Three Tests and Three Tents

Three Tests and Three Tents

By: Fr. Richard Voigt (Resistance) 

Have you ever wondered about the three tests that the devil presented to our divine Lord?

Essentially they were three short cuts from the Cross.  First shortcut:  Be a social do-gooder and give the people whatever their instincts demand (e.g. bread, lust, power).  The result is a massive number of souls.  Second shortcut:  Be an entertainer, a Hollywood star.  The people will flock to see you glide through the air supported by the angels.  People love marvels and they will flock to you.  Third shortcut:  Be a dictator, a president, a tyrant and the people will obey you.  You can have this world by simply falling down and adoring me.  The devil wants no bloodshed only equal worship with God.   

Now how do these three temptations lead us to the three tents that St. Peter wished to construct on Mount Tabor.  Peter witnessed the revelation of Moses and Elias speaking with our Lord concerning His decision to embrace the cross of salvation.  Despite the Lord's prediction concerning His Passion and death, Peter and the other apostles could not understand how the Son of God

Who had worked such miracles in their presence--could die?  Can God die?  Hardly, but the Son of Man could lay down His life in the body supplied by our Blessed Mother.  So what do those three tents signify?

With the beauty and brightness of the Lord's transfiguration, Peter had only one desire:  to stay in heaven.  Let us build three tents.  In other words, forget about the Cross that you spoke of we can just stay on this mount of glory and enjoy an earthly paradise with You.  In essence he is doing the work of the devil who wished to distract our Lord from the most important act of His human existence.  Both Peter and the devil were offering Jesus a path away from Jerusalem.  The temptations and the tents bespeak a mindset prevalent today amongst all of us.  We fear death. We fear suffering.  We cower before the Cross of Suffering.  The Greeks call this sickness: Staurophobia, a fear of the Cross.

Our Lord looked with love at Peter and all of us.  If I do not suffer the sacrifice of the Cross, you can have no part of me.  If I do not embrace this Cross, there will be no salvation for any soul. If I choose my comfort in heaven to the Cross offered here, then all suffering will be worthless. I will not be able to console the mother giving birth in pain, nor the dutiful husband laboring day in and day out to feed his family.  I will be unable to conquer the evil that threatens every man, woman and child and it wishes to blanket them with hell forever.  

The Cross is the path to forgiveness.  The Cross is the payment for every sinful act possible to a fallen yet precious mankind.  Without the shedding of my precious Blood there can be no salvation for souls.  It is the suffering and death that proves the depths of divine love for the children born of man.  It is not a tent that saves but rather a Cross redeems and unites.  This divine love will never be understood by the finite mind of man but it can be treasured by the hearts that were created in My image and likeness.  They will know my Love and when I am lifted up I will draw all to myself. 

                                                                                

Reject the temptations and the tents and hold tightly to the Cross of Christ. 

In this second week of Lent, fast one day on bread and water to save a sinful soul dying without the help of the priest.  God bless you all.

In the hearts of Jesus, Mary and Joseph,

Fr. Richard Voigt 

Encouraging Sign

A bishop said, Tradition must testify.
Bishop, please do that more, lest the sheep die.

After three issues of these “Comments” have tried to show the new way of thinking by which Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St Pius X is being poisoned to death, let us present one encouraging sign that his Society is not yet completely dead: quotes from a sermon given on January 1 of this year in Chicago by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops consecrated for the SSPX in 1988. People often ask why so little is heard of him, because he is known to be a timid but honest man with a strong faith, a clear mind and a great knowledge and love of the Archbishop. Maybe he has loved the Society “not wisely, but too well,” so that he has not seen, or has not wanted to see, how its leadership has for many years been slowly but surely betraying the Archbishop’s fight for the Faith. Has the Bishop been putting the Society’s unity in front of the Church’s Faith? But last month he said several things that could not be said better.

Will the Neo-SSPX return formally
to the position of their founder?

He quoted the Archbishop writing in his Spiritual Journey (Ch III, p.13): ”It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from the Conciliar Church for as long it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” Then, for emphasis, Bishop Tissier said, “Let me repeat that,” and he read out the quote once more.
Next he referred to the evil forces occupying the Church. Then he warned against “ false friends ” who maintain wrongly that if the SSPX remains “ separated from the visible Church,” it will turn into a sect. He declared on the contrary that “ we are the visible Church ” and that “ we are in the Church.”

Finally he warned against “ false friends ” who claim that the SSPX is in an abnormal situation because we are not “ recognized by the Church ” and he declared that it is Rome ’s situation, not ours, which is abnormal, that the Society does not need to “ come back,” because it is these Romans who have to come back. “ We do not need to be looking for what we can do in Rome, but rather for what testimony we can give to the whole Church by being a light on a candlestick and not under a bushel.”
Bishop Tissier’s line of thinking, as expressed in these quotes, is exactly that of the Archbishop. The modernist cuckoos now occupying the nightingales’ nest, i.e. the structures of the true Church, may present the appearance of nightingales, but their song, ie. doctrine, doctrine, doctrine, immediately gives them away. In reality they are nothing but cuckoos, with no right to be occupying that nest. The true nest does not make their doctrine true. Their false doctrine makes false their occupying of that nest. They may be visible in that nest, but, as their doctrine shows, they are not true nightingales. Wherever the remainder of the true nightingales are visibly gathered, in whatever makeshift nest, they are in the Church, they are the true visible Church, and their beautiful song testifies to anyone who has ears to hear that the cuckoos are nothing but cuckoos who have stolen the Catholic nest which they presently occupy.

