Plot Against the Church: Part 4 - Maurice Pinay

Cyril of Alexandria Expels the Jews

After the death of Theodosius I, his sons Honorius and Arcadius inherited the throne of the already divided Empire; the first in the West and the second in the East. Their policy towards the Jewish enemy was weak, since they completely disregarded the norms of an energetic struggle, such as had been preached by Saint John Chrysostom and by Saint Ambrose. In addition, Arcadius in the East surrounded himself with corrupt advisors, who sold their protection to the Jews Rufinus and Eutropius, who, according to Graetz, "showed the Jews most extreme favour". Rufinus was avaricious, and the Jews had already discovered the magic power of gold in order to thaw out the most hardened hearts. As a result various laws favouring the Jews were announced. Among these laws is found that which had already been put in force again through Constantius and confirmed, concerning which Graetz asserts:

"The Patriarchs and likewise all Synagogue servants were placed equal to the Christian clergy, by their being freed from the heavy burden of the magistracy."

What the renowned Jewish historian stresses here, is in fact of the highest importance; for it shows that the Jews had already discovered the power of gold, in order to bribe the Christian and pagan leaders. In reality they had already found this out much earlier, as the example of the Jew Simon the Magician proves, who even wished to bribe Saint Peter; or that of the Jewish superintendents, who were successful in buying one of the Twelve Apostles, that he might betray Jesus. In the course of history the Jews have systematically used the power of gold in order to buy political and religious leaders and to maintain a policy favourable to Jewry. The successors of Judas Iscariot have caused the Church and mankind grave harm by means of this method, and they are to a great part guilty of the misfortune which stands before our door.

The protection in the East and tolerance in the West allowed the Jews to collect sufficient strength, which was extremely dangerous, if one takes into consideration that they were the sworn enemies of the Church and of the Empire. Even in our times Jewish evidence has been handed down to us, which provides us with information about the hatred that the Jews fostered against ancient Rome.

In the east of the Empire Theodosius II, the successor of Arcadius, was attentive to the danger at the correct time and seized upon a series of measures, in order to counteract them and to ward off the Jewish danger in a resolute manner. However, the Jewish historians always record these defensive measures of the Christian states as persecutions which were unleashed through the fanaticism and the anti-Jewish tendency of the Catholic clergy.

The Jew Graetz speaks about these events as follows:

"The Middle Ages began for Jewry with Theodosius II (408-450), a very talented Emperor, but guided by monks, and whose weakness granted freedom from punishment to the fanatical zeal of some bishops and fostered cruelty. Edicts of this Emperor forbade the Jews to build new synagogues, to celebrate on Thursdays the synagogue service communally for Jews and Christians, and to keep Christian slaves. In addition they contained some other bans of lesser importance. Under this Emperor the Patriarchy finally fell."

The Patriarchy was an institution which for a long time performed the representation of Jewry in the Roman Empire and in many other places; it had its seat in Jerusalem.

What Graetz does not mention is the reason the Catholic clergy had for reacting in such a violent manner against the Jews. As in all cases, so here also, the Jewish historians give information concerning the measures that Holy Church or the Catholic monarchs entered upon against them; however, they never mention the occasions the Jews gave to provoke these reactions.

In the struggle of the Church against Jewry of that time one must mention the decisive appearance of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. He was the leading spirit in the defence of Catholicism against a new heresy which was led by Nestor and which was on the point of dividing the Church in exactly the same way as the Arian heresy had done.

Saint Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, plays at these moments the same role against Nestorianism which previously the great Church Father, Athanasius, had taken up in the struggle against Arianism. Like the latter, Saint Cyril applied himself actively in the defence against Jewry, by his condemning the Jews upon different occasions and combating all their false machinations.

The heresy of Nestor divided the Episcopate, since various bishops made common cause with the heretical patriarchs. After along drawn-out struggle, however, Saint Cyril was successful in obtaining the condemnation of Nestor from his Holiness the Pope. At the Third Ecumenical Council which took place later at Ephesus, the heretical bishops were fully defeated and Catholicism triumphed. The spirit of the Council in question was naturally Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who had to fight further against the remnants of the heresy, until he could destroy them.

