Unholy Smoke & Fire: Austria v Italy

SMOKE

BEGINNING WITH CARDINAL MANNING'S PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE 'ONE SOLUTION' TO THE 'DIFFICULTY' OF THE POPE'S LOSS OF HIS TEMPORAL POWER:

'There is only one solution of the difficulty, a solution, I fear impending, and that is, the terrible scourge of Continental war, a war which will exceed the horrors of any of the wars of the first Empire. And it is my firm conviction that, in spite of all obstacles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ will be put again in his own rightful place. But that day will not be until his adversaries will have crushed each other with mutual destruction.' (The Tablet, January 24, 1874).

Later the same year of Manning's pronouncement, W. E. Gladstone wrote the following in Appendix C to his Vatican Decrees:

'Compare the recent and ominous forecasting of the future European policy of the British Crown in an Article from a Romish Periodical for the current month, which has direct relation to these matters, and which has every appearance of proceeding from authority.

'“Surely in any European complication, such as may any day arise, nay, such as must ere long arise, from the natural gravitation of the forces, which are for the moment kept in check and truce by the necessity of preparation for their inevitable collision, it may very well be that the future prosperity of England may be staked in the struggle, and that the side which she may take may be determined, not either by justice or interest, but by a passionate resolve to keep up the Italian Kingdom at any hazard.” - The 'Month' for November, 1874: 'Mr. Gladstone's Durham Letter,' p. 265.'

(From: The Vatican Decrees In Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance: A Political Expostulation, by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.; published London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1874; p. 32).

Some years later, reflecting on Cardinal Manning's pronouncement, the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, Editor of the Methodist Times, gave the following insight into his utterance - in the issue of August 6th, 1896, he wrote:

'I was simply horrified at the calmness with which he declared that he would be willing to deluge the whole of Europe with blood in order to destroy the unity of Italy and recover the temporal power of the Pope. He also expressed a conviction that the German Empire was very insecure, and would probably be shattered in the course of the great war which he prophesied would destroy both the unity of Germany and the unity of Italy, in order to restore the Pope to the throne of Rome.'

(As cited in the Protestant Truth Society publication: Is Rome behind the War? by J. A. Kensit, 1918; p. 13).

And in his The Papal Conquest (1909) the Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D., recounted the following:

'Some few years ago, here in Venice, I had much pleasant intercourse with Dr. Andrew D. White of Cornell University, and late Ambassador at Berlin of the United States of America. Speaking together one day of the Hague Conference of 1899, at which he sat as President of the American Delegation, he told me the following incident. The Conference had finished its work, and he was bidding farewell to the “House in the Wood,” when he found at its door, in a towering passion, a leading Roman Catholic diplomat who represented one of the great Catholic Powers. Dr. White said to him : “Step into my carriage, and drive home with me to dinner and unburden your mind.” He did so. The cause of his wrath was as follows :–

'When the Conference was being arranged for, the Pope claimed, as the world knows, to be represented at it, not only as a temporal sovereign, but as the world's great peace-maker, the representative on earth of the Prince of Peace. He moved heaven and earth to enforce his claim; but of course it was rejected without discussion, as the very idea of such a thing was out of the question. Had it been entertained, Italy would have refused to enter the Conference, and England, and probably other powers, would have done the same; hence the Conference would necessarily have been given up. However, at the closing meeting of the Conference, as Dr. White said, “to the amazement of all, and almost to the stupefaction of many,” M. de Staal, the representative of the Netherlands, handed a paper to the Secretary to read. It turned out to be a letter from his Queen to the Pope, in which she indicated that it was not the fault of her Government that he was not represented at the Conference. The paper also contained the Pope's reply, in which he magnified his office as the world's peace-maker, and reiterated his incontestable right as such to be represented. It was the Pope's letter with its mendacious statements and preposterous claims that roused the anger of this Roman Catholic Delegate, who, once seated in the carriage, delivered himself as follows (and now I am quoting, not from memory, but from Dr. White's Autobiography which he has just sent me) :–

'“The Vatican has always been, and is to-day, a storm-centre. The Pope and his advisers have never hesitated to urge on war, no matter how bloody, when the slightest of their ordinary worldly purposes could be served by it. The great religious wars of Europe were entirely stirred up and egged on by them; and, as everybody knows, the Pope did everything to prevent the signing of the treaty of Münster, which put an end to the dreadful Thirty Years' War, even going so far as to declare the oaths taken by the plenipotentiaries at that Congress of no effect. All through the Middle Ages and at the Renaissance period the Popes kept Italy in turmoil and bloodshed for their own family and territorial advantages, and they kept all Europe in turmoil, for two centuries after the Reformation—in fact, just as long as they could—in the wars of religion. They did everything they could to stir up the war between Austria and Prussia in 1866, thinking that Austria, a Catholic power, was sure to win; and then everything possible to stir up the war of France against Prussia in 1870, in order to accomplish the same purpose of checking German Protestantism; and now they are doing all they can to arouse hatred, even to deluge Italy in blood, in the vain attempt to recover the Temporal Power, though they must know that they could not hold it for any length of time even if they should obtain it. . . . Their whole policy is based on stirring up hatred and promoting conflicts from which they hope to draw worldly advantage. In view of all this, one stands amazed at the cool statements of the Vatican letter.”' [Autobiography of Dr. D. White, vol. ii. pp. 349-351 (The Papal Conquest, pp. 313-316).]

FIRE

CONCLUDING WITH COUNT CARLO SFORZA'S TESTIMONY AS TO THE REALITY OF THE INTRIGUE:

'Leo XIII . . . dreamed of the destruction of Italian unity which, he thought, should be dissolved into a federation of little Italian republics under the presidency of the Pope. He dreamed of a departure from Rome [and establishing himself in his “cara Salisburgo” – his dear Salzburg – awaiting the crusade of the Catholic powers] followed by a triumphal return after a victorious war waged by Austria-Hungary against Italy – an idea that Francis Joseph had the good sense to reject. . . .

'Italy and the world remained long in ignorance of these intrigues; in fact, they became known only in 1919 when, through an initiative that I myself undertook [whilst Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs], republican Austria consented to open to us the archives of the Empire for all sorts of historical researches.'

(From: Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins; Count Carlo Sforza; Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 69).

* * * * * *

The following is from Chapter XV of the same work, where Count Sforza recounts the realities of Italy's 'FOREIGN POLICY':

'Italy being engaged in a war with Turkey in 1911, Conrad, the Austro-Hungarian Chief of Staff, put all his influence in Vienna to work in order to gain the old Emperor's consent for a “preventive war” against Italy. Aerenthal did not hesitate to define Conrad's projects “a policy of brigandage,” and Francis Joseph sided with his Minister of Foreign Affairs. Conrad resigned, but continued to preach his great plan among his close friends.

'In the course of his recriminations, Conrad added that Austria should have seized a former opportunity that chance had offered her against Italy, that is, the tragic days of the Messina earthquake. Conrad's intimates and his protector, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, have on several occasions admitted it.

'Conrad's ideas must have appeared to the initiated not far from realization, since the German Ambassador at Rome at that time dared send the Consulta this communication: that it was well understood that in the event of an Austro-Hungarian war with Italy, Germany would remain neutral, the treaty of the Triple Alliance being mute on that hypothesis!

'Proof of the hardiness of myths agreeable to a nation's vanity, these facts, historically certain, have not prevented and will not prevent sentimental German writers from continuing to cast doubts on Italy's loyalty during the period of the Triple Alliance. The truth is that the meticulous study of the diplomatic documents of the period will only demonstrate that if in that mariage de raison which was the Triple Alliance there were thoughts and acts of dubious fidelity, they were chiefly on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The fact is explicable when one recalls that, as regards Italy, the treaty had no positive aims but was entered into for negative reasons. Italy understood that she could not live under the constant menace of a neighbour who detested her by tradition and necessity. (Did we not represent that principle of nationality so hated in Vienna?) Italy felt in her very flesh the spear point of the Trentino, the menace of that powerful and malevolent neighbour; she knew she could expect no protection of law in the anarchic Europe of the post-1878 period; she could only accept an alliance. At least she gained by it the neutralization of any eventual temporal plot of the Vatican which might become dangerous in case of a return to power of the French Right parties.' (ibid. p. 86).

