How They Stole the Church
by Revilo P. Oliver
CHRISTIANITY is still one of the cardinal factors in any reasonable estimate of our present plight. It is certainly more important than economics, and it made possible the alien capture and occupation of the United States. (ILLUSTRATION: Pope John Paul II)
The Christian churches fall into two categories. The Protestant sects necessarily depend for their authority on a belief that the Bible was divinely inspired and is therefore literally accurate. This basis of their religion was gradually eroded over the past century. With few noteworthy exceptions, (1) the major Protestant churches have slyly but effectively replaced their Bible with the “social gospel” of the Marxian Reformation, relying on the fecklessness or gullibility of their congregations to overlook the spiritual swindle. They have thus become religiously, as well as intellectually, fraudulent.
(footnote 1. The principle exceptions are the Missouri Synod of the Lutherans, which is now in the hands of a bureaucracy that is bent on debasing it to the level of the “main-line” Lutheran churches (cf. Liberty Bell, July 1990, pp. 16-25); the much smaller Wisconsin Synod, which has troubles of its own; small groups of Presbyterians, headed by Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony, and Anglicans, headed by the late Bishop Dees, who try to preserve the essentials of their religion; and the Mormons, who have supplemental Scriptures of their own, but have serious internal dissension (cf. Liberty Bell, July 1989, pp. 13-37) and are increasingly vulnerable to attacks on their new gospels (cf. Liberty Bell, December 1989, pp. 10-28.))
The Roman Catholic Church was less vulnerable because less dependent on the Bible, which, for many centuries, it forbade laymen to read. It claims to represent an apostolic succession from the incarnate god of Christianity, and until quite recently, it, by far the largest of Christian denominations, exhibited a monolithic solidarity that made it seem impregnable. (2) Then, only a few years ago, it was suddenly shattered by an internal revolution, as sudden and drastic as the Jews’ Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and far more surprising to observers of world affairs.
(footnote 2. In America’s Decline, pp. 78-79, I described the Church as it appeared in 1955 to observers who, having no religion, could consider the problem objectively and even had the benefit of information that had been available only through military intelligence, including secret communications between the Vatican and its branches in several parts of the world.)
It was a ‘palace revolution.’ What had been the Church’s great strength became its fatal weakness. When the conspirators captured the Vatican, they became the masters of all their subordinates in the regular Church and in the monastic orders, from archbishops to parish priests to yet unordained postulants and students in seminaries. By the power of excommunication they could deprive any dissident of his livelihood by preventing him from practicing the only art he knew. It required great faith and great courage even to question the dictates of the revolutionary régime.
Archbishops, of course, were persons of some consequence, accustomed to luxury suited to their exalted position, and if any of them was sufficiently interested in the Church’s doctrine to resent the change, it is likely that he was kept in line by threats sweetened by generous bribes. Malcontents and soft-spoken dissidents within the Roman Curia were tolerated until they were eliminated or cowed by terrorism after the murder of John Paul I in 1978. (3) Conscientious priests, unless able to escape notice, had no alternative but to leave the Church and seek other means of earning a living. Many of them did, including two with whom I was aquainted. I have seen an estimate that throughout the world 100,000 priests left the apostate Church, but I hesitate to accept that figure.
(footnote 3. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Pope was murdered, although the motive for the crime remains obscure. I have referred more than once to David Yallin’s sensational book, In God’s Name, but I have only recently received a copy of a work by Piers Compton, The Broken Cross (Bullsbrook, West Australia; Veritas, 1984). He appears not to have seen Yallin’s book, but was able to consult letters from twenty-two prelates concerning the death of the Pope, collected in a volume entitled Lettres de Rome sur le singulier trépas de Jean-Paul I by a Parisian journalist under the pseudonym Jean Jacques Thierry. The volume was suppressed almost immediately after it was published. The Pope died during the night, his call for help having been inexplicably ignored. In the morning, his corpse was found at 5:30 and by 9:30 embalmers had completed their work, having removed the vital organs that would be needed for an autopsy and reportedly destroyed them! This fact was apparently unknown to the persons who, during the following days, demanded an autopsy that had been made impossible. That indecent precaution establishes the fact of murder.)
