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.

Count Sforza on “The Origins of the War”

THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR

'In 1914 the Germany of William II and the Austria-Hungary of the Hapsburgs were guilty of the same error as Hitler in 1939 and Mussolini in 1940: they despised their eventual adversaries too much. In 1939 Hitler believed, since they had allowed him to assassinate Czechoslovakia, that he could do the same to Poland; in 1940 Mussolini believed, like Petain and Weygand, that Great Britain would be incapable of resisting after France's fall.

'The former Ambassador of Austria-Hungary at London, Count Mensdorf, said to me one day after the monarchy he had loyally and skilfully served had come to its end: “Yes, you are right; they were mad, at Vienna and Budapest – Berchtold as mad as Tisza to have unleashed the great war after Serajevo. But Berchtold, at least, and all the Austrians with him, always believed from the bottom of their hearts that they would end by letting Austria have her little war with Serbia ; hadn't Europe swallowed without wincing all the acts of violence of the Central Empires? Fundamentally, we were tricked by the Entente; we were sure they had decided never to make war against us. . . .”'

(Contemporary Italy Its Intellectual and Moral Origins, by Count Carlo Sforza; Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 145)

'The assassination of Francis Ferdinand of Hapsburg and his wife at Serajevo on June 24, 1914, seemed to the camarilla of the Court of Vienna and to the feudal Hungarians a fortunate pretext sent by the gods.

'That Serajevo was only a pretext is proved by the compilation of the memorial written in Vienna, actually several days before June 28, formally to request German assistance for an attack on Serbia. . . . The famous memorial presented to the Emperor William after the death of Francis Joseph's heir, to assure Austria the support of her German ally, had been prepared and completely drafted previously, on the morrow of the German Kaiser's visit to Francis Ferdinand at the castle of Konopisht in mid-May, 1914. The assassination of Serajevo had no other result than to add to the already prepared document the following postscript:

'“This memorial had already been completed when the terrible events of Serajevo supervened. One can scarcely realize the full import of this abominable assassination which has, nevertheless, if indeed that were still necessary, produced the irrefutable proof of the impossibility of putting an end to the antagonism between the Monarchy and Serbia, as well as the danger and intensity of the Pan-Serbian propaganda that recoils at nothing. . . . Under these conditions the necessity of breaking with an energetic hand the net in which her adversary wishes to suffocate her is imposed on the Monarchy.”

'The Bosnian crisis had been, as I have said, the dress rehearsal for that of 1914, with this difference, however, that in 1909 the Austrian statesmen dominated the events, whereas in 1914 Aerenthal's successors were but the victims of their passions and puppets of the events.

'Aerenthal had had a view of the future, limited but clear; moreover, he was a man and in a certain sense a new man. Berchtold, his successor, was only the symbol of the old Austria whose real masters were the old narrow-minded bureaucrats, like Count Forgach, who one day said to one of his subordinates at the Ballplatz, Baron Szilassy, a Hungarian like himself: “I wish that in all the offices of the Ministry they would inscribe this maxim: Serbia delenda est” (Serbia must be destroyed.)

'I knew Forgach as a young diplomat at Constantinople and was aware of the hate he already had for anything Slavic, even before the ridiculous part he played before all Europe in the affair of the forgery of the Friedjung case. Minister in China from 1911, I never again saw Forgach, who became all-powerful at the Ballplatz. But from Peking I returned and spent several weeks in Austria in 1912 and 1913. Duke Avarna, then Ambassador of Italy, Dumaine, Ambassador of France, Count Dudzeele, my wife's father and Minister of Belgium who, like myself, had known Forgach intimately at Constantinople, all insisted that the danger in Vienna was that, thanks to Forgach, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, instead of acting as a counterweight to the preference of the military circles for war, excited them still more.

'The memorandum which was to decide the European war could have issued only from a Ministry of Foreign Affairs directed by men of Forgach's stripe.

'The fatal document started for Berlin on the evening of July 4. Count Hoyos, Berchtold's Chief of Cabinet, carried it. The next day, July 5, Emperor Francis Joseph gave a long audience to the Chief of Staff, Conrad, who left an exact report of the conversation:

'“I expressed”, wrote Conrad, “my opinion of the inevitability of war with Serbia.”

“The Emperor: Yes, that's perfectly true, but how do you expect to make war if everyone attacks us, especially Russia?

“Conrad: Doesn't Germany shield us?

“The Emperor: Are we sure about Germany?

“Conrad: But we ought to know, Your Majesty, the situation we are in.

“The Emperor: A note left last night for Berlin; we asked for a point-blank reply.

“Conrad: And if the reply assures that Germany places herself beside us, shall we make war on Serbia?

