Gone to Flowers, Every One
July 9, 2010 
61 Comments
Daniel Ritchie of New Geneva argues that Kinism contradicts Chapter 24 of the Westminster Confession. This is a pleasant surprise. I could count on one hand the number of men who have even attempted flailing rebuttals of Kinism, so Ritchie should be recognized for his contribution to the debate.
In response, there are a few things we need to make clear straight away, and these should come as no surprise.
1) We have always sought to justify the opinions of our Christian forefathers, who almost without exception agreed with us on miscegenation and social relations, using Scripture alone.
2) We agree, with very minor reservations, that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the finest encapsulation of Christian doctrine ever produced, and as a confession, it roots every word in Scripture.
3) Here comes the “but.” But we absolutely reject the idea that the WCF or any other confession is designed to extract from the Bible everything that needs to be said about every matter of importance.
With these in mind, here is the passage that allegedly contradicts what was believed to be true by every Christian who ever lived prior to 1950:
III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.
IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.
There is no dispute over part 4, where “the degrees of consanguinity” refer to incest. The dispute is over Ritchie’s interpretation of part 3, especially when read in the context of part 4. Notice the general words “or affinity forbidden by the Word.” Is it really acceptable for all Christians to intermarry, as long as the relationships are not prohibited by Leviticus 18? Clearly not. There are many good reasons for forbidding marriages between old men and young girls, between those of radically different stature or temperament or class, or others who are dissimilar.
What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Typically, the question is answered in the way that Ritchie has answered it, by citing the words “only in the Lord” from 1 Cor. 7:39. But this doesn’t really answer the question since “only in the Lord” means “only according to the will of the Lord,” not “only for those who believe in the Lord.” The larger question is, What is the will of God for Christian marriage? What sort of affinity is forbidden by the Word? In our opinion, R.J. Rushdoony answered this definitively in his comments on 2 Cor. 6:14:
Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman is the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). “Helpmeet” means a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association.
Therefore, the wrong way to approach the subject of unequal yoking is to go to the WCF to see if there is any “condemnation of marriage between people of different skin colours” or other “super-added qualifications.” Since confessions take shape via controversy, why would anyone assume that an act that was universally unpracticed in the 17th century would be formally denounced by clerics of the time? Why would anyone attempt to project a modern pathology on the deliberations of the Westminster Divines? This is quite irresponsible.
Ritchie asserts: “The marriage of foreign wives was condemned, not on the basis of skin-colour, but on the basis of religious affiliation.” This desperately needs to be proved by him, as the question of whether qualifications for the covenant of marriage besides “religious affiliation” are not merely “prudent” but binding, makes or breaks the entire case. No evidence is presented, no proof is attempted. Without biblical or historical justification, Ritchie asserts that any two Christians who wish to marry each other may do so, and they have “no right to prohibit other people from so doing or to accuse them of being in sin.” This is libertarianism, not Christian doctrine.
The correct way to approach this subject is to first consult the Fifth Commandment and recognize that we are obligated to willfully obey the lawful commands and counsels of our parents. While Ritchie four times in two paragraphs attempts to divert attention by using the superficial term “skin color,” the Fifth Commandment goes to the core of our duty in marriage.
In his commentary on Gen. 24, John Calvin writes that it “should be taken by us as a common rule” that “it is not lawful for the children of a family to contract marriage, except with the consent of parents. Certainly natural equity dictates that, in a matter of such importance, children should depend upon the will of their parents.” Martin Bucer correctly called even a consensual marriage “rape” if the father did not bless it. In his commentary on 1 Cor. 7, Calvin tells us that “the authority of parents” has its origin—where?—in Westminster Confession proof-texts?—no, “in the common rights of nature.”