In order to obtain knowledge of the conduct of Saint Cyril towards the Jews, let us refer to the words of the Jewish historian Graetz, which repeat faithfully the feelings of Jews towards the Fathers and Saints of the Church:

"During the rulership of Theodosius in the East and Honorius in the West, the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, who was remarkable for his quarrelsomeness, his violence and his impetuosity, tolerated the bad treatment of the Jews and expelled them from the city. He aroused the Christian rabble and incited them against the Jews. His excessive fanaticism called his attention to the synagogues, of which he seized possession in the name of Christianity. He drove the Jewish inhabitants half-naked out of the city, which had previously served them as home. Without his being able to be hindered, Cyril gave their property free for plundering by the mob, as indeed the latter always thirsts for enrichment."

In its turn, the Jewish-Castilian Encyclopaedia already quoted states under the word Cyril in this reference:

"Cyril (Saint) of Alexandria, Patriarch (376-444). Was practically the master of Alexandria, from whence he drove out the non-Christian populace. In the year 415 he commanded the expulsion of the Jews, in spite of the protests of the Imperial Prefect, Orestes."

All Church histories agree with one accord, that, although Saint Cyril had a fighting nature, he nevertheless possessed a moderate and conciliatory nature. He was, in the complete meaning of the word, an absolutely virtuous man and therefore deserved to be canonised.

What the Jewish historians who, like Graetz or the official encyclopaedists of Jewry, stand in such high regard with the Jews, say about all those who dare to fight against the destructive activity of the Israelites, provides an idea to what degree they degrade and pollute the memory even of the most magnificent Saints of the Church.

That Saint Cyril drove the Jews half-naked out of Alexandria and is said to have left their goods to the mob for plundering, sounds improbable for all those who know the history of this Saint well. The fact was that Alexandria had long been transformed into the principal centre of the Jewish conspiracy against Holy Church and the Empire. This city was the principal centre of Jewish Gnosticism, and from there radiated every kind of subversive idea directed against the existing order. It cannot therefore be remarkable that Saint Cyril, who was conscious of the Jewish threat, resolved to extirpate this cancerous tumour. So he expelled the Jews from the city, just as after him in other lands excellent defenders of Christianity have had to do.

If one knows the events as well as the blameless leadership of the Saint, then it appears more credible that he made all necessary provisions that this expulsion should take place under humane conditions; and that he disapproved of every excess and abuse which was committed by the masses on grounds of Jewish perfidy.

The Jewish historian describes further the bloody episodes in the struggle conducted by Saint Cyril and the Christians against the Jews. Among other things Graetz asserts:

"The Prefect Orestes, who was very concerned at the barbaric treatment of the Jews, lacked the power to protect them. He merely pulled himself together to lay complaint against the Bishop. However, Cyril won the case before the court of Constantinople. What now occurred after the expulsion of the Jews in Alexandria, gives a proof of how great the fanaticism of this Bishop was. Not far from the city there was a mountain, which was called Mount Nitra, where lived an order of monks whose desire to acquire the crown of martyrdom had transformed them into a pack of wild beasts. Goaded by Cyril, these monks threw themselves upon Orestes and stoned him as punishment for his not having approved the expulsion of the Jews; only when they had half killed him did they leave off attacking him. The same fanatical band cut up into pieces the body of the celebrated philosopher Hypatia, who had astonished the world through his deep knowledge, his eloquence and his purity."

The Catholic clergy at this time, who certainly knew what importance the terrible Jewish problem had, and who possessed an exhaustive knowledge of the Jewish conspiracy against the Church and the Empire, threw themselves without hesitation into the fight in order, as good shepherds, to defend their sheep against the cunning of the wolf. But the Jews always exaggerate in their history books what had occurred by inserting hair-raising passages with the aim of discrediting Catholicism and the Saints defending the Church.

As we have seen in addition, all these stories described in exaggerated and striking terms, serve to educate the Jewish youth and to inoculate into them from birth onwards a satanic hatred towards the Church and its clergy. Thus they breed an unquenchable lust for revenge, which expresses itself at the first opportunity offered in the burning down of monasteries, destruction of Churches, cruel slaughtering of priests and all kinds of violence against the Christians.

