St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V. Chapters 1 - 3

...but following the only true and steadfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.

Chapter I.-Christ Alone is Able to Teach Divine Things, and to Redeem Us: He, the Same, Took Flesh of the Virgin Mary, Not Merely in Appearance, But Actually, by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, in Order to Renovate Us. Strictures on the Conceits of Valentinus and Ebion.

1. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person "knew the mind of the Lord," or who else "has become His counsellor? "² Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We-who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation³ -have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh,⁴ and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,-all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.

2. Vain indeed are those who allege that He appeared in mere seeming. For these things were not done in appearance only, but in actual reality. But if He did appear as a man, when He was not a man, neither could the Holy Spirit have rested upon Him,-an occurrence which did actually take place-as the Spirit is invisible; nor, [in that case], was there any degree of truth in Him, for He was not that which He seemed to be. But I have already remarked that Abraham and the other prophets beheld Him after a prophetical manner, foretelling in vision what should come to pass. If, then, such a being has now appeared in outward semblance different from what he was in reality, there has been a certain prophetical vision made to men; and another advent of His must be looked forward to, in which He shall be such as He has now been seen in a prophetic manner. And I have proved already, that it is the same thing to say that He appeared merely to outward seeming, and [to affirm] that He received nothing from Mary. For He would not have been one truly possessing flesh and blood, by which He redeemed us, unless He had summed up in Himself the ancient formation of Adam. Vain therefore are the disciples of Valentinus who put forth this opinion, in order that they my exclude the flesh from salvation, and cast aside what God has fashioned.

3. Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her:⁵ wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life. Therefore do these men reject the commixture of the heavenly wine,⁶ and wish it to be water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with Him, but they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise: not considering that as, at the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in [the times of] the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam's formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive.⁷ For never at any time did Adam escape the hands⁸ of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." And for this reason in the last times (fine), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father,⁹ His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God.

Chapter II.-When Christ Visited Us in His Grace, He Did Not Come to What Did Not Belong to Him: Also, by Shedding His True Blood for Us, and Exhibiting to Us His True Flesh in the Eucharist, He Conferred Upon Our Flesh the Capacity of Salvation.

1. And vain likewise are those who say that God came to those things which did not belong to Him, as if covetous of another's property; in order that He might deliver up that man who had been created by another, to that God who had neither made nor formed anything, but who also was deprived from the beginning of His own proper formation of men. The advent, therefore, of Him whom these men represent as coming to the things of others, was not righteous; nor did He truly redeem us by His own blood, if He did not really become man, restoring to His own handiwork what was said [of it] in the beginning, that man was made after the image and likeness of God; not snatching away by stratagem the property of another, but taking possession of His own in a righteous and gracious manner. As far as concerned the apostasy, indeed, He redeems us righteously from it by His own blood; but as regards us who have been redeemed, [He does this] graciously. For we have given nothing to Him previously, nor does He desire anything from us, as if He stood in need of it; but we do stand in need of fellowship with Him. And for this reason it was that He graciously poured Himself out, that He might gather us into the bosom of the Father.

2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body.¹⁰ For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins."¹¹ And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills¹² ). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.¹³

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,¹⁴ from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?-even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones."¹⁵ He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh;¹⁶ but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,-that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,¹⁷ because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness,¹⁸ in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality,¹⁹ that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?

Chapter III.-He Power and Glory of God Shine Forth in the Weakness of Human Flesh, as He Will Render Our Body a Participator of the Resurrection and of Immortality, Although He Has Formed It from the Dust of the Earth; He Will Also Bestow Upon It the Enjoyment of Immortality, Just as He Grants It This Short Life in Common with the Soul.

1. The Apostle Paul has, moreover, in the most lucid manner, pointed out that man has been delivered over to his own infirmity, lest, being uplifted, he might fall away from the truth. Thus he says in the second [Epistle] to the Corinthians: "And lest I should be lifted up by the sublimity of the revelations, there was given unto me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me. And upon this I besought the Lord three times, that it might depart from me. But he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for strength is made perfect in weakness. Gladly therefore shall I rather glory in infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me."²⁰ What, therefore? (as some may exclaim: ) did the Lord wish, in that case, that His apostles should thus undergo buffering, and that he should endure such infirmity? Even so it was; the word says it. For strength is made perfect in weakness, rendering him a better man who by means of his infirmity becomes acquainted with the power of God. For how could a man have learned that he is himself an infirm being, and mortal by nature, but that God is immortal and powerful, unless he had learned by experience what is in both? For there is nothing evil in learning one's infirmities by endurance; yea, rather, it has even the beneficial effect of preventing him from forming an undue opinion of his own nature (non aberrare in natura sua). But the being lifted up against God, and taking His glory to one's self, rendering man ungrateful, has brought much evil upon him. [And thus, I say, man must learn both things by experience], that he may not be destitute of truth and love either towards himself or his Creator.²¹ But the experience of both confers upon him the true knowledge as to God and man, and increases his love towards God. Now, where there exists an increase of love, there a greater glory is wrought out by the power of God for those who love Him.

