C
CWBetts
Guest
My debating never lasts long agenst heterodox Catholics who support the schismatics in the SSPX
- Status
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
“Debating” in this case consisting of throwing around “boo”-words instead of addressing the issues? Oh well it’s a common enough problem for us trads … His Holiness Pope Benedict got an immediate taste of it when he withdrew the excommunications, and was subjected to a storm of fury and abuse, much of it from inside the Church – and much of it from the “obedient” bishops. He spoke feelingly about it in his next letter (did you read it)? The Conciliar Church is firmly wedded to ecumenism, it seems, except that any old stick is good enough to beat the trads with – and that doesn’t exclude the pope if he dares to stand up for the trads in the slightest degree. Pope Benedict got a personal dose of what the SSPX have withstood with fortitude for decades.
This would be an opportune moment to scotch, once and for all, some common false accusations against Archbp. Lefebvre: that he was excommunicated by Pope Paul II and is in schism, and that he declared the New Order of Mass to be invalid.
Once again, I hope that newcomers to this debate will not be put off by some of the technicalities that we must invoke. At least it will demonstrate that the trads have a real case, and are not the hopeless nostalgics you will read about in certain quarters. For my part, I came to realise that their arguments are convincing.
On 1st July 1988 Cardinal Gantin - not Pope John Paul - declared Mgr Lefebvre excommunicated under Canons 1382 & 1364 New Code of Canon Law, that forbid consecration of a bishop without papal mandate. This Canon was promulgated in the 1950s in response to the schismatic Chinese Patriotic Church (CPA), a stooge organisation established according to classic Marxist principles: these bishops declare publicly & loudly that The Party over-rides the pope. Strangely, however, none of the 150+ CPA bishops was ever excommunicated after 1962. Before consecrating his bishops, Mgr Lefebvre gave a public sermon in June 1988 clearly explaining that he was invoking Canons 1321-4 of the New Code of Canon Law, which provide for emergency situations by indemnifying from any sanction if one genuinely believes an emergency has arisen. The emergency was the spreading of false doctrine everywhere, including in seminaries, schools, and diocesan offices; and the illegal attempt to suppress the traditional liturgical life when it had not been abrogated. Significantly the Vatican has never refuted this correct usage of Canon Law by Mgr Lefebvre.
The SSPX insist that this alleged excommunication by Cdl. Gantin - which Pope John Paul referred to in Ecclesia Dei but never issued on his own authority - is not legally binding: you cannot invoke one law while ignoring another. That would be like prosecuting a motorist for parking on a yellow line, while ignoring that it was a Sunday afternoon (when the “yellow line” rule is not enforced).
Characteristically, the SSPX and those laypeople going to the Sacraments supplied by them were regularly told that the Pope had excommunicated Mgr Lefebvre and the others. When they explained that this was not the case they were howled down. Yet when Pope Benedict lifted the decree of Excommunication, he clarified the situation. He refers to the excommunication as imposed by Cdl. Gantin; nothing at all is said about Pope John Paul II – because it was not he who issued the decree of excommunication, just as the trads had always maintained.
The SSPX express sincere gratitude to His Holiness for lifting the decree of excommunication, while reserving their position that the excommunications were invalid in the first place. However, now that the air is cleared, the SSPX are immediately continuing the fight for Catholic truth, and defending the Pope, from a position incontrovertibly inside the Church. I refer you to their recent press release calling for the retraction of the heretical communique of the German Bishop’s conference. Now that the unjust muzzle has been removed from the SSPX, the destroyers will find they can no longer say these things with impunity.
Continued …
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Continued…
Likewise, Mgr Lefebvre categorically refused to declare the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Missal invalid (which would mean that the priest was holding a piece of bread after the Consecration instead of the Body of Christ) and he disciplined those of his followers who made such judgments which, he insisted, can be made only by a Pope or an Ecumenical Council. What he did assert is that the New Mass glosses over many important truths of the Faith that are clearly stated in the Old Mass, and that it breeds a certain casual irreverence, dangerous to keeping the Faith. Unlike the CPA bishops, Mgr Lefebvre at no time rejected the authority of the Pope. He insisted that the widespread promotion of error and the de facto suppression of the Traditional Liturgy was illegal, and refused to comply. That is saying, “Father, in this case I cannot give in to your demand!” He did not add, “And therefore you are not my Father”. This was brilliantly demonstrated in the Holy Year of 2000, when thousands of “Traditional” religious and lay Catholics, organised by the SSPX, processed into S. Peter’s Square, to the feet of the Holy Father, who was visibly impressed, “and all Rome with him”. His Modernist advisors had been repeating to him for years that the trads were wicked disobedient schismatics, yet here they were … and not a few onlookers remarked that they (in contrast to many of those who were in Rome at the time) actually looked like Catholics … After the Procession, Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos said to Bp Fellay, “The fruits are good”. Bp Fellay replied, “And where do the fruits come from, Your Excellency?” It was after this that Pope John Paul II began in earnest to look for a way to normalise the position of the SSPX established by Mgr Lefebvre. Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos was put in general charge of the process.
Yes – the traditionalists are among the Papacy’s most loyal supporters.