It is beyond doubt that, if Cyril had lived in our time, then he would not only have been condemned on account of Antisemitism, but he would also have been abused of being a war criminal, Nazi and the like.

The Jews believe that they possess the right to agitate against the peoples, to cause them to bleed in civil wars and to commit every kind of crime and infamy, without receiving the deserved punishment for this. But if anyone restrains them with the energy of such as Saint Cyril and punishes their excesses in a just manner, then they heap imprecations on him and attempt to lower his respect before men. Not even after death do they pardon him, as the example of this excellent Saint of the Catholic Church teaches us.

It is interesting to read the description by Graetz of how the Israelites at that time celebrated the feast of Purim of Queen Esther:

"On this day the Jews were accustomed, in the midst of the joyous feast, to hang up on a stage the figure of Haman, their arch-enemy, and his gibbet, which, after their burning of him took on accidentally or intentionally the form of a cross. Naturally, the Christians complained that their religion was being profaned, and Emperor Theodosius II commanded the provincial governor to bring about a cessation of this activity. In spite of severe punishments threatened for this, it was nevertheless not successful in preventing such acts. Upon one occasion this carnival entertainment, as it is reported, had terrible consequences. The Jews of Inmestar, a small place in Syria, which is situated between Antioch and Chalcis, had erected one of these gallows for Haman. The Christians at once accused them of having hanged a Christian child, crucifying him on it and whipping him to death. The Emperor gave the command, in the year 415, to punish those responsible."

This, the highly renowned, authorised Israelite historian Graetz, standing in such high regard with the Jews, calls enjoyment and carnival entertainment!

One can easily imagine the alarm that was caused by such kind of Jewish conduct among the Christians. Just as at present in the Soviet Union and other Communist lands, the sacrifices, blasphemies and political assassinations committed by Communist Jews would provoke the Christians there, had they not been enslaved and made incapable of defending themselves.

In contrast to the temples of other religions, the synagogues do not restrict themselves to holding religious services; they are far more assembly places, in order to discuss and approve political decisions. They are the chief centres of the Jewish conspiracy, from whence every kind of measures take their outlet, which aim at the conquest of peoples which with goodwill grant them hospitality. In these measures the exerting of economic pressure is also planned, in order to rob the Christians and Gentiles of their wealth, which the Jews believe belongs to them by divine right. How right the great Church Father John Chrysostom was to call the synagogues "infamous exhibitions, thieves' dens and even worse."

The aforementioned Israelite historian does not dare to mention this. It is therefore understandable that the Catholic clergy at that time, conscious of the danger that they represented for Christianity and the Empire, accordingly strove to close down those centres of conspiracy and infamy.

Besides the measures already referred to, which the clergy introduced for this purpose, it is worth mentioning what occurred on the island of Minorca, which at that time was a Roman possession, and of which Graetz says, that:

"Severus, the Bishop there, set on fire the synagogues on the island and drove the Jews through the streets with blows, as a result of which he was successful in leading many of them to Christianity."

This last mentioned measure was a grave error, since the conversions, as the renowned Israelite historian Cecil Roth elaborates, were pretended, and the Jews secretly adhered to their old religion. Thus the number of underground Jews was increased, who certainly practised the Christian religion outwardly, but in truth formed the Jewish "Fifth Column" in the bosom of Holy Church. It was the cause of most heresies, to which it provided aid and stimulation.

A further, very holy opponent of the Jews was at that time the famous ascetic and Saint Simon Estilita (Simon Stylites), who, on account of the rigorous penances he observed during all his life, was very well known. Hanging for several years on a pillar, he mortified himself and did penance out of love of God. His example and his preachings had the consequence that several nomad tribes originating from Arabia confessed to Christianity. On account of his saintliness he stood in high esteem with Emperor Theodosius II, with whom he always made intercession for all those persecuted. In the controversies between the Catholic Church and the heretics he made his influence felt in favour of orthodoxy.

How great must have been the malice of the Jews and the intrigues of their synagogues, if this man, who represented the incarnation of neighbourly love and was in the extreme a mediator and protector of the persecuted, who was canonised by the Church as a saint and was famed on account of his penances as well as representing a model for youth, made an exception in his peaceful life concerning Judaism and intervened energetically in the decisive struggle unleashed against the "Synagogue of Satan"!

