of the Christian State
did so-called Christians ever arrive
at the place where they took this sacred
oath: I swear before God this sacred oath that I
will render unconditional obedience to the fuhrer of the German nation and volk,
Adolph Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the armed forces . . . ? That is a question about the past. The more pressing question is about the
future: When Will They Ever Learn ?
Russian Orthodox Church and the German Lutheran Church were to blame for the
tradition of moral and spiritual sur-render to the Czar and the Kaiser which
paved the way to the moral and
spiritual sur-render to Stalin and
Hitler. And the Socialist Movement must
take the blame for the murderous forms of socialism
which grew into the Communism and Fascism that destroyed millions in World
War II. But Catholics and the Catholic
Church must accept their full share of the blame. Hitler and Mussolini could not have happened
is a basic difference in theory between Catholic and Lutheran theology of
Church and State. Which in practice
comes out to no difference, as Hitler's Germany illustrates. The Catholic Church claimed independence from
the state and even spiritual and temporal sovereignty over the state, as is shown
by the pope claiming the right to crown the emperor, the fiction of The Donation of Constantine, and the
inscription on the papal tiara. Luther used an extreme interpretation of
Romans 13.1-7 to attack the claim to secular power of the medieval popes,
insisting that the Church must be subordinate to the Prince.
question is: who is to dominate this
State-Church marriage ? There is no
question as to whether the marriage is valid.
Both Catholic and Protestant insist upon trying to erase the line that
Jesus drew between the kingdom of God
and the kingdoms of this world. The merger of the Empire of this World and
the Worldly Church, which began in the time of Constantine, defines Secular Christianity, properly
so-called, in all of its later variants, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. All of them represent apostate Christianity for the same basic
reason. They represent military
Christianity and millionaire Christianity.
They represent the kind of Christianity which sponsored all the wars of Christendom and finally led to 60
million murdered in World War II.
independence the Pope claims, he is reduced to Dependence when his army is
beaten and he has only the square mile of the Vatican left to rule, which is
what happened to Pius IX. And, long
before that happened, the popes had become dependent upon military power--their
own or someone else's with whom they could cut a deal. When the Church sanctions its members being
conscripted into the armies of the empire--which is the bottom line of its deal
with the state--there is nothing left of its pretended independence. As the situation of Pius XII in World War II
illustrates. In Hitler's Germany, young
women were also conscripted into labor brigades and into the military and there
was a complete erosion of sexual morality and family life, which was a basic
part of the radical socialist agenda.
Christianity has even less resistance to the evil of the State than Catholic
Christianity. It has no tradition of
independence from the State and naturally embraces that patriotic idolatry of
the State which sanctions mass murder.
As Shirer said, Luther was a
ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. . . . In no
country with the exception of Czarist Russia did the clergy become by tradition
so completely servile to the political authority of the State. Luther was the agent of the German princes,
first to last, and his State Church dogma, based upon his reading of Romans
13.1-7, became their weapon against the Church State of Rome in the contest
over who was entitled to the ecclesiastical revenues of Germany.
theology which justifies the abomination of the Christian State is a
pervasive poison in the Protestant Church. It can be traced directly back to Luther and
Calvin and Zwingli, all of them
followers of Augustine, who invented the theology. But Protestantism is so fragmented that it is
hard to find any authority which can be held liable. Who can you sue for the terrible destruction
of World War II ? And the same is true
of Socialism. Maybe Karl Marx could be dug up and burned at
the stake--or hung with a dirty rope--for whatever satisfaction there might be
papacy still endures and it offers a high profile target for the urgently
needed attack upon the Military
Christianity which began with Constantine and for which Saint Augustine furnished the
theology. Which achieved its full
flowering in World War I and produced an abundance of poisonous fruit in
Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, as well as Churchill's Britain and
Pope John Paul II
1996, Pope John Paul II visited France to commemorate the 1500th anniversary of
the Baptism of Clovis, which brought
about the supposed conversion to the
so-called Christianity of the French
nation. He thereby recognized the
historical and spiritual connection between the modern Roman Catholic Church
and the Church of the later empire. The
eb9 essayist describes the baptism of Clovis and the reality of the "Christian" nation he founded: Some
thousands of his wild warriors followed him to the font, as willingly and with
as little thought as they would have followed him to death or victory. From this moment the firm alliance between
the church and the Frank began, an alliance which affected both; the church
became more warlike and aggressive, the Frank grew more civilized, and learnt
the art of ruling. . . . the grim Frank, vigorous and ambitious, knew
neither scruple nor pity, and the clergy round his throne passed over crimes
which they were powerless to prevent. . . .
Not without reason does France
inscribe on the first page of her history this German conqueror, a robber, a
liar, a murderer,--for it is from him that modern France rightly dates her
beginning. [ eb9 IX 529a ]
The Lessons of Monte Cassino
1994 Pope John Paul II sent a message to the veterans of a Polish regiment
which had gathered to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the victory
of Monte Cassino in Italy on May 18
1944. Polish soldiers in exile from
German-occupied Poland played a major role in this battle. They were given the honor of trying to make a
suicidal advance up the steep hill occupied by the Germans and many of them are
buried in the Polish military cemetery at Monte Cassino. The Pope said: The
fact that the Abbey of Monte Cassino was destroyed has a symbolic value. Christ said:
"Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains
just a grain of wheat; but if it dies,
it produces much fruit" (John
12.24) Evidently the ancient Abbey of
Monte Cassino had to be destroyed so that a new life for all of Europe could
rise from its ruins. And in a certain
sense, this is what happened. On the
ruins of the Second World War, a united Europe began to be built, and those who
were its first builders staunchly clung to the Christian roots of European
culture. It was the Allied forces
that deliberately destroyed this ancient abbey founded by St. Benedict. The Germans occupied the heights but they
refrained from setting up their guns in the abbey until after the Allied
artillery destroyed it.
wishful interpretation of the moral
significance of a battle which destroyed an ancient monastery and which
annihilated a Polish regiment for nothing ignores the real much fruit produced by World War II, such as the Soviet occupation
of Poland, Stalin's appointment of Mao Tse Tsung as dictator of China and the
galloping erosion of Christian faith and morals in Europe after World War
II. As the Pope knew first hand. He pleaded in vain with the Italian voters
who re-affirmed legal abortion in Italy in 1981.
Pope says: Their death was a witness to the readiness that marked all society at
the time: to give one's life for the holy cause of one's homeland. In fact, the Poles who died at Monte Cassino
in effect gave their lives to further Joe Stalin's victory and the occupation
of Poland. But the Pope steps around
these nasty facts as best he can. The
Poles at Monte Cassino somehow died to free Poland, even though they achieved
the opposite result by helping the Soviet Union to win. As a result of this victory by God's
Christian warriors, Poland was enslaved to the anti God Soviet Union for
another 40 years. Rather a clumsy result
for a war directed by God and on behalf of Christianity. These Polish soldiers died for nothing in
respect to the battle of Monte Casino.
But their sacrifice helped Stalin become the master of eastern Europe,
and he appointed Mao Tse Tsung to become the ruler of China, where he starved
70 million of his own people to death.
Is there a moral some where in this ?
Yes, but it is not the one that the Pope pretends to find.
A Moral Mess
another place he says: From this standpoint, what does the battle
of Monte Cassino represent: It was the
clashing of two "projects":
one, both in the East and in the West, aiming at uprooting Europe from
its Christian past linked to her patrons, and in particular to St. Benedict,
and the other, striving to defend the Christian tradition of Europe and the
"European spirit." Like
others who try to make moral sense out of World War II, he wants to somehow put
Stalin and Hitler on the same side. So
he does, contra the facts of history. He
neglects to notice that it was the Americans who destroyed the old Abbey. That doesn't fit the script. So those who obliterated the Abbey did it on
behalf of Christianity. Those who
incinerated Dresden did it in the service of Jesus Christ. And the war was a victory for Christianity
and the European spirit. Somehow the Pope manages to space out the
conspicuous fact that the Communist Soviet Union was a major partner of those
who were supposedly on God's side and who supposedly were fighting for
Christianity. What a murky moral mess
the Pope produces when he tries to find the Good Side of this war.
or what is this European spirit
? And what business does the Pope have
invoking it while he pretends to be instructed by the Holy Spirit ? What a curious concept for a Christian to put
out. Is this the Holy Spirit ? No, nor is it connected with the church. But it is somehow a powerful and good spirit
that is connected with European civilization, which is sort of equivalent to Christendom. This European
spirit inspired the allies to go to war . . . or at least the non-Soviet
allies. What spirit inspired the Soviet
Union ? The man who is responsible for
the theology of the Catholic Church, needs to carefully distinguish between the
Holy Spirit and the Evil Spirit. But
here he presents us with an in between kind of spirit. It is powerful enough to inspire a world
war--that would seem to rate a capital !
