The SSPX Files (1)

For a very long time, Raider Fan, writing under various different screen names, has been opposing the SSPX Schism and he thought now would be an apt time to post some of the many things he has gleaned here and there (and from his own research).

 This will really be just an excerpt-from-Catholic-Sources dump and not one of these items will be useful to the SSPX, rather, it is intended to be a resource for those who find the disingenuous (and at  times bald faced lying) propaganda of the SSPX irksome at best.

 So, Raider Fan will began with a statement by a humble Catholic priest that turned-out to be more prophecy that observation.
Fr. Richard Ginder, a former columnist for The Wanderer. In his short book, 1968 *,  Thou Art the Rock, when referring to the separation of the "wheat and the tares" that took place between Luther igniting the revolt and the Treaty of Westphalia (1517-1648), Fr. Ginder noted the following: 

It is the old story of the tares among the wheat. It took 131 years to make a separation once before but with the advance in communications media, we shall not have to wait so long this time. But we shall see it. It will come - very likely in the shape of a heretical sect attributing primacy of honour but refusing jurisdiction to the Holy Father, at the same time proclaiming themselves the only True Believers. [10]


http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/squire.html

 * What was Mons Lefevbre doing in 1968 when this prophecy was written?
During the course of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Mgr. Lefebvre was one of the leaders of the International Group of Fathers (Coetus Internationalis Patrum) which sought to uphold the traditional Catholic faith. The role of Mgr. Lefebvre during the Council will not be discussed in this book as it is fully documented in his own book, A Bishop Speaks, and in my own account of Vatican II, Pope John's Council. 

The texts of Mgr. Lefebvre's interventions, and a good deal of supplementary information, are now available in French in his book, J'Accuse le Concile. (See the long-established pattern here? He was for the V2 documents before he was against them; that is he voted for the very same documents he later condemned. He repeated this pattern which his Econe Seminary when he got approval for it on an expire mental basis accord to the local Bishop but then refused to shut it down and he did it with the protocol towhoch he signed his name and then reneged))  An English translation of this book is pending. All that needs to be stated here is that Mgr. Lefebvre, in his criticisms of the reforms which have followed the Council, and of certain passages in the documents themselves, is not being wise after the event. He was one of the very few Fathers of Vatican II who, while the Council was still in progress, had both the perspicacity to recognize deficiencies in certain documents and the courage to predict the disastrous results to which these deficiencies must inevitably give rise.

(O, so that is why he signed them)

By 1968 the General Chapter of the Holy Ghost Fathers had become dominated by a Liberal majority which was determined to reform the Order in a sense contrary to Catholic tradition. Mgr. Lefebvre resigned in June of that year rather than collaborate in what would be the virtual destruction of the Order as it had previously existed. He retired to Rome with a modest pension which was just sufficient to rent a small apartment in the Via Monserrato from some nuns. After a full and active life devoted to the service of the Church and the glory of God he was more than content to spend his remaining years in quietness and prayer. In the light of subsequent events, Mgr. Lefebvre's unobtrusive retirement is a fact upon which considerable stress must be laid. Some of his enemies have accused him of being proud and stubborn, a man who could not accept defeat. He is portrayed as a proponent of an untenable theological immobilism totally unrelated to the age in which we are living. Although this untenable theology was defeated, discredited even, during the Council, Mgr. Lefebvre's pride would not allow him to admit defeat. The Seminary at Ecône, it is maintained, is his means of continuing the fight which he waged so unsuccessfully during the conciliar debates.


But Mgr. Lefebvre's retirement proves how baseless, malicious even, such suggestions are. Those who have met him know that he is not a man who will fight for the sake of fighting - he has always been a realist. No one could have compelled him to resign as Superior-General of the Holy Ghost Fathers - he had been elected for a term of twelve years. But he could see quite clearly that the Liberals dominated the General Chapter; that they were determined to get their way at all costs; that resistance on his part could only lead to unedifying division. "Je les ai laissés à leur collégialité," he has remarked. "I left them to their 'collegiality'.

 http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_1.htm

But a schism is a pacific edifying division?