Now if in other actions of inferior moment no liberty is allowed to children, without the authority of their parents, much less is it reasonable that they should have liberty given them in the contracting of marriage. And that has been carefully enacted by civil law, but more especially by the law of God… Let us know, therefore, that in disposing of children in marriage, the authority of parents is of first-rate importance, provided they do not tyrannically abuse it, as even the civil laws restrict it. The Apostle, too, in requiring exemption from necessity, intimated that the deliberations of parents ought to be regulated with a view to the advantage of their children. Let us bear in mind, therefore, that this limitation is the proper rule—that children allow themselves to be governed by their parents, and that they, on the other hand, do not drag their children by force to what is against their inclination, and that they have no other object in view, in the exercise of their authority, than the advantage of their children.
Martin Luther agreed that “a child should not marry or become engaged without the knowledge and consent of his parents.” However, while “it is one thing to hinder a child’s marriage to this or that particular person,” it is “quite another thing to forbid marriage entirely.”
A father may lay down the rule that his child must not eat or drink this or that, or sleep here or there; but he cannot rule that the child abstain entirely from food, drink, and sleep. On the contrary, he is duty bound to provide his child with food, drink, clothing, sleep, and whatever else is needful for his well-being. If he fails to do this, he is no father at all, and the child will have to do it himself. In like manner, the father also has the authority to prevent his child from marrying this one or that one; but he does not have the authority to forbid him to marry altogether. On the contrary, he is duty bound to get his child a good mate who will be just right for him, or who seems to be just right for him.
In other words, don’t pretend that you’re obeying the Fifth Commandment if you fail to honor your parents in the most important choice of your life. To reject their wisdom for the kind of person you should marry, who will carry your name and heritage to succeeding generations, is to sin. And here’s the key point: There has never, in all the ages of this earth, been a white man who wants his son or daughter to marry into the black race, or any other race for that matter, except the white race. To ignore this salient and incontrovertible fact, as Ritchie does, is to play fast and loose with the truth. There can be no lesson about marriage drawn from Scripture (least of all the WCF) that does not first draw from the well of the Fifth Commandment.
And now you know why we seldom see anyone rise to the challenge of placing substance behind their constant accusations about the “heresy” of Kinism. It’s because, on the subject of race, our side agrees with most of the Christians who have ever lived while the other side agrees with every sort of contemporaneous Christ-hater imaginable.
From the same school, New Geneva, comes this equally misguided and deceptive post on the immigration philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt. Read this quote, and when you’re finished we’d like to ask you a question.
In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people.
Would it be safe to assume that an institution of higher learning that posts such a quote is careful not to misrepresent Roosevelt’s intended meaning?
Here is a quote from Roosevelt that shows exactly what he had in mind:
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism… The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
As it turned out, the nations of Europe, being of common racial heritage with the British founding stock, assimilated quite easily. Leaving aside the question of whether this was good or bad, no honest historian would suggest that Roosevelt believed the American tribe could assimilate other races. Roosevelt loudly blamed the South for saddling the country with blacks, who he called “a perfectly stupid race.” He considered their presence here to be a millstone around our necks. “There is no solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent,” he wrote in 1901; “he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away.” Roosevelt blamed lynchings on the disposition of black men to rape white women.
He called the white race “the forward race” in 1905, and to this race alone fell the task of “preserving the high civilization wrought out by its forefathers.” He believed that miscegenation and racial integration would cause us to degenerate, and history has made him a prophet. In his book, The Winning of the West, he wrote: “It is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and Aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races.” Again, the propriety of imperialism is open to question, but you can see that unlike Judeochristian race-mixers, we are presenting the real man, not a myth. When he was president, he said, “As a race, and in the mass, [blacks] are altogether inferior to the whites… All reflecting men of both races are united in feeling that race purity must be maintained.”
It’s not possible to honestly assess Roosevelt’s “immigration policy” without taking race into account. Those who pretend that Roosevelt did not carefully consider race himself only succeed in twisting his words to mean the exact opposite of what he intended. Just as they do with holy Scripture.
Few dishes can be savoured as delectably as the C.E. Christian liberal served up on his liberalism en brochette.
The Christian faith is incarnational.
The Eternal Logos – “true God from true God; true Light from true Light; Begotten and not created, of One Being with the Father” …took flesh and dwelt among us.