A war which aims at restoring Christendom and winds up enslaving Poland
to the anti-Christ. This is a good
spirit ? This is a spirit which needs a
little more discernment.
does concede that: We Poles were unable to participate directly
in the rebuilding of Christian Europe undertaken in the West. . . . Which is a remarkable understatement as to
what went on in Poland after World War II.
What was rebuilt in Germany and western Europe looks more like pagan
Europe than Christian Europe. And
authentic Christianity persisted in Communist dominated eastern Europe just
because it had to meet the challenge of persecution.
statements made before these wars broke out or during the war show how helpless
the papacy was to take a moral position in respect to a war in which the papacy
was hopelessly compromised and complicit.
This statement, 50 years after the war, shows how lame is the faith in
Christian Civilization, and what foolishness flows from the heresy of that
Church / State theology which is still embedded in papal statements.
Pope Pius X
1913 Pope Pius X published an encyclical Magni
faustique to mark the 16th centenary of the Peace of Constantine--the deal that Constantine made with apostate
bishops to establish the Imperial Roman Church, after the defeat of Maxentius
in 312 AD. It shows the historical
awareness of this pope as to what the Roman Catholic Church owed to
Constantine. Like other Popes, Pius X
displays the long historical memory of the papacy and the lack of any
repentance in respect to the deal with Constantine. It is not surprising that, two years later,
soon after the death of Pius X, Catholic
Italy was at war with Catholic Austria in World War I. In the wake of that terrible war, Mussolini
came to power in Italy and Adolph Hitler annexed Austria and launched an even
worse war. As it did long before, the Peace of Constantine camouflaged mass
what happened to christendom
horrible effects of the first World War on the European continent empowered the
Bolsheviks in Russia, the Fascists in Italy and Spain, and the Nazis in
Germany. As I wrote in Roots:
Out of the rotten heart of christendom
grew the terrible thorn bushes of Communism and Fascism, from twin seeds opened
by the fires of the Great War and watered by the streams of blood which flowed
from it. World War II was the direct
result of World War I. Nazism and
Bolshevism grew out of the very heart of
what called itself christendom in the aftermath of that
war. The ravages of a disease
measure the weakness of the body. World
War I and its aftermath accurately measure the moral weakness and the spiritual
emptiness of what once claimed to be christendom.
standing does The Pope have to preach peace
to the rest of the world ? He does not
even have a credible enough moral standing to prevent Catholics from killing
one another. And how can he, considering
the Military Christianity, which is
so integral a part of the history of the Catholic Church, which was the
foundation of the Imperial Church of the Roman Empire, the basis of the deal
with Constantine ? The theology of the
encyclicals shows that they are still stuck with that deal. It is absurd to imagine that rulers will pay any attention to the
formal pleas for peace from the
papacy while rank and file Catholics still dutifully line up to become the rank
and file of the army and the navy.
is for peace. Read their speeches. What is it except illusion and self delusion
? Adolph Hitler made a couple of the
prettiest pleas for peace you ever
heard in 1935, while he proceeded with the rapid re-armament of Germany. Talk isn't just cheap, it regularly is used
as a cover story to distract us from basic historical realities.
Pope John XXIII
1963, Pope John XXIII issued an encyclical called Pacem in Terris. Which has
various nice things to say in favor of peace. And which quotes from a radio address by Pope
Pius XII on Christmas Eve 1944: it follows that the dignity of the State's
authority is due to its sharing to some extent in the authority of God himself. At least he modified it a little: to some
extent. But how could he say this
while Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini--to take only the most glaring and
conspicuous examples--wielded the State's
authority in their several nations ?
By comparison, Roosevelt and Churchill were nice guys. They only killed a million or so civilians
dropping bombs on cities.
Pius XII in effect re-subscribed the Catholic Church to the Idolatry of the
State at a time when any simpleton could see that it was Satan Worship pure and
simple. The authority of the State is
built upon devil worship as Luke 4.5-7 says, and as the deeds of rulers
illustrate. It does share in the authority of God if that means Satan, the god of this world.
Pacem in Terris
repeats the same moldy fiction that earlier popes proclaimed: 56
"As Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII has said: The
civil power must not serve the advantage of any one individual or of some few
persons, inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all. ( Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei = On the
Constitution of States 1885 ) This idealization of the State as a Commonwealth and this endorsement of the
pretence that rulers have ever served
the common good prevents the popes
from recognizing the actual character of the state. In which common
men are conscripted into those armies which inflict common evil on everyone.
Pope Leo XIII on Christians and the
XIII ( who was the pope from 1878 to
1903 ) was a prolific producer of encyclicals
and he wrote three of them on the theme of the
christian state: Diuturnum
On the Origin of Civil Power
1881; Immortale Dei On the Christian Constitution of States
1885; and Sapientiae
Christianae On the
Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens
Diuturnum, the first of these encyclicals, was published June 29th 1881 as the pope's response to the
assassination of Czar Alexander II on March 13th 1881 by revolutionary
socialists in Russia. And shows that the
pope had no good answer to the forces that were already gathering in the
shadows of Christendom to launch all
the horrors of the 20th century. The
socialists who assassinated the Czar were the forerunners of the Bolsheviks who
seized control of the Russian Revolution in 1917 and murdered the last Czar of
Russia and his family. In the winter of
1932-33, they starved 10 million Ukrainians to death, getting a head start on
Hitler, as it were. Their deadly rivalry
with the National Socialists of
Germany was a major cause of the carnage and the crime that engulfed Europe in
World War II, a war in which 60 million were killed, two thirds of them
civilians. The National Socialists of Italy surrounded the Vatican in Rome and
severely restricted the pope's freedom of speech and action. But the real restriction came from the
history of the Church of the Empire and the Church / State dogmas Augustine
produced for it, to which the popes have been chained ever since. As Leo XIII was chained and as these
total moral and spiritual inadequacy of Leo's answers foreshadows the total inadequacy of the Catholic answer to
World War I and World War II. Total war
was facilitated by the total moral blindness of the popes who pretended to have
the answers. Their dogmatic foolishness
prevented them from seeing that the Catholic Church had become a partner in
mass murder, because of its idolatry of the State--of the Church State. Unless, somehow, the Catholic Church has no
responsibility for what Catholics do, when they act in accordance with the
teachings of the Church. In fact the
actions of Catholic soldiers are in line with the exhortations of their bishops
which directly reflect the encyclicals of the Popes.
don't kill the Catholics
only place in these three encyclicals where Leo raises the possibility of the
refusal of military service is in Diuturnum 20 in respect to Christian soldiers in the
Roman Empire: if anything dishonorable was required of him, as, for instance, to
break the laws of God or to turn his sword against innocent disciples of
Christ, then, indeed he refused to execute the orders . . . " In 21. he goes on to say: But
afterward, when Christian rulers were at the head of States, the Church
insisted much more on testifying and preaching how much sanctity was inherent
in the authority of rulers.
Especially those, like Constantine and his successors, who put the
bishops on the pay roll. For 1600 years
thereafter, these bishops provided the moral cover for the crimes of the
Empire, including the murderous persecution of nonconforming Christians.
the rest of this encyclical and the other two, it is clear that only innocent disciples of Christ are to be
spared. In Immortale Dei 21 Leo brags about the fact that Christian Europe has subdued barbarous
nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition. And there is no suggestion that innocent disciples of Christ are to be
confused with the nonconforming Christians of North Africa who were massacred
by the Christian soldiers of the
Emperor Constantine and his son Constans.
( See The Church of the Empire.
) These soldiers did turn their swords
against other Christians and the Great
Saint Augustine justified it with Romans 13.4, a verse he invented. ( See The
Church of the Empire, Chapter XI Augustine and the Manufacture of Scripture.
fact, Leo avoids any acknowledgement of Christians
outside the Catholic Church. He lumps
them in with the forces which were entirely hostile to the Christian
Church. In one place, he in effect
compounds the Protestant Reformation with the French Revolution, without even a
minimal acknowledgment that it was a Catholic State which launched the French
Revolution. It wasn't just the financial
bankruptcy of the French Empire which opened the way to an anti Christian
revolution which still reverberates in modern society. It was the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of
Catholic France, a society which was profoundly not Christian,
contrary to its pretensions. What
happened later in supposedly Christian
Russia and supposedly Christian
Germany began more than 100 years earlier in supposedly Christian France. The French
Revolution accurately measured the apostasy of the Catholic Establishment of
France. In fact, there was a substantial
overlap between that Establishment and the closet Freemasons who organized the
XIII also wrote an encyclical aimed at the Freemasons which deploys various
philosophical and theological arguments aimed at them as a sect attacking the Church from the outside. But Leo was oblivious of the basic reality
that a corrupt and luxury loving Church Establishment provides the perfect
environment in which morally and spiritually subversive groups like the
Freemasons can thrive. The Freemasons
are mostly gone to the dumpster of history but the modern Church is full of
individuals and groups which have a parasitic attachment to the body of the
Church while they work steadily to undermine Christian faith and morals. And, like the Freemasons, these groups find a
home within the Vatican itself.
