FIFTY-FIVE: THE RISE OF COMMUNISM
Following World War I, the attention of the world is directed to Orthodox/Czarist Russia. It must be noted that the Czar and the Orthodox Church are as united as the Holy Roman Emperor and the Catholic Church. They are a mirror image of what is happening in the other leg of Babylon, Rome.
You remember, I hope, that "orthodoxy," [an ambitiously incorrect title for this group], is nothing more than Catholicism's long lost sister, cut off from Rome's blessing because of her refusal to recognize the Pope. There are some other minor differences, but Rome has a way of conciliating itself with all who will bow the knee to Papa. Sister will not do that, at least not as of this writing, though approaches are being made.
Orthodoxy helps make Russia the mess that it is at the turn of the century. The Czar gets too much credit for this by the incoming communists. Those who begin to plan the overthrow of the Russian monarchy are well aware of the effects of religion on this vast nation, though, and their descendants wage a relentless war against what is thought to be worship of God, while the true worshippers secretly gather in homes and meet God daily!
1870 has already been noted as the year of the temporal losses of Rome, the year of Papal infallibility. It is also the year in which Vladimir Lenin is born.
Lenin, Marx, Engels, Stalin. The founders of Communism are well known. A few further facts might be helpful:
Some of Communism's leaders are trained by the "church." Stalin, for example, studies for a time in the Theological Seminary of Tiflis. Some have gone so far as to say that Communism is a Christian heresy, a spinoff of our own faith. It does indeed have many Christian elements in it. But how would Satan deceive the world if he did not include truth with his errors?
Communism has a decidedly un-Christian side. In fact, one could compare it to the greatest heresy of all, Romanism. Bernard Shaw calls communism the "lay form of Catholicism," which never had its lack of chaplains.
And more. When one compares, piece by piece, the Vatican structure to the Moscow structure (lately defunct), one begins to be suspicious of a single author to both groups' manuals. Consider:
• The extensive use of the color red.
• The presence of a major hierarchy.
• The worship of the top man.
• The priesthood of a select few who run all.
• The blind zeal.
• Attempts at mind control.
• Censorship.
• Unquestioned obedience, loyalty
Blanshard (op. cit.) describes all these items in his book. I would add:
• anti-Semitism,
• anti-everything spiritual that is not proscribed and defined by the hierarchy.
Just before the beginning of the Communist Revolution, the Secretary of State of the Vatican is heard to say:
"The victory of Czarist Russia, to whom France and England have made so many promises, would constitute for the Vatican a disaster greater than the Reformation!" (The Vatican in World Politics, p. 16)
So when Bolshevism -Communism - defeats the Czar and its accompanying Orthodoxy of course, there is for a while great rejoicing in Rome. Kerensky, leader of the short-lived first Communist government, even offers religious liberty. The hopes of the Vatican grow!
Later, things change drastically. The church is thrown out, and Vatican Rome becomes the formidable enemy of Moscow. Something about like repelling like, perhaps.
So now the Vatican is the friend of democracy, and the enemy of the Reds? Even the limited scope of this book has answered that one. Blanshard embellishes the answer:
"The Vatican has always scorned democracy for itself, but it permits its priests to believe in a limited form as long as the power of the Vatican is not affected...the democracy of the US or a dictatorship in Spain is equally acceptable if its attitude toward the Vatican remains positive. Likewise, democracy in Sweden and dictatorship in Poland has been denounced for reasons that negative attitudes toward the Vatican surfaced...The Vatican is on the democratic side only for the duration of the emergency because the Kremlin is on the other side."
Don't you find it interesting that Rome and the Babylonian way continue to prosper in our world, even with all its setbacks, but Communism, that we all feared so much, has practically gone out of business? God, through Daniel, foretold the constant prosperity of a world power. This is no accident. Rome, for over 2000 years, has not been replaced by any attempted world domination. Napoleon, Great Britain, Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, the Communists. All dead, gone, or limited. But Rome? One out of every five people on earth gives at least lip service to this terrible beast that Daniel saw taking the reigns from the Grecian period until the end, and that John saw mounted by a lovely lady of the night.
