Of Apologies and Treason

Fr. Joseph Noonan O.F.M.

When a person looks up a word in the dictionary, he will quite often encounter multiple definitions for the same word. This certainly is understandable because a word may be understood or used in different ways. The etymological origins of a word will usually indicate the meaning of a word in its truest form. Time, though, by way of changes in culture and usage, may bring about meanings that seem to be different from the original intention.

The word apology is derived from the Greek, which means to defend. An apology is usually a defense of an intellectual nature. Most people, though, are accustomed to using the term as a means of expressing sorrow or regret for having said something or acted in such a way that others are offended (even here it is a type of defense).

The Church over the centuries has had numberless men that wrote or spoke on various Ecclesiastical teachings, defending (apologizing) Her in the face of attack from Her enemies.

The word treason, on the other hand, indicates a violation of allegiance toward one's sovereign or country. In general, it is any betrayal of trust.

On March 12, 2000, Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) made an apology in the name of the Church for the "errors" of the past 2,000 years.

To the superficial, non-thinking person on the street, it certainly was shocking. Indeed, who would have thought that the "leader" of the Catholic Church would ever admit that the Church had made mistakes concerning some of the key events or issues of the past.

The more serious-minded thinker must necessarily realize that there is more to this event than meets the eye, for such an unprecedented statement doesn't just happen.

Catholics should readily understand the sinfulness of its members, but to make such a statement goes much further. Having seen and heard what has been coming out of Rome for the past 40 years, it would seem most reasonable to conclude that this has all of the earmarks of furthering the Judeo-Masonic plan.

It further erodes the image of the Church in the eyes of the world and it seems to clearly indicate that the "Church leaders" of today are all-knowing, and are therefore able to judge (condemn) the decisions of past hierarchy - a hierarchy that was more willing to deal with the enemy correctly rather than pacify or collaborate with him.

There is certainly a consistency that continues in these actions. Modernists in recent years have continually distorted Catholic history and the decisions of its hierarchy by deceptions and half-truths. One would think in listening to these modern day heretics that the Church is finally heading in the right direction. Perhaps for its enemies who have taken control of the Establishment Church and have promoted their numberless errors in the name of truth in an unparalleled manner, they are heading in a direction that is pleasing to them. But it can in no way be considered orthodox Catholicism.

The "doctrine" of the Novus Ordo Church and that of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church are so diametrically opposed (once you get by the insidious facade of the heresiarchs) that no one in his right mind would say there is no significant difference. It doesn't take a theologian to figure out which of these churches has a legitimate succession going back to apostolic times, especially when so many of these heretics don't wish to consider the sound theology of the Church prior to the false Vatican II Council.

When one reads quotes from these Modernist clergymen about how we have a new religion, new theology, new Mass, etc., may we not rightly conclude that they are for once telling the truth, considering the evidence that is so readily available?

There is a direct parallel that must be mentioned with regards to what is currently happening in the Church and society and the topic of this article. (It must also be added that in both cases the cause of these deceptions is the same: the Judeo-Masonic forces that have as their principle goal the destruction of the Roman Church.) Truth, reason, morality, sound principles of spirituality, no longer matter. Men have been misguided to think that private and public opinion (no matter how subjective it may be), and unreasonable emotion and sentiment are the "guiding principles" of today. Thus, the so-called "apologies" of the Modernists. Nothing will change unless men are willing to treasure objective truth and to pay the price for it.

One truthful way to approach the events mentioned is to take the events in the context of their time, their goals, and how they correspond with the Church's principle mission: the salvation of souls.

The reader ought to keep in mind that in any endeavor carried out by man, there will be mistakes. Sometimes they come about unwittingly and result in unwanted effects. Unfortunately, history may judge people and events accordingly. It's not just, but it is done almost continually, and the views of great numbers of individuals are tragically affected. But if we are to require what comes across as perfection or near-perfection in looking upon the past, it will readily be concluded that those of the present would be unwilling or incapable of carrying out any notable course of action for fear of not living up to their impossible and unreasonable one-sided standards!

