Feeds:
Posts
Comments
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. 

Pages: 1 2

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. 

Pages: 1 2

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

Your land, strangers devour it in your presence.

  • Isaiah 1:9

“It’s a total free for all in Eagle Pass right now.  Mass illegal crossing taking place for over an hour and a half.  Almost 2 years to the day we saw 15,000+ Haitians under the bridge in Del Rio, we now have thousands of predominantly Venezuelans gathering under Eagle Pass bridge.”

That was a recent post on X[1] (formerly Twitter) from Fox News’ Bill Melugin, one of the few, perhaps the only, legacy media reporters who has consistently covered the illegal alien disaster taking plan on America’s southwest border.  A disaster, the proximate cause of which is the policies of the current presidential administration. 

A New York Times article[2]written the same day as Melugin’s post, September 20, 2023, reported that “Thousands of migrants crossed into the small city of Eagle Pass, Texas, from Mexico on Wednesday, crowding onto the bank of the Rio Grande and under an international bridge in what officials describe as an unfolding crisis.”

In a town hall on September 6, 2023,[3] New York mayor Eric Adams caused quite a stir when ripped the Biden Administration for providing “no support” to the city for the burgeoning illegal alien crisis and said, “This issue [the illegal alien crisis] will destroy New York City. Destroy New York City.” Given the scale of the illegal alien crisis in his city, it’s hard to argue with Mayor Adams’ assessment. 

Pages: 1 2

“Our Democracy”

“I Think nothing less is at stake than our democracy in this election.”  That’s a quote from Nancy Pelosi in a story from “The Hill” titled “Pelosi: In 2024, ‘nothing less is at stake than our democracy’”.

Talking about “our democracy” has become a big thing in recent years.  Hardly a day goes by, or so it seems, that I don’t hear some politician or another spouting off about “our democracy,” usually in the context that we’re about it lose it if such and such a thing is allowed to happen. 

Such and such a thing very often turns out to be the prospect of the reelection of Donald Trump, which Pelosi described as “a nightmare scenario” in the article quoted above.

Pages: 1 2

Mayor Eric Adams at a town hall event on the Upper West Side. Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2023.
Photo Credit: Benny Polatseck/Mayoral Photography Office

New York Mayor Eric Adams caused quite a stir last week with his address to a town hall meeting in which he proclaimed “This issue (the illegal alien crisis) will destroy New York City.

Adams isn’t wrong about this.  Obviously, when an infinite number of migrants illegal aliens are paired with finite economic resources to take care of them, something’s got to give.

“I’m gonna tell you something, New Yorkers, never in my life have I had a problem that I didn’t see an ending to.  I don’t see an ending to this.  This issue will destroy New York City.  Destroy New York City.”

Superman isn’t coming to save Metropolis.  Batman isn’t there to bail out Gotham City. 

What comic book supervillains couldn’t do, destroy New York City, is being done by the Biden Regime’s migrant hordes.

But while some immigration reformers have praised Eric Adams’ speech as evidence that even liberals are waking up to the dangers of the migrant crisis, I beg to differ. 

Pages: 1 2

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks to reporters after taking a Pilates class in South Lake Tahoe, California, U.S., August 25, 2023. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Is scamdemic 2.0 upon us? 

If the Biden Regime gets its way, the answer is yes.

As The Hill reported on August 25, 2023, “President Joe Biden on Friday said he plans to ask for more funding from Congress for the development of a new coronavirus vaccine.”  I guess the vaccine manufacturers didn’t make enough money killing people with their poison death shot the first time around, so they need to come back for a second pass.      

And it’s not just a new vax that Jesuit Joe wants to foist upon us.  Oh, no.  That would be too small a thing. Jesuit Joe and the powers that shouldn’t be are positively giddy at the thought of bringing back all the joys of Covid 1.0: forced masking, social distancing, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates.  In other words, the Covid tyranny full monty.

Will the Biden Regime get its way?  I don’t know.  I pray that that’s not the case.  I’d like to believe that people are done with the fear-mongering and the tyranny. 

Pages: 1 2

Mugshots of Donald Trump and associates from top left: Mark Meadows, Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Cheseboro, Sidney Powell

Last week saw Donald Trump booked in the Fulton Country, GA jail along with 18 other individuals who are charged with what amounts to exercising their right to question the 2020 election results in the State of Georgia.

Whatever you may think of Donald Trump or the 2020 election, the fact that a former president can be charged with racketeering for questioning the official narrative that the “election was the most secure in American history” ought to be cause for alarm.  And it’s not just Donald Trump either.  Eighteen other individuals have been indicted in this case, including lawyers who assisted Trump, most notably Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York.

