[** Export to PDF](/wp-admin/tools.php?ghostexport=true&submit=Download+Ghost+File&pdf=124)
For traditionalists, there is a simple, inescapable truth regarding modern Christianity: namely, it is not anything that would be recognizable to our ancestors. The religious texts have not drastically changed aside from vulgar translations, and the liturgies of most denominations would be recognizable. No, it is rather an issue of Christendom itself—its very essence in practice—that has changed. Today, we see the Pope welcoming Muslim hordes into Europe, a lesbian “bishop” in Sweden telling a church to remove all Christian iconography to accommodate Muslims using it as a “prayer space,” &c.

Some would have us believe that this is the true nature of Christianity. Obviously, this flies in the face of centuries upon centuries of the Church waging open war on Muslims and Jews. They would say, however, that our ancestors were just “bad Christians,” and it is rather the multicultural crowd that truly represent the faith. The reality, as discussed in a previous post, is that the Reformation gave rise to low-church, puritanical Protestantism that embraces egalitarianism while rejecting the history and traditions of Christendom. It is not normal for Christians to wear yarmulkes and tallit prayer shawls. It is not normal to open the gates of Europe to Muslim invaders with signs welcoming them and making excuses for their crimes. These things are not the essence of Christianity, and they are instead the result of infiltrators dividing an already fractured Christendom in the aftermath of the Reformation. When Erick Erickson goes on a Twitter rant quoting the Bible out of context to claim the traditionalists are the antithesis of Christianity, he is the one betraying Christendom and every defender of the faith throughout history.

It is time for actual Christians to reclaim the faith from Jew-loving, Muslim-welcoming traitors like Erick Erickson and his ilk. It is time to stop letting them abuse our people and nations by quoting their vulgar translations of the Bible out of context to mislead the masses. It is time for crusaders to take up the cross once again to combat those who would see every white, Christian nation fall to foreign, subversive elements. To that end and since no current denomination in the West represents the best interests of Latin Christendom, it may be time for a new denomination—a Church of the Crusaders—that promotes and defends Western Christendom, western values, and the European people as a whole wherever they are found.

Below is a list of doctrinal points that are important.

I. It must be Catholic: The word “catholic” comes from Latin “catholicus” and ultimately from the Ancient Greek “καθολικός,” meaning “according to the whole.” Whether or not Protestants wish to accept it, the history of Christianity in the West is a history of the Catholic Church. Any new denomination must be grounded in the history and traditions of Latin Christendom.

II. It must be apostolic:  The word “apostolic” comes from Latin “apostolicus,” from Ancient Greek “ἀποστολικός,” meaning “pertaining to the apostles.” This means the Church of the Crusaders must include the Holy Orders of bishop, priest, and deacon in a line of succession going back to the Apostles. In Acts 6:1-7, we see the Apostles creating clergy from among their followers by laying hands upon them, and therein appears the word ἱερέων (priest). In 1 Timothy 3:1-13, qualifications for the offices of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) and deacon (διάκονος) are put forth. Each of the Apostolic Churches can trace their succession back to the Apostles as every cleric is created through the same laying on of hands. This grounds the Church in history.

III. It must be open to sedevacantism: “Sedevacantism” stems from the Latin “sede vacante,” which means “the seat being vacant.” The phrase normally references the time in between the death of the Pope and the election of the next, but sedevacantism is instead the position that an illegitimate pope cannot truly be the Bishop of Rome. Thus, in such times, the seat remains vacant. Sedevacantists are typically divided from Rome over the liberalization that occurred with Vatican II, but the term can be used in a more general sense.

Catholics who have accepted Vatican II will typically argue that sedevacantism is sinful. They argue that Jesus said, “That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). In essence, a “false pope” sitting (metaphorically) on the Throne of St. Peter would be “the gates of hell” prevailing against the Church, but this ignores a long history of Popes and Anti-Popes competing for control of the Church. The actual administration thereof may not always have been in the hands of a Pope independently exerting authority from the Vatican. This does not mean, however, that the gates of hell had prevailed so long as there were those striving to preserve and restore the Church.

Today, one would have difficulty justifying Francis as being in line with the Popes of the past. He has encouraged the Muslim invasion of Europe, going so far as to shame Christians trying to protect their nations. He has also attacked Donald Trump for wanting a secure border with Mexico. He has taken countless other positions that follow in the same leftist vein. The Church of the Crusaders must reserve the right to recognize or not the Bishop of Rome as a first among equals based on a given Pope holding to traditional values or not.

IV. It must be militant: In Luke 22:36, Jesus said, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” In John 18:10-11, we see that Peter indeed had a sword when the Pharisees came for Jesus, but Jesus told him to put his sword away since what was to happen was God’s plan. These verses are important because Jesus told his followers to arm themselves, and Peter was clearly ready to use his sword against the Pharisees.