* * * * * * *

ENVOI:

From The Papal Conquest (1909):

'Austria, like the Roman Catholic Church, is Italy's “Eternal Enemy.” ... Her whole policy, especially during recent years, has been one of provocation, and almost of unconcealed hostility. She has made military roads, built forts, and mined bridges, wherever her frontier is contiguous with that of Italy. When Italy was prostrated by the great earthquake disasters in Sicily and Calabria, and every civilized nation in the world was tendering sympathy and help, the Vienna papers said : “See how generous we are not to profit by this opportunity to make war”; and they boasted that the Emperor was with them in entertaining the idea. I have another cartoon, which represents the Pope and the Emperor Francis Joseph rubbing their hands over the catastrophe, the Pope saying : “Serves Italy right, she took from you Lombardy and Venetia,” and the Emperor replying : “Serves Italy right, she took from you the Temporal Power.” Pasolini never spake truer words than when he said that “Italy will always side with the enemies of Austria,” and that “the alliance of France, England, and Italy is the strongest guarantee for civilization, and the freedom of the world.” [Guiseppe Pasolini Memorie Racolte da suo Figlio, pp. 328, 332.] The Vatican looks to the Government of Austria, its bond-servant, to restore the Temporal Power; but, as we have already said, England blocks the way. Austria cannot move in the matter, either to regain Venetia and Lombardy, or to help the Pope to the Temporal Power, until England is humiliated. The Pope and the Church must first find a power to attempt this, find a power that will dare to make war upon England. And a serious war it will be. The Roman Catholic writer in The Month knew that when he said : “It may very well be that the future prosperity of England may be staked in the struggle.”

'Well the world knows – it has again and again been declared – that the Pope and the Church have found such a power in Germany, and that in the person of the Kaiser they have found the very man to inspire and lead the nation in this enterprise. Amongst his [the Kaiser's] great and varied talents, his boundless ambition and self-confidence which would lead him to undertake almost anything, he possesses, in quite a phenomenal degree, these two qualifications for the task – hatred of England and love of the Pope. I believe he stands unique amongst the rulers of the world in this respect; and it is the more strange it should be so, seeing he [the Kaiser] professes to be a Christian and a Protestant. Yet that he possesses, or rather, is possessed by, these two passions [hatred of England and love of the Pope], there can, I think, be no doubt.

'The Pope, as I have already had occasion to say, feels very much at home in the company of Venetians, and talks freely to them on most subjects. In this way the Kaiser and his strange doings form not infrequently a topic of conversation, or at least a subject of passing remark. Indeed, this can hardly be avoided, for his portrait is a prominent object in the Pope's rooms. Here it is on a table, there it hangs on a wall, yonder it is in an album; whilst on his breast, suspended on a massive gold chain, sparkles a magnificent cross, composed entirely of emeralds, a gift of the Kaiser to Leo XIII. When anyone noticing these things calls the Pope's attention to them, a smile of amusement lights up his face as he comes out with his favourite joke about the Kaiser, “Why, he is my best European friend!” The statement is a joke, and yet it is a literal truth. No Catholic fanatic in the world is more punctilious than he is in sending his homage and congratulations, and flattering speeches and presents to the Pope on his ever-recurring personal festivities, such as the anniversaries, the semi-jubilees and jubilees, actual or prospective, of the day on which he was born, or was christened, or became a priest, or began to climb the ecclesiastical ladder, or reached its summit and vaulted into the chair of St. Peter. . . . (pp. 322-324).

'The result of this unholy alliance, of this union in mutual love of each other and detestation of England, is that the Kaiser has become the willing instrument of the Pope and the Vatican for the humiliation of England, in order to [facilitate] the ultimate restoration of the Temporal Power. What Richard Bagot, the Roman Catholic novelist, wrote during the Boer War, in the number of the National Review for May 1900, holds equally true to-day, that “the whole campaign against England was due to the intrigues of the Vatican, which is working, as it has ever worked and ever will work, to promote and encompass the humiliation of England.” [The National Review, May, 1900.]

'Italy has long known that the Vatican has been egging on the German Emperor to invade England, and has for years warned us of our peril. She has done this with all the greater earnestness and persistency that she knows that her own turn will come next. She has told us that just as the naval and military preparations of Germany, carried on with such mad haste and to such an abnormal extent, are, in her opinion, directed against England : so the similar preparations carried on in the same spirit by Austria, are directed against herself ; and that, in the event of England's humiliation, Austria will at once, backed by Germany, attempt to recover Venetia and Lombardy; and then, as Dr. White's eminent Roman Catholic diplomat at the Hague said, Italy will be deluged in blood, in the attempt to restore the Temporal Power.

'I think that Great Britain is pretty well alive now to this peril against which Italy has warned us; and it would be an easy task for me to marshal facts in its support, to show, indeed, that the peril is very great and very near . . . Indeed, I have already written out these facts, but at the last moment I withhold them from a sense of the grave responsibility of publishing anything that might be construed as inciting to war. At the same time, there is less need that I should recount them, as many of them are now widely known, having been discussed in the British Parliament and in the public Press; and as Italy's interpretation of Germany's objective is very generally accepted by men of political complexions as the correct one.

'It has long been known in Italy, and Italy has warned England of the fact, that the original date fixed upon by the Pope and the Kaiser for the carrying out of their nefarious enterprise was 1911-1912. This date has been mentioned also several times in the British Parliament and in the Press. I am in possession of the reasons that led to the selection of this date. They are many and various, some touching Germany, others England, and Italy, and not a few having reference to the disaffected state of Ireland at our own doors, and of Ireland across the ocean. However, I do not intend here to enter further into them, all the more that the partial awakening of England to the danger of the situation has probably spoilt the project for so early a date as the one indicated.' (pp. 327-329).

* * * * * * *

A larger excerpt from The Papal Conquest can be found in the Archive for January 2010 on the World War Armageddon blog.

The Vatican-Serbian Concordat, June 1914 (Part I)

(The above details of the Vatican-Serbian Concordat are taken from the Protestant Truth Society publication of 1918 entitled, Was Rome behind the War? [see the post on this blog from 28 November 2010 for excerpts from this work]. I haven't been able to find the details of this Concordat online - so by clicking on the above image to open it [and then by clicking on it again once opened with the magnifying glass cursor to enlarge it] I hope that a readable version is now available [Parts II & III can be found in posts below this one]).

Back in March 2010 on the World War Armageddon blog thread 'ARMAGEDDON: The Vatican Against Europe' I quoted the following from John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII :

'When Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were gunned down by a pan-Serbian agitator in Sarajevo on June 28, [1914] the emotions prompted by the Serbian Concordat [signed between the Vatican and Serbia a few days earlier on June 24, 1914] became part of the general groundswell of anti-Serbian anger. The concordant nevertheless represented a contribution to the tensions that led the Austrian government to overplay its hand by delivering a humiliating ultimatum to Serbia. There is no indication that Pope Pius X grasped the role of the Holy See in adding to the pressures that brought the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia to the brink. The declaration of war, it is said, threw him into a profound depression from which he never recovered. He died on August 20, 1914 – of a broken heart, it was said.'

(Hitler's Pope; American paperback edition – Penguin Books, 1999, 2000; pp. 57-58).

And I then went on to quote Count Carlo Sforza (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy) from a chapter on 'The Origins of the [First World] War', from his work Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (see the post 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914' from November 2010 on this blog, for the relevant portion from Count Sforza's work) in which he called the rumour of Pope Pius X succumbing to grief at his 'impotence to advert the disaster' of the war as: 'A legend more tenacious than history'; and then to, 'establish the truth as to that legend', he quoted extensively from one of the official letters (the dispatch of July 29, 1914 from Count Palffy, the Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican to Count Berchtold) held within the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that Count Sforza himself had seen.

On 24 June 1914, it was Cardinal Merry del Val (the “Cardinal Secretary of State” at the Vatican) who signed the Concordat with Serbia on behalf of the Pope which gave the Holy See legal powers within the Kingdom of Serbia; the quote (from Count Sforza's work) below from the aforementioned dispatch from Count Palffy to Count Berchtold - from only one month after the signing of the Concordat - reveals Merry del Val's (and Pope “Saint” Pius X's) true sentiments concerning Serbia and the “war spirit” :

'“During the conversation I had two days ago with the Cardinal Secretary of State he spoke spontaneously of the great problems and questions now agitating Europe. It would be impossible to detect in His Eminence's words any spirit whatever of indulgence and conciliation. It is true he characterized the note to Serbia as very harsh, but he nevertheless approved it without any reservation and at the same time expressed, in an indirect way, the hope that the Monarchy would go to the limit. Certainly, added the Cardinal, it was too bad that Serbia had not been humiliated very much sooner, for then it might have been done without putting into play, as today, such immense possibilities. This declaration also corresponds to the Pope's way of thinking, for, in the course of recent years His Holiness has often expressed regret that Austro-Hungary has failed to 'chastise' her dangerous Danubian neighbour.

'“One might wonder for what motive the Catholic Church evinces herself so bellicose at an epoch when she is governed by a chief who is truly a saint, imbued with veritably apostolic ideas. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia the ravaging malady that little by little penetrated the Monarchy to the marrow, and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it.

'“Despite all the other experiments attempted by the Curia in the course of the last decade, Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic State par excellence, the strongest rampart of the Faith which stands in our day for the Church of Christ. The fall of this rampart would signify for the Church the loss of its solidest prop; in the conflicts with the Orthodox Church she would see her most powerful champion struck down.

'“Hence, just as for Austria-Hungary there is an immediate necessity of self-preservation to expel from its organism, even by force if need be, the dissolving malady, there is also for the Catholic Church an indirect necessity of doing or approving everything that would serve to attain that end.

