Showing posts with label Man of Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Man of Sin. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

The Antichrist's war against Latin and tradition

 As noted here, the rise of Antichrist will witness an attempt to banish the Latin Mass. Already, law enforcement is beginning to target traditional Catholics. See here.

The Devil hates Latin because it is so effective in driving him out.  See here.

The Man of Sin is here and his chief goal is to undermine the Catholic Church in order to set the template for his counterfeit church.  See here.

Thursday, April 14, 2022

America continues on the road toward totalitarianism


 How close are we to an authoritarian police state?  See here. For years I've been warning that America was in twilight.   See here for example.


We cannot say we haven't been warned.  See here.


A Satanic Earth Charter for a New Age.  See here.


The Termite Nations have dispensed with God and His Commandments in their quest for unbridled hedonism. We are being prepared for the Reign of Antichrist. The Rev. P. Huchede, in his work entitled "History of Antichrist," explains the religious preparation, both intellectual and moral, for the Reign of Antichrist which will arrive after economic collapse: "But how shall he deprive the world of Christianity and have himself adored as God? Alas, it is only too true that the minds and hearts of men are admirably disposed for revolution and consequently ready to accept and bear the cruel yoke of such a tyrant. Revolution as the word itself implies means a subversion, but a subversion of all that is true, good, beautiful, and grand in the universe. It is the subversion of religion, representing its dogmas as myths and its moral teachings as tyranical. It is the subversion of authority. Licentiousness under the name of liberty becomes the order of the day; each one is invested with the right to govern himself. It is the subversion of reason: and do we not find leading minds in some of the most enlightened nations denying the principle of contradiction and maintaining the absolute identity of all beings? Revolution is therefore essentially destructive, and it becomes cosmopolitan by the action of secret societies scattered throughout the world. Is it not true to say that the 'mystery of iniquity' is prepared in secret revolutionary dens? But it does not suffice to destroy; it is absolutely necessary to build up again. The world cannot subsist long in a vacuum. It must have a religion; it must have a philosophy; it must have an authority. Revolution will furnish all these. Instead of the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ, Revolution will preach Pantheism. The God-humanity will impart the theurgic spirit and thus lead men to adore the demon as the author of universal emancipation...


What frightful immorality must follow in the train of this shameless prostitution of religion! Never has the threefold concupiscence made greater ravage among mankind. And this is the religion sought and hoped for as the cherished boon of the aspirations of our modern free thinkers. To our Christian philosophy, the honor of humanity's revolution will substitute a babel of extravagant and absurd ideas. Instead of a mild and efficient authority consecrated alike by Church and state, despotism and anarchy will rise up and contend for the shreds of religious liberty and human policy...if the state of perversion continue for a while longer, he [Antichrist] will find the world prepared to receive and serve him." (Rev. P. Huchede, History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14, Tan Books).


The spirit of Antichrist is intensifying and hostility toward Christians (and the Catholic Church in particular) is spreading like a cancer.  Father Bernard Maria Clausi. O.F.M. (d. 1849), speaking of the coming chastisement, says that before the Triumph of the Church, "terrible will be the persecution of the wicked against the just.."  

And this persecution will soon become bloody. For the Lucifer State will not tolerate dissent.  Already preparation is underway for killing those who refuse to accept the Satanic programme.

Monday, September 06, 2021

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano: The Luciferian Great Reset


 LIBERA NOS A MALO

Considerations on the Great Reset

and the New World Order

by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

August 28, 2021

Feast of St. Augustine


No one will be part of the New World Order

unless he carries out an act of worship to Lucifer.

No one will enter the New Age unless he receives Luciferian initiation.

                 —David Spangler, Director of the United Nations Planetary Initiative Project (Reflections on The Christ, Findhorn, 1978) 


    For more than a year and a half we have been helplessly witnessing the succession of incongruent events to which most of us are unable to give a plausible justification.


    The pandemic emergency has made particularly evident the contradictions and illogicalities of measures nominally intended to limit contagion – lockdowns, curfews, closures of commercial activities, limitations of public services and classes, suspension of citizens’ rights – but which are disavowed daily by conflicting voices, by clear evidence of ineffectiveness, by contradictions on the part of the same health authorities.


    There is no need to list the measures that almost all the governments of the world have taken without achieving the promised results.


    If we limit ourselves to the presumed advantages that the experimental gene serum should have brought to the community — above all immunity to the virus and renewed freedom of movement — we discover that an Oxford University study published in The Lancet (here) stated that the viral load of those vaccinated with a double dose is 251 times greater than the first strains of the virus (here), despite the proclamations of world leaders, starting with the Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, according to whom “whoever gets vaccinated lives, whoever does not get the vaccine dies.”


    The side effects of the gene serum, cleverly disguised or deliberately not registered by the national health authorities, seem to confirm the danger of taking the vaccine and the disturbing unknowns for the health of citizens which we will soon have to face.


    From science to scientism


    The art of medicine — which is not science, but the application of scientific principles to different cases each time, on an experiential and experimental basis — seems to have renounced its prudence, in the name of an emergency that has risen to the level of priesthood of a religion — the religion of science, in fact — which in order to be such has cloaked itself in a dogmatism bordering on superstition.


    The ministers of this cult have constituted themselves as a caste of untouchables, exempt from any criticism even when their claims are denied by the evidence of the facts.


    The principles of medicine, considered universally valid until February 2020, have given way to improvisation, to the point of being advised to vaccinate at the height of the pandemic, the obligation of masks being imposed although they are useless, the arbitrary mandating of bizarre distances, the prohibition of treatments with effective drugs and the imposition of experimental gene therapies in violation of normal safety protocols.


    And just as there are new Covid priests, so there are also new heretics, that is, those who reject the new pandemic religion and want to remain faithful to the Hippocratic Oath.


    Not infrequently, the aura of infallibility that surrounds virologists and other more or less titled scientists does not seem to be questioned due to their conflicts of interest or by the substantial financial benefits received by pharmaceutical companies, which under normal conditions would be scandalous and criminal.


    What many fail to understand is the inconsistency between the stated aims and the means that are adopted in a constantly changing manner in order to achieve them.


    If in Sweden the absence of lockdowns and masks did not lead to higher infection rates than those in countries where people have been confined to their homes or where they have had masks put on even in primary schools, this element is not considered as proof of ineffectiveness of the measures.


    If in Israel or in Great Britain mass vaccination has increased infections and made them more virulent, their example does not induce the rulers of other countries to be cautious in the vaccination campaign, but rather pushes them to evaluate the mandatory nature of their giving of the vaccine.


    If ivermectin or hyperimmune plasma prove to be valid treatments, this is not enough to authorize them, let alone recommend them.


    And those who wonder the reason for this disconcerting irrationality end up refraining from judgment, giving a sort of fideistic acceptance to the pronouncements of the Covid priests, or conversely considering doctors as unreliable 

    A single script under a single direction


    As I said earlier, we are faced with a colossal deception, based on lies and fraud.


    This deception starts from the premise that the justifications put forward by the authorities in support of their actions are sincere.


    More simply, the mistake consists in believing that the rulers are honest and in assuming that they do not lie to us.


    So we persist in finding more or less plausible justifications, with the sole purpose of not recognizing that we are the object of a conspiracy planned to the smallest detail.


    And while we try to rationally explain irrational behavior, while we attribute logic to the illogical actions of those who govern us, cognitive dissonance leads us to close our eyes to reality and to believe the most shameless lies.


    We should have understood — I wrote it some time ago — that the Great Reset plan was not the result of the ravings of some “conspiracy theorist” but the crude evidence of a criminal plan, conceived for decades and aimed at establishing a universal dictatorship in which a minority of immeasurably rich and powerful people intends to enslave and subjugate the whole of humanity to the globalist ideology.


    The accusation of “conspiracy theory” could perhaps have made sense when the conspiracy was not yet evident, but today denying what the elite has planned since the 1950s is unjustifiable.


    What Kalergi, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Klaus Schwab, Jacques Attali and Bill Gates have been saying since World War II has been published in books and newspapers, commented on and taken up by international bodies and foundations, made up precisely by parties and government majorities.


    The United States of Europe, uncontrolled immigration, the reduction of wages, the cancellation of trade union guarantees, the renunciation of national sovereignty, the single currency, the control of citizens under the pretext of a pandemic, and the reduction of the population through the use of vaccines with new technologies are not recent inventions, but the result of a planned, organized and coordinated action — an action that clearly shows itself perfectly adhering to a single script under a single direction.


    The criminal mens [“mind,” in Latin]


    Once it is understood that the present events have been intended in order to obtain certain results — and consequently to pursue certain interests on behalf of a minority part of humanity, with incalculable harm for the majority — we must also have the honesty to recognize the criminal mens [mind] of the authors of this plan.


    This criminal design also makes us understand the fraud perpetrated by civil authority in presenting certain measures as an unavoidable response to unpredictable events, when the events have been artfully created and magnified with the sole purpose of legitimizing a revolution — which Schwab identifies as the fourth industrial revolution — intended by the elite to the detriment of all humanity.


    The enslavement of authority is on the other hand the result of a process that began even earlier, with the French Revolution, and which made the political class the servant not of God (whose Lordship it disdainfully disregards) nor of the sovereign people (which it despises and uses only to legitimize itself), but of the economic and financial potentates, of the international oligarchy of bankers and usurers, of multinationals and pharmaceutical companies.


    In reality, on closer inspection, all these subjects belong to a small number of well-known very rich families.


    Equal enslavement is also evident in the media: journalists have accepted — without any scruple of conscience — prostituting themselves to the powerful, going so far as to censor the truth and spread shameless lies without even trying to give them the appearance of credibility.


    Up until last year journalists counted the numbers of the “victims” of Covid by presenting anyone who tested positive as terminally ill; today those who die after being vaccinated are always and only taken by a vague “illness,” and even before the post mortem examinations they officially decide that there is no correlation between a person’s death and the administration of the gene serum.


