PART FIVE: THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION , 1948- present
FIFTY-NINE: THE BIRTH OF ISRAEL
Some Christians would say that one of the most exciting events in all modern history is the episode involving God's promises to the nation Israel. In 1948, the Gentile domination of the Promised Land begins its end as Israel raises the Star of David over the land that shall one day see the Seed of David enthroned.
I personally believe that a greater return of the Jews is envisioned by the prophets, one that involves their full conversion to their Messiah, but none can deny the miraculous nature of what has transpired over the past decades.
None of this is attributable to the Vatican. Theodore Herzl, father of the modern Zionist movement in the late 19th century, is granted a 30-minute interview with the reigning Pope, and asks him for both money and spiritual support. He is flatly turned down.
To the Roman way of thinking, Jewish occupation of Jewish territory is anathema. You will remember the Crusades, the attempt of Rome to free the Holy Land, not for its original residents, but for itself. You will recall also that here God intervened and simply said to Rome, "No! This is Mine." The land was to be preserved for that special moment when God would call to Israelis all over the world to people their ancient possession.
The Romanists see only the political ramifications of all of this and begin to hurt for Muslims, who already control all the Middle East. Of course, Rome is in pain for its own unmet needs, too. Thus the Vatican uses diplomatic pressure in the late 40's to turn the U.N. Assembly against Zionism, in favor of "internationalizing" Jerusalem. Further, it works closely with Muslims to meet their ends. (Blanshard, op. cit., p. 265) It is not until January of 1994 that Israel and Vatican City form ties.
Anti-Semitic is one thing. Anti- Israel is the same thing, magnified. Only recently has the Vatican finally corrected, at least outwardly, hundreds of years of abuse to the Jew.
SIXTY: PROTESTANTI NO!
Anti-Jew and anti-Protestant threads run side by side, of course. In 1949, P. Vittorio Genovesi of Pompeii, Italy, publishes Protestanti No!, a document which plays the anti-Protestant blues eloquently. I bring it in as an additional evidence of twentieth-century Romanism's connection with sixteenth-century Romanism. Just in case you have any doubt about the connection.
Genovesi, approved by Rome, says Protestants are
"disgraceful apostates of the sanctuary, in whom there is not a shadow of good faith. The heads of Protestantism were true and real criminals worthy of jail. Their principles are immoral and bring about anarchy."
Spoken not too very long ago. Is Babylon going to change? It's getting uncomfortably close to the present, when most Protestants dare not say a word about Romanism. Let's watch carefully now, lest we miss whatever it is that has so radically silenced a people known for their eloquence and -some would add - their verbosity: the Protestant preachers.
The most outspoken of them all is the one we today call Dr. William Franklin Graham. Just "Billy" in those days. "Billy" is quoted as saying that the "three gravest menaces faced by orthodox Christianity are Communism, Roman Catholicism, and Mohammedanism."
That was 1948. Billy Graham, champion of truth, carrier on of the line that starts with Christ, is passed on to His apostles, then the smaller and smaller group of believers through the Middle Ages, the Reformers, the Wesleys, Ironside, Halley, Hislop, and many others...but change is in the wind. Thank you, Billy, for what you saw and what you said, at least then.
SIXTY-ONE: POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE, ROMAN STYLE
It is now the "Holy Year," 1950. Pope Pius is on the Throne, taking the worship of all his subjects. Blanshard says,
"...every major celebration was systematically organized to demonstrate the homage of Catholics to Pius XII. His every appearance in a gorgeous processional was the signal for wild cheers of adulation. Thousands of pilgrims knelt in reverence before his bejeweled figure...he was borne into the middle of every celebration seated on his portable throne..."
Hislop (op. cit., p. 213) writes of another such Roman celebration. Bear with me as I share a rather lengthy portion of history:
"The drums were heard beating without. The guns of the soldiers rung on the stone pavement of the house of God...how unlike the suitable preparation to receive a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus! Now, moving slowly up between the two armed lines of soldiers, appeared a long procession of ecclesiastics, bishops, canons, and cardinals, preceding the Roman Pontiff, who was borne on a gilded chair, clad in vestments resplendent as the sun. His bearers were 12 men clad in crimson, being immediately preceded by several persons carrying a cross, his mitre, his triple crown, and other insignia of his office, along on the shoulders of men, amid the gaping crowds. His head was shaded or canopied by two immense fans, made of peacocks' feathers, which were borne by two attendants..."