Pope Saint Liberius. Contra Mr. Michael Davies.

One More Error
Once one starts to examine the real facts concerning Catholic truth and tradition many other arguments used by so-called traditionalists fall to the ground. This is not the place to deal with them in detail but as an illustration one notable example will be taken since it is highly relevant to the issues presently under consideration: the case of the so-called "fall" of Pope Liberius during the Arian crisis. This example has been used by Michael Davies on a number of occasions (e.g. Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume One (1979), pp. 369-371; St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith (1985) pp. 7-9) to paint a picture of Liberius as a person who signed a formula designed to favor heresy and who excommunicated that champion of Catholic orthodoxy St. Athanasius leaving Athanasius to stand alone as almost the sole defender of the Catholic faith. The parallel intended between Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre is obvious. The truth is very different.

There is it is true a minority of scholars who have supported Davies position. There are also some who hold the more moderate view that Liberius signed an ambiguous formula genuinely believing that it was a statement of Catholic belief. However according to the majority of scholars Pope Liberius was in reality a firm opponent of Arianism who was himself sent into exile by the emperor because he refused to excommunicate Athanasius or accept a semi-Arian statement on the divinity of Christ. The people of Rome demonstrated in Liberius favor and he was finally allowed to return to Rome where he remained fully orthodox and in full communion with Athanasius.
All that Davies needed to know on the question of Liberius is contained in an article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia by the great patristic scholar Dom John Chapman. Chapman's account is a moderate and judicious examination of the evidence. His conclusion is worth quoting in full:
"It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formula in exile he did so freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return; that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter." (Volume IX, p. 222).

There are many other more detailed works which deal with the subject (e.g., Cardinal Hergenroether, Histoire de l'eglise (1880); Canon B. Jungmann, Dissertationes Selectae in Historiam Ecclesiasticam II (1881). Even if Davies had no access to these works, he does have access to the American journal, The Remnant, in which his own articles are published. A more accurate version of the Liberius question is set out in that publication in the issue for 15th September, 1991, p. 10. Yet even after this, Davies allows his pamphlet on the question, St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith, to continue to be sold without any revision.

This matter relating to Pope Liberius is not a trivial one. Here we have what seems to be a gross calumny on the character of a saint, for that is how Pope Liberius is honored. The formal procedure of canonization had not then been instituted, but Liberius is given recognition in the ancient Latin Martyrology and in the Greek Menology, the Eastern equivalent to the martyrologies of the Western Church. If more evidence were needed, it could be found in the fact that numerous saints referred to Pope Liberius's sanctity and unfailing orthodoxy: for example, St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Epiphanius, St. Siricius, and Pope Anastasius I.





Finally, what the history of this period proves is that, during a time of general apostasy, Christians who remain faithful to their traditional faith may have to worship outside the official churches, the churches of priests in communion with their lawfully appointed diocesan bishop, in order not to compromise that traditional faith; and that such Christians may have to look for truly Catholic teaching, leadership, and inspiration not to the bishops of their country as a body, not to the bishops of the world, not even to the Roman Pontiff, but to one heroic confessor whom the other bishops and the Roman Pontiff might have repudiated or even excommunicated. And how would they recognize that this solitary confessor was right and the Roman Pontiff and the body of the episcopate (not teaching infallibly) were wrong? The answer is that they would recognize in the teaching of this confessor what the faithful of the fourth century recognized in the teaching of Athanasius: the one true faith into which they had been baptized, in which they had been catechized, and which their confirmation gave them the obligation of upholding. In no sense whatsoever can such fidelity to tradition be compared with the Protestant practice of private judgment. The fourth-century Catholic traditionalists upheld Athanasius in his defense of the faith that had been handed down; the Protestant uses his private judgment to justify a breach with the traditional faith.















http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/librius1.htm
Far too many soi disant traditionalists have been brainwashed by Mr. Davies into thinking that Pope Saint John Paul II was a latter day heretic like Liberius and that Lefevbre was a latter day Athanasius who opposed a putative heretical Pope..