Alas, the present leaders of the XSPX are tone deaf, will not distinguish the song of cuckoos from that of nightingales, and so judge of Catholicism by the appearances of the nest instead of by the reality of the song. What Bishop Tissier said here must have displeased them greatly. Without any doubt they will have brought pressure to bear, skilfully calculated, to make sure that he steps back in line, their line. And out of “obedience,” he risks doing just that. We must pray for him.

Kyrie eleison.

Father E. Sylvester Berry, eminent theologian, on the usurpation of the papal see...

Father E. Sylvester Berry, eminent theologian, on the usurpation of the papal see...

It was the learned opinion of the eminent, 20th Century scripture scholar, Father E. Sylvester Berry that the 12th and 13th chapters of the Apocalypse of St. John foretell a usurpation of the papal see by the false prophet of Antichrist resulting in great tribulations befalling the Catholic Church. Father Berry points out that it is the papacy, which is the principal target of those who seek to establish the reign of Antichrist. Heresy, schism and the introduction of false worship upon the altars of Catholic churches are, thus, to be the direct results of the removal of the true Pope from the See of Rome, and subsequent occupation of the Chair of Peter by the forces of Antichrist.

Here in Sylvester Berry’s writings:
“In the forgoing chapter [12] St. John outlines the history of the Church from the coming of Antichrist until the end of the world . . . In this chapter he shows us the true nature of the conflict. It shall be a war unto death between the Church and the powers of darkness in a final effort to destroy the Church and thus prevent the universal reign of Christ on earth.

“Satan will first attempt to destroy the power of the Papacy and bring about the downfall of the Church through heresies, schisms and persecutions that must surely follow . . . he will raise up Antichrist and his prophet to lead the faithful into error and destroy those who remain steadfast . . . . . . The Church, the faithful spouse of Jesus Christ, is represented as a woman clothed in the glory of divine grace...

Two Popes or one true Pope and the other an Antipope?

" ...In this passage there is an evident allusion to some particular son of the Church whose power and influence shall be such that Satan will seek his destruction at any cost. This person can be none other than the Pope to be elected in those days. The Papacy will be attacked by all the powers of hell. In consequence the Church will suffer great trials and afflictions in securing a successor upon the throne of Peter.

“The words of St. Paul to the Thessalonians may be a reference to the Papacy as the obstacle to the coming of Antichrist: ‘You know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed.’

“ . . . St. John . . . sees in heaven a red dragon with seven heads and ten horns . . . The dragon is Satan red with the blood of martyrs, which he will cause to flow. The meaning of the seven heads and ten horns must be sought in the description of the beast that represents Antichrist where they symbolize kings or worldly powers. (II Thessalonians 2:6-7) . . . Satan’s attacks against the Church will be organized and carried out by the governments and ruling powers of those days.

TradCatKnight Exclusive: Bl. Anne Emmerich & the Apostasy

“With the beast of Antichrist only the horns have diadems as symbols of royalty or governing power. The heads are branded with names of blasphemy. (Apocalypse, 13:1) Hence they symbolize the sins and errors that will afflict the Church . . . in this final struggle to prevent the universal reign of Christ all forms of sin and error will be marshaled against the Church . . . all errors which have afflicted the Church may be summed up in these seven: Judaism, paganism, Arianism, Mohammedanism, Protestantism, rationalism, and atheism.

“The dragon is seen in heaven which is here a symbol of the Church, the kingdom of heaven on earth. This indicates that the first troubles of those days will be inaugurated within the Church by apostate bishops, priests, and peoples, — the stars dragged down by the tail of the dragon.

“ . . . The dragon stands before the woman, ready to devour the child that is brought forth. In other words, the powers of hell seek by all means to destroy the Pope elected in those days.

“. . . It is now the hour for the powers of darkness. The new-born Son of the Church is taken ‘to God and to his throne.’ Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom. The ‘mystery of iniquity’ gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that ‘withholdeth is taken out of the way.’ During the interregnum ‘that wicked one shall be revealed’ in his fury against the Church.” [In his interpretation of the Apocalypse, Father Berry suggests that it will the martyrdom of the Pope, immediately after his election, that will precipitate an extended interregnum, causing manifold tribulations to be visited upon the faithful. However, the suppression of a true Pope, and the intense agony suffered by the rightful Pontiff, who watches helplessly as the Church is ravaged by demonic powers usurping his see for a generation, could certainly be compared to a type of prolonged martyrdom.]

“It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come."

“The Church deprived of her chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during those trying days . . . In those days the Church shall . . . find refuge and consolation in faithful souls, especially in the seclusion of the religious life.

“ . . . Our Divine Savior has a representative on earth in the person of the Pope upon whom He has conferred full powers to teach and govern. Likewise, Antichrist will have his representative in the false prophet who will be endowed with the plenitude of satanic powers to deceive the nations.

TradCatKnight Exclusive: The False Prophet

“ . . . As indicated by the resemblance to a lamb, the prophet will probably set himself up in Rome as a sort of antipope during the vacancy of the papal throne . . .