“The Emperor: In that case, yes.”'

(pp. 147-149)

'Three days after his meeting with Francis Joseph, on July 8, Conrad had a definitive conversation with Berchtold. The meticulous exactness with which Conrad reproduced it in his memoirs* is surprising; it is the language of a conspiracy, and he does not realize it. [*From footnote: 'Conrad's memoirs, Aus Meiner Dienstzeit (My Years of Service), has the advantage of sincerity where other writers, more anxious about public opinion, would have been tempted to gloss over the truth.']

'“Berchtold: What will happen if Serbia lets matters slide until the mobilization, and then yields completely?

“Conrad: Then we invade Serbian territory.

“Berchtold: And if Serbia does nothing?

“Conrad: Then Serbia will remain occupied until all our war expenses have been paid.

“Berchtold: Shall we delay the ultimatum until after the harvest, and after the Serajevo inquest?

“Conrad: Better to-day than to-morrow; we have to exploit the situation. The moment our adversaries suspect anything they are going to prepare.

“Berchtold: We'll take care that the secret will be strictly kept and that nothing shall be known by anyone.

“Conrad: About what date should the ultimatum be sent?

“Berchtold: In a fortnight, July 22. It would be a good idea for you, as well as for the Minister of War, to go on leave for a while so as to dissipate any kind of anxiety.”

'Such was the atmosphere at Vienna when Francis Ferdinand's assassination seemed the most fortunate of opportunities, one which had been lacking in 1913, and one that at no price should be missed again. Apponyi's “At last!” was the avowal of the official world. Those who hesitated, like Tisza, did not do so from love of peace, but because they were not sure of being sufficiently aided by Germany. The moment William II's “Now or never” became known at Vienna and Budapest, there was not a Magyar nor an Austrian-German who was not for the war. At the time of the dramatic interview that took place on November 2, 1918, between the members of the Deutschoesterreicher Staatsrat and Emperor Charles, when the latter protested “not having wanted it” and a Socialist leader indicated approbation, the old Christian-Socialist Dr. Mayer rose and, alone, had the dignity to declare:

'“Let us be sincere, gentlemen. We all wanted the war: even the people wanted it. You need only recall the enthusiasm of the summer of 1914. . . .”' (pp. 149-150)

* * *

'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)

Milestone to Armageddon: The Fifth Vial

The first chapter of Winston Churchill's The World Crisis 1911-1918 – his history of the First World War and its outbreak – was appropriately entitled, The Vials of Wrath; and the second chapter: Milestones to Armageddon.

Concerning those apocalyptical “vials of wrath”, that Churchill alludes to in the chapter heading of the above cited work:

I'd like to first of all quote from a mid-seventeenth century work, and its author's interpretation of the fifth vial – and where he believed it was destined to fall. But before doing so I reproduce below the text that appears on the page immediately preceding the title-page to the aforementioned work; and after this follows the text reproduced from the actual title-page itself.

So first, from the page preceding the title-page, appears the following (all spellings; and capitalisation – are as per the original) :

Commons House

Munday Febr 21. An. Dom. 1641

It is this day Ordered by the Committee for Printing and Publishing of Books, &c. That Mr Jackson Minister of Saint Michael in Woodstreet London, be desired to peruse Mr More his Translation of Mr Mede his book on the Revelation, this day presented to the said Committee to be licenced, and to report to the said Committee his opinion therein, and concerning the Printing thereof.

John White.

I Have according to the Order of the Committee for printing, &c. read over Master More his Translation of Mr Mede his booke on the Revelation and finde it to be exactly Translated, and that the book it selfe gives much light for the understanding of many obscure Passages in the sweet and comfortable Prophecie, and though Master Medes opinion concerning the thousand years of the seventh Trumpet be singular from that which hath beene most generally received by Expositors of the best esteem, and I conceive hath no just ground, yet he therein delivers his judgement with such modestie and moderation that I think the Printing of it will not be perillous: and therefore conceive that the publishing of this Translation is a good work, and may with Gods blessing yeeld much comfort to many.

April 18, 1642

Arth. Jackson.

It is Ordered by the Committee of the Commons House of Parliament concerning Printing, this eighteenth day of April 1642. That the book Intituled the Key of the Revelation, &c. be Printed.

John White.

And now to the title-page itself – after which will appear the author's verdict concerning the fifth vial. (Again, all spellings; and capitalisation – are as per the original work) :

The Key of the

REVELATION,

Searched and demonstrated

out of the Naturall and proper

Charecters of the Visions.

WITH

A Coment thereupon, according to

the Rule of the same Key; published in

Latine by the profoundly Learned

Master Joseph Mede B.D. Late Fellow of

Christs Colledge in Cambridge,

For their use to whom God hath given a love and desire

of knowing and searching into that admirable Prophecie.

