Mystery Babylon, Rome's View Of World Power, 19th Century. Series

PART FOUR:RIDING 20th-CENTURY BEASTS, 1885-1948

FIFTY: THE JEWS AND DREYFUS

In Part III, I left dangling a thread that needs to be pulled tight now. Let's quickly visit Catholic France in the latter part of the 19th century. Our guide is Weinberg, op.cit., pp. 70-71.

"In the late 1800's, French Catholics, especially the clergy, became the soul of French anti-Semitism. They published anti-Semitic newspapers and financed others...students from Jesuit schools, which had practically a monopoly over entrance into the military schools...were especially bitter enemies of the Jews..."

Here in France during this period is where the infamous Dreyfus matter appears. The 1990 Britannica tells us that Alfred Dreyfus was the son of a wealthy Jewish textile manufacturer who entered the military and was accused of selling secrets to the Germans (1894). The legal proceedings which followed were "highly irregular," and he was pronounced guilty. The public, and an anti-Jewish led press, welcomed the verdict.

More investigation. In 1904, after ten years of trials and retrials , during which an entire nation confronted this Babylon-inspired anti-Semitism and made its several stands on it, Dreyfus was fully exonerated.

A happy ending. But I tell the story to remind my readers that we live in a world behind which lurks ever the influences of Nimrod, who hated the God of Shem. You see, to hate a Jew is not a normal thing. There is no reason for it. And the Britannica writers won't tell you these things, nor the daily news, because they too can't conceive of a reason. May God take the scales off our eyes that we may see what God sees, and act accordingly.

FIFTY-ONE: IMMORTALE DEI

It is November of 1885. We will move near the twentieth century with yet another Pontiff making an attack on the American way of life. As you read the following excerpts from the encyclical Immortale Dei by Leo XIII, it will be necessary to keep some things in mind. First, the America alluded to in this passage has become quite wicked. Our beloved country is not the Promised Land, nor are its ways necessarily God's. Secondly, monarchy is not all that bad. The monarch Jesus will one day rule this planet. How I long for that day!

It is not Godly government or even monarchy that is to be feared. It is Roman monarchy, with its emphasis on a perverted Godliness, false teachings, un-Christian methods, human traditions, anti-Semitic biases, elevation of power-hungry mortals - that we fear like the plague!

But Roman monarchy, with all the trappings, is the subject of this century-old statement, addressed to the "faithful" by the "Holy Father."

One more thing, concerning encyclicals. We are told by Rome that an encyclical is far more than just an opinion of a Pope, but less than a papal ex-cathedra pronouncement. Such pronouncements become binding on all Catholics of all times, and cannot be reversed. Thus a loophole, a way out, exists when discussing encyclicals. One can easily brush them off as obsolete, non-binding, a reflection of the church that was, not to be taken seriously.

I suggest however, that in the mind of the Pope who issues such documents, there is no desire to be taken lightly or temporarily. I suggest that the purely human or Satanic - or both - origins of these documents lend themselves to change when it suits the purposes of the ones giving them. I suggest that the teachings of the Roman church, exemplified by these encyclicals, are in a constant state of evolution, adapting themselves to changing needs and demands of humanity. This, in opposition to the solid and unchanging nature of the Rock upon which the true Church is founded, the Word of the Living God.

So you will find Romanists today who will swear by the following statements, but secretly so in this age of democracy. Others you will find denying the authority of Leo's words for our day. And both camps will be considered good Catholics. Thus does Satan continue to confuse the world with his double-minded ways.

The fact remains that, when it was politically allowable to promote such teachings, Leo XIII was calling the demand for equality, freedoms of speech, religion, and press, a movement of "unbridled liberty." All of it was to be condemned.

"Of their (democratic) principles this one is the most important: that all men are understood to be equal by birth and by nature, so that in reality they are equals throughout the course of their lives...that he should be free to think what he likes in every matter..."

A horrible idea, this, says Leo.

"In a society guided under such rule, there is no other legal authority than the consent of the people, who , as the power is vested exclusively in them, so they alone govern themselves...thus they transfer not so much the right as the function of the government to themselves, and that to be exercised in their name."