'“In this light, a harmony between the apostolic sentiment and the war spirit can easily be confirmed.”'

(ibid. Count Sforza; British edition, Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 154).

Post Bellum

Pope “Saint” Pius X

The posts that are transcribed below (with a few corrections in spellings, etc.) were originally submitted on the Mail on Sunday's journalist Peter Hitchens's blog and formed a brief correspondence between myself and another contributor on that site.

The title of the Peter Hitchens's thread on which these post appeared under was 'Wednesday Night's Debate' (posted at 1:58 PM on [Thursday] 04 November 2010); the title was in reference to the 'Intelligence Squared' Debate that took place in London the previous evening at which Mr Hitchens (along with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury) debated for the proposition that 'Britain is becoming an anti-Christian country'.

In the course of the speech which he gave (and later transcribed to his blog) Mr Hitchens remarks that the prime cause in the decline of the Christian faith in Western Europe, was in his opinion, mainly caused by all the horrors of 'the First World War, [which was] foolishly and wrongly supported by the churches of Europe.'

To which statement the poster below replied (by first quoting Mr Hitchens) with the following:

"This was caused mainly, in my view, by the First World War, foolishly and wrongly supported by the churches of Europe."

Mr Hitchens, I'm not sure which "churches of Europe" you have in mind, but I wonder if this remark is entirely fair.

Nobody did more to try to prevent the Great War from happening than Pope St. Pius X, who died in 1914 - many believe that the effort (combined with the sadness for what he saw unfolding, almost inevitably, before him) brought about his early death.

Pope Benedict XV tried twice to be the intermediary for peace and bring about a speedy end to the war, in 1916 and again in 1917.

The Catholic Church was told by all sides to be quiet and keep out of it, especially in 1917 by 'establishment' (Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson...) to mind its own business, stick to 'spiritual stuff', and not be concerned with politics - an idea that is particularly interesting when one considers the same type of people later complaining loudly and unreasonably that Pope Pius XII did not do enough in the Second World War to fight the Nazis...

Posted by: G. Sarto 04 November 2010 at 10:56 PM

* * * * * *

To which I began with the following reply:

G. Sarto 04 November 2010 at 10:56 PM, writes:

“Nobody did more to try to prevent the Great War from happening than Pope St. Pius X, who died in 1914 - many believe that the effort (combined with the sadness for what he saw unfolding, almost inevitably, before him) brought about his early death.”

Concerning the claim that Pius X died of 'a broken heart' soon after the outbreak of war:

That this is the official 'version' can be adduced from the following, which is written in the Concise Holy History used in parochial catechisms:

“Pius X did all he could to prevent the war of 1914 and died of grief when he foresaw the evils it was about to unleash.”

The Italian diplomat and anti-Fascist politician Count Carlo Sforza (1872-1952), the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy, in a chapter on “The Origins of the [First World] War”, in his Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (published USA 1944/GB 1946) calls the rumour of Pius X succumbing to grief at his “impotence to advert the disaster” of the war, as: “A legend more tenacious than history”. And then to, “establish the truth as to that legend”, he quotes extensively from one of the many official letters deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen.

As he writes concerning these correspondences: “They reveal that the Vatican saw with satisfaction, at least at the outset, an undertaking in which the crushing of Serbia would entail a diminution of the influence of Russia. . . . In these conversations the Secretary of State [Cardinal Merry del Val] spoke expressly in the name of the Pope . . .”

The relevant portion of Count Sforza's chapter – which quotes at length from a dipatch of July 29 1914 from Count Palffy, the Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican to Count Berchtold – can be found by clicking on my name below [which linked to my previous posting on the World War Armageddon blog entitled, 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914'].

The quote below is from another diplomatic dispatch – this one being that from Baron von Ritter, the Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See – and was written to his Government on 26 July 1914:

“The Pope [Pius X] approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

(Source: Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch [Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War] III, p. 206; as cited in The Vatican Against Europe, by Edmond Paris; The Wickliffe Press [Protestant Truth Society] edition, 1993; p. 47).

Posted by: B Hughes 06 November 2010 at 03:45 AM

* * * * * *

Mr Hughes,

You can quote "anti-fascist" authors all you wish. The fact remains that Pope St. Pius X did everything he could to avert war in the run-up to 1914.

Similarly the fact remains that Benedict XV twice offered to be an intermediary for peace, and was turned down by the allies.

That is a matter of historical record.

Nor was Pope St. Pius X partisan, and quoting a Bavarian Count, cited in a 'Protestant Truth Society' pamphlet, proves nothing.

The normal thing would have been for the Pope to give his blessing to the Austrian armies going off to war - they were,after all, the Holy Roman Empire, so to speak. The fact that the Pope refused to do so (and was very forceful in telling them why!) ought to speak for itself.

Posted by: G. Sarto 06 November 2010 at 05:20 PM

* * * * * *

From G. Sarto's post of 06 November 2010 at 05:20 PM:

'Mr Hughes, You can quote “anti-fascist” authors all you wish.'

The “anti-fascist” author in question was Count Carlo Sforza; to quote him further from the same work – he writes:

'While all diplomatic Europe kept on repeating, “This Lenin cannot last”, the Pope asked me through [Baron] Monti – but under the seal of secrecy – would I if necessary, be able to facilitate the trip of some Catholic priests to Russia. Seeing my surprise, Monti explained (and it was evident that he was repeating the very words of the Pope) : “His Holiness thinks that even these crimes and this blood will one day be of service if it is going to be possible, when the wave of irreligion has passed, to attempt a Catholic evangelization in Russia. Orthodoxy no longer has any deep-rooted life; its end as the official religion offers possibilities which would never have existed so long as a Tsar, 'Protector of the Church', continued to reign.” It was simple and it was true; but courage was required to express it at the Vatican in 1920. I promised my support in whatever form it might be able to take ...' (p. 169).

And Count Sforza writes that while he had been High Commissioner in Turkey (before his return to Rome – after accepting the post of Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) that he had had:

'[C]onversations ... at Constantinople with Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, [on the “Roman question”, which] had prepared me to suppose that the problem was almost on the point of being considered. Having arrived at Constantinople on his way from Jerusalem, the Cardinal had been kind enough to visit me at the Italian Embassy and to thank me for the courtesy with which the Italian Government agents had facilitated his sojourn in the Holy Land. Speaking of his pleasure at observing the excellent relations existing everywhere between Italian agents and the Franciscan missions, he told me that he saw in them the proof that the time was ripe for a conciliation [between the Vatican and the Italian Government]. [And in this matter] I could not but agree with him ...' (pp. 276-277).

It is obvious from the above that though Count Sforza was an “anti-Fascist”; he was not necessarily “anti-Catholic”. By all means, if you wish, discount Baron von Ritter's dispatch from the Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch (as cited in the work later published by the Protestant Truth Society). But can you discount Count Sforza's testimony – in which he cites from official documents held within the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen?

If you have not already done so, I suggest that you read Count Sforza's testimony as to the true opinion of Pope “Saint” Pius X – by clicking on my name below. If you do not wish to reappraise what you've undoubtedly been taught – then that is up to you ...

Posted by: B Hughes 07 November 2010 at 06:10 PM

* * * * * *

Envoi

Pope Pius X was undoubtedly a 'pretended' friend of peace. . . But was he also a pretended friend of Christ . . . ? Or much more besides . . . ? In the words of the Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D.; words he wrote five years before the outbreak of the War:

'[O]ne feels that it is impiety or culpable ignorance to talk, as so many do, of the Pope being the Vicar of the Prince of Peace, and of the Roman Catholic Church as having a mission of peace and of goodwill to mankind. He [the Pope] is, on the contrary, the Vicar of Christ's Adversary [Satan], [who is] “The Prince of this World”; [John xii. 31, xiv. 30.] he [the Pope] is the “Beast” of the Revelation, to whom the “Dragon” [Satan] gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority . . . to make war with the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2, 7.]'

The Papal Conquest (1909), p. 316.

Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914

(Above: cover of first British edition, translated from the French by Drake and Denise de kay and published by Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946)

THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR

'A legend more tenacious than history was formed in 1914 and afterward regarding Pope Pius X's attitude toward the Hapsburg aggression toward Serbia. This legend shows us Pius X praying and fighting against the outbreak of the war, horrified to see Christianity divided into two enemy camps, and dying of grief at the invasion of Belgium and all the horrors of war unchained. The truth is quite otherwise.

'During the war of 1914-18 the religious question had only a minor importance; both camps included Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox members and Mohammedans. Catholic unity did not prevail any more than Mohammedan unity, which seemed so sure of its jihad (the Holy War proclaimed by the Sultan-Caliph, which neither Arab nor Hindu [Indian?] Moslem obeyed). The clergy of the different countries could all invoke Allah or the old God of Armies with opposite hopes.