Likewise, Mgr Lefebvre categorically refused to declare the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Missal invalid (which would mean that the priest was holding a piece of bread after the Consecration instead of the Body of Christ) and he disciplined those of his followers who made such judgments which, he insisted, can be made only by a Pope or an Ecumenical Council. What he did assert is that the New Mass glosses over many important truths of the Faith that are clearly stated in the Old Mass, and that it breeds a certain casual irreverence, dangerous to keeping the Faith. Unlike the CPA bishops, Mgr Lefebvre at no time rejected the authority of the Pope. He insisted that the widespread promotion of error and the de facto suppression of the Traditional Liturgy was illegal, and refused to comply. That is saying, “Father, in this case I cannot give in to your demand!” He did not add, “And therefore you are not my Father”. This was brilliantly demonstrated in the Holy Year of 2000, when thousands of “Traditional” religious and lay Catholics, organised by the SSPX, processed into S. Peter’s Square, to the feet of the Holy Father, who was visibly impressed, “and all Rome with him”. His Modernist advisors had been repeating to him for years that the trads were wicked disobedient schismatics, yet here they were … and not a few onlookers remarked that they (in contrast to many of those who were in Rome at the time) actually looked like Catholics … After the Procession, Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos said to Bp Fellay, “The fruits are good”. Bp Fellay replied, “And where do the fruits come from, Your Excellency?” It was after this that Pope John Paul II began in earnest to look for a way to normalise the position of the SSPX established by Mgr Lefebvre. Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos was put in general charge of the process.
Yes – the traditionalists are among the Papacy’s most loyal supporters.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Correction! 
Naturally, Bp Fellay addressed Cdl Castrillon Hoyos correctly…
… After the Procession, Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos said to Bp Fellay, “The fruits are good”. Bp Fellay replied, “And where do the fruits come from, Your Eminence?”
Naturally, Bp Fellay addressed Cdl Castrillon Hoyos correctly…… After the Procession, Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos said to Bp Fellay, “The fruits are good”. Bp Fellay replied, “And where do the fruits come from, Your Eminence?”
C
CWBetts
Guest
The Bishpos in the SSPX have NOT been restored to their office, the excommunication has been lifted, This is no way validates the schismatic position of the SSPX. The SSPX is NOT in line with the Vatrican, as they believe that they are “More Catholic than the Pope” It pains me to consider the SSPX Catholic at all. Since they were in rebellion against the VAtican, it just makes them one of the newest branches of Protestants. Abandon the schismatics, and submit to the VAtican, and ignore the arrogance of the SSPX.
P
PJM
Guest
Originally Posted by CWBetts
You are endorsing the persecution of non-Catholics. You aren’t a member of the IRA are you?
Friend, sharing THE TRUTH is only persecutation, when one is not open to the TRUTH.
Love and prayers,
You are endorsing the persecution of non-Catholics. You aren’t a member of the IRA are you?
Friend, sharing THE TRUTH is only persecutation, when one is not open to the TRUTH.
Love and prayers,
W
weepixie71
Guest
to be a traditionalist is not about just what mass you go to. it is so much more. it is a lifestyle.
its if you want to trust your children to learn their faith you better teach them and not trust other people to do it.
its Bible readings and discussions and daily rosary with your family.
its dressing modestly inside and outside of Church and not caving to modern indecent ways.
its respecting God’s hierarchy in all His creations especially, home and His Church.
it is outwardly showing as much reverence as we can during mass ( examples: women covering their heads to show humility to God and kneeling before God Himself at Holy Communion). and protecting the Host at all cost by placing the Host in your mouth so there is no way the Host can be taken and desecrated.
it is honoring God through honoring His saints.
its you child getting the sacramental of the scapular at their First Communion.
it is trusting your priest can do a mass just fine without you and being able to focus on witnessing and not participating.
its saying the “Our Father” to your God the Father all by yourself as it was originally intended and not as a “community”.
its community time outside of mass (example: donut day in the auditorium, or a school play they children performed, mothers day luncheons, and protesting at abortion clinics.) not during mass. mass is only for Christ not community.
i think i covered enough of them for you to get the picture.
its if you want to trust your children to learn their faith you better teach them and not trust other people to do it.
its Bible readings and discussions and daily rosary with your family.
its dressing modestly inside and outside of Church and not caving to modern indecent ways.
its respecting God’s hierarchy in all His creations especially, home and His Church.
it is outwardly showing as much reverence as we can during mass ( examples: women covering their heads to show humility to God and kneeling before God Himself at Holy Communion). and protecting the Host at all cost by placing the Host in your mouth so there is no way the Host can be taken and desecrated.
it is honoring God through honoring His saints.
its you child getting the sacramental of the scapular at their First Communion.
it is trusting your priest can do a mass just fine without you and being able to focus on witnessing and not participating.
its saying the “Our Father” to your God the Father all by yourself as it was originally intended and not as a “community”.
its community time outside of mass (example: donut day in the auditorium, or a school play they children performed, mothers day luncheons, and protesting at abortion clinics.) not during mass. mass is only for Christ not community.
i think i covered enough of them for you to get the picture.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
I hate to say it, CWBetts, but you seem to be completely out of your depth here. Apologies to other posters if I repeat myself, but he shows no evidence of having actually read any of the relevant passages.
A. Nobody has claimed that the situation has yet been fully cleared up. But it is more a question of tidying up the paperwork, now that the decree of excommunication has been lifted. Once they are allowed to state their case, it will be crystal clear that they are doing nothing more than upholding Catholic teaching. Even their view on Vatican II, once the shouting of their detractors has ceased, will be seen to be unimpeachable. For example, when asked to ‘follow the teachings of Vatican II’, they will probably say, ‘And what are these teachings, so that we may follow them?’ Their interlocutor will find this as hard to answer as CWBetts apparently does - he didn’t reply when I asked, anyway - just like all the others.
They were validly consecrated, ‘sine locus, pro tem’: ‘without a diocese, for the duration of the emergency’. This action is indemnified by Canons 1321-4 of the New Code of Canon Law, which provide for emergency situations by indemnifying from any sanction if one genuinely believes an emergency has arisen. The emergency was the spreading of false doctrine everywhere, including in seminaries, schools, and diocesan offices; and the illegal attempt to suppress the traditional liturgical life when it had not been abrogated. Significantly the Vatican has never refuted this correct usage of Canon Law by Mgr Lefebvre. All that has been done is to ignore the issue. But reality is real (if you think about it…) Others have denied that the Church is in a State of Emergency. One can only wonder what, in their view, would constitute a state of emergency.