Translated into English by Richard More of Linley in the

Countie of Salop. ESQUIRE, One of the Burgesses

in this present Convention of Parliament. . . .

With a Præface written by Dr Twisse now Prolocutor in the

present Assembly of Divines.

Printed at LONDON by R.B. for Phil. Stephens, at his Shop

in Pauls Church-yard at the sign of the gilded Lion. 1643.

And now, concerning the aforementioned vial, the work's author writes:

'The fift phyall [fifth vial] is to be powred [poured] out upon the Throne or Seat of the Beast; that is, Rome it selfe. . . . Now by this destruction . . . the name of the Pope shall not indeed utterly perish, but from thence forth he shall be deprived of his glory and splendor, so that for griefe they shall bite their tongues: in the meane time not withstanding persevering as yet in their impenitency their hearts being hardened, they will abuse their griefs unto further blasphemy.' (p. 118).

The second source from which I wish to quote from, was written during the closing years of the seventeenth century – and was first published in 1701. It was written by the Presbyterian minister the Rev Robert Fleming (1660-1716), who was for a time the pastor of the Scots Church at Rotterdam, and was often consulted by William of Orange concerning spiritual matters; the Rev Fleming (amongst others) also accurately predicted from biblical study (a century before it occurred) the timeframe, of the then still future, French Revolution.

From the same work in which he predicted the outbreak of the French Revolution to within a few years of its occurrence: the Apocalyptical Key, or, the pouring out of the Vials (see the picture heading this post for the title-page to a much later American edition from 1843); here is what the Rev Fleming says, concerning the fifth vial of the Apocalypse (page numbers refer to the edition cited above) :

'The fifth vial, (ver. 10, 11,) [is that] which is to be poured out on the seat of the beast . . . the Roman See . . . this judgement will probably begin about the year 1794, and expire about A.D. 1848; so that the duration of it, upon this supposition, will be for the space of fifty-four years. For I do suppose, that seeing the pope received the title of supreme bishop, no sooner than A.D. 606, he cannot be supposed to have any vial poured upon his seat immediately (so as to ruin his authority so signally as this judgement must be supposed to do) until the year 1848, which is the date of the twelve hundred and sixty years in prophetical account [i.e. in calculating using the biblical 360 day year], when they are reckoned from A.D. 606. But yet we are not to imagine that this vial will totally destroy the papacy (though it will exceedingly weaken it,) for we find this [the papacy] still in being and alive, [and at work,] when the next vial [the sixth] is poured out.' (p. 21).

Looking back from his vantage point in the first half of the twentieth century, B[asil] Stewart in, Revelation Fulfilled in History (London: John Bale, Sons & Danielson, Ltd., 1934), wrote the following concerning the fifth vial of the Apocalypse:

'The Fifth Vial is a judgement upon the Papal metropolis, Rome, the seat of Popedom's authority. “Darkness” has fallen upon it twice: firstly . . . in 1798, when French troops entered Rome, arrested and insulted the Pope (Pius VI), and took him prisoner to France, where he soon afterwards died . . .

'Napoleon declared the Pope's Temporal reign at an end, and at the same time proclaimed a Roman Republic, and later, in 1809, made Rome itself the second city of the French Empire. In the latter year he issued decrees revoking Charlemagne's donations to the Holy See; annexing the Papal States to Italy, and total abolition of the Pope's Temporal Power, and making the Pope a mere pensioner of state in his spiritual capacity; acts which literally caused the Papacy and its adherents to “gnaw their tongues for mortification” at such indignities. . .

'With the downfall of Napoleon in 1815 Temporal Power was restored for a period of fifty-five years [from footnote: 'except for an interval between 1848 and 1850 when Pius IX was compelled to flee to Gaeta as a result of the French Revolution which broke out in Paris, February 23, 1848, when the Pope was formally deposed; restored to Rome two years later by a French army under Marshal Oudinot'] . . . the rise of Germany, the decline of France, and revival of Italy, combined to bring about its final abolition in 1870, as foretold in this Vial, a loss made more bitter by the fact that not a single Papist State raised a finger to prevent it !' (p. 113).