Leo's Don't kill the Catholics
principle is so feeble as to be a dead letter.
The proof of that is how helpless the popes and the bishops were to
prevent Italian and Austrian Catholics from murdering one another in World War
I. And the inability of the German
Catholic bishops to do anything except lead the patriotic applause when
Hitler's Germany invaded Catholic Poland and Catholic France and Catholic
Belgium in World War II. Even on the
premise of a narrowly focused Catholic chauvinism, there is no hindrance to any
war the ruler wants to launch, even
when the ruler is Adolph Hitler
! That accurately measures the apostasy
of the Imperial Catholic Church. And it
was nothing new. The perennial wars of Christian Europe over many centuries set
the stage for the wars of the 20th century in which mass murder from the air
was added to slaughter on the ground.
Defending the Right--the Rights of the Church
are several places where Leo raises the possibility of Catholics refusing to
obey rulers who infringe upon the rights
of the Catholic Church. In Sapientiae Christianae 7. he
writes: No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the
Christian who is mindful of his duty, but such a one should be ready to suffer
all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the
Church. In 10. he says: But, if
the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law,
containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse
to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the
supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a
positive duty, to obey, a crime.
whole focus is on Catholics resisting encroachments upon the rights of the
Catholic Church establishment--especially his.
He ignores the possibility of Catholics refusing to participate in the
wars of the state. And that theology
played out in Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. Several hundred priests wound up in German
concentration camps for resisting the Nazi take over of Catholic schools and
youth groups. Meanwhile, it never
occurred to German Catholics to refuse to participate in the invasions of
Catholic Poland and Catholic France and Catholic Belgium. It was up to the sovereign--Adolph Hitler--to determine whether these wars were just
or not. He said they were, so that
settled the matter. Only God had the
standing to argue with him--privately and discreetly of course. That is the doctrine which Augustine states
in Contra Faustus. If I carry out Hitler's orders, Hitler is to
blame for whatever crimes I commit, not me.
That was Adolph Eichmann's excuse.
They hung him anyway.
again is that peculiar perspective from which a Catholic could readily conclude
that participating in Hitler's wars or helping to round up the Jews raised no
moral issues that he was competent to deal with. But meanwhile you should resist any attacks
upon the rights of the Catholic Church: The
Church cannot stand by, indifferent as to the import and significance of laws
enacted by the State; not insofar, indeed, as they refer to the State, but in
so far as, passing beyond their due limits, they trench upon the rights of the
Church. [ S.C..
30. ] Here again is that narrow
organizational chauvinism, typical of these encyclicals, whereby Leo warns
against laws which infringe upon the rights
of the Church while he is oblivious of any moral problem with Catholics
participating in the wars of the state.
It is this mind set which is conspicuous in the bishops of Hitler's
Germany. And in the satisfaction which
Pius XI and Pius XII took in the Concordat
they signed with Hitler's government.
The outrage Pius XI voiced later in With
Burning Sorrow was because of Hitler's violation of the Concordat in respect to the rights of the Church, not because of his invasions of
Germany's Catholic neighbors or because of the laws targeting the Jews.
The Gospel Governs the Empire
the Christian Constitution of States--published in 1885, starts off with a
whopper. The partnership of the Empire
and the Catholic Church produced a new
civilization--All nations which
yielded to her sway have become eminent by their gentleness, their sense of
justice, and the glory of their high deeds. Leo's blindness to the wickedness of Christendom in all its branches is
characteristic of his predecessors and his successors. No one with any sense who has read any
history could possibly describe the so-called Christian nations of medieval Europe with terms like gentleness
and justice. Does that describe the situation of the
peasants ? The sacking of Constantinople
by the Crusaders ? The African slave
trade ? The Spanish conquest of the New
World ? The perennial wars of
Christendom were as savage as those
of the barbarous nations.
follows that with a worse whopper--a blasphemy really--in I.D. 2: no better mode has been devised for the building up and ruling the
State than that which is the necessary growth of the teachings of the Gospel. Then, in
I.D. 21. he states: There
was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue
of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and
morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus
Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the
favour of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and
State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. . . . A
similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the
two powers been lasting. [ 22.
that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the
16th century . . . put an end to Camelot.
Of course the conspicuous corruption of the Roman Church had nothing to
do with provoking the Protestant Reformation.
comic book history
here displays a childish faith in Christendom--the
many Christian kingdoms which
appeared after the Roman Empire was dismembered by the Christianized and Romanized
former barbarians: -- Church
and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good
offices. That is how he describes
the golden age when the nobles and the cardinals worked together to skewer the
peasants. Leo XIII isn't just teaching
bad theology and bad morality, he is also teaching comic book history. If he ever read a history book in his life,
he read it through a pair of rose-colored dogma spectacles which diffused a
pleasant glow over an imaginary landscape.
assertion that there was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of
the Gospel is almost too silly to argue with. Or it would be if that and similar dogmatic
fictions had not led to the wars of the 20th century in which 100 million were
killed. Most of those who have tried to
justify the Christian Empire have argued from Nature or from the Old
Testament. And have had sense enough
not to attempt to square the Empire with the Gospel. But I suppose we should be grateful to Leo
for attempting it. For trying to show
how love your enemies . . . turn the other cheek . . . and my followers don't fight because my kingdom
is not of this world can fit right
into the policies of the Roman Emperors and the endless wars of the medieval
kings and the Holy Roman Empire and the popes who raised armies. How the atrocious actions of Clovis and
Charlemagne somehow illustrate the gospel.
same claim appears in Rerum Novarum
22. written in 1891: civil society was renovated in every part by
the teachings of christianity.
Leo is repeating Augustine's claim that the world--the Roman Empire--had become Christian by the deal Constantine made with the apostate traditor bishops who became the new
religious establishment of his empire.
That is the foundational heresy which the Imperial Catholic and Orthodox
Church has been stuck with trying to defend ever since. And the Lutheran Church. That is why the pastors of Germany
whole-heartedly supported a Satanic State which marched on to mass murder
carrying the banners of the old iron cross and the new crooked cross. Following in the footsteps of Constantine's
legions over the cliff and down to hell.
was just as obscene a doctrine in the time of Constantine and Augustine as it
became in the time of Hitler. You have
to be blind and an idiot to refuse
to recognize it. The difference is that
we now have the pictures to prove it.
The Empire was notrenovated. What happened instead is that the Church was
totally corrupted by its conformity to the Empire. And it still is today.
gospel as the charter of the military state--the very idea is blasphemy. But it is nothing new for the ideological
errand boys of the Imperial Church.
Eusebius proclaimed the court of Constantine to be the Kingdom of God on earth. In the City
of God Augustine admits the historical fact of the criminal foundation of
the Roman Empire then slides around that to the doctrine that the Christian God
somehow established it.
gospel is the charter of a
good society--that community worthy
of the name which real Christians are called to join. But this society defines itself by its
independence from secular society--by its refusal to join the army. By its close attention to what Jesus and Paul
taught about refusing to conform to This World.
The Sacred State
had no use for the modern doctrine that the
people are the source of political authority . . . that the people . . . [ is ] its
own ruler. [ I.D. 24 ] He argues against
the 18th century theory that political authority comes from The People. He argues against those
who believe civil society to have risen from the free consent of men. [ Diuturnum
12 ] Which is an absurd and
anti-historical belief. Almost as absurd
as Leo's belief that the Caesar and the Czar and the Kaiser and the Reichfuhrer are appointed by God. Writing in
the 4th century in North Africa, Tyconius stated the Christian doctrine
succinctly: evil men are the throne of Satan.
All illusions aside, coercion is the foundation of the state. But even an empire has to maintain some
popularity. It coerces some, bribes
others and relies upon the idolatry of men who worship the empire and the
emperor. Who worship themselves by
worshipping the Great Thing to which they belong, the thing in whose Power they
have some small share.