2. Those men, therefore, set aside the power of God, and do not consider what the word declares, when they dwell upon the infirmity of the flesh, but do not take into consideration the power of Him who raises it up from the dead. For if He does not vivify what is mortal, and does not bring back the corruptible to incorruption, He is not a God of power. But that He is powerful in all these respects, we ought to perceive from our origin, inasmuch as God, taking dust from the earth, formed man. And surely it is much more difficult and incredible, from non-existent bones, and nerves, and veins, and the rest of man's organization, to bring it about that all this should be, and to make man an animated and rational creature, than to re-integrate again that which had been created and then afterwards decomposed into earth (for the reasons already mentioned), having thus passed into those [elements] from which man, who had no previous existence, was formed. For He who in the beginning caused him to have being who as yet was not, just when He pleased, shall much more reinstate again those who had a former existence, when it is His will [that they should inherit] the life granted by Him. And that flesh shall also be found fit for and capable of receiving the power of God, which at the beginning received the skilful touches of God; so that one part became the eye for seeing; another, the ear for hearing; another, the hand for feeling and working; another, the sinews stretched out everywhere, and holding the limbs together; another, arteries and veins, passages for the blood and the air;²² another, the various internal organs; another, the blood, which is the bond of union between soul and body. But why go [on in this strain]? Numbers would fail to express the multiplicity of parts in the human frame, which was made in no other way than by the great wisdom of God. But those things which partake of the skill and wisdom of God, do also partake of His power.

3. The flesh, therefore, is not destitute [of participation] in the constructive wisdom and power of God. But if the power of Him who is the bestower of life is made perfect in weakness-that is, in the flesh-let them inform us, when they maintain the incapacity of flesh to receive the life granted by God, whether they do say these things as being living men at present, and partakers of life, or acknowledge that, having no part in life whatever, they are at the present moment dead men. And if they really are dead men, how is it that they move about, and speak, and perform those other functions which are not the actions of the dead, but of the living? But if they are now alive, and if their whole body partakes of life, how can they venture the assertion that the flesh is not qualified to be a partaker of life, when they do confess that they have life at the present moment? It is just as if anybody were to take up a sponge full of water, or a torch on fire, and to declare that the sponge could not possibly partake of the water, or the torch of the fire. In this very manner do those men, by alleging that they are alive and bear life about in their members, contradict themselves afterwards, when they represent these members as not being capable of [receiving] life. But if the present temporal life, which is of such an inferior nature to eternal life, can nevertheless effect so much as to quicken our mortal members, why should not eternal life, being much more powerful than this, vivify the flesh, which has already held converse with, and been accustomed to sustain, life? For that the flesh can really partake of life, is shown from the fact of it; being alive; for it lives on, as long as it is God's purpose that it should do so. It is manifest, too, that God has the power to confer life upon it, inasmuch as He grants life to us who are in existence. And, therefore, since the Lord has power to infuse life into what He has fashioned, and since the flesh is capable of being quickened, what remains to prevent its participating in incorruption, which is a blissful and never-ending life granted by God?

The sons of Israel and Esau.

The sons of Israel, today are the believers in the Gospel of Our Only Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Is-ra-El is Hebrew for "the one who sees God" - Jesus Christ said that if we see Him we see the Father. Believers see Him in our hearts now. We will see Him face to face at the Resurrection of all men when He returns to judge all men.

Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of porridge - so it is with all who depart from the true God and His Messiah, Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Communists are those who are the sons of Esau.

This would effectively and completely excommunicate the entire Vatican II Council and all pretended Catholics who really are agents of Communism and Freemasonry such as John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II.

__________________________________


Decree against communism
Pope Pio XII

Decree of the Holy Office in 1949


Q.1 Utrum licitum sit, partibus communistarum nomen dare vel eisdem favorem praestare.
[By chance is it licit to give name or to make favors to communist parties?]

R. Negative: Communismum enim est materialisticus et antichristianus; communistarum autem duces, etsi verbis quandoque profitentur se religionem non oppugnare, se tamen, sive doctrina sive actione, Deo veraeque religioni et Ecclesia Christi sere infensos esse ostendunt.