The three most written about events among these regrettable "apologies" are the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the "Holocaust." The average (brain-dead) person usually concludes by what he is taught (classroom indoctrination) that these are three of the most tragic events to have ever happened. Is this true, or is there a program of propaganda (lies) to mislead the unwary for dishonorable purposes?

To the modern mind the word "inquisition" suggests torture chambers, flames, persecution, unjustifiable cruelty, and fiendish injustice. Interestingly, in its original Latin it signifies "an inquiry" or "a formal investigation."

The basic, and therefore, most important question that needs to be answered in as much as one is able, is, why would someone such as an Isabella of Spain want to institute such a program as this? Why would a Phillip II, also of Spain, some 80 years later, revive it? (I have chosen these two among many others because it is the Spanish Inquisition which is the most well known, and also the most loudly condemned.)

Prior to the thirteenth century, the Church dealt with heretics with imprisonment, banishment, excommunication or (seldom) death. With the pontificate of Pope Innocent III, commencing in 1198, it marked the beginning of a general rigor on the part of the Church toward heresy-the rigor that was to find its final and most extreme expression in Spain under Isabel. "Use against heretics the spiritual sword of excommunication, and if this does not prove effective, use the material sword," he (Pope Innocent III) wrote the French bishops. "The civil laws decree banishment and confiscation; see that they are carried out."

Why would the spiritual father of Christendom take such a stern stance? Pope Innocent and the men of his time thought themselves justified by the nature and magnitude of the injury they were preventing the heretics (the Manichees) of southern France from doing to society. The Manichees were creating untold havoc with their bizarre heresies.

It was Pope Gregory IX, though, who first established "an extraordinary and permanent tribunal for heresy trials"-the institution which became known as the Inquisition. It may clearly be concluded from the statements of these two Popes that the need of such an institution had its origin in the Church. Keep in mind the goal was for the good of all-Church and State.

There are numerous examples from the past, seemingly beginning with Emperor Constantine and his Christian successors, that heresy was treated as a political crime, a form of high treason, among civil officials. Please stop to think just how far we have drifted from this position which is truly correct. (The diabolical "Masonic freedom" that we experience today will do anything within its power to keep the truths of the Roman Church from the masses.)

The reason that heresy ought to be considered a political crime is because it effects the common welfare or common good of the people. It divides, or separates the spiritual unity of the people and facilitates the ability of the Church's enemies to conquer.

Few people consider this aspect because of the mind conditioning that has taken place since the Protestant Revolution of the 16th century, whereby the desire to separate the truths of the Church and Society first surfaced. Assuredly, most will consider "heresy" as a "difference of opinion!"

It is precisely for this reason that the Inquisition was begun in Spain in the 15th century. After having overcome the infidel Moslems after nearly 800 years of occupying all or part of Spain, Isabel resolved to complete the rehabilitation of her beloved country. She knew full well that political unity was but the first step. Spiritual unity was the second, and more decisive step. There were numerous things to consider, for the Jews, whether they were converted (Conversos or Marranos)or not, had been in Spain for many centuries and were well-entrenched in all the major aspects of Spanish life (religion, government, finance, etc.). Her express desire was to seek out any and all who were engaged in the undermining of the Christian religion. Nothing more, but nothing less. Only in this way would there be true unity in Spain. Most of the guilty were Jews who had publicly converted to Christianity, but in secret continued to practice their false religion and at times enticed others to practice their Judaism. The Jew that admitted to being a Jew was not affected by the Inquisition.

It must be noted that modern history books present the Inquisition in such a manner that the purpose and actions are greatly distorted. The end result is that very few have an understanding that is anywhere close to being accurate. The treatment of prisoners is a good example of this distorted history. Civil prisoners at times would purposely make a heretical statement in order to be put into a prison of the Inquisition because they were treated much better (decently). If the Inquisitorial prisons were "so bad" would they have done such a thing? One must also keep in mind that if certain methods used at that time seem unacceptable to us, they were the norm at that time.