    They twist the truth with impunity when it does not confirm their narrative, bending it to fit their purposes.


    What has been happening for a year and a half had been widely announced, down to the smallest detail, by the creators of the Great Reset themselves; just as we were told the measures that would be adopted.


    On February 17, 1950, testifying before the United States Senate, the well-known banker James Warburg said, “We will have a world government, whether you like it or not. The only question that arises is whether this world government will be established by consensus or by force.”


    Four years later, the Bilderberg Group was born, which has counted among its members characters such as [Italian businessman Gianni] Agnelli, Henry Kissinger, Mario Monti, and the current Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi.


    In 1991, David Rockefeller wrote: “The world is ready for a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is certainly preferable to the national self-determination practiced in past centuries.” And he added: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the ‘right’ global crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”


    Today we can affirm that this “right crisis” coincides with the pandemic emergency and with the “lockstep” outlined since 2010 by the Rockefeller Foundation document “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” in which the events we are now witnessing are all anticipated (here).


    In short, they have created a false problem in order to be able to impose population control measures as an apparent solution, cancel small and medium-sized businesses with lockdowns and the green pass to the benefit of a few international groups, demolish education by imposing distance learning, lower the cost of manpower and employees with “smart working,” privatize public health for the benefit of BigPharma, and allow governments to use the state of emergency to legislate in derogation of the law and impose so-called vaccines on the entire population, making citizens traceable in all their movements and either chronically ill or sterile.


    Everything the elite wanted to do, they have done. And what is incomprehensible is that in the face of the evidence of the premeditation of this terrible crime against humanity, which sees the leaders of almost the whole world as accomplices and traitors, there is not a single magistrate who opens a file against them to ascertain the truth and condemn the guilty and complicit.


    Those who disagree are not only censored but pointed out as public enemies, as infectors, as non-persons for whom no rights are recognized.


    Deep state and deep church


    Now, in the face of a criminal plan it would be at least logical to denounce it and make it known, in order to then be able to avert it and try those who are guilty.


    The list of traitors should start with the heads of government, with cabinet members and elected officials, and then continue with the virologists and corrupt doctors, the complicit officials, the leaders of the armed forces incapable of opposing the violation of the Constitution, the sold-out journalists, the cowardly judges and the obsequious unions.


    In that long list that will perhaps be drawn up one day, the leaders of the Catholic Church should also be listed, starting with Bergoglio and not a few of the Bishops, who have become zealous executors of the will of the prince against the mandate received from Christ.


    And certainly, in that list, one would know the extent of the conspiracy and the number of the conspirators, confirming the crisis of authority and the perversion of civil and religious power.


    In short, it would be understood that the corrupt part of the civil authority — the deep state — and the corrupt part of ecclesiastical authority — the deep church — are two sides of the same coin, both instrumental to the establishment of the New World Order.


    However, in order to understand this alliance between civil and religious power, it is necessary to recognize the spiritual and eschatological dimension of the present conflict, framing it in the context of the war that Lucifer, ever since his fall, has waged against God.


    This war, whose outcomes have been decided ab æterno with the inexorable defeat of Satan and the Antichrist and the overwhelming victory of the Woman encircled with the stars, is now approaching its conclusion.


    This is why the forces of darkness are so wild at present, so impatient to cancel the name of Our Lord from the earth, to not only destroy his tangible presence in our cities by tearing down churches, demolishing crosses, and suppressing Christian holidays; but also by eliminating memory, cancelling Christian civilization, adulterating its teaching, and debasing its worship.


    And in order to do this, the presence of a faithful and courageous Hierarchy, ready to suffer martyrdom in order to defend Christian faith and moral teaching, is certainly an obstacle.


    This is why, from the very initial phase of the globalist plan, it was essential to corrupt the Hierarchy in morals and doctrine, to infiltrate it with fifth columns and sleeper cells, to deprive it of any supernatural yearning, and to make it vulnerable to blackmail thanks to financial and sexual scandals; all with the purpose of excluding it and eliminating it once its purpose has been achieved, according to established practice.


    This infiltration operation began at the end of the 1950’s, when the project of the New World Order was just taking shape.


    It began its own work of subversion a few years later, with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in view of which the election of Roncalli and the expulsion of Cardinal Siri, Pacelli’s “dauphin” or probable successor as pope, represented a reason for enthusiasm both for the progressive and modernist element within the Church, as well as for the communist, liberal, and Masonic element of the civil world.


    Vatican II represented within the ecclesial body what the Tennis Court Oath [of the French Revolution] was for civil society: the beginning of the Revolution.


    And if on many occasions I have drawn attention to the subversive nature of the Council, today I believe that a historical analysis deserves attention in which apparently disconnected facts acquire a disturbing significance, explaining many things.


    Liaisons dangereuses


    As Michael J. Matt has reported in a recent video at The Remnant (here), today we are beginning to put together all the pieces of the mosaic, and we discover — by the very admission of one of the protagonists — that Msgr. Hélder Câmara, Archbishop of Olinda and Recife in Brazil, had a meeting in those years with the young Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum and theorizer of the Great Reset.


    Once Schwab recognized Câmara for his opposition to the traditional Church and his revolutionary and pauperist theories, he invited him to the Davos Forum, considering his participation in this event as extremely important in view of the project of the New Order.


    We know that Hélder Câmara was among the organizers of the “Pact of the Catacombs,” which was signed by about forty ultra-progressivist Bishops on 16 November 1965, a few days before the closing of the Council.


    Among the heretical theses of that document, there is also collaboration in the establishment of “another, new social order”(here, n. 9) based on justice and equality.


    And we are not surprised to learn that among the signatories there was also Msgr. Enrique Angelelli, the auxiliary bishop of Cordoba in Argentina, “[a] point of reference for then-Father Jorge Mario Bergoglio” (here).


    Bergoglio himself declared right from the beginning of his Pontificate that he agreed with the demands of the Pact of the Catacombs.


    On 20 October 2019, during the Synod on the Amazon, the celebration of the pact between the conspirators was repeated in the Catacombs of Santa Domitilla (here), confirming that the plan begun at the Council had found fulfillment precisely in Jorge Mario Bergoglio.


    Far from distancing himself from the ultra-progressivists who support him and who determined his election at the last Conclave, Bergoglio never misses an opportunity to give proof of his perfect coherence with the plan of the New World Order, beginning with the collaboration of Vatican commissions and dicasteries with environmentalism of a Malthusian matrix and their participation in the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, a global alliance with the Rothschilds, the Rockefeller Foundation, and large banks.


    So on the one hand we have David Rockefeller with the Trilateral Commission, and on the other we have Klaus Schwab, who is related by marriage with the Rothschilds (here), with the World Economic Forum, and both of them are arm-in-arm with the head of the Catholic Church to establish the New Order by means of the Great Reset, as has been planned since the 1950’s.


Inside the Vatican Pilgrimages

    The world depopulation plan


    Among the associates of this pactum sceleris there must also be counted some members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which recently had its organizational structure overturned by Bergoglio himself when he removed the members who were most faithful to the Magisterium, replacing them with supporters of depopulation, contraception, and abortion.


    There should be no surprise at the Holy See’s support for vaccines: in June 2011 the Sovereign Independent carried the headline on its front page: “Depopulation Through Forced Vaccination: The Zero Carbon Solution!”(here).


    Beside the headline, a photograph of Bill Gates was accompanied by a quote from him: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive services [abortion and contraception], we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”


    This is what Bill Gates said eleven years ago.


    Today he is one of the shareholders of the Black Rock group that finances the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines, one of the main sponsors of the World Health Organization (WHO), and also of a myriad of public and private entities connected to health.


    At his side we curiously find George Soros, the “philanthropist” of the Open Society, which together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently invested in a British company that produces swabs for Covid testing (here).


    And since we are talking about economic issues, I would like to recall that the Holy See has held shares worth about €20 million in two pharmaceutical companies that have produced a contraceptive drug (here), and more recently it invested in a fund that guaranteed very high profits in the event of a geopolitical or pandemic crisis thanks to speculation on international currencies, the “Geo-Risk” fund managed by the Merrill Lynch investment bank, which had to close it because of its skyrocketing yields after the first few months of the pandemic (here).


    Other capital, coming from the “Peter’s Pence” collection, had been used to finance various other initiatives, even collaborating with [Italian businessman] Lapo Elkann, whose endeavors include Rocketman, the autobiographical film of Elton John.


    To say nothing of the real estate speculations and the purchase of the London building at 60 Sloane Avenue that the news coverage has amply informed us on, a purchase that I know, from a reliable source, was decided on by Bergoglio himself.


    And then there’s China: always in the name of “coherence” and the “church of the poor for the poor” that is so dear to Bergoglio’s heart, there are those who believe that the secret Accord prepared by the Jesuits and former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick may have obtained substantial funding from the communist regime in Beijing in exchange for the Vatican’s silence over the persecution of Catholics and the violation of human rights (here).


    The same is true for the immigration racket: among those drawing profit from the industry of welcoming immigrants are the Vatican commissions and the Bishops’ Conferences, to which various nations give substantial funding for the reception of illegal immigrants.


    The horrid monument with the bronze boat erected by Bergoglio in Saint Peter’s Square is the plastic representation of a hypocrisy that is the distinguishing mark of this pontificate.


    In a recent Wednesday audience, we were able to hear these words: “Hypocrites are people who pretend, flatter and deceive because they live with a mask over their faces and do not have the courage to face the truth.[…] Hypocrisy in the Church is particularly detestable; and unfortunately, hypocrisy exists in the Church and there are many hypocritical Christians and ministers”(here). I believe no comment is necessary.


    Deep state interference


    There have been manifold examples of interference by the deep state in the life of the Church.


    We cannot forget the emails of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton, which show the intention to oust Benedict XVI from the papacy and so to initiate a new “springtime of the Church” that would be progressivist and globalist, which later came about with the resignation of Benedict and the election of the Argentine.