Returning back to the Rev Fleming's discourse, on what he expected to occur under the fifth vial; he continues with the following pronouncement concerning the locale of the sixth (under which the “kings of the earth and of the whole world” are gathered to the great conflict styled in the Apocalypse, “Armageddon”) :

'The sixth vial, (v. 12, &c.,) will be poured out upon the Mahometan Antichrist, as the former on the papacy. And seeing the sixth trumpet brought the Turks from beyond Euphrates, from the crossing which river they date their rise; this sixth vial dries up their waves, and exhausts their power . . . Now seeing this vial is to destroy the Turks, we hear of three unclean spirits like frogs or toads, that were sent out by Satan, and the remains of the polity and church of Rome, called the beast and the False Prophet . . . [T]hese messengers shall be so successful, as to draw . . . the greatest part of mankind, to take part with them. So that by the assistance of these their agents and missionaries, they shall engage the whole world in some manner, to join with them in rooting out the saints. (And here, in a parenthesis Christ gives a watch word to his servants, to be upon their guard in this hour of trial, v. 15.) . . . . [T]his vast army . . . [is] brought . . . to the place of battle, [symbolically] called Armageddon (i.e., the place where there will be a most diabolical, cunning, and powerful conspiracy against Christ's followers;) then immediately doth the seventh angel pour out his vial [on the air] . . .

'. . . These two vials [the sixth and the seventh] are, as it were, one continued, the first running into the second, and the second completing the first; the one giving us an account of the beast's preparations for warring against the saints, and the other showing the events of the whole.... Such long messages and intrigues . . . and preparations for so UNIVERSAL A WAR, must needs take up a great many years . . .' (pp. 21-22; emphasis added).

Before returning back to the Rev Fleming's work, it's interesting to observe what Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) thought concerning the sixth vial:

'Analogous to the loosing of . . . [the four] Angels [of the sixth TRUMPET (Revelation 9:13-21) – being the second, and Turkish phase of Islam's conquests] is the drying up of the waters of [the] Euphrates in the sixt[h] Vial. For these two actions must correspond because the beginnings of this Trumpet & Vial which are contemporary. Now by the waters of this river we are to understand the people situate upon it . . . that is, the Turkish Sultanies. And by the pouring [out of] a Vial upon this River the inflicting of some great calamity upon that people: such as was the Tattarian invasion. And by the consequent drying up [of] the waters thereof the wasting of the power & dominion of that people... that is, the [final] dissolution of the Turkish Sultanies by that invasion.'

(Untitled Treatise on Revelation by Isaac Newton. Source: Yahuda Ms. 1.8, Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem. From online transcript on the University of Sussex's, “The Newton Project”).

As to the time periods he envisioned, the Rev Fleming surmised that the Turkish monarchy might, “be totally destroyed between 1848 and 1900”; and went on to mark his discourse with the following words:

'[F]or they only that shall live after the great battle of Armageddon is over, can see the exact fulfilling of this prophecy . . . with the same advantage they see also the fulfilling of Daniel's visions with respect to the coming of the Messiah and his death. We therefore, now have no more advantage, as to time, in explaining and understanding this latter event, than the Jews had as to the first, who lived in the days of the Maccabees, while Daniel's weeks of years were running out. And I question if they did understand the periods of time they were under, more clearly, if at all so distinctly, as we do the times that have passed over the Christian Church, and that part of time we are now under. Therefore, I say we have great reason to thank God, that so much of this book [the Revelation] is already made so clear to us, as to prove confirming thus far to our faith: for whatever differences have been among the most eminent interpreters of this book, as to particular calculations and accommodations of things; yet they have all of them agreed in the main foundations of the interpretation thereof, which I have built upon . . . as Dr. Cressener has irrefragably proved in his book, entitled, A demonstration of the first principles of the Protestant application of the Apocalypse. So that there are two things almost equally strange to me, that the Jews should own the verity of the Old Testament, and particularly of Daniel's prophecy, and not see that the Messiah is come; and that the papists should believe the divinity of the New Testament, and particularly of the Revelation, and not see that their church is antichristian. But while I admire the wilful stupidity of both these parties, I cannot but admire also the wisdom of God in making use of both these in his Providence to confirm to us the verity of Christianity, in prophesying both of the one and the other so long before, and in continuing them to this day as standing monuments of the divinity both of the Old and New Testaments.' (p. 24).

At the end of his treatise, Fleming concluded with the following words:

'Yours to love and serve you in the gospel of

our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,

ROBERT FLEMING.

LONDON, Jan. 1, 1701.

Being the first day both of the year and century.'

As we saw in the previous post (The Papal Conquest) where Cardinal Manning pronounced – in a sense, no doubt, as one of the countless number of that great Roman agency, who were “gnaw[ing] their tongues for mortification” at the Pope's loss of his Temporal Power – that he believed that there was but “one solution” of that “difficulty” . . .