“ . . . The ‘abomination of desolation’ has been wrought in many Catholic churches by heretics and apostates who have broken altars, scattered relics of martyrs and desecrated the Blessed Sacrament. At the time of the French Revolution a lewd woman was seated upon the altar of the cathedral in Paris and worshipped as the goddess of reason. Such things but faintly foreshadow the abominations that will desecrate churches in those sorrowful days when Antichrist will seat himself at the altar to be adored as God.

“. . .Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization - a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Savior, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope. Their ceremonies will counterfeit the Sacraments . . .” Published in 1921 (37 years before the pivotal 1958) by Father E. Sylvester Berry in his book, The Apocalypse of St. John.

Again he repeats this message in his following work:

"The prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ (Catholic Church) to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation wrought in the Church."Published in 1927 by Father E. Sylvester Berry in his book, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise.

Related: 
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/04/francis-to-usher-in-master-jesusfalse.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/04/prophecies-of-fleeing-pontiff.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/01/francis-pledges-public-allegiance-to.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/10/francis-francis-francis.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/09/francis-formal-unification-of-all.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/05/francis-new-world-order.html

Maitreya, the Antichrist? TradCatKnight Series...

 Do not forget to stop by tradcatknight.blogspot.com daily for the latest endtimes news as we head closer to the great chastisements foretold at Fatima! Spread word and invite your family and friends....

The Zionist Elephant In The Room

The Zionist Elephant In The Room

By: RENSE

The political creed of Zionism has big ears and a long trunk and I think it's time that was pointed out. It also stampedes through our lives at every level and that needs to be said, too.

 

It has created a pincer-movement on the human mind by hijacking staggering amounts of political, corporate, banking and media power on one side and by using the fear of being called 'anti-Semitic' if you dare to state the bloody obvious.

 

They have been able to do this by equating in public perception that Zionism = Jewish people. It does not. Zionism is a political creed introduced by the House of Rothschild to advance the goals of the Illuminati families that are largely controlled by the Rothschilds.

 

 

... BUT SEE IT AND YOU'RE 'RACIST'

When people think of Zionism they think of Jewish people. When they think of Israel they think of Jewish people. That's understandable given the propaganda, but it is seriously misleading and those instant connections need to be broken if we are going to understand what's going on here.

 

Zionism means Rothschild just as Israel means Rothschild. When we see the extraordinary number of Zionists in key positions around the world we are looking not at 'manipulating Jews', but manipulating Zionists representing the interests and demands of the Rothschilds.

 

Significant numbers of Jewish people are not Zionists and oppose that appalling creed while many Zionists are not Jewish. These include the Christian Zionists and Obama's vice-president, Joe Biden, who told Israeli television 'I'm a Zionist'. Here's the clip if you can stand it ... If, as Biden rightly says, you don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, how can it be a racial rather than a political movement? It can't. It's just made to appear like that to manipulate public perception because opposing Zionism then becomes opposing Jewish people as a whole and the 'you're a racist' card can be played over and over.

 

Far from protecting and advancing the interests of the mass of Jewish people it has often been devastating for them and caused millions to be labelled unfairly by the actions of the Zionist elite. On the Jews Against Zionism website one feature highlights how Rothschild Zionism targeted Jews who had lived for generations in Palestine side-by-side with Arabs in peace and harmony:

 

'The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs.

 

 

They requested the United Nations that Jerusalem be designated as a defacto international city. They appealed to the diplomatic corps assigned to Jerusalem -- but to no avail. They were hence confronted with the choice of either becoming a part of the Zionist State, which diametrically opposed the interests of Jews as a religion, or abandoning the land of which their forefathers were the first Jewish settlers.

 

Let's get this straight. Zionism doesn't give a damn about Jewish people. To the Rothschilds and their Zionist gofers and thugs the Jewish people as a whole are merely cattle to be used and abused as necessary - just like the rest of the human population.

 

The networks of the House of Rothschild were behind Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party in the Rothschild heartland of Germany where they had changed their name from Bauer in 18th century Frankfurt and launched the dynasty that was to control global finance.

 

After the war the Rothschilds used public sympathy for Jewish people targeted by the Nazis to press for a homeland in Palestine. This was the alleged reason for the founding of Zionism, but that is only part of it.

As I show in my books, the campaign to impose a Rothschild fiefdom in Palestine goes back at least to the earlier part of the 19th century and probably long before. It was given a massive boost with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declared in a letter his government's support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

 

This letter was sent by Balfour, an inner-circle member of an elite secret society called the Round Table, to Baron (Walter) Rothschild who funded the Round Table.

 

Confessions from the NWO Jewish Zionists

 

 

 

Rothschild

Today, Rothschild Illuminati fronts like the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and others, still answer to the Round Table which string-pulls and coordinates from the shadows. This is why Zionists in government are invariably connected with these Rothschild-controlled organisations.

 

The Rothschilds funded the early settlers from Europe to relocate in post-war Palestine and they also funded and armed the terrorist groups, like Irgun, which bombed and terrorised Israel into existence in 1948, a campaign which forced 800,000 Palestinians to leave the land of their birth.