    Nor can we overlook the interference of entities and institutions that are anything but close to religion, such as the B’nai B’rith, in dictating the direction of the “renewal” of the Church after Vatican II and most of all under this Pontificate.


    Finally, we should remember on the one hand the disdainful refusals to grant audiences to conservative political and institutional personalities, and on the other hand the passionate smiling encounters with leaders of the Left and of progressivism, along with expressions of enthusiastic satisfaction on the occasion of their election.


    Many of them owe their success to having attended universities run by the Society of Jesus or circles of Catholicism that in Italy would be called Dossettian,[1] where the network of social and political relations constitutes a sort of progressive Freemasonry and ensures dazzling careers for so-called “adult Catholics,” those who use the name “Christian” without behaving consistently with Christian faith and morality in their service of public affairs: Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi; Romano Prodi, Mario Monti, Giuseppe Conte, and Mario Draghi; to name only a few.


    As we can see, the cooperation between the deep state and deep church is long-standing and has now produced the results hoped for by its supporters, with very serious damage to both the State and religion.


    The closure of churches in early 2020, even before the civil authorities imposed the lockdowns; the prohibition of the celebration of Masses and the administration of the Sacraments during the pandemic emergency; the grotesque ceremony performed on 27 March 2020 in Saint Peter’s Square (here); the insistence on vaccines and their promotion as morally legitimate despite having been produced with cell lines originating with aborted fetuses; Bergoglio’s declarations that the genetic serum represents a “moral duty” for every Christian; the introduction of the “Green Pass”health passport in the Vatican and more recently in Catholic schools and in some seminaries; the Holy See prohibiting Bishops from announcing that they are against the vaccination obligation, promptly endorsed by certain Bishops’ Conferences — these are all elements that demonstrate the subordination of the deep church to the orders of the deep state, and the way in which the Bergoglian church is an integral part of the globalist plan.


    If we combine all this with the idolatrous cult of the pachamama right under the arches of Saint Peter’s Basilica; the insistence on irenicist ecumenism, pacifism, and pauperism; the endorsement of situation ethics and the substantial legitimization of adultery and concubinage in Amoris Laetitia; the declaration that the death penalty is morally illicit; the endorsement of left-wing politicians, revolutionary leaders, and abortion activists; the words of understanding for LGBT issues, homosexuals, and transsexuals; the silence over the legitimization of homosexual unions and the even more disconcerting silence over the blessing of sodomitical couples by German Bishops and priests; and the prohibition of the Tridentine Mass with the abolition of Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, we realize that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is carrying out the task entrusted to him by the globalist elite, which wants him to be the liquidator of the Catholic Church and the founder of a philanthropic and ecumenical sect of Masonic inspiration that is meant to constitute the Universal Religion in support of the New Order.


    Whether this action is being carried out with full awareness, out of fear, or under blackmail, nothing detracts from the gravity of what is happening, nor from the moral responsibility of those who promote it.


ITV Writer's Chat

    The Luciferian matrix of the New World Order


    At this point, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by the “New World Order,” or rather what its creators mean, regardless of what they say publicly.


    Because on the one hand, it is true that there is a project, that certain people conceived it and are charged with carrying it out; but on the other hand it is also true that the inspiring principles of the project are not always disclosed, or at least they cannot be openly admitted to be closely related to what is happening today, since such an admission would arouse opposition even from those who are the most peaceful and moderate.


    It is one thing to impose the “Green Pass” with the excuse of the pandemic; but it is quite another to recognize that the purpose of the passport is to accustom us to being tracked; and still another to say that this total control is the “mark of the Beast” of which the Book of the Apocalypse speaks (Rev 13:16-18).


    The reader will forgive me if, in order to demonstrate my argument, I must resort to using quotations of such gravity and wickedness that they arouse bewilderment and horror — but this is necessary if we are to understand what the real intentions of the architects of this plot really are, and the true nature of the epochal battle they are waging against Christ and His Church.


    In order to understand the esoteric roots of the thought that lies at the foundation of the United Nations, once longed for by [19th-century Italian political activist] Giuseppe Mazzini, we cannot fail to consider characters such as Albert Pike, Eliphas Levi, Helena Blavatsky, Alice Ann Bailey, or other disciples of Luciferian sects.


    Their writings, published since the late nineteenth century, are quite revealing.


    Albert Pike, a friend of Mazzini and a fellow Freemason, gave an address in 1889 in France to the highest levels of Freemasonry, which was then reprinted on 19 January 1935 by the English journal The Freemason. Pike declared:


    That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a god, but it is the god one adores without superstition […]. The Masonic religion ought to be maintained in the purity of Luciferian doctrine by all of us who are initiates of the highest degrees. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay [sic] [the God of the Christians] whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion of science, would Adonay and his priest calumniate him?


    Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive… the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil.


    This profession of faith in the divinity of Satan is not only an admission of who the real Great Architect that Freemasonry adores is, but also a blasphemous political project that passed through the ecumenism of Vatican II, whose first theorist was Freemasonry:


    The Christian, the Jew, the Moslem, the Buddhist, the follower of Confucius and Zoroaster can unite as brothers and join together in prayer to the only god who is above all the other gods (cf. Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, ed. Bastogi, Foggia 1984, vol. VI, p. 153).


    And the identity of the “only god who is above all the other gods” has been well explained in the preceding quotation.


    In another letter, Pike wrote to Mazzini:


    We will unleash the nihilists and atheists and provoke a formidable social cataclysm that will clearly demonstrate to the nations, in all its horror, the effect of absolute atheism, the origin of barbarism and bloody subversion. Then citizens everywhere, forced to defend themselves against a world minority of revolutionaries, […] will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, finally revealed to the public’s view; a manifestation that will be followed by the destruction of Christianity and also of atheism, which will be conquered and crushed at the same time! (cf. Letter of 15 August 1871 to Giuseppe Mazzini, Library of the British Museum, London).


    It will not escape notice that the “great heresy of separativeness” sounds curiously in agreement with the ecumenism condemned by Pius XI in his Encyclical Mortalium Animos, an ecumenism that was adopted by the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae and recently merged into the doctrine of “inclusivity” formulated by those who allowed idolatrous worship to the pachamama to be offered in Saint Peter’s Basilica.


    It is clear that the term “separativeness” intends to designate in a negative key the necessary separation of good from evil, of true from false, of the right from wrong that constitutes the criterion of moral judgment of human behavior.


    “Inclusivity” opposes this distinction, allowing oneself to be deliberately contaminated by evil to adulterate the good, equating the true and the false in order to corrupt the former and give legitimacy to the latter.


    The shared ideological roots of ecumenism


    If one does not understand that the ideological roots of ecumenism are intrinsically linked to Masonic Luciferian esoterism, one cannot grasp the connection that links the doctrinal deviations of Vatican II to the plan of the New World Order.


    The revolution of 1968 was a sad example of those pacifist and ecumenist ambitions, in which the “Age of Aquarius” was celebrated by the musical Hair (1969) and then by John Lennon with Imagine (1971):


    Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try.


    No hell below us. Above us only sky.


    Imagine all the people, living for today.


    Imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do.


    Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.    


    Imagine all the people, living life in peace.


    You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.


    I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.


    Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can.


    No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man.


    Imagine all the people, sharing all the world.


    This manifesto of Masonic nihilism can be considered the hymn of globalism and the new universal religion: it is no coincidence that it was used as the theme song for the 2012 Olympic Games in London, and more recently for those in Tokyo.


    A soul that is not led astray can only feel horror at these blasphemous words.


    The same is true for the words of Lennon’s no-less-blasphemous song God (1970):


    God is a concept by which we measure our pain. […]


    I just believe in me.


    I understand that for many it is distressing to accept that the Hierarchy may have allowed itself to be deceived by its enemies, making their requests their own in questions that touch the very soul of the Church.


    It is certain that there were Masonic prelates who succeeded in introducing their ideas into the Council by disguising them, but in the full awareness that they would inexorably lead to the realization of that demolition of Religion that is the premise for the establishment of the New Era — the Age of Aquarius — in which Our Lord is banished from society in order to welcome the Antichrist.


    One can then understand the winking indulgence given to Freemasonry by many Catholic personalities — I am thinking of Cardinals Martini and Ravasi, among the many — and their opposition to the excommunications that the Popes renewed against the sect.


    One also understands the reason for the enthusiasm of the Masonic Lodges at the election of Bergoglio, and conversely their ill-concealed hatred toward Benedict XVI, considered as the kathèkon [“the one who restrains” (cfr. 2 Thess 6:7)] to be eliminated.


    It should also be remembered, with some embarrassment, that certain statements by Ratzinger suggest an attempt to “Christianize” the globalist project, without condemning it as antichristic and anti-Christian:


    Let the Child of Bethlehem take you by the hand! Do not fear; put your trust in him! The life-giving power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order (here).


    These words, unfortunately, confirm the fallacy of Hegelian thought, which influenced the professor from Tubingen right up to the Throne.


    Certainly the Pontiff’s failure to take a position permitted him to be considered in some way an ally of the globalist plan, if Italian President Giorgio Napolitano was able to affirm in his 2006 year-end address speech to the Italian people: There is harmony between Pope Benedict and me in supporting a New World Order” (31 December 2006).


    On the other hand, the Hegelian process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis echoes the motto of alchemy, Solve et Coagula, which was adopted by Freemasonry and by Luciferian esoterism.


    It is the motto that appears on the arms of Baphomet, the infernal idol adored by the highest levels of the Masonic sect, as is admitted by its most authoritative members.


    In his essay Lucifer Rising, Philip Jones specifies that the Hegelian dialectic “combines a form of Christianity as thesis with a pagan spiritualism as antithesis, with the result of a synthesis that is very similar to the Babylonian mystery religions.”


Finding Vigano

    The globalist pantheism of Theilard de Chardin


    Ecumenism is one of the key themes of globalist thought.