In I.D. 18 Leo writes: " In political affairs, and all matters
civil, the laws aim at securing the common good, and are not framed according
to the delusive caprices and opinions of the mass of the people, but by truth
and by justice; the ruling powers are
invested with a sacredness more than human, and are withheld from deviating
from the path of duty, and from overstepping the bounds of rightful authority;
and the obedience is not the servitude of man to man, but submission to the
will of God, exercising His sovereignty through the medium of men. Now, this being recognized as undeniable, it
is felt that the high office of rulers should be held in respect; that public authority should be constantly
and faithfully obeyed; that no act of sedition should be committed; and that
the civic order of the commonwealth should be maintained as sacred. "
be sure, the laws of 1930s Germany were not framed
according to the delusive caprices and opinions of the mass of the people,
but rather according to the delusions--the criminal insanity--of Adolph
Hitler. In 1933 the chaos of democracy
ended and the rule of the fuhrer
began. When you read this dogmatic
foolishness--the ruling powers are
invested with a sacredness more than human
. . . the civic order of the
commonwealth should be maintained as sacred--it is not hard to see how the
Catholics of Germany wound up repeating:
I swear before God this sacred
oath that I will render unconditional obedience to the fuhrer of the German
nation and volk, Adolph Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the armed
they meant it. And they did it. They invaded Poland and Belgium and
France. And killed any Catholics that
got in their way. They rounded up the
Jews and took them to the death camps.
And this encyclical, along with all the other State Church documents, is
the charter of their moral blindness.
Their delusion that they were serving God when it was so very, very
obvious that they were serving Satan.
Leo's doctrine of the Sacred State
is a mandate for that worship of the State and its head which is the essential
character of patriotism. It is the deal
that Satan offers in Luke 4.6-7: All this
power will I give thee . . . if thou will worship me. The essential heresy of the Imperial Catholic
Church was that it identified as sacred
what was in fact satanic. They did it in the 4th century when they made
the deal with the Emperor Constantine and they did it again in the 20th century
when they went along with the new German Emperor. But by then the camera had been invented and
the film footage of the grisly results has become part of the historical
defending my country
all those who must justify the wars of the state, Leo's sense of history comes
out of a patriotic comic book, and he must have flunked geography: the
natural law enjoins us to love devotedly and to defend the country in which we
had birth, and in which we were brought up, so that every good citizen
hesitates not to face death for his native land [ Sapientiae
Christianae 5. ] There is a seamless transition from defending my country to killing people
in some far off country. At the time Leo
wrote, all the nations of Europe had grabbed territories and planted colonies
in Asia and Africa and South America. Then
the peasants are pushed into the army so they can die for their country in defense
of those far off colonies which bring prosperity to a class of people into
which they have no access. Some were
conscripts, others were so poor they were glad to get the job.
attitude here is one of mindless patriotism.
As if he had never in his life thought to question how far the
boundaries of the empire can be extended before it ceases to be my country or whether defending is the same thing as extending and dying is the same thing as killing. That is exactly the psychology which was
reproduced in the Christian soldiers of Mussolini's Italy who invaded Ethiopia
with the pope's blessing. And the
Catholic soldiers of Germany who invaded Poland, Belgium and France, with the
blessing of their bishops, in order to defend
their home land.
says the natural law enjoins us . . . and, if that isn't enough for you,
Conscription decrees that you had better do it or else ! By using euphemisms like our own country, Leo avoids having to discuss how Kingdoms and Empires arise and what feeling we should have for them after they
gobble up our own country. What is my
country ? The square mile of the
Vatican ? The City of Rome ? The papal states ? Italy ?
The Roman Empire, including Israel, Egypt, North Africa, Spain and
Britain etc. ? His immediate
predecessor, Pius IX, lost the papal states, and, finally, the rule of the city
of Rome in 1870, when King Vittorio Emmanuele entered the city. The Pope was allowed to retain the Vatican
and the state voted him an income. And
that was the situation when Leo XIII became pope. His 16th century predecessor Leo X once
said: Could I recover Parma and Piacenza for the church, I would willingly
lay down my life. He did die
suddenly from a chill--or poison, perhaps, as some alleged--soon after Emperor
Charles V expelled the French and restored these cities to the rule of the Holy See in 1521. This most
ostentatious of the popes left the Church a bankrupt exchequer and the
rebellion of the protestant German
princes. A rebuilt St. Peters and a lot
of Renaissance art.
you stuck to defending my country,
defined in a sensible way, you would never wind up half way around the world
swapping shots with people from a nearby village whose language you don't
understand. You would never wind up killing for my empire, which is the
basic reality of war. You would
recognize, as the Germans did not, that if you love your country devotedly, it is not compatible with joining
Hitler's army. If you hated
your country devotedly, how could you
do it more harm ? The nightmarish rubble
of German cities in those 1945 vintage films makes that plain enough. The moral and spiritual rubble of Hitler's
Germany--which was also the moral and spiritual rubble of Catholic and Lutheran
Germany--is harder to see. Most Christians are still blind to it. They are blind to the spiritual rubble and
the moral ruins of their own empires.
The Criminal Character of the State
Henry Newman was a contemporary of Leo XIII and had read a history book or two,
as is shown by a remarkably succinct passage in one of his sermons: Earthly
kingdoms are founded, not in justice, but in injustice. They are created by the sword, by robbery, cruelty,
perjury, craft and fraud. There never
was a kingdom, except Christ's, which was not conceived and born, nurtured and
educated, in sin. There never was a
state, but was committed to acts and maxims, which it is its crime to maintain
and its ruin to abandon. What monarchy
is there but began in invasion or usurpation ?
What revolution has been effected without self-will, violence or
hypocrisy ? What popular government but
is blown about by every wind, as if it had no conscience and no responsibilities
? What dominion of the few but is
selfish and unscrupulous ? Where is
military strength without the passion for war ?
Where is trade without the love of filthy lucre, which is the root of
all evil ? (from: "Sanctity the Token of the Christian
Empire" in Sermons on Subjects of the Day
The reply of the pirate to Alexander
the Great states it even more succinctly: Because
I do it with a little ship, I am called a robber. You, because you do it with a great fleet,
are called an emperor. If he manages
to survive and succeed, yesterday's terrorist
is today's honored Statesman and the
revered Father of the Nation.
third century Christian dialogue treatise, the Municius Felix, gives an early Christian view of the foundations of
the Roman Empire: Say you the noble and majestic fabric of Roman justice drew its
auspices from the cradle of infant empire !
2 Yet were they not in origin a collection
of criminals ? did they not
grow by the iron terror of their own savagery ?
The plebs first congregated in a city of refuge; thither had flocked ruffians, criminals,
profligates, assassins and traitors; and
Romulus himself, to secure criminal pre-eminence in office and rule, murdered
his own brother. Such were the initial
auspices of our religious commonwealth !
3 Next, without leave or law, he
carried off other men's maidens, some betrothed, some promised, some already
married wives, outraged and mocked them, and then went to war with their
parents, that is with their own fathers-in-law, and shed kinsmen's blood. Was there ever procedure more irreligious,
more outrageous, more cynical in its avowal of crime ? 4
Thenceforward it becomes the practice of all succeeding kings and
leaders to dispossess neighbours of their territory, to overthrow adjoining
states with their temples and their altars, to drive them into captivity, to
wax fat on losses inflicted, and crimes committed. 5 All
that the Romans hold, occupy and possess is the spoil of outrage; their temples
are all of loot, drawn from the ruin of cities, the plunder of gods and the
slaughter of priests." [ Municius
Felix chapter XXV ]
Writing a few decades earlier, Tertullian said: Nothing
could be more foreign to the Christian than the state. [ Apology, chapter 38, written about
A.D. 200 ] In his book, On
Idolatry, chapter 18,
written about A.D. 210, he says: All
authorities and ranks of this world are not merely strange to God, but also
hostile to him. Tertullian's
doctrine is the basic gospel doctrine that there is a fundamental antagonism
between the kingdoms of this
world and the kingdom of God.
God versus Caesar
In chapter 19 he explains why Christians cannot join the
army: There is no compatibility between the oath to serve God and the oath to
serve man, between the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the
camp of light and the camp of darkness.
One life cannot be owed to two masters, God and Caesar. Of course--if you like to make a jest of the
subject--Moses carried a rod and Aaron wore a buckler, John had a leather belt,
Joshua led an army and Peter made
war. Yes but tell me how he will make
war, indeed how he will serve in peacetime, without a sword--which the Lord
took away ? Even if soldiers came to
John and were given instructions to keep, even if the centurion believed, the
Lord afterwards unbelted every soldier when he disarmed Peter. These arguments for Christian soldiers which
Tertullian buried early in the 3rd century were dug up by Augustine late in the
4th century and they are still used today to negate the pacifist faith of the
Obviously, there is no State without an Army, and if
Christians cannot join one, neither can they belong to the other. They
cannot be citizens of the empire and also belong to the kingdom of God. That is the essential understanding of the
early church and it is as true today as it was then. Is it not wonderful how Franz Jaggerstatter
was led by the Spirit to see this contra Hitler's Empire at a time when so many
other Christians were blind ?