Religiously, the Church committed suicide. Every ‘revealed’ religion must profess to be based on transcendental truth that is immutable and eternal, revealed, directly or indirectly, by an eternal, immutable, and infallible god. The Roman Church claimed to have been founded by an Apostle expressly delegated for that purpose by its incarnate god, and Pius XII, the last Pontifex Maximus before the new régime, was the two hundred and sixty-second in an apostolic succession, representing, it was claimed, an unbroken tradition and a doctrine that had been received from the divinely-appointed Apostle.
As every man capable of logical thought saw at once, the radical changes in doctrine made by the new régime necessarily implied that either (a) the Church’s god had ignorantly, irrationally, or maliciously lied to his Vicars on earth for nineteen centuries, or (b) the two hundred and sixty-two Vicars had misrepresented the wishes and commands of their celestial principal.
The drastic changes did not make the Church simply explode, because faith commonly precludes logical thought, and in the Roman Church, the mass of votaries had long been accustomed to believe whatever they were told by their priest and unquestioningly to follow his directions.
When the Church was “modernized,” as though it were an old house or an obsolete railroad, many ostentatious changes in practice may have been partly devised to conceal vital changes in doctrine. Most churches, for example, were stripped of their ornaments and made as bare and uninteresting as churches of the most Puritanical Protestant sects. The Latin mass, which was impressive when well performed, was replaced with vernacular gabble that was tediously flat and boring when it was not ludicrous. Priests were converted into Protestant ministers, delivering commonplace sermons. Some venerated Saints were unceremoniously tossed out onto the scrap heap. But all these changes were relatively superficial.
If one considered the new doctrine critically, one immediately saw what had been the cardinal and most drastic change. The attitude toward the Jews that the Christian god had presumably ordained for nineteen centuries was reversed. The change was neatly illustrated by the Cardinal who is believed most likely to become the next Pope. He boasts that he is a faithful and practicing Jew, and brazenly asserts that Christianity is merely a kind of auxiliary church by which deserving goyim are admitted to some of the privileges God irrevocably bestowed on his Chosen People. (4)
(footnote 4. See Liberty Bell, May 1987, pp. 6-14.)
It was obvious, therefore, that the Roman Catholic Church had been captured by the Jews and would be operated in their interests. Strangely enough, this fact was generally ignored by even the most vehement adversaries of the “modernization.” (5)
(footnote 5. Mr. Compton, in the work cited in Note 3 supra, attributes the capture of the Church to a conspiracy that included Weishaupt’s Illuminati, Aleister Crowley’s Satanism, and other secret societies, including, of course, Freemasonry, along the lines well known from the writings of Nesta Webster, Christina Stoddard (“Inquire Within”), Lady Queensboro, and many others. He carefully disregards the Jews, but a sheet reproduced from typewriting and of uncertain provenance, enclosed with the copy of his book sent to me, identifies Wojtyia (John Paul II) as a Jew, son of a Kikess named Wanda Katz.)
Since I am certain that Christianity is a fundamental fact that must be taken into account in any worthwhile consideration of our present situation or attempt to foresee our probable future, I have devoted many pages in Liberty Bell to that subject, with special attention to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest and most influential of all Christian denominations. Most recently, in “The Stolen Church,” December 1990, I recommended the The New Montinian Church, an impressive English translation of an important work by the Reverend D. Joaquin Sáenz y Arriaga, and in “The Vacant See,” April-May 1991, I reported what were evidently the conclusions of a canon lawyer that the Papacy had been vacant since the death of Pius XII in 1958.