Q.2 Utrum licitum sit edere, propagare vel legere libros, periodica, diaria vel folia, qual doctrine vel actioni communistarum patrocinantur, vel in eis scribere.
[By chance is it licit to publish, promulgate or read books, journals or leaflets which defend the action or the communist doctrine, or to write for them?]

R. Negative: Prohibentur enim ipso iure


Q.3 Utrum Christifideles, qui actus, de quibus in n.1 et 2, scienter et libere posuerint, ad sacramenta admitti possint.
[Can Christians who perform the acts mentioned on n.1 and 2 be admitted to the sacraments?]

R. Negative, secundum ordinaria principia de sacramentis denegandis iis, Qui non sunt dispositi


Q.4 Utrum Christifideles, Qui communistarum doctrinam materialisticam et anti Christianam profitentur, et in primis, Qui eam defendunt vel propagant, ipso facto, tamquan apostatae a fide catholica, incurrant in excommunicationem speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam.
[If Christians declare openly the materialist and antichristian doctrine of the communists, and, mainly, if they defend it or promumulgate it, “ipso facto”, do they incur in excommunication ("speciali modo") reserved to the Apostolic See?]

R. Affirmative

Comments


Therefore, all catholic who votes for a communist party (which is a way to make favor) or who affiliates into a communist party, or who writes filo-communist books or magazines are excluded from the sacraments.

Those who defend, promulgate or declare the materialism from the communists are also automatically excommunicated.

This decree from Pius XII’s Holy Office, confirmed by John XXIII in 1959 is still valid. In fact, Pius XII worked personally against communism in Italy.

Such a condemnation of communism adds up to other condemnations made by Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII (who have condemned it in other opportunities), John XXIII, Paul VI, the Council Vatican II (which reiterated the preceding condemnations) and John Paul II.

It has been more than 100 years that the Catholic Church condemns communism, socialism and any kind of materialism and material egalitarianism. The penalty for those who disobey the prohibition of aiding communism (or its variants) under any aspect (including voting for filo-communist parties) is automatic excommunication.

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism are contradictory terms, for no one can be, at the same time, good catholic and true socialist." (Pio XI)

Pope Pio XII - "Decree against communism"
MONTFORT Associação Cultural
http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=documentos&subsecao=decretos&artigo=anticomunismo〈=eng
Online, 30/04/2010 às 13:51h

The Pact of Metz

Consequences of Vatican II


The Pact of Metz

Atila Sinke Guimarães

Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.

Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on the outskirts of the French city of Metz - never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 - two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place.

Another player: Cardinal Tisserant

	One player at Metz: metrolitan Nikodin

One dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène Tisserant, representing Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan Nikodin, who spoke in the name of the Russian Schismatic Church.

This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century.

What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1).

1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81.

And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?

Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2).

2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15.

This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime..

A half secret act

Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts.

“The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.

“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’

“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3).

3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66.

Thus the Counci, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism.. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations

This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:

“It was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting of Cardinal Tisserant with archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place was the residence of Fr. Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny [on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the arrival of the prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this meeting, the conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s observers were established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of Cardinal Bea. Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation should be sent to Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character of the Council” (4).

4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.

The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:

“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during the Council” (5).

5. Ibid. p. 57

In a book published some time after this, German theologian Fr. Bernard Häring - who was secretary-coordinator at the Council for the redaction of Gaudium et Spes - revealed the more profound reason for the ‘pigeon-holing’ of apetition that many conciliar Fathers signed asking Paul VI and the Council to condemn Communism:

“When around two dozen Bishops requested a solemn condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr. Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I were blamed like scapegoats. I have no reason to deny that I did everything possible to avoid this condemnation, which rang out clearly like a political condemnation. I knew that John XXIII had promised Moscow authorities that the Council would not condemn communism in order to assure the participation of observers of the Russian Orthodox church” (6).

6. 30 Dias October 1989, p. 55.

Since the time of Stalin

Facts from such indisputable sources permit no doubt about the effectiveness of the Pact of Metz. They also lend credibility to the information presented in the ‘novel’ entitled The Jesuits, by the late Fr. Malachi Martin, a quite well-informed ex-Jesuit who offers similar details about what happened before, during, and after the Pact of Metz.

In Martin’s work, the Cardinal Secretary of State, under the pseudonym of Stato, tells about the understanding made by the Holy See with the Kremlin from 1942 to our days:

“Stato reminded his Venerable Colleagues that he had been with the present Holy Father at His Holiness’s two meetings with the Soviet negotiator, Anatoly Adamshin, the most recent of which had been earlier this very year of 1981. His Holiness had given the Soviets a guarantee that no word or action, either by His Holiness or the Polish Hierarchy or Solidarity’s leaders, would violate the Moscow-Vatican Pact of 1962.