    This is confirmed by Robert Muller, who was the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations: “We must move as quickly as possible towards a one-world government, a one-world religion, and a single world leader.”


    Before him, one of the advocates of the League of Nations, Arthur Balfour, created the “Synthetic Society,” which had as its purpose the creation of the “one-world religion.”


    Pierre Theilard de Chardin himself, a Jesuit heretic condemned by the Holy Office and today a celebrated theologian of progressivism, considered the United Nations as “the progressivist institutional incarnation of his philosophy,” expressing his hope that “a general convergence of religions on a universal Christ who fulfills them all….seems to me to be the only possible conversion of the world, and the only form in which a religion of the future can be conceived” in order to “reduce the gap between pantheism and Christianity by drawing out what could be called the Christian soul of Pantheism or the pantheistic aspect of Christianity.”


    It will not escape notice that the pachamama and the attribution of Marian connotations to Mother Earth turns these concepts of Theilard de Chardin into a disturbing reality.


    And that’s not all: Robert Muller, the world government theorist who is also a disciple of the theosophist Alice A. Bailey, declares: “Teilhard de Chardin influenced his companion [the Jesuit Father Emmanuel Saguez de Breuvery, who held important positions at the UN], who in turn inspired his colleagues, and they in turn initiated a rich process of global and long-term thought within the United Nations, which has affected many nations and people all over the world. I was profoundly influenced by Teilhard.”


    In his book The Future of Man, Theilard writes: “Even if its form is not yet visible, tomorrow humanity will wake up in a pan-organized world.”


    Muller was the founder of the World Core Curriculum, which aimed “to orient our children towards global citizenship, earth-centered beliefs, socialist values and the collective mindset, which are becoming a requirement for the work force of the 21st century” (New Man Magazine).


    And if he proudly claims Alice A. Bailey among his inspirers, we discover that she was a disciple of the Theosophic Movement founded by Helena Blavatsky, a declared Luciferian.


    In order to correctly understand Blavatsky’s character, here are a few citations from her writings:


    Lucifer represents Life, Thought, Progress, Civilization, Liberty, Independence… Lucifer is the Logos, the Serpent, the Savior.


    And, almost anticipating the pachamama:


    The Celestial Virgin thus becomes, at the same time, the Mother of Gods and Demons, because she is the ever-loving beneficent Divinity… But in antiquity and in reality the name [of this god] is Lucifer. Lucifer is the divine and earthly Light, both the Holy Spirit and Satan at the same moment.”


    And last but not least:


    It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god.


    It was Alice A. Bailey who founded the Lucifer Publishing Company, which is now known as the Lucis Publishing Company, closely related to the Lucis Trust, formerly the Lucifer Trust, recognized as an NGO by the United Nations.


    If we add to this heap of infernal ramblings the words of David Spangler, the Director of the Planetary Initiative Project of the United Nations, we will realize how terrible is the threat that is hanging over all of us:


    No one will be part of the New World Order unless he carries out an act of worship to Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he receives a Luciferian initiation (Reflections on the Christ, Findhorn, 1978).


    Alice A. Bailey writes about the New Age:


    The achievements of science, the conquests of nations and the conquests of territory are all indicative of the method of the Age of Pisces [the age of Christ], with its idealism, its militancy, and its separativity in all fields — religious, political, and economic. But the age of synthesis, of inclusivity, and understanding is upon us, and the new education of the Age of Aquarius [the age of the Antichrist] must very delicately begin to penetrate the human aura.


    Today we see how the teaching methods theorized by Muller in the World Core Curriculum have been adopted by almost all nations, including LGBT ideology, gender theory, and all other forms of indoctrination.


    This is confirmed by the former director of the WHO, Dr. Brock Chisolm, explaining what the UN educational policy would like to achieve:


    In order to achieve a world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, fidelity to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas (cf. Christian World Report, Marzo 1991, Vol. 3).


    Behold once again the fil rouge [the red thread] that links not only Klaus Schwab to Hélder Câmara, but also Robert Muller and Alice A. Bailey to Pierre Theilard de Chardin and Emmanuel Saguez de Breuvery, always in a globalist key and under the ill-omened inspiration of Luciferian thought.


    An in-depth analysis of these disturbing aspects will make it possible to shed light on the truth and reveal the complicity and betrayals of not a few churchmen who are enslaved to the enemy.


    Our response to the crisis of authority


    The corruption of authority is such that it is very difficult — at least in human terms — to hypothesize a peaceful way out.


    In the course of history, totalitarian regimes have been overthrown by force.


    It is difficult to think that the health dictatorship that has been established in recent months can be fought differently, since all the powers of the State, all of the means of information, all the international public and private institutions, all of the economic and financial potentates are complicit in this crime.


    Faced with this bleak scenario of corruption and conflict of interest, it is indispensable that all those who are not subservient to the globalist plan unite in a compact and cohesive front, in order to defend their natural and religious rights, their own health and that of their loved ones, their freedom, and their goods.


    Where authority fails in its duties and indeed betrays the purpose for which it has been established, disobedience is not only lawful but obligatory: non-violent disobedience, at least for now, but determined and courageous.


    Disobedience to the illegitimate and tyrannical diktats of ecclesiastical authority, wherever it shows itself to be an accomplice of the infernal plan of the New World Order.


    Conclusion


    Allow me to conclude this reflection with a brief spiritual thought.


    Everything that we know, discover, and understand about the global conspiracy currently unfolding shows us a tremendous reality that is also at the same time sharp and clearly-defined: there are two sides, the side of God and the side of Satan, the side of the children of Light and the side of the children of darkness.


    It is not possible to come to terms with the Enemy, nor is it possible to serve two masters (Mt 6:24).


    The words of Our Lord must be engraved in our minds: “Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters” (Mt 12:30).


    Hoping to build a world government in which the Divine Kingship of Jesus Christ is outlawed is insane and blasphemous, and no one who has such a plan will ever succeed.


    Where Christ reigns, peace, harmony and justice reign; where Christ does not reign, Satan is a tyrant.


    Let us consider this well, whenever we have to choose whether to make agreements with the adversary in the name of a false peaceful coexistence!


    And let those prelates and civil leaders who think that their complicity only affects economic or health issues, pretending not to know what is behind all this, also consider this well.


    Let us turn to Christ, Christ who is the King of hearts, of families, of societies, and of nations.


    Let us proclaim Him as Our King and Mary Most Holy as Our Queen.


    Only in this way can the wicked project of the New World Order be defeated.


    Only in this way can the Holy Church be purified of traitors and renegades.


    And may God listen to our prayer.


    + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

28 August 2021

S. Augustini Episcopi et Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris

______________________________________________



The Man of Sin will be a philanthropist, environmentalist and an advocate of Green Religion.  Cardinal Biffi's view here.




The Earth Charter movement loves Pope Francis.  At its Facebook page, the demonic organization gushes with excitement: "Pope Francis is expected to produce the first ever encyclical - the highest level Catholic teaching document - focused solely on the environment and climate change...Scientists have made the case that climate change threatens the natural world. Can religious leaders now make the moral case for political action?"


The Earth Charter is part of what I call the Open Conspiracy: Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, must be neutralized.


Speaking about the Earth Charter and related globalism, Msgr. Michel Schooyans said, "In order to consolidate this holistic vision of globalism, certain obstacles have to be smoothed out and instruments put to work. Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, figure among the obstacles that have to be neutralized."


This certainly explains the HHS contraception mandate - one step in an ongoing process.  And now, with growing support of same-sex "marriage."  The Open Conspiracy is emboldened.  As H.G. Wells, himself a Socialist, had argued, traditional Christianity has been rendered "old-fashioned and unserviceable" [read obsolete] and religion must now "adapt itself" to our modern "forward looking turn of mind."


Enter the Earth Charter.  According to its founders, the Earth Charter is "a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century." The Earth Charter Commission hopes that the Charter will become the common standard "by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions [such as the Roman Catholic Church, my note] is to be guided and assessed."


The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism. In the words of Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragan, "Clearly, we are faced with the total denial of Christianity." Which is why Mikhael Gorbachev, at the three separate press conferences at the RIO + 5 Conference, said that, "The Ten Commandments are out of date. They will be replaced by the [then] fifteen principles of the Earth Charter.


The Termite Nations have dispensed with God and His Commandments in their quest for unbridled hedonism. We are being prepared for the Reign of Antichrist.  And the Synod this October is yet another step in the neutralizing of Roman Catholicism.


The Rev. P. Huchede, in his work entitled "History of Antichrist," explains the religious preparation, both intellectual and moral, for the Reign of Antichrist which will arrive after economic collapse: "But how shall he deprive the world of Christianity and have himself adored as God? Alas, it is only too true that the minds and hearts of men are admirably disposed for revolution and consequently ready to accept and bear the cruel yoke of such a tyrant. Revolution as the word itself implies means a subversion, but a subversion of all that is true, good, beautiful, and grand in the universe. It is the subversion of religion, representing its dogmas as myths and its moral teachings as tyranical. It is the subversion of authority...


Licentiousness under the name of liberty becomes the order of the day; each one is invested with the right to govern himself. It is the subversion of reason: and do we not find leading minds in some of the most enlightened nations denying the principle of contradiction and maintaining the absolute identity of all beings? Revolution is therefore essentially destructive, and it becomes cosmopolitan by the action of secret societies scattered throughout the world. Is it not true to say that the 'mystery of iniquity' is prepared in secret revolutionary dens? But it does not suffice to destroy; it is absolutely necessary to build up again. The world cannot subsist long in a vacuum. It must have a religion; it must have a philosophy; it must have an authority. Revolution will furnish all these. Instead of the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ, Revolution will preach Pantheism. The God-humanity will impart the theurgic spirit and thus lead men to adore the demon as the author of universal emancipation...What frightful immorality must follow in the train of this shameless prostitution of religion! Never has the threefold concupiscence made greater ravage among mankind. And this is the religion sought and hoped for as the cherished boon of the aspirations of our modern free thinkers. To our Christian philosophy, the honor of humanity's revolution will substitute a babel of extravagant and absurd ideas. Instead of a mild and efficient authority consecrated alike by Church and state, despotism and anarchy will rise up and contend for the shreds of religious liberty and human policy...if the state of perversion continue for a while longer, he [Antichrist] will find the world prepared to receive and serve him." (Rev. P. Huchede, History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14, Tan Books).