He came unto his own – his own people, tribally, ethnically and in Covenant relation with God. He comes to fulfill and not destroy. He desires to baptise nations as nations – not destroy nations and amalgamate them into geopolotical entities lost in uncharted sociological space, cultural anomie and transgendered derangement.
Christianity both fulfills the pillars of our human identity: gender, race, ethnicity, kindred, religion and liberates us by fulfillment in Him.
The new creation in Christ – the God-man race transends human identity but in no way leaves it behind.
Men and women as men and women become complete in Christ as men and women – not something else. Their ethnos becomes Christified and their culture blooms and bears its unique fruit when their nation adopts (as a nation) the Apostolic government of the New Covenant.
Among the ethnicities / nations and kindreds of Europe, this process of entire nations baptised into Christ occurred at the level of the race and formed the Katolicum and the Christendom from the Atlantic to the Urals.
Even though that Christopherian race be reduced to a mere remnant we see our archetype and heroic code in the patterns of our Christian Bardic cultures.
I refer to what J.R.R. Tolkien called “that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized.”
J.R.R. Tolkien. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. 1981 London:Unwin Paperbacks,p.56.
Tolkien believed the supreme statement of the Northern heroic code occurred in the OE poem “The Battle of Maldon” that commemorates the Viking victory over the English (991 A.D.).
This is the statement of the King’s retainer Beorhtwold faithful beyond fear:
“Bolder the heart; the purpose harder; the spirit more fell – as strength fails.”
In the OE poem, Tolkien felt too much of pagan battle fury and rashness still haunted that expression of the code. In “BoM” this led to Beorthtnoth’s rash decision to give the Viking host passage of the river and entrance to the level field of the rivermeadows.
Tolkien re-envisioned the code in terms of the Christian virtue of prudence and temperance in The Lord of the Rings.
In Tolkien’s saga it is the Numenorian race that bears the high legacy of the Western race among men. He gives many exempla of his re-envisioning for the time that he clearly foresaw was coming.
In that saga “The Siege of Gondor” it is the remnant of the Numenorian race under the command of Gandalf (an immortal) who fight the last defenses of Minas Tirith, the City of Kings.
“So it was that Gandalf took command of the last defence of the City. Wherever he came mens’ hearts would lift again and the winged shadow pass from memory. Tirelessly he strode from Citadel to Gate, from north to south about the wall; and with him went the Prince of Dol Amroth in his shining mail. For he and his knights still held themselves as lords in whom the race of Numenor ran true. Men that saw them whispered saying: ‘Belike the old tales speak well; there is Elvish blood in the veins of that folk; for the people of Nimrodel dwelt once in their land [Belfalas of Gondor] once long ago.’ And then one would sing amid the gloom some staves of the Lay of Nimrodel , or other songs of the Vale of Anduin out of the vanished years.”
To my mind, Tolkien clearly foresaw the fall of the West; he foresaw a desperate hour beyond all human hope of victory. He wrote this and other passages precisely for that time. He wrote this and similar passages for the instruction of a generation who would live through the times of the vision of Ragnorak.
Described by the Scilds as the spectre of the Ninth Night with the wind howling across a torrid waste, the skein of all life unraveling as the end of the aeon passes under the shadow; a time when angels and men would fight against the powers of hell in a war that from the human standpoint would be hopeless.
He the Christoferian race a template for that time.
JP, you wrote: “SF is right, I am an American, but I simply don’t know what to do about that.” At the risk of sounding like a broken record again, I can’t resist pointing out that our fathers knew exactly what to do about it.
SF, I like Bret a lot, but he has always been confused on this point. He is leaving out the one detail that changes his entire Old Testament immigration theory: tribal property rights. If we could prevent our land from being purchased away from us and eliminate the anchor baby law, sealing the border would not be the priority it has become. There’s nothing wrong with migrant workers if they are peaceful and remain migrants. Bret needs to work on his theory.
Thanks admin. I’m in agreement. True migrants would not be a problem with the biblical principles of tribal property rights and kin rule.