Blanshard tells of the first "saint" he saw canonized (officially placed on the Roman roll of sainthood).
"Canonization is a ceremony of magnificent solemnity...the Basilica of St. Peter's has, for many centuries, been destined for solemn canonizations...It is a very ancient custom to decorate the Basilica with great splendor on such occasions...banners, candelabra, Latin inscriptions, huge paintings...depicting the approved miracles, and finally the picture of the new saint...in front of the altar of the Chair of St. Peter, the Papal Throne is erected on an elevated platform and alongside it are arranged the stalls for Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Prelates, and dignitaries who take part in Papal functions...the frontal for the Papal altar (is) richly embroidered in gold...on the facade of the Basilica are placed inscriptions and a large canvas representing the new saint in glory...the Cardinals all wear white damask mitres and their train bearers are vested in croccia, cotta, and vimpa...the Pontifical Jeweler, who has charge of the Pope's tiaras and mitres, wears a silk cloak, and a sword. (Two extra papal tiaras are carried in the procession, in addition to the one on the Pope's head.)
"The Pope, wearing the mitre, sits...and receives from the Cardinal Procurator...two large painted candles...the canopy is spread over the Pope's head...behind his seat the large fans are carried...(then forms) the Pope's guard of honor. The noble and Swiss Guards, clad in full ceremonial costume, bring up the rear of the magnificent procession (which takes about thirty minutes to pass).
"On arriving at the doors of the Basilica the Pope is received by the Chapter of St. Peter's, while the choir sings..."Tu es Petrus..."["You are Peter..."]. When the Pope has entered the Basilica, a triumphal march is played on the silver trumpets...
"Immediately the ceremony of the 'obediences' commences: the Cardinals approach and kiss the Pope's hand; the Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops kiss the cross of the stole placed on the knees of His Holiness, while abbots, Abbots General, and the Penitentiaries kiss his foot...
"...arrived at the foot of the Throne, the Advocate Procurator kneels and addresses the following words to His Holiness:
" ' Most Holy Father, the Most Reverend Cardinal, here present, earnestly begs your Holiness to inscribe the Blessed Maria Guglielma Emilia De Rodat in the catalogue of the Saints of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and to ordain that she be venerated as a Saint by all the Christian faithful.'
"The Prelate Secretary of the Briefs...replies in Latin that the Holy Father is very much edified by the virtues of the Blessed, and by the miracles with which Our Lord has made their glory resplendent, but before making any decision in a matter of such grave importance, he exhorts the faithful to assist him in imploring the Divine assistance by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of all the Heavenly Court...
"(then the) proclamation: 'In honor of the Holy and Indivisible Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our Own; after mature deliberation, ever imploring the Divine assistance, by the advice of our Venerable Brethren the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops present in the Eternal City, We decree and define as a saint, and We inscribe in the catalogue of Saints the Blessed Maria Guglielma Emilia De Rodat, ordaining that her memory be celebrated with devotion every year in the Universal Church."
More Pope-kissing, Latin-singing, bell-ringing, and another saint is in Heaven. I like Blanshard's comment:
"It is scarcely necessary to point out that this ritual of display has nothing more to do with original Christianity than the worship of Stalin has to do with original socialism. There is not only no support in Christian tradition for such a use of Christianity, but all the weight of original Christian testimony is against such proceedings. In fact, it would be difficult to discover in all of history any person whose life-record and personal habits conflicted more openly with ecclesiastical display and exaggerated ceremonialism than Jesus of Nazareth."
Yes, let us look at Jesus. The most spectacular thing He did while on this planet was sit on a donkey and ride into town. And He is God. God, the Son. The Son of God. So who is this foul pretender to the Throne of God? An antichrist, a false prophet, a deceiver of men? Oh the heart pains at the thought of what claims these mere men make!
Popes have been told at their coronation, "Thou art father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, vicar of Christ." I say, Blasphemy! because I cannot think of a stronger word that is fit to print.
Have I lost compassion? Have I become negative? Am I being judgmental? As the reader you must decide. But I tell you, the eyes of my heart see an impostor, a charlatan, bringing untold millions under his sway. What can my tongue do but respond in horror, and in warning? Why, oh why are so many other eyes blind and so many other tongues silent?
