Regicide is always revolution reified;
Deicide was Satan by Jews Glorified
It is possible for a country, France, to suffer a revolution and commit Regicide and yet still be able to recover much of its tradition at some point in its future but a country, Israel, which commits Deicide has committed national suicide and can never recover even the tiniest portion of its tradition; it's only hope is to corporately confess that Jesus is the Messias and convert to Catholicism, the new Israel.
While France could restore its glory by restoring its Catholic Monarchy, Israel will perpetually serve only Satan since it has committed Deicide; no matter what it does, it is a forever dead nation; sure, ghosts of its past will haunt humanity in the Middle East and in these last days its political establishment was a necessary precondition before the first signs of the Eschatological events we are promised begin to be experienced while also signaling, to those who have eyes that can see, that the Advent of the Anti Christ is nigh, but he, a Jew, can offer the Jews only delusion, destruction, and death.
With that essential subtext established, Raider Fan desires to move on and to address a write-back he left on the Blog of one of his heroes, Pertinacious Papist, in response to a quote from our Pope and which response can be read here:
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2015/06/pope-says-weapons-manufacturers-cant.html
Raider Fan reproduces his captious claim here because such a claim is acutely at odds with the modern Catholic Weltanschauung and because such a claim is, necessarily, based on sources he discovered as a traditionalist autodidact and not anchored, as some may think, in his hatred of Jews.
Also, it seems reasonable that others would ask just where does Raider Fan think he gets off writing such claims?
Well, he gets off modernism and onto Tradition is what has been going on and he will show his sources, but, first, the write-back in question:
The
Pope mentions the putative holocaust which is no such thing. There is
only ONE Holocaust deserving of that designation if language and
truth are to exist in reality and the LAST thing one will ever hear
is a modern Pope condemning the real Holocaust for there would be
hell to pay for doing that and so we Catholics are constrained to
hear them, repeatedly, speak about that which superseded the one true
real Holocaust.
Basta!!!
Real men know that there is one,
and only one, Holocaust and that one Holocaust is the self-sacrifice
of Jesus on Calvary where His burning charity substituted for the
material fire that were part of all of the Old Testament holocausts
(types) that presaged Jesus and prepared His chosen people
(previously the Jews, now we Catholics, the New Israel) for the one
true Holocaust.
The war crimes of the Nazis committed against
their enemies - Christians, Jews, Sodomites, Gypsies -was not a
holocaust because they were not burnt offerings dedicated to God as
worship.
Popes speak about that which superseded the one true
Holocaust as if that was the greatest crime ever whereas Deicide is
not only the worst crime ever committed, it is the worst crime
imaginable. Period.
Now, it is quite true that for the racial
supremacists, the Jews, that which we Catholics have allowed to
supersede the one true Holocaust is indeed the worst crime imaginable
for them.
An enemy has cultivated the minds of Our Hierarchy and
the fruit being borne is the repeated reference to that which has
superseded the one true holocaust and their abject failure to teach
their flock about the one true Holocaust.
Other than that thing
are just ducky
Sources used by Raider Fan
Origin of deicide
Ecclesiastical Late Latin deicida ; from Classical Latin deus, god + caedere, to kill: see -cide
the killer of a god
Origin of deicide
< L deus, god + -cide
the killing of a god
Saint Thomas Aquinas - Summa
Article 6. Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous?
Objection 1. It would seem that the sin of Christ's crucifiers was not the most grievous. Because the sin which has some excuse cannot be most grievous. But our Lord Himself excused the sin of His crucifiers when He said: "Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin.
Objection 2. Further, our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): "He that hath delivered Me to thee hath the greater sin." But it was Pilate who caused Christ to be crucified by his minions. Therefore the sin of Judas the traitor seems to be greater than that of those who crucified Him.
Objection 3. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v): "No one suffers injustice willingly"; and in the same place he adds: "Where no one suffers injustice, nobody works injustice." Consequently nobody wreaks injustice upon a willing subject. But Christ suffered willingly, as was shown above (1,2). Therefore those who crucified Christ did Him no injustice; and hence their sin was not the most grievous.
On the contrary, Chrysostom, commenting on the words, "Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers" (Matthew 23:32), says: "In very truth they exceeded the measure of their fathers; for these latter slew men, but they crucified God."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 5), the rulers of the Jews knew that He was the Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, it was affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as well as from the malice of their will. The Jews also of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect their crime was lessened by reason of their ignorance. Hence Bede, commenting on Luke 23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," says: "He prays for them who know not what they are doing, as having the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." But the sin of the Gentiles, by whose hands He was crucified, was much more excusable, since they had no knowledge of the Law.