 The sorry state of the SSPCX Schism reflects the insights of a famous German:

Joseph Goebbels, foreshadowing the SSPX 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State SSPX can shield the people trads from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State SSPX to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State  SSPX 





Black History Month


Holocaust Denial or Messias Denial. Which is worse?





1 Thess 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved-so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last! 17 But since we were bereft of you, brethren, for a short time, in person not in heart, we endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire to see you face to face; 18 because we wanted to come to you—I, Paul, again and again—but Satan hindered us. 19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? 20 For you are our glory and joy.

Saint Thomas Aquinas comments: In what has gone before the Apostle disclosed the character of his coming to them; here he indicates the character of their conversion. In treating this Paul makes two points. First, he shows that they have been perfectly converted as a result of their steadfast faith; secondly, he shows how courageously they persevered amidst tribulations (2:14). Paul first remarks upon their blessings, for which he offers thanks, and then he supplies a reason for this.

So Paul says, and, since I have carefully preached to you, as a father to his children, I therefore thank God as a father does for the welfare of his children: “No greater joy can I have than this, to bear that my children follow the truth” (3 Jn. 1:3). “With thanksgiving” (Phil. 4:6). But for what reason? For this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. The preacher should give thanks when his preaching proves to be effective in the lives of his congregation. Paul tells them, you heard the word of God from us, that is, through us: “Let me hear what God the Lord will speak” (Ps. 85:8). “Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ (Rom. 10: 17). You accepted it, that is, you kept it firmly in your heart, not as the word of men; for the words of man are empty: “You desire proof that Christ is speaking in me” (2 Cor. 13:3). “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:21). And why does he give thanks? Because the fact that you have believed, God has worked in you. “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). “Thou hast wrought for us all our works” (Is. 26:12).

Then when be says, for you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea, he shows how courageously they persevered in the midst of tribulations; and in treating this he makes two points. First, he speaks of their trials, in which they stood firm; secondly, of the remedy he proposes to apply (2:17). Again, the first point is divided into two parts. First, Paul commends them for their patience in the face of difficulties; secondly, be reprehends those responsible for the difficulties (2:15).

Consequently, Paul says: you received the word not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God, for you exposed yourselves for its sake even to death. The fact that a man dies for the sake of Christ is testimony to the fact that the words of the faith are the words of God; and, therefore, “martyrs” means the same as “witnesses.” In Judea, for it is there that the faith of Christ was first proclaimed: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Is. 2:3). In addition, it was also there that the first persecution of the faith occurred, as is evident from Acts (8:1): “On that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem.” “But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings” (Heb. 10:32). The Thessalonians endured similar difficulties, so Paul remarks: for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen, that is, from the incredulous Thessalonians: “And a man’s foes will be those of his own household” (Matt. 10:36).

Then when Paul observes, who killed both the Lord Jesus, he rebukes the Jews who started the persecution. First, he recalls their sin, and then the reason for the sin (2:16). In regard to the first point Paul does three things: first, he treats their sin in relation to God’s ministers; secondly, with reference to God Himself; and thirdly as relating to the entire human race.

The ministers of God are those who preach, namely, Christ, the prophets and the apostles. Preaching is performed by Christ as the one from whom the doctrine originates, by the prophets who prefigured this doctrine, and by the apostles who carry out the injunction to preach.