'One fact, however, during the tragic weeks of July and August, 1914, scandalized European opinion: that the war should have been provoked in the name of God by a powerful and decrepit sovereign, Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary, the most Catholic of all the sovereigns and the most important of all Catholic sovereigns. When this Prince declared that he made war to chastise Serbia, millions of timorous souls imagined that the Pope would intervene to prevent the catastrophe. This hope gave birth to the legend. It was said at the time that Pius X, the moment he knew of the ultimatum to Serbia, had enjoined his Nuncio at Vienna to admonish the old Emperor and King in the name of the Almighty. Then, since the war happened just the same, it was explained that the Ballplatz diplomats and military men of the imperial entourage had prevented Pius X's messenger from talking with the Emperor. And here is the last act of the legend: The Pope having died suddenly on August 20, 1914, it was affirmed that the good Pius had succumbed to grief, having realized his impotence to avert the disaster.

'It is time to establish the truth as to that legend, and here it is:

'As soon as the danger of war became evident, Count Palffy, Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican, several times informed Pius X's Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, of the intentions and the “duties” of the Dual Monarchy. The Cardinal's replies were deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy, correspondence that I have seen. They reveal that the Vatican saw with satisfaction, at least at the outset, an undertaking in which the crushing of Serbia would entail a diminution of the influence of Russia. The latter's prestige was detested by the Roman Church, which viewed it as the principal obstacle to a reconciliation of the Oriental churches with the See of Rome. In these conversations the Secretary of State spoke expressly in the name of the Pope who, he declared to the Austrian representative, deplored that Austria had not earlier inflicted on the Serbs the chastisement they deserved. It is sufficient to quote the following passage from a dispatch of Count Palffy to Count Berchtold on July 29:

'“During the conversation I had two days ago with the Cardinal Secretary of State he spoke spontaneously of the great problems and questions now agitating Europe. It would be impossible to detect in His Eminence's words any spirit whatever of indulgence and conciliation. It is true he characterized the note to Serbia as very harsh, but he nevertheless approved it without any reservation and at the same time expressed, in an indirect way, the hope that the Monarchy would go to the limit. Certainly, added the Cardinal, it was too bad that Serbia had not been humiliated very much sooner, for then it might have been done without putting into play, as today, such immense possibilities. This declaration also corresponds to the Pope's way of thinking, for, in the course of recent years His Holiness has often expressed regret that Austro-Hungary has failed to 'chastise' her dangerous Danubian neighbour.

'“One might wonder for what motive the Catholic Church evinces herself so bellicose at an epoch when she is governed by a chief who is truly a saint, imbued with veritably apostolic ideas. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia the ravaging malady that little by little penetrated the Monarchy to the marrow, and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it.

'“Despite all the other experiments attempted by the Curia in the course of the last decade, Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic State par excellence, the strongest rampart of the Faith which stands in our day for the Church of Christ. The fall of this rampart would signify for the Church the loss of its solidest prop; in the conflicts with the Orthodox Church she would see her most powerful champion struck down.

'“Hence, just as for Austria-Hungary there is an immediate necessity of self-preservation to expel from its organism, even by force if need be, the dissolving malady, there is also for the Catholic Church an indirect necessity of doing or approving everything that would serve to attain that end.

'“In this light, a harmony between the apostolic sentiment and the war spirit can easily be confirmed.”

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European changed probably the Pope's frame of mind. But at least in the very first days of the war he considered the march of the German army nach Paris as a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (pp. 153-155).

[The above paragraph in the American edition published by E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1944 (by the same translators: Drake and Denise de Kay) reads slightly differently; as here follows:

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European did not do much to change the Pope's frame of mind. In his honest but narrow mind the march of the German army nach Paris assumed the form of a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (p. 189).]

'We have seen that the proceeding of the Nuncio at Vienna is a legend. That Pius X died of grief is still another. I have it from his doctor, my colleague in the Italian Senate, that the malady of which the Pope died had for long months wasted the old man by slow degrees, and that the overwork of the last few weeks could, at most, but have hastened the end that he, Marchiafava, had already declared inevitable and due to occur very shortly.' (p. 155)

“Hitler's Pope”

From the Prologue to the above work:

'[Eugenio] Pacelli [later Pope Pius XII] was responsible for a treaty with Serbia which contributed to the tensions that led to the First World War. Twenty years later he struck an accord with Hitler which helped sweep the Führer to legal dictatorship while neutralizing the potential of Germany's 23 million Catholics (34 million after the Anschluss) to protest and resist. . . .

'In 1933 Pacelli found a successful negotiating partner for his Reich Concordat in the person of Adolf Hitler. Their treaty authorized the papacy to impose the new Church law on German Catholics and granted generous privileges to Catholic schools and the clergy. In exchange, the Catholic Church in Germany, its parliamentary political party, and its many hundreds of associations and newspapers “voluntarily” withdrew, following Pacelli's initiative, from social and political action. The abdication of German political Catholicism in 1933, negotiated and imposed from the Vatican by Pacelli with the agreement of Pope Pius XI, ensured that Nazism could rise unopposed by the most powerful Catholic community in the world – a reverse of the situation sixty years earlier, when German Catholics combated and defeated Bismarck's Kulturkampf persecutions from the grass roots. As Hitler himself boasted in a cabinet meeting on July 14, 1933, Pacelli's guarantee of nonintervention left the regime free to resolve the Jewish question. According to the cabinet minutes, “[Hitler] expressed the opinion that one should only consider it as a great achievement. The concordat gave Germany an opportunity and created an area of trust that was particularly significant in the developing struggle against international Jewry.”* [*From Notes: 'Quoted in S. Friedländer, Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol. I: The Years of Persecution, 1933-39 (London, 1997), 49; Friedländer's German Source, Der Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente 1933-1945. (Frankfurt am Main, 1957), 130.'] The perception of papal endorsement of Nazism, in Germany and abroad, helped seal the fate of Europe.'

(Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pope Pius XII, by John Cornwell; American paperback edition; Penguin Books, 1999, 2000; pp. 4, 6-7).

5

PACELLI AND WEIMAR

'On June 30, 1920, Pacelli presented his credentials to the Reich, the first diplomat to do so under the Weimar government. Thus he became the senior diplomat in the capital, an honor that he was to grace with outstanding charm and distinction. Having warmly welcomed the nuncio, President Friedrich Ebert solemnly announced that his duty was to order, “with the proper authorities, the relations between Church and State in Germany [so] that they correspond to the new situation and to contemporary conditions.” Pacelli responded: “For my part, I will devote my entire strength to cultivating and strengthening the relations between the Holy See and Germany.” (Thirteen years later, Hitler used the self-same phrase, word for word, when he promised an immediate readjustment of relations between Berlin and the Holy See in exchange for the Center Party's acquiescence in the Enabling Act that awarded him dictatorial powers.)'* [*From Notes: 'See Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich, Vol. I, 62 and 249.'] (ibid. p. 92).

7

HITLER AND GERMAN CATHOLICISM

'Hitler, in fact, had two views on the churches – public and private. In February of 1933 he was to declare in the Reichstag that the churches were to be an integral part of the German national life. Privately, the following month, he vowed to completely “eradicate” Christianity from Germany. “You are either a Christian or a German,” he said. “You cannot be both.”'* [*From Notes: 'Quoted in F. Zipfel, Kirchenkampf in Deutschland, 1933-45 (Berlin, 1965), 9, quoted in M. Housden, Resistance and Conformity in the Third Reich (London, 1997), 46.'] (ibid. pp. 105-106).

'In the spring of 1931, a Catholic Reichstag representative, Karl Trossmann, published a best-selling book entitled Hitler and Rome, in which he described the National Socialists as a “brutal party that would do away with all the rights of the people.” Hitler, he declared, was dragging Germany into a new war, a war that “would only end more disastrously than the last.” Not long after, the Catholic author Alfons Wild published a widely distributed essay entitled “Hitler and Catholicism,” in which he proclaimed that “Hitler's view of the world is not Christianity but the message of race, a message that does not proclaim peace and justice but rather violence and hate.”

'Meanwhile, two Catholic journalists, Fritz Gerlich and Ingbert Naab, excoriated National Socialism in the pages of the Munich-based periodical Der Gerade Weg [The Straight Path], characterizing the movement as a “plague.” In the issue dated July 21, 1932, the writers declared that “National Socialism means enmity with neighboring countries, despotism in internal affairs, civil war, international war. National Socialism means lies, hatred, fratricide and unbounded misery. Adolf Hitler preaches the law of lies. You who have fallen victim to the deceptions of one obsessed with despotism, wake up!”

'This vehement and united front of the Catholic Church in Germany, however, was not at one with the view from inside the Vatican – a view that was being increasingly shaped and promoted by Eugenio Pacelli.' (ibid. p. 110).

The Lateran Treaty and Its Aftermath

'Pius XI and Pacelli realized that no accommodation could be made with Communism, anywhere in the world. In the case of totalitarian movements and regimes of the Right, it was a different matter. In Italy the Holy See had signed a pact with Mussolini in February 1929, foreshadowing Pacelli's 1933 deal with Hitler. Negotiated and drafted by Pacelli's brother, Francesco, and his predecessor as Secretary of State, Pietro Gasparri, the accord, on the face of it and for the time being, ended the antagonisms that had existed between the Holy See and Italy since 1870.