Father Huchede addresses the fact of the open conspiracy: "Is it not true to say that the "mystery of iniquity" is prepared in secret revolutionary dens?"

This is the revolution called for by atheists, socialists, freemasons and all those who hate the Lord Jesus and His Mystical Body which is the Catholic Church.  H.G. Wells described the goal of the Open Conspiracy as, "an adequately implemented Liberal Socialism, which will ultimately supply teaching, coercive and directive public services to the whole world" and added that this, "is the immediate task before all rational people...There must be a common faith and law for mankind" and this will be achieved through a "World-State."

Friday, April 03, 2020

Ecclesiastical Masonry is revealing its true face as Francis drops Vicar of Christ title



Ecclesiastical Masonry's hour has arrived.  The plan is reaching its fulfillment.  The stage is being set for the Man of Sin.  Pretense is no longer required.  See here.

The Masonic plan for more than a century has been to elect a false pope to deliver the Church up to sin and he who comes in his own filthy name (John 5:43).

In the end, this Dark Church will fail. God has other plans.  But Jesus's promise that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against
His Church does not mean that the Adversary will not have much success in pulling a significant portion of the Church down with him (CCC, 675).

Remain under the sure refuge which is the Immaculata.  The Turis Davidica will protect your faith.  Pray the Rosary daily.  Consecrate yourself and your loved ones to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Place yourself under Our Savior's Precious Blood.  Remain in the Sacraments.  Do Penance.

The Demon has launched his final campaign against Our Savior, His sinless Mother and her children..

Monday, March 13, 2017

Francis: God's Holy Word is false, there is no such thing as a witch

Francis just went on record as saying that: "Witches don’t really exist, so they can do no harm..."

The False Prophet works to prepare the way for the Man of Sin and His disciples who will use sorcery (witchcraft) to deceive a new generation.

A sampling of God's Holy Word:


Leviticus 19:31

“Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.

Exodus 22:18

“You shall not permit a sorceress to live.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12

“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.

Leviticus 20:27

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.”

Leviticus 20:6

“If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.

Galatians 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Deuteronomy 18:10

There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer

Isaiah 8:19

And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?

Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Galatians 5:20-21

Idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

2 Chronicles 33:6

And he burned his sons as an offering in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and used fortune-telling and omens and sorcery, and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.

1 Samuel 15:23

For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.”

Revelation 22:15

Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

1 Chronicles 10:13-14

So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance. He did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

Acts 19:19

And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver.

God's Holy Word condemns all forms of witchcraft, sorcery and other "magic arts" such as those practiced by Pharaoh's priests.  But Francis asserts that witches don't really exist.

Jean Bodin, in his work "De la Demonomanie des Sorciers," writes, "Sorcier est celuy qui par moyens Diaboliques sciemment s'efforce de paruenir a quel que chose" - A sorcerer is one who by commerce with the Devil has a full intention of attaining his own ends."

What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church have to say about such activity? Paragraph 2117 explains that, "All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity."

In 1974, the American Council of Witches issued the "Principles of Wiccan Belief." No. 10 states: "Our only animosity towards Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be 'the only way,' and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief."

So Wicca acknowledges an "animosity" toward Christianity which teaches that salvation is in Jesus alone (Acts 4:12). The question presents itself: what does this animosity consist of?

In an article published in Polish in Panorama and written by Dr. J. Coleman, an Intelligence officer, Dr. Coleman is quoted as having said that, "The One-World Government is going to consist of hereditary oligarchs who will divide the power between themselves. There is going to be only one legal religion and only one state church. Only Satanism and Luciferism will be the legal religious subjects in state schools. No other schools (private, Catholic, etc.) will be allowed. All present Christian education systems are going to be destroyed (and the fact is — they are destroyed in the most part) from inside, and become extinct. Satanism is already considered to be a 'true and legal religion'. In fact, on some U.S. military bases, they already celebrate black masses and worship Satan."

Antichrist will use the dark arts.  He will have his own temple with his own priests just as Pharaoh did.  And they will use sorcery (witchcraft) so as to deceive even the elect if possible.



Sunday, June 12, 2016

Francis: Preparing the generation which will embrace the man-god

In his Encyclical Letter Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, Pope Leo XIII reminds is that, ..."what was decreed and constituted in respect to marriage by the authority of God has been more fully and more clearly handed down to us, by tradition and the written Word, through the Apostles, those heralds of the laws of God. To the Apostles, indeed, as our masters, are to be referred the doctrines which 'our holy Fathers, the Councils, and the Tradition of the Universal Church have always taught,'namely, that Christ our Lord raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament; that to husband and wife, guarded and strengthened by the heavenly grace which His merits Rained for them, He gave power to attain holiness in the married state; and that, in a wondrous way, making marriage an example of the mystical union between Himself and His Church, He not only perfected that love which is according to nature, but also made the naturally indivisible union of one man with one woman far more perfect through the bond of heavenly love. Paul says to the Ephesians: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it, that He might sanctify it. . . So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. . . For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the Church; because we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church." In like manner from the teaching of the Apostles we learn that the unity of marriage and its perpetual indissolubility, the indispensable conditions of its very origin, must, according to the command of Christ, be holy and inviolable without exception."

Pope Pius XI in his famous Encyclical "On Christian Marriage," had this to say:

"First of all, let this remain the unchanged and unshakable foundation: Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to men's pleasure, nor by any agreement of the spouses themselves that is contrary to these laws. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture (see Gen 1:27; 2:22f.; Mt 19:3ff.; Eph 5:23ff.); this is the constant, universal tradition of the Church; this is the solemn definition of the holy Council of Trent, which in the words of Sacred Scripture teaches and reasserts that the permanent and indissoluble bond of matrimony, its unity and strength, have their origin in God."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1603-1605, explain marriage in the order of creation:

"The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."


God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"


Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Again, we may choose to reject these truths. But in so doing, we lose our grip on sanity as it were. In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed:

"..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him [such as marriage, my note] is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

We see this insanity, in the form of the disease of modernism, in Francis.  See here.

This insanity, see here, will continue to metastasize, and will eventually infect much of the Mystical Body of Christ. For men have grown weary of the truth and are prepared to worship the Devil.

Any moment now, the man-God (John 5:43) will reveal himself and demand that very worship.  For now, his False Prophet continues to tickle ears, preparing the generation which will turn toward, and enthusiastically embrace, doctrines of demons.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Evangelists: Obama paving the way for the Antichrist

A group of evangelists agree that President Barack Obama is paving the way for the Antichrist. See here.

Just prior to the Reign of Antichrist, Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser tells us that, "During this unhappy period there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the law of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh. They will ridicule Christian simplicity ; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge...As a result no principle at all- however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications, and delimitation by man.

These are evil times a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power, almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant and that they live as befits their state of life. In like manner therefore they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church; Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while Bishops prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."

The Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality.

Watch and pray.  I believe that the Man of Sin will soon reveal himself.  The world is ready to accept and worship him*


* John 5:43
The Beast approaches

Sunday, January 04, 2015

Awaiting the "Messiah of Evolution"

Albert Drexel, in Ein Neuer Prophet? (Stein am Rhein: Christiana, 1971) explains that: "The modernism or neo-modernism within Christianity, and especially within the Roman Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council, is above all characterized by a turning away from the supernatural and an exclusive predilection for this world, the Aggiornamento of Pope John XXIII interpreted one-sidedly and hence misapplied. Teilhard's ideology was was a definitive precondition for this. Inasmuch as he turned his back to the past, fused God and the supernatural with the process of a universal evolutionism, and proclaimed religion to be an active participation in a progressive development ending in Point Omega, the basis was given for a humanist cult of the secular." (p. 115).

Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., whom many consider the father of the New age Movement,  enthusiastically prophesied that, "After what will soon be two thousand years, Christ must be born again, he must be reincarnated in a world that has become too different from that in which he lived. (Teilhard De Chardin Christianity and Evolution p. 95)

And again, "I believe that the Messiah whom we await, whom we all without any doubt await [is] the universal Christ; that is to say, the Christ of evolution. " (ibid. p. 96) In other words this is one who became God, not God who became man.

And again, "A general convergence of religions upon a universal Christ who fundamentally satisfies them all: that seems to me the only possible conversion of the world, and the only form In which a religion of the future can be conceived. "(Teilhard De Chardin Christianity and Evolution p. 130)

In the 1820's, Sister Emmerick had visions of the Church in the future. On September 12, 1820, Sister Emmerick said:

"I saw a strange church being built against every rule....No angels were supervising the building operations. In that church nothing came from high above....There was only division and chaos. It's probably a church of human creation, following the latest fashion, as well as the new heterodox church of Rome, which seems of the same kind....I saw again the strange big church that was being built there [in Rome]. There was nothing holy in it....Everything was being done according to human reason. I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of a cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: 'Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground.'"

This "future church" which Venerable Emmerich was shown in a mystical state has now arrived.  And it is a preparation for the Man of Sin, the Antichrist.

From August to October of 1820, Sister Emmerick says: "I see more martyrs, not now but in the future....I saw the secret sect relentlessly undermining the great Church. Near them I saw a horrible beast coming up from the sea....When the Church had been for the most past destroyed [by the secret sect], and when only the sanctuary and altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers enter the Church with the Beast. There they met a Woman of noble carriage who seemed to be with child because she walked slowly. At this sight, the enemies were terrorized, and the Beast could not take but another step forward. It projected its neck towards the Woman as if to devour her, but the Woman turned about and bowed down [towards the altar], her head touching the ground. Thereupon, I saw the Beast taking flight towards the sea again, and the enemies were fleeing in the greatest confusion....Then I saw that the Church was being promptly rebuilt, and she was more magnificent than ever before."

The armies are poised for battle. On the one side, Satan and his cohort (which includes many priests and religious as well as lay people) who are building a church in their own image and likeness, a "FutureChurch" where sin is not confessed but celebrated and where lying and homicide serve as ersatz "sacraments." On the other, the Immaculata and her little children who are humble and despised by the world.

Satan and his followers have their tactics which revolve around the false idols of money, power, lust, and greed all clothed in the mantle of pride. The Immaculata and her cohort have their own tactics: prayer, fasting, penance, reconciliation, humility and a smallness which is clothed in the mantle of love.

Remain faithful to the Church's Tradition.  Consecrate yourself daily to the Immaculata.  Pray the Rosary daily. Frequent Holy Mass and Confession as often as possible.

Do not be conformed to this world and it's Prince, Lucifer.  His time is short. He is in the mood for a decisive battle.

The earth grows very dark.


Sunday, November 30, 2014

Pope Francis and certain members of the Church's hierarchy are paving the way for Chrislam and the Antichrist

Islam is a manifestation of Antichrist. See here.

Back in September, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick offered Islamic prayers while insisting that Islam shares foundational rules with Christianity.

“In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate,” McCarrick prayed as he introduced himself to the audience at a meeting arranged by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. His praise of the Islamic "deity" is an important formula in Islam and is found more than 100 times in the Koran.

Cardinal McCarrick also made the claim that, “Catholic social teaching is based on the dignity of the human person… [and] as you study the holy Koran, as you study Islam, basically, this is what Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him, has been teaching.”

The Cardinal made no mention of Islam's long history of torturing and killing millions of Christians.
There is a concerted effort within the Church to promote a false irenicism and some even wish to merge Christianity and Islam, which rejects the divinity of Christ.  It is therefore necessary for those who engage in this false irenicism to pretend that "authentic Islam" is opposed to violence.  But even the most unenlightened can read the Qu'ran (Koran) for themselves:

Violence and the Quran


by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


One would expect an uninspired book to contradict itself or speak ambiguously on various subjects, at times appearing both to endorse and condemn a practice. So it is with physical violence in the Quran. Yet, despite the occasional puzzling remark that may seem to imply the reverse, the Quran is replete with explicit and implicit sanction and promotion of armed conflict, violence, and bloodshed by Muslims. For example, within months of the Hijrah, Muhammad claimed to receive a revelation that clarified the issue:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil) (Surah 2:190-194, emp. added).

Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can (Surah 2:216-217, emp. added).

Muhammad was informed that warfare was prescribed for him! Though he may have hated warfare, it was actually good for him, and what he loved, i.e., non-warfare, was actually bad for him! And though under normal circumstances, fighting is not appropriate during sacred months, killing was warranted against those who sought to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion. Killing is better than being persecuted! A similar injunction states: “Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory” (Surah 22:39, emp. added). In fact, “Allah loveth those who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure” (Surah 61:4, emp. added).

In a surah titled “Repentance” that issues stern measures to be taken against idolaters, the requirement to engage in carnal warfare is apparent:

Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 9:1-5, emp. added).

The ancient Muslim histories elaborate on the occasion of these admonitions: “[T]he idolaters were given four months’ respite to come and go as they pleased in safety, but after that God and His Messenger would be free from any obligation towards them. War was declared upon them, and they were to be slain or taken captive wherever they were found” (Lings, 1983, p. 323).

Later in the same surah, “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” (Surah 9:29, emp. added). “Those who have been given the Scripture” is a reference to Jews and Christians. The surah advocates coercion against Jews and Christians in order to physically force them to pay the jizyah—a special religious tax imposed on religious minorities (see Nasr, 2002, p. 166). Muslim translator Mohammed Pickthall explains the historical setting of this quranic utterance: “It signified the end of idolatry in Arabia. The Christian Byzantine Empire had begun to move against the growing Muslim power, and this Surah contains mention of a greater war to come, and instructions with regard to it” (p. 145). Indeed, the final verse of Surah 2 calls upon Allah to give Muslims “victory over the disbelieving folk” (vs. 286), rendered by Rodwell: “give us victory therefore over the infidel nations.” That this stance by the Quran was to be expected is evident from the formulation of the Second Pledge of Aqabah, in which the men pledged their loyalty and their commitment to protecting Muhammad from all opponents. This pledge included duties of war, and was taken only by the males. Consequently, the First Aqabah pact, which contained no mention of war, became known as the “pledge of the women” (Lings, p. 112).

Additional allusions to warfare in the Quran are seen in the surah, “The Spoils,” dated in the second year of the Hijrah (A.D. 623), within a month after the Battle of Badr:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.... If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them.... And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not.... O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty stedfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.... It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Had it not been for an ordinance of Allah which had gone before, an awful doom had come upon you on account of what ye took. Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 8:39,57,59-60,65,67-69, emp. added; cf. 33:26).

Muslim scholar Pickthall readily concedes the context of these verses:

vv. 67-69 were revealed when the Prophet had decided to spare the lives of the prisoners taken at Badr and hold them to ransom, against the wish of Omar, who would have executed them for their past crimes. The Prophet took the verses as a reproof, and they are generally understood to mean that no quarter ought to have been given in that first battle (p. 144, emp. added).

So the Quran indicates that at the Battle of Badr, no captives should have been taken. The enemy should have been completely slaughtered, with no quarter given. This very fate awaited the Jewish Bani Qurayzah, when some 700 men were beheaded by the Muslims with Muhammad’s approval (Lings, p. 232). Likewise, members of a clan of the Bani Nadir were executed in Khaybar for concealing their treasure rather than forfeiting it to the Muslims (Lings, p. 267).

Another surah describes how allowances respecting the daily prayers were to be made for Muhammad’s Muslim warriors when engaged in military action:

And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you. And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their arms. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms. Those who disbelieve long for you to neglect your arms and your baggage that they may attack you once for all. It is no sin for you to lay aside your arms, if rain impedeth you or ye are sick. But take your precaution. Lo! Allah prepareth for the disbelievers shameful punishment. When ye have performed the act of worship, remember Allah, standing, sitting and reclining. And when ye are in safety, observe proper worship. Worship at fixed hours hath been enjoined on the believers. Relent not in pursuit of the enemy (Surah 4:101-104, emp. added; cf. 73:20).

These verses show that the Quran implicitly endorses armed conflict and war to advance Islam.

Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).

What a contrast with Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so! The one time that one of His close followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36)—the very opposite of the Aqabah pact. And whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). The New Testament record presents a far higher, more noble and godly ethic on the matter of violence and armed conflict. In fact, the following verses demonstrate how irrevocably deep the chasm is between the Quran and the New Testament on this point:

[L]ove your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? (Matthew 5:44-46).

But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:27-36).

What an amazing contrast! The New Testament says to love, bless, do good to, and pray for those who persecute you. The Quran says that “persecution is worse than killing” (Surah 2:217)—i.e., it is better to kill your persecutors than to endure their persecutions!

The standard Muslim attempt to justify the Quran’s endorsement of violence is that such violence was undertaken in self-defense (e.g., Surah 42:41). Consider the following Muslim explanation:

At the time when this surah (Surah 2—DM) was revealed at Al-Madinah, the Prophet’s own tribe, the pagan Qureysh at Mecca, were preparing to attack the Muslims in their place of refuge. Cruel persecution was the lot of Muslims who had stayed in Meccan territory or who journeyed thither, and Muslims were being prevented from performing the pilgrimage. The possible necessity of fighting had been foreseen in the terms of the oath, taken at Al-Aqabah by the Muslims of Yathrib before the Flight, to defend the Prophet as they would their own wives and children, and the first commandment to fight was revealed to the Prophet before his flight from Mecca; but there was no actual fighting by the Muslims until the battle of Badr. Many of them were reluctant, having before been subject to a rule of strict non-violence. It was with difficulty that they could accept the idea of fighting even in self-defence [sic].... (Pickthall, p. 33, emp. added).

Apart from the fact that the claim that Muhammad’s advocacy of fighting was justifiable on the ground of self-defense is contrary to the historical facts (since the wars waged by Muhammad and the territorial expansion of Islam achieved by his subsequent followers cannot all be dismissed as defensive), this explanation fails to come to grips with the propriety of shedding of blood and inflicting violence—regardless of the reason. Muslim scholar Seyyed Nasr seems unconscious of the inherent self-contradiction apparent in his own remark:

The spread of Islam occurred in waves. In less than a century after the establishment of the first Islamic society in Medina by the Prophet, Arab armies had conquered a land stretching from the Indus River to France and brought with them Islam, which, contrary to popular Western conceptions, was not, however, forced on the people by the sword (2003, p. 17, emp. added).

In other words, Muslim armies physically conquered—by military force and bloodshed—various nations, forcing the population to submit to Muslim rule, but did not require them to become Muslims! One suspects that, at the time, the distinction escaped the citizens of those conquered countries, even as it surely does the reader.

The Quran appears to have been somewhat influenced by the Law of Moses in this regard. For example, the Quran states: “If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted” (Surah 16:126). Similarly, “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.... And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)” (Surah 2:178-179). One is reminded of the lex talionis [literally “law as (or of) retaliation”] of the Law of Moses. However, whereas the Quran appears to enjoin retaliation, the lex talionis were not intended to promote retaliation. Enjoining retaliation would be in direct conflict with the nature of God. God is never vindictive. The New Testament law does not differ with the Old Testament in the areas of proper values, ethics, mercy, and justice. The “eye for an eye” injunctions of the Old Testament were designed to be prohibitive in their thrust, i.e., they humanely limited and restricted legal punishment to a degree in keeping with the crime. That is, they prevented dispensers of justice from punishing too harshly or too much. They were intended to inculcate into Israelite society the principle of confining retribution to appropriate parameters.