Even the most ardent egalitarian Judeochristian will insist that he is not condoning the abrogation of nationhood or gender distinction. But in point of fact, his exegesis demands it. This is why the nation must be redefined by such men as an arbitrary geopolitical identity -the so-called proposition nation.
But nowhere in scripture, or in the extant works of the church fathers is it so defined. Indeed, the geopolitical nation is a modern novelty, and militates against the very unities of heritage and descent that are conducive of the peace, order, lawfulness, and harmony that are the primary objectives of God-ordained government. Any system of polity that diverts from pursuit of these goals flirts with illegitimacy. The modern imperial state is unified by exactly what, riven as it is with deep divisions religious, ethnic, political, economic? And this is the preferred substitute for the ethnostate? It is a comical suggestion, and indulges in superstitions of the rankest sort.
It is only by the monopoly of force that there is unity in the imperial state. It is an ersatz unity underwritten by violence and the shadow of violence. Such illusory, synthetic congeniality is not to be desired and does not conform to the desideratum of “good government.” The center does not hold, but rather the hegemonic center expands and consumes all, indifferent to the divergences of birth, temperament, and history that form the god-ordained boundaries of biology, time, and circumstance that cause us to seek Him. We Kinists often see references made to the triviality “skin colour,” as though this were the only facet of race. It is to laugh that this is held up as a serious argument. If skin color were the only facet of race, then perhaps these men would have a point. But it is not, and the findings of biological psychology, genetics, and other scientific disciplines cannot be erased by the mere suggestion that race is nothing more than a word to describe a fallacy of hasty induction.
Indeed the drive to total geopolitical unity can hardly be opposed by a doctrine of nations that makes no distinction between the theoretical means and opportunity of salvation and the aforementioned divergences of history -which they call “accident” as if it occurred somehow apart from the will of God- divergences that make us who and what we are. Those who espouse this confusion of categories often suffer from self-induced blindness to the logical imperatives of the position, and often enough fail to see they are making use of the very same exegesis that the Marxist promulgators of Liberation Theology utilize to argue the sinfulness of the nation-state itself, or the evil of property, or the satanic origins of gender distinction.
Your argument, sir, belongs in the same class, and relies on the same presuppositions. We Kinists often find that far from seeking a thoroughly biblical approach to the doctrine of nations, our opponents have a priori socio-political commitments that arise from settled convictions on what the Bible can and cannot mean -irrespective of what it actually SAYS.
There proceeds from this a radical dissonance between the theoretical stance taken, and the realpolitik that is seen in his doxa, or the received common opinions that he cherishes on subjects of immediate practical importance, such as illegal immigration. This dissonance often escalates to existential crisis when he becomes aware of it. From this crisis, Kinists are often born. The Judeochristian would keep the nation, but strip it of its natality, retain gender, but dissipate its meaning, guard borders that are no more meaningful than the lines on a map, signifying nothing of importance.
As the unity of marriage, so the unity of society. Unequally yoked marriages become radically balkanized societies, inevitably. In reality, the contemporary reformed lexicon bowdlerizes the ancient and universally accepted definition of nationality. We could call forth the evidence of nature, the order of the created world, ad infinitum. The entire creation speaks the language “kind after kind.” Is man to exist contra naturam? Hardly, for from dust he came and to dust he shall return. Man is the crown of creation, not radically “other.” He is situated within the creation and partakes of the laws God has ordained to govern it.
This “transitive property” that conflates soteriological universality with absolute biological confluence could not do more violence to the biblical doctrine of nations were it actually intended to do so. And in some cases it is.
We note a dearth of references from the Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine, from the works of the great Reformers, as they speak with one voice on the subjects of natality and marriage.
That said, you seem to be a gracious sort, and so we’ll leave off for now and let you process the objections offered.
Mr. Paulling:
In light of the conclusion of the scuffle, I hope you release me from our visit this weekend without accusation.
Ms. Lynda:
I’m inspired by your commentary on Tolkien! I remember being likewise inspired by something you wrote in a lost archive of SWB, and would very much appreciate a further description of St. Patrick’s confrontation of the Pagan magicians in Ireland. In place of further commentary on your part, can you recommend a book on the topic?