And the corollary is true:
if you insist upon being a Citizen
of the Empire, you take on the obligation to lay down your life to defend your country, which, translated into
real world terms, means you are obligated to kill for your empire, drop bombs
on villages and look the other way when your comrades rape women.
you look at how the Roman Empire was established, how the British Empire was
established, how the American Empire was established, you realize that Newman
understates the case. And that the
affirmations of the various popes in respect to the idealized character of Commonwealths and rulers are sheer dogmatic foolishness. Are fairy tales and fictions which the popes
have to maintain because of the deal the Catholic Church made with the Emperor
Constantine. If you get yourself a
library card and begin to read real history, you don't need any dogmatic or
biblical arguments to plainly see that Empires are launched by robbery, rape
and murder, and maintain that character first to last. Which
is its crime to maintain and its ruin to abandon, as Newman says. We may deplore the crimes of our
grandfathers, but we aren't going to give back the land or pay back the
benefits of the deal with Constantine were used up long ago, but the Church must still pay the mortgage
and centuries worth of accumulated interest.
In World War I and World War II, the interest was paid in rivers of
blood. Millions of Catholics paid with
their lives for these State Church dogmas.
And worse--they killed millions of others before they died. In the name of God, they served Satan.
Authority versus Power
belief in the authority of the emperor is coupled to his belief in the
authority of the pope. Leo insists upon complete submission and obedience of will to
the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. [ S.C.
22. ] And obedience to rulers is also submission to the will of God. [ I.D. 18. ] Diuturnum 8: But, as regards political power, the Church
rightly teaches that it comes from God.
In Immortale Dei 30. he writes
that all power, of every kind, has its
origin from God. And that doctrine
provides the necessary excuse for the cowardly conformity to the militarized
state--to that throne of Satan which men themselves create by their abject
submission to Hitler and their idolatry of his power. Just as Satan demands in Luke 4.6-7.
is power, not authority, that goes
with position. Power comes from success
in war. As Mao Tse Sung wrote: All
political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Bismarck said: War is
the Health of the State. The would
be Roman Emperor was told: if you refuse the sword, you must refuse the
violence--wholesale slaughter--is the foundation of the state.
the real Christian Church there is no authority except the authority of the
Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. Without
that spirit, the so called Church is
as morally rotten as Hitler's Germany.
Without that spirit, every kind of falsehood and fiction is read out of The Bible and read into it by those who
have lost the Spirit or who never had it in the first place. War and genocide and slavery and every other
abomination is justified by those who read the Bible with a false spirit. Every kind of wickedness was spawned by those
apostate Christians who claimed the authority of Peter's Chair. Every kind of
wickedness was promulgated by those who claimed the authority of The Bible. Only the authority of the Holy Spirit of
Jesus Christ can rightly guide the church and teach us how to read the
the structure which confers power
also confers divine authority, then Adolph Hitler's authority is sacred. And the authority of any profligate occupant
of Saint Peter's Chair was as good as that of any other pope. Supposedly he receives the power of the Holy
Spirit in a mechanical way just by sitting down in Peter's chair.
The Worldly Popes
XIII was the first pope without an army in a long time. His immediate predecessor, Pius IX, finally
lost what remained of the papal states after a long series of wars involving
France, Germany and Italian City States in which the pope himself fielded an
army in alliance with the French. The
defeat of France by Germany in 1870 brought defeat to that alliance also and
reduced the pope to a square mile of territory defended by a few Swiss Guards.
No more than his predecessors could Leo imagine how his Worldly Church
could continue without the protection of an army--his own or that of some
stronger state. The Dependency of the Church
upon the Army began with Constantine.
The consequences of that Dependence are what you see in World War II, in
Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany, where the Vatican was still making
deals with those who had armies, and still instructing Catholics to serve in
those armies. Leo XIII made a deal with
Bismarck to restore the status of the Catholic Church in Germany. Pius XI sent Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli--later
Pius XII--to sign the Concordat with
In Immortale Dei 2. Leo says that the
"slanderous accusations" of Christians as "being enemies of the
Empire" was refuted by Augustine in The
City of God. In I.D. 20. he has a long quote
from Augustine: Let those who say that the teaching of Christ is hurtful to the State
produce such armies as the maxims of Jesus have enjoined soldiers to bring into
being . . . such judges, and such payers and collectors of tribute, as the
Christian teaching instructs them to become. From epistle 138 ad Marcellinum.
what Jesus says in John 18.36--my followers don't join armies because my kingdom is not of this world--is
negated. The real slander is the assertion that the true Christian church ever merged
with the Empire of this World and required its members to join the imperial
armies. But that is what the Imperial Catholic and Orthodox so-called Church
did in the time of Constantine and those Churches
are still chained to the theology that Augustine invented to justify it.
popes themselves became players in the endless wars of Christendom and the shifting alliances which disposed of
kingdoms. It was Pope Alexander II who
sanctioned the Norman invasion of England in 1066. Hadrian IV, alias Nicholas Breakspeare, who
became pope in 1154--the only Englishman to occupy the papal chair--bestowed
the sovereignty of Ireland upon the English monarch, thus sanctioning the
conquest of Ireland by England. That was
the meaning of the inscription on the triple-crowned papal tiara: to the
infallible vicar of Jesus Christ, to the supreme governor of the world on
earth, to the father of nations and kings.
"Father" gives the green light to invasions and wars
of conquest, if you can make a deal with him.
X, Giovanni de Medici, who received his first benefices when he was 8, became a
Cardinal at 13, and who was pope from 1513 to 1521, provoked the rebellion of
the German princes and gave Luther the issue which launched the Reformation by
sending the papal vendors of indulgences into Germany. The money was used to re-construct St.
Peter's basilica on a magnificent scale.
At the expense of the destruction of the rest of the Catholic
Church. Leo X also spent large sums on
that neo pagan Renaissance art which the pleasure-loving cardinals of the Roman
establishment relished. Did young King
David prance around without even a loin cloth ?
He did in Leo X's Rome. That was
the kind of piety that appealed to the Renaissance
Popes. As ART, of course. It can't be pornography when you spend that
much money on it.
authority from above
cites Romans 13.1-7, of course, the verses that Augustine added to justify the
Church which was bossed by the Emperor.
But he also borrows from Augustine's other manipulations and mis
interpretations of scripture. In Diuturnum 9 he writes: "To the Roman governor,
ostentatiously pretending [ ? * ]
that he had the power of releasing and of condemning, our Lord Jesus Christ
answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me unless it were given thee
from above. [ John 19.11 ] And St. Augustine, in explaining this
passage, says: Let us learn what He said, which also He taught by His Apostle, that
there is no power but from God. [
Augustine Tract. 116 in Joannes., n. 5 ]
[ ? * Leo seems not to
understand that Pilate did indeed have this power--the Jews could not have
crucified Jesus without his consent. ]
What Augustine really points up here is that his power from God doctrine can only be validated by misinterpreting
what Jesus says here and then adding to it the
13.1-7 verses which Augustine added to Romans. [ See The
Church of the Empire, Chapter XI, Augustine
and the Manufacture of Scripture. ]
invented new scripture and twisted old scripture
to justify the Imperial Church contra the non-conforming Christians of North
Africa--the so-called donatists. And he did this especially to establish his
neo-pagan doctrine that the authority of the Roman Emperor came from the
Christian God. Here Augustine mis
above"--to mean from God. Which does not fit the context of John
19.11-13. What sense does it make ? Pilate is less guilty of condemning Jesus
because Pilate has received his authority from the Father of Jesus ? ? What a peculiar theology ! And why would Jesus obscure the matter by
saying anothen if he meant From My Father ?
does make sense is that Pilate has received his authority from
above--from the Emperor Tiberius who appointed him. And that does explain John 19:11-13. Pilate allowed Jesus to be crucified because
his position and even his head were at risk if he didn't. That is why Pilate's guilt was less than that
of the chief priests who demanded the
execution of Jesus. Therefore he that delivered me unto thee
hath the greater sin.