In connection with this Saint, Graetz informs us that, when the Christians of Antioch took away their synagogues from the Jews, which occurred as requital on account of the Christian child killed by the Jews at Inmestar at the feast of Purim, the Prefect of Syria described to the Emperor this expropriation of the synagogues in such an impressive manner that he succeeded in getting Theodosius II, despite his "priestly fanaticism", to order the inhabitants of Antioch to return the same, which greatly vexed Saint Simon Stylites.

On this matter the noted Jewish historian Graetz expresses himself as follows:

"This decision was, however, disputed by Simon Stylites, who led the life of a rigorous asceticism in a kind of stall not far from Antioch. From the top of his pillar he had rejected the world; however, his hatred of the Jews was sufficient to move him to interfere in earthly things. Scarcely had he received knowledge of the command of Theodosius relating to the return of the looted synagogues, than he immediately addressed an arrogant letter to the Emperor, in which he informed him that he recognised God alone, and no other, as Lord and Emperor, and begged him to lift the Edict. Theodosius could offer no resistance to such intimidation. In the year 423 he revoked his command and even displaced the Syrian Prefect, who had raised his voice in favour of the Jews."

What has been elaborated in the last chapters, gives us proof of the capability of the clergy and of the Saints of the Church, who made possible the triumph of Christianity in the face of the deadly enemies of the Church and mankind. The present Ecumenical Council of Vatican II will therefore offer a splendid opportunity for the success of the present clergy in moving at the same heights as those who in those times were capable of saving Holy Church in the midst of so many catastrophes, and who allowed it to triumph in the face of so many enemies. This is extremely urgent, since in fact the Communist danger, which threatens to drag everything with it, can only be banished if and when the clergy of Holy Church and the temporal leaders attain that moral fighting courage and that spirit of sacrifice which inspired the Catholic hierarchies during the first centuries of Christianity. If one does not react energetically in this sense, then it is completely possible that God may punish us with the worldwide triumph of Communism and the resultant catastrophe for Christianity.


Saint Jerome, the great Church Father, wished to study the Bible in its original sources and therefore undertook seriously to acquire a deep knowledge of the Hebrew language. So he came into contact with such outstanding Jews as Bar Canina; but in spite of the personal friendship that the Saint had with distinguished Hebrews, his conduct towards Jewry rested upon complete rejection.

One can say the same of the most illustrious Church Father and Bishop of Hippo, Saint Augustine.

Our information will be taken from the texts of Jewish authors of undisputed authority in Jewish circles, so that there is no risk of these sources being branded antisemitic. With reference to Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine, the Israelite historian Graetz expressly states the following (initially referring to Saint Jerome):

"After his enemies had accused him on grounds of his Judaic studies of being infected with heresy, Jerome proved to them his orthodoxy, by affirming his hatred for the Jews. 'If I had to give expression to my contempt for individuals and the nation, I would detest the Jews with a hatred difficult to put into words.' But Jerome was not the only one who thought thus. His views were shared by a younger contemporary, the Church Father Augustine. This confession of belief with regard to hatred towards the Jews was not the opinion of a definite author but an oracle for the whole of Christianity, which hastily accepted the writings of the Church Fathers, who were revered as Saints. In later times this mode of thought led to that practice by kings who invented instruments of torture for the Jews and erected the stake in order to burn them."

Here Graetz gives a resume of the policy that was followed by Holy Church and Catholicism more than a thousand years ago. What he is naturally silent about is what the grounds were that compelled the Church, its more outstanding Saints, the Church Fathers, Popes and Councils, to take refuge in this kind of defence.

Whoever has experienced the slaughtering of Christians and the desecrations of the Church that have been carried out by pagans and heretics instigated by the Jews; whoever has been eyewitness of the crimes committed by the Jews themselves; and as we know of the crimes, which have been perpetrated by the Israelites in Soviet Russia and the Communist lands — it is not difficult for us to imagine, that in the face of such an extremely dangerous and criminal foe, against a foe who threatens humanity as well as religion, and both Holy Church as well as other civilised institutions, the right of self-defence exists, and that one seizes upon such extraordinary measures as the infamy of the enemy in fact demands.