 

Israel is simply the State of Rothschild and how appropriate that they paid for the construction of the Israeli parliament building, the Knesset, and the Israel Supreme Court. The name Rothschild means Red-shield and it originates with the red shield 'Star of David' symbol (not a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds) which they displayed on their house in Frankfurt ...

 

The very flag of Israel tells you who owns it. There are many reasons why the Rothschilds and their allies wanted to hijack Palestine and one was to keep the Middle East in a state of disruption and turmoil from which a global war can eventually be triggered to usher in the New World Order of world government dictatorship.

 

 

The creation of Israel is a means not an end and the Rothschilds will be quite happy to leave the Jewish population to their fate if it suits them. After all, they've done it before.

 

The world's second biggest Zionist population is in the United States and given that both America and Israel are controlled by the Rothschild networks it is not hard to fathom why that slither of land in the Middle East receives around a third of all US overseas aid.

 

An average $3 billion a year is handed to the State of Rothschild as a result of decisions made by American administrations that are always, 'Republican' or 'Democrat', controlled by the Rothschilds. One hand of the network hands over the cash to another.

 

This explains why the United States never talks about the arsenal of nuclear weapons stockpiled by one of the world's most trigger-happy states. Israel refuses to discuss them and the American policy, recently reconfirmed by Obama, is never to ask or bring up the subject.

 

 

... Seen it somewhere before ...?

The last two US administrations are testament to the extent of Zionist (Rothschild) control of America and thus its foreign policy, not least with regard to Iraq, the former land of Sumer and Babylon, which according to some just happens to be part of the 'Greater Israel' that the Zionists seek to secure.

 

The 'Bush' government was the glove-puppet of the so-called neo-cons, or neoconservatives, whose only political philosophy in truth was the interests of Zionism. At the heart of the Rothschild-controlled neocon cabal were Richard Perle (Zionist), Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), Dov Zakheim (Zionist), Douglas Feith (Zionist), John Bolton (Zionist), Lewis Libby (Zionist), the list goes on and on. These were the people who orchestrated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on behalf of the Rothschilds.

 

Economic policy was dictated through the years of Reagan-Bush, Father Bush, Clinton and most of Boy Bush by Alan Greenspan (Zionist), chairman of the privately-owned US 'central bank', the Federal Reserve. Privately owned, that is, by the Rothschilds through a network of front people and organisations.

 

Greenspan introduced the policies of deregulation that culminated, as designed, in the free-for-all frenzy of greed by banks and financial markets in general that led to the crash in the last weeks of the Bush presidency. Greenspan resigned from the Fed before the consequences of his long-term game-plan exploded in lost homes, jobs and savings. He was replaced by Bernard Bernanke (Zionist).

 

Greenspan was enthusiastically supported in his deregulation through successive administrations by Treasury Secretaries in the Clinton years, Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) and Larry Summers (Zionist), and also by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful in the Fed cabal, Timothy Geithner (Zionist).

   

 

When Mr. Fake Change won the presidency amid the gathering financial crisis, caused by all of the above, and others, he appointed Geithner as his Treasury Secretary and Summers as head of the White House Economic Council. Both are protégés of Robert Rubin who resigned from Citigroup earlier this year for his role in 'advising' it to the brink of collapse.

 

Obama's Budget Director is Peter Orszag (Zionist) who headed the company that advised the Icelandic Central Bank in the prelude to the crash of Iceland's financial system. This has led to Iceland being fast-tracked into the Rothschild-created European Union to 'save' its economy. Orszag also advised the Russian Treasury when state-owned assets and resources were handed to Zionist oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich who is famous in the UK as the owner of Chelsea Football Club.

 

TradCatKnight: Jews Are Behind FreeMasonry & Illuminati

 

 Add to all this the fact that the World Bank is headed by Robert Zoellick (Zionist), who replaced Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), and that the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, is run by Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Zionist).

 

Anyone still doubt that the Rothschild network controls global finance and therefore the lives and choices of virtually every man, woman and child on the planet?

 

The Rothschilds are at the heart of the Obama White House in the form of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (Zionist) and Chief White House Advisor David Axelrod (Zionist). Emanuel has served in the Israeli army and his father was an operative with the Rothschild terrorist group, Irgun, as it bombed Israel into being. This included the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 that killed 91 people.

 

Rahm Emanuel also worked closely Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) during the Clinton years to impose NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was designed from the start to be a stepping-stone to a North American, and eventually an American Union, along the lines of the EU. The Zionist world is very small indeed.

 

David Axelrod ran Obama's election campaigns and now oversees his every word slavishly read from his teleprompter screens. There is little that Obama says that his Zionist handlers don't tell him or give him to say.

 

They have also ensured that US policy for Iran and the Persian Gulf is headed by Dennis Ross (Zionist) who has served Israeli interests in successive American administrations. There will not be a cigarette paper behind the scenes between him and that trio of tyranny, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Barak, the prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister of Israel. Rothschild stooges, in other words.

 

Zionist Mandelson works for the pyramid

 

The most influential figure by far in the current British government is Peter Mandelson (Zionist) who continues to amass more titles and powers from the beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mandelson is an insider operative for the Rothschilds and has frequently accepted hospitality from his close friend and associate, Nathaniel Rothschild. This week Mandelson called for the UK to join the (Rothschild) single European currency.