Rome becomes the great champion of freedom from communism. Rome, that tied the world in knots for hundreds of years now decries the atrocities of Moscow. And Moscow eventually falls.
Hear and understand. An enemy of our enemies is not necessarily our friend. Rome has also attacked, decried, the American atrocities. If it takes the election of a Communist-country Pope to set in motion the domino-effect that cripples the Communist world in the 1980's and 1990's, who might we expect to sit on the Throne of Rome next? America and the Middle East continue to be thorns in the Vatican's side. Will the next Pope come from one of these areas?
Once more I have far surpassed the bounds of our present chapter to make a point. We now return to the early years of the century, but reserve the right to discuss this matter again in a different setting.
FIFTY-SIX: AL SMITH, CATHOLIC CANDIDATE
Now let's come back to America for a while.
In the 20's is heard the prophetic voice of Dr. Henry Ironside, hailed by Bob Jones University and Wheaton College as a mighty giant of the faith, given by them honorary degrees. He publishes in 1920 a commentary on Revelation, which states premises about Roman Catholicism not unlike the conclusions of this book:
"There is no mistaking her identity. Pagan Rome was the lineal successor of Babylon. Papal Rome absorbed the Babylonian mysteries; and the Rome of the beast in the last days will be the seat of the revived satanic system that began with Nimrod and his infamous consort Semiaramis, which has from that day to this been opposed to everything that is of God..." (p.299)
He goes further:
"It is a lamentable fact that Babylon's principles and practices are rapidly but surely pervading the churches that escaped from Rome at the time of the Reformation. We may see evidences of it in the wide use of high-sounding ecclesiastical titles..., in the revival of holy days and church feasts such as Lent, Good Friday, Easter and Christ's Mass [Christmas]...I quite admit that some of these festivals if divested of any ecclesiastical character may be observed in innocence in the home, but when they are turned into church festivals they certainly come under the condemnation of Gal. 4:9-11...All of them...are Babylonish in their origin, and were at one time linked with the Ashtoreth and Tammuz mystery-worship...We do well to remember that Babylon is a mother, with daughters who are likely to partake of their mother's characteristics." (p.301)
Eighteen years he pastored the Moody Church of Chicago. Only two Sundays in all those years was no one found at the altar seeking to know Christ. He was a man of faith, fruit, and conviction. But this one conviction, regarding Rome, might keep him from pastoring at most "great " churches of our day.
In 1927, another Henry, Henry Halley, publishes his Bible Handbook, from which I have quoted freely. This book also is not mentioned quite so much in many Protestant, even evangelical, circles these days.
But I mention these names to show that in the first 20 years of our [20th] century, at least, a strong witness against Romanism abounded.
But, for the first time in U.S. history, a Roman Catholic is running for President. It is still 1927.
We have already considered the Papal attitudes toward Americanism, and the philosophy of involvement foisted upon the American Catholic population. We know why Catholics want to come to power in any land.
So we are not surprised to see Al Smith challenged by Protestants, who quote from the Syllabus of Errors (1864), the Papal statement which attacks the separation of church and state among other American-held ideals. Smith's reply is that he has never heard of any "Syllabus." Later, he has heard of it, but he labels it "obsolete." Flip-flopping politician. Sounds familiar.
Smith goes on to put in print his personal creed, to set everyone at ease. As you read his confession of faith, the natural question is, "Is this a true Catholic? Does his religion mean anything to him? If he takes his religion so lightly, do I want him as my president? Or is he just lying to me?"
So he's either fabricating this whole viewpoint, or being false to his convictions. And after he is elected? Will he change his views suddenly? Can we read his lips and believe it when he says, "I will not be an instrument of Rome to take over this country." ?