Tacitus and Suetonius relate, the paranoid fears of plots against his throne
led the Emperor Tiberius to execute any official accused of disloyalty by one
of the legion of informers who were paid for making such allegations. That is why Pilate was at once intimidated by
the threat recorded in John 19.12-13 if thou let this man go, thou art not
Caesar's friend . . . When Pilate
therefore heard that, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat
. . . and allowed Jesus to be
crucified. And Jesus understood the
situation in which Pilate was placed. He
would have released Jesus if he could, but his own neck was on the block if he
did. That is what mitigates his
guilt. That interpretation makes good
sense of this passage. The other makes
Augustine, like other bible abusing worldly Christians, Leo surfs the Old
Testament for verses which prove that God appoints all kings. God has
always willed that there should be a ruling authority. [ I.D.4 ]
In Diuturnum 9. he
argues "In truth, that the source of human power is in God the books of
the Old Testament in very many places clearly establish. By me
kings reign . . . by me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice. [ in Proverbs 8:15-16 me
= Wisdom ] And in another place: Give
ear you that rule the people . . . for power is given you of the Lord and
strength by the Most High. [ Wisdom.
6:3-4 ] The same thing is contained in
the Book of Ecclesiasticus: Over every nation he hath set a ruler. [ 7:14 ]
. . . [ Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are books of the
Septuagint = the Catholic version of the Old Testament. ]
ignores all the Old Testament verses which show that the rulers of the nations
were the enemies of The Lord and that their power came from demons. Psalm 96.5 says that all the gods of the nations are idols. Other verses identify these idols with devils
and show that the nations of the
world are governed by them. Deuteronomy
32.16-17 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods . . . They sacrificed
unto devils, not to God; Psalm
106.36-37 And they served their idols, which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their
daughters unto devils . . . unto the idols of Canaan.
8.4 says: They
have set up kings, but not by me. They
have made princes and I knew it not.
Psalm 2.2 says: the kings of the earth set themselves, and
the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anointed. The kings were the Lord's enemies, not
his regents. And they are still
his enemies in Revelation 19.19 I saw
the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to
make war against him.
crowning of Emperors and Kings became the privilege of the popes, standing in
for God supposedly--standing in for Satan in fact. Leo refers to it in Diuturnum 21: "But afterward, when Christian rulers
were at the head of States, the Church insisted much more on testifying and
preaching how much sanctity was inherent in the authority of rulers. Hence when people thought of princedom, the
image of a certain sacred majesty would present itself to their minds by which
they would be impelled to greater reverence and love of rulers. And on this account she wisely provides that
kings should commence their reign with the celebration of solemn rites; which, in the Old Testament, was appointed by
divine authority." and then he
cites 1 Kings 9.16
10.1 16.13--the Catholic
equivalent of 1 Samuel 9.16 10.1 and 16.13. Samuel anoints
Saul and then David.
The king versus the King
looks like dishonesty on Leo's part. Why
does he ignore all the verses in these same chapters where it is clearly stated
that The Lord has given them a king under protest and what it means: they
have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8.7 In the next verse, 1 Samuel 8.8, he equates
their demand for a king with the apostasy whereby they have forsaken me, and served other gods.
ignores 1 Samuel 8.11-17 where the Lord spells out what the king will
do to them. This king they have demanded
will be a curse upon them, will take their sons and their daughters and their
property, and they will rue the day they asked for a king. 8.18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of
your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in
that day. The King will take
everything they have for his own uses and
ye shall be his servants. 8.17. How does that square with the silly notion
that rulers attend to the common good
? It is a matter of true history, that
kings lived in luxury while the people starved.
That wars of conquest were waged which enriched the king while they
brought nothing but death and dismemberment to the conscripts who waged
doctrine that The Lord establishes kings to inflict evil upon men is found
again in Jeremiah 27 where The Lord decrees that the King of Babylon will
conquer them all and lay his yoke upon them.
And then the turn of the King of Babylon will come. 27.7
There is no suggestion of the Romans 13 doctrine that this king is
appointed to the right ordering of the world or that he will reward the good
and punish only the evil. His destiny is
rather to conquer many nations and cast down their kings in the course of
building an empire which is destined to be overthrown in its turn.
Isaiah 45.1-4 the Lord calls the Persian
king Cyrus his anointed because he
has been given the mission to overthrow the empire of Babylon and release the
Jews from their long captivity. (about
536 B.C.) This is a special mission
given to a specific king who hast not
known me. It is not a sanction of
heathen kings in general or even of Cyrus except for this specific service to
the Jewish nation. In fact Cyrus is anointed to destroy many kings.
Lord is presented as commissioning and anointing
regicides. In Judges 3.15-23 the Lord
commissions Ehud to assassinate King Eglon.
In 2 Kings 9.1-8 the Lord anoints a rebel and entrusts him with
the mission to kill both Joram the king of Israel and Ahaziah the king of
Judah. He goes on to slay Jezebel and 70
sons of the former king. Contra the
Romans 13 doctrine that God always backs the establishment, and whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God. The Lord is here
presented as ordering the overthrow of that establishment.
Samuel 10.19, Samuel says to the children
of Israel . . . ye have this day rejected your God . . . and ye have said unto
him, Nay, but set a king over us.
Which shows that this first King of Israel represented, not God's will,
but the wicked will of the Jewish people who thereby rejected god. In Samuel 12.12-19 he again sets forth the
doctrine that the Jewish people rejected the Kingship of God when they asked
for a king--we have added unto all our
sins this evil, to ask us a king.
And this is echoed in the statement by the fourth century Christian
writer Tyconius: Evil men are the throne of Satan.
Hosea 13.9-11 there is a reassertion of the doctrine that the Lord himself is
their only rightful king: 9-11 O
Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help 10 I
will be thy king; where is any other
that may save thee in all thy cities ?
and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes ? 11 I
gave thee a king in mine anger and took him away in my wrath. These verses from a late prophet hearken back
to the original protest in 1 Samuel. Took him away aptly describes the
permanent disappearance of the independent kings of Israel, a situation which
had continued for hundreds of years before the advent of Jesus Christ. Isaiah 7.16 prophesies that the land that thou abhorrest shall be
forsaken of both her kings. Which is
what happened. Israel had long since
become the conquered province of one empire or another. King Herod was an appointee of the
Romans. And the would be murderer of the
infant Jesus. Was he not quite literally
the enemy of God ?
of this contrasts sharply with the bland assertion of Romans 13 and the
doctrine that Luther and Calvin and their followers have derived from it that
The Lord routinely rubber stamps all emperors and kings and princes and
magistrates and soldiers and cops and meter maids and court house clerks, and
that the janitor at the post office has authority from God. Get
out of the way so I can sweep ! My
authority is from God !
The Criminal Character of Kings
negative attitude towards kings shows up again in Daniel 4.17: the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men,
and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. While Matthew 4.8 and Luke 4.5-8 show that it is Satan who rules all the kingdoms of the world
and that to whomsoever I will I
give it. The phrase basest of men clearly indicates that the
rule of kings is intended for evil, just as 1 Samuel 8.11-18 states. But where there is no Prince of this World to blame it on, as there is in New Testament
theology, the evil must logically be attributed to the Lord himself. The concept of Satan as the independent god of this world which is found in the
New Testament is not found in the theology of the Old Testament. There is instead the concept of The Lord as
the source of both good and evil. Satan, in the book of Job, is still only
The Lord's mischievous agent.
Lord is the Source of Evil
is a basic difference between the theology of the Old Testament and the
theology of the New Testament in regard to Satan. The New Testament concept of Satan is missing
from the books of the Old Testament. In
the Book of Job he is still far from being the independent prince of this world of John 14.30 and the god of this world of 2 Corinthians
4.4. The Lord himself is the god of this
world according to the oldest Jewish theology, because there is no power which
is independent of the Lord. The Lord himself is the source of both good and evil. There is no concept of one powerful and evil
god of this world who is the enemy of God and who acts independently of
Him. Although there is a more general
doctrine of false gods who are demons and who are represented by idols. cf. Deuteronomy 32.17 They
sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not . . .
the Book of Job, Satan is a mischievous courtier who hangs around the heavenly
court of The Lord. He is still the
Lord's agent in Job 1.12 2.6-7. The concept of a mischief maker who provokes
God to do evil things to a good man is a half step in the direction of the
fully developed concept of Satan found in the New Testament where Satan is the
nemesis of Jesus and his followers and the evil Prince of this worldwho has
power over all kingdoms. That is the
basic theological reason why Old Testament books have to present evil kings as
coming from The Lord.
the same way The Lord himself is presented as the source of evil spirits. Judges 9.23 God sent an evil spirit. 1
Samuel 16.14 an evil spirit from the Lord. 18.10 and
19.9 an evil spirit from God came upon Saul. He sends out a lying spirit in 1 Kings
22.20-23. Instead of Satan sending out
lying spirits to deceive men, The Lord himself does it in this Old Testament
theology. Isaiah 45.7 presents The Lord
as saying I make peace, and create evil.
comparison of 2nd Samuel 24.1-25 with 1 Chronicles 21.1-27, written 500 years
later, shows a basic change in Old Testament theology. In the earlier version it is the
lord himself who incites David to number Israel and then punishes them
with a pestilence that kills 70,000. In
the First Chronicles near duplicate of
this same story, it is satan who
incites David to number the people of Israel.