'According to the terms of the Lateran Treaty, Roman Catholicism became the sole recognized religion in the country. . . . The Powerful democratic Catholic Popular Party (the Partito Popolare), in many respects similar to the Center Party in Germany, had been disbanded and its leader, Don Luigi Sturzo, exiled. Catholics had been instructed by the Vatican itself to withdraw from politics as Catholics, leaving a political vacuum in which the Fascists thrived. In the March elections following the Lateran Treaty, priests throughout Italy were encouraged by the Vatican to support the Fascists, and the Pope spoke of Mussolini as “a man sent by Providence.”' (ibid. p. 114).

'A few days after the signing of the Lateran Treaty, Hitler wrote an article for the Völkischer Beobachter [The Racial Observer, the official newspaper of the Nazi party], published on February 22, 1929, warmly welcoming the agreement. “The fact that the Curia is now making peace with Fascism,” he wrote, “shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.” Turning to the German situation, he rebuked the Center Party leadership for its recalcitrant attachment to democratic politics. “By trying to preach that democracy is still in the best interests of German Catholics, the Center Party . . . is placing itself in stark contradiction to the spirit of the treaty signed today by the Holy See.”' (Ibid. p. 115).

* * *

'By late December [1931], the Pope [Pius XI] was repeating the suggestion to Baron von Ritter, the Bavarian envoy to the Holy See: that a cooperation between the Church in Germany and the National Socialists “perhaps only temporarily and for specific purposes” would “prevent a still greater evil.”'* [*From Notes: 'Report from Ritter to Munich, December 20, 1931, cited in Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich, Vol. I, 154.'] (ibid. p. 125).

* * *

REAPPRAISALS:

On 26 July 1914, Baron von Ritter, the Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See, had written to his Government:

“The Pope [Pius X] approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

(Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch [Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War] III, p. 206; as cited in the Vatican Against Europe, by Edmond Paris; The Wickliffe Press [Protestant Truth Society] edition, 1993; p. 47).

* * *

During the first Balkan war the Oesterreichs Katholische Sonntags Blatt expressed the following sentiments:

“Our ideal is not to perpetuate European Turkey, but to bring the Balkan Peninsula into the possession of Catholic Austria and the Catholic Church. . . . Just as a violent storm refreshes and cleanses the oppressive atmosphere, so we hold when it once comes to real war the moral and economic gain to Europe will in the end be very great. The social democracy is not yet strong enough to prevent a war. As a result of the emotional pressure of a European war it will break to pieces with its millions of casual followers, and under the same pressure modern liberalism will also break down. It will not hurt Europe if its conditions are for once well shaken up.”

(As cited in, The Inside Story of Austro-German Intrigue, or, How the World War Was Brought About, by Joseph Goricar, Formerly of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Service, and Lyman Beecher Stowe; published Garden City New York, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1920; pp. 94-95).

* * *

“One might wonder for what motive the Catholic Church evinces herself so bellicose at an epoch when she is governed by a chief [Pope Pius X] who is truly a saint, imbued with veritably apostolic ideas. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia the ravaging malady that little by little penetrated the Monarchy to the marrow, and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it.

“Despite all the other experiments attempted by the Curia in the course of the last decade, Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic State par excellence, the strongest rampart of the Faith which stands in our day for the Church of Christ. The fall of this rampart would signify for the Church the loss of its solidest prop; in the conflicts with the Orthodox Church she would see her most powerful champion struck down.

“Hence, just as for Austria-Hungary there is an immediate necessity of self-preservation to expel from its organism, even by force if need be, the dissolving malady, there is also for the Catholic Church an indirect necessity of doing or approving everything that would serve to attain that end.

“In this light, a harmony between the apostolic sentiment and the war spirit can easily be confirmed.”

(Despatch of 29 July, 1914, from Count Palffy, Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican, to Count Berchtold, Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs; as cited in: Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins, by Count Carlo Sforza; Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 154).

* * *

“[T]he Papacy, distressed by the ebbing of its strength . . . will hate Orthodoxy worse than Scepticism, and will endeavour to persuade mankind that they cannot be Christians unless they are Papists, and thus will do the Dragon's work, and promote Infidelity.”

(From: Lectures on the Apocalypse; Critical, Expository, and Practical; Delivered Before the University of Cambridge by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D., Canon of Westminster; Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Third Edition; London: Francis & John Rivington, St. Paul's Church Yard, and Waterloo Place, 1852; pp. 387-388).

The best laid schemes of FROGS and men . . .

ILLUSTRATIONS

OF

PROPHECY:

IN THE COURSE OF WHICH

ARE ELUCIDATED MANY PREDICTIONS, WHICH OCCUR

IN ISAIAH, OR DANIEL,

IN THE WRITINGS OF THE EVANGELISTS,

OR THE BOOK OF REVELATION;

And which are thought to foretell, among other Great Events,

A Revolution in France, favourable to the Interests of Mankind,

The Overthrow of the Papal Power, and of Ecclesiastical Tyranny,

The Downfal of Civil Despotism,

And the subsequent Melioration of the State of the World:

TOGETHER

WITH A LARGE COLLECTION OF

EXTRACTS,

INTERSPERSED THROUGH THE WORK, AND TAKEN FROM

NUMEROUS COMMENTATORS;

AND PARTICULARLY FROM

Joseph Mede, Vitringa, Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr. Henry More, Dr. John Owen, Dr. Cressener, Peter Jurieu, Brenius, Bishop Chandler, Sir Isaac Newton, Mr. William Lowth, Fleming, Bengelius, Daubuz, Whitby, Lowman, Bishop Newton, and Bishop Hurd.

VOL. I

LONDON.— M,DCC,XCVI.

[1796]

CHAPTER XVI.

ON THE GENERAL COURSE OF FUTURE EVENTS,

AND PARTICULARLY ON THE PREDICTION OF

THE WAR OF ARMAGEDDON.

'“In the ordinary wars which nations have waged,” says a recent writer*, “they have, perhaps, lost one hundred thousand lives, and slaughtered as many of their enemies; countries have been laid waste, and taxes incurred to the oppression of the industrious; but in other respects they may have sat down much as they were [. . .]” [* Mr. Bicheno in, The Signs of the Times, p. 42.]

'I now pass to a very remarkable prediction, already alluded to, which distinctly announces a military combination of divers European kings against the happiness of mankind. As the exact time is not marked out, it remains to be illustrated by the Event. It is plain, however, from its situation in ch. xvi. that it is to be accomplished during the period of the seven vials: It is plain, that the confederacy is to be planned and completed, and that the war is to be commenced, prosecuted, and concluded, whilst they are pouring out.

'But, previously to citing it, I shall allege one or two preliminary observations. The first, which is from Daubuz, there has before been occasion to cite. “Wherever the Beast and False Prophet are named, by the Beast must be understood the former with seven heads and ten horns; and by the False Prophet, the Beast with two horns.” Now it has been already seen, that the former of these is the representative of the antichristian princes who inhabit the Western part of the Roman empire; and that the latter is emblematic of the members of the antichristian priesthood. And if the Dragon be mentioned as joined with them in a great confederacy, it must signify such antichristian potentates, as have entered into the confederacy, but do not constitute a part of the proper ten-horned Beast. Such for instance may be the empress of Russia, the king of Prussia, and some of the princes of Germany, who reign over territories that lie out of the bounds of the Western Roman empire.

'St. John commences the passage by alluding to those partisans of the princes, who provoke the war, and employ themselves with activity in concerting the general alliance. It is as follows: and I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth the False Prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto, or, as I think it ought rather to be translated, among the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. — And he gathered them together into a place, called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

'In the first of these verses, St. John has wrapped up his meaning under the cover of prophetic emblems. In the next, he changes his style; and employing phraseology for the most part plain and unfigured, proceeds to explain the reason, why he had described the emissaries as coming out of the mouth of the Dragon and the Beast. For, says he, they go forth among the kings of the earth and of the whole world. To these two verses a remark of bp. [Bishop] Newton is applicable. “It is customary with the prophets, after they have described a thing in the most symbolical and figurative diction, to represent the same again in plainer language.” This episode is introduced between the sixth and the seventh vials. With a reference to the expression, and I saw, Daubuz says, “This is a fresh vision that is, the vision of a fresh matter different from the former, and therefore hath this fresh mark of attention. The Holy Ghost has here followed the method observed before in those parts of the vision, which are distinguished by seven epochas: namely, to have an episode or parenthesis discovering some collateral and remarkable accidents, which seem not to follow the same kind of matters, and could not be so well placed elsewhere; and this is done constantly after the sixth epocha.” But there is another reason, more weighty than mere precedent, to account why this episode is placed just before the description of the seventh vial. Though the confederacy of princes which it announces may be supposed to exist during the effusion of the most early of the vials, and the war conducted by them may continue to be carried on while the six first are pouring out; there nevertheless appears to be a manifest propriety, why it should be inserted immediately before the seventh [vial], because it is descriptive of those great events, which are the foundation, and indeed the immediate cause, of the mighty Revolution foretold in the last of the vials.