The actual statement:
"I recognize no power in the institutions of my Church to interfere with the operations of the Constitution of the United States or the enforcement of the law of the land. I believe in absolute freedom of conscience for all men and in equality of all churches, all sects, and all beliefs before the law as a matter of right and not as a matter of favor. I believe in the absolute separation of Church and State...I believe that no tribunal of any church has any power to make any decree of any force in the law of the land...I believe in the support of the public school as one of the cornerstones of American liberty." (Atlantic Monthly, April, 1927)
One wonders if the original version added, "and the holy father approves of this whole statement." Was Papa in on this statement? So that the good "sap" could be infused into America's veins? Or was Papa somewhere weeping as he read of one of his sons so blatantly denying standard Catholic policy?
There is another option to all of this. Maybe Al really believes that his church's power structure is no threat to the security of the United States. Maybe he is a typical American Catholic who doesn't bother to look behind the scenes at what Rome really is about, or read the history books about Papal domination of past eras. Maybe he is just as shocked at America's response as many readers of this book will be. It is to the average Catholic that I appeal. Do you really know what the Roman (that is, initiated and headquartered in Rome) Catholic (that is, universal in its appeal and reign) "church" is all about?
Maybe Mr. Smith is similarly unfamiliar with the Manual of Christian Doctrine, published in 1926 in Philadelphia. It is an official Catholic book, approved by one Cardinal Dougherty.
Catholic children growing up in these United States during the days of Smith's candidacy are led through this catechetical inquiry:
Q. Why is the [Catholic] Church superior to the state?
A. Because the end to which the [Catholic] Church tends is the noblest of all ends.
Q. In what order or respect is the state subordinate to the [Catholic] Church?
A. In the spiritual order and in all things referring to that order.
Q. What right has the Pope in virtue of this supremacy?
A. The right to annul those laws or acts of government that would injure the salvation of souls or attack the natural rights of citizens.
Knowing which church the above refers to makes this an irksome series of responses. I can think of some questions and answers of my own:
Q. Who, though Lord of all, became a man, dwelt among us, and submitted to every human authority placed over Him?
A. Jesus, the Messiah.
Q. Did this Jesus ever try to pit His church against the world's governments, until His return?
A. No.
Q. Were the followers of Jesus likewise exhorted to obey earthly authority except when the preaching of the Gospel was at stake?
A. Most assuredly!
Q. When challenged, imprisoned, beaten, and otherwise tortured by these governments, were the true followers of Jesus ever encouraged by their leaders to rebel against secular authority?
A. Not once!
The manual's implications have to do with the Roman church, not all churches. Catholic teaching is that the "rights of citizens include the right of all men to be Roman Catholics and promulgate Catholicism."
Equality for all churches? Nonsense! In 1929, the Catholic institution has itself named the state religion of Italy. Would it accept a similar position in the United States? (Is the Pope Catholic?)
So, Al Smith, do you really believe what you're saying? All churches equal? And as to the separation of church and state: (back to the Manual)
Q. What then is the principal obligation of heads of state?
A. Their principal obligation is to practice the Catholic religion themselves, and as they are in power, to protect and defend it.
Q. Has the state the right and the duty to proscribe schism or heresy?
A. Yes, it has the right and the duty to do so both for the good of the nation, and for that of the faithful themselves...religious [in Catholic terms] unity is the principal foundation of social unity.
Q. When may the state tolerate dissenting worship ? [note: the church never does!]
A. When these worships have acquired a sort of legal existence consecrated by time and accorded by treaties or covenants.
Q. May the state separate itself from the [Catholic] Church?
A. No, because it may not withdraw from the Supreme rule of Christ.
Q. On what conditions are civil laws binding?
A. ...that the legislating power has no law contrary to the natural law, or to the positive divine law. Otherwise a civil law is entirely null, and should not be observed.
Informed citizens of the 1928 election refused Al Smith the right to lead America. Thirty-two years later, misinformed Americans threw caution to the wind. John Kennedy, raised in an era when the afore-quoted Manual was still being taught as Gospel truth in Catholic schools, somehow convinced us that he too was above Papal edicts.
We were not really allowed to find out what might have been....
But, times change. People forget. That is the reason for books and sermons such as the one you now read or hear.
