Illegal alien invaders arrive at Annunciation House in El Paso after being released from U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody, on June 24, 2018. Credit: Ivan Pierre Aguirre for The Texas Tribune
My Comments: Some good news for a change as Texas Attorney General announces a lawsuit against El Paso-based Annunciation House, a Catholic organization facilitating the illegal alien invasion of the United States.
“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Annunciation House, a nongovernmental organization (“NGO”), to revoke their registration to operate in Texas. The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) reviewed significant public record information strongly suggesting Annunciation House is engaged in legal violations such as facilitating illegal entry to the United States, alien harboring, human smuggling, and operating a stash house.”
In case you’re wondering, a “stash house” is what it sounds like, a place to put illegal aliens until they can be moved. The U.S. Embassy in Georgia (the nation, not the state) gives the following definition of stash house, “Stash houses are where human smugglers put migrants until they can relocate them either within countries or across borders.”
The announcement by Paxton’s office is good news, and we should pray that his efforts at shutting down Annunciation House and ending its evil deeds are a success.
My Comment: As the globalist Bond villains of World Economic Forum (these are the guys who want you to eat the bugs, own nothing, and be happy) begin their annual meeting at Davos, Switzerland, never forget that the Antichrist Roman Catholic Church-State is right there cheering the work along. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Check out the link below for comments from the Superior General of the Scalabrinian Missionaries taken straight from the Vatican’s own news portal. Rome doesn’t even bother to hide its globalism. It’s right out there in our faces if we have eyes to see.
Republican presidential candidate and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy pictured Jan. 3 in the Des Moin Register newsroom Zach Boyden-Molmes/The Register
One of the surprise successes so far in the 2024 presidential election cycle has been Republican Vivek Ramaswamy. What Christians need to know about him is his Jesuit ties.
Ramaswamy attended St. Xavier High School, a Jesuit-run school in the Cincinnati area and currently serves on the school’s board of directors. Please see the screenshot below from today’s Cincinnati Enquirer for confirmation. Ramaswamy currently is on the school’s board, as the article notes. He also graduated from the school.
I don’t know anything about this situation beyond the headlines. But for some reason, it wouldn’t shock me if the Nicaraguan government’s charges against the Jesuits are true. That’s just how Jesuits roll.
Pope Francis stands on an altar facing the U.S. before celebrating Mass during a February 2016 trip to Juarez. The papal visit was one of the El Paso Times’ top stories of 2016. Robin Zielinski/Las Cruces Sun-News
In his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John Robbins quoted Roman Catholic historian Brian Tierney’s comment on Rome’s doctrine of the of the two swords. This doctrine, which asserts that God had delegated both spiritual and temporal power to the bishop of Rome, is based on Luke 22:38 “And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” Wrote Tierney, “A whole inverted pyramid of political fantasy was erected on the basis of this one verse.”[1]
In much the same way as with the doctrine of the two swords, Rome likewise has erected a whole inverted pyramid of immigration fantasy on the basis of three verses in the second chapter of Matthew that record the flight into Egypt.
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son” (Matthew 2:13-15).
This flight, according to Pope Pius XII’s[2] 1952 Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia Nazarethana,[3]the Émigré Family of Nazareth, hereafter EFN, is the “archetype of every refugee family.” In the words of Pius XII,
The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and all places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil.[4]
Clearly, Joseph and his family were refugees under any reasonable definition of the term. Had they remained in Bethlehem, it is certain that Jesus would have been executed by King Herod, who “sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men” (Matthew 2:16) in his attempt to kill the newborn King of the Jews. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives the definition of refugee as, “one who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution.” According to the 1951 UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the term refugee applies to “any person who…owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” [5] The definition of “refugee” in US law is essentially the same as that of the 1951 UN Convention.
Pope Francis stands on an altar facing the U.S. before celebrating Mass during a February 2016 trip to Juarez. The papal visit was one of the El Paso Times’ top stories of 2016. Robin Zielinski/Las Cruces Sun-News
In his book The Incarnation, Gordon Clark criticized the Council of Chalcedon for its failure to define the terms it used in the famous creed it produced. “Discard or define,” was Clark’s slogan.
John Robbins put the same thought this way, if you define your terms, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
So in the spirit of Gordon Clark and John Robbins, I’d like to take time to define the terms used in the title of this talk.
Antichrist
My definition of Antichrist is that which was accepted by nearly all Protestants before the 20th century. Antichrist is the office of the papacy. The original language of the Westminster Confession of Faith summed up this view quite nicely in Chapter 25.6. It reads, “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.” But this language was altered in the 1903 revision of the Confession by the Presbyterian Church USA to remove the language identifying the pope as “Antichrist,” “man of sin,” and “son of perdition.”
