Do the Illuminati Hate Jews?
By Henry Makow, Ph.D. – April 1, 2006

"Where the rubber meets the road, the Illuminati have an absolutely satanic hatred for Jews," a contact who did business with a prominent Illuminati family notified me.

"Jew-hatred spiritually energizes them," he continued.

"I read too much out there that falls for the lie that the conspiracy is Jewish at its highest levels. Granted, it appears that way, and a lot of data is hard to argue with, but I have first-hand knowledge of the depth of Jew-hatred among people who are the real thing. These people (at least the ones I knew) are not Zionist Bankers, but totally Gentile."

To all appearances Jews have a disproportionate role in the Illuminati New World Order. How do we account for this apparent contradiction?

Illuminati defector Svali offers a clue. Illuminati Jews have renounced their Jewish beliefs and background. She says the Illuminati hate Israel.

"The Illuminati are racist in the extreme... Yes, there are some very powerful Jewish people in this group. For instance, the Rothschild family literally runs the financial empire in Europe (and indirectly the States), and are a well-known Jewish family...But to rise to power in the Illuminati, a Jewish person would be forced to renounce their faith, and to give their first allegiance to Lucifer and the beliefs of the Illuminati."

Following the research of Rabbi Marvin Antelman, Barry Chamish has exposed the heresies of Sabbatai Zvi and Jacob Frank that created a schism in European Jewry in 17th and 18th century respectively. This was essentially a satanic movement that turned Jewish teaching on its ear. Everything that was forbidden by God was now permitted. Sin and not righteousness was the way to salvation. Sexual depravity (especially wife swapping orgies) was encouraged as a means to destroy the family and the social fabric. They wanted a clean slate on which to redesign society in their image.

A fierce hatred developed between satanic Jews and the rabbis who tried to expel the heretics from the community. This schism was partially reflected in the divide between western Jews who shed their religion for "secular humanism and reason" and eastern Jews who remained Orthodox. Many secular Jews became radicals as they tried to replace their lost religion with belief in a worldly utopia. The Illuminati were able to dupe them with their fraudulent Communist promise. "Change the World" is their deceptive slogan.

The satanic leader Jacob Frank (1726-91) formed an alliance with the Rothschilds, the power behind the Illuminati. They started the Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism, which posed as "liberation from the confines of Jewish inner law and ghetto." They encouraged Jews to assimilate, inter-marry, change their names and even convert to Christianity. They tapped selected followers to advance their satanic agenda by subverting Christian civilization from within.

Sen. John Kerry's background fits this profile perfectly. His grandfather was a Frankest Jew "Kohn" who adopted an Irish name and converted to Catholicism. His father worked for the CIA. His mother was part of the Forbes family, which made its fortune in the drug trade (opium), like many of America's "first families." Kerry himself is a member of the Illuminati Skull and Bones.

During the last election, Wesley Clark discovered he was half-Jewish. Madeleine Albright admitted she was Jewish. Her father Josef Korbel was Condoleezza Rice's mentor at Denver University. Before that he was accused of stealing art treasures from a prominent Czech family when he was a Communist official in the post-war period.

The picture that emerges is a conspiracy of gentiles, part Jews and hidden Jews united by allegiance to a satanic world dictatorship (essentially an outgrowth of British imperialism.) Winston Churchill, who was Jewish and the current Baron Jacob Rothschild, whose mother was not Jewish, fit this description.

There is a surprising list of American Presidents who are suspected of being Jewish or part-Jewish including Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson.

It is possible that members of the Nazi hierarchy were also part Jewish. Hitler's grandmother left the Rothschild's employment in Vienna when she became pregnant with Hitler's father. In his 1964 book "Before Hitler Came" author Dietrich Bronder, a Jew himself, claims the following personages all had Jewish blood: Hesse, Goering,Strasser, Goebbels, Rosenberg, Frank, Himmler, von Ribbentrop, Heydrich and many more. (Kardel, "Hitler Founder of Israel" p.4)

My own hypothesis is that WWII was contrived by the Illuminati to destroy German nationalism and nation/race concepts in general. (They neglected to tell their Nazi branch about this, of course. This is behind Rudolf Hess' mission and imprisonment. ) The Illuminati also used the war to purge Europe of Jews who weren't allied to them. The Jewish holocaust created a rationale for the State of Israel, which was intended to dominate the Middle East, serve as an excuse for WWIII, and as capital of the future Masonic world government. There is plenty of evidence that the Nazis collaborated with Zionists, and that the Zionists betrayed their Jewish brethren during the war. Sabbatean Jews in the West prevented Jews from escaping from Europe.