 

Meanwhile, the hapless and hopeless Gordon Brown did as he was told and appointed Ivan Lewis (Zionist) to be minister of state with responsibility for, wait for it ... British policy on the Middle East. Lewis, vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, was an outspoken supporter of Israel's slaughter of the innocent in Gaza this year. Lewis said of his new job:

 

'My responsibility for the Middle East peace process is particularly poignant. I have never hidden my pride at being Jewish or my support for the State of Israel.'

 

What chance do the Palestinians have of fairness and justice? None.

 

 

 Jewish Conspiracy Against the Catholic Church 

 

 

 

French President Sarkozy
(Zionist Jew)

In France, as I mentioned last week, President Sarkozy (Zionist) is a long-time asset of Mossad, the Rothschild enforcement agency masquerading as the intelligence agency of Israel. Mossad has been implicated in terror attacks and other horrors all over the world because it represents the Rothschild global agenda and not the people of Israel.

 

Look also at the Zionist (Rothschild) control of the entertainment and media industry in the form of people like Fox News President Peter Chernin (Zionist); Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Zionist); Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor (Zionist); Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (Zionist); Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer (Zionist); CBS CEO Leslie Moonves (Zionist); MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Zionist); and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker (Zionist). 

 

The Rothschilds control America

 

The Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein (Zionist) wrote an article proclaiming that Americans who don't think Jews (Zionists) control Hollywood are just plain 'dumb'. Stein went on:

 

'The Jews are so dominant. I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold, even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew! ... As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.'

 

 

And not only Hollywood. Shahar Ilan, a daily features editor with the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, wrote: 'The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge'. Zionists have truly massive influence over the news media with the likes of Rupert Murdoch (Zionist) with his vast television and newspaper empire, and the Sulzberger family (Zionists) who own the New York Times. The list is enormous across television, radio, newspapers and the Internet.

 

When you look at the number of Zionists in key positions of power and control in politics, banking, corporations, news media, Hollywood and so on, it is sobering to think that Jewish people are just 1.7% of the American population and many of those won't be Zionists.

 

What if the same situation happened with Arab people or Chinese, Irish or even black Americans? There would be an outcry and questions asked about how one group can have so much influence over the lives of a whole nation, indeed many nations. And I stress again that, in the end, this control system leads to the Rothschilds and the spider they represent at the centre of the web.

 

B'nai Brith

The Rothschilds established B'nai B'rith in 1843 to prevent exposure of the global Zionist networks. The ' BB' is an offshoot of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and operates worldwide to brand as 'anti-Semitic' anyone who exposes the Rothschild operation.

 

In 1913, B'nai B'rith launched an organisation specifically to target and defame researchers, in fact anyone, who questions, criticises or exposes Israel and the ever-gathering Zionist influence across the world. With typical irony they called it the Anti-Defamation League, better known as the ADL, and claimed it was there to protect Jewish people. As Plato said: 'This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector'.

 

The ADL is, in fact, a sub-agency of the Israeli (Rothschild) centre for covert operations, the Mossad, which, according to a former agent, has the motto: 'By way of deception, thou shalt do war'. If that isn't the motto, it should be. The ADL is behind the introduction of 'hate laws' which are aimed at silencing dissent against Zionism or Israel. The Jewish academic, Noam Chomsky, said this of the ADL in his book, Necessary Illusions:

 

 

John Hagee, Zionist & Heretic
who pitches the propaganda here in America

'The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming "one of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on.

 

These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement.'

 

The American rabbi, Michael Lerner, agrees:

 

'The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern).'

 

Firstly, the ADL has never been a civil rights organisation. Its very purpose has been to take them away. Secondly, it is not there to defend anyone, Jewish or otherwise. It's there to represent the sadistic interests of the House of Rothschild and the wider Illuminati.

 

It is so important that people are aware of this background to Zionism because at the moment it is basically speeding along unchallenged through lack of awareness and fear of being dubbed 'racist'.

 

Well, I couldn't care less what people say about me with regard to this or anything else. I want to uncover the truth, not win a popularity contest.

 

Please, let's circulate this information as effectively as we can and bring it from the shadows to public attention. We must refuse to be intimidated into silence over this.

 

Martin Luther King said: '... we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.'

 

It is time to stand up, in every sense.

 

Ex-Zionist Jew Converts to Catholicism and Warns America

Paul VI’s Role after the Council Omitted by Mattei

Paul VI’s Role after the Council
Omitted by Mattei (Pseudo-traditionalist)

By: Patrick Odou

Michael Matt of the Remnant...another pseudo traditionalist

 

 Prof. Roberto de Mattei is being promoted by certain middle-of-the-road circles as a rising star of traditionalism. I do not believe he is an authentic leader, but rather another of these Vatican-made “traditionalists” whose mission is to enter the arena to anesthetize the good reactions among Catholics so that Progressivism can go ahead with its agenda.

In a talk he gave in Krakow he sustained that the bad consequences of Vatican II should not be attributed to the Bishops and Popes who made the Council and enforced it. Mattei pretends, endorsing a statement of Benedict XVI, that all of the Council's harmful consequences resulted only from a bad interpretation made by the media and calls it a Virtual Council. So, with this scapegoat, he intends to save Vatican II along with the Conciliar Popes and Bishops.

