Goose, I had sent you a PM re what became of the Arian Bishops..
I am referencing it again here, in case anyone is interested, with the caution that I saw the subject matter excerpted, on Dave Landry's site, from The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay.
(P.S. : I really don't know how to create a link that someone could click on and immediately go the particular place/document intended.)
Part 4: The Jewish Fifth Column in the Clergy
THE JEW ARIUS AND HIS HERESY
Arianism, the great heresy, which split Christianity over three and a half centuries, was the work of a concealed Jew, who outwardly practised Christianity; a striking and infamous example of the descendants of Judas Iscariot, like all those priests who, as members of the “Jewish Fifth Column”, have infiltrated into the Catholic Church.
The well-known American writer, William Thomas Walsh, who is outstanding for his zealous Catholicism and has well documented works, says to us, referring to the mode of action of the Jews who infiltrated into Christianity, the following: “Arius, the Catholic Jew (Father of the heresy) treacherously attacked the divinity of Christ, and he was successful in dividing the Christian world for centuries.”
From the trials by the Inquisition against the crypto-Jews, who were called the Judaising heretics, one can conclude that the Trinity is one of the Catholic dogmas which the Jews reject most violently; for what repels them most of all in their deadly hatred towards Christ, is the fact that Jesus Christ is regarded as the second person within the Holy Trinity; this means that God is One in essence and Three in person. It is therefore illuminating that the Jews, after they had infiltrated into the Church through their pretended conversion to Christianity, afterwards strove to alter the dogma of the Church in such a way as to regard God as one in person and hence to deny the divinity of Christ.
Arius was born in Libya, which at this time was under Roman rule. Already as a youth he joined himself to the schism of Melesius, who usurped the office of the Bishop of Alexandria; however, after the cause of Melesius had suffered severe setbacks, Arius was reconciled with the Church. It is well known how the Jews make use of such reconciliations with the Church, of which they say themselves that such were performed as true comedies, exactly as suits them.
The always universally kind Holy Church, which is fundamentally ready to pardon the repentant sinner, sanctioned the reconciliation with Arius, by taking him anew into its holy bosom, while this secret Jew merely made use of this kindness, like all who belong to his race, in order to later cause it inconceivable harm which could easily have caused such misfortune as that which threatens us today.
After Arius had consoled himself, he had himself consecrated as Catholic priest and presbyter of the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, by whom he was entrusted with the church of Baucalis. Various outstanding Church historians attribute to Arius an extraordinary and impressive asceticism as well as a remarkable mysticism; to which are added his great talents as a preacher and a convincing dialectic skill, which allowed him to convince the great mass of believers and even the hierarchies of Holy Church.
The basic principle of the Arian doctrine was the Jewish thesis of the absolute unity of God, denying the Trinity and representing Christ solely as the most exalted of all creatures, but in no way as possessing divine nature. This was one of the first serious attempts to provide Christianity with a Jewish stamp.
He neither attacked Christ nor criticised Him, as the professing Jews did; for then his mission would have failed, because no Christian would have supported him. In order to arouse no suspicion, he rather praised Jesus beyond all measure. So he gained the sympathy and interest of the faithful and then in the midst of all these speeches of praise he allowed his poison to seep in with the cunning denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ, since it is the point which encounters the most stiff-necked rejection by the Jews.
It is curious that, fourteen hundred years later, the Jews strike the same note when they deny the divinity of Christ and simultaneously praise Him in their doctrines and instructions in order to provoke no strong reactions amongst Christians introduced into the sect.
A further innovation which the Arian heresy brought with it, was the attempt to alter the doctrine and policy of the Church in relation to the Jews. While Christ damned them and upon various occasions attacked them in the sharpest possible way, and the Apostles did the same, as did the Church in general in its beginnings, Arius and his heresy strove to effect a true reform in this respect, in that they carried out a pro-Jewish policy and strove for an accommodation to the “Synagogue of Satan.”
Like John Huss, Calvin, Karl Marx, and other Jewish revolutionary leaders, Arius was a man of strong dynamism, of extraordinary perseverance as well as an artist of words and with the pen, who wrote pamphlets and even books, in order to convince the Church hierarchies, the civil governors and other outstanding personalities within the Roman Empire. The first important assistance was given to him on the part of Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who on grounds of his great friendship with the Emperor possessed the boldness of wishing to win the latter for the Arian heresy. Even if he was not successful in this, he nevertheless succeeded unfortunately in leading Constantine astray, by making him believe that it was simply a question of discussions between different orthodox viewpoints. Under this assumption the Emperor sought in vain to introduce a settlement between Arius and the Bishop of Alexandria. He sent his advisor, Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova, so that the latter might bring about an understanding between the two parties. No result was attained. As if it had merely been a personal dispute between Bishop Alexander and Arius!