In a later posting, I will present the difference between obedience and schism, from authoritative Catholic sources.
What does “in line” mean? Does it mean agreeing with each and every communique - or private utterance - of every official in the Vatican? Because, although it may have escaped the attention of some, many contradictory statements are made and continue to be made by ‘The Vatican’.
And what precisely does “The Vatican” denote in this context? Is it each and every employee of the Vatican? If not, then who?
Or do you mean that they would refuse to be photographed kissing the Koran in a mosque? As I said before, my friend, we’re not making any of this up.
Perhaps you are thinking of S. John, who stayed by the Cross while Peter denied Our Lord and then ran away.
Just to make it clear: none of the above detracts from the Catholic doctrine of the papacy, although it might be a problem for those with overly-simplistic ideas.
Q. What was their office, that you think we think they were restored to?
A. Nobody has claimed that the situation has yet been fully cleared up. But it is more a question of tidying up the paperwork, now that the decree of excommunication has been lifted. Once they are allowed to state their case, it will be crystal clear that they are doing nothing more than upholding Catholic teaching. Even their view on Vatican II, once the shouting of their detractors has ceased, will be seen to be unimpeachable. For example, when asked to ‘follow the teachings of Vatican II’, they will probably say, ‘And what are these teachings, so that we may follow them?’ Their interlocutor will find this as hard to answer as CWBetts apparently does - he didn’t reply when I asked, anyway - just like all the others.
They were validly consecrated, ‘sine locus, pro tem’: ‘without a diocese, for the duration of the emergency’. This action is indemnified by Canons 1321-4 of the New Code of Canon Law, which provide for emergency situations by indemnifying from any sanction if one genuinely believes an emergency has arisen. The emergency was the spreading of false doctrine everywhere, including in seminaries, schools, and diocesan offices; and the illegal attempt to suppress the traditional liturgical life when it had not been abrogated. Significantly the Vatican has never refuted this correct usage of Canon Law by Mgr Lefebvre. All that has been done is to ignore the issue. But reality is real (if you think about it…) Others have denied that the Church is in a State of Emergency. One can only wonder what, in their view, would constitute a state of emergency.
Sorry, old chap, but you can’t be in schism without being excommunicated. And they weren’t in schism before the lifting, either. Bp Castrillon Hoyos said this himself.
In a later posting, I will present the difference between obedience and schism, from authoritative Catholic sources.
Sorry, but in dealing with these important and difficult issues you need to use words that have a definite meaning in law, otherwise it is all simply a lot of hot air.
What does “in line” mean? Does it mean agreeing with each and every communique - or private utterance - of every official in the Vatican? Because, although it may have escaped the attention of some, many contradictory statements are made and continue to be made by ‘The Vatican’.
And what precisely does “The Vatican” denote in this context? Is it each and every employee of the Vatican? If not, then who?
Have you looked up the tenth century popes yet, as I suggested? Or Pope Alexander, who kept a private prostitute? Or Pope Liberius, who signed an ambiguous document that ‘gave comfort’ to the Arian heresy? Or the pope who dug up his predecessor’s corpse and put him on trial, found him guilty, ripped off his thumb and two fingers and had his corpse tossed into the Tiber?
Or do you mean that they would refuse to be photographed kissing the Koran in a mosque? As I said before, my friend, we’re not making any of this up.
Perhaps you are thinking of S. John, who stayed by the Cross while Peter denied Our Lord and then ran away.
Just to make it clear: none of the above detracts from the Catholic doctrine of the papacy, although it might be a problem for those with overly-simplistic ideas.
Well, the truth sometimes hurts. Your pain would ease if you stopped to think a little harder about these issues, instead of rushing to repeat all these platitudes. Luckily, however, the SSPX will not be applying to you for recognition. I think that the Pope has a more subtle idea of what is going on. You will find that he speaks in no such terms as CWBetts. He & Bp Fellay are beavering away in the background. You will hear more from them on this issue, in its own good time - and not too far in the future.
Any twelve-year-old who had been formed in the Faith could do better than that, CWBetts. I could name a few, and am proud to know their parents.
That’s the stuff for the troops, Old chap. It’s so much more fun, isn’t it, than facing any of the issues?
A
Aramis
Guest
The Orthodox are in schism and are not excommunicated.
In fact, Canon law explicitly permits them to receive the sacraments.
The SSPX are essentially in the same position.
In fact, Canon law explicitly permits them to receive the sacraments.
The SSPX are essentially in the same position.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Good point. I had forgotten that. Pope Paul rescinded the excommunications.
It also allows us to receive their own sacraments, as an exception, if we cannot access a priest in communion with Rome.
Not so; the Orthodox explicitly repudiate the primacy of the pope (even though their leaders three times in history have been willing to submit to Rome). The SSPX do not repudiate the authority of the pope, although they have refused to comply with abuses of authority. Their position in Canon Law has never been refuted, although the opinion of canonists on this point is not unanimous. Bp Fellay realised that the Pope would never just say, “Hey, we were wrong and did nothing about it for twenty years”: that is why he requested the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication issued by Cdl Gantin, ‘without prejudice’ to its original validity. Now this is essentially a dead issue. I only refer to it myself when an indefensibly confident statement about its validity is made.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Schism
It is well to define this word. A schism is not a refusal to obey authority, but a denial that the visible, ostensive authority exists at all. If any archbishop had consecrated another bishop for a diocese that had a validly appointed bishop already incumbent, this would be a denial of the authority of the Church to apportion jurisdiction, and it would be schismatic [although St Athanasius & S. Eusebius did this during the Arian crisis … but let that rest for now]. Lefebvre declared that a state of emergency exists, and appointed emergency bishops pro tem, sine locus. This may or may not be justified, but it is not schismatic.