Paul first makes reference to Christ when he says: who killed the Lord Jesus, as is clear from Matthew (21:38): “This is the heir; come, let us kill him.” That it was the Gentiles who killed him is not a valid objection, for the Jews with their own words asked Pilate to kill him: “My heritage has become to me like a lion in the forest, she has lifted up her voice against me” (Jer. 12:8). Paul then speaks of the prophets when he mentions: and the prophets. “Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered” (Ac. 7:52). Paul next speaks of the apostles when he comments: and drove us out, that is, the apostles. “Beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues” (Mt. 10: 17).

Secondly, Paul mentions the sin of the Jews in its relation to God, with the words: and displease God, although they may think that through this they do a service to God, as is evident in John 16. Actually, because they do not have zeal for God in accordance with knowledge, they are not pleasing to God, since they do not act in keeping with right faith and “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6); “therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand against them and smote them” (Is. 5:25).

Thirdly, Paul considers their sin in its relation to the whole human race, when he says: and oppose all men. “His hand against every man and every man’s hand against him” (Gen. 16:12). And they are antagonistic, because they prohibit and impede the preaching to the Gentiles, and also the conversion of the Gentiles. In Acts 10 and 11 Peter is criticized for having gone to Cornelius; also in Luke 15 the elder son, the Jewish people, is disturbed because the younger son, the Gentile people, is received by the father. “Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting”’ (Is. 45:10). “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets” (Num. 11-29).

The reason for this sin is found in the divine permission, by which God wills that they fill up the measure of their sins. Indeed, for all things which come about, either good or bad, there is a certain measure, because nothing is infinite; and the measure of all these things is in [God’s] foreknowledge. The measure of good things is what it prepares, for “grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (Eph. 4:7); the measure of evil things, however, is what it permits, for if some are “evil, they are not as evil as they want, but as God permits. And, therefore, they live until they attain that which God permits: “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers” (Matt. 23:32). So Paul says: so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. For after the suffering of Christ, God gave the Jews forty years to repent, but they were not converted; rather they multiplied their sins. God did not permit this to go on, so Paul states: but Gods wrath has come upon them until the end. “For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us (2 Kg22:13). “For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people” (Lk. 21:23). And you should not think that this wrath shall last for one hundred years only, but until the end of the world, when all the Gentiles will have embraced [the Christian religion], and then all of Israel shall be saved, as it appears from Rom. 10, Lk. 19:44, 21:6, and Matt. 24:2: “There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.”

Then when Paul says, but since we were bereft of you, brethren, for a short time, he shows the remedy that he proposed to apply for them, namely, that he will personally go to them. In regard to this he makes three points: first, be discusses his proposed visit; secondly he treats the obstacle to his visit (2:18); thirdly, he gives the reason why he wanted to go (2:19).

So Paul says: but since we were bereft of you, either on account of your tribulations, or because we were separated from you [in conversation], that is, missing the opportunity for conversation, and in person, that is, not being able to enjoy your company. Both of these things require the presence of a friend because it is consoling. But not in heart, for we are present in heart, as is evident from 1 Cor. (5:3): “For though absent in body I am present in spirit.” We endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire to see you face to face, that we may be present also in body as we are in our heart; “I have longed for many years to come to you” (Rom. 15:23). When Paul says we, he intends a plural meaning, because he writes in the name of three persons, that is, in his own name, and that of Silvanus, and of Timothy. Therefore Paul says: we wanted to come to you, all of us perhaps once, but I Paul, again and again, that is twice, as I proposed; but Satan hindered us, that is, set up obstacles, perhaps through violent winds, as in: “Four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth” (Rev. 7:1).