“Stato did not need to explain to his listeners that in the late spring of 1962, a certain Eugène Cardinal Tisserant had been dispatched by Pope John XXIII to meet with a Russian prelate, one metropolitan Nikodim, representing the Soviet Politburo of Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Pope John ardently desired to know if the Soviet Government would allow two members of the Russian Orthodox church to attend the Second Vatican Council set to open the following October. The meeting between Tisserant and Nikodim took place in the official residence of Paul Joseph Schmitt, then the Bishop of Metz, France. There, Nikodim gave the Soviet answer. His government would agree, provided the Pope would guarantee two things: that his forthcoming Council would issue no condemnation of Soviet Communism or of Marxism, and that the Holy See would make it a rule for the future to abstain from all such official condemnations.

“Nikodin got his guarantees. Matters were orchestrated after that for Pope John by Jesuit Cardinal Augustine Bea until the final agreement was concluded in Moscow, and was carried out in Rome, in that Vatican Council as well as in the policies of the Holy See for nearly two decades since” (7).

7. Malachi Martin, The Jesuits - The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987; pp. 85-86.

Further on, Malachi Martin “relates” that this Vatican-Moscow pact of 1962 was “merely a renewal of an earlier agreement between the Holy See and Moscow” on the occasion of conversations that took place in 1942 in the pontificate of Pius XII.

“It was in that year,” he writes, “that Vatican Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, who himself later succeeded to the Papacy as Paul VI, talked directly with Joseph Stalin’s representative. Those talks were aimed at dimming Pius XII’s constant fulminations against the Soviet dictator and Marxism. Stato himself had been privy to those talks. He had also been privy to the conversations between Montini and the Italian Communist Party leader, Palmiro Togliatti, in 1944 .... “Stato offered to supply reports from the Allied Office of Strategic Services about the matter, beginning, as he recalled, with OSS Report JR-1022 of August 28, 1944” (8).

8. Ibid., pp. 91-92.

Such, then, are the official documents as well as the extra-official information about the Pact of Metz, which explains the incredible omission at the Ecumenical Second Vatican Council.

Some facts that we need to consider

1. Catholic doctrine has always emphatically condemned Communism. It would be possible, should it be necessary, to publish a small book composed exclusively of anti-communist pontifical documents.

2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century.

3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.

4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear.

The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader.


http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a007ht.htm

Early Church governance and then the Canons of Nicaea and Chalcedon

Original See – Apostolic Governance

JERUSALEM – James the Brother of the Lord

ANTIOCH – Peter then Ignatius

ROME – Peter then Paul

ALEXANDRIA - Mark

EPHESUS – John

SMYRNA – John then Polycarp

PERSIA and INDIA – Thomas (SYRIA/MESOPOTAMIA - Peter and Thomas)

AFRICA – Matthias

Out of these four emerged as Patriarchates generally referred to in Church Councils in the Mediterranean Area: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Jerusalem was always the Mother of the Churches and still is – always  will be.

There was never any authority for ignoring Ephesus nor could there ever be since the last Apostle, John firmly established that See with the last five books of the Bible written by him in support of his oral preaching and governance of the final and last Apostolic See, namely Ephesus. Those final five books of the Bible are: First Epistle of John 85-95 A.D.at Ephesus, Second Epistle of John after 95 A.D. at Ephesus, Gospel of John 96 A.D. at Ephesus, The Apocalypse on Patmos 97-98 A.D., Third Epistle of John at Ephesus by 101 A.D.

The wrangling at Nicaea and Chalcedon finally resolved with both East and West accepting Constantinople as the fifth Patriarchate after the Council of Chalcedon. Hence, Constantinople looked to itself as the New Rome only because the Emperor Constantine moved the Imperial throne and a moveable Senate to Constantinople from Rome in the century before Chalcedon. Eventually after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 A.D., the Russian Orthodox Church decided that Moscow was the third Rome.

No where was any Bishop's See, including Rome, given any universal governance over the Church, not ever. The only full Church Council was held at Jerusalem in 49 A.D. by the Apostles, James presiding. The Didache was written by them at that time, and remains one of the earliest books of the New Testament ever since then.

Pius XI in Mortalium Animus: against Ecumenism which is the eternal death of soul body: Vatican II is damned by God. Part 1

See the two Nicene canons below for the real beginning of Roman See Primacy. Even if we assume that Canon XXXIX was as early as the first Nicene council in 325 A.D. it still is a decision of men and is therefore secondary to whatever God says through Jesus Christ. Even assuming that Canon XXXIX is as late an addition as would be at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. and was part of what alienated the Oriental Churches, it still governed a great deal of the Church for a very long time – centuries, and is therefore not to be taken lightly. Jesus Christ Himself instituted Church law in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Chapter 16 and Chapter 18. The prime example of how that governed of course is in the Acts.

See Acts Chapter 15 verses 28, 29 

28  For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:

29  That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.

It is utterly clear that Vatican II and the antipopes John XXIII and Paul VI and John Paul I and John Paul II and Benedict XVI have utterly violated this, especially when John Paul II blamed the utterly idolatrous Assisi meeting on Jan. 24, 2002 on the Holy Spirit, and can not be followed under penalty of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit and eternal damnation. In addition Guiseppe Siri was the real Pope of Rome – Gregory XVII, elected in 1958 until his death in 1988. He was forced to remain silent and in exile for that whole time by the Vatican II plotters who threatened to murder him and his family if he said anything. Shortly before his death he did speak.

All of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and all and everyone connected with it are utterly contravened by God, His Christ and the Holy Spirit and Pius XI’s Mortalium Animus. Also, the fact that the See of Rome has been vacant since 1988 and no Pope reigned visibly since 1958 releases all the faithful from any obligation to the Vatican. Taken together and they MUST BE, the faithful are commanded by God in Rev. 18:1-6 and 2 Cor. 6:11-18 to come out now and be totally separate in every way from the Apostate and utterly evil Vatican dominion and every thing to do with it including the Novus Ordo and anyone claiming ANY allegiance with the Vatican of the present.

See also:

St. Mark’s Gospel 3:29

29  But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin. (DRV)

Rv:18:

1 ¶ And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory.

2  And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen: and is become the habitation of devils and the hold of every unclean spirit and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird:

3  Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; And the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies.

4  And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues.

5  For her sins have reached unto heaven: and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.

6  Render to her as she also hath rendered to you: and double unto her double, according to her works. In the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her.

2Cor:6:

14  Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?

15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: I will dwell in them and walk among them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.

17  Wherefore: Go out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:

18  And I will receive you. And will be a Father to you: and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

(DRV)




Pius XI in Mortalium Animus: against Ecumenism which is the eternal death of soul body: Vatican II is Damned by God. Part 2

Acts:15:

1 ¶ And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That, except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.

2  And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the other side should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question.

3  They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles. And they caused great joy to all the brethren.

4  And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them.

5  But there arose of the sect of the Pharisees some that believed, saying: They must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.

6 ¶ And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.

7  And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8  And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us:

9  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10  Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

11  But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.

12  And all the multitude held their peace: and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13  And after they had held their peace, James answered,saying: Men, brethren, hear me.

14  Simon hath related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name.

15  And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:

16  After these things I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down: and the ruins thereof I will rebuild. And I will set it up:

17  That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things.

18  To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world.

19  For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted:

20  But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood.

21  For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath.

22 ¶ Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company and to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.

23  Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting.

24  Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment:

25  It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:

26  Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27  We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things.

28  For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:

29  That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall dowell. Fare ye well.

30  They therefore, being dismissed, went down to Antioch and, gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle.

31  Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

32  But Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, with many words comforted the brethren and confirmed them.

33  And after they had spent some time there, they were let go with peace by the brethren unto them that had sent them.

34  But it seemed good unto Silas to remain there: and Judas alone departed to Jerusalem.

35  And Paul and Barnabas continued at Antioch, teaching and preaching, with many others, the word of the Lord.

36 ¶ And after some days, Paul said to Barnabas: Let us return and visit our brethren in all the cities wherein we have preached the word of the Lord, to see how they do.

37  And Barnabas would have taken with them John also, that was surnamed Mark.

38  But Paul desired that he (as having departed from them out of Pamphylia and not gone with them to the work) might not be received.

39  And there arose a dissension so that they departed one from another. And Barnabas indeed, taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus.

40  But Paul, choosing Silas, departed, being delivered by the brethren to the grace of God.

41  And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches, commanding them to keep the precepts of the apostles and the ancients.

(DRV)

CANON VI. 
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

CANON XXXIX. 
Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.(1)

[I add Canon XXXVII. of Echellensis's Nova Versio LXXXIV. Arabic. Canonum Conc. Nicoeni, that the reader may compare it with the foregoing.]

Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the bishops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs; and the bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is greater than they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the rank of another. And whosoever shall contradict this law which we have established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema.(2) 

The Remnant, which is the Church

I was baptized in 1950. The only reason I mention that is it is before "trad" Catholics existed. There was only one Catholic Church then and Novus Ordo hadn't been foisted on the Church yet and tradition simply meant what it had for 2,000 years - adherence to Apostolic teaching. Nothing in the Church Fathers can contradict Church teaching from the Apostles. Inclusion in the Church Fathers is based on the following (this is from Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J. - "The Antichrist" page 62.): "First, the writer or teacher of Catholic Faith and morals had to persevere unto death in a life of orthodox communion with the Church. Second, that life had to be eminent for sanctity. ... The teacher must enjoy a certain antiquity (looked at from the present day)...he could enjoy citation by a General Council:...." The last is a good example of Catholicity. In the 1950 Catholic Dictionary the four marks of the Fathers are: Antiquity (the first millenium) and Orthodoxy and Sanctity and Catholicity. Fr. Miceli's definitions are very to the point. The 1950 Catholic Dictionary also adds, concerning Antiquity that St. Gregory the Great (604 A.D.) and St. Isadore of Seville (636 A.D.) are the last in the West and St. John Damascene (8th Century) is the last in the East. The Doctors of the Church include certain of the Church Fathers and also St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine and the first of the modern (modern = the 5 centuries before 'Vatican II') Doctors namely St. Francis de Sales. The faith exposited by all of these has everything to do with the Apostles and the Scriptural record of God's revelation to us, that is the Holy Bible; and has nothing to do with Apostate Judaism, Gnosticism, Arianism, Modernism, Freemasonry, Paganism - especially idolatry (see the Book of Wisdom for a condemnation thereof), Magic, Sorcery, Kafir heresy (that is those things considered as heresy by Islam and which are either Vatican II apostasy connected or hateful towards Christians), Vatican II, synchretism with non-Christian idolatrous religion, Evolution, Pantheism, Monism and any and every other form of Apostasy and blasphemy.

Therefore the correct identification of a Catholic is in keeping with the faith exhibited by the Fathers and Doctors and not a label such as "trad", as if it were only one version as opposed to another - namely the Novus Ordo. I am a Catholic, not a "trad" and certainly not a Novus Ordo Apostate, which I have nothing to do with. My point is that the true faith is unchanged throughout the centuries and when the faithful do not allow themselves to be pigeon-holed by ghetto-izing terms like "trad" -- very good. Let us all confess the Catholic faith and not be mislead by the Freemasonic imitation vomited forth by "Vatican II". God bless the remnant, which is the Church.

Nicene Creed at the first Nicene council - 325 A.D,

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The Antitheotokos

Pope St. Pius X and many Popes and Patriarchs have relied on the teaching authority of tradition untainted with modernist heresies for how they teach. In contrast the totally false base of papal ratification/infallibility is a modernist invention promulgated at Vatican II. A form of Papal Ex Cathedra pronouncement of WHAT THE CHURCH HAD ALWAYS TAUGHT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE APOSTLES AND JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF as an infallible pronouncement was proposed at Vatican I. However, because of the enemy of Christ at that time, namely Bismarck of Germany, the council was recessed and never reopened because of the threat of Bismarck's armies. As should be noted here, Bismarck was a proponent of the higher criticism and a sponsor of that atheism in modernist pseudo-sheep's clothing, which declared that Jesus Christ really never existed, at least not the way that the Church professed Him to be the Incarnate Son of God. Bismarck’s views came from the evolutionary Pantheism-Monism in vogue among Apostates at that time. A council that is recessed but not formally closed, as is the case with Vatican I, is not canonically declared nor any doctrines proposed there nor any pronouncements of such a council. The version of infallible pronouncement considered by Vatican I would have been the same as many general (referred to today as ecumenical) councils of the Church have declared in the past. What Pope Pius IX, because of his former liberalism which he then quite rightly rejected and rebounded very hard from and then was also threatened by Bismarck, pushed for was too much in terms of Papal infallibility and caused the schism between East and West to widen even further. The doctrine Pius IX proposed a few years earlier, namely the Immaculate Conception of Mary, rested on the acceptance of the new Papal infallibility. Without the formal closing of the Council and then the promulgation of doctrines thereby none of these doctrines were ever declared. The council was never formally closed and therefore none of the doctrines proposed then have ever been declared. Also, the council of Trent (1570 A.D.) stated unequivocally that no doctrine may be declared by anyone (this includes Popes, Patriarchs etc.) ever, then, now and in the future that does not have the support of the full consensus of the Church Fathers. No one may declare any doctine that is otherwise. This is doctrine and tradition and can not be compromised and is to be held by all the faithful until and at the time of Jesus Christ's return from heaven in the flesh He ascended into heaven with.