To quote the Catholic Encyclopaedia: "Not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command."
Archpb. Lefebvre said, in effect, “Holy Father, in this matter, you are going to snuff out the last living strand in the tradition of the Church of totally faithful bishops, unaffected by the Modernist error that your predecessor rightly called “The synthesis of all heresies”. In these circumstances, it will be the lesser of two evils for me to fulfil my sworn duty as a bishop and appoint my successors”. He did NOT add, “And therefore you are not my father”.
Since real schismatics are in a state of material mortal sin, the question is important. For a decade I have fully supported the SSPX. The last straw was the letter from an Irish bishop refusing to implement Ecclesia Dei - a Motu Proprio & therefore carrying the Force of Law - & containing the word “must”. The Pope had told him he “must” be generous when his flock asked for the Old Mass, and he refused. He knew he was going to get away with it, and he did: because modern Rome teaches, but does not, in the present age, enforce its teachings. Then we wonder why things are gone to pot. Hence, it was clear to me, the SSPX are correct in diagnosing a state of emergency, & taking appropriate emergency measures.
Using boo-words like "schism’, especially without defining them, is not going to work.
It is well to define this word. A schism is not a refusal to obey authority, but a denial that the visible, ostensive authority exists at all. If any archbishop had consecrated another bishop for a diocese that had a validly appointed bishop already incumbent, this would be a denial of the authority of the Church to apportion jurisdiction, and it would be schismatic [although St Athanasius & S. Eusebius did this during the Arian crisis … but let that rest for now]. Lefebvre declared that a state of emergency exists, and appointed emergency bishops pro tem, sine locus. This may or may not be justified, but it is not schismatic.
To quote the Catholic Encyclopaedia: "Not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command."
Archpb. Lefebvre said, in effect, “Holy Father, in this matter, you are going to snuff out the last living strand in the tradition of the Church of totally faithful bishops, unaffected by the Modernist error that your predecessor rightly called “The synthesis of all heresies”. In these circumstances, it will be the lesser of two evils for me to fulfil my sworn duty as a bishop and appoint my successors”. He did NOT add, “And therefore you are not my father”.
Since real schismatics are in a state of material mortal sin, the question is important. For a decade I have fully supported the SSPX. The last straw was the letter from an Irish bishop refusing to implement Ecclesia Dei - a Motu Proprio & therefore carrying the Force of Law - & containing the word “must”. The Pope had told him he “must” be generous when his flock asked for the Old Mass, and he refused. He knew he was going to get away with it, and he did: because modern Rome teaches, but does not, in the present age, enforce its teachings. Then we wonder why things are gone to pot. Hence, it was clear to me, the SSPX are correct in diagnosing a state of emergency, & taking appropriate emergency measures.
Using boo-words like "schism’, especially without defining them, is not going to work.
C
CWBetts
Guest
You continue to suport a bisop who was EXCOMMUNICATED. That is not the behaviour of a faithful Catholic.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
You don’t seem to have read any of the previous postings on this topic.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
A respected Irish priest, in a widely-read newspaper, this month mentions that Pope Benedict XVI has been sharply criticised for lifting the excommunications of the four (validly consecrated) bishops of the SSPX. His Holiness was a little taken aback and hurt at the storm of fury and abuse that was directed at himself, as he wrote in his recent letter to the bishops of the world:- “Some groups… openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility.
That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation? … And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.”
While fully supporting and sympathising with His Holiness, one must in honesty point out that he was only getting a taste of what the SSPX clergy have endured, with fortitude, all these years. The modern Church, it seems, is committed to Ecumenism – we must give every possible consideration to the feelings of those of any religion or none – but any stick is good enough to beat the “traditionalists” with. I hope by now that most readers of CAF know that Bp Williamson’s original comments about the Holocaust were actually made more than twenty years ago. The recorded interview in which this matter was sprung upon him, was released to the press the week before the lifting of the decree of excommunication in a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion and, possibly, the Pope: a very old media trick.
Bishop Fellay responded, “After the “avalanche of protests unleashed” recently, we wholeheartedly thank the Holy Father for having placed the debate back on the level on which it must be held, that of the Faith. We fully share his main concern of preaching the Gospel “in our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel.”
Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar teaching in the light of this Tradition which St. Vincent of Lérins defined as “what has been believed at all times, everywhere and by all” , without rupture and in a perfectly homogenous development. Thus we will be able to contribute efficaciously to the evangelization requested by the Savior (see Matthew* 28; 19-20)”.
Yes – the traditionalists are among the Papacy’s most loyal supporters.
That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation? … And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.”
While fully supporting and sympathising with His Holiness, one must in honesty point out that he was only getting a taste of what the SSPX clergy have endured, with fortitude, all these years. The modern Church, it seems, is committed to Ecumenism – we must give every possible consideration to the feelings of those of any religion or none – but any stick is good enough to beat the “traditionalists” with. I hope by now that most readers of CAF know that Bp Williamson’s original comments about the Holocaust were actually made more than twenty years ago. The recorded interview in which this matter was sprung upon him, was released to the press the week before the lifting of the decree of excommunication in a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion and, possibly, the Pope: a very old media trick.
Bishop Fellay responded, “After the “avalanche of protests unleashed” recently, we wholeheartedly thank the Holy Father for having placed the debate back on the level on which it must be held, that of the Faith. We fully share his main concern of preaching the Gospel “in our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel.”
Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar teaching in the light of this Tradition which St. Vincent of Lérins defined as “what has been believed at all times, everywhere and by all” , without rupture and in a perfectly homogenous development. Thus we will be able to contribute efficaciously to the evangelization requested by the Savior (see Matthew* 28; 19-20)”.