Then when Paul says: for what is our hope, he gives the reason for his proposal. First, in regard to the future; secondly, in regard to the present (2:20). Paul says: I desire to see you and I give thanks for your blessings which are our hope; for it is on account of these blessings that we hope for rewards from God, when He shall come to render to every one according to his deeds. For the greatest reward of the preacher comes from those whom he has converted. Or joy, because their joy is the Apostle’s joy, just as their goodness is the Apostle’s goodness; for the goodness of the effect is accounted for by the goodness of the cause. Or crown of boasting, because as a result of their struggles he who encouraged them to struggle shall be decorated; for the commander who led the soldiers to combat is decorated: “He who disciplines his son will profit by him, and will boast of him among acquaintances” (Sir. 30:2). 1 ask what is this hope; is it not you? Yes, assuredly: in the future, that is, before our Lord Jesus at his coming; but also in the present, for you are, among all the faithful, our glory: I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting” (1 Cor. 9:15); and joy, for which reason Paul rejoices over their good fortune in the present.


There can be no doubt that the problems between Christians and Jews are as far from being solved as they are wearisomely protracted throughout time.

 However, none of what appears above these words  can be construed to conclude that Raider Fan is one who denies the murderous war crimes the Nazis inflicted upon the Jews and Raider Fan thinks the actual number of victims is, essentially, immaterial as it is without doubt that the Nazis intended to kill every single Jew then existing and would have down so, to the extent that they were able to, had they not been stopped.

 Conversely, there can be no doubt that the Jews, qua Jews, have been vehemently opposed to the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ and especially so since the creation of Rabbinical Judaism in 70 A.D.

Most men are aware of the false Jewish accusation that The Catholic Church has a teaching of contempt against Jews but how many of those same men understand that false accusation is the pluperfect example of one accusing innocent others of the worst sins that he himself commits and has committed for nearly two thousand years; that is, since Rabbinical Judaism formed after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and which destruction was punishment for their crime of Deicide, the Jews have worked to undermine, weaken, and, ultimately, to destroy the Catholic Church.

 Raider Fan thinks that little of substantial consequence - other than the ecumenical anthropocentric atmospherics of the 21st century - has changed; that is, the Jews remain the enemy of The Catholic Church owing to their continued Messias-Denial.

Matt 12:30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

Following the late 20th century political reproachment between Catholics and Jews, we Catholics have allowed ourselves to descend into such an insane state of affairs that a man can not be consecrated a Bishop if he is a so-called holocaust-denier whereas a man can not become a head rabbi of a Jewish organization unless he is a Messias-Denier.

What is worse, being a Holocaust-Denier or a Messias-Denier? 

Both the world and the Church have the same answer, don't they?

 A Holocaust Denier is an evil blackguard whereas a Messias-Denier is a respected and honored man.

However, the consequences of being a Holocaust-Denier are resolved according to the differing levels of punishment inflicted by the dominant group controlling the world whereas being a Messias-Denier merits eternal punishment from God.

 Luke 19:27 But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them bring them hither; and kill them before me

 Cornelius a Lapide commentary:
Ver. 27.—But those mine enemies (the Jews, His citizens, who would not have Him to reign over them) bring them hither—to my Tribunal, in the valley of Jehosaphat and Jerusalem—and kill them before Me.” In the Greek, “Kill them before my face.” Our Lord alludes to those victorious kings who slew and destroyed their conquered rebels. By this destruction Christ signifies the extreme judgment of the Jews and His other enemies, and their own condemnation to eternal death in Gehenna, and that a living and vital death, where they will be perpetually tormented by death-dealing flames, and yet will never die. Our Lord alludes to Titus, who slaughtered the conquered Jews. He describes precisely to the letter the condemnation of the Jews, and the Gehenna which He has appointed for them when He shall return from heaven to judge and condemn them and the reprobate.

 How can the magisterium take the decision not to seek the conversion of the Jews knowing the consequences of them not converting and the consequences of not preaching Christ and conversion?

 1 Corinth 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me; for woe is unto me if I not preach the gospel.

 Cornelius a Lapide commentary:
Ver. 16.—Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. It appears from this that strict injunctions were given to the Apostles (S. Matt. xxviii. 19) to preach the Gospel and teach all nations, insomuch that, if they had neglected to do so, they would have sinned mortally. For on those that neglect this their duty he pronounces the woe of the wrath of God and of hell. By the same injunctions all pasters, Bishops, and Archbishops are now bound. 

