoyed its status by reason of its acceptance of the divinely revealed teaching about the Redeemer who had become incarnate and had died to reconcile them with God.

It is extremely important for us to remember, however, that the people St. Peter urged to save themselves from the perverse generation in which they were living at the time were definitely not men of no religion at all. They were devout members of the establishment which had bee, less than eight weeks before, God's supernatural kingdom on earth. In that establishment they had learned love for God and zeal in the service of God that they were willing to travel very considerable distances and undergo serious hardships in order to assist at the temple sacrifices in Jerusalem during the days of the great religious festivity of Pentecost.

St. Peter did not recommend the Church to these people merely as something far more perfect than the religious affiliation they already possessed. He did not in any sense imply that, in entering the ecclesia, they would be simply passing to a better religious community Quite on the contrary, he made it clear that it was necessary for them to transfer themselves from the “perverse generation” in which they than existed to a condition of salvation. The acceptance of his teaching was in fact as entrance into the Church. It is in line with this teaching that St. Paul, in his epistles, refers to those within the Church as “saved.” The Epistle to the Ephesians tells us that God, “even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ (by whose grace you are saved).” [Eph. 2:5.] And it explains that “by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God.” [Eph 2:8.] The entire context of the Church, men are actually being saved from the dominion of Satan, the prince of this world.

This is the basic social aspect of the process of salvation. In that process there is always involved a passage or a transitus from the kingdom of God's spiritual enemy into the actual kingdom of God Himself. His ecclesia. St. Peter made it clear that, in entering the Church, the people to whom he was speaking on that first Christian Pentecost were really being saved.

We must not lose sight of the fact that in our own day there is sometimes a tendency to imagine that persons who are in a position comparable with that of the people to whom St. Peter's sermon was addressed are really in an acceptable position. The people who encourage this tendency are careful to state that the Catholic Church is more advantageously placed than other religious bodies in this world. They assert that the Church has the fullness of God's revealed message; but, at the same time, they likewise insist that other religions are really from God, and that they constitute the plenitude of God's teaching for those whom He does not call to the higher position of Catholicism. The Modernist Von Hugel brought out this teaching in a volume recently republished in this country. According to Von Hugel

The Jewish religion was not false for the thirteen centuries of the pre-Christian operations; it was, for those times, God's fullest self-revelation and man's deepest apprehension of God; and this same Jewish religion can be, is, still the fullest religious truth for numerous individuals whom God leaves in their good faith; in their not directly requiring the fuller, the fullest, light and aid to Christanity. What is specially true of the Jewish religion is, in a lesser but still very real degree, true of Mohammedanism, and even of Hinduism, of Parseeism, etc. [Letters from Baron Freidrich Von Hugel to a Niece (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1955) . p.115.]

Von Hugel, like other of his class, was careful to insist that “it is not true that all religions are equally true, equally pure, equally fruitful.” But, as a matter of tact, no one but the most militant and ignorant athiest ever claimed that they were. His own position is completely incompatible with the teaching of St. Peter in his sermon on the first Christian Pentecost. He depicted non-Catholic religions as acceptable, even though less perfect than Catholicism. If his contention had been in any way true, then St. Peter would have been guilty of seriously deceiving the people to whom he spoke on that Pentecost morning. Very definitely it is not true to say that a man is saved when he is transferred from a less perfect to a more perfect conditions. He is saved only by being transferred from a ruinous position into a status wherein he can live as he should.

Von Hugel described the religious condition of the people to whom St. Peter spoke as “still the fullest religious truth for numerous individuals whom God leaves in their good faith; in their not directly requiring the fuller, the fullest light and aid to Christianity.” St. Peter asserted that these individuals were in a perverse generation, and told them to save themselves from it. There is no possibility of any agreement between these two positions.

In every age of the Church there has been one portion of Christian doctrine which men have been especially tempted to misconstrue or to deny. In our own times it is the part of the Catholic truth which was brought out with special force and clarity by St. Peter in his first missionary sermon in Jerusalem. It is somewhat unfashionable today to insist, as St. Peter did, that those who are outside the true Church of Jesus Christ stand in need of being saved by leaving their own positions and entering the ecclesia. Nevertheless, this remains a part of God's own revealed message.

It is a part of Catholic doctrine that entrance into the Church (actually by becoming a member of the Church; and when this is impossible, by at least an implicit though sincere desire or intention) is a part of the process of salvation. It is equally a part of Catholic teaching, however, that this is by no means the only part. A man is saved from the evil of belonging to the kingdom of Satan by his entrance into the Church, but this entrance in no way constitutes a guarantee that he will actually enjoy the Beatific Vision for all eternity. The process of salvation is not fully completed, a man cannot be said to be “saved” in the full sense of the term, until he has attained the Beatific Vision itself.

St. James, writing to men who are already Christians, members of the true Church, warns them to “receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” [James 1:21] He was setting forth God's own teaching when he reminded those within the Church that they were still obliged to work, under the direction of the divine doctrine, for the salvation of their souls. It remains possible for a man to be within the Church and to be disloyal to God. Such a man constitutes himself as an unworthy member of the Church and, unless he repents of his sins, he will be cut away from the kingdom of God for all eternity. When he dies. And, if the sinner within the Church turns again toward God, he is being saved by the power of Jesus Christ, working through the sacrament of penance. Obviously he cannot be saved other than in and through the Catholic Church.

Thus, despite the fact that it is possible for a man to be within the Church and to lose his soul, salvation is in itself a process which involves a social aspect. Everyone who has been born since the sin of Adam, with the exception of Our Lord and of His Blessed Mother, has come into the world or begun his existence as a member of the fallen family of Adam, and thus as one who belong to what St. Peter designated as the “perverse generation” and what Pope Leo XIII called the “kingdom of Satan.”

He has likewise begun his existence as a human being in the state of original sin and has very frequently increased his aversion from God by the force of his own mortal sins. The process of salvation is the process by which such men have been brought from that condition of aversion from God into the final and inamissible possession of His friendship and the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision. Involved in that process, by God's own institution, is a transfer from the kingdom of Satan into the one supernatural kingdom of god on earth. Since the moment of Our Lord's death on the Cross, that kingdom has been, again by God's own institution, the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth.

Thus, if we examine the actual concept of salvation, we find that the Church as God's kingdom on earth is actually involved in it. Thus, in this process, the Church is not merely an extraneous factor which has been somehow introduced into the Christian teaching about eternal salvation. It is, in the social aspect of salvation, the necessary terminus ad quem of that transfer by which men are brought for sin to grace, by being changed from a position of belonging to the kingdom of Satan, the dominion of “the prince of this world,” into the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, p. 134-144.)