The Church Militant today have forgotten to be militant. They see themselves in a spiritual battle only as Christendom is invaded by savages who subvert our nations and build temples to their gods. Imagine Charles Martel refusing to do battle with the Muslims invading Europe, or Pope Urban II telling the Byzantines that they should welcome the demographic changes of Muslims invading Constantinople. Our ancestors knew that European Christians had to fight for their nations and their faith against those who would destroy both.

Today, Christians are told to “turn the other cheek” and to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). No one bothers to read the verses in context, or to consult the more nuanced language of the original Greek. For example, the context of Matthew 5 is that Jesus was telling his followers to strive to be perfect in their personal lives. Indeed, in verse 44, the word used for “enemies” is “εχθρός” rather than “πολέμιος,” which would denote an enemy of the state. Similarly, the slap to the cheek found in verse 39 is a reference to a personal insult in the time of Jesus rather than a violent attack, and it came after Jesus mentioned the Old Testament law of “an eye for an eye.” In context then, we should not seek vengeance when someone insults us personally, but it does not mean that we should expose our throats to foreign invaders.

Christians need to again embrace the martial spirit of our ancestors. For comparison, baptized Sikh males are expected to be armed with a knife at all times as an article of faith, and, according to Luke 22:36, Christians can and should be following a similar commandment from Jesus. Imagine the change in attitude that would come from Christians focusing on the martial and defending themselves and others rather than mistakenly thinking Jesus commanded them to surrender to every criminal or foreign invader. After all, Jesus whipped the money changers and flipped over their tables rather than making excuses for and encouraging their behavior (John 2:15).

V. It must reject multiculturalism: According to many, Christians must open our nations to any and all foreigners who claim to be in need, and any concern as to how that may affect one’s own nation and people is dismissed as racism. The same is true of miscegenation where we are apparently supposed to tolerate and even encourage mixing between races. Ultimately, if peoples and cultures continue to mix, the result would be a single muddled race with a single culture and language. In Genesis 11:9, we see that God purposely divided mankind over the Tower of Babel, and what is multiculturalism but an effort to build a new tower against God’s will? And let’s be clear—God’s will is that mankind is to be divided (Deuteronomy 32:8). Indeed, Man was spread over the Earth and divided into nations with set boundaries (Acts 17:26).

Furthermore, the Lord’s Prayer tells us, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). As we have seen, God’s will is that Mankind was divided into peoples and nations with established boundaries, and it follows then that the same is true in Heaven. In essence, anyone can be a Christian as said in Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 12:13, but that only makes sense. Why would God divide Mankind just to reject some parts thereof even if they become Christian? That does not mean, however, that the Lord’s will is for Christ to be used as an excuse to build the new Tower of Babel.

The Church of the Crusaders must thus embrace brothers and sisters in Christ in spirit while keeping the divisions that God set forth. An African can be a Christian in Africa, and he need not be brought into America or Europe for any reason. Similarly, we can work with those of other races where it is needed, but we mustn’t combine that which God purposely divided according to plan.
****VI. It must reject Zionism**:One of the most subversive and harmful movements within Christendom today is so-called “Christian Zionism,” or the belief that the modern state of Israel must exist as a Jewish ethno-state supported by Christians. Common refrains in support of this position include that “Jesus was a Jew” and that “Jews are God’s Chosen,” and the result is many supposed Christians going so far as to put Jews above their fellow Christians. This is seen frequently in American politics.

First, let’s address the argument that “Jesus was a Jew.” On its face, this is meaningless as “Jews” as we know them today did not exist. In the time of Jesus, the Levant was a Roman province known as Judea after the Hebraic Kingdom of Judah that had been destroyed in the 6th century BC. By that time, the Hebrews had been conquered, divided, and even exiled for a time. Indeed, the Hebrews had also come to be divided into sects along religious lines. Thus, the Judaeans (Latin: iudaei/Greek: Ἰουδαῖοι) were not a single, monolithic bloc that could be called the “Jews.”

Secondly, of the sects in Jesus’s time, it was the Pharisees that would become Rabbinic Judaism following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. Additionally, modern Jews are divided into the “Jews of Germany” (Ashkenazi), “Jews of Spain” (Sephardi), and the “Jews of the East” (Mizrahi). We also know that Jesus was not a Pharisee. Indeed, in John 8:42-47, it was the Pharisees that Jesus condemned as being the children of Satan, being given to the murderous and traitorous lusts of their father. If the modern Pharisees are God’s Chosen, why did Jesus condemn them as hellspawn? In short, Jews as they exist today are not ethnically or spiritually representative of the Hebrews in Jesus’s time.

Finally, Jesus was to shepherd the people of Israel (Matthew 2:6), and Christians are indeed citizens of Israel and of God’s household (Ephesians 2:12-19). In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” And, again, in John 8:44, Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” In Revelation 3:9, we are warned of “the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie.” How can any Christian say that a non-Christian Israel is God’s will, or that the Pharisees are God’s Chosen?