Reply to Objection 1. As stated above, the excuse made by our Lord is not to be referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people.
Reply to Objection 2. Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the chief priests who gave Him up to Pilate, according to John 18:35: "Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." But the sin of all these was greater than that of Pilate, who slewChrist from fear of Caesar; and even greater than the sin of the soldiers who crucified Him at the governor's bidding, not out of cupidity like Judas, nor from envy and hate like the chief priests.
Reply to Objection 3. Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father willed it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently Christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice. Nevertheless, whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, but likewise to God and to the State; just as he who kills himself, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that David condemned to death the man who "did not fear to lay hands upon the Lord's anointed," even though he (Saul) had requested it, as related in 2 Samuel 1:5-14.
Horrific punishment
for Deicide
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
Pilate
saith unto them, “What shall I do then with Jesus which is called
Christ?” They all say unto him, “Let him be crucified.”
23.
And the governor said, “Why, what evil bath [p. 940] he done?”
But they cried out the more, saying, “Let him be crucified.”
When
Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult
was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude,
saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to
it.”
Then
answered all the people, and said, “His blood be on us, and on our
children.
Then
released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he
delivered him to be crucified.
Catena
Aurea
Chrys.:
But none of the foregoing things moved Christ’s enemies, because
envy had altogether blinded them, and of their own wickedness they
corrupt the people, for they “persuaded the people that they should
ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.”
Origen:
Thus it is plainly seen how the Jewish people is moved by its elders
and the doctors of the Jewish system, and stirred up against Jesus to
destroy Him.
Gloss.,
non occ.: Pilate is said to make this answer, “Whether of the twain
will ye that I release unto you?” either to the message of his
wife, or the petition of the people, with whom it was a custom to ask
such release on the feast-day.
Origen:
But the populace, like wild beasts that rage the open plains, would
have Barabbas released to them. For this people had seditions,
murders, robberies, practised by some of their own nation in act, and
nourished by all of them who believe not in Jesus, inwardly in their
mind. Where Jesus is not, there are strifes and fightings; where He
is, there is peace and all good things. All those who are like the
Jews either in doctrine or life desire Barabbas to be loosed to them;
for whoso does evil, Barabbas is loosed in his body, and Jesus bound;
but he that does good has Christ loosed, and Barabbas bound.
Pilate
sought to strike them with shame for so great injustice, “What
shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ?” And not that
only, but desiring to fill up the measure of their guilt. But neither
do they blush that Pilate confessed Jesus to be the Christ, nor set
any bounds to their impiety, They all say unto him, “Let him be
crucified.” Thus they multiplied the sum of their wickedness, not
only asking the life of a murderer, but the death of a righteous man,
and that the shameful death of the cross.
Raban.:
Those who were crucified being suspended on a cross, by nails driven
into the wood through their hands and feet, perished by a lingering
death, and lived long on the cross, not that they sought longer life,
but that death was deferred to prolong their sufferings. The Jews
indeed contrived this as the worst of deaths, but it had been chosen
by the Lord without their privity, thereafter to place upon the
foreheads of the faithful the same cross as a [p. 943] trophy of His
victory over the Devil.
Jerome:
Yet even after this answer of theirs, Pilate did not at once assent,
but in accordance with his wife’s suggestion, “Have thou nothing
to do with that just man,” he answered, “Why, what evil hath he
done?” This speech of Pilate’s acquits Jesus. “But they cried
out the more, saying, Let him be crucified;” that it might be
fulfilled which is said in the Psalm, “Many dogs have compassed me,
the congregation
of the wicked hath inclosed me;” [Ps 22:16] and also that of
Hieremias, “Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest, they
have given forth their voice against me.” [Jer 12:8]
Aug.,
de Cons. Ev., iii, 8: Pilate many times pleaded with the Jews,
desiring that Jesus might be released, which Matthew witnesses in
very few words, when he says, “Pilate seeing that he could prevail
nothing, but that rather a tumult was made.” He would not have
spoken thus, if Pilate had not striven much, though how many efforts
he made to release Jesus he does not mention.
Remig.:
It was customary among the ancients, when one would refuse to
participate in any crime, to take water and wash his hands before the
people.