'The persons spoken of in this episode are represented as coming out of the mouth of the Dragon, &c; and this, says Daubuz, is a symbol of decorum, because they are said to be spirits. Of the passage that follows from this author a part has before been cited. “The mouth,” he says, “is the organ of speech, and words in the sacred style are the same as commands and actions, because they imply the effects of the thoughts, — To come out of the mouth therefore signifies to be constituted and commanded; to become an agent or minister, under a superior power.” Accordingly those mentioned in the verse under consideration are, he adds, such agents, as execute the commands of those, “out of whose mouth they are said to come” Though they are, says Vitringa, a numerous body of men, they are spoken of as if they were only three, because the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet, from whom they proceed, are three in number.

'Since the False Prophet is mentioned, it is plain, that the war of Armageddon shall be some war, which shall not only be distinguished by an extraordinary confederacy of princes, but which shall also meet with the marked approbation of the [Roman] ecclesiastical orders; a war, which the great body of priests, in the different hierarchies, shall be active to kindle, and zealous to promote. . . .' (pp. 289-293).

* * *

'The word Armageddon alludes, says Vitringa, to the Valley of Megiddo, which is mentioned in the book of Chronicles and in the prophecy of Zechariah. Indeed, says Lowman, Megiddo, being “famous in the history of God's people for several memorable slaughters, became a proverbial expression for a place of destruction and mourning.” The commentators accordingly observe, that it here signifies such a place; and Vitringa declares, that it without doubt points to some great plain situated in Europe, wherein the two parties are to be engaged together. The defeat at Armageddon, says this eminent commentator, will cause the mightiest changes, and draw after it the downfal of the antichristian empire, as is most clearly evident from the succeding prophecy. “The battle of Armageddon,” says Mede, “shall give an end to the antichristian sovereignty.” But it is not to a single engagement, but to a war, in which a succession of battles are to be fought, that the prediction of St. John probably refers; for the word translated battle signifies more properly a war, and it has been seen, that that other word, day, standing in connexion with it, is perfectly reconcileable with this notion. . . . Mr. Lowman [says] “Whoever the three unclean spirits are,— they seem plainly to intimate some powerful league or CONFEDERACY, by which the principal Popish Powers* [*from footnote: 'Who are the principal Popish Powers? Austria and Spain.'] shall be engaged with all their forces in some war, in which they shall be totally overthrown, and which shall end in their final destruction, as seems to be more fully expressed in the description of the seventh vial or last cup.” If Mr. Lowman apprehended, that these coalesced princes would be such only as profess popery, he would have found it a task of no small difficulty to have assigned any valid reason for drawing such a line of distinction. The expression, the kings of the earth, is general, and appears to be no farther restricted, than to the European quarter of the world. They go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, i.e. says Peganius, “of the whole Roman dominion, as we read of Augustus, that he taxed all the world, Luke 2. Among these are perhaps comprehended also those kings and princes, that heretofore were under the Roman jurisdiction, but have renounced the Romish religion: for certainly, amongst them also, all things are not so very well.”

'It is said in v. 16, and he gathered them, that is, says Mr. Cradock in his paraphrase, “God by his all wise providence permitted it so to be.” To the same purpose Mr. Brightman. “Whatsoever the kings of the earth aimed at, God's secret providence shall so guide and over-rule them, that whatsoever destruction they devise and intend to bring upon others, it should fall upon themselves.” It is worthy of remark, says Mr. Bicheno, “that these foul spirits are to go forth unto the kings of the earth, and not to the people,which seems to indicate that it, will be a war, in which kings will be more interested than mankind at large.” The prophet says of them, that “they are the spirits of devils working miracles. No one supposes these to be real miracles. This figurative language is used to set forth the impostures, lies, and frauds, with which they deceive men, and draw them into their destructive measures.”' (pp. 294-296).

* * *

'As the Psalmist says [Ps. cv. 30.], describing the plagues of Egypt, the land brought forth Frogs, even in their Kings' chambers. . . . Such is the Plague which St. John announces to the World in the Sixth Vial. He represents it as issuing from the mouth of the Dragon, – the Devil – and of the Beast, and of the False Prophet.'

(Canon Wordsworth, Lectures on the Apocalypse, Third Edition, 1852. p. 387).

* * *

'When we read in Revelation xvi. 13, 14, of the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet, as the prime agents in bringing about the final war of Armageddon, we cannot imagine three visible corporeal beings on earth, working to stir up the war by breathing frog-like spirits out of their mouths; but, consistently with the Historical method which we have followed, assigning a symbolical meaning to these strange symbolic figures which St. John saw again and again in his visions, we must understand that Satan, together with the Papal Power, and the body of the Romish Priesthood, the most complete organization in the world, will work by all the dark means which may then be at their disposal, in order to embroil the nations, as they have often done before . . .

'Some interesting information concerning the scheming ambition of the Papacy in the present [1898], and its power to embroil the nations in the future, is given in a remarkable article contributed to McClure's Magazine by M. de Blowitz, who from his experience and political insight is admitted to be an authority on such a matter. He Says : “To the Vatican flow innumerable missives from every corner of the world, and could I only tell some of them, it would seem how long still is the arm extending from the shadow of St. Peter's: how dreadful still are the lips that speak in the shade of the Vatican. I should show the Holy Father and his cardinals writing to the Emperor of Austria, directing him by counsel and advice, and sometimes almost by orders.”'

(From: Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy, and our place in it; A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, by Rev. Joseph Tanner, B.A.; Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1898. pp. 206-207, 215).

* * *

'“The day before, on 26 July [1914], Baron Ritter, Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See, had written to his Government: “The Pope approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.” [Author's Note: This despatch from Baron Ritter appears in, Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, III (Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War), p. 206.]

'“The authenticity of [this text] . . . has been acknowledged after many debates in the Catholic press . . .” notes Pierre Dominique [La politique des Jésuites, pp. 248 and 250]. “The key to the question maintains Count Sforza, along with a few others, was the necessity of converting Francis Joseph to the idea of war. The opinions of the Pope and his minister were certainly the most likely to influence him. Hence the [latter] despatch of [July 29, from] Count Palffy. . . .”'

(Edmond Paris, The Vatican Against Europe. First Published France 1959; First English Edition 1961; Reprinted 1993 by The Wickliffe Press, p. 47).

* * *

Envoi

'Lateran Treaty. A treaty concluded between the Holy See and the kingdom of Italy in 1929, establishing as sovereign the Vatican City State, thus ending the “Roman Question” began in 1870 when the temporal power of the papacy was finally abrogated and Rome became the capital of the Italian kingdom.'

'Lateran. The ancient palace of the Laterani family, which was appropriated by Nero (AD 66) and later given to Pope Sylvester I (reigned 314-335) by the Emperor Constantine. It remained the official residence of the popes until the departure to Avignon in 1309. The present palace is now a museum. Legend derives the name from Latin latere, “to hide”, and rana, “frog”, and accounts for it by saying that Nero once vomited a frog covered with blood, which he believed to be his own progeny and so hid in a vault. The palace built on its site was called the “Lateran”, or palace of the hidden frog.'

(From: Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable; Fifteenth Edition (paperback), 1997; pp. 615-616).

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs . . .

(Rev 16:13)

ARMAGEDDON: The Vatican Against Europe

(A cartoon of Pope Pius X, and Cardinal Merry del Val, From L'ASINO, 6 June 1909, As reproduced in The Papal Conquest)

In his work Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, John Cornwell writes:

'When Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were gunned down by a pan-Serbian agitator in Sarajevo on June 28, [1914] the emotions prompted by the Serbian Concordat [signed between the Vatican and Serbia a few days earlier on June 24, 1914] became part of the general groundswell of anti-Serbian anger. The concordant nevertheless represented a contribution to the tensions that led the Austrian government to overplay its hand by delivering a humiliating ultimatum to Serbia. There is no indication that Pope Pius X grasped the role of the Holy See in adding to the pressures that brought the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia to the brink. The declaration of war, it is said, threw him into a profound depression from which he never recovered. He died on August 20, 1914 – of a broken heart, it was said.'

(Hitler's Pope; American paperback edition – Penguin Books, 1999, 2000; pp. 57-58).

In a later post I'd like to give some details of the Vatican-Serbian Concordant of June 1914 – but firstly, concerning the claim that Pius X died of 'a broken heart' soon after the outbreak of war:

That this is the official 'version' can be adduced from the following, which is written in the Concise Holy History used in parochial catechisms:

'Pius X did all he could to prevent the war of 1914 and died of grief when he foresaw the evils it was about to unleash.'

Count Carlo Sforza, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy, in a chapter on 'The Origins of the [First World] War', in his Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (1944/6) calls the rumour of Pius X succumbing to grief at his 'impotence to advert the disaster' of the war, as: 'A legend more tenacious than history'. And then to, 'establish the truth as to that legend', he quotes extensively from official letters deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen.