I resolved to write this series of articles showing how absurd this pretension is. The two first focused on how John XXIII consciously promoted the Vatican II Revolution (here and here); the third focused on the role of Paul VI during the Council (here). Today, I will analyze Paul VI’s action after Vatican II to enforce it. God willing, I shall continue this series with less time lapsing between articles.

The role of Paul VI in enforcing the Council

After Vatican II, Paul VI would spend the next 13 years making sure that the Vatican II directives were implemented throughout the whole Church. For him, the Council was just the beginning of the ”reform.” As Cardinal Suenens comments:

 

Paul VI abolished the tiara and sabotaged
the papal ceremonies that have the sedia gestatoria & fabelli

“For his part Pope Paul VI wrote these far-reaching words that engage the future: ‘The Council’s decrees, more than a point of arrival, are a point of departure toward new goals. The spirit and the renewing wind of the Council must continue to penetrate deeply into the life of the Church. The seeds of life sown by the Council in Church soil must reach their full maturity.’“(1)

In an egalitarian move promoting the desacralization of the Papacy, Paul VI would stop wearing the papal tiara, would sell it (video here), and would wear a bishop’s miter only on special occasions. Also, the sedia gestatoria (papal throne carried on the shoulders of nobility) and the flabelli (ostrich feather fans) were almost never seen during his papacy.

To help ensure that the Council’s decrees would reach the people and “penetrate deeply into the life of the Church,” Paul VI would do the unthinkable: He altered the Holy Mass.

 

Pope Paul VI Gay creator of the non-catholic freemasonic nwo VII Religion. 

The reform of the Mass & liturgy

Most Catholics spend the majority of their time involved in the day-to-day concerns of this world: family, job, school, etc. The majority have little time (assuming they have the competence) to follow the great discussions concerning the Church. How many Catholics have even read the 16 documents of Vatican II?

But through the Mass, liturgy and activities of the local parish, directives given by Rome slowly but surely reach and influence the everyday life of the average Catholic. Every Catholic, to a greater or lesser degree, is involved in the life of the local church. There, he assists at weekly or daily events such as Masses, feast days and ceremonies of baptisms, funerals, and weddings, that do “penetrate deeply into his life.” The document of Vatican II used to establish changes in the lives of the everyday Catholic through the Mass and liturgy was Sacrosanctum Concilium.

 

Paul VI poses with the Protestants whom
he invited to help write the New Mass

In his work In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Atila Guimarães notes:

“Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on Liturgy, was the first document to be discussed and approved by the Council (11/14/1962), promulgated by Vatican II (11/21/1963), and officially ratified by Paul VI (12/4/1963).” (2)

After the Council, to supervise the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium,

“Paul VI established a new commission to reform the liturgy of the Mass: the Pontifical Commission for the Application of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The commission was headed by Fr. Annibale Bugnini, and included Protestant observers. The fruit of these studies was the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Paul VI, published on April 3, 1969.” (3)

In short, professed enemies of the Church were brought in, consulted and took an active part in the creation of the hereticizing Novus Ordo Mass. Paul VI immediately went about doing everything he could to impose the New Mass:

“On April 10, 1970, Paul VI received the commission that prepared the new Ordo Missae. As a picture of the audience was about to be taken, the Pontiff chose to appear at the side of the observers from 'non-Catholic ecclesial communities.' In the foreground, next to Paul VI, appears Protestant minister Max Thurian, of the community of Taizé.” (4)

Perhaps Mattei wants us to believe that a director of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) was behind the camera and instructed Paul VI to stand next to the Protestants for the photo op... Sorry, but Mattei’s Virtual Council idea truly is ridiculous.

 

Monophysite Kyrillos VI in Egypt carrying the head
of St. Mark, which a delegation received from Paul VI

More than just “a window was opened” with Vatican II: The new forms of liturgy, which reached and affected all of the faithful, acted more like opening every window and every door in the Church, as well as ripping off its roof.

As Guimarães states, Paul VI welcomed the new openness:

“Four months after founding the ITC [International Theological Commission – 1969], Paul VI expressed his intent to establish greater tolerance, along the same lines of the program already being followed.

"He said: ‘We will have a period in the life of the Church and, consequently, in that of each one of her children, of greater liberty, that is, of fewer legal obligations and internal inhibitions. The former discipline will be reduced, arbitrary intolerance and despotism abolished, the prevailing laws simplified, and the exercise of authority tempered. That sense of Christian liberty, which so marked the first generation of Christians when they understood they were released from observing the Mosaic Law and the complicated ritual precepts, will be fostered (Gal 5:1).’” (5)

These new forms of worship, which were developed with the help of Protestants, were forced on the Church by Paul VI in opposition to traditional Catholic teachings. From the Pope, these reforms spread to the Vatican, to the National Conferences of Bishops, to the Archdioceses and Dioceses and, finally, to every local parish. The media did not play any essential role in this internal reform.  

 

Promoting Communism

Paul VI warmly greets communist dictator Tito

On April 27, 1966, five months after the closing ceremonies of Vatican II, Paul VI warmly received at the Vatican Andrei Gromyko, Minister of USSR Foreign Affairs. For the first time in fifty years of Communism, a Pope welcomed a representative of the Soviet Union.

On January 1967, less than 9 months later, Paul VI invited Nicholas Podgorny to the Vatican.