Yes – the traditionalists are among the Papacy’s most loyal supporters.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
But we ought to backtrack a little further. Many (but perhaps not all) contemporary situations have their roots in the past. Let us examine the course of the Protestant Rebellion. I compiled this as a teaching aid from many sources, but notably, the writings of Hilaire Belloc.
How the Reformation Happened
History books deal with this as though it were a simple matter of religious debate. In reality men are human and weak, and do not see the future. The desire for money and power soon got hopelessly mixed up with questions of the Faith. Issues were not always at all clear to the main actors in the dramas of history.
[1] 1350 - 1500 The Waning of the Middle Ages
United Christendom was growing unstable during the three generations between the Black Death & the early 16th Century. The Catholic Church was in ever more urgent need of reform in certain fields, but practically nothing was done for generations. The Avignon Schism, during which there was a rival Papacy at Avignon, gravely weakened the authority of the Church and paralysed the attempts at true reform.
[2] 1517 Luther
Luther’s 95 theses led to a sudden flood of revolt made possible by (1) The constitution of Germany (the Holy Roman Empire). The Central Monarchy was weak. (2) The invasion of the Turks. This massive assault on Eastern and Central Europe tied down the already inefficient machinery of the Holy Roman Empire, when a vigorous assault on the North German territories was most needed.
[3] 1536 - 1540 Henry VIII
“…that strange fatality, the political accident whereby England, hitherto the least affected of all Christian Provinces, was, under no popular pressure and without the will or knowledge of the policy’s own Author [Henry VIII], turned face about to join the new alien movement.” Henry VIII did not intend to start a new Church. It was the ambition of Ann Boleyn who adamantly refused to become Henry’s consort without the Crown of England, that catalysed the subsequent chain of events. The Dissolution of the monasteries in 1536 - 1540, an act not connected in its author’s mind with doctrine, proves the indirect cause of all that came after.
[4] 1545 The Counter-Reformation
In 1545 The Council of Trent opens. It is the beginning of the organised movement called the Catholic Counter-Reformation. The Church was very thoroghly reformed, and many new saints arose, but all too late to save the unity of Christendom.
Luther gave the German princes the permission to loot the wealth of the Church, and Calvin gave an organised philosophy to the new movement.
[5] 1547 - 1559 Calvin
"Then follows the mighty effect of Calvin, whose book, character and organisation provided form and substance for Protestantism, and gave it personal being: for Calvin’s mind was a portent and became the power directing the storm. "Under his effect the opposing forces prepare - 1547 to 1549 - for conflict throughout the West.
Continued …
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Continued…
[6] 1559 - 1572 The First Phase of Active Conflict
“A universal battle of which France is the main field rages undecided from 1559 - 1572, covering all the West - Netherlands, England, Scotland - until, at the end of this, its first phase of active conflict, the final positions begin to appear: England and Scotland, the Northern Netherlands maintained in separation; France permanenty divided, but the Dynasty and the bulk of the nation rallying to the traditions of Europe.”
[7] 1572 - 1600 The Second Phase of Active Conflict ending with the permanent division of Europe
“The second phase of the great conflict - 1570 to the end of the century - is but a confirmation of the new religious frontiers. The Battle has ended in a draw, which leaves Europe permanently divided upon the lines it has since preserved.”
[8] 1618 - 1648 The Thirty Years’ War
The unsuccessful attempt by the Emperor to re-unite the German states. “There is a belated attempt, indeed, in the next century, 1618 - 1648, made by the Emperor, to recover the many states and cities of Germany for Unity and to establish his own authority and the Ancient Religion over all. It ends, through the genius of Cardinal Richlieu - the conductor of French policy - in a failure. [Cardinal Richlieu supported the Protestant armies of Sweden against the Catholic armies of the Holy Roman Empire, with the intention of strengthening the position of France. A weaker Holy Roman Empire implied a stronger French Kingdom.] Germany remains divided, but not before the struggle (the Thirty Years’ War) has ruined German wealth and population for a century.”
[9] 1648 The Peace of Westphalia
After that date (the peace of Westphalia in 1648) the main struggle is at an end throughout Europe, and the effects of the Reformation are established.
*A capital effect of the Peace of Westphalia was to accustom the European mind to the previously-unheard-of notion that peace can be maintained at the same time as permanent religious and philosophical division. *
[6] 1559 - 1572 The First Phase of Active Conflict
“A universal battle of which France is the main field rages undecided from 1559 - 1572, covering all the West - Netherlands, England, Scotland - until, at the end of this, its first phase of active conflict, the final positions begin to appear: England and Scotland, the Northern Netherlands maintained in separation; France permanenty divided, but the Dynasty and the bulk of the nation rallying to the traditions of Europe.”
[7] 1572 - 1600 The Second Phase of Active Conflict ending with the permanent division of Europe
“The second phase of the great conflict - 1570 to the end of the century - is but a confirmation of the new religious frontiers. The Battle has ended in a draw, which leaves Europe permanently divided upon the lines it has since preserved.”
[8] 1618 - 1648 The Thirty Years’ War
The unsuccessful attempt by the Emperor to re-unite the German states. “There is a belated attempt, indeed, in the next century, 1618 - 1648, made by the Emperor, to recover the many states and cities of Germany for Unity and to establish his own authority and the Ancient Religion over all. It ends, through the genius of Cardinal Richlieu - the conductor of French policy - in a failure. [Cardinal Richlieu supported the Protestant armies of Sweden against the Catholic armies of the Holy Roman Empire, with the intention of strengthening the position of France. A weaker Holy Roman Empire implied a stronger French Kingdom.] Germany remains divided, but not before the struggle (the Thirty Years’ War) has ruined German wealth and population for a century.”
[9] 1648 The Peace of Westphalia
After that date (the peace of Westphalia in 1648) the main struggle is at an end throughout Europe, and the effects of the Reformation are established.