In a double posting for the start of this month, I include excerpts from the relevant chapter of Count Sforza's work in a seperate post below this one. The majority of the post appearing here, under the subheading, The Vatican Against Europe, is culled from a book of the same name by Edmund Paris, which was originally published in France in 1959, under the title, Le Vatican contre l'Europe; and was later translated into English by A. Robson and published as, The Vatican Against Europe; reprinted, 1988, 1993, by The Wickliffe Press (Protestant Truth Society) with a Preface by the Rev. Dr. Alan C. Clifford, B.A., M.Litt., Ph.D.

Concerning Pius X and the outbreak of war, Edmund Paris writes:

'Pierre Dominique, [in La politique des Jésuites (Grasset, Paris 1955, pp. 245-246)] on the authority of Count Sforza's Memoirs and of diplomatic documents, shows how far the Vatican was from considering conciliation [during the events that would initiate the First World War]:

'“. . . We have access to a certain number of documents”, continues Pierre Dominique, “whose analysis shows beyond doubt that, at least in the beginning, the Vatican looked with satisfaction upon a venture in which the crushing of Serbia would have entailed a decrease in the influence of Russia, whose prestige the Roman Church detested. . . . In these conversations the Secretary of State [Cardinal Merry del Val] spoke explicitly in the name of the Pope, who, he informed the Austrian representative, deplored the fact that Austria had not before this inflicted upon the Serbs the punishment they deserved.”

'Indeed the despatch of 29 July 1914 from Count Palffy, Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican, to Count Berchtold, Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, leaves no doubt that Pope Pius X and the Curia wanted war. Here is the Document [Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für neuere Geschichte Österreichs, 26 Wien–Leipzig 1930, pp. 893 and 894]:

'“In times of extreme political tension such as those we are now going through, human fantasy runs away with itself, redoubles its intensity and soon goes beyond the limits of common sense. Thus the last few days there has again been a rumour that Pope Pius X has intervened in the Serbian conflict and had been in touch with His Apostolic Imperial Majesty, entreating him to spare the Christian nations the horrors of war. An argument based on such absurd premises is of course bound to lead to the conclusion, as logical as it is erroneous, that there was in fact intervention by the Pope. The real opinion of the Curia is not without interest. When, two days ago, I went to the Cardinal Secretary of State, he did, of course, speak about the serious questions and problems that at present preoccupy the whole of Europe. His Eminence's conversation bore no sign of any particular goodwill or moderation. He unreservedly approved the note addressed to Serbia, and he indirectly expressed the hope the Monarchy would hold out to the end. 'It goes without saying', remarked the Cardinal, 'that it is regrettable that Serbia should not have been brought low a long time ago.' This declaration is equally consonant with the Pope's opinion: many a time during the past year His Holiness has expressed his regret that Austria-Hungary should have missed the opportunity to subdue its Danubian neighbour”.

'Austria's representative at the Vatican then endeavours to justify the attitude of Pope Pius X with arguments which, according to Pierre Dominique, [op. cit., pp. 247 and 248] Count Sforza reports in these terms:

'“One might well ask oneself why the Catholic Church adopts such a bellicose attitude. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia a consuming disease which, little by little, has penetrated to the very marrow of the Monarchy and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it . . . Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic state par excellence, the strongest buttress of religion that is now left to the Church. For the Church the fall of this buttress would mean the loss of her strongest support; she would see the fall of her most devoted champion in the battle against Orthodoxy . . . In the light of this fact, it is not difficult to forge a link between the apostolic feelings and the spirit of war.”' (ibid. pp.43-45).

At this point, it seems appropriate, for a moment, to break away from Edmund Paris' work and to reflect on the words of Christopher Wordsworth, D.D. (The nephew of the poet 'Wordsworth'; and at the time of the work to be cited below's writing, Canon of Westminster – and later, Anglican Bishop of Lincoln). Though the 'Orthodoxy' that he writes about below, should not be assumed to be that of the 'Eastern' variety, he writes thus – concerning the 'three unclean spirits like frogs', that in Revelation ch. 16; v. 13-16 gather 'the kings of the earth' to the great 'battle' (more properly, 'war') which is styled in the Apocalypse, 'Armageddon' :

'As the Psalmist says, describing the plagues of Egypt, the land brought forth Frogs, even in their Kings' chambers [Ps. cv. 30.]. . . . Such is the Plague which St. John announces to the World in the Sixth Vial. He represents it as issuing from the mouth of the Dragon, – the Devil – and of the Beast, and of the False Prophet.

'Thus he foretels that the Papacy, distressed by the ebbing of its strength . . . will hate Orthodoxy worse than Scepticism, and will endeavour to persuade mankind that they cannot be Christians unless they are Papists, and thus will do the Dragon's work, and promote Infidelity. He portends that Roman Preachers, Ministers of the False Prophet, will advocate doctrines of political licentiousness, and flatter Rulers and Nations with seducing words . . .'

(From: Lectures on the Apocalypse; Critical, Expository, and Practical; Delivered Before the University of Cambridge; Third Edition, 1852; pp. 387-388).

Returning back to Edmund Paris' work he continues:

'To [the] overwhelming document [already cited above] may be added another, no less official . . . In July 1913, after the signature of the Peace of Bucarest, Austria-Hungary was already threatening to attack Serbia, and it was the turn of the Austrian prince Schönburg to go and acquaint himself with the feeling of the Vatican on the subject. This is how he reports [Document P.A. XI/291] to Count Berchtold the conversations that he had there at the end of October and on 3 November 1913:

'“Among the first subjects tackled by the Cardinal Secretary of State during our interview last week, as was to be expected, was the question of Serbia. The Cardinal began by expressing his joy at the energetic and commendable attitude which we have recently adopted. During today's audience (upon which I have made a separate report, see document A), His Holiness, who began the interview by mentioning the energetic step we have taken at Belgrade, made several very characteristic remarks. 'Certainly,' then said His Holiness, 'Austria-Hungary would have done better to punish the Serbs for all the mistakes that have been made.'” (pp. 45-46).

To set the above dispatch within its historical context, I quote now from J'Accuse! 'By A German' (Richard Grelling); and translated by Alexander Gray, and published by Hodder and Stoughton, 1915 :

GIOLITTI'S REVELATIONS.

'It is known that, soon after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Austrian Government proposed to take military measures against the growing Great-Serbian movement, which had been produced as a result of the annexation. This was an act of criminal insanity on the part of Austria; it was a crime, because here the violator intended to punish the violated because he resisted violation; it was insane, because national tendencies cannot be suppressed by force of arms. But the wise men of Austria thought otherwise. Serbia was threatened with war, and only through the submission of Russia and the mediation of England and Germany was it possible to prevent, by means of a propitiatory declaration on the part of Serbia, the European war which even then threatened to break out. That was in March, 1909, and is known to everyone. What, however, was not known, and has only become known by the revelations of Giolitti [the Italian Prime Minister] on December 5th, 1914, in the Italian Chamber, is the fact that Austria entertained in August, 1913, the same intentions as in 1909, and was prevented from giving effect to these intentions only by the opposition of Italy.

'These revelations of Giolitti have rightly been regarded in the whole of the foreign Press as epoch-making, because they revealed in an incontestable manner the aggressive intentions of Austria. But precisely for these reasons the German and Austrian Governments have preserved, with regard to these revelations, a silence as of death. There is therefore all the more reason why I should in this place once more awaken the dead to life.

'In midsummer, 1913, after the second Balkan War, the relations in the Balkans between those States immediately concerned were regulated by the Treaty of Bucharest. Austria-Hungary was not satisfied with the arrangement to which effect was given, since in her view Serbia had got too much and Bulgaria too little. She aimed at accomplishing a revision of the Treaty and in view of Serbia's opposition resolved to give effect to her desires by arms. For this purpose she naturally required the support of the Powers of the Triple Alliance and above all of Italy, who had always claimed the right to make her influence felt in the settlement of the Balkan question. The concurrence of the allied Powers in military action against Serbia was, however, regarded as necessary by Austria chiefly, because the Austrian Government was even then fully aware of the fact that a war with Serbia must lead to a European struggle. Austria consequently addressed inquiries to Italy with a view to ascertaining what her attitude would be in view of her duties under the Triple Alliance in the event of a Serbian, and, should it arise, a European war. As a result of the Austrian inquiry the following exchange of telegrams took place between the Foreign Minister, Di San Giuliano, and the Prime Minister, Giolitti, who was then absent: “Austria has communicated to us and to Germany her intention of taking action against Serbia, and defines such action as defensive, hoping to bring into operation the casus fœderis of the Triple Alliance, which, on the contrary, I believe to be inapplicable. I am endeavouring to arrange for a combined effort with Germany to prevent such action on the part of Austria, but it may become necessary to state clearly that we do not consider such action, if it should be taken, as defensive, and that, therefore, we do not consider that the casus fœderis arises. Please telegraph to me at Rome if you approve.”

