Plot Against the Church: Part 4 - Maurice Pinay

Bishops Accused of Worshipping Lucifer

So that the reader can form an idea of the alarm of the people in Europe on account of the heretical movements because of the reasons previously mentioned, we will reproduce here the opinion of the anti-Catholic historian Henry Charles Lea, who was an enemy of the Inquisition. He refers to an abbot from Langres, who was accused of heresy and whom the Pope handed over to the archbishop of Sens and the bishop of Nevers for examination. Two years later he excused himself in Rome with the following words:

"He had fear at the appointed time to place himself before his judges, for the people was so much against the heresies and burned not only all heretics but also all suspects. He therefore begged for the protection of the Pope and for permission to repent of his guilt in Rome. Innocent sent him back again and commanded that the prelates should provide him a letter of conduct and grant him protection until his case had been appropriately decided."

These and similar facts allow it to be discerned that the demands of the Popes and princes to the people, to combat the heresies and reveal the heretics, even made difficult the harmful work of the clergy who aided these revolutionary movements, for in spite of their church offices they ran the danger of being burned alive by the mass of the people.

In this position naturally the clergy of the Fifth Column which had previously betrayed unpunished the Church and made easier the progress of the Jewish revolution, had to withhold their hand. Thus the Fifth Column had very much less opportunity to cause harm to the Church and the Christian states.

For the Church, a priest, who hypocritically supports the heresies and revolutionary anti-Christian movements was and is more dangerous than a layman. For the priest has, on account of his respected position, greater possibilities to harm the Catholic cause. Therefore the Church and Civil Law made it a duty of all the faithful to immediately denounce heretics as well as accomplices of heresies, including priests of every rank.

The writer and historian, H. C. Lea, who was against the Inquisition, quotes in this respect a very revealing case:

"In the year 1318 Jean de Drasic, the bishop of Prague, was summoned to Avignon by Pope John XXII, in order to answer the accusation of being an accomplice of heresy brought against him by Frederick von Schonberg, Abbot (Stiftsherr) of Visegrad. The accusation ran that the heretics were very numerous and that among them were found an archbishop and seven bishops, who each had three hundred pupils. As far as their belief is concerned, they must have been simultaneously Waldenses and Luciferians."

As we see, a zealous abbot fulfilled his duty and accused at the right time that bishop of Prague, not because he was a heretic but an accomplice of heresy, i.e. because he gave himself out to be orthodox but supported the revolutionary movements. Therefore Pope John XXII, who fought against the Jews and heretics of all kinds, had the traitorous bishop arrested and sent him to Avignon, where he faced the accusation. The confirmation is also interesting, that—as also emanates from the complaint handed in by the devout abbot—there were in that region an archbishop and seven bishops who were Luciferians, i.e. who worshipped Lucifer.

From this we see that the problems which Christian society had then to solve were as weighty as the present, with the sole difference that then both Holy Church and the Christian states defended themselves successfully against the enemy, while today those Communist bishops and cardinals or clergy who aid Communism and freemasonry could severely damage the Church and the peoples who believe in her and trust in her. One must recognise that Pope John XXII is worthy of all respect and all praise, for in this case, as also in others, he proceeded rapidly and energetically without discrimination against the clergy who practised treachery against Holy Church. He understood that a Luciferian bishop or accomplice of the Luciferians could cause greater harm than a simple layman. Just as today also a prelate who supports Communism can cause greater harm than a civic leader.

Lea then clearly elaborates that the Waldenses and Luciferians had shaken hands in spite of their different ideologies, and the Luciferians hoped that Lucifer would rule one day.

This strange connection of two sects with such contrasting ideologies is comparable to the present agreement between different so-called Catholic and Socialist-Marxist parties who carry on a very suspicious game. The aim is the same. Jewry has always excelled in uniting different ideologies, in order to be able to control individuals of the most opposed disposition and diverse tastes. When they proceed against the good and wish to collect forces for the victory of their revolutions, they are compelled to conclude remarkable alliances, which often become a stumbling-block for those who do not know the secrets of Jewry. The fact is that the associations of parties of different tendencies are controlled by a secret power, concealed Jewry.

Jean de Drasic, the bishop of Prague and accomplice of the heretics, appears to have been a worthy predecessor of the Archbishop Beran of Prague, the Primate of Czechoslovakia. When the Communist Gottwald carried through his coup d'etat, in order to introduce the Bolshevist dictatorship in Czechoslovakia, he received—to the consternation of the clergy and the Catholics of the land—the Red Leader with a Te Deum in the cathedral. In this way, and by forbidding Christians to fight against the Communist regime, he effectively contributed to strengthening the victory of the Socialist dictatorship. Even if a great part of the Czech bishoprics were horrified at the treachery and later rose against the Archbishop and Primates, the confusion which all these events had called forth in the conscience of the Catholics led to the victory of Communism. Since then Czechoslovakia has been tyrannised by the Reds, who also murdered a great number of priests and Christians.

How can it be right that, through the mode of action of treacherous priests, the true clergy are murdered and taken captive and Holy Church is persecuted? But Beran paid for his treachery. After the Communists had made use of him, they threw him into prison. What has the Fifth Column in the clergy to expect from a Socialist regime, in which leaders of the Soviet revolution like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and thousands of others were later murdered by their Jewish brothers Yagoda, Beria and Stalin? It is painful to recall the mode of action of an archbishop and primate of our days. But it is even more painful that, through the Communist victory which he aided, so many faithful priests were murdered and the Church in Czechoslovakia was so infamously repressed.

Here we come back once again to the virtuous Pope John XXII. His zeal to defend the faithful against the cunning of the Devil is clearly shown in reference to Juan Muscata, the Bishop of Krakow, to whom the meritorious Pope imparted a severe reprimand, not because he was heretic or accomplice of the sectarians, but simply on account of his "indulgence and neglect, which had the effect that the heretics in his Diocese had become courageous."

It is easy to understand that Christians and mankind would never, with such Popes, have stood before such a catastrophe as today. Also it would then have been avoided that so many souls were lost to the Church and so much blood was shed among the Christian peoples. It may appear strange that there were bishops and archbishops who were Luciferians or accomplices of the Luciferians, just as it also appears remarkable today that there are cardinals or bishops who are secret Communists or support atheistic Communism, even when they are themselves of right belief.

What possibilities had then a man who entered very young into the priestly class, rose in the hierarchy up to archbishop or cardinal and passed his whole life in the service of Christ, to succumb to such confusions? What kind of interest could he have had then to support the cause of Luciferianism, and today to help the victory of the atheistic, priest-murdering Communism to victory? This problem was thrown up by the Christians of all times. The enemy could assert that the Luciferian errors were the truth and the Church was in error, and therefore many priests of the highest ranks supported the former.

However, this is not only completely absurd, but we have already explained and proven through facts that the Jewish fanatics in the clergy in fact gave themselves out as Christians, but in the bosom of the clergy carried out the most perverse sabotage in favour of Jewish interests or their revolutionary activity. On the other hand, this is the normal activity of all Fifth Columns in the world. The most important among them is that of the secret Jews, because it exists already a thousand years and is represented everywhere in the world. When the Inquisition was able to successfully investigate cases of this kind, it transpired that these priests of high rank who spread the most terrible heresies or supported them, were secret Jews or in our modern language priests of the Fifth Column of Jewry. That is really the most logical explanation for many, astonishing and scandalous cases.

We are certain that, if today there existed a court with such effective methods of examination as the Inquisition then, it would be known that many of those cardinals, archbishops, abbots, prebendaries, priests and monks are Jews, who so expressly and zealously—even if also hypocritically—aid the progress and triumph of freemasonry and of Communism or so fanatically and successfully defend the Jews, as they have never done in the case of Holy Church. It is difficult to understand that men who have devoted their whole life to the sacred calling of the priest could aid in good faith such objectionable, openly criminal movements opposed to the Christian faith and every moral norm. The most logical thing is that it is a question of a couple of those Jewish plotters who favour these movements and who belong from their youth on to the clergy as members of the Fifth Column.

If a Jew (Pierleoni) could become cardinal and could conquer the throne of St. Peter's, then it is not remarkable that those who rise today in the hierarchy of the clergy use their office to facilitate the victory of the Jewish revolutions and to destroy the defence of the Church, just as their predecessors in the Middle Ages have done and as was proven by the Inquisition and the civil and church authorities of that time.

In fact it was more the activity of the treacherous priests than those of the aggressive heretics which compelled the Holy See to set up the effective Papal Inquisition. The Pope perceived that the heretics represented the greatest danger for the Church and the Christian peoples and especially dangerous were those who remained apparently orthodox or supported the revolutionary movements.

Henry Charles Lea, the renowned historian of the Inquisition, who bases himself upon Chronicles, Archives and contemporary documents, asserted:

"It was diversely said that the Inquisition was founded on 20th April 1233, when Gregory (IX) published the Bulls and made the persecution of heretics the principal task of the Dominicans. Really the direct cause seems to have been the punishment of priests and other clergy who were accused of supporting the heretics and teaching them how they could escape examination by concealing their faith and feigning orthodoxy. . ."

The other Bull is directed against the abbots and monks of the "Order of the Inquisitorial preachers." Allusions are made to the damned sons who defend heresy, and then it is stated further:

"Therefore shalt thou and every other who have power where they preach, if they do not upon admonishing leave off from this defence (of heretics), and rob the clergy of their privileges, proceed against them and the rest without mercy, in case of need request the lay order to aid and overcome all hindrances without consideration by means of Church censure."