Pray for all Popes, Prelates, and Priests who have taken the decision not to preach the Gospel to the Jews and seek their conversion to the Faith but, rather, seek aught but their friendship and approval.





Not breeding like rabbits. Periodic continence

Sometimes these seemingly complicated moral matters 


http://tinyurl.com/n338cjz


are best expressed cinematically



Silencing subversives

Remember to keep David Anthony Domet in your prayers. It sounds, though, that Fr. Roscia has sicced his men on the wrong man.



http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/search/label/Rosicanisms

Of course, this inane action - threatening a layman with a lawsuit just for writing his thoughts - would  be apt for this movie.



Social Science in the public interest

When Raider Fan was in college, he submitted to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Test and which result confirmed scientifically that his friends had always been accurate in observing; 

 Raider Fan, you are an asshole

Formerly Indulgenced prayer for immigrants


Prayers for Immigrants

O Jesus, who in the very first days of Thine earthly life wast compelled, together with Mary, Thy loving Mother, and Saint Joseph, to leave Thy native land and to endure in Egypt the misery and discomforts of poor emigrants, turn Thine eyes upon our brethren, who, far away from their dear country and from all that is dear to them, are not infrequently constrained to struggle with the difficulties of a new life, and who are likewise
often exposed to grave dangers and snares for their immortal souls. 

Be Thou their guide in their uncertain journey, their help in trouble, their comfort in sorrow; keep them safe in their faith, holy in their lives, and faithful to their children, their wives, and their parents; grant, O Lord, that we may be able to embrace them affectionately once more in their native land, and hereafter to live inseparably united to them at the foot of Thy throne in our heavenly country.        Amen.









POTUS promotes the Black Legends

thought that the POTUS had mistaken Black 
History Month for Catholic Black Legends 
Month; “Unless we get off our high horse...
during the Crusades and Inquisition, 
people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

(Catholic Black Legends is the propaganda
 that demonises Catholicism). 

But, then this subscriber remembered Obama's 
pledge to defend Islam; On June 4, 2009, at Cairo
 University, Mr. Obama promised , “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

But there was never any such promise to fight 
negative stereotypes of Catholicism, was there?

So, as usual in these United States, if a Catholic 
desires the truth be known, he must make it known 
on his own.

  The Crusades were defensive wars against militaristic Islam and those defensive wars were not mounted until after four centuries of murder and mayhem inflicted by Islam against  pacific Catholics and which evil aggression by Islam resulted in the capture and  possession of over two-thirds of the old Catholic Christian world (Thomas F. Madden, “The Real History 
of the Crusades").

Does The POTUS think defensive wars are indefensible?

The Inquisition: It's prolly best to begin at the beginning, with Moses, the first, and deadliest, inquisitor.

Moses, the 1st inquisitor ordered killed 23 thousand one day (Exodus 32)

Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, ordered killed 24 thousand one day (Numbers 25). 

Forty Seven Thousand ordered killed by The First Inquisitor, Moses, in two days.

Non-Catholic historian Edward Peters:, in his work, "Inquisition" (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, p. 87), 

The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.

 I doubt one in one hundred million Catholic Christians, say nothing about non-Catholics, know the facts about Moses as the first Inquisitor and how his record compares unfavorably to Frey Tomas De Tourquemada, about whom the vast majority of Catholics are ignorant and so they consider it funny to hear his name and reputation continually blackened

A William Thomas Walsh notes, Moses put to death, in the name of religion, a far greater number of human beings than Torquemada did. Yet his name has been venerated by orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics alike, and always will be, while that of the Dominican monk has become a stench in the nostrils of the modern world, and a symbol of something indefensible. ("Characters of the Inquisition.")

The people of these United States are ill-served by a POTUS who promotes The Black Legends as part of his pledge to "fight negative stereotypes of Islam."