'Giolitti replied to this: “If Austria intervenes against Serbia it is clear that a casus fœderis cannot be established. It is a step which she is taking on her own account since there is no question of defence inasmuch as no one is thinking of attacking her. It is necessary that a declaration to this effect should be made to Austria in the most formal manner, and we must hope for action on the part of Germany to dissuade Austria from this most perilous adventure (pericolosissima avventura).”

'On this occasion success, in fact, attended the task of restraining Austria from a war against Serbia, but whether this was due to Germany's efforts or to Italy's opposition is not known. What, however, is to-day of the highest interest is the fact that, even a year before the outbreak of the present war, Austria was firmly resolved to initiate, without any urgent reason, a military conflict with Serbia, for there was then no question of the death of an Archduke . . .' (J'Accuse!; pp. 121-124).

Concerning these tumultuous times, and the first Balkan War, Joseph Goricar, formerly of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Service, recounts:

'[L]eaflets were circulated, through the agency of our Socialists, among the Polish workmen throughout Russian Poland urging them, when called to the colours on the outbreak of hostilities, to destroy as far as possible all military materials, to “spoil everything that could aid the Russian armies in their advance,” and above all, “to let themselves be taken prisoners.” The all-Polish organ, Slowo Polskie of Lwow, capital of Galicia, published an article which concluded with these words: “In holding before its eyes the reconstruction of the Kingdom of Poland, the Polish nation must hold itself in readiness for war at any moment.” These anti-Russian and pro-German protestations occurred at the very time when the forcible expropriation of Polish estates in the German Ostmark was at its height. In this campaign the Socialist, Polish, Jewish, and Pan-German press was ably supported by organs controlled by the Vatican. Among these the Oesterreichs Katholische Sonntags Blatt came out at the beginning of the first Balkan war with this declaration:

'“Our ideal is not to perpetuate European Turkey, but to bring the Balkan Peninsula into the possession of Catholic Austria and the Catholic Church.” This ideal was thus defended in their issue of October 27th :

“Just as a violent storm refreshes and cleanses the oppressive atmosphere, so we hold when it once comes to real war the moral and economic gain to Europe will in the end be very great. The social democracy is not yet strong enough to prevent a war. As a result of the emotional pressure of a European war it will break to pieces with its millions of casual followers, and under the same pressure modern liberalism will also break down. It will not hurt Europe if its conditions are for once well shaken up.”'

(From: The Inside Story of Austro-German Intrigue, or, How the World War Was Brought About, by Joseph Goricar, Formerly of the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Service, and Lyman Beecher Stowe; published Garden City New York, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1920; pp. 94-95).

After which, it seems fitting to reappraise the following words that appear in Dr. Andrew D. White's Autobiography (vol. ii. pp. 349-351); as quoted in the Rev. Alexander Robinson's, The Papal Conquest; words that issued forth from the mouth of a man, whom Dr. White (of Cornell University, and late Ambassador at Berlin of the United States of America; and President of the American Delegation at the Hague Conference, 1899) described as being, 'a leading Roman Catholic diplomat who represented one of the great Catholic Powers'; here again are some of that statesman's incriminating sentiments as expressed to Dr. White after the Hague Conference:

'The Vatican has always been, and is to-day, a storm-centre. The Pope and his advisers have never hesitated to urge on war, no matter how bloody, when the slightest of their ordinary worldly purposes could be served by it. . . . Their whole policy is based on stirring up hatred and promoting conflicts from which they hope to draw worldly advantage.' (p. 315).

Before returning back to Edmund Paris' work – so as to give, again, some of the historical background to the final official document he quotes from – a quick return back to Richard Grelling's J'Accuse! supplies us with the following information:

'The indictment to be brought against the Empires of Germany and Austria is that in the summer of 1914 they intentionally brought about the war which they had long prepared and desired, because they thought that the moment was specially favourable for striking the blow. This time the occasion of the dispute was not, as in previous years, a paltry territorial question in the Balkans, a squabble about a harbour or a stretch of sea-shore, questions which could neither arouse public interest nor kindle the enthusiasm of nations. The issue raised on this occasion related to the murder of an Arch-Duke and his Consort, a tragic event which was bound to awaken the indignation of the whole world, and, so they calculated, could not fail to enlist universal sympathy on behalf of the Powers who appeared as the avengers of such a crime.

'Thus, in the first place, the moral advantage was on their side. But they believed that they could also rely on a similar military advantage. Certain matters just about this time had come to light which were regarded as proving the disorganisation of the French and the defective preparation of the Russian army. The revelations of Senator Humbert had just made public the existence of serious defects in the French Army, and it was believed that the Russian Army, quite apart from its defective equipment, was still required to cope with internal unrest and weakened by civil dissensions. England's neutrality was still hoped for, in spite of previous failures in this direction, and the Italians were thought to be foolish enough to draw the chestnuts out of the fire in the Balkans for the hated Austrian, and to risk their whole national existence “pour le roi de Prusse.”

'All this was a complete miscalculation. But as the art of calculation was not understood in Berlin and Vienna, it was thought that the moment was favourable for striking – and they struck.' (pp. 136-137).

Returning, finally, back to The Vatican Against Europe – and in the light of the official documents thus far perused in his work – Edmund Paris continues:

'Far be it from us to question the good faith of the Holy Father's apologists. At the same time, we cannot help asking by what miracle are his unequivocal appeals for war transformed, in their eyes, into appeals for peace? Let us confess in all humility that we are unable to explain this fantastic state of affairs. But no matter: we have now established, beyond all possible question, with official records, the way in which Pius X “did all he could to prevent the war of 1914”.

'Might it be said, nevertheless, in an attempt to excuse him, that he was hoping to see the conflict limited to Austria-Hungary and Serbia? Let us hear the pious René Bazin, of the Académie française, another author who cannot be suspected of bias against the Vatican [who wrote in Pie X (Flammarion, Paris 1928, pp. 88 and 89)]:

'“Pius X ruled the Church from 4 August 1903 to 20 August 1914. On 2 June of that year, he entered his eightieth year. The war was approaching. He had foreseen this upheaval of the world; he had more than once said to Cardinal Merry del Val, who used to bring him diplomatic despatches and other papers of the previous day, whenever he was explaining some serious question:

'“What is that, compared with what is to come? The Great War is coming: 1914 will not be over before it breaks out.

'“To the Minister of Brazil, who was taking leave of him, Pius X said: 'You are fortunate', the Pope told him, 'you will not see the Great War at close quarters.'

'“The diplomat, struck by this remark, wrote to several of his friends about it. Less than three months later, five nations were mobilising their armies, and Germany was invading Belgium.”

'Can it be maintained, after this, that the Holy Father did not foresee the extension of the conflict? On the contrary, he foresaw it so well, that he expressly mentioned it before a diplomat, during an interview recorded in another official document which is quoted by Count Sforza and Pierre Dominique:

“The day before, on 26 July [1914], Baron Ritter, Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See, had written to his Government:

“The Pope approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

[Author's Note: This despatch from Baron Ritter appears in, Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, III (Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War), p. 206.]

'“The authenticity of these two texts has been acknowledged after many debates in the Catholic press . . .” notes Pierre Dominique [La politique des Jésuites, pp. 248 and 250]. “The key to the question maintains Count Sforza, along with a few others, was the necessity of converting Francis Joseph to the idea of war. The opinions of the Pope and his minister were certainly the most likely to influence him. Hence the despatch of Count Palffy. . . .” (pp. 46-47).

' . . . Thus, it is proved that Pius X and his Secretary of State, when they encouraged the most Catholic Emperor to make war, were coldly contemplating the consequences of their act: a general conflict which would set the Central European Empires against France and Russia. They believed they had accurately estimated the strength of the different forces involved.

'But, what His Holiness and his accomplice had not foreseen was the participation in the war of England and finally of the entire Anglo-Saxon world, a participation which was to thwart their plans, tip the scales in favour of France and liberate the Orthodox populations from the Viennese yoke.

* * *

'Hence the responsibility for the crime is beyond doubt – an enormous crime which, over a period of four years, was to throw into the charnel-house millions of “Christian” corpses, all the flower of European youth, and a crime all the more odious for being completely premeditated.

'One may say quite specifically that in 1914, the Roman Church started the series of hellish wars. It was then that the tribute of blood which she has always taken from the people began to swell into a veritable torrent.' (pp. 47-48).

Envoi

'[O]ne feels that it is impiety or culpable ignorance to talk, as so many do, of the Pope being the Vicar of the Prince of Peace, and of the Roman Catholic Church as having a mission of peace and of goodwill to mankind. He [the Pope] is, on the contrary, the Vicar of Christ's Adversary [Satan], [who is] “The Prince of this World”; [John xii. 31, xiv. 30.] he [the Pope] is the “Beast” of the Revelation, to whom the “Dragon” [Satan] gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority . . . to make war with the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2, 7.]'

Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D., The Papal Conquest (1909), p. 316.