In the course of these negotiations Hosius and the Church reached the conviction that here it was not a simple dispute between different schools or persons, but rather a conflagration which threatened to scorch the whole of Christianity.
This is worthy of being remarked, since it is the classical technique with which the Jews begin a revolutionary movement. Upon many occasions they give themselves out to be harmless, good-willed, of small influence and without any kind of danger, so that the institutions threatened by the revolutionary germ do not allot to the latter its true importance and therefore look away from applying their whole force against it, which is imperative if it is to be rapidly and effectively destroyed.
Lulled through this outward conduct, the Christian or Gentile leading personages are accustomed to avoid such measures, by reacting in a modest way. This is utilised by Jewry, in order to treacherously kindle the conflagration, so that, when combative measures are finally resolved upon, it already possesses such an overwhelming force that it is impossible to halt it.
It is interesting to remark that, after Arius had finally been excommunicated by the Synod called in the year 321 by the Prelate of Alexandria and attended by over a hundred bishops, the heretic at first went to Palestine, in order to win disciples. And it is further worthy of note that the first Synod to support Arius by betraying Catholicism was precisely that of Palestine, as well as that of Nicomedia, where Eusebius, Arius’ right-hand man, was Bishop. It is illuminating that it was Palestine where, in spite of the repressive measures of Titus and Hadrian, the most compact Jewish population was found, and where the “Jewish Fifth Column”, which had infiltrated into the Church, was very powerful. It is therefore not strange that Arius, declared outlawed through excommunication and in a desperate position, sought his salvation in flight, in order to seek support with his brothers in Palestine. He was so successful in this intention that an entire Synod of Bishops and high-ranking clergy, as was the Synod of Palestine, decided upon support of him and gave new power and prestige to his cause, which, after its condemnation by the Synod of Alexandria, seemed condemned to failure.
In the same manner another Synod, which was assembled in Nicomedia, supported Arius and imparted to him, like that of Palestine, its approval to return to Egypt. In such a way did Arius and his fellow travellers set one Synod against the other and thus divide the episcopate of the Catholic world.
The study of this giant struggle which lasted for centuries, is extremely valuable, since it allows us to clearly recognise that the “Jewish Fifth Column” which has seeped into the clergy of Holy Church, was then already effective with the same methods as centuries later, when it was successful by means of a crypto-Jew, Cardinal Pierleoni, in usurping the dignity of Pope. These are likewise the same methods which, a thousand years later, were combated by the Holy Inquisition, and the same of which we are witnessing in our days.
Arius and the Arianist Bishops intrigued against the clergy who defended Holy Church. They persecuted and feuded against them and even attacked the venerable Bishops and all priests, without regard for their rank, who had appeared to the fore through their zeal in the defence of Catholicism. They persecuted and fought them by means of secret and poisonous intrigues and by means of false accusations, until they were rendered harmless or destroyed.
By means of a well-organised action the Arians on their side strove to bring under their control the Bishops’ offices when they fell vacant, and they were successful in occupying them with clergy of their own way of thinking and of preventing true Catholics from finding admittance to this office.
These infamous manoeuvres were set in motion above all after the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. At this council Arius and his heresy were condemned in spite of the opposition of a minority of heretical bishops, who participated with them in the Council and who vainly attempted to bring about the victory of their viewpoints which were just as novel and contrary to the traditional Catholic doctrine as those which some bishops wish to make prevail at the present Ecumenical Council of Vatican II.
In the campaign instigated by the heretical bishops against the Catholics, the uproar that they set in motion against Eustasius, the Bishop of Antioch, is particularly notable. The latter was accused by them of pretending to observe the agreement of the Council of Nicaea, but in reality sowing the Sabellian heresy and discord. With these and other accusations the traitorous clergy were so successful that he was deposed and an Arianist bishop named in his stead. In addition, they were successful in deceiving Constantine, who, in the belief that he was offering the Church a service, exiled the devout bishop of the land and allowed the hypocritical heretics to enjoy his support, since he regarded them as the true defenders of the Church.
