Mystery Babylon the Great

SSA · **Posted:** Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:32 am

THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN

Since the designation “Jew” belongs exclusively to the tribe of Judah, only the tribe of Judah is “Jewish. Other tribes of Israel who call themselves Jews are appropriating to themselves an ancient birthright which is not rightfully theirs, for the Messiah would descend through the tribe of Judah. Revelation 2:9-10 refers to the synagogue of Satan as “them which say they are Jews, and are not.” In His message to the church at Smyrna, Jesus spoke of this group as a synagogue, that was not Jewish:

synagogue of Satan

The establishment of the synagogue, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, was of ancient origin and, therefore, the ancient Israelites would have had synagogues which continued in both kingdoms subsequent to the great schism:

“By the time [the synagogue] had become the central institution of Judaism (no period of the history of Israel is conceivable without it), it was already regarded as of ancient origin, dating back to the time of Moses (see Yer. Targ., Ex. xviii. 20 and I Chron. xvi. 39; Pesiḳ. 129b; Philo, ‘De Vita Mosis,’ iii. 27; Josephus, ‘Contra Ap.’ ii., § 17; Acts xv. 21).”
We may infer from Revelation 2:9-10, that a portion of the northern kingdom of Israel, which was dispersed after the Assyrian invasion, settled in Smyrna in Asia Minor. Furthermore, that these Israelites claimed to be Jews and, after the death of Christ, persecuted His Church in that city. The bishop of Smyrna during the first part of the second century was the famous Polycarp who was burned at the stake sometime around the year 155. That Jews were behind Polycarp’s martyrdom is evident in the Letter of the Smyrnaeans to the Church at large:

The Lord Jesus also referred to the synagogue of Satan in His message to the Church at Philadelphia:

“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” (Rev. 3:9) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Ignatius of Antioch later sent to the Christians of Philadelphia an interesting letter warning them against the Jews (Funk, ‘Die apostolischen Vätter’, Tübingen, 1901 pp 98-102).” Ignatius of Antioch had also contended with the Judaising heresy in his church at Syria from the late first century until his martyrdom in Rome c. 110 A.D. The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “Ignatius apparently fought two groups of heretics: (1) Judaisers, who did not accept the authority of the New Testament and clung to such Jewish practices as observing the Sabbath, and (2) the Docetists...”

“IGNATIUS THEOPHOROS (Greek: ‘God Bearer’) (d. c. 110, Rome), bishop of Antioch, Syria, known mainly from seven highly regarded letters that he wrote during a trip to Rome, as a prisoner condemned to be executed for his beliefs. He was apparently eager to counteract the teachings of two groups--the Judaizers, who did not accept the authority of the New Testament, and the Docetists, who held that Christ's sufferings and death were apparent but not real. The letters have often been cited as a source of knowledge of the Christian church at the beginning of the 2nd century. Ignatius represented the Christian religion in transition from its Jewish origins to its assimilation in the Greco-Roman world.”

SSA · **Posted:** Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:51 am

ZIONISM: OF GOD OR SATAN?

MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, simply defined, is that portion of the Gentile Church which is controlled by the Synagogue of Satan. The Great Whore has been riding this Beast lo these many centuries, seducing multitudes with the Babylonish apparel of her princes, her mystical rites, idolatrous worship and her brotherhood of spiritual elites, whose monasteries are fronts for homosexual and occult activity. After having exploited Christianity to establish a global kingdom, the Beast will eventually overthrow the Great Whore and remove the mask, revealing its Jewish identity. Until then, the Synagogue of Satan will continue to make use of the Mother of Harlots to obtain its immediate objective---reconquest and repossession of the Holy Land.

Scriptural promises abound that God Himself will regather the House of Israel and bring them into “their own land.”

“And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.” (Is. 11:10-13)
Note, in the first passage below, God’s opinion of Israel’s treatment of the nations which graciously hosted the Diaspora, as well as His reason for restoring them to their homeland:

And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name

mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went

my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them

bring you into your own land

bring you into the land of Israel

For more than a century, the Zionists have been gathering their fellow Israelites from all over the world. Shall we conclude then, that by bringing the Jews to Israel, Zionism is therefore a movement of God and should be supported by Christians? This movement is not the fulfillment of God's promise to regather Israel, per se, but is Satan's counterfeit of Bible prophecy to establish the world kingdom which he will rule through the Antichrist from Israel. Satan is, in fact, using Zionism to regather the Jews to Israel for another Holocaust which will take place during the Tribulation period.

Within Jewry there is a movement which has opposed the Zionist Movement from its inception. Neturei Karta, which means “Guardians of the City,” is comprised of ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe that the present condition of the Jew is a reflection of divine wrath. One of its chief proponents, I. Domb, wrote in The Transformation: The Case of the Neturei Karta:

'Verily, hands full of Fire descended from Heaven to burn the Temple of G”d . . . G”d has crushed the strong in our midst . . . In His anger He cut off all the pride of Israel.”

Messiah

I. Domb further maintains that the Zionist Movement and its precursor, Reform Judaism, have removed the Jews from observance of the Torah and substituted in its place the secular humanism that characterizes 95 % of world Jewry today.

“The way was prepared for Zionism by the reform movement or the so-called Haskala with its teaching that the laws governing the world could all be understood by human reason. The influence of the Haskala began to undermine the pillars of Judaism, and once the infection had spread to the Jewish masses, Zionism, the faithful offspring and disciple of the Haskala Reform, arose to continue the work of its father and to apply its teachings to the Jewish people. The Haskala and Zionism were mutually dependent in the process; the former breached the wall of the citadel of the faith, and the latter, disguised in an imitation of Jewish garb, entered through the breaches in order to carry on the work of destroying the main structure.” (p. 7)
The secularization of Judaism has been systematically achieved through the Zionist campaign:

I. Domb argues that Zionism does not constitute the fulfillment of God's plan for the Jews but rebellion against it. This, in turn, will incur more of God's wrath upon the Jews, according to Lubavitch Rabbi, Shulem Ben Shneersohn:

“Should—Heaven forbid—the Zionists succeed in obtaining a country as they hope, they will defile and desecrate it with their abominations and their evil deeds and thus prolong—Heaven forbid—the length of the Exile.” (p. 233)
Previously, I. Domb mentioned that, among the Zionists there arose a group called the Canaanites, which will partially account for the abominations that the will defile the nation of Israel upon full acquisition of the land. Keep in mind that the ancient Canaanites occupied the far northern territory surrounding Mount Sion/Hermon which was later occupied by the tribe of Dan:

“A group which calls itself the Canaanites and consists of those who have had a complete Zionist education... The Canaanites claim perfectly naturally that they belong to the ancient culture of the original Canaanite nation which occupied the land now called Israel in ancient times. Therefore, they claim, that they must acknowledge and re-adopt the ancient culture of the country with the main principles involved in that culture... What has happened is perfectly simple. The Zionist heresy, with its compete and essential denial of the whole content of Judaism and of the Holiness of the Torah, has created a vacuum which cannot long be unfulfilled... the reason for the appearance of this group and the Canaanites myth which it propagates, is t provide something that can fill the vacuum... it is a clear and unmistakable sign that the uprooting of the Torah, has succeeded to such an extent as far as the younger generation is concerned, that they are ready to grasp with enthusiasm at even the most fantastic of myths.” (pp. 87-88)
Although the Zionist Movement is not the fulfillment of God's promises to regather the tribes of Israel, neither will ultra-Orthodox Jewry represent the 144,000 Jews from the twelve tribes (excluding Dan) who will stand with Jesus Christ on Mount Zion. The true 144,000 of Revelation 14 “have not defiled themselves with women,” which is a reference to the pagan sex rites that will be prevalent during the Tribulation Period, per Rev. 9:21. However, ultra-Orthodox Jewry which comprises the membership of Neturei Karta derives its ideology from the Talmud and the Kabalah, both of which elevate fornication to a virtue. “The great Lubavitcher rabbi” previously quoted by I. Domb would be a Kabbalist, a practitioner of Jewish occultism who awaits the Lubavitcher messiah. (See: Under the Law) Domb himself embraces the Gnostic notion of the divinity of man as being the exclusive privilege of the Jew.

mitzvot

averoth

divine quality inherited from our forbears

mitzvot

averoth

Only the Jews, the people who are endowed with divine quality

their eternal and indissoluble union with G”d, as no other human has the possibility of being included in that order

We are forced to conclude that ultra-Orthodox Jewry is simply the religious extreme of the dialectic in professed, but not actual, opposition to secular Zionism. The dialectical process, which is designed to polarize the masses and destabilize the status quo in order to restructure the social order, will ultimately unite world Jewry in a Babylonian religious system based on Kabalism, which is the common denominator of Zionism and ultra-Orthodox Jewry.

Psalm 119:91 says of the Lord, “...for all are thy servants”— which reveals that all men, even the wicked, are fulfilling the sovereign purposes of God whether they realize it or not. So the Zionists, who are funded by Rothschild money and think they are so brilliant as to outwit, not only the Christians, but God Himself, are in fact opposing themselves and, in the final analysis, signing their own death warrants. Likewise, the ultra-Orthodox Kabbalists.

Scripture is explicit that when the Jews return to Israel, they will face the Tribulation period. In order to control Israel from Jerusalem, the tribe of Dan must exterminate Judah and usurp its place in the Messianic lineage. Even so, Scripture foretells that, after the slaughter of two-thirds of Jewry is allowed to take place, the Lord Jesus Christ will save Judah:

And so we are given to understand that God has not cast off His people forever, but a glorious day awaits the remnant of Israel when the Lord Jesus Christ will reveal Himself.

“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn... And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.” (Zech.12:10-11,13:6)
When Jesus reveals himself to His brethren, it will be a family affair, and profoundly moving. The Biblical type for this reconciliation is the patriarch Joseph, who wept as he revealed his identity to his brethren...and hastened to graciously forgive them for their past treachery.

“Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. And he wept aloud: and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard. And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him; for they were troubled at his presence. And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life. For these two years hath the famine been in the land: and yet there are five years, in the which there shall neither be earing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.” (Gen. 45:1-7)

[align=center]* * *[/align]

“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid... God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew... I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Romans 11)

SSA · **Posted:** Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:51 am

There is an ammendment to part 2

http://watch-unto-prayer.org/mystery-ba ... ml#avignon

THE AVIGNON PAPACY

Nearly all Protestant histories of the Roman Catholic Church fail to ention a monumental event which radically alters the historical picture — the Avignon Papacy. For it was during the Templar Purge that the Roman curia and pope were forcibly removed to the Merovingian territory of South France, whence a Merovingian pope and papal court managed the Catholic Church for nearly 70 years. Appropriately called “the Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” it was during this period that “papal supremacy” was declared, indulgences were first sold and anti-clericalism was launched—not from Rome but by the Merovingian pope and papal curia in the Merovingian stronghold of South France.

“But when from 1305 to 1378 the papal curia was at Avignon and the cardinals were nearly all Frenchmen, Englishmen were offended: and from 1378 to 1418 the two popes, at Rome and Avignon, caused scandal to all… Dr. Walter Ullmann, in his recent notable book on Medieval Papalism, quotes the fourteenth century papalists as asserting that the pope, in the fulness of his power, was beyond the reach of any mortal, emperor, king or any other… The pope could do and say whatever he pleased to do and say in all and everything: he was above the law, whether natural (and, as it were divine) or whether humanly devised… ‘In the conception of the canonists,’ Dr. Ullmann writes, ‘the pope was truly God on earth.’…

“…A word then about Wycliffe’s anti-clericalism, a factor now so much stressed as one of the causes of the sixteenth century Reformation. Anti-clericalism did not begin with Wycliffe or in England: it existed in France at the beginning of the fourteenth century. It spread from the south French university of Montpellier, a great law school, which trained most of the anti-clerical courtiers and ministers of Philip IV...” (Deanesly, The Significance of the Lollard Bible)

The Avignon papacy in the lifetime of John Wycliffe and beyond seems to have been custom designed by the French Merovingians to agitate public opinion against the Church. It is also noteworthy that it was not the Church of Rome but the Avignon papacy in France which declared the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary to be a dogma of the Church. A late date of 1854 is often assigned to this heretical teaching which became Catholic dogma by the decree of Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus. However, its early history is documented, not only in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but in historical accounts such as Henry Charles Lea’s History of the Inquisition:

“Up to the twelfth century it was not questioned that the Virgin was conceived and born in sin… With the growth of Mariolotry, however, there came a popular tendency to regard the Virgin as free from all human corruption, and towards the middle of the twelfth century the church of Lyons ventured to place on the calendar a new feast in honor of the Conception of the Virgin…, the celebration of the Feast of the Conception gradually spread. Thomas Aquinas tells us that it was observed in many churches, though not in that of Rome, and that it was not forbidden, but he warns against the inference that because a feast is holy therefore the conception of Mary was holy. In fact, he denies the possibility of her immaculate conception… There is a tradition that…the University of Paris…in 1222…declared in its favor by a solemn decree… the Church of Narbonne commenced, in 1327, to celebrate the Feast of the Conception, and in 1328 the Council of London ordered its observance in all the churches of the Province of Canterbury, we see how rapidly the new dogma was spreading.” (Lea, A History of the Inquisition, Vol. 3, pp. 596-598)

Thomas Aquinas repudiated the false doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was apparently the work of Franciscan theologian, John Duns Scotus, who developed a systematic theology that led to its proclamation as Catholic dogma:

“Blessed John Duns Scotus (1265/66 – 8th November 1308), besides being known as the ‘Subtle Doctor’, is also referred to as the ‘Marian Doctor’. It was he who presented a systematic theology of the Marian privilege of the Immaculate Conception, which the Catholic Church officially proclaimed as a Dogma of Faith in the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX (8th December 1854), of which we are this year celebrating the 150th anniversary.” (“John Duns Scotus and His Defence of the Immaculate Conception”)

Interestingly, Christianity Today recently published an article promoting the theology of John Duns Scotus. On January 10, 2008, CT Editor, Philip Yancey, recommended that evangelicals reconsider the Catholic theology of Duns Scotus:

“More than two centuries before the Reformation, a theological debate broke out that pitted theologian Thomas Aquinas against an upstart from Britain, John Duns Scotus. In essence, the debate circled around the question, ‘Would Christmas have occurred if humanity had not sinned?’

“Whereas Aquinas viewed the Incarnation as God’s remedy for a fallen planet, his contemporary saw much more at stake. For Duns Scotus, the Word becoming flesh as described in the prologue to John’s Gospel must surely represent the Creator’s primary design, not some kind of afterthought or Plan B. Aquinas pointed to passages emphasizing the Cross as God’s redemptive response to a broken relationship. Duns Scotus cited passages from Ephesians and Colossians on the cosmic Christ, in whom all things have their origin, hold together, and move toward consummation...

“...Though most theologians tended to follow Aquinas, in recent years prominent Catholics such as Karl Rahner have taken a closer look at Duns Scotus. Perhaps evangelicals should, too.” (“Ongoing Incarnation”)

Duns Scotus taught at the University of Paris from 1293 through 1297, when he was expelled, allegedly for siding with the pope in his feud with King Philip IV of France. From Paris, the ‘Marian Doctor’ removed to the University of Oxford. According to Louis Israel Newman, author of Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, “The scholarly relationship between the Universities of Paris and Oxford for a long period was very close; it was first interrupted by the controversies during the time of Wycliffe and afterwards broken off by the wars in France and the civil wars in England.” (p. 90)

Lea’s History of the Inquisition stated that the Church in England was among the first to follow suit after the French declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Avignonese Popes, all Merovingians who worshipped the Black Virgin, had devised a clever strategy to impose the pernicious doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on Christendom:

“…Juan de Moncon, a Dominican professor in the University of Paris, taught that the Virgin was conceived in sin. This aroused a great uproar, and he fled to Avignon from impending condemnation. Then, at Rouen, another Dominican preached similar doctrine, and, as we are told, was generally ridiculed. The University sent to Avignon a deputation headed by Pierre d’Ailly, who claimed that the papal decision had been in their favor... The Dominicans were expelled from all positions in the Sorbonne, and the Avignonese Clement VII. was too dependent upon France to refuse a bull proclaiming as heretics Juan and all who held with him. Charles VI. was persuaded not only to force the Dominicans of Paris to celebrate every year the Feast of the Conception, but to order the arrest of all within the kingdom who denied the Immaculate Conception, that they might be brought to Paris and obliged to recant before the University…

“The University of Paris was the stronghold of the new doctrine… The belief…continued to spread… In 1438 the clergy and magistrates of Madrid…made a vow thereafter to observe the Feast of the Conception. The next year the Council of Basle…came to a decision in favor of the Immaculate Conception, forbade all assertions to the contrary, and ordered the feast to be everywhere celebrated on December 8, with due indulgences for attendance…

“A new article could not be introduced without creating a new heresy. Here was one on which the Church was divided, and the adherents on each side denounced the other as heretics and persecuted them as far as they dared where they had the power. In this the Dominicans were decidedly at a disadvantage, and their antagonists had greatly the preponderance and were daily growing in strength. In 1457, the Council of Avignon, presided over by a papal legate, the Cardinal de Foix, who was a Franciscan, confirmed the decree of Basle, and ordered under pain of excommunication that no one should teach to the contrary…” (Lea, A History of the Inquisition, pp. 599-600)

Cardinal de Foix would have been a Merovingian since the Counts of Foix were descendants of the Merovingian dynasty through Eudes, the Duke of Aquitaine. The entire region of South France had long been a stronghold of Mariolatry, being worshippers of the Black Virgin, who was the Egyptian Isis ‘Christianized’ as Mary Magdalene. The forcible introduction of Mary-worship into the Catholic Church, which formerly held no such doctrine, was a veritable tour de force of the Merovingian papacy at Avignon.

For over a century the Avignon papacy was diligently at work transforming the Church doctrinally and also setting in motion the events which would divide and conquer Christendom. This major turning point in Church history, which is known as the Great Western Schism, began in 1378 with two events: the death of Pope Gregory XI and the prohibition of passing judgment against John Wycliffe on the order of the Queen of England, Joan Plantagenet.The corruption of the Avignon Papacy was not limited to Catholic doctrine; the financial and administrative corruption of the Papal Court was so flagrant that in retrospect it seems to have been deliberate in order to provoke the popular revolt which inevitably followed.

“Popes, Cardinals, and officials of the Chancery and Apostolic Camera appointed bishops, collected taxes, and imposed disreputable political interdicts and excommunications throughout much of Christendom with greater abandon than ever before. They did so in tight association with countless princes and other representatives of the late medieval Establishment. Bankers were particularly welcome in their entourage. As Alvaro Pelayo, himself a fervent supporter of the Holy See, noted in De planctu ecclesiae, ‘Whenever I entered the chambers of the ecclesiastics of the Papal Court, I found brokers and clergy engaged in weighing and reckoning the money which lay in heaps before them.’ (Pastor, I, 72). / was this the Templar treasure?

“A myriad of astonishing abuses, many of them the product of exceedingly pro-papal canonists influenced heavily by Roman Law and purely utilitarian power considerations, became associated with the Avignon administration. Charitable covers for raking in illicit funds were multiplied. Sees were left vacant or filled in ways that furthered the increase of gross curial muscle and wealth. Legal cases were painfully delayed so as to milk more loot from long-suffering plaintiffs and defendants. And, once again, all this was done in dangerous cahoots with locally important political and banker hacks.

“Even more destructive was the treatment of diocesan matters as property rather than pastoral questions. Bishoprics were assigned either to curial officials—to provide, from their endowments, salaries the Papacy could not otherwise pay—or to friends of political allies whose cooperative behavior needed to be rewarded. Since it was impossible for papal employees to leave their governmental positions in Avignon to tend to even one diocese—much less the two or more often entrusted to their misuse—episcopal charges inevitably entailed the same absenteeism already practiced by the pope himself. Perhaps the most bizarre long term development from such unfortunate policies was to be the creation of nominal ‘bishops’ who were often not even priests. Lay ‘bishops’ got the revenues from their ‘property’, and then employed some hireling to do the episcopal tasks they themselves could not legitimately perform.

“...Avignon’s abuses merely confirmed the convictions of those who already thought of the Church and her mission as a blasphemous work of Satan. This was the major reason why her scandals were so detested by orthodox believers.” (“The Great Western Schism”)

The outrageous conduct of the Avignon papacy marked the beginning of the decline of the Roman Catholic papacy.

“…The kings’ increasing ability to claim the loyalty of the local clergy and to collect church taxes helped create several quasi-national churches that officially were part of the Roman Catholic Church but were increasingly under royal control. The Babylonian Captivity, along with the Hundred Years War then going on, also triggered challenges to papal authority from two other directions: church councils and popular heresies.” (“Schism & heresies in late medieval Europe”)

Another factor in the decline of the papacy was the spectacle of warring popes during the Great Schism. At one point the Church had three popes who excommunicated one another!! This chaotic state of affairs divided all of Europe and permanently damaged the authority of the pope:

The Great Schism and Conciliar movement

“The resentment that the Babylonian Captivity aroused against the Church grew worse when the popes tried to move back to Rome. By the 1370’s, the turmoil of the Hundred Years War was making life at Avignon increasingly dangerous. The capture and ransoming of Pope Innocent VI by a company of English mercenaries (who had little use for a French pope, anyway) convinced Pope Gregory XI to move to Rome. However, at this time, Rome was a more dangerous place to live in during times of ‘peace’ than France was during war. It took Gregory three attempts to get into Rome, and once he got in, he quickly decided he wanted to leave and return to Avignon. Unfortunately, Gregory died before he could get out.

“For the first time in 70 years, Rome was the scene of a papal election, and the Roman mob clamored outside for an Italian pope. Under such pressure, the College of Cardinals elected an Italian, Urban VI, as the next pope. Unfortunately, Urban was something of a violent and bigoted man whose actions drove all but three cardinals back to Avignon where they elected a second pope. Thus began the Great Schism, a period of turmoil when the Church was divided in its loyalty between two lines of popes, one French and one Italian. To no one’s surprise, each pope refused to recognize the other and even excommunicated him and his followers. This led to enormous anxiety among devout Christians, who found themselves supposedly excommunicated by one pope or the other. With neither pope willing to resign, something had to be done.

“The most popular suggestion was a general church council such as the ones summoned to solve major disputes in the past. There were several problems with this solution. First of all, popes traditionally called such councils, and neither pope was willing to call such a council. This made the legality of such a council questionable if not called by at least one pope. Second, different rulers in Europe supported particular popes, largely for political reasons. Such political divisions made it almost impossible to get people to agree on the site of a council, not to mention the deeper issues involved. Finally, the whole issue of a Church council raised the question: if a council could depose the pope, who was the real head of the Church? This was a question that lingered on long after the Great Schism had faded away.

“At last, a council was called at Pisa, Italy in 1409. It deposed the two rival popes and elected a third. Unfortunately, neither original pope recognized the council’s power to depose a pope, so now the Church had three popes. However, by this time, people were committed to the idea of a church council, and another one was called at Constance, Switzerland. All three popes were deposed, and a fourth, Martin V, was elected. Although one of the deposed popes held on in Avignon until 1429, the Great Schism ended here. Its effects did not, because it caused people all over Western Europe to question the authority of the pope in the Church. Although a single pope once again ruled the Church, his reputation and authority were permanently undermined.” (“Schism & heresies in late medieval Europe”)

“The Merovingian Infiltration of the Christian Church Through Monasticism,” of anonymous authorship, makes a compelling case that the Avignon Papacy was a planned conspiracy executed by the French monarch, Philip le Bel, who was a Merovingian. This accords with statements in Merovingian sources that the Templar Purge was orchestrated for the purpose of “downsizing” and relocating the Order to Scotland where they would enjoy the protection of the Saint Clair family and freedom they did not have on the Continent. In the British Isles, the Templars, under the protection and leadership of Henry Sinclair, would be at liberty establish the Order of the Rose Croix, Freemasonry, Unitarianism and Baptist churches. (See: “Anabaptist Unitarians”).

“Merovingian king, Philip IV (la Belle), who arrested the Templars on Oct. 13, 1307 and who placed his cousin, Clement V, on the Chair of Peter as his accomplice, then insisted that the pope remain in France, rather than Rome. This began what is named the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, a 68 year period in which the Church was forced to remain in Avignon France. The next successive 6 popes would be French and Merovingian, the second of whom, Clement VI, began formulating the doctrine of indulgences, which later became the spark of the Protestant Reformation as planned! The majority of Templars who escaped the arrest in 1307 went to Scotland which was the first to break from the Church through the Declaration of Arbroath, the document on which the 1776 U.S. Declaration was based. One signatory of the letter to Pope John XXII April 4, 1320 (date NATO was later formed) was the grandfather of Henry Sinclair, Earl of Orkney and Shetland Islands for Norway who lived in Roslin Castle, Scotland. It was he who brought Templar treasure to Nova Scotia in 1398, 94 years pre-Columbus. The Sinclairs were bishops of Ross and hereditary Grand Masters of Freemasonry.” (“The Merovingian Infiltration of the Christian Church Through Monasticism”)

Prince Michael Stewart is President of the European Council of Princes, said to be a constitutional advisory body to the European Union. Prince Michael is also the Knight Grand Commander of the Chivalric Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (Knights Templar), and holds various other titles of high rank in the Merovingian bloodline. (The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, pp. 2, 308) According to Prince Michael, following the Templar Purge on the Continent, the Celtic Church of Scotland welcomed the refugee Knights Templar who then formed the Order of the Rosy Cross. And the first order of business of the Knights of the Rosy Cross was...to meet with the Pope at Avignon!!

“The established Roman Church may have betrayed the Templars, but in Scotland they found something far more trustworthy and tangible: a sacred royal house, and a Priest-King of the Celtic Church succession. ...the Knights became part of the Scottish Government as the appointed Royal Bodyguard, with the Order established as ‘Guardian of the King of Scots by day and by night’... A new order was then formed, called the Elder Brothers of the Order of the Rosy Cross, and several of the Rosy Cross Knights then sailed to France for a meeting with Pope John XXII at Avignon.

“Many historians have presumed therefore that the Knights Templars must have been disbanded in Scotland, but this was not the case; it was simply that [Robert the] Bruce had contrived the secret Order to become even more secretive. Indeed, the Order of the Knights of the Rosy Cross...was a very successful cover.” (The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, p. 65)

Having formed the secretive Order of the Rosy Cross in Scotland, the Templars sent a contingent of Rosy Cross Knights to France for a meeting with the Pope at Avignon. This is documented with a footnote: “The Vatican Archives, Rome” What would prompt the persecuted Templars to return to the very headquarters of the Catholic Church which had slaughtered so many knights of their Order? Prince Michael offers this feeble excuse: “...this new Order was not apparently Templar to outsiders, and since the Pope held the international reins of Chivalric Orders, a meeting was necessary for registration.” Furthermore, “…the Pope agreed to issue a Charter so long as his own nephew, Jacques de Via, became the operative Grand Master.” (Stewart, p. 65) Surely this high-level meeting between the fugitive Templars and the Avignon Pope reeks of collusion.

Also about this time, John Wycliffe, the “Morning Star of the Reformation,” led the Lollards of England to foment rebellion against the Avignon Papacy, a Merovingian front doing their best to destroy public confidence in the Catholic Church. The purge of the Knights Templar occurred from 1307 to 1314, the same years the Merovingian Pope and his curia were setting up their new headquarters in Avignon. John Wycliffe was born in 1327 and entered the political scene around 1376, at the close of the Avignon Papacy and onset of the Great Schism. Is this sequence of events mere coincidence or is there evidence that Wycliffe may have been an agent of the network of the secret societies that Henry Saint Clair had established on the British Isles? Evidence of Wycliffe’s Rosicrucian connections is presented in: “The Lollard Movement: John Wycliffe.”

There is compelling evidence that the Protestant Reformation was the brainchild of the Merovingian Jews who functioned as agent provocateurs throughout the Holy Roman Empire whose ultimatums for reform were met with more flagrant abuses by the Merovingian popes. Some agents of the Reformation were as violent as the popes, giving Protestant Christianity a reputation for brutality, as the Marranos had formerly done within the Catholic Church. (See: “The Reformation: Rosicrucian Connections”) Rosicrucian Jeff Nisbet divulged the brilliant strategy of the Merovingian Jews in Atlantis Rising magazine:

“In one fell swoop, the Christian world was cleft in twain. No longer would Rome be able to raise great armies from its subject nations to crush heresies wherever the Papal finger pointed. There was no longer just one big boy on the block. Another had moved in. The mightiest church the world had ever known had been ‘divided’ and ‘conquered’.

“But the Reformed Church would not be allowed to remain squeaky clean. The life of Mary’s grandson, James VI, the first...king of both Scotland and England, would be threatened by a plot hatched by ‘witches’ on Halloween, 1590. The celebrated but trumped-up case of the ‘North Berwick Witches’ kick-started over a century of Scottish witch hunts, and proved that your average Presbyterian could be just as vindictive as your average Catholic when it came to fighting Satan's minions. While an equilibrium had been established between the two great Christian powers, neither can yet lay claim to being the saintliest, and each still has that heavy cross of guilt to bear. Another perfect doublecross, perhaps?” (Rosslyn Chapel Revisited)

Mystery Babylon the Great

Who is online