I was pleased when my opinion about the cardinal importance of the Roman Church in our plight today was corroborated from an unexpected source, Mr. Lawrence Patterson’s Criminal Politics (P.O. Box 37812, Cincinnati, Ohio ; monthly, $187.50 per annum).
Criminal Politics is devoted exclusively to finance and to consideration of the ways in which Americans may conserve what they have saved and still own, in spite of the Federal government. Since in countries like the United States and Soviet Russia economic laws have been nullified by a tyrannical government, it is necessary to consider political forces, and that includes Catholicism. The issue for April contains (pp. 12-17) an article entitled “The New World Order: Catholicism and the Zionist War Against Our Cultural Standards.”
After noting that the Vatican was once a strenuous opponent of the Communists, and now is virtually allied with them in promoting the “New World Order,” Mr. Patterson takes his departure from an astonishingly candid article published in what was then one of the most widely circulated periodicals, Look, (6) 25 January 1966. It was written by the magazine’s senior editor, Joseph Roddy, and entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking.”
(footnote 6. The paid circulation of Look at that time was over 7,500,000 copies of each issue; the magazine did not suffer from the indiscreet revelation–at least not immediately. In 1968, its circulation had increased by 200,000, but financial difficulties made it cease publication in October 1971, although its circulation had increased to almost 8,000,000 in 1970.)
Mr. Roddy, after noting that the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B’rith put pressure on the Vatican Council to alter Catholic doctrine in their favor, reported that the real author of the Council’s surrender to Judaism was a French Jew named Jules Isaac, who coöperated with a “Fifth Column” (7) of Marrano traitors in the Council, including the slimy Cardinal Bea, but the success of the work of subversion was to be attributed to a “priest spy,” a Jesuit who served on the staff of Bea and shuttled back and forth between the Vatican and the American Jewish Committee in New York.
(footnote 7. I do not like to see ‘Fifth Column’ used in this sense, a perversion of its original meaning. When the Spanish army was delivering Spain from Judaeo-Communist terror in 1936, General Franco, on whom the command had devolved, remarked that four columns of his troops were converging on Madrid, in which there was a ‘fifth column’ composed of the decent Spaniards in that territory, who, while impotent against the power of the Communist government, necessarily sympathized with the army that was fighting to free them and would assist its efforts whenever they feasibly could. A ‘fifth column,’ therefore, is not composed of traitors, but of patriots held in subjection by an alien power.)
According to Mr. Roddy, the decree of the Vatican Council drafted by Jules Isaac “would have gone down early,” but for the “covert help” of the “priest-spy.”
That seems implausible. It is hard to see how the “priest-spy” could have had the pivotal rôle attributed to him. When Roncalli, who, under the laws of the Church, was not even a Catholic, slithered onto the See of Rome as John XXIII, his election must have been procured by accomplices in the College of Cardinals, (8) and he almost certainly had in petto a scheme for capturing and Judaizing the Church, probably including the Vatican Council that he convened in 1962 and guided through its intermittent sessions to its consummation of the revolutionary take-over in 1965. Mr. Patterson notes that after Roncalli was elected Pope in 1958, the larger newspapers in this country dropped their neutral or mildly hostile attitude toward the Catholic Church and suddenly blossomed with bouquets for “good Pope John.” The Jewish Lords of the American press must have received from their superiors advice that “Roncalli is our boy.”
(footnote 8. When the Cardinals meet to elect a new pope and are immured, there is always a period of frantic competition between various aspirants and their supporters, and political trading and retrading of votes until a compromise is reached or, if there is an unresolvable deadlock, an interim pontiff is elected to hold office while the factions regroup. A few wily intriguers, especially if well supplied with cash, can often determine the outcome of an election.)