Hear me. In this present age, only one has been given a worldly Kingdom. At least that is what this one told Christ, and that is what Christ said of him to his disciples. Seeing the shape of the world from Eden until now, we can believe it! His name is Satan, Lucifer. And all who will reign over the kings of the earth in this day must reign under his banner. You expose yourself, Woman of Babylon. You are naked before God and before the people who know their God. Your ways are the ways of the Arch-deceiver, the Prince of the Power of the Air, the King of the Present Kingdoms of this world. Only later (and soon, we believe) will all the Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.
Ah, but this is the 90's, not the 50's, and definitely not the Middle Ages. Things are different now. Not so much pomp. No coronations. Indeed true, but mainly because public outrage at such ostentation finally made cooler heads in the Vatican prevail. Look for it to re-appear whenever people will allow it. Babylon is Babylon!
The reader of cold print, no matter how warm the heart of the author, can be tempted to hate, hearing such testimony. I remember when I first penned these things, having only a heart filled with love, eyes filled with tears. Oh, consider the plight of those masses of people who have loved and believed lies. May we all be prostrate before God that some will be saved. Catch the warmth of this glow before we go on. You surely must know now that this book will not have a happy ending. I am not telling God's story, or ours. Definitely not the wonderful saga of the church of Jesus Christ. I am telling Babylon's story.
Oh yes. 1950 is the year that the Church of Rome is told by the aforementioned Pope that it is now a matter of faith that they believe Mary was taken up body and soul into Heaven. Whence this new revelation? We are often given the explanation "the piety of the people." That is, the people believed this story, and increasing pressure is mounted by them for such a thing to become official doctrine. I call this democratic revelation.
But God is more severe. He who adds to Gods words is accursed. One last look at Mary, in Yugoslavia, but not right now.
SIXTY-TWO: BISHOP SHEEN
So we have come to the fabulous 50's, finally a decade I can remember. I'll tell my story in detail later. Right now I recall a certain TV program my partially-Catholic family tuned in to every week. It was called "Life is Worth Living," and it featured a 30-minute sermon on prime time (secular) TV! The preacher was the nation's leading Catholic, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. (At his passing a few years back, he had attained Cardinal status.)
I remember that even to a young boy like myself, he was rather interesting. I have heard him since, and have always been impressed. He had some important things to say about morality, this nation, and life itself. Most "good" people would have agreed with him.
But -need I say it? - Bishop Sheen was very Catholic, in the pre-Vatican II sense. Here is a representative quote from the Bishop:
"We are living at the end of an era, ushered in by the Protestant revolt 400 years ago- a revolt that denied authority, so that as a result we have been living without God, we have tossed Him out of our world."
He goes on to call World War II a judgment on the way man has lived, and to state that victory will be ours only on the condition that we repent. This was a war-time statement, and was geared to shifting the blame to Protestants for a war encouraged by Papal friendships with men like Mussolini and Hitler. This man and his church continue to make very strong political statements and spiritual condemnations in America.
But the 60's are coming. Finally the change we have been anticipating, yes, even the end of the era Sheen predicted, is about to take place?
SIXTY-THREE: THE COMMON MARKET
After World War II, with Hitler and Mussolini crushed, the dream of a Hapsburg-ruled Europe connected to Papa resurrects. Of course it never fully died, but Hitler seemed to be doing the job.
Would-be Emperor Otto, the center of the dream, comes to the United States, where he is joined by top-level American sympathizers , who see in him a way to join with Europe and the Vatican in an all-out fight against the growing Russian threat.
Hungary is chosen as the perfect place for all of this to happen, with its strong party of Monarchists, its solid Roman hierarchy, and especially its top link with Rome, Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty.
In 1946, a republic is formed. Republics are traditionally not received too well in Rome, since the people have too much freedom to oppose the Pope. As Americans, we might add that this "republic" was built on the Communist model, and therefore had its own inherent dangers. But the alternative?
Mindszenty immediately opposes the new constitution and begins to promote the Royalist cause. He even begins to speak of his legal right to run the country, preparing the way for Emperor Otto . In all these dealings he expects the support of Rome and the USA, where Cardinal Spellman is backing him.