(See also my "Zionism: Compulsory Suicide for Jews" and "Why the Jews Went Quietly")

"Zionism is but an incident of a far reaching plan," said leading American Zionist Louis Marshall, counsel for bankers Kuhn Loeb in 1917. "It is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon."

The far-reaching plan is Illuminati world dictatorship. The Illuminati is the highest echelon of Freemasonry, an occult secret society dedicated to Lucifer. The world's central bankers have intermarried with the richest dynastic families of Europe and America to bring about world hegemony. They instigated wars and depressions to degrade and destroy humanity. The American people have been financing their wars since 1914.

They undermine society by attacking its sources of communal resistance: race, religion, nation and family. Jews are a convenient instrument for social dissolution because they don't belong to the majority religion or race. (Homosexuality and lesbian feminism are used to dissolve family.) Jews are easily brainwashed and can be placed in positions of power and influence. They may suffer the consequences if the Illuminati no longer require their services, or if the people realize 9-11 and the War on Terror are a Neo-Con implemented fraud.

In the meantime, "the Jews" serve as a convenient scapegoat for the Illuminati. It is easy to forget that the majority of Jews are patriotic citizens who would like to assimilate if only their country wasn't being dismantled. They are not part of this world government agenda. (E.g. I am a Canadian. The leading Canadian nationalist is Mel Hurtig, a Jew.)

In addition, it's easy to forget that non-Jewish national elites have betrayed their countries and succumbed to the Illuminati. Look at the membership lists of the Illuminati "Skull and Bones" or elite "Pilgrim Society" to see that the vast majority of adherents are non-Jews. Read "Secret Societies of America's Elite" by Steven Sora for the non-Jewish side of the criminal US Illuminati leadership.

Svali suggests a reason why the Illuminati hate religious Jews: "The Jews historically fought against the occult. See Deuteronomy and the Old Testament for how God through the Jewish people tried to cleanse the land of the occult groups that were operating there, such as those who worshiped Baal, Ashtarte, and other Canaanite and Babylonian gods."

It's time Jews rediscovered this heritage and took up this mandate again.

In conclusion, a satanic heresy has corrupted Judaism. These Satanists are part of the Illuminati and hate Jews possibly because Jews were supposed to represent a moral God, or for the usual racist reasons.

The long-term goal of the Illuminati is to divert mankind from its Divine purpose and subjugate and change it using sophisticated means of mind control (i.e. the mass media, "education," sexual "liberation," migration, diversity etc.)

Humanity is a prisoner in Lucifer's laboratory.

Why are Christians such Pussies?

By Henry Makow Ph.D. – May 13, 2006

"The Da Vinci Code"

When an innocuous cartoon of the Prophet Mohamed was published, Muslims rioted and burned down embassies. But next week, a major Hollywood movie will challenge the veracity of Jesus Christ and Christians are sitting on their hands.

I have not read "The Da Vinci Code" but I understand it asserts that Christ married Mary Magdalene and had children. His descendants are still alive. Essentially it challenges the Bible story and the Christian belief that Christ was the Son of God. It transfers Christ's prestige to an Illuminati-like secret society that is protecting Christ's descendants against the Catholic Church.

The book and movie are yet another blasphemous assault on Christianity trumpeted by the full force of the Illuminati-owned mass media.

Recently Carolyn, a Christian reader from Maine, expressed her frustration in this email.

"Next week with 'the Da Vinci code,' "They" are going to call Jesus a liar as far as His Death and resurrection are concerned. Then they are going to claim his blue blood line. This would make Jesus a liar... wouldn't it? It is so twisted what they are selling and i count myself lucky to have a least read The Scriptures. 'My Feet Are Fitted With Readiness.' (Corinthians 6:15) What is going to be said about Jesus next week is apostasy."