In 1559, when Philip II revived the Inquisition he had not one, but two types of heretics to weed out and defend against. The first were the same types of Conversos that plagued Isabel, but also the Protestants. (Here is yet another case where evidence seems to indicate that the Jews were very much behind the promulgation of anti-Catholic teachings.) He, too, wished to stamp out heresy, or prevent it. Philip understood, like his ancestors, the need to keep his dominions as pure in faith as was humanly possible. He considered it his first duty as king to preserve and maintain the Catholic religion.

In as much as people of the past and present will argue about the Spanish Inquisition, there are certain facts that are indisputable. As long as the Inquisition lasted, there were no religious wars, no burning churches, no slaughtered priests in Spain. Germany, France, England, and the Netherlands, tragically, were not able to avoid these and other struggles.

If this method seems cruel to us, it is because we have forgotten the cruel fate, the long crucifixion of a (once) great people, to which it was the harsh reply. It did have the claim of proceeding judicially. It could at least claim that the evil it caused was far less than the horrors it averted.

The Crusades were essentially a conflict between Christendom and Islam. After the Christian defeat at Manzikert in Turkey in 1071, not only the ancient Christian civilization in the Holy Land, but Europe itself lay in mortal peril.

It was Pope Urban II, in 1095, who called for the crusade.

The First Crusade took place in July 1097, and was successful. The Seventh, and last, led by the Franciscan Tertiary, St. Louis IX, of France, ended in defeat. The goal was to defend Christendom from these infidels and to rightfully take back the Holy Land which had been lost prior to the Third Crusade.

There are those who interestingly refer to Isabel of Spain as the last Crusader for having driven the Moors (Moslems) out of Spain in 1492.

The threat of Islamic domination was very real for many centuries, for it must be remembered that this false religion was extremely aggressive and spread by the sword. Pacifism was hardly an option if Christian Civilization was to survive.

The last of the "apologies" which will be covered in this article is that which concerns the "Holocaust." We have been told that the less than honorable attitude toward the Jews which existed prior to WW II made it possible for the "Holocaust" to happen!

This is truly an unbelievable statement, because, to begin with, how many are aware that there were German Jewish bankers who funded Hitler's efforts. They certainly didn't seem to have any qualms of conscience in sacrificing their own people in order to reach their goal! I wonder who possessed the wrong attitude in this case?

Secondly, ever since the time of Christ and especially in the last millennium, these cursed people, whether true Jew or Khazar, have continually worked to undermine Christian society. If the treatment these people have received over the centuries has seemed unjustified, perhaps it should be considered how, for the most part, they have brought it upon themselves. The evidence is overwhelming, though you won't readily find it in your local library. These antichrists have used probably every devise known to man to try to overturn Christianity, while pharisaically claiming innocence.

The European Catholics of the past understood the problem and approached it realistically. This is why there were constant warnings from several of the Popes of the Middle Ages. Catholics at that time were warned about mere association with these people. If we think the behind-the-scenes control that is witnessed today is new, perhaps we should read the politically incorrect history of the past 500 years so we may better understand the events of today.

Remember, too, and most importantly, the very reason for such an attitude that has been shown above. They rejected Jesus Christ and brought down upon their heads a most dreadful curse. As a people, this rejection has continued to this day.

For Karol Wojtyla to announce to the world that the Inquisition and the Crusades were mistakes for which the Church is guilty of sin, proves to any reasonable Catholic that he is a traitor of the highest order. In both cases we are talking about the preservation and maintenance of the Catholic religion and Christian Civilization. The ecumenistic utopian (masonic) world in which he lives is in direct opposition to the designs of Holy Mother Church. One might wonder if he would condemn the wars of the Israelites, commanded by God Himself. If he were a true pope he would defend (apologize) such actions instead of treacherously betraying the Christian Faith.

Return to Contents

Return to Homepage.