The Hungarian Cardinal travels to the States and meets with Otto in a convent in Chicago. Later the Royal Crown, at that moment with the U.S. military establishment in Germany, is requested to be sent to Rome, so Papa can have the right he believes is his to crown the next ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Request granted. The U.S. is desperate to have an anti-Communist power in the region. It does not remember its Medieval history.
In the midst of all the scheming, Cardinal Mindszenty is arrested (early 1949). He immediately appeals to America for help. He will need a lot. He has been found guilty of treason, and is sentenced to life imprisonment.
Demonstrations erupt in America and Europe about the persecution of Christianity. Avro Manhattan, who is one of my sources for this information, asks candidly, what if Cardinal Spellman had been plotting the overthrow of the U.S. government? What if he advocated that we return to the English monarchy out of which we came, or more realistically, what if he had wanted us all to submit to the Roman See? Is this not the ultimate goal of Rome, absolute spiritual and political control of the planet?
Though Mindszenty is replaced by his second in command, Archbishop Josef Grosz, who calls himself "temporary head of state," the Communists prove to be the tougher of the two competing dominions. Grosz is also arrested, and the dream flounders.
In the early 60's the final scenes are acted out, as Otto requests to return to his native Austria, not as Emperor, but as a private citizen. The populace is wild with anticipation. What could it all mean? First he is denied. Then he is allowed. The very non-eventful day comes in 1966, and passes into history unnoted. But the plan for a united Europe is far greater than the Popes and the Hapsburgs. Oh, it will happen. Look again. It happens even now!
Many have been the speculations of modern-day Biblical prophecy students regarding the coming "United States of Europe," a power already being felt in the economic world. There is no doubt that an amalgamation of European powers will far eclipse the United States, will change the entire balance of world power, and in the process begin the fulfillment of the "10-toe" imagery of the Prophet Daniel.
The ten toes of the image Daniel saw, flow from the two legs on that same statue, which we have been identifying as the two divisions of the Roman Empire.
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, all Rome-dominated countries, lead the way in 1957 by joining their customs union (Benelux) to giants Italy, France, and Germany (also countries with Roman Catholic majorities), in what becomes known as the European Economic Community.
The treaty which makes all of this official is actually signed in Rome! From the New York Times, March 25, 1957:
"Rome, March 24- Two treaties destined to change the course of history will be signed in Rome tomorrow afternoon..."
The article indicates that one of the treaties will create a pool of the six countries for the development and exploitation of nuclear energy, principally for peaceful uses.
There is great pomp and ceremony, schools are cancelled, flags are flown on all public buildings. It is quite a big event, but only the beginning. Catholic Spain, Portugal, Austria, and Ireland follow suit. Non-Catholic nations join, but their place in the community continues to be unstable.
To use Scriptural terms, it would seem that the beast is rising out of the sea before our very eyes. I speak of course of the Mediterranean Sea, where he has tried to rise several times before. But recently the Loch Ness Monster has had more attention than this threat to the entire world's security.
Nevertheless, the beast shall rise, and on its back will be the same woman that has kept her grip from the days of the Caesars.
[The progress and regression of the European State is certainly a timely topic as this book goes to press. When all is said and done, it will be as God said.]
SIXTY-FOUR: JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY
Times and people change. An example of such a person, whose public utterances change about this time is Cardinal Cushing. In 1947, January 14, the Cardinal is quoted thus:
"The extreme development of the idea of separation of church and state is...un-American."
That statement seems confusing, but let me suggest that Rome is consistently for the union of Catholic Church and State, and sees no other way that church power can be supported. Of course, we who know Christ are aware of the ways He protects His Church, in the midst of the vilest of persecutions. But Rome must have political support, or perish.
So did Cushing "see the light" in 1958? In the L.A. Tidings of May 23, he says he has
"never met an ecclesiastical leader who desired union of church and state in this country."
John Kennedy, for whom this statement is a god-send, adds his own assurances to a still-skeptical American public in a "creed" published in 1959:
"Whatever one's religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts - including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state...I believe as a senator that the separation of Church and State is fundamental to our American concept and heritage and should remain so. I am flatly opposed to appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican. Whatever advantages it might have in Rome - and I'm not convinced of these - they would be more than offset by the divisive effect at home. The first Amendment to the Constitution is an infinitely wise one. There can be no question of Federal funds being used for support of parochial or private schools. It's unconstitutional under the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I'm opposed to the Federal Government's extending support to sustain any church or its schools." (as quoted in Look magazine, March 3, 1959.)