But more important still is the conspiracy that they instigated in order to destroy Saint Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander, after the latter’s death, in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Already at the Council of Nicaea he had demonstrated that he was one of the bulwarks in the defence of Holy Church. This had cost him the hatred of the Arian clergy, who recognised the necessity of making him harmless. In order to gain the Emperor to their side, they accused Saint Athanasius of cultivating relations with certain rebels of the Empire. This is the classical manoeuvre of Jewry in all times; if it is wished to remove any kind of leading personage from the sphere of the head of State, then at the suitable moment a conspiracy is instigated, in order to make the latter believe that the former conspires against him and is secretly allied with his enemies. In this manner they succeed in getting the head of State to remove leading personage who hinders the Jewish plans. In such a manner they accused Saint Athanasius of having humiliated the clergy by laying upon them a linen tax, as well as sowing discord in the ranks of the Church.
This slander is also a classical method of the “Fifth Column,” which, when it is seen that a conspiracy is instigated against Holy Church and someone denounces it or rushes to the defence of the institution, sends its crypto-Jewish clergy into the field to accuse the defenders of the Church of undermining the unity of the Church and of sowing discord among Christianity. In reality it is they, the enemies of Christ who have infiltrated into the clergy, who with their conspiracies and dark machinations provoke those schisms and divisions, and not the true Christians upon whom lies the duty of defending Catholicism and preventing the former from winning ground.
So it occurred in the case of Saint Athanasius; the heretical clergy were in reality those, who through their mode of action conjured up the schism. But they possessed the insolence to accuse Saint Athanasius of sowing discord, because he attempted to defend Holy Church in the face of the machinations of heresy.
The blow was additionally directed higher up; for Arius and his followers knew very well that the unity of the Church lay before the eyes of Constantine as the highest goal, and thus they hoped to bring down Saint Athanasius with a typical accusation of provoking discord.
Later, the Melesian heretics, working together with the Arians, accused Saint Athanasius of having murdered one of the collaborators of their leader; however, Athanasius was successful in discovering the whereabouts of the man whom he was falsely alleged to have murdered, so that the slanders were exposed.
Since up to then all intrigues had failed, they now took refuge in one last manoeuvre. In Tyre they summoned a Synod of Bishops, at which they accused Saint Athanasius of having seduced a woman; however, he was also successful in refuting this slander.
However, the Arian Bishops were successful in bringing under their control the Synod of Tyre and resolved upon the deposition of Saint Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria. Concerning this, an inflammatory note was despatched to bishops all over the world, so that the latter should break off all relations with Saint Athanasius, who was accused of various crimes. Constantine, who highly respected the decisions of the Synods of Bishops, was highly impressed. This together with another skilfully launched slander campaign, which accused Saint Athanasius of selling grain to the Egyptians in order to prevent it reaching Constantinople and in this manner to create a food shortage in the capital of the Roman Empire, made the Emperor furious. He banished the unfortunate Saint, whom at this time he regarded as the most dangerous disturber of public order and the unity of Holy Church.
While the Arian bishops first gained the sister of the Emperor, Constance, who exercised a strong influence upon him, and other confidants, to their side, they continually gave the hypocritical appearance of watching with zeal over the unity of the Church and of the Empire, which was so strongly desired by Constantine, and they accused the Catholics of endangering this unity with their exaggerations and eccentricities. They thus attained that Constantine, who had supported orthodoxy at the Council of Nicaea, carried out a deviation towards Arians and approved the solemn reacceptance of the latter into the bosom of the Church. This would have been without doubt the apotheosis and the highest triumph of the Jew Arius, who already played with the idea of demanding the Papal dignity of the Holy Catholic Church, which, regarded by modest human understanding, did not seem impossible; for he could already count upon the friendly approval of the Emperor and on the support of a daily growing number of bishops within Christianity. However, in the face of the support which God allows his Holy Church to enjoy, all human calculations must fail. The Church, will certainly be persecuted, but never conquered; and Arius died on the threshold of his victory in such a mysteriously tragic manner, as Saint Athanasius himself has recorded for posterity. It is very interesting to quote what the “Castilian Jewish Encyclopedia”, an official Jewish document, asserts about this great Church Father and Saint, Athanasius:
“Athanasius (Saint), Church Father (293-373), Patriarch of Alexandria, resolute opponent of the Arian teachings which approach a pure Monotheism and hence the Jewish doctrines. Athanasius polemicised against the Jews from dogmatic grounds, but the situation of the Jews worsened everywhere so that the teachings of Athanasius triumphed over the Arian doctrines, as was the case with the Visigoths in Spain.”
