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."
Terrible!
"Divine rule is passed over in silence...as if there could be any government whose whole cause, power and authority was not vested in God himself. In this manner, as we see, the State is nothing else than a mob as its own master and governor."
So, America is rule by the mob. And what was Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany, not to mention Catholic Croatia of the 40's, all of them governments in league with the Vatican?
You understand of course that Papa is speaking of God in Catholic terms, and his idea is that Rome should rule the world and each of its governments. We're not talking here about the Spirit of God given to the Body of Christ and each of its members individually. We're talking about the god of this world, Satan, the present ruler of all things outside the church.
Back to Leo's complaints:
"Hence the following principles have been born: the judgment of every man's conscience is above the law...No consideration is given to ecclesiastical laws: the church is ordered not to interfere in anything...Thus they bring under their own jurisdiction the marriages of Christians...They start out with shouting that the affairs of the Church must be separated from those of the State. Natural reason alone proves that such principles concerning the government of a State are very far removed from the truth...A certain fear of mass-reactions hangs forever over our heads. Such doctrines the Roman Pontiffs by no means suffered to go without condemnation."
One such Pontiff was Gregory the 16th, in a similar letter in 1832: He
"denounced in very grave terms these doctrines...namely that in matters of divine worship no preference should be shown; that it is right for individuals to judge matters of religion as they see it; that the conscience of each man shall be his sole guide..."
"Neither can we expect," said Gregory, "more favorable results for the government from the wishes of those who plan to separate the Church from the State...It is evident that such a concord is naturally feared by the lovers of the most shameless liberty..."
You got that right, Gregory! We fear greatly the total union of beast and she who rides him. When the two are given their full reign, the world is a dark place to live. Give us shameless liberty over your shameful bondage.
The encyclical of Leo continues:
"From these verdicts of the Popes it must be absolutely understood that the origin of public power is to be sought from God himself and not from the mob.
...it is a crime for private individuals and a crime for states...to treat different kinds of religions in one and the same way; the unabridged power of thinking and of publicly sounding off one's opinion is not among the rights of the citizens..."
Peter J. Doeswyck, in his Catholic Victory in 1960? comments on these extracts from the popes:
"...none of the various forms of governments is per se condemned so long as they have nothing which is repugnant to Catholic doctrine...As the government of the U.S. upholds the validity of civil marriages contradicted by Christians; as it believes in government of the people (mob), by the people and for the people; as it believes that men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights; as it believes that government derives its power from the governed; as it upholds freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, American democracy is contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine and, therefore, is condemned."
Living in such a pagan place as America, what is the Catholic's duty? The encyclical continues:
"Therefore in such a complicated course of events, Catholic men, if, as they should, they will listen to Us, will easily see what are their own and the others' duties both in matters of thought and of action.
"And so, in general, it is proper and honorable that the concern of Catholic men should be directed beyond this narrow field and that it should embrace the entire field of public administration. We say here, in general, because these Our precepts reach unto all nations.
"Wherefore it is clear that there is a just reason for Catholics to seek public office for the reason that they may approve that which is morally wrong in the present form of government, but in order that they may change this very form, as far as possible, for the common good, pure and true; keeping in mind this goal: to infuse into all the veins of government the most healthy sap and blood, that is, the wisdom and virtue of the Catholic religion.
"This same method was employed in the early centuries of the Church...by this method Christian principles found their way not only into private homes, but into the army, the senate and into the royal palace itself."
Oh really? Is it your conception that early Christians deliberately sought public office, to infiltrate? Or did people merely seek their own calling and allow God to make salt and light of them? There is a major difference, you know. When the Christian seeks power and influence of the worldly variety, he is on the Devil's ground and risks losing a purely Christian influence, which is nothing more than the Spirit filled life, viewed by the public. Christians are told by early church leaders to be good slaves, if that is all life brings them. The pope continues:
"Now, in our times it is fitting that we renew these examples of our forefathers. Catholics indeed, as many as are worthy of the name, must before all things be and be willing to show themselves to be, most loving sons of the Church; all things inconsistent with this honor, they must without hesitation reject; they must use public institutions...and must labor to this end that the whole State shall be transformed into what we have called a christian image and likeness."
Of course you may read "christian" here as Catholic.
"The means to obtaining these ends cannot easily be regulated by one and the same method, because they must fit particular places and circumstances, which differ considerably from each other. Nevertheless, let unity of planning be maintained and let uniformity of action be sought above all things. And both will be best attained if all regard the orders of the Apostolic See as the rule of life and take orders from the Bishops...
"...And this Precept must be kept unconditionally by those who are wont to commit their thoughts to writing, especially by those who write for newspapers. In their contention for the higher things there is no room left for internal conflicts or preferences of parties...If therefore there existed some dissensions before, let them be voluntarily done away with and forgotten...and especially by obedience to the Apostolic See.
"These then, Venerable Brethren, are the teachings which We hold and which We hereby transmit to all nations of the Catholic world concerning the Christian Constitution of States and concerning the duties of their individual citizens..."
In Biblical terms, though, these are the instructions for women who ride beasts. Why they ride, how they ride, and to what extent they ride. And reading those last words, let no one doubt that the teaching was meant for all Romanists of all times.
So, roughly one hundred years ago, a man who says he "holds on this earth the Place of Almighty God," who pronounces Protestants "enemies of the Christian name," and who proclaims that the only method of cooperation is complete submission to the Roman Pontiff (all in Halley, p.783), speaks to the American people his opinion of our government. In speaking, he represents about one-fifth of the human race. Would you not consider this a serious matter?
What does the Bible have to say about human governments? That we should obey them. That their ultimate controller is God Himself. That Satan is their temporary manager. But other than that, precious little about how they should govern themselves. The Bible addresses itself to the people of God, and gives a beautiful picture of the church's simple government, plus the coming reign of Messiah.
But as often, where the Bible is eloquently silent, Rome has a mouthful. Consider these points in review of this chapter:
1. whatever your view of America and world government, you must recognize that there is and always has been among us a foreign government, wanting to control us.
2. Catholics in this country are encouraged to do everything they can to "infuse" Catholic "sap" into America's "veins."
3. it is conceivable, expected, that that church is going to try to take power when it can.
4. though the written goals seem harmless enough, we have seen this church in power before, and would prefer not to see such again. Yes, to influence a culture with truly Christian values is a wonderful thing. But Catholicism, remember, is a mixture of purely Christian and terribly pagan.
The present Roman Catholic law puts it precisely and clearly in canons 1404 and 1405, which I here quote in part:
"The First See is judged by no one. It is the right of the Roman Pontiff himself alone to judge ...those who hold the highest civil office in a state..."
