Because of certain disturbing nominations that president-elect Donald Trump has made — of the war-hawk, Zionist variety — Mike Church asked me to come on his show today to discuss Zionism, Christian Zionism, their impact on US foreign policy, and related issues. Here’s the Mike Church show blurb on YouTube, followed by the embedded 47-minute video. Beneath that are some embedded postings of mine on X which are relevant to the same subject, followed by some on-site links for further reading.
In this explosive episode, Mike Church and special guest Brother Andre Marie, host of Reconquest on the Crusade Radio Network, dive into the controversial influence of Zionism in American politics. They discuss the powerful role of AIPAC, Marco Rubio’s funding ties, and the misunderstood relationship between American conservatism and unwavering support for Israel. With insights on Jewish and Christian Zionism, they explore how these ideologies affect foreign policy, faith, and American interests. Don’t miss this deep, thought-provoking discussion on the role of Zionism in shaping our nation’s politics.
4 comments:
Idiots. Get somebody who knows what they are talking about. Oh wait, this is all satire.
The irrational inerpretation of Vatican Council II was approved by the Zionists. It is being used throughout the Catholic Church, even the traditionalists like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre interpreted the Council like Pope Paul VI, confusing what is invisible as being visible and then projecting them as practical exceptions for the past traditional exclusivist ecclesiology. So the Council is liberal for them and not traditional. EENS has exceptions. The Athanasius Creed has exceptions, for them. The exceptions are there in Vatican Council II for Tradition for them.
For me the baptism of desire (LG 14) is not a literal case in 1965-2024.It was not a literal and explicit case in 1949 when the pro-Zionist Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston was issued.
The Zionists oppose Catholic Tradition and so make Catholics think that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.
For those who want to be politically correct with the Left, both liberals and traditionalists, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
Remember, when Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century ? True. Today there are exceptions for EENS for Pope Francis too. But Pope Benedict was interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally, for the approval of the Zionists. How can invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) be visible exceptions for traditional EENS? Who can see or meet someone saved outside the Church in 2024 in invincible ignorance, through no fault of his own and with a good conscience
Brother Andre Marie mcm and Mike Church affirm Feeneyite EENS, which is the EENS of the three Church Councils which defined it and did not mention any exceptions.
But Mike Church offically interprets Vatican Council II as a break with EENS and the rest of Tradition. This is approved by the Zionists. If he said that LG 16 etc is not an exception for EENS, they would sit up.
If Mike Church announced that LG 8,14, 16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to invisible cases in 2'024-2025 he will be persecuted by the Zionists, the Catholic Left within the Church. So now he affirms EENS but projects Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS, as having exceptions for EENS. This is a negation of the dogma EENS and is smiled upon by the Zionists, within and outside the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades
THE 1949 LOHO IS ZIONIST
There is an objective mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boson (LOHO) which is not mentioned in the Doctrinal Statement of Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA.The 1949 LOHO is referenced in Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.The 1949 LOHO with the mistake is inserted in the Denzinger . The LOHO is responsible for the New Theology in the Catholic Church. It says outside the Church there is known salvation in the present times. So not everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation, is the non traditional conclusion.
Here is the 1949 LOHO with comments which expose the error.
LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Archbishop Richard J. Cushing
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.
Lionel: It was kept hidden for three years. Then it was published with the error. Did Pope Pius XII know about it ? Did he read it? Was it a product of only the Archdiocese of Boston and the bureaucracy in Rome? We don’t know. But the mistake in it is objective.
CONTINUED
THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX BISHOPS AND THE ST. BENEDICT CENTERS IS ZIONIST
From the website Catholicism.org of the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire
‘Implicit Faith in Christ’ Does Not Suffice for Justification
DEC 10, 2024 BROTHER ANDRÉ MARIE
Father Thomas Crean, O.P., Dr. Alan Fimister, and Dr. John Joy have authored a twenty-five-page scholarly article, written in the scholastic format, in the pages of the theological journal, Divinitas. Called “Can a Person Be Justified by ‘Implicit Faith in Christ’?,” the article is available for purchase as a download from the Divinitas website..
…The Divinitas authors acknowledge that they are disagreeing with many theologians, including influential ones (on which more later)…
LIONEL: Liberal theologians whom they disagree with cite Vatican Council II, for the break with Tradition. Of course they mean only Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally; confusing what is physically invisible as being physically visible. So the result is non-traditional and liberal.
______________
…When considering the notion of the development of doctrine, it is the unstated assumption of many theologians — those of the more “progressive” sort — that development moves only in one direction, that of an ever broader, more latitudinarian, or liberal understanding…
LIONEL: Yes and it is based only upon Vatican Council II irrational and not rational. So Lumen Gentium 16 for example, refers to ‘known salvation’ outside the Catholic Church in personal cases, objectively known non Catholics, in 1965-2024. When Vatican Council II is rational (invisible cases are invisible) there is no ‘development’. The theologian is restricted by Vatican Council II, to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. The liberal theologian would have to say that explicit faith in Jesus in the Catholic Church is the only means of salvation.He can no more cite Vatican Council II to justify his liberalism.
_______________
..Back to the Jesuits: the article quotes Father Francis Sullivan, S.J., forthrightly stating in his own book that this novel position on the sufficiency of implicit faith in Christ — which he himself advocated — “was a departure from the teaching of St. Thomas and the whole mediaeval tradition, which had required explicit Christian faith for the salvation of everyone in the Christian era…
LIONEL: I was in communication with Fr. Francis Sullivan when he was an emeritus professor of theology at Boston College. He cited Vatican Council II for the break with Tradition. Of course, he was only referring to Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally.
___________________
(See “Doctrinal Summary” on this site for further arguments from authority on the necessity of explicit faith.)
LIONEL. In this Doctrinal Summary (by Brother Thomas Mary Sennett micm, MAR 16, 2005) there is no reference to Vatican Council II, irrational and rational. Vatican Council II in 2005 was being interpreted irrationally by all the communities of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Centers in the USA. It seems as if Vatican Council II rational, with LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, referring to only hypothetical cases, invisible people in our human reality, was not known to Fr. Leonard Feeney, Catherine Goddard Clarke and Brother Francis Maluf micm.Neither was it known to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops whom he consecrated.It is not known to traditionalists who go only for the Latin Mass.
___________________
Please do yourself a favor and invest the $4.28 it costs to get this 25-page article. Anyone who craves a deeper, more theological study of the question should have it.
LIONEL: Father Thomas Crean, O.P., Dr. Alan Fimister, and Dr. John Joy did not mention how the liberal theologians based their liberalism and break with Tradition, upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. They also did not mention how Vatican Council II interpreted rationally would support their thesis in this article. –Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment