Plot Against the Church: Part 4 - Maurice Pinay

The Church Councils Fight Jewry

In face of the repeated false conversions of the Jews to Christianity, Holy Church attempted to seize upon various precautionary measures, which were approved at the individual Councils.

The Council of Agde—a city in South Gaul—which took place in the year 506 under the protection of Saint Caesarius, the primate of the province of Aries, and was tolerated by Alaric, ordered the following:

"Law 34: Concerning the acceptance of Jews who wish to be converted. Since the falsehood of the Jews often breaks out again, they shall, if they wish to be converted to Catholic law, be catechism pupils for eight months, and if it is revealed that they come in purity of faith, they shall be baptised after this period". . . The facts show, however, that this term of trial had no value for the guarantee of the honesty of their confessions."

At the Trulanian Council, in the year 692, which is authoritative as a supplementary Council to the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils, it was announced that the heresy of Nestorius was renewing Jewish godlessness, and in Canon 1 it is stated:

"We also simultaneously recognise the doctrine which two hundred divine fathers spread in Ephesus, who prosecuted the foolish division of Nestorius as deviating from the divine destiny, who declared that Jesus Christ was a man for himself, and thus renewed the Jewish blasphemy."

In Canon 11 the priests were threatened with deposition if they maintained close relations with the Jews. Thus one sees that in such distant times the clergy who entered into dangerous friendships with the Jews were a veritable nightmare for Holy Church and it was necessary to order punishments—even the deposing of Jew-friendly clergy. Concerning this it is stated in Canon 11I:

"No priest or layman shall eat the Matzo of the Jews, maintain intimate relationship with them, visit them when they are ill, receive medicines from them, or bathe in their company. Whoever acts against this statute, will be deposed if he is a priest and if layman expelled from the Church."

Through this measure, Holy Church did not turn away from its Christian neighbourly love, which it has always fought for, with, among other things, the noble custom of visiting the sick. The universally proven fact was known to the prelates of this Holy Council that the Jews always even utilised the most magnanimous works of Christian neighbourly love in order to gain influence upon the Christians and to undermine our holy religion. Thus the prelates regrettably saw themselves compelled to forbid everything which could have led to dangerous friendship between Christians and Jews and brought the Christians into the danger of being delivered to the ancient wolves.

Undoubtedly Holy Church was in the right when it threatened the clergy with deposition and the Jew-friendly laymen with exclusion from the Church, for these intimacies are, the closer they become, proven to be always to have been a deadly danger for Christianity. What would happen if this Holy Church Canon were applied to the present day clergy, who are so intimate with the Jews and closely befriended and are united with them in those so-called Jewish-Christian brotherhoods? If this canon were applied to them, one would advance a great step forward with the salvation of the Church from the deadly sabotage of the Jewish Fifth Column in the clergy.


The plague of the false Christians, who were Jews in secret, had become so dangerous for Christianity at the end of the 8th century and especially after the Visigoth kingdom had fallen into the hands of the Musulmans, that it was resolved at the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Nicaea that it was to be preferred that the Christians who secretly practised the Jewish religion, should be Jews openly and not false Christians. The anti-Christian activity of the Jews in the bosom of Holy Church, who soon spread revolutionary heresies, conspired against the Kings, or made agreements with the Musulmans and delivered the Christian states to them, had called forth such grave concern in Christianity, that Holy Church preferred to see that they were known publicly as Jews and were not false Christians. Thus the Church preferred to have the enemy outside and not in its own ranks. The measures passed by the Holy Synod in this sense could not have been bolder. But unfortunately the great advantages were already known to the Jews, which they possessed through their infiltration into the bosom of the Church and Christian society.

In Canon VIII of the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Nicaea it was expressly stated:

"And because some Jews pretended to be Christians, but remained Jews in secret and celebrate the Sabbath, we dispose that they be not admitted to the Communion, prayer or to the Church, but live as real Jews, do not baptise their children, and it shall not be allowed to them to buy or to own slaves. But if someone is converted in purity and honesty. . . then shall he and his sons be admitted and baptised, whereby caution is commanded that he does not allow himself to be again led astray. But if they do not conduct themselves so, they shall not be admitted."

The Ecumenical Council mentioned by us also condemned the heresy of the Iconoclasts. For the Jews there is nothing more hateful than the Catholic images of saints, which they describe as pictures of idols. Always when they had influence on a certain realm of Christianity, they have therefore attempted to abolish these images. The heresy of the iconoclasts was instigated by the Jews, for the false converts lived pleasantly with a Christianity without images, since it cost them effort to show the latter even the simplest honour. But practical as they are, they have nevertheless, when it was to their advantage, and in order not to offend the feelings of the Christian population, had to tolerate the cult of Saints and even decorated their dwellings with such images.

According to the Church historian Juan Tejada y Ramiro, a Jewish conjurer incited the Iconoclastic ideas with the Byzantine Emperor Leo the Isaurian. This monarch accepted these tendencies with great fanaticism and for a start had the image of our Lord Jesus Christ pulled down, which had been arranged high over the gate of Constantinople. According to this learned collector of Church canons, this image "was worshipped by the people to the embitterment of the Jews for many years."

At the Ecumenical Council mentioned by us measures were taken against heresy, among others, the deposing of those bishops, priests or deacons was ordered, who concealed the books with iconoclastic ideas. Thus it is ordered in Canon 9:

"All the childish mockeries, harmful deviations and writings, which are falsely directed against the venerable images of Saints, shall be handed over to the Bishop of Constantinople so that they may be placed with the books of other heretics. But if anyone conceals these things, he shall, whether bishop, priest or deacon, be deposed, and if he is monk or layman, excommunicated."

Holy Church proceeded not only against the secret Jews and heretics, but also very energetically against the bishops and other clergy who supported the heresy and Jewry.

When the destructive activity of the Fifth Column increased, the defence of Holy Church was driven more and more to extremes. Already at this Holy Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, those bishops and clergy are threatened with deposition, who simply conceal the heretical books. What punishment then do the high clergy of the present day deserve, who not only conceal Freemasonic or Communist books, but actively collaborate, so that the Freemasonic and Communist heresies can destroy Christianity.

However, we come back to the iconoclastic Emperor Leo the Isaurian. In this connection it is worthy of note that the Jews experienced the same with him as with Martin Luther. At first he allied himself with them against the orthodoxy. But when he recognised the enormous danger which they represented for his kingdom, he attempted to evade this danger. He therefore seized upon the same lamentable methods as the Catholics and compelled the Jews to be converted to Christianity. He laid before them the choice of being converted or severely punished.

Concerning the honesty of this new general conversion of the Jews in Greece, the Balkans, a part of Asia Minor and the remaining regions of the Byzantine kingdom, the Jewish historian Graetz writes the following:

"Leo the Isaurian, a farmer's son, whose attention the Jews and Arabs directed to the idolatrous cult of saintly images (icons) which was practised in the churches, therefore fought to eliminate these images. Since he was accused by the clergy before the ignorant masses, who revered these holy images, of being a heretic and Jew, Leo again began to take his orthodoxy seriously and persecuted the heretics and Jews. He ordered in a decree, that all Jews of the Byzantine kingdom and of the mountains of Asia Minor, under threat of severe punishments, should accept the Christianity of the Greek Church (723). Many Jews fitted themselves into this Edict and allowed themselves to be baptised against their will. They were thus less constant than the mountain dwellers, who in order to remain true to their conviction, assembled in their house of prayer, set it on fire and perished in the flames. The Jews who allowed themselves to be baptised were of the opinion that the storm would soon pass and he would then allow them to return to Judaism. Therefore they certainly converted themselves outwardly to Christianity, but in secret they held to the Jewish rites. . ."

And the renowned Jewish historian closes with the following, very interesting comment:

"Thus the Jews of the Byzantine kingdom vanished before the constant persecutions and for a time they remained concealed from the eyes of history."

This vanishing on the part of Jewry, in order to remain hidden from the eyes of history—to use this fortunately chosen expression of Graetz's—was always the most dangerous thing in the affair, since they grew from a visible Fifth Column into a secret force, an invisible power, which is more difficult to combat as such. In the course of time the Balkans were completely undermined by this secret power and were later to become the most dangerous centre of the secret sects of the Cathars and later of the treacherous Fifth Column, which delivered the Christian kingdom to the Mohammedan Turks.

In modern times the Balkans had become a breeding ground for the conspiratorial and terror organisations which had such great influence on the unleashing of the world war of 1914-1918. We will see later still how a similar vanishing act by Jewry, in order to remain concealed from the eyes of history, took place in the whole of France, England, Russia, Spain, Portugal, in isolated districts of Italy, Germany and other Christian countries, and in the long run had catastrophic consequences for these nations and the rest of mankind.

Concerning the terrible struggle by Holy Church and the Christian monarchs against Jewry in France, we allow the Jewish historian Graetz to speak, who cannot be accused of antisemitism, and who is so respected in Jewish circles. He writes concerning King Sisismund of Burgundy:

"This king was the first (in France) to set up barriers between Christians and Jews. He confirmed the resolution of the Council of Epaone, which took place under the presidency of the bloodthirsty Bishop Avitus, and at which it was even forbidden to laymen to participate in Jewish banquets (517). The hostility towards the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy to the other French provinces.

"Already at the 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans (388 and 545) strict determinations were passed against them. . . At the Council of Macon (581) several resolutions were determined and the Jews allotted a subordinate position in society. They were forbidden to be judges and tax-collectors, and they were excluded from all positions which would have given them power over the Christian population. They were compelled to show the Christian priests the highest deference. . . Although King Chilperic was not very favourable to the Catholic clergy, he nevertheless followed the example of Avitus. He also forced the Jews in his kingdom to be baptised, and he personally went to the baptismal font as Father of the newly-converted. However, he was satisfied with the mere appearance of conversion, and he was not hostile to the Jews, when they continued to celebrate the Sabbath and followed the Jewish Laws."

This was a deplorable error on the part of this monarch who on the one side pressed the Jews to be converted and even served them as baptismal Father, but on the other side permitted the new Christians to continue to practise the Jewish religion in secret. Thus he furthered the creation and strengthening of this secret power, which was to call forth in France in the coming centuries so much disunity and revolutions.

Concerning this conversion of the Jews at the time of Chilperic, St. Gregory the Bishop of Tours reports to us—who with full right is called the father of French history—that among those compulsorily converted belonged Priscus—the royal treasurer, an office which today corresponds to that of chancellor of the exchequer—who, because he refused to be converted, was imprisoned and was later murdered by another converted Jew. The latter in turn was killed by a relative of the former royal chancellor of the exchequer.

The case of Priscus was a hard blow for the Jews, who preferred to have one of themselves as state treasurer, in order to thus exert a decisive influence upon the Christian monarchs and utilise the reputation of the Jews and false Jewish Christians as good financiers. Concerning Clotaire II and the Holy Council of Paris, Graetz writes:

"The last kings of the Merovingians were always more fanatical in their hatred towards the Jews. Clotaire II, who ruled over the whole of France, was, however, regarded as a model of religious devoutness. He approved the resolutions of the Council of Paris, which excluded the Jews from authoritative offices and from the army."

Here Graetz not only uses the traditional method of sullying the memory of the rulers who acted against the Jewish danger, but also then expresses a great truth: that a Christian, the more fanatical he is, must also be against the Jews (the Jews describe a Christian as fanatical, who defends his religion and his fatherland). This is nothing extraordinary, if one reflects that the Jews are the chief enemies of Christianity and of the human race and understands, that the defenders of the Church, of the fatherland or of mankind, must also energetically oppose the greatest enemy, if they do not wish to be subjected in defence. Therefore, the great father of the Church, Saint Jerome has said that, if it were necessary to abhor the Jews and Judaism in order to be a good Christian, then he would do it in exemplary form. Only the false Christians, who secretly practise the Jewish religion, will not recognise this traditional doctrine of the Church and attempt to make us believe that it is a sin to oppose the Jews and their satanic imperialism, in order as a result to cripple the defence of the Church and Christian people.

In connection with this bitter struggle between Holy Church and the Synagogue, the Rabbi Jakob S. Raisin writes that, even in Gaul during the time of Clovis who destroyed Arianism, Bishop Avitus stirred up the masses on Ascension Day to destroy the Synagogue. We have already seen that the Jewish historian Graetz describes this prelate as a "bloodthirsty bishop".

As one sees, this Holy Synod also wished to avoid that secret Jewry continued to exist, which could also have been avoided if it had been attained that the Christians of Jewish origin had not been introduced into Jewry. In order to avoid this, the Holy Council suspended the punishment of confiscation of property against the transgressors. One sees that the prelates of the Council knew the problems well.

The Jewish historian Josef Kastein affirms in connection with the then hard struggle between Holy Church and the Jews: "The Christian Church, be it now in Italy or Gaul, in France or Spain, declared war on Jewry." In our time Holy Church would doubtless have been condemned by the accomplices of the Synagogue in the ranks of Christianity on account of race hatred or anti-Semitism. The zealous and passionate Rabbi Raisin reports how then, later in Toulouse, three times a year, at first all Jews of the city and afterwards only their rabbis were whipped through the streets, "under the pretext that the Jews had once attempted to deliver the city to the Moors."

This attempt by the Jewish Fifth Column in France is very well known, which, just as with the Jewish Fifth Column in the Gothic kingdom, wished to deliver this other Christian kingdom to the Musulmans. Luckily Charles Martell condemned this criminal attempt to failure forever. After the Christian murders in Spain, the alarm of the inhabitants of Toulouse against the Jews is understandable. It is very regrettable that the Jews therefore had to accept a whipping several times a year. But one must reflect that in all nations of the world not only whipping but the death penalty exists for this kind of betrayal.

With Dagobert I, the Merovingian monarchy attained its highest peak. Its possessions stretched from the Elbe to the Pyrenees and from the Atlantic up to the frontiers of Bohemia and Hungary. Dagobert I, the son of Clotaire II, had, as long as he was not of age, Arnulf, the Bishop of Metz, as guardian, and then left important government offices to highly respected Saints recognised by the Church, as for example, St. Ovanus, whom he made chancellor of Neustria and who later became Bishop of Rouen, and St. Eloy, whom he appointed state treasurer, and who was chosen as bishop of Noyon when he withdrew from the world.

The situation of Christianity in this realm was extremely serious, for it was completely permeated by false Christians, whose hypocrisy Chilperic had tolerated, as we already described. Dagobert I led a disorderly sexual life, and his renowned counsellors could not prevent him from doing this. But on the other side he recognised—perhaps on account of the education taught him and upon the advice of these holy men—the danger which the Jews represented in his realm of rule. Many then pretended to be Christians and therefore he attempted to apply a radical method: In the year 629 he passed a decree, in which it was stated that the Jews in the kingdom must be converted by a fixed day honestly to Christianity or be regarded as enemies and be condemned to death.

Dagobert interpreted the problem thus, because he regarded the Jews as enemies, which rested upon the centuries-old truth of how Saint Paul himself, with divine insight, described them as enemies of all men. The most serious thing about the matter was that they were once again given the possibility in France and South Germany of escaping with their skins. This cardinal error was made centuries later by all Christian monarchs, for the Jews always swore and promised, in order to save themselves, to be in future honest true Christians and simultaneously concealed with still greater skill their secret Judaism. It would have been better if Dagobert had expelled them in masses—in the same way every harmful foreign conspirator is expelled from the land, whose hospitality he betrays—and thus had given them the possibility to be honestly converted to Christianity in other lands. Thus would France and Germany have freed themselves from the terrible Fifth Column and the destructive secret power, which has finally controlled the whole of France to the harm of Christianity and of the French.

Jewry again vanished once more for a time from the surface, in order in dangerous form in all realms of the Frankish kingdom, in the clergy and at the court, to gain admittance, and called forth years later the terrible decline of Christianity at the time of Louis (Ludwig) the Pious.

In conclusion let us say something about the origin of the German Jews, whose blond hair and blue eyes stand in contrast to the other types of Jews. Graetz explains the origin of the Jews in South Germany in the following way:

"A large number of German soldiers took part with the legions in the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. Many of them chose from the great number of captives the most beautiful women and took them with them to the banks of the Rhine and Maine. The children of these unions were half Jews and half Germans and were introduced by their mothers to Judaism, for their father raised no objections in this regard."

If one reflects that the apparent conversions of the Jews to Christianity began in the German possessions of the Merovingians already at the time of Chilperic and Dagobert I, one will understand, that the Jewish Fifth Column in Germany already existed a very remote time ago, and that therefore the Nazis committed the gravest fault when they believed all secret branches of Jewry could be identified through a genealogical investigation of only three generations.