Mr. Admin and SFayre:
I agree with your respect and admiration for Mr. McAtee.
I hope you guys will forgive a link to my personal blog. I post it here because its so relevant to the discussion, and hope that my linking is not seen as some sort of shameless self-promotion:
http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/joel-mcdurmon-on-immigration/
Joel McDurmon of American Vision recently did a three-part video series (about 30 min. total) on a Biblical doctrine of immigration. He relies on Hoffmeier’s book “The Immigration Crises: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible” to inform his presentation, (I now own a copy as well, and attest to Hoffmeier’s precision.)
In the link above I have gathered all three clips together for easy access and transcribe, what seems to be, comments that may support a Kinist position on the topic.
McAtee’s bizarre passage is his convoluted, faux-intellectual attempt to express the idea “Me no racis’!”. . .with rhetorical thumbs gesturing inwardly, head wildly shaking “No!” with near-whiplash energy.
It’s the thinly-veiled equivalent of ending a recounting of one’s terrible experience with X by concluding, “But I’m not a racist, my best friend is an albino pygmy.”
Shotgun, you can’t cancel now! J’accuse! J’accuse!
Hell, I’d settle for Rush’s and a peach white owl, but I’m sick.
Simply analyzing the text…,
Is it not essentially true that throughout the bible Satan has one, and only one, theme common in his every appearance in the text?
And isn’t that to promote “equality”? His counter-gospel, so to speak?
Isn’t that what he preached to Adam and Eve? Equality, with God?
Wasn’t his attacks upon Job done in effort to prove that Job could be made equal to all others in absence of God’s blessings? (the book of Job is one long sermon against the argument that equal opportunity/circumstance = equal outcome…aka the “social gospel”)
And wasn’t the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness an attempt to get him to surrender his claim as The Christ, thus making him equal with other men?
I think a theological case could be made that the pursuit (and entire point) of “equality” ends with the world agreeing that Jesus was not God incarnate, but just another wannabe philosopher, i.e., equal with the rest of us.
Really, wasn’t that Satan’s downfall? His pursuit of equality with God?
Isn’t THAT the great sin of all the ages? The pursuit of equality with God: the attempt to deny him any special stature and thus make him equal with us.
And you don’t have to elevate the people up to achieve that. You can simply bring Him down amongst them, pat him on the back and call him Ol’ Buddy.
In point of fact I’ve noticed that the more Christians come to embrace the Philosophy of Equality, the more their referential reverence for Jesus declines.
They go from referring to him in awe as the King of Kings and Lord or Lords to casually referring to him as their “Homy”, their “Bestfriend”, their Boyfirend”, their “Buddy”, their “Pal” and other such similar tags which demote him to being “one of us”, thus taking the initial steps towards achieving “equality” with God.
A king ruling over a people who’ve come to embrace equality, has been effectively de-throned.
…
And as a general, observable, historical fact,
In Chaos, all distinctions are blurred.
In Order, all distinctions are enhanced.
…
I think you’re on to something important there, Narrator. I especially love the last part about chaos and order. This is one of those things that everyone knows to be true but few are willing to say openly.
“It is aberrant for nations, kindreds, and races to mix freely; and when they do lawlessness and breakdown of authority invariably occurs (Genesis 11:6, Daniel 2:43). Indeed, there is not one example in history of large-scale mixing occuring where this was not the result.”
Again I might invoke the “you shall know the tree by its fruits” principle: can one point out any really mixed mulatto-nation that is, or has been, famous for its Christian piety and devotion?
One can examples of one-nation communities – or all races – that have shown true Biblical commitment, but has there been any truly “multicultural” society in history that Christians could look upon as moral inspiration?
Christianity has worked a moral transformation even among former headhunters of Southeast Asia, but nota bene: believers there have not lost their national or tribal identity after their conversion:
http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3893&highlight=headhunters
“Today, images of Jesus Christ, not desiccated human skulls, adorn Khala’s small house in the hills around Kohima, the capital of India’s northeast state of Nagaland. The region, once notorious worldwide for its savagery, has now become India’s most Christian-dominant area. It’s known as “the most Baptist state in the world.”