I replied: "People like you should show their outrage publicly."

She replied: "HOW??? With Whom??? Where is the Remnant???"

I shrugged my shoulders. To change the metaphor, why are Christians such lambs? Why do they always need a shepherd to lead them and a flock to be part of? Isn't Christ a personal matter? Can't they act as individuals? Can't they take initiative? Organize a picket or protest in some other imaginative way?

When Muslims in Afghanistan heard that the Koran was being flushed down the toilet in far away Guantanamo Bay, they rioted. For them the battle against Satan is very real, and they are willing to sacrifice their lives. This is why they pose the last remaining religious obstacle to the Satanic New World Order.

Similarly, question the details of the Holocaust, and Jews will cite "hate crimes" and put you in jail.

But do the same thing with the central fact of Christianity and there is a call for a boycott from the Catholic Church. Well, dah. That's not very scary.

Why are Christians such pussies? They sat idly by while Christ was crucified! Their reaction wasn't even a factor in that decision.

I have heard various explanations. Christ said, "Turn the other cheek" and "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

On the other hand, there is the example of Christ turning over the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. Let's follow Christ's example.

What good are Christian beliefs if you don’t stand up for them? Where is the self-respect of Christians if they allow their beliefs to be trampled on?

But it gets worse. Some so-called Christians like George W. Bush actually serve Satan. He is a member of a satanic secret society, the Illuminati Skull and Bones.

Christian chaplains serve with the American army in Iraq and minister to soldiers. Everyone should know Sept. 11 was a hoax designed to justify imperialist wars and domestic repression. It was perpetrated by the Illuminati bankers in London with the help of their puppets in the US government. You just have to look at who bought the Put Options on the airline stock to know the true perpetrators. (Of course this info has been suppressed.)

Christians should file "hate crime" law suits against the makers of the "Da Vinci Code." On the Judgment Day we will be graded NOT by what we believed but by what we did. It's time Christians stood up for Christ.

Bankers Demand We Obey Them

by Henry Makow Ph.D. – May 19, 2006

Letter from "your globalist friend"

A spine-chilling letter has surfaced on the Internet that dispels any illusions that we are free humans beings living in a benevolent democracy. The letter from "your globalist friend" advises citizens of the world "you are our property" and must accept servitude for "your own good."

"The days of putting a stop to us have long since past," he writes sounding like Big Brother.

"We have full control of the earth and its finance, along with the major media propaganda, and there is simply no way any nation or power can defeat us... We can send American or European troops to wherever we like, whenever we like, and for whatever purpose we like, and you dutifully go about our business...How much more evidence do you need? ...Does it not seem reasonable that you simply obey and serve us?"

I know I promised to lighten up this summer but this is too important to ignore. I warn you this material can induce a kind of schizophrenia because it provides a vision of reality so different from the one we are given by the mass media.

The six-page letter was written in the autumn of 1999 but didn't receive broad circulation. An anonymous reader sent it to Greg Szymanski Monday and he posted it on his web site www.arcticbeacon.com . I present the highlights here but urge you to read it in full. I also urge you to send a donation to Greg who is one of the most courageous and prolific writers on the net. He operates on a shoestring.

The letter could be a hoax but I believe it is authentic. It is consistent with what many conspiracy researchers have discovered independently, yet more vivid and insightful than anything they could fabricate.

Whether or not it is authentic, the really important question is: Does it describe reality for you?

The Letter

Our globalist friend says he wants to explain political reality to us so we " might know how to behave in the New Order now taking shape on the earth."

He exults in the fact that he represents a secret force that controls the world yet is invisible to all.

"We run everything, yet, you do not know who to attack. I must say this hidden hand is wonderfully devised and without any known historical precedent on this scale. We rule the world and the world cannot even find out who is ruling them. This is truly a wonderful thing. In our media we present before you exactly what it is we want you to do. Then, as if in a flash, our little servants obey."

But he does identify himself. He clearly represents the central bankers: "Your own money has served to forge the chains we bind you with, since we are in control of all money."