Two of the best Presbyterian theologians of the 20th century did not offer much in the way of objection to the removal of this language from the Confession. Writing in the November 28, 1936 issue of the “Presbyterian Guardian,” J. Gresham Machen commented that the edition of the Confession adopted by the Presbyterian Church of America[1] was the same as the doctrinal standards that existed in 1902, “except that two brief statements – one declaring the Pope to be Antichrist and the other declaring it to be sinful to refuse an oath when the civil magistrate requires it, are omitted.”[2]
B.B. Warfield noted in his article “The Confession of Faith as Revised in 1903” that “The motive of the revisers seems to have been to avoid calling the Pope of Rome ‘that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God” – which does seem rather strong language. Why the revisers wished to avoid applying these terms to the Pope of Rome we can only conjecture. But their avoidance of it need not imply that they – some or all of them – felt prepared to deny that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist of Scripture.”[3] As do many Bible-believing Presbyterians, I count myself an admirer of B.B. Warfield, but these comments from him are disappointing. The most likely reason that the revisers excised the language identifying the Pope of Rome as Antichrist, man of sin, and son of perdition is the very one Warfield denies was their motive, that they – some or all of them – were prepared to deny that the Pope of Rome was the Antichrist of the Scriptures. The history of the American Presbyterian church since 1903 substantiates this reasoning, as even highly educated Presbyterians from that day to the present have become increasingly willing to deny that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist of the Scriptures, something that was once clearly understood even by the plowboy with a Bible.
But what the revisers did by striking the Confession’s language about the identity of Antichrist was something far worse than merely sowing confusion about who Antichrist is. By denying that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist, the revisers of the Confession also denied the entire Protestant system of prophetic interpretation known as historicism, of which system the identity of Antichrist as the papacy is a key component.[4]
It seems to this Presbyterian in the Year of Our Lord 2023 that the removal of the Confession’s language on the identity of Antichrist, while it may have appeared minor to observers at the time, opened the floodgates for the false Jesuit eschatologies of Preterism and Futurism – both of which deny a present Antichrist, instead placing him far in the past or at a time still to come – to come pouring into Protestant church, thus blinding, as it were, even the elect to the work of Antichrist taking place right in front of their noses.
One of these works, I argue in this paper, is the flooding of America with illegal aliens, many of them Roman Catholics, for the purpose of subverting our Protestant Republic, capturing the nation for Rome, and incorporating it into Rome’s planned system of world government.
Singer Sinead O’Connor tears up a picture of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live, October 3, 1992.
Back in 1992, I recall watching Saturday Night Live when musical guest Sinead O’Connor ripped up a picture of Pope John Paul II. My initial reaction was to get upset. Given my frequent writings against the papacy and many denunciations of it as Antichrist, this may come as a bit of a surprise to regular readers of this blog. But remember, I’m speaking of an event from 31 years ago, and a lot has happened to change me in those ensuing years.
At the time, I was, as many people were then and still are today, under the mistaken impression that the pope was a representative of Christianity. I had barely begun to read reformed writers and had very flawed ideas of what Christianity was. Not having a reformed background, I took my cues on Christianity from the surrounding culture. And the surrounding culture said that Pope John Paul II was a Christian man, a heroic fighter against communism, and one of the big reasons the West had recently triumphed in the Cold War. Just two years earlier the world had witnessed the unthinkable when the Berlin Wall came down, and the press was full of glowing stories about the Polish Pope’s – Karol Józef Wojtyla, AKA Pope John Paul II was born in 1920 in Wadowice, Poland – role in bringing down communism.
The creepy optics of Joe Biden’s “Soul of America” speech at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, PA, September 1, 2022.
“We are Republicans, and don’t propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion. We are loyal to our flag.”
Dr. Samuel D. Burchard
This week, I was going to continue with my series on likening living under the Biden Regime to living under Queen Athaliah of Judah, another example of a usurper of power, and the lessons Christians can take from that Biblical account.
I say, I was going to continue with it this week, until Joe Biden came along and gave what is, in my opinion, probably the most disturbing and tyrannical speech ever given by an American President. Certainly, it’s the most disturbing and tyrannical speech I personally have ever heard from a man in that office.
In some ways, this piece really is a part of the series on Athaliah. But in my mind, the content of Biden’s speech is that I think it falls more naturally under the heading of another, recurring series of posts I’ve been writing called Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion (RR&R). The RR&R series attempts to link the socialist, authoritarian, anti-Constitutional, globalist ideas and corruption found so prevalently in the Democratic party with the fact that this same party is, and has been since well back into the 19th century, the political home of the papal Antichrist in the United States of America.
The fact that the Democrats were the party of Antichrist was recognized by writers in the 19th century, and most famously expressed by Presbyterian minister and Union Civil War veteran Dr. Samuel D. Burchard, who in 1884 uttered the line at the top of this post, calling the Democrats, “the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion.”
Lux Lucet 