Papal ratification/infallibilty is totally different. It states that a pope by virtue of being the pope can declare whatever he wants and God will ratify it at the pope's command. This is blasphemy and total apostate heresy for it is nothing other than the ancient pagan theurgy whereby pharaohs and kings and Caesars etc. of pagan nations declared themselves living gods served by the pagan gods and as absolute tyrannical dictators over the people. The Roman Caesars who lived this way were totally rejected by the early Church. Christians were martyred rather than offer incense to Caesar. This included several Popes of early Rome who were martyred for this reason. The early Church, including these Popes, also totally rejected and anathematized anyone, especially the Gnostics who did say this, who suggested that any Bishop, including the Pope of Rome, had the authority to cause God to accept any doctrine they would tell God He must accept.

No ukase by any Caesar including and especially the current pretenders to the papacy can change this doctrine of the faith: 'that to be a Christian one will and must and shall at all times reject all other gods and worship and serve the True God alone - The Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.' The first major transgression of this in Rome, in the recent centuries, was by a Pope who started out as an orthodox proponent of the Faith. When Pius XII (who wrote faithfully and brilliantly to defend the faith on many occasions) forced the acceptance of the assumption of Mary body and soul, based on the never declared doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, into heaven at the end of her earthly life (which would have been in the first century A.D.), he forced absolute heresy on the Church. The Masonic provoked apparitions of Mary were all banned until, unlawfully, Antipope Paul VI lifted the ban in 1969. The apparitions were the main force behind the push to approve the heretical doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary. The apparition at Fatima of the Sun being turned around was prophesied by St. Hippolytus (martyred 236 A.D.) as Diabolic and of the Antichrist. When those two false doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary were combined, at Vatican II and after, with the arch heretic and Communist Sergei Bulgakov’s heresies concerning Mary being a fourth hypostasis of God then this false Mary was transformed into the Antitheotokos which is the consort of the Antichrist, who will come to oppose the Church. The faithful of the Church must not and will not accept any of this. Christ alone is the Immaculate Conception by the Holy Spirit and the blessed virgin Mary and Christ alone is the first born from the dead in the flesh. Any early resurrection of Mary would make her a goddess which God will never do and she is not nor would she ever agree with or want such an abomination in her name. In Divine response to Pius XII’s immense and unacceptable blunder in eight years he was dead and the conclave in that year, 1958, saw the election of the first of several Antipopes, John XXIII, which ushered in the Great Apostasy of Vatican II; Cardinal Siri was rightfully elected at the 1958 conclave and was Pope Gregory XVII, but reigned in exile in silence due to the death threat against his family by the partisans of Antipope John XXIII and those Antipopes after John XXIII. Now that Siri has died in 1988, truly the throne is vacant. The Antipopes were and are John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The Church Fathers, especially as referred to here, are by definition an exact group ending with and not later than St. John Damascene in the East in the eighth century A.D. and in the West in the seventh century A.D. St. Isadore of Seville and Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (who said that any bishop who declared himself in charge of the whole Church, instead of all bishops, including the Pope of Rome, having no more than equal authority, with Rome among other Patriarchal sees and none of them coercing others, was in fact, the precursor of the Antichrist).

False Gods

FALSE GODS which men had strayed after in the ancient world

Of course Jesus Christ taught men to worship the true God.

Christians and Muslims both worship the true God.

LILITH, ALLAH, TRIPLE ARABIAN GODDESS

The moon is not God

Lilith is the most evil satanic goddess in the history of the world. It is actually Satan as Cosmocratoras, false immanent god of creation worshipped by the most satanic of the gnostics. Allah the moon god is joined to the Sun goddess by Lilith and then they have three demonic goddesses. This yet another version of the Triple goddess; Arabian, this time. According to the incorrect (quite false) viewpoint of Fredrich Max Mueller and those who follow him, all of these were subsumed by Muhammed the prophet of Allah, henotheistically into the moon god allah as god. Allah - but from a different root in Hebrew than Allah as the name of the true God, is the name used in Hebrew by God’s holy prophet Jeremiah in:

Jer:10:11

Thus then shall you say to them: The gods (allah - from elah, not Eloah) that have not made heaven and earth, let them perish from the earth, and from among those places that are under heaven.

Muslims, believe the historical truth that Muhammed rejected the polytheism, and that Allah is creator of heaven and earth in the sense of Allah the high Arabian God from the Hebrew Eloah (Allah = Eloah); they agree that He is Eloueth (uncontained but containing all that He created) this is the Lord God Pantocrator, the most high God. We Christians agree. Most High God is the Holy Trinity Adorable Unity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. The “Shemah” is what Moses taught the people of ancient Israel who God is. “Shemah Israel, Yahweh Eloheuinu Yahweh echad” is “Hear O Israel, Yahweh God plural (Trinity) is Yahweh unity of the plural”; the “Holy Trinity of three Persons, Adorable Unity” in Catholic profession of the true faith. Yahweh is the nature of God Himself and is not plural in this or in any confession of the True God. Yahweh unity of the plural is One God with the single nature of God, Yahweh. Yahweh God Plural refers to the three Persons of the Father and the Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who fully share the same nature of God, Yahweh and remain One God and not three. The Father is the fountainhead of the Triune God who is uncreated and the Son is monogenes (only engendered of the Father before all time and creation i.e. the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is given without measure to the Son and acts and is sent through the Son. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are immortal from eternity to eternity. In their oneness as the only God the Holy Spirit is the immortal bond of love of the Father and the Son.