As I have said, the central banking cartel is the mainspring of the New World Order. By giving foreign private interests the power to create money based on our credit, our predecessors wrote the epitaph of Western Civilization. These private interests naturally bought control of everything and everyone and they now want to institutionalize their control globally. This is the essence of the "war on terror."

"Our kingdom is the kingdom of money," our globalist friend writes. "We have given you a piece of paper or some numbers on a computer screen that we have termed 'money.' It is backed up by nothing and proven by nothing but what we say it is. We create it from nothing, we print it, we loan it, we give it its value, and we take its value away. All things that have to do with money are in our hands."

Our globalist friend reveals that the bankers have a symbiotic relationship with us. We produce profits by borrowing from them.

"We want you to be in the system. When you are buying a house, we not only receive the tax revenue to use for our purposes, but we gain large increases from the interest on the loan. You may pay for your house two or three times over from the interest alone. The interest is also taxed which is again placed for use in those sectors of influence we choose. We do not want you to escape free and that is why we have made it as we have."

One of those "sectors of influence" is education. He says our taxes pay for "the indoctrination of your children in the public schools we have set up. We want them to grow up well trained into the system of our thinking. Your children will learn what we want them to learn, when we want them to learn it, and you pay for it."

"You are our property. We will not permit you to buy or sell unless you submit to our mark of authority. If you go to court against us, we will wear you out there and in the end you will lose. If you use violence, we will end up having you in one of our labor camps, more specifically called prison industries. You need our money, our entertainments, our fuel, and our utilities to function and if you don't have them, you feel deprived. By this, you are made to yield to our will."

Our Leaders

Our political leaders are chosen from the ranks of criminals and perverts because they can be made to obey using blackmail. Exposing President Clinton's depravity was "very helpful in adjusting the moral habits of the youth downward."

He scoffs at attempts to impeach Clinton: "He is useful to us and he will not be removed by anyone until we are ready to have him removed...the leader we set up will be there until it serves us to have another. At that time we place our proposed leader before you and you vote for what we want. In that way we give you the vain voting exercise in the belief you had something to do with placing your president in office."

He cites Sadaam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic as leaders who refuse to obey. "There is only glory in following our purposes and doing what we say. If one does not, there will be such a sad and tragic result. I would really have you spared of such an end."

As for smaller fry, he says rebellion will merely serve as an excuse for more repressive laws. They can tie dissenters up in court, which they also control. They can destroy people like David Koresh and discredit them at the same time. "The more you wiggle, the more we squeeze."

He says Liberals and Conservatives "serve with the stamp of our approval but they are not allowed to present the real issues. By creating controversy on all levels, no one knows what to do. So, in all of this confusion, we go ahead and accomplish what we want with no hindrance."

He says the media occupy the masses with sex and violence so the masses are programmed to fight mindlessly and "do not have the integrity or brain power to deal with the really important matters which are left entirely in our hands."

China and Russia do not present a challenge: "We have no fear of Russia or China for we are already in full control of their system of things. China knows that we can freeze any number of its corporations in America and all of its capital at the stroke of a pen."

Conclusion

We are taught that society is participating in an age of enlightenment and progress but this is a ruse. In fact a grotesque claw reaches out of the past to clutch humanity in its sharp talons.

Sooner or later we will have to recognize that central bankers and their allies have organized a diabolical conspiracy against mankind. Human events make sense when we realize disciples of Lucifer are establishing a New World Order to serve their evil god. I know this sounds too bizarre to be true. They count on that.

The "Letter from Your Globalist Friend" is consistent with the other great revelations of the invisible government: the Harold Rosenthal Interview; the House Report; the Svali Disclosures; Quiet Weapons for Silent Wars; The Report from Iron Mountain; The Red Symphony and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Most of these can all be accessed through Google or my site www.savethemales.ca

I don’t have space to discuss the Jewish role here. I have discussed it elsewhere.

I'm afraid totalitarian excesses of the past are a harbinger of the future. Right now, we are pampered slaves living in a fool's paradise. But if we rebel, our globalist friend says our comfortable illusion will suffer a rude awakening.