The fact that the author of the Quran failed to grasp this feature of God’s laws is evident in various quranic injunctions: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Surah 5:38, emp. added).

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah 24:2,4, emp. added).

These latter verses conflict with Mosaic injunction on two significant points. First, on the one hand, it doubles the more reasonable and appropriate forty stripes (Deuteronomy 25:3)—a number that the Jews were so concerned not to exceed that they counted thirty-nine and stopped to allow for accidental miscount (2 Corinthians 11:24). On the other hand, this eighty increases to one hundred for adultery. Second, the requirement of four witnesses is an unreasonable number. The two or three witnesses of the Bible (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) strikes a logical medium between the precariousness of only a single witness on the one hand, and the excessive and unlikely availability of the four witnesses required by the Quran.

It is true that the God of the Bible enjoined violent, armed conflict for the Israelites in the Old Testament. He did so in order to eliminate the morally corrupt Canaanite civilizations that inhabited Palestine prior to the Israelite occupation of the land (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28). There simply was no viable solution to their condition except extermination. Their moral depravity was “full” (Genesis 15:16). They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be ended—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for years but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness (Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9).

Additionally, since the nation of Israel was also a civil entity in its own right, the government was also charged with implementing civil retribution upon lawbreakers. However, with the arrival of New Testament Christianity—an international religion intended for all persons without regard to ethnicity or nationality—God has assigned to civil government (not the church or the individual) the responsibility of regulating secular behavior. God’s people who live posterior to the cross of Christ (i.e., Christians) are not charged by God with the responsibility of inflicting physical punishment on the evildoer. Rather, civil government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining order and punishing lawbreakers (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Observe Paul’s explanation of this dichotomy:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-7, NKJV, emp. added).

One translation (NIV) renders the boldface type in the above quote “an agent of wrath to bring punishment.” But this assignment of judicial and penal retribution to the government is a contrast in Paul’s discussion with what he wrote in the three verses prior to this quotation:

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:19-21, NKJV, emp. added).

Notice that the very responsibility that is enjoined on the government, i.e., “an avenger to execute wrath” by use of the sword in 13:4, is strictly forbidden to the individual Christian in 12:19, i.e., “do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath.” To “give place to wrath” means to allow God’s wrath to show itself in His own appointed way that, according to the next few verses, is by means of the civil government.

True Christianity (i.e., that which is based strictly on the New Testament) dictates peace and non-retaliatory promotion of itself. The “absolute imperative” (Rahman, 1979, p. 22) of Islam is the submission/conversion of the whole world. In stark contrast, the absolute imperative of New Testament Christianity is the evangelism of the whole world, i.e., the dissemination of the message of salvation—whether people embrace it or not (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47). Absolutely no coercion is admissible from the Christian (i.e., New Testament) viewpoint. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and all other violent activities undertaken in the name of Christ and Christianity have been in complete conflict with the teaching of the New Testament. The perpetrators acted without the authority and sanction of Christ.

Islam seeks to bring the entire world into submission to Allah and the Quran—even using jihad, coercion, and force; Christianity seeks to go into all the world and to announce the “good news” that God loves every individual, that Jesus Christ died for the sins of everyone, and that He offers salvation, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But, each person has free choice to accept or reject without any retaliation by Christians against those who choose to reject. Jesus taught His disciples, when faced with opposition and resistance, simply to walk away: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:14). In fact, on one occasion when a Samaritan village was particularly nonreceptive, some of Jesus’ disciples wished to command fire to come down from heaven to consume them! But Jesus rebuked them and said, “ ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ And they went to another village” (Luke 9:55). Muhammad and the Quran stand in diametrical opposition to Jesus and the New Testament.

If the majority of Muslims were violent, that would not prove that Islam is a religion of violence. The vast majority of those who claim to be “Christian” are practicing a corrupted form of the Christian faith. So the validity of any religion is determined ultimately not by the imperfect, inaccurate practice of the religion by even a majority of its adherents, but by the official authority or standard upon which it is based, i.e., its Scriptures. The present discussion in the world regarding whether or not jihad includes physical force in the advancement of Islam is ultimately irrelevant (cf. Nasr, 2002, pp. 256-266). The Quran unquestionably endorses violence, war, and armed conflict. No wonder a substantial number of Muslims manifest a maniacal, reckless abandon in their willingness to die by sacrificing their lives in order to kill as many “infidels” (especially Israelis and Americans) as possible. They have read the following:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks.... And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).

O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed.... And what though ye be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. What though ye be slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered?.... So those who...fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow—a reward from Allah (Surah 3:156-158,195, emp. added).

Even if the vast majority of Muslims in the world reject violence and refrain from terrorist activity (which would appear to be the case), it is still a fact that the Quran (as well as the example of Muhammad himself) endorses the advancement of Islam through physical force. While Muslim apologist Seyyed Hossein Nasr insists that “the traditional norms based on peace and openness to others” characterize true Islam and the majority of Muslims, in contradistinction, he freely admits that at times Islam “has been forced to take recourse to physical action in the form of defense” (Nasr, 2002, pp. 112,110). This concession cannot be successfully denied in view of the Quran’s own declarations. Hence, the Muslim is forced to maintain the self-contradictory position that, yes, there have been times that Islam has been properly violent and, yes, the Quran does endorse violence, but, no, most Muslims are not violent, and then only in self-defense. As reprehensible and cowardly as Islamic terrorists have shown themselves to be in recent years, an honest reading of the Quran leads one to believe that they, at least, are more consistent with, and true to, their own Scriptures—as revolting an idea as that may be.

REFERENCES

Lings, Martin (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2002), The Heart of Islam (New York: HarperCollins).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2003), Islam (New York: HarperCollins).

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

Rahman, Fazlur (1979), Islam (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.

Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint), The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).

There is a concerted effort within the Church to promote a false irenicism and some even wish to merge Christianity and Islam, which rejects the divinity of Christ.  It is therefore necessary for those who engage in this false irenicism to pretend that "authentic Islam" is opposed to violence.  But even the most unenlightened can read the Qu'ran (Koran) for themselves:

Violence and the Quran


by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


One would expect an uninspired book to contradict itself or speak ambiguously on various subjects, at times appearing both to endorse and condemn a practice. So it is with physical violence in the Quran. Yet, despite the occasional puzzling remark that may seem to imply the reverse, the Quran is replete with explicit and implicit sanction and promotion of armed conflict, violence, and bloodshed by Muslims. For example, within months of the Hijrah, Muhammad claimed to receive a revelation that clarified the issue:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil) (Surah 2:190-194, emp. added).

Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can (Surah 2:216-217, emp. added).

Muhammad was informed that warfare was prescribed for him! Though he may have hated warfare, it was actually good for him, and what he loved, i.e., non-warfare, was actually bad for him! And though under normal circumstances, fighting is not appropriate during sacred months, killing was warranted against those who sought to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion. Killing is better than being persecuted! A similar injunction states: “Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory” (Surah 22:39, emp. added). In fact, “Allah loveth those who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure” (Surah 61:4, emp. added).

In a surah titled “Repentance” that issues stern measures to be taken against idolaters, the requirement to engage in carnal warfare is apparent:

Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 9:1-5, emp. added).

The ancient Muslim histories elaborate on the occasion of these admonitions: “[T]he idolaters were given four months’ respite to come and go as they pleased in safety, but after that God and His Messenger would be free from any obligation towards them. War was declared upon them, and they were to be slain or taken captive wherever they were found” (Lings, 1983, p. 323).

Later in the same surah, “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” (Surah 9:29, emp. added). “Those who have been given the Scripture” is a reference to Jews and Christians. The surah advocates coercion against Jews and Christians in order to physically force them to pay the jizyah—a special religious tax imposed on religious minorities (see Nasr, 2002, p. 166). Muslim translator Mohammed Pickthall explains the historical setting of this quranic utterance: “It signified the end of idolatry in Arabia. The Christian Byzantine Empire had begun to move against the growing Muslim power, and this Surah contains mention of a greater war to come, and instructions with regard to it” (p. 145). Indeed, the final verse of Surah 2 calls upon Allah to give Muslims “victory over the disbelieving folk” (vs. 286), rendered by Rodwell: “give us victory therefore over the infidel nations.” That this stance by the Quran was to be expected is evident from the formulation of the Second Pledge of Aqabah, in which the men pledged their loyalty and their commitment to protecting Muhammad from all opponents. This pledge included duties of war, and was taken only by the males. Consequently, the First Aqabah pact, which contained no mention of war, became known as the “pledge of the women” (Lings, p. 112).

Additional allusions to warfare in the Quran are seen in the surah, “The Spoils,” dated in the second year of the Hijrah (A.D. 623), within a month after the Battle of Badr:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.... If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them.... And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not.... O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty stedfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.... It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Had it not been for an ordinance of Allah which had gone before, an awful doom had come upon you on account of what ye took. Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 8:39,57,59-60,65,67-69, emp. added; cf. 33:26).

Muslim scholar Pickthall readily concedes the context of these verses:

vv. 67-69 were revealed when the Prophet had decided to spare the lives of the prisoners taken at Badr and hold them to ransom, against the wish of Omar, who would have executed them for their past crimes. The Prophet took the verses as a reproof, and they are generally understood to mean that no quarter ought to have been given in that first battle (p. 144, emp. added).

So the Quran indicates that at the Battle of Badr, no captives should have been taken. The enemy should have been completely slaughtered, with no quarter given. This very fate awaited the Jewish Bani Qurayzah, when some 700 men were beheaded by the Muslims with Muhammad’s approval (Lings, p. 232). Likewise, members of a clan of the Bani Nadir were executed in Khaybar for concealing their treasure rather than forfeiting it to the Muslims (Lings, p. 267).