Jesus said:

Mt:28:19:
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The Shemah and the command to love God is in Deuteronomy 6:4, 5

4 ¶ Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.

5 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength. (DRV)

See Leviticus 19:18, Jesus went far beyond that.

Lv:19:18:

18 Seek not revenge, nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens. Thou shalt love thy friend as thyself. I am the Lord. (DRV)

Jesus on the Shemah and love of God and expanding and deepening the command concerning love of one’s neighbor.

Mk:12:

29 And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy Godis one God.

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.

(DRV)

Jesus on the the love of God and neighbor and His authority as the Lord God Incarnate to teach. The same Lord God Who, pre-incarnate, taught Moses and David (also see Jn:1:1-4, Jesus Christ the Word through Whom God the Father created all things that were created).

Mt:22:

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind.

38 This is the greatest and the first commandment.

39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

41 ¶ And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42 Saying: What think you of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to him: David's.

43 He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying:

44 The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word: neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

(DRV)

Jer:10:

1 ¶ Hear ye the word which the Lord hath spoken concerning you, O house of Israel.

2 Thus saith the Lord: Learn not according to the ways of the Gentiles: and be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the heathens fear:

3 For the laws of the people are vain: for the works of the hand of the workman hath cut a tree out of the forest with an axe.

4 He hath decked it with silver and gold: he hath put it together with nails and hammers, that it may not fall asunder.

5 They are framed after the likeness of a palm tree, and shall not speak: they must be carried to be removed, because they cannot go. Therefore fear them not, for they can neither do evil nor good.

6 There is none like to thee, O Lord: thou art great, and great is thy name in might.

7 Who shall not fear thee, O king of nations? for thine is the glory: among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms there is none like unto thee.

8 They shall beall proved together to be senseless and foolish: the doctrine of their vanity is wood.

9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tharsis, and gold from Ophaz: the work of the artificer, and of the hand of the coppersmith: violet and purple is their clothing: all these things are the work of artificers.

10 But the Lord is the true God: he is the living God, and the everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his threatening.

11 Thus then shall you say to them: The gods that have not made heaven and earth, let them perish from the earth, and from among those places that are under heaven.

12 He that maketh the earth by his power, that prepareth the world by his wisdom, and stretcheth out the heavens by his knowledge.

13 At his voice he giveth a multitude ofwaters in the heaven, and lifteth upthe clouds from the ends of the earth: he maketh lightnings for rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.

14 Every man is become a fool for knowledge, every artist is confounded in his graven idol: for what he hath cast is false, and there is no spirit in them.

15 They are vain things, and a ridiculous work: in the time of their visitation theyshall perish.

16 The portion of Jacob is not like these: for it is he who formed all things: and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: the Lord of hosts is his name.

17 ¶ Gather up thy shame out of the land, thou that dwellest in a siege.

18 For thus saith he Lord: Behold I will cast away far off the inhabitants of the land at this time: and I will afflict them, so that they may be found.

19 Woe is me for my destruction, my wound is very grievous. But I said: Truly this is my own evil, and I will bear it.

20 My tabernacle is laid waste, all my cords are broken: my children are gone out from me, and they are not: there is none to stretch forth my tent any more, and to set up my curtains.

21 Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord: therefore have they not understood, and all their flock is scattered.

22 Behold the sound of a noise cometh, a great commotion out of the land of the north: to make the cities of Juda a desert, and a dwelling for dragons.

23 I know, O Lord, that the way of a man is not his: neither is it in a man to walk, andto direct his steps.

24 Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment: and not in thy fury, lest thou bring me to nothing.

25 Pour out thy indignation upon the nations that have not known thee, and upon the provinces that have not called upon thy name: because they have eaten up Jacob, and devoured him, and consumed him, and have destroyed his glory.

(DRV)

Allah the ancient moon god of the Arabians is not God, but Allah the high Arabian God from the Hebrew Eloah (Allah = Eloah) as Eloueth (uncontained but containing all that He created) is God. This is the Lord God Pantocrator, the most high God. This is the same God worshipped by both Christians and Muslims and the same name for the true God in Arabic used by both Christian and Muslim Arabs.