Like other Church Fathers, Saint Athanasius fought bitterly not only against the Arians, but also against the Jews. As one sees, the latter attribute such an importance to his teachings that the Jewish Encyclopaedia categorically admits, that “the situation of the Jews worsened where the teachings of Saint Athanasius triumphed.” It is therefore understandable that the powers of evil unleashed a satanic hatred against the Patriarch of Alexandria.
If Saint Athanasius and other great Church Fathers had lived in our time, the “Jewish Fifth Column”, which has infiltrated into the clergy, would certainly have done all in its power so that the Church condemned them on account of Antisemitism.
As far as the Bishop of Cordova, Hosius, is concerned, he had been another Paladin of the Church in the struggle against Arianism and was the soul of the Council of Nicaea, and was an active fighter against Jewry. After he had distinguished himself at the Council of Elvira, which under the name Illiberian Council was held in the years 300 to 303, he exercised a decisive influence upon the approbation of canons tending to effect a separation between Christians and Jews, in order to counter the nefast influence of the latter over the former. Since at that time the harmful fraternising of the Catholic clergy with the Jews was the order of the day, the Illiberian Council accordingly strove to counter this evil state with drastic measures. In this respect the following rules are interesting:
Canon L (50). “Should a priest or one of the faithful sit at table with Jews, then for his amendment he shall be excluded from Communion.”
Canon XLIX (49). “It has been found good to thoroughly admonish teachers that they should not suffer their fruits received from God to be blessed by Jews, so that our distribution of blessings does not become weak or valueless. Should anyone be presumptuous enough to do this, after it has been forbidden, then he should be excluded from the Church.”
Canon XVI (16). “It is determined among other things that the Jews, and likewise heretics, must not be permitted Catholic wives. So that there may be no communion between the faithful and unfaithful.”
This last Canon is clear and sharp. Any communion between Christians and Jews is regarded as dangerous.
The Illiberian Council had a great importance, since its disciplinary measures were to a great part incorporated in the general legislation of the Church.
After Constantine’s death, his three sons took over the government of the Empire: Constantine II and Constans in the west, and Constantius in the East. The first two were passionate Catholics, while Constantius was admittedly a good Christian, but was very influenced through friendship with his father’s friend, the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia. After the death of Constantine, however, both Constantius as well as his two brothers approved of the return of Saint Athanasius and other orthodox bishops from banishment, who had been expelled from the land through the intrigues of the Arians. In addition, after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the year 342, this bad influence upon Constantius vanished, who, under the influence of his brother Constans and of Pope Julius, finally supported Catholic orthodoxy.
Extremely alarmed over the progress of Jewry, Constantius applied against the latter the measures that the Jews call the first great persecution on the part of the Christians.
For the course of twelve years, up to the death of Constans and of Pope Julius, the Catholics were successful in almost overcoming Arianism. Under the imprint of the sermons and the great regard for Saint Athanasius as well as Bishop Hosius of Cordova, it seemed destined to perish. Constantius had a long and extremely heartfelt conversation with Saint Athanasius in Antioch, during which the Emperor of the Orient showed him the greatest deference. And finally the illustrious Father of the Church made his entrance into Alexandria in a kind of veritable apotheosis.
When Ursacius and Valente, the leaders of Arianism, recognised imminent defeat and were alarmed by the firm conduct of Constantius in favour of orthodoxy, they bowed to the situation and went so far as to beg from the Pope their reconciliation with the Catholic Church.
This was one further example of the classical tactics of the foe, which the Jew Stalin called “strategic withdrawal.” This consists in yielding in the moment of defeat, in abandoning the struggle outwardly, in order to avoid defeat, and in conspiring in the background until one is sufficiently strong to risk a new attack as soon as the possibility of triumph appears.
If things went badly with Arianism, then it was worse still for Jewry; for when Constantius had convinced himself of the danger that it represented for the Empire and Christianity, he began, as the great Jewish historian Graetz proves, to expel the Jewish doctors of laws from the land. In consequence of this decree, many of them had to emigrate to Babylonia. The persecutions worsened to such a degree that the leading Jews were threatened with death, which resulted in an even greater flow of emigration, particularly from Judaea. This development caused the decline of the Jewish Academy of Tiberiades. The very frequent marriages between Jews and Christians were punished by Constantius with death, whereby he went beyond what was laid down in this respect by Canon 16 of the Illiberian Council.