*A capital effect of the Peace of Westphalia was to accustom the European mind to the previously-unheard-of notion that peace can be maintained at the same time as permanent religious and philosophical division. *
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Really it is impossible to discuss tradition in a vacuum, abstracted from the history of the times. With your patience, therefore, here are a few key points to continue the history of Western civilisation, in briefest possible form, from the Protestant Rebellion up to the present day.
12th, 13th Century
The High Middle Ages. A genuine attempt was made to pattern Society as the Kingdom of Christ on Earth. It was taken for granted that the kings ruled ‘by the Grace of God’ and subject to Divine Law.
14th Century
It all began to go wrong. It was the century of the Black Death, which wiped out ⅓ of the population of Europe (from which the settled feudal system never recovered) and of the Avignon “Captivity” - the papal court being held in Avignon instead of Rome; followed by*** the Avignon Schism ***- rival popes at Rome and Avignon, from which the prestige of the Papacy never recovered until perhaps the late 19th Century.
15th Century
The springtime freshness of the High Middle Ages had long withered away, with exceptional pockets and individuals here and there. Abuses were general, although much worse in some places than in others. The hierarchy failed to tackle the problems at their root. A Council of Bishops was warned solemnly, “If you do not reform the Church, my Lords, the Germans will reform it for you”.
16th Century
The dam breaks. Luther, Calvin, and then - closing the stable door after the horse has been stolen - the Council of Trent, which sat for 20 years. The happy-go-lucky days of the Middle Ages were over, and, faced with the permanent threat of Protestantism, a vast number of things were codified, and dogmas proclaimed and protected with infallibility. These included: Requiring a marriage to be witnessed by a priest; the names and number of the Canonical Books of the Bible, the Sacraments, the Stations of the Cross, and the Mysteries of the Rosary; a definitive Catechism; a definitive “default” version of the Liturgical life of the Roman Rite of the Church, with all variant forms more recent than 200 years (ie since after the Protestant Rebellion) suppressed.
The Renaissance in the Arts, spreading from the Mediterranean countries. (This was very separate from, and in most ways directly antithetical to, the Protestant Reformation, which tended to turn its back on the Arts and on Rational Faith.)
The re-discovery and colonisation of the New World. It is believed that, during this century, the number of souls in the New World baptised into the Faith equalled the numbers in the Old lost to Protestantism.
17th Century
The Counter-Reformation. An extraordinary flowering of Catholicism.
What Belloc calls “a ding-dong battle raging up and down Europe” to decide whether the tone of Society would be set according to Catholic, or Protestant, principles.
The Scientific Revolution. This took the full century to be accomplished. At the beginning, man’s ideas of the universe were essentially unchanged since Aristotle of the 4th Century BC, although ‘tweaked’ to embrace the Christian Faith. One believed in a static Earth (only the most ignorant & simple thought it was flat, however); the planets and stars set in crystal spheres, kept in motion by angels, with Heaven beyond the outermost sphere; the four elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Air; etc. By the end of the Century we thought in terms of matter, energy and physical forces; the elements and compounds of modern chemistry; the Earth in space revolving round the sun. Heaven was ‘out there somewhere’. The Scientific Method was devised. The advantage of this revolution in thought was that it made it possible to learn far more about the physical world. The Scientific Method allowed knowledge to be increased in a systematic way. The disadvantage was that it tended to make people ignore the spiritual side of Reality.
The Sacred Heart. In the final decade of the Seventeenth Century Our Lord appeared to Margaret Mary. He instituted the Feast of the Sacred Heart. He also told the King of France, via Margaret Mary, that he was to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart. But the King failed to do so.
Continued …
12th, 13th Century
The High Middle Ages. A genuine attempt was made to pattern Society as the Kingdom of Christ on Earth. It was taken for granted that the kings ruled ‘by the Grace of God’ and subject to Divine Law.
14th Century
It all began to go wrong. It was the century of the Black Death, which wiped out ⅓ of the population of Europe (from which the settled feudal system never recovered) and of the Avignon “Captivity” - the papal court being held in Avignon instead of Rome; followed by*** the Avignon Schism ***- rival popes at Rome and Avignon, from which the prestige of the Papacy never recovered until perhaps the late 19th Century.
15th Century
The springtime freshness of the High Middle Ages had long withered away, with exceptional pockets and individuals here and there. Abuses were general, although much worse in some places than in others. The hierarchy failed to tackle the problems at their root. A Council of Bishops was warned solemnly, “If you do not reform the Church, my Lords, the Germans will reform it for you”.
16th Century
The dam breaks. Luther, Calvin, and then - closing the stable door after the horse has been stolen - the Council of Trent, which sat for 20 years. The happy-go-lucky days of the Middle Ages were over, and, faced with the permanent threat of Protestantism, a vast number of things were codified, and dogmas proclaimed and protected with infallibility. These included: Requiring a marriage to be witnessed by a priest; the names and number of the Canonical Books of the Bible, the Sacraments, the Stations of the Cross, and the Mysteries of the Rosary; a definitive Catechism; a definitive “default” version of the Liturgical life of the Roman Rite of the Church, with all variant forms more recent than 200 years (ie since after the Protestant Rebellion) suppressed.
The Renaissance in the Arts, spreading from the Mediterranean countries. (This was very separate from, and in most ways directly antithetical to, the Protestant Reformation, which tended to turn its back on the Arts and on Rational Faith.)
The re-discovery and colonisation of the New World. It is believed that, during this century, the number of souls in the New World baptised into the Faith equalled the numbers in the Old lost to Protestantism.
17th Century
The Counter-Reformation. An extraordinary flowering of Catholicism.
What Belloc calls “a ding-dong battle raging up and down Europe” to decide whether the tone of Society would be set according to Catholic, or Protestant, principles.