Jerome:
Pilate took water in accordance with that, “I Will wash my hands in
innocency,” [Ps 26:6] in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed
have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is
rising, and the charge of treason to Caesar is urged against me, I am
innocent of the blood of this just man. The judge then who is thus
compelled to give sentence against the Lord, does not convict the
accused, but the accusers, pronouncing innocent Him who is to be
crucified.
“See
ye to it,” as though be had said, I am the law’s minister, it is
your voice that has shed this blood. Then answered all the people and
said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” This imprecation
rests at the present day upon the Jews, the Lord’s blood is not
removed from them.
Chrys.:
Observe here the infatuation of the Jews; their headlong haste, and
destructive passions will not let them see what they ought to see,
and they curse themselves, saying, “His blood be upon us,” and
even entail the curse upon their children. Yet a merciful God did not
ratify this sentence, but accepted such of them and of their children
as repented; for Paul was of them, and many thousands of those who in
Jerusalem believed.
Leo,
Serm., 59, 2: The impiety of the Jews then [p. 944] exceeded the
fault of Pilate; but he was not guiltless, seeing he resigned his own
jurisdiction, and acquiesced in the injustice of others.
Jerome:
It should be known that Pilate administered the Roman law, which
enacted that every one who was crucified should first be scourged.
Jesus then is given up to the soldiers to be beaten, and they tore
with whips that most holy body and capacious bosom of God.
Chrys.,
Hom. iii, in Caena Dom.: See the Lord is made ready for the scourge,
see now it descends upon Him! That sacred skin is torn by the fury of
the rods; the cruel might of repeated blows lacerates His shoulders.
Ah me! God is stretched out before man, and He, in whom not one trace
of sin can be discerned, suffers punishment as a malefactor.
Jerome:
This was done that we might be delivered from those stripes of which
it is said, “Many stripes shall be to the wicked.” [Ps 32:10]
Also in the washing of Pilate’s hands all the works of the Gentiles
are cleansed, and we are acquitted of all share in the impiety of the
Jews.
Hilary:
At the desire of the Priests the populace chose Barabbas, which is
interpreted ‘the son of a Father,’ thus shadowing forth the
unbelief to come when Antichrist the son of sin should be preferred
to Christ.
Raban.:
Barabbas also, who headed a sedition among the people, is released to
the Jews, that is the Devil, who to this day reigns among them, so
that they cannot have peace
Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide
Ver.
24.
When
Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult
was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude.
α̉πενίψατο,
washed away. “He adopted,” says Origen, “the Jewish custom, and
wished to calm them down, not by words only, but also by deed.” He
washed his hands, but not his conscience. But this took place after
the scourging and crowning, of Christ. (See S. John.)
Here is a
transposition.
Saying,
I am innocent
I condemn Him against my will. Ye are the offenders. Ye are guilty of
His death. How foolish was this timid, heartless, and slothful
Governor in speaking thus! Why opposest thou not the injustice of the
people? “Seek not to be judge, if thou canst not by thy power break
through iniquities” (Eccles. vii. 6). At another time thou didst
let loose the soldiers an the riotous mob (Joseph. B.
J.,
xviii. 4). Why dost thou not act thus firmly now? If thou canst not,
through the fury of the Jews, set Him free now, at least delay thy
sentence till their fury subsides.
S.
Chrysostom (in Luke xxiii. 22) says, “Though he washed his hands,
and said he was innocent, yet his permitting it was a sign of
weakness and cowardice. For he ought never to have yielded Him up,
but rather rescued Him, as the Centurion S. Paul” (Acts xxi. 33).
S. Augustine more forcibly (Serm.
cxviii.
de Temp.)
“Though Pilate washed his hands, yet he washed not away his guilt;
for though he thought he was washing away the Blood of that Just One
from his limbs, yet was his mind still stained with it. It was he, in
fact, who slew Christ by giving Him up to he slain. For a firm and
good judge should not condemn innocent blood, either through fear or
the risk of being unpopular.” And S. Leo (Serm.
viii.
de Pass.)
said, “Pilate did not escape guilt, for by siding with the
turbulent mob he became partner of others’ guilt.”
Ver.
25.