Doeswyck (op. cit., p. 105) says that the Catholic press mildly rebuked Kennedy's "heresies," so as to toe the line from Rome's perspective.
But the Kennedy charm, coupled to the Kennedy wealth, plus these assurances, convinces a new American public that all will be fine. Kennedy is elected.
We are led then to believe what we believed about Al Smith in 1927: Either Kennedy is an ignorant Catholic or a bad Catholic. But Kennedy is not the issue here. In the process of electing a Catholic President, with seemingly no ill effects, our senses are being dulled a bit more. We feel safe in bringing more and more Romanists into our political mainstream, until...
[Fascinating in the 2012 Republican race is the fact that evangelical Christians were debating for some time whether Catholic Gingrich or Catholic Santorum should be President!]
Well, Rome is still wanting the whole world, isn't it? As in Argentina, for example, in this same hemisphere and same time period. Within two months after the fall of their President Peron, a pastoral letter demands unswerving obedience to the priests, stating,
"It is a sin to assert that a Catholic has the right to act as he thinks best in civil affairs." (Daily Telegraph, November 23, 1955)
With the aura of martyrdom surrounding Kennedy, are we able to conceive just how close we came to Vatican control?
During this era, many other Catholics rise to high positions. Frank Lausche becomes governor of Ohio, David Lawrence, governor of Pennsylvania. Minnesota's new governor is Eugene McCarthy, and Edmund G. Brown wears that title in California. Former Democratic whip Mike Mansfield becomes a Senator from Montana...and so on.
Viewing the political landscape of the day leads naturally to another quick look at the Jesuits. On January 17, 1959, the Saturday Evening Post publishes an article entitled "The Pope's Commandos." I quote a portion of it for your enlightenment:
"The Jesuits! No other group of men has, down the centuries, furnished so much material for hot controversy...it is the most feared, the most suspected and the most maligned (of Rome's orders)...the very name 'Jesuit' originated as a defamation, implying a great show of sanctimony...its membership has doubled since the first World War... of the world's 34,000 Jesuits, no fewer than 7,500 are Americans...in the U.S., the Jesuits are looked upon as one of the most active and most influential elements within the Catholic community. Education, houses of retreat, parish churches, periodicals, an FM radio station, TV station, Sacred Heart Program, for examples. Loyola ordained a form of government closely resembling an absolute monarchy...a meeting which lasted from September 6 to September 11, 1957, (was addressed by Pope Pius XII, who) warned Jesuits not to substitute for obedience a certain democratic equality in accordance with which a subject would argue with his superior until they had arrived at a solution pleasing to them both. 'May there be no room among you for that prideful spirit of free investigation,' he warned. Ignatius, in the order's constitution, orders the brethren to obey 'as if they were a dead body which suffers itself to be borne to any place and to be treated in any manner whatever.' "
You must decide how much this matches up to the teachings of Jesus. For me, my fears of the Jesuit/Catholic threat were not calmed by reading the Post. Like the Japanese pilots who died with their plane for the joy of killing the enemy, like the Middle Eastern Muslim who declares Holy War on all that disagree, the Jesuit is willing to do whatever it takes to advance his cause. His cause, you know, is the Pope's cause, world domination by Rome.
Christians must similarly be willing to die for their cause. And their cause is creating a spiritual Kingdom under King Jesus, which will pose absolutely no threat to the governments of this world until the King Himself returns to flesh out what we have experienced all along in the Holy Ghost. Those who are working for a material Kingdom now, hoping that something spiritual will come of it, are out of order. But I probably said that already.
Now to the 60's. The decade that all modern Catholics point to when trying to prove to you that they have indeed changed, and are not to be feared anymore. In fact, they say, because of what happened in the 60's, you should lay your weapons down, come back to the fold, and enjoy the great peace that God wants for His people. Because of what happened in the 60's, we Christians can dialogue, get to know one another. Not only that, we need to call in the other religions and let them in our midst. After all, wasn't Jesus a friend of sinners? Ultimately, what happened in the 60's, they say, will bring about the unity Jesus prayed for. A world-wide unity where doctrine will not be an issue, but only God and love and joy and...
Hold on! Exactly what happened in the 60's?
Next time...