The capture of the Church had already been planned before the Council got under way, and I cannot imagine how the “priest-spy” could have done more than arrange matters of detail or transport cash when he served as liaison between his Jewish employers in New York and important members of the Council. Only if millions or billions of dollars in real money were needed to consolidate the position of Roncalli and his accomplices, and were supplied from New York, could the messenger who delivered the bribes be said to have determined the decisions of the Council, but Mr. Roddy says nothing about that.
Mr. Roddy did not name the “priest-spy,” who, he said, pretended to be a conservative Catholic but was really “100%” in the Zionist interest and might himself be a Jew disguised as a Jesuit. He provided, however, a series of more or less enigmatic clues to the man’s identity.
Mr. Patterson reports that his research has identified the “priest-spy” as Malachi Martin, alias (by his own admission) Michael Serafian, alias (by implication) F.F. Cartus, and (therefore) alias Timothy Fitzharris-O’Boyle.
Martin’s career corresponds to the clues given by Roddy. He was a Jesuit, had been a professor in the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome (reputed to be a scholar of Semitic languages and an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls), had migrated to New York, written for the Jewish periodical, Commentary, under an alias, a book, The Pilgrim, under another alias, and under his own name many articles as a “conservative Catholic” for Buckley’s National Review, of which he was, for a time, the Religious Editor. Although neither Roddy nor Mr. Patterson mentions the even more significant fact, Malachi Martin claims to have been an intimate friend and advisor of Roncalli.
According to various reports, Martin, after he established himself in this country, left the priesthood and married. He has certainly produced under his own name an amazing number of presumably highly profitable books, all aimed at Catholics who have not abandoned the traditional faith of the Church. Whether he continues to write under pseudonyms, I do not know.
Now if Martin did indeed play an important rôle in betraying the Church into the hands of its inveterate enemies, he certainly knew what he was doing. Piers Compton quotes him as having predicted, at the time the Vatican Council completed its work of subversion in December 1965, “Well before the year 2000, there will no longer be a religious institute recognizable as the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of today…. There will be no centralized control, no uniformity in teaching, no universality in practice or worship, prayer, sacrifice, and priesthood.”
He believed that his prophecy was being fulfilled. In his The Jesuits, the Society of Jesus, and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1987), he wrote:
‘The extent of the damage produced in the Church….after 1965 can be gauged a mere twenty years later. Pope John Paul II now presides over a Church organization that is in shambles, a rebellious and decadent clergy, an ignorant and recalcitrant body of bishops, and a confused and divided assembly of believers. The Roman Catholic Church, which used to present itself as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, appears now as a pluralistic, permissive, ecumenical, and evolutionary ecclesial group.’ (9)
(footnote 9. In this book, he, a former Jesuit, accuses the Jesuits of having become a gang of conspiratorial Marxists engaged in promoting, under the guise of religion, a Communist dictatorship. He even avers that the Jesuits in the United States drew up detailed plans for the installation of “Maoist Marxism” in this country.)
In all writings published under his own name, so far as I know, Malachi Martin has consistently taken the position of a Catholic faithful to the Church’s doctrine and traditions, estimating that about 40% of the present College of Cardinals are Christians, ridiculing American bishops who jabbered about “ending poverty” and “sharing the wealth” by pointing out that the Roman Church is the wealthiest body in the world, with assets totaling hundreds of billions of dollars and possibly amounting to two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000), and insisting that “Christ never singled out the proletariat with a preferential opinion in their favor.” The mission of the Church is exclusively spiritual and it has no competence or authority to pronounce on matters of economics or politics. (10)
(footnote 10. For example, in an article in National Review, 5 January 1979, which I have consulted in my files of that publication, he wrote: “Over the last fifteen years, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, under the leadership and authority of its bishops, has become mainly two things. It is, first and most stridently, a jumbled shop-front jammed with a motley array of political issues, civil squabbles, sociological experiments, and psychological theories. ¶ Second, and more poignantly, it is a gristmill grinding down the hope and enthusiasm of faithful followers who know that their bishops have neglected the purity of their faith and the practice of religion in their Church, in favor of such issues as environmental pollution, ethnic rights, land distribution, the Panama Canal, Rhodesian chrome, and the evils of U.S. Capitalism.” In the remainder of the article, he does not explicitly identify all these activities as serving Communist ends, but rather conspicuously avoids considerations that would lâcher le mot.)