Another surah describes how allowances respecting the daily prayers were to be made for Muhammad’s Muslim warriors when engaged in military action:

And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you. And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their arms. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms. Those who disbelieve long for you to neglect your arms and your baggage that they may attack you once for all. It is no sin for you to lay aside your arms, if rain impedeth you or ye are sick. But take your precaution. Lo! Allah prepareth for the disbelievers shameful punishment. When ye have performed the act of worship, remember Allah, standing, sitting and reclining. And when ye are in safety, observe proper worship. Worship at fixed hours hath been enjoined on the believers. Relent not in pursuit of the enemy (Surah 4:101-104, emp. added; cf. 73:20).

These verses show that the Quran implicitly endorses armed conflict and war to advance Islam.

Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).

What a contrast with Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so! The one time that one of His close followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36)—the very opposite of the Aqabah pact. And whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). The New Testament record presents a far higher, more noble and godly ethic on the matter of violence and armed conflict. In fact, the following verses demonstrate how irrevocably deep the chasm is between the Quran and the New Testament on this point:

[L]ove your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? (Matthew 5:44-46).

But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:27-36).

What an amazing contrast! The New Testament says to love, bless, do good to, and pray for those who persecute you. The Quran says that “persecution is worse than killing” (Surah 2:217)—i.e., it is better to kill your persecutors than to endure their persecutions!

The standard Muslim attempt to justify the Quran’s endorsement of violence is that such violence was undertaken in self-defense (e.g., Surah 42:41). Consider the following Muslim explanation:

At the time when this surah (Surah 2—DM) was revealed at Al-Madinah, the Prophet’s own tribe, the pagan Qureysh at Mecca, were preparing to attack the Muslims in their place of refuge. Cruel persecution was the lot of Muslims who had stayed in Meccan territory or who journeyed thither, and Muslims were being prevented from performing the pilgrimage. The possible necessity of fighting had been foreseen in the terms of the oath, taken at Al-Aqabah by the Muslims of Yathrib before the Flight, to defend the Prophet as they would their own wives and children, and the first commandment to fight was revealed to the Prophet before his flight from Mecca; but there was no actual fighting by the Muslims until the battle of Badr. Many of them were reluctant, having before been subject to a rule of strict non-violence. It was with difficulty that they could accept the idea of fighting even in self-defence [sic].... (Pickthall, p. 33, emp. added).

Apart from the fact that the claim that Muhammad’s advocacy of fighting was justifiable on the ground of self-defense is contrary to the historical facts (since the wars waged by Muhammad and the territorial expansion of Islam achieved by his subsequent followers cannot all be dismissed as defensive), this explanation fails to come to grips with the propriety of shedding of blood and inflicting violence—regardless of the reason. Muslim scholar Seyyed Nasr seems unconscious of the inherent self-contradiction apparent in his own remark:

The spread of Islam occurred in waves. In less than a century after the establishment of the first Islamic society in Medina by the Prophet, Arab armies had conquered a land stretching from the Indus River to France and brought with them Islam, which, contrary to popular Western conceptions, was not, however, forced on the people by the sword (2003, p. 17, emp. added).

In other words, Muslim armies physically conquered—by military force and bloodshed—various nations, forcing the population to submit to Muslim rule, but did not require them to become Muslims! One suspects that, at the time, the distinction escaped the citizens of those conquered countries, even as it surely does the reader.

The Quran appears to have been somewhat influenced by the Law of Moses in this regard. For example, the Quran states: “If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted” (Surah 16:126). Similarly, “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.... And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)” (Surah 2:178-179). One is reminded of the lex talionis [literally “law as (or of) retaliation”] of the Law of Moses. However, whereas the Quran appears to enjoin retaliation, the lex talionis were not intended to promote retaliation. Enjoining retaliation would be in direct conflict with the nature of God. God is never vindictive. The New Testament law does not differ with the Old Testament in the areas of proper values, ethics, mercy, and justice. The “eye for an eye” injunctions of the Old Testament were designed to be prohibitive in their thrust, i.e., they humanely limited and restricted legal punishment to a degree in keeping with the crime. That is, they prevented dispensers of justice from punishing too harshly or too much. They were intended to inculcate into Israelite society the principle of confining retribution to appropriate parameters.

The fact that the author of the Quran failed to grasp this feature of God’s laws is evident in various quranic injunctions: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Surah 5:38, emp. added).

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah 24:2,4, emp. added).

These latter verses conflict with Mosaic injunction on two significant points. First, on the one hand, it doubles the more reasonable and appropriate forty stripes (Deuteronomy 25:3)—a number that the Jews were so concerned not to exceed that they counted thirty-nine and stopped to allow for accidental miscount (2 Corinthians 11:24). On the other hand, this eighty increases to one hundred for adultery. Second, the requirement of four witnesses is an unreasonable number. The two or three witnesses of the Bible (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) strikes a logical medium between the precariousness of only a single witness on the one hand, and the excessive and unlikely availability of the four witnesses required by the Quran.

It is true that the God of the Bible enjoined violent, armed conflict for the Israelites in the Old Testament. He did so in order to eliminate the morally corrupt Canaanite civilizations that inhabited Palestine prior to the Israelite occupation of the land (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28). There simply was no viable solution to their condition except extermination. Their moral depravity was “full” (Genesis 15:16). They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be ended—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for years but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness (Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9).

Additionally, since the nation of Israel was also a civil entity in its own right, the government was also charged with implementing civil retribution upon lawbreakers. However, with the arrival of New Testament Christianity—an international religion intended for all persons without regard to ethnicity or nationality—God has assigned to civil government (not the church or the individual) the responsibility of regulating secular behavior. God’s people who live posterior to the cross of Christ (i.e., Christians) are not charged by God with the responsibility of inflicting physical punishment on the evildoer. Rather, civil government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining order and punishing lawbreakers (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Observe Paul’s explanation of this dichotomy:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-7, NKJV, emp. added).

One translation (NIV) renders the boldface type in the above quote “an agent of wrath to bring punishment.” But this assignment of judicial and penal retribution to the government is a contrast in Paul’s discussion with what he wrote in the three verses prior to this quotation:

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:19-21, NKJV, emp. added).

Notice that the very responsibility that is enjoined on the government, i.e., “an avenger to execute wrath” by use of the sword in 13:4, is strictly forbidden to the individual Christian in 12:19, i.e., “do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath.” To “give place to wrath” means to allow God’s wrath to show itself in His own appointed way that, according to the next few verses, is by means of the civil government.

True Christianity (i.e., that which is based strictly on the New Testament) dictates peace and non-retaliatory promotion of itself. The “absolute imperative” (Rahman, 1979, p. 22) of Islam is the submission/conversion of the whole world. In stark contrast, the absolute imperative of New Testament Christianity is the evangelism of the whole world, i.e., the dissemination of the message of salvation—whether people embrace it or not (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47). Absolutely no coercion is admissible from the Christian (i.e., New Testament) viewpoint. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and all other violent activities undertaken in the name of Christ and Christianity have been in complete conflict with the teaching of the New Testament. The perpetrators acted without the authority and sanction of Christ.

Islam seeks to bring the entire world into submission to Allah and the Quran—even using jihad, coercion, and force; Christianity seeks to go into all the world and to announce the “good news” that God loves every individual, that Jesus Christ died for the sins of everyone, and that He offers salvation, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But, each person has free choice to accept or reject without any retaliation by Christians against those who choose to reject. Jesus taught His disciples, when faced with opposition and resistance, simply to walk away: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:14). In fact, on one occasion when a Samaritan village was particularly nonreceptive, some of Jesus’ disciples wished to command fire to come down from heaven to consume them! But Jesus rebuked them and said, “ ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ And they went to another village” (Luke 9:55). Muhammad and the Quran stand in diametrical opposition to Jesus and the New Testament.

If the majority of Muslims were violent, that would not prove that Islam is a religion of violence. The vast majority of those who claim to be “Christian” are practicing a corrupted form of the Christian faith. So the validity of any religion is determined ultimately not by the imperfect, inaccurate practice of the religion by even a majority of its adherents, but by the official authority or standard upon which it is based, i.e., its Scriptures. The present discussion in the world regarding whether or not jihad includes physical force in the advancement of Islam is ultimately irrelevant (cf. Nasr, 2002, pp. 256-266). The Quran unquestionably endorses violence, war, and armed conflict. No wonder a substantial number of Muslims manifest a maniacal, reckless abandon in their willingness to die by sacrificing their lives in order to kill as many “infidels” (especially Israelis and Americans) as possible. They have read the following:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks.... And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).

O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed.... And what though ye be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. What though ye be slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered?.... So those who...fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow—a reward from Allah (Surah 3:156-158,195, emp. added).

Even if the vast majority of Muslims in the world reject violence and refrain from terrorist activity (which would appear to be the case), it is still a fact that the Quran (as well as the example of Muhammad himself) endorses the advancement of Islam through physical force. While Muslim apologist Seyyed Hossein Nasr insists that “the traditional norms based on peace and openness to others” characterize true Islam and the majority of Muslims, in contradistinction, he freely admits that at times Islam “has been forced to take recourse to physical action in the form of defense” (Nasr, 2002, pp. 112,110). This concession cannot be successfully denied in view of the Quran’s own declarations. Hence, the Muslim is forced to maintain the self-contradictory position that, yes, there have been times that Islam has been properly violent and, yes, the Quran does endorse violence, but, no, most Muslims are not violent, and then only in self-defense. As reprehensible and cowardly as Islamic terrorists have shown themselves to be in recent years, an honest reading of the Quran leads one to believe that they, at least, are more consistent with, and true to, their own Scriptures—as revolting an idea as that may be.

REFERENCES

Lings, Martin (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2002), The Heart of Islam (New York: HarperCollins).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2003), Islam (New York: HarperCollins).

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

Rahman, Fazlur (1979), Islam (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.

Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint), The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).

Now there is news of Pope Francis praying in a mosque in Turkey, taking his shoes off and bowing to Mecca.  See here.

Expect to witness the rise of Chrislam and a syncretistic church which will serve the Man of Sin.






Site Meter