Will we sacrifice our principles for the sake of survival? That is the question we must increasingly ask. Our globalist friend makes clear that they cannot rule unless they dupe us into performing their will and paying for it to boot. Who will we obey and serve?

North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 19, 2006

The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.

Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.

On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.

While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.

Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.

Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.

The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:

The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.

Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.

When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”

Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.

The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:

We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.

We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.

The Bible verses Catholic Tradition

Who is Trustworthy?

I imagine that just about everyone reading here is aware that, as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the Word of God includes both the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, as interpreted by the Teaching Authority of the Church.

95. "'It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.'[DV 10 # 3.]"

97. "'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God' [DV 10] in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pp. 34, 35)

The RCC claims Tradition originates with God and, in fact, some certainly may. However, it does seem that a great deal of Rome’s Tradition – with a capital “T” – wells up out of the minds of men. Surely, it can be easily demonstrated that the men, the church fathers, so frequently referenced by modern Catholic apologists and wannabe apologists took different views of issues at different times in their careers.

To this day, Romish apologists can be shown to be influenced by their own prejudices in matters of foundational importance. One example might be drawn from the response of a well-respected RCC apologist, writing in Catholic Digest, to a question concerning Jesus’ siblings.

“If anyone without doctrinal background and awareness of Christian tradition would simply pick up the Gospels and read these references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, I suppose he would take for granted that they were the children of Mary and Joseph. But it is a remarkable thing that none of the early Fathers or writers of the Church – except possibly Tertullian, who was a heretic – ever thought of considering these brethren as children of Mary. Some took it for granted that they were children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, but there was always a firm and constant doctrinal tradition that Mary had remained a virgin all her life. Origin and St. Basil are particularly strong in pointing this out.” (J. D. Conway, What the Church Teaches, Harper & Brothers:New York (1962), p. 87; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

Just a single paragraph lifted from a longer study, yet so many errors and so many untruths. I do not accuse Monsignor Conway of deliberately lying, though I do believe him to have accepted as true many lies that originated in the infallible Teaching Authority of the RCC. Let us examine in detail a few points made by Conway.

“But it is a remarkable thing that none of the early Fathers or writers of the Church – except possibly Tertullian… ever thought of considering these brethren as children of Mary.” That is patently not true, as I demonstrated in some detail in my article Mary – Eternally Virgin? . In that article, the reader will discover that Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church and an early writer of the Church, apparently indeed did have such thoughts:

"There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church;. . . But it is time that we should pay attention to the beginning of Clement's own narrative, which he addresses to James the Lord's brother. " (Philip Schaff, Ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol. 3, Jerome, The Preface to the Books of Recognitions of St. Clement, p. 1135-6) (Emphasis not in original)

The Clement Jerome refers to – who addressed his own narrative to James the Lord’s Brother – was a Bishop of Rome, a pope, if you will. Surely his writings, while not infallible in this case, merit some consideration.

Moving right along, I offer the words of another early Church Father, writer and Doctor of the Church, Cyril of Jerusalem, who also appears to have given some thought to the subject:

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep; — And He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; (for if thou believe not the one witness, thou hast twelve witnesses;) then He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; (if they disbelieve the twelve, let them admit the five hundred;) after that He was seen of JAMES, HIS OWN BROTHER, and first Bishop of this diocese. Seeing then that such a Bishop originally saw Christ Jesus when risen, do not thou, his disciple, disbelieve him. But thou sayest that His brother James was a partial witness; afterwards He was seen also of me Paul, His enemy; and what testimony is doubted, when an enemy proclaims it? "I, who was before a persecutor, now preach the glad tidings of the Resurrection." (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, S. Cyril, Archibishop of Jerusalem, Lecture 14, P. 269) (Emphasis not in original)

Did you notice Cyril's clear statement, "He was seen of James, HIS OWN BROTHER?" Can any words be more clear? Can there be any legitimate understanding of these words other than what they plainly say? From Cyril’s words alone, one can argue that some of the early Church Fathers not only gave the thought some consideration but actually believed it to be true.

Leo the Great, another early Church Father, writer, pope and Doctor of the Church, penned these words, thereby manifesting that he not only had considered the idea but also believed it to be true:

“it is evident that after the incarnation of the Lord no one can be saved, even of those who hold His faith, who have not the life of faith; since it is written, They acknowledge that they know God, but in deeds they deny Him (Titus 1:16). And John says, He that saith that he knows Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar (1 John 2:4). JAMES ALSO, THE BROTHER OF THE LORD, writes saying, Faith without works is dead (James 2:20). If, then, believers now are not saved without good works, while the unbelieving and reprobate without good action were saved by our Lord descending into hell, then the lot of those who never saw the incarnation of the Lord was better than that of these who have been born after the mystery of His incarnation." (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 12, The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great, Epistle 15, pp. 919-20) (Emphasis not in the original)

Well, the foregoing sources were but men and, as even a Catholic apologist will admit, fallible. How about an ecumenical council of the Church? These words from one such council clearly show that, as late as A.D. 695, there was a strong body of belief that Jesus of Nazareth had at least one sibling:

". . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water." Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down" (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 14; The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called The Quinisext Council, A.D. 692, Canon 32, p.716) (Emphasis not in original)

There are other proofs that Monsignor Conway was talking through his hat when he claims that NONE of the early Church Fathers or writers, except perhaps Tertullian, ever considered that Christ had siblings, but interested readers can read their words on the linked page.

Conway lays a label on Tertullian, whom he called a heretic. Well, history certainly records that Tertullian was the most important of the converts to Montanism.

“[Montanism’s] greatest conquest was the gifted and fiery, but eccentric and rigoristic Tertullian. He became in the year 201 or 202, from ascetic sympathies, a most energetic and influential advocate of Montanism, and helped its dark feeling towards a twilight of philosophy, without, however, formally seceding from the Catholic Church, whose doctrines he continued to defend against the heretics. At all events, he was not excommunicated, and his orthodox writings were always esteemed.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Ante-Nicene Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company:Grand Rapids (1987), p.420)

In as much as Tertullian held to Montanism, Conway’s assertion that the man was a heretic clearly holds water. Yet other Catholic writers, including Pope John Paul II, are not put off from using Tertullian’s teachings to support their doctrinal arguments. In the encyclical Fides et Ratio, John Paul II uses Tertullian’s words to support his arguments concerning the distinction between theology and philosophy. And isn’t this something we often see with Catholic theologians and apologists? A source is a heretic or mighty man of God, depending upon how his words are to be used. This is one of the major failings of reliance on Tradition for dogma and doctrine.

After discounting Tertullian’s opinions as those of a heretic, Monsignor Conway then calls upon another Doctor of the Church, early church father and writer – Saint Basil – to support the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Interestingly, Conway also points to Origin to lend strength to the dogma of Mary’s unrelenting virginity. This calling upon the work of Origen is particularly interesting when one considers Conway’s scathing use of the label HERETIC in reference to Tertullian (whose position on the issue apparently ran contrary to that of the Monsignor). Tertullian was not excommunicated, but Origen was in fact anathematized by a Church council.

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema. Medieval Sourcebook: Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553, Canon 11 [Denzinger 223])

An ecumenical council anthematized Origen and his writings, yet Conway – and any number of other Catholic theologians and apologists draw support for their positions from his writings. Once again, proof that a figure, ancient or modern, can be either a dog or a goat, depending upon the purpose of the Catholic writer. This is Tradition. And it is utterly unreliable as a source of doctrinal truth.

One final comment on Conway’s words quoted above. The opening sentence carries very heavy elitist overtones. The inference is that “anyone without doctrinal background and awareness of Christian tradition” is unequipped to understand or grasp biblical truth. Yet, as I have shown, Conway – an apologist who surely must have had both a doctrinal background and an awareness of Christian (read Catholic) tradition – manifested his own inability, or unwillingness, to understand biblical truth.

God’s truth is in the Sacred Scriptures. Look for it there, not in the self-serving utterances of men with axes to grind. When presented with doctrinal statements or issues of a theological nature – even on this board – I urge the reader not to accept them at face value. Rather, open the Scriptures and prayerfully search to see what the Lord God had to say on the issue at hand.