I have not seen his latest book, Keys of the Blood (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1990), which was reviewed by Paul A. Fisher in Christian News, 3 June 1991, and criticized by Mr. Patterson in the article I have cited. In this book, Martin, somewhat at variance with his earlier pronouncements, tells his readers that the world is now the prize which each of three reciprocally hostile organizations are tying to gain for itself, viz.:
‘(a) A disintegrating Soviet Empire led by Mikhail Gorbachev; (b) transnationalists and internationalists (a generic characterization for international bankers and businesses affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TLC), and (c) a deteriorating Roman Catholic Church, the principal institution of Christendom, led by Pope Paul II.’ (11)
(footnote 11. I quote from Mr. Fisher’s review. Note that there is no mention of Jews, which would not have been tactful in a book published by Jews; but did the glaring omission have another motive? I gather from Mr. Fisher that Martin expects a “direct intervention of God” during the lifetime of the present Pope!)
That statement is the principal basis for Mr. Patterson’s denunciation of Martin as a “fake conservative” and “double agent” of the Zionists, and he marshals abundant proofs that Wojtyia (John Paul II) is coöperating so closely with both Soviets, the “Trilateralists” and the Zionists in foisting the “New World Order” on the civilized nations to reduce them to barbaric slavery that the Pope must be considered a servant or accomplice of all of the three aspects of what must be a single force bent on our enslavement and eventual extinction. He reasons that Martin’s book must be intended to confuse traditional Catholics and other readers by deceiving them about our enemies and creating the deceptive illusion that three tentacles of the octopus are fighting each other.
I am not here concerned with establishing Martin’s guilt or innocence, and I certainly shall not waste time in collecting and analyzing the many books and articles published under his own name or in ascertaining whether or not he continues to publish divergent works under pseudonyms, but I shall point out that, so far as I can tell from the reviews, he is guilty of a certain duplicity in concealing in his latest book conclusions that he has stated elsewhere.
In an address reported by the Rocky Mountain News, 8 October 1982 (reproduced photographically in Christian News) he stated explicitly that “The Christian church is decaying, has nothing to say, and is on the way out.” He added that the other great religions of the world, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, “are headed in the same direction as Christianity and even faster.” He predicted the imposition of “a worldwide religion with one structure and institutions,” managed by “one great bureaucracy. And out of it will emerge the ultimate disaster.”
What is crucially significant in that speech is that he explicitly affirmed that the Jews’ religion (the basis of their racial unity) is not in the least subject to change or decay and will always endure triumphantly. “It is irradicable, (12) indestructible,” he affirmed, “there is no decay and nothing can destroy the soul of Judaism.” (My italics.)
(footnote 12. He means uneradicable.)
There you have it. There, stated with blinding clarity for all who think while reading, is an indication of who will own and enslave the world of tomorrow. No author, unwilling to bring upon himself the terrorists of the Jews’ government in Washington, could have stated the fact more explicitly.
According to Mr. Lawrence, Martin, in his new book, certainly concealing or reversing his belief in an “ultimate disaster,” not only regards the New World Order as inevitable, but lauds it a “Grand Design of God.” And he says, “As to the time factor involved, those of us who are under 70 will see at least the basic structure of the new world government installed…. Those of us who are under 40 will surely live under its legislative, executive, and judicial authority and control.”
And he could have added that Americans who are now under five will surely grow up to be imbecile creatures, so well trained that whenever they see or smell a Sheeny, they will automatically drop to their knees and knock their foreheads three times on the pavement in veneration of their living gods.
* * *
Source: Liberty Bell magazine, August 1991