FIFTY-SEVEN: MUSSOLINI AND THE POPE
Rome is on the verge of undoing the shame caused her in 1870, when all her property is ruthlessly stripped away. Now, a naked sovereign is still a sovereign, but normally not quite so proud. I have already documented the pride of the naked period. Now for some clothing.
And who shall take us to the clothing store? He must be Italian. He must hate what the Vatican hates, namely the present government of Italy. He must be a strong leader upon whom we can depend. He must have a world vision.
Yes, Mr. Mussolini, Il Duce, you will do fine. From this day on, I, Papa, will recognize you and your government, if you will help make me the Ruler I used to be. You will be my new Charlemagne, my new Constantine! Welcome to Italy!
Can it really be that one feared and hated the world over for his atrocious dictatorial style, second only, perhaps, to Hitler, his peer and ally, could be so warmly accepted by the "church?" Oh yes. As Pius XI in 1922 is condemning democracy on this side of the Atlantic, fascism and naziism are being blessed into being on the other side. At the head of the Italian form of the disease is one hailed by the Vatican as a man "sent by Divine Providence, " Benito Mussolini.
This well-documented history is often a shock to those who have not taken the time to check it out . I give you in the next paragraphs actual excerpts from, first, the treaty between Italy and the Holy See, 1929, and then from the concordat, the Vatican's formalization of relationship with a secular power.
The treaty:
Article I: Italy recognizes (that) the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion is the sole religion of the State.
Article II: Italy recognizes the sovereignty of the Holy See in the international field as an inherent attribute of its nature [amen!] in conformity with its traditions and the exigencies of its mission in the world.
Article IV...there cannot be any interference whatsoever on the part of the Italian government...within Vatican City there will be no other authority than the Holy See.
Article VIII: Italy considers the person of the Supreme Pontiff as sacred and inviolable, and declares attempts against him, or incitement to commit them, punishable by the same penalties established for attempts or incitement to commit them against the person of the King...[Jesus: they hated Me, they will hate you also. They persecuted Me, they will persecute you. My Kingdom is not of this world, or my servants would fight.]
Article XXIV...in consequences of this declaration, Vatican City will always and in every case be considered neutral and inviolable territory.
Article XXVI: The Holy See agrees (that)...the Roman Question (is) definitely and irrevocably settled and therefore eliminated, and recognizes the Kingdom of Italy under the dynasty of the House of Savoy, with Rome the capital of the Italian State. Italy in her turn recognizes the State of the Vatican City under the sovereignty of the Supreme Pontiff.
The Concordat:
Article I: Italy, according to the terms of Article I of the treaty, assures to the Catholic Church free exercise of spiritual power, free and public exercise of worship...
Article V:...apostate priests or those incurring censure cannot be employed in a teaching post or any office or employment in which they have immediate contact with the public.
Article XI: The State recognizes the holidays established by the Church, which are: All Sundays, New Year's Day, Epiphany, St. Joseph's Day, Ascension Day, Corpus Domini, the Feast of the Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, All Saints' Day, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and Christmas Day.
Article XIX: ...before an archbishop, bishop, or coadjutor...is nominated, the Holy See shall communicate the name of the chosen person to the Italian government, in order to be sure that the government has no objections of a political nature against such person...
Article XXXVI: Italy considers the teaching of Christian Doctrine according to the forms received from Catholic tradition as the foundation and crown of public education. Therefore Italy consents that the religious teaching now imparted in the elementary schools be further developed in the middle schools... Only textbooks approved by the ecclesiastical authorities will be used in the public schools for religious training.
This is what the Vatican does in any country where the door is open, or, if she can shove hard enough, where the door is shut. Is there a catechism in your child's future?
After all, says Pius XI,
"There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time, it is above all nations...divinely commissioned to lead mankind. She has great prestige which has...been greatly increased since the close of the war...cannot but succeed...she cannot tolerate that the State...violate the rights of God Himself over civil society..." (Ubi Arcano Dei, December 23, 1922)
Now on to Mussolini's ally and partner, who likewise became the Vatican's. Guy named Adolf...