While Catholics were being murdered, the Church persecuted, and Catholic social doctrine on private property forbidden in the USSR and other countries under the Communist Regime, Podgorny, the chairman of the USSR Supreme Soviet, was warmly received by Pope Paul VI.

On March 1971, Paul VI greeted communist dictator Tito of Yugoslavia. The message sent to all Catholics during the post-conciliar period was quite clear: Stop Fighting Communism!

Profaning relics, promoting relativism & abandoning habits

On June 24, 1968 at the Vatican, Paul VI gave a relic to a Monophysite Copt delegation. It was the head of St. Mark the Evangelist that had been guarded in Venice as a treasure for centuries!

In St. Peter’s Basilica, on May 6, 1973, after a Mass commemorating the 1600th anniversary of the death of St. Athanasius, Paul VI gave a relic of that Saint to the chief of the Monophysite Copt sect of Egypt, Shenouda III.

 

Above, Paul VI kneels before the Schismatic Meliton
& kisses his feet; below,
a bronze sculpture reproduces the gesture

On December 14, 1975, Paul VI kissed the feet of the Russian Metropolitan Meliton and refused to allow this heretical-schismatic Meliton to return the gesture.

Previously, in 1966 in Rome, Paul VI publically had given his ring to the leader of the Anglican sect Michael Ramsey. This was supposed to be a symbol of the Catholic Church's commitment to “marry” the Anglican sect, following the imagery of the groom who gives an engagement ring to his fiancée.

During the reign of Paul VI and under his close direction, the habits of religious man and women continued to change and eventually disappeared. Those beautiful, modest and dignified garments that symbolized a renunciation of the world and were unique for each religious order, became more and more similar to lay clothing until they were almost extinct. In the feminine orders hemlines were raised to the knee exposing the leg, and veils, which had covered everything but the face, started to reveal hair colors and styles.

Again, the media had essentially nothing to do with those reforms. Certainly the media organs were more than willing to applaud those changes, but the responsibility for them lies strictly upon the Conciliar Popes who directed the reforms and the Bishops who were the secondary parties responsible for applying them.

 

Abandonment of the Tiara - Pope Paul VI [13.11.1964] 

 

 Therefore, Paul VI was the Pope who:

• Reigned over the Council and its conclusion;
• Signed, sealed and delivered the final product of the Council to the faithful;
• Spent 13 years after the Council implementing its norms and ”spirit” which he fully understood;
• Changed the Mass and Liturgy to help spread the Conciliar Revolution to even the most remote parishes around the globe;
• Tore down or weakened the barriers against Communism and Socialism, and
• Commanded the desacralization of the Papacy and the entire religious world 

Paul VI gives his ring to Anglican Ramsey

 There is much more that could be presented, but I believe what was exposed here is sufficient to pose the serious question: Who in his right mind could even consider the theory that the news reports spread by the media were responsible for the Conciliar Revolution?

Mattei: Pseudo Traditionalist,
which the Neo-SSPX now often uses
in their weak argumentation for their
 new watered down position on Vatican II...

The analysis of the papacy of Paul VI alone is sufficient to destroy this unsustainable position of the so-called historian Roberto de Mattei. His attempt to curry favor with Conciliar Popes and the Vatican, by presenting the media as a scapegoat for the disaster called Vatican II, is absurd and deserving of contempt.

 

In my next article, I shall present papal actions that furthered the Conciliar Revolution during the world-shockingly brief reign of John Paul I.  

Please be sure to stop by traditioninaction for their latest articles!
http://www.traditioninaction.org/index.htm

Please, Don’t Call Protestants Christians

Please, Don’t Call Protestants Christians

By: Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D. 

Another error you find in the "Conciliar Church or Vatican II cult of man is this notion that heretics are actually "Christians"...

But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.
St. Athanasius

  It is very common today to hear Catholics call a Protestant “a Christian,” or even, “a good Christian.” In the United States, it was already a practice before Vatican II because of the tendency of American Catholics to accommodate Protestantism, whose tonus dominated the social and business spheres. Then, there was the question of adaptation as prominent Protestants joined the Catholic faith, or Catholics entered into marriages with Protestants. It was just easier to call everyone “Christian.” Supposedly it underplayed differences. It was meant to create the impression that Catholics and Protestants were cousins in one big, happy family. Pope Leo XIII condemned this tolerance toward Protestantism under the name of Americanism, the heresy of Americanism, to be more precise.

 

Our Lord delivers the keys of His Church to St. Peter
Pietro Perugino, 15th century, Sistine Chapel

After Vatican II, needless to say, the practice of calling Protestants Christians has snowballed, with the official conciliar documents assuming this same impropriety. Hence, the Holy See, Prelates and priests have made its use as widespread as possible. Accommodation to Protestantism in our days has reached such a point that some Catholics, to distinguish between Catholics and their Protestant “separated brethren,” call themselves Catholic Christians. A redundancy if I've ever heard one. Only Catholics can be true Christians. No one who dissents from the Roman Catholic Church can be a Christian. The terms are synonymous.