The Scientific Revolution. This took the full century to be accomplished. At the beginning, man’s ideas of the universe were essentially unchanged since Aristotle of the 4th Century BC, although ‘tweaked’ to embrace the Christian Faith. One believed in a static Earth (only the most ignorant & simple thought it was flat, however); the planets and stars set in crystal spheres, kept in motion by angels, with Heaven beyond the outermost sphere; the four elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Air; etc. By the end of the Century we thought in terms of matter, energy and physical forces; the elements and compounds of modern chemistry; the Earth in space revolving round the sun. Heaven was ‘out there somewhere’. The Scientific Method was devised. The advantage of this revolution in thought was that it made it possible to learn far more about the physical world. The Scientific Method allowed knowledge to be increased in a systematic way. The disadvantage was that it tended to make people ignore the spiritual side of Reality.
The Sacred Heart. In the final decade of the Seventeenth Century Our Lord appeared to Margaret Mary. He instituted the Feast of the Sacred Heart. He also told the King of France, via Margaret Mary, that he was to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart. But the King failed to do so.
Continued …
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Continued …
18th Century
The Battle for the Soul of Europe had come to a stalemate, confirmed by *** the Peace of Westphalia.*** A great war-weariness settled on the European mind, and with it a reaction against religion and mysticism.
The Enlightenment, as its proponents call it. Thought was developed along secular lines, even among those who continued to believe in God. It was the high tide of ‘the polite and deadly Divided House of Faith and Reason’. Men turned their backs on all authority - God, King and even parents.** They refused to believe in Original Sin and taught that all are born good, and need no-one to tell them what to do.** This set of beliefs is known as Liberalism.
In the late Eighteenth Century the Illuminati were established in Bavaria by Adam Weishaupt, an employee of the Rothschild family. Their aim was to destroy all ordered government, kings and altars. Men would be recruited with offers of power and pleasures, and able students would be offered scholarships. A first priority was to gain control of channels of communication. Expelled from Bavaria, they moved to France where they infiltrated the Guild of Freemasons, turning it into an instrument of their plans.
The French Revolution.** It was pretended that this was a spontaneous response to the poverty and bad management of the rural districts of France, but in reality it was orchestrated by the Illuminati. The King of France – who had consecrated France to the Sacred Heart, but a full century too late – and his Queen were beheaded, and huge numbers of priests, nuns and ordinary people were put to death.** There was no law and nobody was safe.** Yet all this was done in the name of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. A serious attempt was made to wipe out the Catholic Church.* In the end the leaders of the Revolution were putting each other to death, and the French, who had been persuaded to turn against their King, now were grateful to accept a man of no Royal birth at all, and not even French (he was a Corsican)* as The Emperor Napoleon.** He promised the French people a new period of Law and Order, and that he would make France great again.
The Industrial Revolution.** The invention of the steam-engine led to the development of much more rapid transport and to the building of large factories.** People left their cottages and began to live in large cities, working in factories.
The Napoleonic Wars.** Napoleon led his armies on wars of conquest such as had not been seen since the Barbarian Invasions.** There had been wars all through the Middle Ages, but Princes had nearly always asked the Pope’s permission, or had persuaded him that it was better for Christendom that they should enlarge their territory, to bring the people laws closer to the laws of God.** Thus these wars were limited and local.
19th Century
During the Nineteenth Century there were great advances in science, but governments continued to neglect the Church, or even to persecute her. More and more, Science was thought of as something opposed to religion, instead of a way of learning about God’s Creation.
In 1830 Our Lady appeared to the nun Sister Catherine Labouré and showed her the design of what has become known as The Miraculous Medal because of the innumerable miracles, large and small, that have been associated with it.
In 1858 Our Lady appeared to Bernadette at Lourdes, telling her, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception".
In the same year, Charles Darwin published “The Origin of Species”. this book was used to justify the inhuman practices of the Rich against the Poor, and to devise an explanation for the world that ignored or denied the existence of God.
All through the Nineteenth Century the Popes warned against the wrong direction that civilisation was taking. Factory workers and poor people were being treated more cruelly and heartlessly than ever before, yet the rich owners were told this was the way things ought to be. Many liberal ideas were being taught as Catholic teaching, and the popes fought again and again against this Modernist error, which one Pope called ‘the Synthesis of all errors’. Many brilliant encyclicals on the Social Order were written, giving a clear indication of the way that civilisation ought to develop. But the voice of the pope was drowned out by the Capitalists on one side and the socialists, with the Modernists, on the other.
*“Till I go mad
And my heart is utterly changed;
See this sword -
The Prince of Darkness gave it to me.” *
These things were discovered by Eugenio Pacelli, the later Pope Pius XII, while on diplomatic service in Germany.
Continued …
18th Century
The Battle for the Soul of Europe had come to a stalemate, confirmed by *** the Peace of Westphalia.*** A great war-weariness settled on the European mind, and with it a reaction against religion and mysticism.
The Enlightenment, as its proponents call it. Thought was developed along secular lines, even among those who continued to believe in God. It was the high tide of ‘the polite and deadly Divided House of Faith and Reason’. Men turned their backs on all authority - God, King and even parents.** They refused to believe in Original Sin and taught that all are born good, and need no-one to tell them what to do.** This set of beliefs is known as Liberalism.
In the late Eighteenth Century the Illuminati were established in Bavaria by Adam Weishaupt, an employee of the Rothschild family. Their aim was to destroy all ordered government, kings and altars. Men would be recruited with offers of power and pleasures, and able students would be offered scholarships. A first priority was to gain control of channels of communication. Expelled from Bavaria, they moved to France where they infiltrated the Guild of Freemasons, turning it into an instrument of their plans.
