What are some good sources to prove that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not an anti-Semitic forgery?

There may be something useful in Chapter 3 of I WAS A TEENAGE PLESIOSAUR by Nessie the Loch Ness Monster.

Well, I was asked.

But so much for skeptical sarcasm. Now for some kindly meant advice. Let's assume that THE PROTOCOLS are as authentic as the holy Gospels.  :roll-laugh1: Still. All that sort of Halloween ghoulishness is a  dead end on a shadowy street for young Catholic minds. There's no good reason to get mired in what's dark and sinister. Interest in it leads to no good.

Promotion of interest in it in the name of "knowing what's going on in the world to oppose Christ" is so arbitrary. How about, then, promoting greater knowledge of the Nestorian controversy, or the evolution of Biblical Modernism, or the immediate background to the Vatican II abomination? Why is it that I get looked at as though I had two heads when I lament to Catholics who could recite the Protocols backwards the way in which Lagrange's Broad School semi-Modernism was made to seem to have papal approval from Pope Pius XII? Cosmic destruction of belief in Biblical Inerrancy by "orthodox" Catholic priests is REAL Apocalyptic iniquity. Knowledge of that sort of sinister stuff would be worth having.

I believe that all this interest in secret evils of a certain provenance whose existence is debatable is a vulgar, lazy way to avoid facing real evils that are as plain as the nose on Martin Buber's face when he says that Christianity is an affront to both the true concept of the Messiah and to suffering humanity, as the true Messiah will end all suffering when He comes.

But when I talk to most Traditional Catholics about the outrageous blasphemies of Martin Buber, I get looked at as though I were from Mars.

So my advice is: If you want to peer into and bone up on iniquity, choose iniquites that are real and that really matter.

"I also will ask you one question, which, if you shall tell me..."

Has roscoe declared on the Lagrange vis-a-vis Pius XII's Biblical encyclical controversy, especially in the light of the Breen criticism of the former?

Okay, we could avoid the name-dropping of specialized knowledge. How about declaring on the general problem, one that should be all too well known to anyone interested in REAL plots against the reign of Christ the King, of the fact that well before Vatican II, even in the 1940s and 50s, eminent Roman Catholics who controlled popular Catholic Thought were blithely scandalizing Bible believing Protestants with their resurgent Modernism in the Biblical field?

Of course, they were scandalizing orthodox Catholics too, but with the exception of some diffidently expressed bleets from the likes of Father Joseph Fenton or Garrigou-Lagrange in learned journals, the voice of Catholic orthodoxy in this area was like the tree that fell in the forest when no one was there to hear it. Not that the catechisms and the "THIS IS THE FAITH" type literature turned overtly Modernist in the 40s and 50s. But the more advanced Catholic literature on the Bible did, and this with the imagined blessing of His Holiness Pope Pius XII himself.

Nothing similar could have and would have happened where one iota that His Holiness Pope Pius X wrote on the Bible was concerned.

Caesarea Philippi, we have a problem.

Repeat.

Caesarea Philippi, we have a problem.

Such are th REAL problems we face in the area of assaults on our saving connection to the God of Israel and His Messiah.

It's the people who DON'T get stuck by lightning whose evil plots we should fear. I doubt that there is anyone here who has never wondered why John XXIII wasn't struck by lightning, or something, either back on the day of his "election" or on the day he inaugurated Vatican II with a sarcastic and diabolically tendentious put-down of "prophets of doom"...

Earth/ Sun Cletus?

I am only vaugely familiair with the controversy you are referring to re: LaGrange--Breen I am not familiar with. Unless I am mistaken the criticism of Pius XII by LaGrange is appropriate.

I am only vaugely familiair with the controversy you are referring to re: LaGrange--Breen I am not familiar with. Unless I am mistaken the criticism of Pius XII by LaGrange is appropriate.

Are you talking about Father Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange? I'm talking about the famous Dominican Bible scholar Marc Lagrange, who died in 1938, the year before Cardinal Pacelli became Pope Pius XII.

Lagrange's views on Biblical science were unsound, and, apparently (as one would hope!) viewed as such by the Powers That Be in the Church during the reign of Pope Pius X, of REALLY happy memory.

Father AE Breen was a brilliant but rather eccentric American Bible scholar who understood modern critical methods and saw them as being valid to a point, but who also knew a sneaky semi-Modernist when he saw one and castigated Lagrange bitterly in a book he wrote about his travels in the Holy Land. Breen had spent some time at the Dominican Bible school in Jerusalem and had been appalled by Lagrange's reckless promotion of Rationalist presuppositions where the historicity of Biblical events was concerned. He even mocked Lagrange's sloppy teachng methods and his Gallic tendency to talk through his nose.

Lagrange was the type who checked out okay as to the Gospels, but thought that this gave him license to kill in the OLD Testament. For example, Lagrange claimed that it was "obvious" that what had happened in the case of the tale of Lot's wife's being turned into a pillar of salt was that legends about a rock formation somewhere that resembled a woman had made their way into the Inspired Word, Providence making use of the naive gullibility of the ancients to teach a religious lesson.

Breen was having none of it. Neither was Pope Benedict XV a little later on. Pope Pius XII? In his celebrated encylical on the Bible (but don't ask who is doing all the celebrating) he was (relative to us, all things considered) disastrously vague as to what he meant and what he did not mean regarding modern Bible science solving old problems with new methods etc... Of course, the Modernists who started controlling Catholic Biblical Science in the 1940s and 50s took the "new methods" ball from Pius and ran with it to victory over the God of Israel- and Pope Pius X's ultimately abortive Antimodernist efforts. The subsequent Antimodernist complaining of Pope Pius XII fell on deaf ears. By 1950, things being what they were in high Catholic places and as they would remain, it was too late for the Truth of the Scriptures in mainline Catholic circles. Too late, that is, for the Living God to go on living as He once had in souls.

Nothing about this ultimate assault on God and His Christ is secret or arcane or iffy as to the docuмents that tell the whole horrible story (though, of course, the constructions that Modernists on the one hand and believers on the other place on the facts is vastly different.) But the story of the whole Apocalyptic mess is depressing and complicated. No fun at all to discuss and kick around with like-minded guys.

Still, it's time for serious-minded Catholics who lay claim to the mantle of Tradition to start learning about and denouncing above all the protocols of the learned masters of the Dominican Bible school in Zion (or at least in that neighborhood) and all related protocols of other learned Roman Catholic masters and their cosmically ruinous effect on Christian faith in the twentieth century.

Although I believe that Pius XII was a legitimate Pope, the debate over his competancy goes on. I was mistaken in my thinking to be familiar with La Grange -no matter which one.

KP started this discussion and then disappeared.