Then
answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our
children. Let
the guilt thou fearest be transferred from thee to us. If there be
any guilt, may we and our posterity atone for it. But we do not
acknowledge any guilt, and consequently, as not fearing any
punishment, we boldly call it down on ourselves. And thus have they
subjected not only themselves, but their very latest descendants, to
God’s displeasure. They feel it indeed even to this day in its full
force, in being scattered over all the world, without a city, or
temple, or sacrifice, or priest, or prince, and being a subject race
in all countries. It was, too, in punishment for Christ’s
crucifixion that Titus ordered five hundred Jews to be crucified
every day at the siege of Jerusalem, as they crowded out of the city
in search of food, “so that at last there was no room for the
crosses, and no crosses for the bodies” (Joseph. B.
J.
vi. 12). “This curse,” says Jerome, “rests on them even to this
day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them,” as
Daniel foretold (ix. 27).
Strange
stories are told by Cardinal Hugo of special diseases which attacked
the Jews, in periodical loss of blood, etc., though Salmeron and
Abulensis [Tostatus] attribute them to natural causes.
Ver.
26.
Then
(when
the Jews had taken on themselves the guilt of Christ’s death)
released
he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered
Him to be crucified. S.
Matthew, as usual, slightly touches on the scourging; S. Mark and S.
Luke speak of it more fully, and reckon this as Pilate’s fifth
appeal to the compassion of the Jews, to induce them to ask for His
life.
Observe—1.
Scourging among the Romans was the punishment of slaves. (See Ff de
Pænis
1. “Servorum,” and the Lex
Sempronia.)
S. Paul, as a Roman citizen, protested against being scourged (Acts
xvi.). Martyrs were scourged by way of disgrace, of which many
instances are given. 2. Free persons also were scourged after they
had been condemned to death, as though they had thus become slaves.
Hence the fasces had rods for scourging, and the axe for executions.
3. This scourging of Christ was before His condemnation, and He was
thus spared the usual scourging afterwards. For one scourging only is
spoken of in the Gospels. 4. S. Jerome (Epitaph.
Paulæ),
S. Paulinus (Ep.
xxxiv.), Prudentius, and others (see Gretser, de
Cruce, Lib. i.),
say that Christ was fastened to a column to be scourged, and that
this column was afterwards placed in the Church of S. Praxedes at
Rome. But the column which is there is very small, and is
consequently supposed to be only a part of the large column mentioned
by S. Jerome. Bosius maintains that it is the whole of the column,
and that S. Jerome is speaking of the column at which Christ was
first scourged. S. Chrysostom considered that there were two
scourgings. But most probably it was only part of the column S.
Jerome mentions, or one of those to which He was bound in the house
of Caiaphas, and the larger one that at which He was scourged in the
house of the Governor.
But
in what respects was this scourging so cruel and savage?
1.
Christ being bound to this short column, and standing with the whole
height of His body above it, was quite at the mercy of those who
scourged Him. Again, the mere exposure of His most pure and virgin
body to these filthy mockers was a sore affliction to Him. But He was
twice, or as some say thrice, stripped; first, at His scourging;
secondly, when crowned with thorns. This stripping was attended with
the greatest pain; for as His garment stuck to His wounds, they were
forcibly reopened as it was torn away.
The
forty martyrs were animated by this example, when they boldly
stripped themselves and plunged into the freezing water. (See S.
Basil’s Homily.)
2.
Pilate wished to excite the compassion of the Jews by saying, “Behold
the man.” Behold Him who has no longer the appearance of a man, but
of some slaughtered animal, so besmeared was He with blood and marred
in His form.
3.
The soldiers had of their own wanton cruelty crowned Him with thorns,
and perhaps had been bribed by the Jews to scourge Him with greater
severity. The blessed Magdalene of Pazzi, a nun of Florence, saw in a
trance Christ scourged by thirty pairs of men, one after the other.
Some say that He had 5000 blows inflicted on Him. S. Bridget is said
to have had the exact number (5475) revealed to her. From such a
scourging as this He would have died naturally again and again, had
not His Godhead specially sustained Him.
4.
His bodily frame was most delicate, and acutely sensitive to pain, as
fashioned by the Holy Spirit, and He consequently felt the scourging
more severely than we should have done.
5.