Here again appears Manning's sole “solution”; this time quoted from another work entitled: Prophecy, The War, and the Near East (Marshall Brothers, Ltd., Fifth Edition, December 1919), by G[eorge] Harold Lancaster, M.A., F.R.A.S., C.F., (Vicar of St Stephen's, Bow, London, E.3; Hon. Lecturer of “The Palestine Exploration Fund”, & Fellow of The Royal Colonial Institute); who writes:

'Once the temporal power of the Pope was lost . . . his political aspirations, by a strange law of contrariety, became greater than they had ever been during the past twelve and a half centuries. The Pope has been a prisoner in the Vatican for about 50 years, and his agents and emissaries have ever since been endeavouring to restore the Papal Power, and to reconstruct the Papal system, so that it may yet have world dominion and unfettered influence.

'[The late Archbishop of Westminster] Cardinal Manning once speaking upon the desired restoration of the Papal Power [as recorded in the Tablet, January 24th, 1874] uttered these momentous words : –

“There is only one solution of the difficulty, a solution I fear impending, and that is the terrible scourge of a 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 the obstacles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ will be put again in his own rightful place. But that day will not have been until his adversaries will have crushed each other with mutual destruction.”' (p. 116).

“The Papal Conquest” (1909)

THE

PAPAL CONQUEST

ITALY'S WARNING –

“WAKE UP, JOHN BULL!”

BY

REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, D.D.

CAVALIERE OF THE ORDER OF ST. MAURICE

AND ST. LAZARUS, ITALY

Author of

“THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ITALY”

“THE BIBLE OF ST. MARK” “VENETIAN SERMONS”

“FRA PAOLO SARPI” etc. etc.

“He that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.”–

Ezek. xxxiii. 5.

LONDON : MORGAN AND SCOTT LTD.

12, PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, E.C.

MCMIX

[1909]

CHAPTER I

Conquest Determined Upon

'Mr. Gladstone did not think she [the Papacy] was an enemy to be despised when he wrote his first famous pamphlet, The Vatican Decrees : for he tells us in his second pamphlet, Vaticanism (called forth in its defence against his critics, Newman, Manning, and others), that his very object in writing it was to put England on her guard against the Roman Catholic Church. He says : “My object has been to produce, if possible, a temper of greater watchfulness; to promote the early and provident fear which, says Mr. Burke, is the mother of necessity; to distrust that lazy way of thought, which acknowledges no danger until it thunders at the doors; to warn my countrymen against the velvet paw, and smooth and soft exterior of a system which is dangerous to the foundations of civil order, and which any one of us may at any time encounter in his daily path.” [Vaticanism, by W.E. Gladstone, p. 117.]

'In his Introduction to this second pamphlet (Vaticanism), Mr. Gladstone says : “It is, in my opinion, an entire mistake to suppose that theories like those, of which Rome is the centre, are not operative on the thoughts and actions of men. An army of teachers, the largest and most compact in the world, is ever sedulously at work to bring them into practice. Within our own time they have most powerfully, as well as most injuriously, altered the spirit and feeling of the Roman Church at large; and it will be strange indeed if, having done so much in the last half century, they shall effect nothing in the next. I must avow, then, that I do not feel the same security for the future as for the present. . . . Nor can I overlook indications which lead to the belief that even in this country and at this time, the proceedings of Vaticanism threaten to be a source of some practical inconvenience. I am confident that if a system so radically bad is to be made or kept innocuous, the first condition for attaining such a result is that its movements should be carefully watched, and above all, that the bases on which they work should be faithfully and unflinchingly exposed.” [Vaticanism, by W.E. Gladstone, p. 16.]' (The Papal Conquest, pp. 5-6).

CHAPTER XVII

The Military Invasion

'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.]

'That is the indictment of one whom Dr. White calls “an eminent Roman Catholic representative of a Roman Catholic Power.” And what a sweeping condemnatory indictment it is! In face of it, coming from the burning heart and lips of such a man, one 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 is, on the contrary, the Vicar of Christ's Adversary, “The Prince of this World”; [John xii. 31, xiv. 30.] he is the “Beast” of the Revelation, to whom the “Dragon” gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority . . . to make war with the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2, 7.]

'It will be noticed that this “eminent Catholic representative of a Roman Catholic Power” in his sweeping indictment says : “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.” That was the Godlike work in which the so-called “Vicar of the Prince of Peace” has been engaged during the ten years that have elapsed since then; and that is the Godlike work in which the so-called “Vicar of the Prince of Peace” is engaged at the present time! Italy knows this to her cost; and it has often been brought forward in Parliament and in the Press, both native and foreign, by Italian writers. Ruggiero Bonghi wrote, in 1894, in the Nuova Antologia – and his words are equally true to-day – “The war is conducted by the Papacy; and since its commencement twenty-three years ago (now [in 1909] thirty-nine) it does not seem to decrease in vigour, and in precision of aim. . . . The Pope continues to fight fiercely to recover the Temporal Power.” [ Nuova Antologia, January 1894.] The Honourable Francesco Crispi said, in 1892 : “To-day he (the Pope) conspires; to-morrow, as king, he would openly treat with our enemies to the detriment of our national unity.” [The New Review, May 1892.] Mr. Gladstone again and again refers to it; and I have already quoted him as saying : “She (Italy) is the country whose very heart it is the fixed desire and design of the Roman Curia to tear out of its bleeding body, for the purpose of erecting anew the fabric of the Temporal Power now crumbled in the dust”; [Gleanings of Past Years, by W.E. Gladstone, vol. vi. p. 202.] and again, as saying : “that there is a fixed purpose among the secret inspirers of Roman policy to pursue, by the road of force, upon the arrival of any favourable opportunity, the favourite project of re-erecting the terrestrial throne of the Popedom, even if it can only be re-erected on the ashes of the city, and amidst the whitening bones of the people.” [The Vatican Decrees, by W.E. Gladstone, p. 50.] Again Mr. Gladstone speaks of “the venomous ambition of Curialism, determined to try another fall before renouncing its dream of temporal dominion,” [Gleanings of Past Years, by W.E. Gladstone, vol. vi. p. 201.] and Cardinal Manning, who incarnated the policy of the Vatican, fully confirms Mr. Gladstone's statements, for he declared to the late Rev. Hugh Price Hughes that he (the Pope) was willing to deluge Europe in blood, if thereby he could destroy the kingdom of Italy, and restore the Temporal Power. [Methodist Times, August 6, 1896.]

'Mr. Gladstone's “favourable opportunity” is, in the estimation of the Pope and the Church, at last fast approaching. The great prize, which they have kept steadily before their eyes ever since 1870, and to which everything else has been subordinated, and made subservient, is almost, they think, within their grasp. The Italian cartoon on this subject, reproduced [in this work], represents the Pope welcoming the [Austrian] Emperor Francis Joseph and his invading army, with the words : “Come on ! come on, my sons ! For thirty-nine years we have waited for you in Rome.” Another cartoon which I possess represents Rome as a luscious pear, hanging high up in the air, and the Pope climbing a ladder, held by the Emperor Francis Joseph, in the hope of plucking it. It is still, however, beyond his reach. Yet in this fixed determination of reaching it, we come upon the crowning reason, the impelling cause, for the Conquest of England. It is not the only reason, the only impelling cause, for, as we have already seen (Chapter II.), there are others. They want John Bull's gold. They want to regain a measure of prestige in the world, and they want to put down what they call heresy.

'England, then, is recognized as the great obstacle to the recovery of the Temporal Power. So long as England holds its place of intellectual, moral, and material supremacy among the nations, the recovery of the Temporal Power is an impossibility. Therefore England must be humiliated, must be subdued. And to effect this the thousands and tens of thousands of myrmidons of the Church, now scattered throughout the land, are not enough. These are working, as we have seen, to weaken, and deteriorate, and degenerate John Bull; but that is only preparatory work. They are but the sappers and miners sent in advance of a great army of another kind, which the Pope and the Church hope soon to land on our shores. That army of another kind is an army of soldiers, by whom, in co-operation with the enemy already in the field, and profiting by its work, the war will be fought out to the finish. As Mr. Froude long ago said, “it ended in blood before, and it will end in blood again.” [Short Studies on Great Subjects, by J.A. Froude, vol. ii. p. 178.] The Pope and the Church are saying : “Come on ! come on, my sons !” for they hope to complete the Conquest of England by means of a great Military Invasion.

'The nation seems now pretty well alive to the fact that a Military Invasion is impending. It is a strange thing that it did not become aware of this before. I believe that the Pope and the Church formed the resolution to bring it about, soon after the fall of the Temporal Power, in 1870, when, as we have already seen, a league was founded of all Catholics throughout Christendom for the restoration of that Power. And the fact was fully and clearly announced by the Church four years later. Cardinal Manning then said : “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.] In the last sentence of this quotation, the Cardinal clearly refers to Protestant England being at war with some other Protestant nation, as he hopes, to their “mutual destruction.” Cardinal Manning's article appeared in January 1874; then in November of the same year appeared another article by another writer in another Roman Catholic periodical, called The Month, exactly expressing the same thoughts, but without hesitation mentioning England. The article impressed Mr. Gladstone very much, and twice he drew public attention to it, once in a letter to Lord Durham, and again in an appendix to his pamphlet on The Vatican Decrees. I quote from the latter. After speaking of the determination of the Church to restore “the terrestrial throne of the Popedom,” even by the use of fire and sword, he says : “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 (The Month, November 1874), which has direct relation to these matters, and which has every appearance of proceeding from authority.

“'Surely in any European complication, such as may 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.'

“This is a remarkable disclosure. With whom could England be brought into conflict by any disposition she might feel to keep up the Italian Kingdom? Considered as States, both Austria and France are in complete harmony with Italy. But it is plain that Italy has some enemy; and the writers of The Month appear to know who it is.” [The Vatican Decrees, by W.E. Gladstone, Appendix C.]

'Whatever difficulty may have existed when Mr. Gladstone penned these words, in recognizing who Italy's enemy is, there is none to-day. Italy's enemy is Austria. Austria, like the Roman Catholic Church, is Italy's “Eternal Enemy.” The two cartoons of which I have just spoken bear this out. 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.

'No greater proof of the Kaiser's sympathy with the wearer of the triple crown can be given than the speech he made at Aix-la-Chapelle in his praise on the occasion of the last jubilee of Leo XIII. Part of that speech was the following : “It was with pride and joy that he was able to tell them that the Pope had said to his special Ambassador, who went to Rome on the occasion of the Holy Father's jubilee, that he (the Pope) had always kept a high opinion of the piety of the Germans, and especially of the German army; and the Ambassador was to tell his Sovereign that the country in Europe where control, order, and discipline still prevailed, with respect for the authority, and regard for the Church, and where the latter could live, was the German Empire, and for that the Papal See was indebted to the German Emperor.” [Daily Telegraph, June 21, 1902.] (The Papal Conquest, pp. 313-325).

'. . . 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, as great and near, as I said in my opening chapter, as it was in 1690. 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.

'Still it cannot be too vividly recognized that it will not be the fault of Britain's enemies – in this case the enemies of Italy's unity and liberty also – if the scheme be not carried out later. Its prevention lies in the hands of England. Not long ago Lord Roberts, writing to General Sir Henry Rawlinson, said : “I am persuaded that before very long Englishmen will be called upon to defend themselves. I fear lest the hour of trial may find them unprepared.”

'It is for England, then, to rouse herself, so as, in the first place, to realize, clearly and fully, her peril; and then, without a moment's delay, to set about putting in force measures to ensure her safety and well-being; determined that, cost what it may, “the hour of trial” shall not find her unprepared. It is for England to realize that it is not only her own welfare and her own life, with all that these stand for of human liberty and progress, and of the spreading of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ throughout the world, that are at stake in the threatened conflict; but also the welfare and the life, with all their promise of blessing to mankind, of Italy, her most faithful and warm friend. If England is humiliated, so also will Italy be humiliated. The welfare of Old England and of Young Italy are in jeopardy. WAKE UP, ENGLAND!' (The Papal Conquest, pp. 327-330).

[In light of the above, the following quote is taken from the historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay's work, Before Sarajevo: The Origins of the [First] World War , Vol 1, 1928:

'The most valuable to the historian of all the Austro-Hungarian memoirs is the voluminous work of the Austrian Chief of Staff, Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorf (entitled, Aus meiner Dienstzeit [My Years of Service], 5 vols.; published Vienna, 1921-25). It consists in large part of an undigested mass of important documents of all sorts, copies of which he evidently took from the official files and published in chronological order, with a commentary of his own. It also includes conversations in dialogue form which appear to be taken from a diary kept from day to day. With extraordinary frankness, he recounts the repeated efforts he made to have Austria make war on Italy or Serbia on what he regarded as numerous favourable occasions between 1906 and 1914. In July, 1914, it was probably he, more than anyone else, who galvanised the incompetent and hesitating Berchtold into an active advocate of war against Serbia.']

From “The Sick Man”; to “The Strong Man” of Europe . . .

ISRAEL IN THE BOOK

OF REVELATION

BY

REV. L. G. A. ROBERTS

(Commander R.N. Retired)

RECTOR OF ARDLEY, BICESTER, OXFORD,

Secretary of the Imperial British-Israel Association.

WITH PREFACE BY

REV. W. M. H. MILNER, M.A., F.R.G.S. A.V.I.

LONDON:

R. BANKS & SON, 5, RACQUET COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.

1 9 1 1.

'Whilst Revelation xiv. 1-6 is taking place, another scene is being enacted in the Roman earth, in the Kingdom of the Beast. We have in the figure of Revelation xiii, all the nations represented in the Beast, but his last form is the peculiar one. After the wounding of one of the heads of the beast (France under Napoleon) (Rev. xiii. 3-12) his deadly wound is healed (by Germany?). Notice the remarkable language of Revelation xiii, 11 : “And I beheld another Beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and he spake as a dragon.” The first beast rises out of the sea (Rev. xiii. 1), the same as seen in Daniel vii. 3, “The four great beasts came up from the sea” – i.e., they all surrounded the Mediterranean. This last, however, has progressed northwards and is represented as inland as coming up “out of the earth,” and when seen to restore the Roman Empire he has two horns. It is well known that the Germans infest Austria, and that even to-day Germany and Austria are one in objects, they are two horns united for a purpose, moreover they are lamb-like – i.e., Christian, pretended followers of the Lamb. This is their profession; as to the last characteristic, “he spake as a dragon.” We must leave our readers to consider whom this autocrat seems to point to either Prussian or Russian? It is not to be assumed that this system is yet fully developed, and we know not what intrigue with Rome may eventually bring about, but coming events have already cast a shadow before, and events hurry on at a tremendous pace. The spirit that will animate this beast is the same as he “that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit.”

'This interpretation does not render void the ecclesiastical aspect of the beast thereof, for he has a dual object: one purely anti-Christian, the other political, or Rome working with any tool which her craftiness can entice to do her work.' (pp. 196-197).

'THE STRONG MAN OF EUROPE – The Throne and Country, which appears this week under new proprietorship and editorship, publishes an article by Mr. Arnold White entitled “Dare Germany go to War?” Mr. White declares that the strong man in Europe is not the Emperor William but the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. “The question of war or peace depends primarily not on the will of the German Kaiser, but on the question as to which of the two parties gains the ascendancy. If the war party, which franctically supports the world policy of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, succeeds in silencing the peace party, Germany will make war, and will be defeated just as France made war and was defeated twice in the course of the last century.” – (From the Standard, September 20th, 1911).'

(Israel in the Book of Revelation, p. 198).

From “Kulturkampf”, to mourning over her . . .

Kaiser Wilhelm (William) II

(Born 1859; German Emperor 1888-1918; died 1941)

From the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors:

“Kulturkampf conflict 1872-87 between the German government and the papacy”.

Returning back to Bishop Christopher Wordsworth (1807-85), and his work Union with Rome; the following is taken from the Tenth Edition of the said work – published three years after his death; and coinciding with the ascension, that very same year, of Kaiser Wilhelm II to the throne of the German Empire :

“The Apocalypse foretells a remarkable phenomenon, which may soon be manifested, namely that, Powers, which have destroyed the mystical Babylon, will mourn over her.

“The cause of this seemingly strange anomaly is now beginning to disclose itself. Where Ultramontanism is dominant, there the Papacy will now have acquired new force; but in other places, where Ultramontanism does not prevail, there, as is notorious, the usurpation and corruptions of the Roman Church have given a strong impetus to Infidelity. Infidelity produces Anarchy. Anarchy is impatient of all civil rule, especially of royal power. As long as kings reigned by hereditary right, or where they were allied with the Papacy, and wherever the religion of Rome had some hold over the minds of the people, there the Throne rested (though not very securely) on some religious foundation. But this foundation has almost disappeared. Many European Sovereigns are now nominees of the people. They are made and unmade by popular passion. And the Papacy is no longer confederate with them, but is arrayed against them. Can such Monarchies have any permanence? Is it not probable, that the time will soon come, when some of them may even regret their own act in destroying the temporal power of the Papacy, and, according to the prophecy of the Apocalypse, mourn over the ruins of that mystical Babylon which they themselves have laid low?”

(From, Union with Rome. “Is not the Church of Rome the Babylon of the Book of Revelation?” An Essay, by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D. Late Bishop of Lincoln; Tenth Edition, Rivingtons, Waterloo Place, London, 1888; pp. 103-104)

In the light of the above, the quote that follows below is from a small pro-German work emanating from America (purporting to be based on “the Light of Bible Prophecy”), and published in the very same year as the outbreak of the First World War; in it its Author writes the following – which supplies the historical realisation to Bishop Wordsworth's above apocalyptical dissertations, regarding things, which as he wrote, would – according to the divine revelation held within the pages of the Apocalypse – “soon come” to be :

“The Kaiser has a reputation for being a devout churchman. He has said on several occasions he believed himself appointed of God. Some years ago he said he felt he was called to do two things in his career. One was to oppose socialism, which was anarchy against governments; the other [was] to uphold the Pope of Rome, because the Pope stood for God and the Bible, and because unbelief was anarchy against God. He believed the Pope had more influence for peace than any other man in Europe. . . .”

(Quoted from: The European War in the Light of Bible Prophecy, by G.H. Gudebrod [German-American?]; 44 Court Street, Brooklyn, N.Y., 1914; Pages unnumbered).