Every time I hear the term Christian used for Protestants, I cringe. Its usage clearly nourishes a trend toward a dangerous religious indifferentism, which denies the duty of man to worship God by believing and practicing the one true Catholic Religion. It is an implicit admission that those who deny the one Faith can nonetheless be Christians, that is, be in the Church of Christ. Inherently it leads to the progressivist notion that men can be saved in any religion that accepts Christ as Savior. A “good Lutheran,” a “good Anglican,” a “good Presbyterian – what does it matter so long as they are good people and sincerely love Christ?

Regardless of who is applying this usage today, I want to stress that it is at variance with the entire tradition of the Catholic Church until the Council. To consider heretics as Christians is not the teaching of the Church.

 

Beyond a doubt, they perish eternally
who do not keep the Catholic faith
entire and unchanged.Pope Gregory XVI

Before Vatican II, the Magisterium was always very clear: It is not a matter of an individual’s character or traits. No one can be in the Church of Christ without professing the ensemble of the truths of Catholic Faith, being in unity with the Chair of Peter and receiving the same Seven Sacraments. The only Christian is one who accepts Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church he established. Who can have God for Father and not accept the Church for Mother? (Pope Pius IX, Singulari quidem of March 17, 1856) Who can accept the spouse Christ, and not his mystical bride the Church? Who can separate the Head, the only begotten Son of God, from the body, which is His Church? (Pope Leo XIII, Satis cognitum of June 29, 1896). It is not possible.

In short, only those who profess the one Catholic Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ are members of the Church of Christ. And only those members can legitimately bear the title of honor of Christian.

The Protestant sect started as a revolt, protesting the Church of Christ and, pretending to accept Christ without Peter, the authority He established on earth. With this split, they left the Church and became heretics. This used to be clearly said and understood, without sentimental fear of offending one’s neighbors or relatives: A Protestant is a heretic because he severed himself from the Body of the Church. He is not a Christian, and certainly not a “good Christian.”

Scriptures confirm this truth

My friend Jan thought I was being too severe on this topic. “You’re making a mountain out of a molehill,” she said. “Don’t Scriptures teach us to love our neighbor and not be judgmental?”

It is the same old post Vatican II story, claiming that it is “judgmental” to correct bad practices and false teachings and arguing with disputable interpretations of Scriptures.

 

Luther and Melanchthon broke with the Church of Christ
Lucas Cranach the Younger

Well, despite these subjective interpretations, the inspired words of Scriptures provide an unambiguous defense that the custody of the vineyard has been committed by Christ to the Catholic Church alone. Let me quote just a few verses:

• “He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).” It could not be clearer: the Protestant who rejects the head, rejects Christ himself, and should not be granted the name Christian.
• Christ establishes one Church with a single head: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19).
• St. Paul is severe in his condemnation of false teachers, e.g. Protestants: “If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1: 9).
• In another passage he instructs Catholics to remove themselves from the bad society of non-Catholics: “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the Tradition which they have received of us” (2 Thess 3:6).
• The Apostle St. John forbade any intercourse with heretics: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house or welcome him” (2 Jo 1:10)”

Holy Scriptures are clear on the point that only those who belong to the one Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, can rightfully be considered Christians.

Popes reiterate this teaching

The traditional Papal Magisterium was also clear on this topic. Let me offer a few texts by way of exemplification. 

 

Pius IX: "He who abandons the Chair of Peter
is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church of Christ"

Pius XII stated unequivocally: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957). How is it possible to be clearer than this about those who can be called Christian?

Leo XIII makes it plain that separated members cannot belong to the same body: “So long as the member was on the body, it lived; separated, it lost its life. Thus the man, so long as he lives on the body of the [Catholic] Church, he is a Christian; separated from her, he becomes a heretic” (Encyclical Satis cognitum of June 29, 1896).

Emphasizing the fate of those who break away from the one Faith, he says: “Whoever leaves her [the Catholic Church] departs from the will and command of Our Lord Jesus Christ; leaving the path of salvation, he enters that of perdition. Whoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress” (ibid.). Certainly, they do not share with us the same title of Christian.

 

There is only one Christian faith, that is: Catholic. St. Bridget of Sweden

Pope Pius IX stated: “He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church of Christ” (Quartus supra of January 6 1873, n. 8).

In the Syllabus of Modern Errors, the proposition that Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion was specifically condemned (Pius IX, n. 18)(1).

Therefore, there is only one Christian Church, the Catholic Church, and only those who belong to it should rightfully be called Christians.

How to fight Americanism?

 

Only inside the Catholic Church can true union be achieved
Ottenbeueren Collectarius, 12th century

Many persons ask me: What can I do to fight Progressivism? Others have requested: Give me some specific examples of how I can combat Americanism.

Let me offer one concrete way to fight in yourself the tendency toward accommodation with Protestantism.

When you catch yourself calling a Protestant a “Christian,” stop and correct yourself. Call him a Protestant. It is a way to affirm that you do not accept the Protestant errors and that you acknowledge it for the terrible thing it is: Protestants denied many Catholic dogmas and for this reason caused that first major crack in the unity of the Catholic Church that caused untold damage to Christendom and the perdition of those souls adhering to it.

It is a small thing, but by such small customs we as a people have been walking steadily toward religious indifferentism. It is time to set some roadblocks on that path. We should not veil in ambiguous terms our love for the ensemble of the Catholic Faith. The only true union possible for Catholics with Protestants is by their return to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. Only with such a return can they rightfully call themselves Christians.    

  Please, Don’t Call Protestants Christians