This introduction of Satan as an evil actor who operates independently
of the lord leads to the concept
of Satan found in the New Testament, where it is spelled out in Luke 4.5-6 and
John 14.30 and 15.18 etc. that Satan is not merely a mischief maker but the prince of this world--the power
behind all the kingdoms of this world.
Lord of the Old Testament is both good and evil. He is the god of this world. Whereas God the Father is good and Satan is
the evil god of this world as Saint
Paul descrbies him or the Prince of This World as Jesus names
John 15.18-19 Jesus says that the world
hates him and his true followers, who, like Jesus himself, must be in an
adversarial position to that world of
evil men which is the throne of Satan, as Tyconius stated it. Jesus obviously does not mean that the
natural world is evil or that the rivers and the rabbits are out to get
us. He does not mean that Satan is in
charge of the sparrows and the lilies of the field. He means that Satan is in charge of empires--all the kingdoms of this world. Which is obvious enough when you look at the
trail of blood they leave. The endless
lies and perennial wars of kings and kingdoms clearly indicate that Satan is
basic New Testament doctrine of Christians
versus the World was obscured and abandoned and reversed by the apostate
imperial pseudo Church of the 4th
Century which made the deal with the Emperor Constantine, the deal which has
imprisoned Secular Christians ever since.
[ as described in The Church of the Empire ]
Locusts from God
13--Augustine's neo-pagan interpolation in Paul's epistle--reflects the
earliest concept of The Lord in saying that
there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. But it radically diverges from it when it asserts
that he is the minister of God to thee
for good. It is one thing to say
that God rules through kings and another to say that he has power over them, if
he chooses to have it. The plague of
locusts has power from God in the
sense that he allows them to destroy the crops.
Do the locusts therefore have God's authority to minister to us for good
Institutes 6.54 cites Daniel 4.17 the Most High rules the kingdom of men in support of his doctrine
that all law and authority is from God.
Then, like other dishonest bible thumpers, he omits to quote the
concluding phrase from 4.17 and setteth up over it the basest of men. Calvin interprets 1 Sam. 8:11-17 to mean
that we shall not hesitate to hold a most
wicked tyrant in the place where the Lord has Deigned to set him. That is the doctrine that Augustine states in
Contra Faustus. A just
man should wage war at the command of an unjust king. And this doctrine of submission to even the
most wicked of rulers justifies the cowardly conformity of those who carry out
the decrees of Adolph Hitler and every other demon-possessed ruler. It teaches Christians to worship Satan and carry out his murderous commands
while claiming patriotic righteousness.
the doctrine of Peter in Acts 5.29 that we
ought to obey God rather than men.
Contra the clear teaching of Luke 4.5-8 and the many other New Testament
passages which show that obedience to rulers is obedience to Satan and that the
principalities and powers of this world are the enemies of the true Christian. We must war against them, as Paul teaches in
Ephesians 6.11-12: Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places. The
worship of the empire promoted by the Worldly Church is Satan worship. And Hitler illustrated that in such a way
that even the blind can hardly help seeing it.
The Secular Christians of this world are blind. They
have eyes and see not.
All law from God ?
logic of the doctrine that all secular authority is from God pushed Calvin to
the logical conclusion that all laws are from God, as he argues in his Institutes 6.47: the law
is a silent magistrate; the magistrate a living law. In
6.48 he argues against those who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed
which, neglecting the political system of Moses, is ruled by the common laws of
nations. And in 6.49 he argues that the laws of other
nations are as legitimate in their way as the Law given to Israel, and must be
accepted as coming from God. (references
are to the 1536 edition of Calvin's Institutes.)
this is contradicted by many Old Testament passages which plainly state that
only The Law given to Israel is from the Lord.
The laws of the heathen nations are not The Law of The Lord. Leviticus 18.3 tells them neither
shall ye walk in their ordinances--the laws of Canaan and Egypt--18.4 Ye
shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein. I am the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 4.8 asks: and
what great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all
this law which I set before you this day ?
The Lord tells them that the laws of other nations are not in the same
category with The Law which he has
given them. Don't walk in their ordinances means do not follow the laws of Canaan and
Egypt which are NOT The Law which The
Lord has given. The charge against the
Jews in Esther 3.8 is that their laws are diverse from all people;
neither keep they the king's laws.
belief in The Law which was central to the faith of ancient Israel was an
exclusive belief which excluded the laws of other nations just as their worship
of The Lord excluded the gods of other nations.
To equate the laws of the heathen nations with The Law of ancient Israel
was blasphemy to the Jews. It was the
equivalent of adding the gods of these nations to the religion of Judaism, a
rebellion against The Lord for which they were severely punished. When the ancient Hebrews demanded a king,
they rejected the kingdom of God. And
they paid the price for doing that.
practical and common sense matter, the Laws of the Empire embody and enshrine
and enable the fundamental criminal
character of the empire. Laws which
mandate war and slavery. Laws which
allowed babies to be exposed in the old Roman Empire and which allow them to be
aborted in the new American Empire. The
laws sometimes give an ineffectual and unenforced mandate for good behavior
while they sanction and demand criminal behavior. The laws are strictly enforced which
conscript men into the army to kill on behalf of the empire. The laws which prohibited abortion were not
isn't just that the law fails to enforce good behavior. By pretending to do it, it allows Secular
Christians to shrug off their responsibility.
I voted ! And I prayed ! What more can I do ? Now it is up to God and the government. The false faith in the law added to the false faith in the people traps us into going along when the people vote for
abortion. The People have spoken ! I must
follow the law ! Even when it
Hennacy argued: What good are laws ? Good men
don't need them and bad men won't obey them. Paul wrote in Galatians 2.21: If
righteousness comes by The Law, then Christ is dead in vain. The illusion to which Secular Christians
cling is that we can stay on the side of Power, conform and obey and go
along. We don't have to stick our necks
out. We don't have to defy principalities and powers to live a Christian life.
We can go along with the crowd.
Paul taught the early Christians that they were no longer bound by The Law of
Moses. Jesus taught that the two great
commandments to Love God and Love Your Neighbor fulfill the 10 commandments. [ I have gone into this basic subject at some
length in Luther's Distortion of Paul's Teaching and in Jesus and the Law---What Does
Jesus teach About The Law ? ]
Gideon draws the line
doctrine found in 1 Samuel chapter 8, that God in person is the only legitimate
ruler of his chosen people is not a new theme in the books of the Old
Testament. The earliest Hebrew faith in
respect to the authority of the king was that the Lord alone was the king of
Israel. There was no king except Jehovah
himself who dwelt with them and communicated his decrees through Moses and
Aaron. It is literally The Kingdom of God. Jehovah directs even their daily movements
from his tabernacle--his own special tent--in the middle of the camp. ( Exodus 40.34-38)
Judges 8.23, Gideon refuses to become the ruler because only the Lord himself
can rule over Israel: I will not rule over you, neither shall my
son rule over you. The Lord shall rule
over you. And his refusal to become
the king of Israel foreshadows the refusal of Jesus Christ to become the
secular king of Israel in John 6.15 even
while he persists in announcing that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Meaning that, at long last, the ancient Kingdom of God is about to be
restored. What did Jesus mean ?
is important to note the line which was drawn between the kingship of God over
the Jewish people and the rule of the kings of Israel, because it points ahead
to the line which Jesus Christ draws between the Kingdom of God which he
proclaims and the Kingdom of Israel which he leaves to its folly and its
terrible fate when he refuses to become the king of Israel. The independent Kingdom of Israel had
disappeared long before. As Isaiah 7.16
had prophesied: the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. But the Jews were still determined to restore
the Kingdom of Israel. They expected a
warrior messiah to re-establish the throne of David and throw off the yoke of
the Empire. In 1 Samuel 8.11-18, The Lord warns them of the consequences
of their folly in seeking a king. In the
24th chapter of Matthew, and other places in the gospel, Jesus warns them of
what is coming to them because they have rejected the kingdom of God to pursue
a secular kingdom.
The Lowly King
the later prophets there appears a new idea in respect to the future king of
Israel. These prophetic verses point to
the appearance of a king who is an anti king, who comes without the military
triumph and glory which the Jews expected.