As shown by the Israelite Graetz, the Jews were called “the murderers of God” by Catholics in that time. In answer to this, the Jews instigated isolated rebellions against the Empire, which, however, were nipped in the bud.
But all these setbacks did not discourage me enemy, who lurked in the background and awaited the first favourable opportunity to assert themselves again. This favourable opportunity began to show itself when first Constans and then Pope Julius died, whose beneficial influence had caused Constantius to hold firm to Catholicism.
The Arian leaders Valente and Ursacius, who had hypocritically implored their reconciliation with orthodoxy, took up their intrigues anew, while they sought at all costs to estrange Constantius from orthodoxy. For this purpose they flattered his selfishness and made use of his utterly violent reactions towards everything which might lessen his authority or his prestige. In the background the Arians instigated a true conspiracy, in order to distance Constantius from Saint Athanasius and thus obtain his withdrawal with them from orthodoxy. Among other slanders they accused him of disseminating defamatory rumours against the Emperor, by which he was alleged to represent the Emperor as a heretic and as excommunicated. In this manner they attempted to cause the people to withdraw their support from Saint Athanasius and at the same time to lyingly present him as an enemy of the Emperor. The Arians represented themselves as his most loyal subjects.
These sinister machinations against Athanasius and the Catholics infuriated Constantius. More and more he inclined to the side of the Arians, until finally in common with them he attempted to persuade Liberius, the new Pope, to divest the illustrious Church Father of his dignity.
It is incredible, how Jewry frequently manages to transform its sworn opponents into unconscious allies, whereby, as in this case, it makes use of the most subtle means in order to attain its goal. In history there have been several examples like that of Constantius.
The Holy Father, pressed by the Emperor, pointed out the necessity of calling a new Council to attempt to put an end to this dispute. With the agreement of the Emperor the Council of Arles was called, which took place in the year 353 in the presence of two Papal Legates. Great were the expectancies which the good placed upon the Council for the obtaining of Christian unity; but the bishops, led by Valente and Ursacius in the service of the “Fifth Column”, were able to instigate such intrigues and such pressures that the Council finally yielded to the demands of the Arians, who were granted support through the implacable pressure of Imperial power. Even the two Papal Legates yielded and, as a disastrous consequence, the unjust condemnation of Saint Athanasius was resolved upon.
The sole Bishop, who voted against the resolution, was Paulinus of Trier, who for this reason was expelled from the land. But when Pope Liberius received the knowledge of its disastrous outcome, he raised objectives and proposed summoning another Synod, which was held in Milan in the year 355. But this Synod also was the target of countless conspiracies and exposed to the pressure of the heretical bishops who enjoyed the support of the Emperor. Finally they were successful. This new Synod composed of 300 Bishops condemned Saint Athanasius once again. Thus Arianism gained a complete triumph and was able to again ban the highly regarded Saint. Since the Pontifex Maximus refused to yield to the demands of the Arians and of Constantius, the Emperor banished the Pope as well, a banishment which lasted quite some time.
However, the efforts of Athanasius, that Saint and Father of the Church, that iron and dynamic man, who revealed so much courage and tenacity in the face of the enemy, finally bore fruit. After three centuries of struggle Holy Church finally triumphed over Jewry and its heresy. What the Church and men of today urgently need are men who possess the hardness, the courage and the energy of such as Saint Athanasius, to counter the Jewish-Communist threat, which, exactly as in the case of the Jewish-Arian heresy, has brought Catholicism to the edge of the abyss.
We are certain that in this situation, as also in similar situations, the Lord God shows us His mercy so that among the hierarchies of Holy Church new Athanasiuses will appear, which the Church needs for its salvation. This is the maxim of our time in which the modern instruments of Jewry within the Church, such as false apostles, play into the hands of Communism and the “Synagogue of Satan.” They cripple the defensive powers of the Church, in order to mislead the truly faithful and to make possible the triumph of the worldly foe, just as they intend to do at the present Ecumenical Council Vatican II, called by John XXIII.
Finally we must point out that the inconstancy of Constantius is also revealed in his conduct towards Jewry. In contrast to his hostile policy, he decreed measures which favoured it; thus the law that equated the Jewish patriarchs and officials working in the service of the synagogue with the Christian clergy, exempted them from the severity of the law, as the Israelite historian Graetz himself reports to us.