The prophets, and also Christ Himself, foretold that this scourging
would be most heavy and severe. See S. Matt. xx. 19, and Job xvi. 14,
“He brake Me with wound upon wound.” They added, i.e.,
blows to blows, wounds to wounds, so that the whole body seemed one
continuous wound. Conf. Ps. lxxiii. 14, “All the day long have I
been scourged;” and Ps. cxxix. 3, “The sinners wrought upon my
back as smiths on an anvil;” but the Hebrew [and A.V.], “The
ploughers ploughed upon My back,” they made furrows on My back with
scourges. So, too, Aquila and Theodot. This is also indicated by
Jacob’s words (Gen. xlix. 11), “He shall wash His garments in
wine, and His clothes in the blood of the grape,” meaning by His
garments and clothes His flesh, and by the wine His blood.
6.
Christ was scourged, as slaves were, with small ropes or thongs. Some
suppose that He was scourged: 1. with rods of thorns; 2. with cords
and iron goads; 3. with chains made of hooks. Antonius Gallus (de
Cruciatu Martyrum)
describes the various kinds of scourges which were used.
S.
Bridget says that the Blessed Virgin was present at the scourging,
and that her pain and sorrow added wondrously to His. She describes
also the mode and the barbarity of His scourging (S. Bridget, Rev. i.
10).
Now
Christ wished in this way to atone for our evil lusts and manifold
sins. And in doing this (says S. Thom., par. iii. sec. 46, art. 6,
ad. 6), He considered not only the great virtue of His sufferings
from the union of His Godhead with His human nature, but also how
much it would avail even in that nature for making satisfaction.
Moreover, He wished to obtain power and strength for all martyrs, in
order to their enduring every kind of scourging. Conf. Isa. liii. 5.
In all this Christ manifested most marvellous patience. He uttered
not a groan, gave no indication of pain, stood firm as a rock. Nay,
He lorded it over all sufferings, as being above them. Such a temper
obtained heathen admiration. S. Cyprian (de
Bono Patient. cap.
iii.), among the proofs of His Divine Majesty, speaks of “His
continuous endurance, in which He exhibited the patience of His
Father.”
Tertullian, too (de
Pat. cap.
iii.), “He who had proposed to hide Himself in man’s form,
exhibited nought of man’s impatience. And in this ye Pharisees
ought to have specially recognised the Lord.” S. Ambrose, too
(Serm.
xvii.
in Ps. cxviii.) [cxix.], speaks of His “triumphant silence under
calumny.” The Jews ought to have gathered from this the conclusion
of the Centurion, “Truly this was the Son of God.” All this was
caused by His love of God and man. Love triumphed over pain, and made
His pains as nothing. And hence He was willing to suffer in all
points, and in all His members and senses. S. Thomas (par iii. qu.
46, art. 5) thus writes, “He suffered in the desertion of His
friends, in His credit, in His honour, in the spoiling of His goods,
in His soul by sorrow, in His body by His wounds. He suffered too in
all parts of His body, and in every sense.” But His sufferings of
mind were by far the greatest. For He was specially wounded by the
sins of each single man. He grieved also for the multitude of the
lost. He had sympathy for the martyrs and others who had to endure
sufferings. But His boundless love urged Him on to endure all this.
For love is the measure of pain, and we cannot live in love without
pain. Hence it is said of Christ, “Sculptured, thou seest His love
in every limb.”
Verse
26-
Delivered Him to be crucified.
After
His scourging and crowning with thorns, which comes next, as I have
said (ver. 24). This is therefore a transposition. S. Matthew here
relates many things briefly, which S. John (xix. 1-16) records more
fully. Pilate then delivered Jesus to the Jews, after he had
condemned Him. Adrichomius (p. 163) gives Pilate’s supposed
sentence, which states that the charges had been proved; making these
charges, which he knew to be false, a cloak for his own sloth and
injustice; the Chief Priests gave no proof, but merely made false and
calumnious assertions.
Pilate
in his rescript to Tiberius says that he had condemned Jesus through
the importunity of the Jews, though He was in other respects a holy
and divine man. Orosius (Hist.
vii.
4) speaks of his testimony to Christ’s virtues; and Eusebius (in
Chron.
ad an. 38),
that he spoke in favour of Christians to Tiberius, who proposed that
Christianity should be recognised among other religions. (Conf. Tert.
Apol.
cap.
5 and 21; Eusebius, Hist.
Eccl. ii.
2, and others.)
Christ,
then, was on Pilate’s own testimony most unjustly condemned by him;
for envy accused, hatred witnessed against Him; His crime was
innocence; fear perverted judgment, ambition condemned, cruelty
punished.