Zechariah 9.9 describes the king as lowly
and riding upon an ass. Isaiah 53.3-10 describes him, not as a king
triumphant but as despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows; as smitten of God, and afflicted; with his stripes we are healed . . . he is
brought as a lamb to the slaughter . . . for the transgression of my people was
7.16 prophesies that the land that thou
abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. This directly follows the prophecy of
7.14: a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel. And again there is this
contrast between the Kings of Israel and this very different sort of a king who
re-establishes the Kingdom of God even while he seals the fate of the conquered
Kingdom of Israel. Isaiah 9.6-7 has an
astonishing description of the future King:
For unto us a child is born, unto
us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counseller, the mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace 7 Of
the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne
of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment
and with justice from henceforth even for ever. Somehow, the King of Israel, sitting
throne of David, is identified with
the mighty God, The everlasting
Father. Instead of a warrior king,
he is the Prince of Peace.
that squares exactly with John 18.36:
the kingdom of Jesus is not
established by war. It was established
when Jesus returned from the grave and breathed
upon them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
20.22. It is the rule of the Holy
Spirit of Jesus Christ through those who have received him, that still defines the kingdom of Jesus. John
20.21 as my Father has sent me, even so send I you. He commissioned them to carry on his mission
and then gave them the power to do it by making them spiritual clones of
of God is Here !
The Kingdom of God is central to the teaching of Jesus
Christ. The gospel of the kingdom--the good news that the kingdom of God has arrived--is the first teaching of Jesus Christ
and the last teaching. In Mark 1.15
Jesus begins his public teaching with the proclamation that The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of
God is at hand. And in Acts 1.3
Jesus is described as still speaking of
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. There are only about 150 verses in the New
Testament which describe and define the
kingdom of god. Augustine
and Luther and Calvin ignore all of them and draw upon the Old Testament and
upon pagan philosophers for their doctrine in respect to kingdoms.
1There is a development in the bible of the doctrine of God's
kingdom on earth. In early Israel The
Lord himself is the king of the Jews. He
lives in a tent in the middle of the camp and it is literally the Kingdom of
God. cf. Exodus 40.34 In Judges 8.23, Gideon refuses to become the
ruler because only the Lord himself can rule over Israel. In 1 Samuel 8.7 The Lord agrees to let the Jews have a king
but says that it means they have rejected me, that I should not
reign over them. That literal Kingdom of God is what the prophet
Ezekiel sees in a vision as being restored in the latter days, as in Ezekiel
43.5, temple and priesthood and
all, contra the revised version of this
prophecy in Revelation 21.22. And the
many things which Jesus teaches us about the
Kingdom of God show that the
time has come when the kingdom of God has again been established on earth
through his anointed ones--those who have received the Holy Spirit of Jesus
2In the time of Jesus Christ, the Jews had a great
expectation of an anointed king who would re-establish the Kingdom of Israel
which was also somehow identified in Ezekiel and in other prophetic books with
the Kingdom of God. And it was this
great expectation which set up the drama of the life and death of Jesus
Christ. In Matthew 21.9 they shout Hosanna
to the Son of David. In Matthew
27.35-37 they crucify him and put a sign over him to mock his pretensions: the
king of the
jews. Thirty years
later they followed false messiahs in a disastrous attempt to re-establish the
Kingdom of Israel. The result was the
destruction of Israel and the permanent exile of the Jews. The Zionists who now occupy the land with the
backing of the military power of the American Empire, can have no legitimate
spiritual claim. They are manifestly in
violation of all the prophecies, contrary to the TV evangelists whose pseudo
Christian Zionist faith is focused
upon modern Israel.
3In Matthew 21.43 Jesus tells them: The
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof. He drew a line
between the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of God. The rejection by patriotic Jews of the kind
of King that Jesus was and the Kingdom of God he proclaimed led directly to
their doomed rebellion against Rome in 66 A.D.
which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70
A.D. It was their doctrine of a military
messiah king which led them to reject The
Prince of Peace and follow false messiahs into the attempt to re-establish
the Kingdom of Israel in defiance of the Roman Empire. As Josephus states in Jewish War 6.5.4, the belief in the immediate appearance of the
messiah Warrior King they hoped for
was what gave the chief impetus to this disastrous rebellion.
teaching of Jesus Christ in respect to
The Kingdom of God became one of the most confused of Christian
doctrines. Because false Christians went
to a lot of trouble to obscure it. After
the Roman Emperor Constantine established the Imperial State Church early in
the 4th century, there was a major re-working and re-interpretation of the
concept of the Kingdom of God to
force it into alignment with the new order in which an apostate section of the
Christian Church had sold out to the Empire.
(As I documented in The Church of
the Empire.) The imperial toady
Eusebius proclaimed the court of the emperor Constantine to be the Kingdom of
God on earth. Augustine reworked the old
Christian theology to prove that the state church of the empire was the City of
God. He perverted the work of Tyconius
who, like other orthodox Christians,
regarded the Roman Empire as the City of Satan and the antagonist of the
City of God, by which he meant the true Christian Church.
The Rise of Christendom
with the disintegration of the Roman Empire into a multitude of feudal states,
the concept of Christendom was
fabricated to justify the new social order in which something which pretended
to be Christianity made its deals
with any bishop or prince or pirate who could establish a city with enough of a
wall to keep out the invaders and enough of an army to hold it. Meanwhile, the real Christian church
persisted as an underground and persecuted church. We know about it because of those
persecutions. Under various heretic
labels such as donatist, novatian and priscillianist, it outlasted the persecutions of the imperial
number one rule of true Christian hermeneutics is that the Old Testament has to
be read in the light of the New Testament, and not vice versa. The many New Testament verses about The Kingdom of God show that spiritual
authority belongs to Christians--real Christians--and not to kings. The rule of Jesus Christ is carried out
through the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ--through individual Christians who have
received the Holy Spirit. In the time of
the Old Covenant only the prophet received the anointing of the Spirit. In the time of the New Covenant the Spirit is
poured out upon many individuals, cf.
Acts 1.8, 2.17, 7.55 etc., who have no formal position. That is why the kingdom is a ghostocracy. It is ruled by those who have received the
Spirit. In accordance with the tradition
of the true Christian church. In
conformity with the faith of the first followers of Jesus. We test our faith by theirs.
real kingdom is defined in the dozens
of places in the gospel where Jesus described it. It was defined contrary to the kingdom of
Israel and contrary to the kingdoms of
this world. It was defined by a
permanent state of hostility to This World.
It cannot be established by armed men.
That is the elementary doctrine which the Worldly Church abandoned. It is the only state without an army. Or, rather, with an army equipped with
spiritual weapons, as Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 10.3-4 and Ephesians
6.10-18 -- 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith
wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And
take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which
is the word of God.
the credentials of the kings before the time of Jesus are doubtful, what King
after the time of Jesus can claim to be the Lord's anointed ? If God abandoned
the Kingdom of Israel and the Temple of the Lord in 70 A.D., how likely is it
that He then switched his favor to the Roman Emperor, and the emperors and
kings who followed ? But that is the
doctrine which Eusebius proclaimed in his turgid orations and which Augustine
developed in his Romans 13 and King's
Covenant doctrines. [ as described in The
Church of the Empire ]
The sacred majesty
of Mao Tse Tung
was the consequence of Leo's doctrine which encouraged the idolatry of rulers
? Hitler could never have done what he
did to the Jewish people, to the German people and to the rest of the world
without the all out support of the German clergy and laity which created a
Patriotic Religious Cult around the Reichfuhrer. The
image of a certain sacred majesty which the Catholic Church and the
Lutheran Church promoted enabled him to launch a campaign of mass murder in
which they all participated. In which the
world participated. In the end, those
who opposed Hitler mirrored the evil that was in him. They joined an alliance with Stalin, who was
Hitler's spiritual twin. Stalin came to
power in a nation that had more Churches than any nation in Europe. Which measures its apostasy. This alliance was responsible for Mao Tse
Tung in China. Who managed to murder as
many of his own people as Hitler and Stalin put together. That is the bottom line of this heresy that all power comes from God.
The greater reverence for rulers, which the
popes encouraged is none other than that demon worship which Satan demands in
Luke 4.5-7 as the price of worldly power.
The price that the Imperial Church paid long ago, and must still pay until
they are finally forced to understand what Jesus taught about The World and about The Prince of this World.
Which is the opposite of what they teach.
Terry Sullivan June
2010 14496 words
For the previous document, Hitler Deploys the Patriot Pastors click on:
To read this document in its original format, click on: