Dialogue vol 1 no 2

Dialogue Vol. I, No. 2

Reflection and amplification on RULERS OF EVIL through correspondence between ROEders and the author

THE DOCTOR (FRIEND OF THE AUTHOR) WROTE:

As a life-long, Jesuit-educated Catholic, I am astonished that you didn’t do your research re: the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

It definitely does NOT mean that Mary was conceived by a virgin! Her conception was, most definitely, in the usual fashion. She was conceived, however, free from original sin.

That’s what’s immaculate about it.

TUPPER WROTE:

You’re absolutely right. My website does say that Pio Nono’s [Pope Pius IX’s] encyclical is “an unbiblical scenario which holds that Mary, like her Son, was conceived by a virgin.” My book states it only a little more conservatively, [as does the current website].

In ROE, I say that Ineffabilis Deus defines “Immaculate Conception, the extrascriptural doctrine that Mary, like Jesus, was conceived and remained free of sin.” [The current website quotes Pio Nono’s declaration that Mary was “preserved free from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her conception.” ]

Did I do my research on Immaculate Conception? Let me say simply that I know, as you do, that IC is a relatively recent fabrication — that until the 12th century the church fathers and doctors denied IC on the grounds that Mary was conceived normally, that is, in sin like the rest of us. (See Peter de Rosa, SJ, Vicars of Christ, p 237) .

And I’m sure you know also that Pio Nono’s Marian theology, according to J.C.H. Aveling (a wonderful Jesuit biographer converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism by Jesuits), was developed almost exclusively by Jesuits.

IC cannot stand under the Scriptural standard. By Scripture, normal human conception proves original sin, since Adam’s progeny were all conceived as a direct and proximate result of original sin.

The only way one can be born free from original sin is to have a virgin mother inseminated by the Holy Spirit, and this occurred in no relationship but that between Mary and Jesus. There’s no escape from this if Scripture is the standard.

Pio Nono’s proposition that Mary was, “in the first instant of her conception,.. preserved free from all stain of original sin,” has never pretended to be anything but impeccable Jesuitry. Nor can I see how such a broad statement bars the normal inference that Mary must have been therefore conceived by a virgin. More importantly, I know of nothing in Pio Nono’s definition that explains, as you do, that “Mary’s conception was, most definitely, in the usual fashion, but...free from original sin.”

I would love to see Pio Nono’s, or the Magisterium’s, treatment of that point in light of Scripture. [The term Magisterium describes the teaching authority of the Roman Church.]

THE DOCTOR WROTE:

Ah, old friend, but scripture is not the standard; at least not the only one. Otherwise, how could non-Catholics believe in the validity of divorce— except for “lewd behavior?”

Or how could they hope to achieve salvation without “eating my flesh and drinking my blood?” Not just grape juice symbolizing something or other, but the real thing?

Everything is possible with God— Immaculate Conception, or blood under the appearances of wine.

Of course, the best way to avoid nasty confrontation re dogma is to have no dogma. Well, we’re all getting older, and it won’t be long until we learn the truth the hard way!

I’ll keep you in my prayers. After all, there was St. Augustine!

TUPPER WROTE:

Scripture may not be the only standard—and you’re right, before too long we’ll both know for sure. In the case of my book, however, Scripture is the only standard. You should know me well enough to know that I’m a standard man. Gold, silver, remember?

My book puts forward the hypothesis, supported by a considerable amount of history and (since we are tracking covert warriors who try to leave no clues) construction from circumstance, that the very people who hooked America on a fluctuating, imprecise monetary standard are the same ones who began prying Christians away from the biblical standard even in the days of Peter, Paul, James, and John.

All things are indeed possible with God. But He has graciously set limitations on the possibilities, lest he lose credibility with us. He very easily could but won’t, for example, play jokes on us— such as get us to believe one thing that turns out to be the opposite of what is true. He tells us that Scripture is to be the standard. Why should I believe anyone who says otherwise? Wouldn’t I be like the guy who believes it when the Federal Reserve apologist declares that a precious metallic standard is out of date and impractical?

Non-Catholics and Catholics alike can believe in the validity of divorce from the Scriptural standard, which only commands that we give honor to whom honor is due. Those whom the State has joined together God permits the State to put asunder (see Matthew 19:6). God’s part in the union is impossible for the State to destroy. This is a Scriptural truth that neither Catholic nor Protestant doctrine teaches.

Non-Catholics and Catholics alike can know they have won salvation by the Scriptural standard that believing in Christ’s death and resurrection gives a sinner the status of perfection in the mind of God.

Scripture has Jesus qualify what he meant by “eating my flesh and drinking my blood.” At John 6:63, after most of Christ’s audience have been turned off by his apparent invitation to drink his real blood and eat his real flesh, he explains to the disciples that he was speaking in spiritual terms in order to demonstrate who was being drawn to him by the Father. Last-supper symbolizing is not a Protestant construct; it is Scriptural.

I think you’ll find Rulers of Evil interesting. With its foundation in Scripture, it presents the Jesuits in a very interesting, and I think in many ways admirable, light. I mean, what more can I give anybody than the American Revolution—philosophically and strategically?

No one can doubt their brilliance—you are certainly an ornament to their teaching abilities. I’ve never met a Jesuit I didn’t admire, and I think my admiration for their skills in clandestine strategy shows again and again in the book. I think that a reasonable examination of Scripture indicates that the Roman Church Militant, led by the Jesuit General, comprise the divinely ordained universal rulership of evil. This is supported by a preponderance of history that I believe cannot responsibly be dismissed or laughed off.

I’m happy to be in your prayers. You’re in mine, as well.

THE DOCTOR WROTE:

It’s interesting how a reading of the same story leads to such different interpretations. My Bible says nothing about Jesus (who doesn’t play jokes on us!) saying, “Just kidding, guys,” when His disciples turned away from Him after the promise of the Eucharist.

If there is individual, or personal, interpretation of Scripture (which is all there is!), how can there be standards? And if to accept Jesus as one’s savior equates with salvation, what difference does it make what you believe?

Your reference to the precious metal standards is apt, because at the moment I am involved with the State’s Administrative Hearing Commission, on automatic appeal from their demand for back income taxes, and I am utilizing the gold/silver argument, as well as others. The responses I have gotten to interrogatories are almost laughably inept. Of course, forcing one’s opponent to make a fool of himself to justify his position only antagonizes him, and if one’s opponent also owns the court and the judges, losing is a foregone conclusion. My hope is that I might put some small seedling of truth in the minds of someone along the way, to germinate and fructify in the future. I mentioned, in one of my motions, that I could have greater respect for the Revenue Department if it simply stated its determination to seize my credit, law be damned. That would certainly clear the air, rather like Lucifer’s momentous NON SERVIAM. Cutting to the chase, as they would say today.

Catholics, of course, don’t believe the state has anything to do with the Sacrament of Matrimony except to witness that it has taken place. Long before the state issues its puffery about divorce, the couple have already renounced the vows they made before God and man. Hey, but if you accept Jesus as your savior, it’s OK! Let’s sing a few hymns and sip some grape juice! Once Luther decided that he’d fare better with the German princes than the Pope, his “theology” was drawn up to fit the circumstances, and legitimize the whole thing. Personally, I think NON SERVIAM has a better ring to it, and is surely less tedious to read.

Of course, the world still awaits the first example of anyone changing his mind as the result of an argument, and I don’t want to argue about religion, except that I prefer to see the Catholic position put forward by a Catholic!

Thanks for your prayers; I need them and appreciate them. And I will remember you at Mass tomorrow— and every day.

TUPPER WROTE:

This is my first experience discussing Scripture in writing with a Catholic! Not only a Catholic, but one who plays Mozart and preaches Article I Section 10 to State officials—a man after my own heart! We could be Bereans, you know, those people whom the apostles regarded as “more noble” than the Thessalonians because “they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Through discussion I think we could accomplish much that our Lord would find pleasing. In the last paragraph of my new book I wrote:

I’m not the kind of person who has to be right. I let the evidence lead me. The evidence shaped my conclusions. The evidence wrote this book. To anyone who knows of countervailing evidence, evidence that might point me in a different direction, this is my request to see it. I’m not above repenting again, nor would I shrink from printing retractions. I want Reconciliation, and I want Truth. If St. Francis Xavier can say “I would not even believe in the Gospels were the Holy Church to forbid it,” with no less commitment I can say that I would not believe even the Bible were Truth to forbid it.

I paraphrased the part in John 6:24-66 in which Jesus explained that his flesh-and-blood-eating speech was metaphoric only, a spiritual expression “to demonstrate who was being drawn to him by the Father,” as I put it. Was my paraphrase incorrect? Let Scripture adjudicate:

This passage concerns dialogue that took place in Capernaum (24) and perhaps later in the synagogue (58). To the hordes of disciples that were attracted to him by the miracle of the loaves, Jesus declared himself Messiah, and warned them that his ministry was not about filling bellies with food (26). The disciples took issue, saying that God had sent their fathers manna from heaven (31). Jesus explained that now God was sending them “the true bread from heaven” (32). They cried “Evermore give us this bread!” But the bread Jesus was talking about was himself — “I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst” (35).

Jesus reminded them that although they could see him, many would not believe him (36). Nevertheless, “all that my Father gives to me shall come to me and I will in no way cast him out” (37). To preempt any suspicion that God might deny salvation to some, Jesus explained: “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (40).

Immediately (41) the Jews among this mass of early disciples began murmuring over Jesus’ metaphor of himself as the heavenly bread. They disbelieved him (42). Jesus told them not to murmur among themselves (43), and reiterated that nobody would believe him unless drawn to him by the Father (44). By this Jesus meant that only those who studied the Old Testament would understand who he was. “It is written,” he told them, “by the prophets ‘And they shall be all taught by God.’ Every man, therefore, who has heard and has learned from God, comes to me” (45).

Then Jesus stated what I consider the Article I Section 10 of Scripture: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me has everlasting life” (47). Again, he called himself the bread “which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die” (50). He carried the metaphor to its logical extreme— if he was bread, he must be eaten, and if eaten, his blood must also necessarily be drunk.

The Jews, aware of the Torah’s prohibition on cannibalism and taking Jesus literally, were shocked. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (52) Jesus explained that he was the “bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live forever” (58). Clearly, Jesus was not pretending to be substantive bread such as fell from heaven to the Israelites of Moses. He was declaring himself spiritual bread that will bring its consumer eternal life. This was the debut of the New Testament.

Still perplexed by the cannibal issue, and unable to discern the spiritual meaning of what Jesus was saying, many of the disciples complained “This is a hard saying” (60). Then Jesus asked, “How shall you see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing: the words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not...” — and here (64) John parenthesized “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.”

Jesus then continued, “This is why I told you that no man can come to me unless my Father has enabled him (65).” And so, because they had not heard and learned from God (cf.45), “many of his disciples from that time went back and walked no more with him” (66).

Only twelve were left (67). The many disciples, ignoring the Old Testament prophecies of the one perfect man whose blood would cover the sins of every descendant of Adam, couldn’t get past the disgusting idea that Jesus was volunteering himself to become just another Canaanite sacrificial victim whose attributes were obtainable only through cannibalization. “The flesh profits nothing” went right over their heads.

If Jesus had indeed created the sacrament of literal consumption of his flesh and blood, wouldn’t he have settled the matter beyond dispute by pricking his finger during the last supper and squeezing a drop of blood into the crucible? Not only did he neglect to do this, but also he let transsubstantiation divide those who walked with him from those who refused to be drawn by the Father to him. Crucial material here.

Help me. How can one consider Christian any authority that requires its subjects to believe eating the real flesh and blood of Jesus would do them any good, if the Saviour himself is on record as specifically having said it wouldn’t?

Do you think Our Lord was referring to His own precious body when he referred to flesh? And cannibalism? How long would his corpse have lasted if everyone had to partake of it to gain eternal life?

No, I partook of it this morning, and yesterday, and will tomorrow, and have daily for thirty-five or more years. It is a LIVING body, and gives life of a different order from ordinary food; it gives supernatural life.

Well, enough. An advantage we have is that we don’t have to torture ourselves with “what is true?”

We have the rock of Peter to decide these things for us. Christianity requires humility!

TUPPER’S NOTE: Barred from continuing by my friend’s “Well, enough,” I can only reflect how foreign to me is a person who must “torture” himself with “what is true.” My most exciting pastime is sifting through evidence for what is true.

My Catholic friend has well established himself in the courts as an advocate of the biblical “just weight and just measure.” For more than twenty years, in and out of court, he has protested modern money’s lack of substance and definition. Yet his “rock of Peter” — the Magisterium— has condoned unjust weights and measures for nearly 400 years, in accord with the great Jesuit casuist Antonio Escobar’s decision that “The giving of short weight is not to be reckoned as a sin when the official price for certain goods is so low that the merchant would be ruined thereby.“ (Universae theologiae moralis, 1652-66)

Practical application: Our present monetary system began in the late 1960s, when Congress permitted the U.S Treasury and Federal Reserve banks to pay out copper tokens and paper scrip in exchange for dollar notes. Congress legislated the giving of short weight in order to protect the merchant — that is, the inflating federal economy— from ruination.

Obedience to Scripture would have held the federal economy accountable for printing more notes than there were dollars to redeem them in; Article I Section 10 of the Constitution would have enforced Scripture by making it impossible for State courts to enforce payment of debts in short weight.

But Congress chose to reject Scripture and Article I Section 10, and to follow the rock of Peter. Congress and the rock relieved the federal economy of its legal and moral obligation to give full weight for its dollar notes. And today’s violent, decadent, diseased society, in my opinion, is its legacy.

If my Catholic friend had truly let the “rock of Peter” decide the money issue for him, he would have accepted the Federal Reserve fiat as an article of faith. However, by choosing not to abide by the rock’s casuistry, my friend has made of himself. . . a Protestant, a Protestant no less articulate in the money than Luther was in the Scripture!

My friend has examined the money with scientific passion. My prayer is that he’ll examine the rock of Peter in the same spirit.

I think the money issue will be happily resolved when people learn who the “conspirators” really are. Mistaken identity was the secret of the success of the Friends of Paper, and nothing really will be done until identities are clarified, and duties realized. That, really, is what Rulers of Evil is all about.

I knew he was a graduate of Georgetown and then under the tutorship of Carroll Quigley, but I did not connect the dots that perhaps we have a full-blown Jesuit in the White House today. Is this an incorrect assumption?

Concerning your chapter on the mark of Cain, I understand your reasoning, but I have some reservations about the first paragraph in Chap. 24. When I gather my thoughts, I will try to express my concerns. However, basically, I agree with your concept of faith that will be required to take us through these times of trouble.

It’s irrelevant whether or not a person “is” a Jesuit. ROE’s position is that one becomes a Jesuit when one begins fulfilling their agenda, which is to keep the world ignorant of the Bible and therefore in need of a ministry of sin.

ROE led you to understand what Jesuits do; anyone who does Jesuit things, therefore, can be presumed to be one. Remember the provision in their Constitutions that permits the General to receive non-Catholics and women into the Society for special purposes.

I know the first paragraph of Chapter 24 is hard to take. It took courage to write. But I’ll stand on its truth. Nevertheless, when your thoughts are gathered, fire away. I welcome your criticism.

The following is a draft of what I would like to say to our State Senator at a prayer breakfast this coming Saturday. It is a far different version than one I would have given before ROE influence.

I am not only speaking to the senator, but also to the audience. I welcome any criticism.

Your statement is beautiful. I only wonder whether it’s appropriate. It reaches the heights of a keynote speech. Maybe there would be some grumbling half way through. Maybe it can be more effectively used elsewhere, maybe even in print.

And then I’d sit down and keep my mouth shut. Let me know how the breakfast goes....

The prayer breakfast was smaller than I thought. We didn’t get 20 people, only about a dozen or so.

The Senator came and could only stay for 1/2 hour. He gave a prepared speech on the following topics:

...As he was leaving, I walked him out, told him I was sorry he couldn’t stay longer, but would he be so kind as to read my question and send me his answer at his convenience. Tupper, I wish you could have seen his face when he read it. He stopped walking and said “it's a very good question.”

The way he smiled after he read the question, I would swear that he actually knew what I was talking about! His look wasn’t condescending or even confused, the look that passed between us was almost like one sharing an inside joke. Now, it is possible I am reading too much into this. Successful politicians (and this Senator has been in the legislature for two decades) are trained actors, they know what to say, how to say it and how to look when they say it. He might have reacted the way he thought I wanted him to react. The only way I will know is if/when I get a written response from his office.

Which brings me to an idea. Remember in MOMS the letter writing to Attorney Generals, Department of Treasury, etc. requesting if the state still follows Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution?

I remember doing that and getting the same type of response as you showed in MOMS — where the state would acknowledge that Article I Section 10 is binding, and if I have any specific legal questions, I should contact a lawyer. I now intend to start a collection. I am going to write (not e-mail, I want hard copies) my state legislators with the question on what Christians should not render to Caesar. I’m going to spread it out over time so not to give an impression that some sort of organized campaign is going on and see what responses I get.

I want to compare local with state answers, state with federal answers, long-term politicians with short-term politician answers. I want to see if our agents of Caesar know what their role is.

Great idea on submitting the question to officials. Keep me posted on your response. I think it’s wise not to email it around.

For Christianity to succeed, it must be millions acting individually as Truth impels them. They only give an appearance of organization. Anything more formal than that is the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which Jesus hates.

This Luther passage is totally new to me, yet one could make a good argument that it probably inspired me to write ROE. We have here an object lesson in the phenomenon I put to you in an earlier letter — “For Christianity to succeed, it must be millions acting individually as Truth impels them. They only give an appearance of organization.”

If I work from the premise that Satan is used to shepherd evil through civil government and its authority is divinely appointed and sealed with the Mark of Cain — Does it have limited authority or does it have carte blanche?

I know Cain is limited by God in what he can and can’t do, but is it not true that the agents of Cain exceed their legitimate authority? (This would explain the killing of martyrs without just cause.)

Cain (i.e., his agents) does sometimes step over the line, but not nearly as often as most people think. When he does, God deals with him directly, as with Nebuchadnezzar.

In my own tax case, many (including myself for awhile) felt Cain had overstepped. Not so. Cain has carte blanche with everyone who pleads to his jurisdiction. I pled the Fifth (among other points) on sworn applications (1040 returns) meant for resident aliens to use in requesting the benefit of deductions and allowances.

Luther did, too. The popes could have tortured and killed him, but that would not have been politically expedient. Far wiser to grace him with the privilege of carrying on while Jesuits conquered his system from within.