The French Revolution.** It was pretended that this was a spontaneous response to the poverty and bad management of the rural districts of France, but in reality it was orchestrated by the Illuminati. The King of France – who had consecrated France to the Sacred Heart, but a full century too late – and his Queen were beheaded, and huge numbers of priests, nuns and ordinary people were put to death.** There was no law and nobody was safe.** Yet all this was done in the name of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. A serious attempt was made to wipe out the Catholic Church.* In the end the leaders of the Revolution were putting each other to death, and the French, who had been persuaded to turn against their King, now were grateful to accept a man of no Royal birth at all, and not even French (he was a Corsican)* as The Emperor Napoleon.** He promised the French people a new period of Law and Order, and that he would make France great again.
The Industrial Revolution.** The invention of the steam-engine led to the development of much more rapid transport and to the building of large factories.** People left their cottages and began to live in large cities, working in factories.
The Napoleonic Wars.** Napoleon led his armies on wars of conquest such as had not been seen since the Barbarian Invasions.** There had been wars all through the Middle Ages, but Princes had nearly always asked the Pope’s permission, or had persuaded him that it was better for Christendom that they should enlarge their territory, to bring the people laws closer to the laws of God.** Thus these wars were limited and local.
19th Century
During the Nineteenth Century there were great advances in science, but governments continued to neglect the Church, or even to persecute her. More and more, Science was thought of as something opposed to religion, instead of a way of learning about God’s Creation.
In 1830 Our Lady appeared to the nun Sister Catherine Labouré and showed her the design of what has become known as The Miraculous Medal because of the innumerable miracles, large and small, that have been associated with it.
In 1858 Our Lady appeared to Bernadette at Lourdes, telling her, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception".
In the same year, Charles Darwin published “The Origin of Species”. this book was used to justify the inhuman practices of the Rich against the Poor, and to devise an explanation for the world that ignored or denied the existence of God.
All through the Nineteenth Century the Popes warned against the wrong direction that civilisation was taking. Factory workers and poor people were being treated more cruelly and heartlessly than ever before, yet the rich owners were told this was the way things ought to be. Many liberal ideas were being taught as Catholic teaching, and the popes fought again and again against this Modernist error, which one Pope called ‘the Synthesis of all errors’. Many brilliant encyclicals on the Social Order were written, giving a clear indication of the way that civilisation ought to develop. But the voice of the pope was drowned out by the Capitalists on one side and the socialists, with the Modernists, on the other.
Code:
***Karl Marx*** and ***Friedrich Engels,*** paid and supported by the Enemis of the Church, published ***The Communist Manifesto.*** It was a blueprint for a paradies on Earth without God. Marx wrote much about how Capitalists were exploiting the workers, and urged them to rise against them: “You have nothing to lose but your chains”. Yet, strangely, he never uttered a word against the international banking system that was already crippling nations through usury.
Marx also belonged to a group that worshipped the devil. He wrote:And my heart is utterly changed;
See this sword -
The Prince of Darkness gave it to me.” *
These things were discovered by Eugenio Pacelli, the later Pope Pius XII, while on diplomatic service in Germany.
Continued …
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Continued …
**Twentieth Century
**In 1903 Giuseppe Sarto was elected as Pope Pius X, one of the greatest popes in history and only the third to be canonised in the past nine hundred years.
In 1907 he wrote the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis against the Modernist Heresy, which he styled “The synthesis of all heresies”. Three years later he introduced The Oath Against Modernism, “To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.”
In 1914 the First World War, then called the Great War, broke out. The British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Gray, stated, “The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime". Pope Pius X died of a broken heart. At his last General audience he could not speak, except to repeat, “My poor children. My poor children.” At the first Christmas of the war, the soldiers of both sides spontaneously called a truce and celebrated Christmas together. The following day, the furious generals ordered them to resume hostilities.
In 1917 Our Lady appeared to the three children at Fatima. On July 13, 1917, they were shown a Vision of hell.
Our Lady then explained to the children, "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and against the Holy Father.
******* To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In Portugal, the dogmas of the Faith will always be kept…(here follows the Third Secret).
******* In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.**
On October 13, 1917, the Miracle of the Sun was seen by between 50,000 and 70,000 people.
And on October 24, only eleven days later, the October Revolution in Russia overthrew the democratic Government of Russia and began the Satanically-inspired Bolshevik plan to conquer the World.
The lines were drawn. The Battle between The Woman Clothed with the Sun, and the Prince of Darkness, was enjoined. It was to last beyond the end of the Century.
**Twentieth Century
**In 1903 Giuseppe Sarto was elected as Pope Pius X, one of the greatest popes in history and only the third to be canonised in the past nine hundred years.
In 1907 he wrote the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis against the Modernist Heresy, which he styled “The synthesis of all heresies”. Three years later he introduced The Oath Against Modernism, “To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.”
In 1914 the First World War, then called the Great War, broke out. The British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Gray, stated, “The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime". Pope Pius X died of a broken heart. At his last General audience he could not speak, except to repeat, “My poor children. My poor children.” At the first Christmas of the war, the soldiers of both sides spontaneously called a truce and celebrated Christmas together. The following day, the furious generals ordered them to resume hostilities.
In 1917 Our Lady appeared to the three children at Fatima. On July 13, 1917, they were shown a Vision of hell.
Our Lady then explained to the children, "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and against the Holy Father.
******* To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In Portugal, the dogmas of the Faith will always be kept…(here follows the Third Secret).
******* In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.**
On October 13, 1917, the Miracle of the Sun was seen by between 50,000 and 70,000 people.
And on October 24, only eleven days later, the October Revolution in Russia overthrew the democratic Government of Russia and began the Satanically-inspired Bolshevik plan to conquer the World.
The lines were drawn. The Battle between The Woman Clothed with the Sun, and the Prince of Darkness, was enjoined. It was to last beyond the end of the Century.
- Status