…
After India achieved independence in 1947, Naga separatists (many of them Christians) fought fiercely for independence from India. India’s government expelled all foreign missionaries from Nagaland, suspecting them of fueling the Nagas’ desire for independence. Finally, after years of violence, India permitted Nagaland to become a “self-governing” state inside India. But entry into and exit from Nagaland is monitored closely, even today, since Christian rebels still advocate complete independence (their slogan: “Nagalim for Christ”).”
Dear Shotgun,
I am glad to read that you liked my reflection upon Tolkien. I reread his great saga every decade of my life and with every re-reading a new horizon is revealed to my ken. There is no doubt in my mind that he is England’s greatest bard for the post-Christian times.
Of course, now we have moved beyond post-Christian, post everything times. We are in anno Lucifer – the year 2,000 Anno Domine being, 6000 anno (probably that should be ano) Lucifer.
I am a Mrs, btw. And my family is Irish on my husband’s side and Cornish on my side.
Probably the best book on St Patrick is from my parish library Archbishop Healey: Life of St Patrick (1905).
Clan Doyle has some great material on St Padraig (as well as some great Irish harp) http://www.doyle.com.au/saint_patrick.htm.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has distilled much of the oral tradition around St Patrick. And it is to the oral tradition (which will be the Bardic tradition) that I give much credence. See St Patrick
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/1554a.htm.
Moderns have a huge problem with miraculous events. They can not credit Apostolic works and the works of saints whose lives closely model the Acts. I have no difficulty at all with the gist of this lore and the oral tradition.
Long before this was ever written down, the people preserved this tradition of their great bishop in the laodh which was sung at the hearthside.
The fact of history is that entire nations of people together with their kings and chiefs converted to the Gospel in a very short space of time. Ancient and pre-historic peoples were not just sitting there in caves doing nothing and waiting for the Gospel.
In the temptation of Christ, Satan states that all the kingdoms of this age (aeon or age of the world) have been given to himself -”for such have been delivered to me”. And these will he give to Christ – if only Christ will worship him, Lucifer.
The ancient Irish were no different than anyone else B.C. – they were under tribute to Lucifer through a ruling priesthood.
Not just anyone, goes to Ireland in the 4th century Anno Domine and breaks the power of the Druid Bond at the seat of the High King in Tara and persuades all the Clans to throw down the altars of human sacrifice. For this was Lucifer’s entire slave / sacrifice system which terrorized the human race for millenia (and which we are now getting back with interest).
Only the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour and King has the power to do that. And St Padrick was annointed for the mission to Eire by two popes. He went as an apostle and as a successor to the Apostles. By God’s grace, it was given him to manifest the Apostolic charismata against the works of darkness for the salvation of a nation.
And so great were his works of penance and mortification that the Father, (who Alone, as our Saviour states has the knowledge of the times), revealed to St Padraic that He determined the times of the Anti-Christ upon Ireland.
The Angel of the Father revealed to St Patrick that the nation of Eire (claimed for our Lord with such manifestation of great Apostolic charismata as had pleased Him to reveal in St Patrick) would itself be claimed by our Lord by means of the sea before He would yield that land to the Anti-Christ.
And now, as the Great Apostasy widens across Europe, we see the remnant Catholics burning their own cathedrals rather than yield them up to some heretic, sodomite and violator of innocence appointed over them by anti-pope Benedict.
Is this some legend, that the Angel of the Father revealed to St Padrick that our Lord would never yield Eire? I think the Bardic Tradition of Ireland does speak true that the Angel of the Father spoke to St Patrick of His sovereign counsel and foreknowledge. He said that the Day of Judgement itself would be determined upon 7 years from the year that the sea claimed the Island of Saints and Scholars because our Lord never would yield that land to the reign of the Anti-Christ.
So great was the apostolic zeal and charism, penance and mortification revealed for the salvation of Eire by St Patrick, that our Lord reigning until all His enemies are under His feet will never yield Eire – even though the entire world pass under the shadow.