The Biden Regime, the Establishment, is sending the message to any future president or presidential candidate, don’t you dare even consider representing anyone but us.  If you try to represent the people, you are history. 

Pages: 1 2

Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis charged Donald Trump and 18 others with meddling in Georgia’s 2020 election, taking advantage of the state’s broad RICO statute.
 (John Bazemore / Associated Press)

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

That famous saying, attributed to the head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police, Lavrentiy Beria, is the best summary there is of the term “weaponized law.”  It is also now the unofficial slogan of the Biden Regime’s Department of Justice (sic) and of the American legal system more broadly. 

In a proper, Christian legal system, you start with the evidence of a crime, investigate the matter to determine the suspect, and bring charges against that person.   That’s the way America’s legal system worked, or at least was understood to work, for most of the nation’s history.

But in just the last few years, it is obvious that things have changed.  Instead of beginning with evidence of a crime and working to determine who committed it, American “justice” now begins with the man and goes looking for crimes with which to charge him.   

Pages: 1 2

Members of a US-bound migrant caravan stand on a road after federal police briefly blocked their way outside the town of Arriaga, Saturday, Oct. 27, 2018. Hundreds of Mexican federal officers carrying plastic shields had blocked the caravan from advancing toward the United States, after several thousand of the migrants turned down the chance to apply for refugee status and obtain a Mexican offer of benefits.

In last week’s post, I detailed how a few GOP lawmakers have pointed the finger at Rome for its extraordinary role in promoting the extraordinary immigration treason carried out on a daily basis by the Biden Regime all along our Southwestern border.

Unsurprisingly, prelates of the Roman Catholic Church-State in good cry bully fashion have come out whining about all the supposedly unfair criticism of Holy Mother Church. 

As a case in point, let’s look at a recent article by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, retired bishop of the Dioceses of Brooklyn.  His piece titled “Fix the immigration system but don’t scapegoat the Church.”  In the bishop’s opinion, the problem is not the millions of illegal aliens pouring across our southern border and imposing their costs on the American people.  The problem is that there are not enough legal immigration channels.  In his words, “the real issue the nation is confronting” is “a lack of legal channels for migration under our present immigration laws.” 

Put another way, the ongoing immivasion of the United States and all its attendant evils is the fault of stingy American immigration laws and the selfish American people and the selfish politicians they elect.  By no means is it the fault of the welfare migrants violating our immigration laws, and certainly it isn’t the fault of the Catholic Church or its eminent representatives such as, say, Bishop DiMarzio. 

According to DiMarzio,

A review of the social ministry teaching of the Church will help dispel the doubts that have been placed in the public forum by some uninformed public officials. First, let me be clear: The Church does not advocate for open borders. In fact, the teaching is clear that a sovereign nation has the right to admit those whom it chooses, but it must be based on the common good — not only of the receiving nation but also of the migrants.

This is an extraordinary lie.  The Roman Church-State by all means advocates for open borders and has zero respect for national sovereignty.  In fact, there are few things in all the world that Rome hates more than sovereign nations making their own decisions without consulting the Antichrist popes of Rome. 

Pages: 1 2

Asylum-seeking migrants enter the Catholic Charities respite center after they were released from a migrant facility in McAllen, Tex., on Aug. 10, 2021. (Go Nakamura for The Washington Post)

GOP lawmakers once praised Catholic Charities. Now they want to defund the group.” That was the recent headline in The Washington Post, the purpose of which, apparently, was to display the hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers. 

On the other hand, my first thought was, “Now that’s what I call progress.”

When I think of charities that ought to be defunded, the treasonous group known as Catholic Charities tops the list.  Of course, the federal government has no business giving taxpayer money to any religious charity.  But Catholic Charities is the granddaddy of all religious charities feeding at the federal trough, that, and the fact that it is an arm of Antichrist and the biggest pusher of immigration treason in the United States makes it target numero uno for defunding. 

What’s drawn the ire of the anti-American Washington Post, in this case, is that,

A few Republican members of Congress are threatening to reduce or eliminate funding for Catholic Charities and other faith-based groups that offer aid to immigrants at the U.S. southern border.

“GOP lawmakers once praised Catholic Charities, Now they want to defund the group” By Jack Jenkins, The Washington Post, July 28, 2023

Now calling Catholic Charities and other groups aiding and abetting the migrant invasion of America “faith-based groups that offer aid to immigrants at the U.S. southern border” is akin to calling arsonists “those who help people heat their homes in the winter by assisting them with starting fires.”  

The fact is that Rome has been stoking the fires of the immigration crisis for decades in America and elsewhere and then rides up in a fire engine and pretends to put out the blaze with humanitarian assistance that comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers.   

Pages: 1 2