George Weigel, the neoconservative apologist for George Walker Bush’s unjust, immoral and unconstitutional invasion and occupation of Iraq who is perhaps more famous as the apologist for the Polish Modernist, Karol Josef Wojtyla/“Saint John Paul II,” has gone on record now to state that there is no such thing as a “paradigm shift” in Catholic teaching on anything, especially concerning the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that has been subject to such a “shift” by the way in which Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, has been “received” by local “bishops”:
These are matters of divine revelation, however, and as the Church has long believed and taught, revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. So the evolution of the Church’s understanding of the gospel over the centuries is not a matter of “paradigm shifts,” or ruptures, or radical breaks and new beginnings; it’s a question of what theologians call the development of doctrine. And as Blessed John Henry Newman taught us, authentic doctrinal development is organic and in continuity with “the faith once . . . delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The Catholic Church doesn’t do rupture: that was tried 500 years ago, with catastrophic results for Christian unity and the cause of Christ.
So it was unfortunate that Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Secretary of State of the Holy See, recently described Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, as a “paradigm shift.”
Perhaps Cardinal Parolin meant “paradigm shift” in some other sense than Thomas Kuhn’s (although Kuhn’s notion of paradigm-shift-as-rupture is the common understanding of the term). Perhaps the cardinal was suggesting that Amoris Laetitia asked all the people of the Church to treat those who have not been married in the Church but who wish to be part of the Catholic community with greater sensitivity and charity (a worthy proposal, although compassion is the norm in the situations with which I’m most familiar). But whatever he may have intended, the cardinal cannot have meant that Amoris Laetitia is a “paradigm shift” in the sense of a radical break with previous Catholic understandings. For the Catholic Church doesn’t do “paradigm shifts” in that sense of the term, and the Pope himself has insisted that Amoris Laetitia does not propose a rupture with the Church’s settled doctrines on the indissolubility of marriage and worthiness to receive Holy Communion.
Where something similar to a Kuhn-type “paradigm shift” is underway, however, is in the reception of Amoris Laetitia in various local churches—and this is ominous. The pastoral implementation of Amoris Laetitia mandated in Malta, Germany, and San Diego is quite different than what has been mandated in Poland, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Portsmouth, England, and Edmonton, Alberta. Because of that, the Catholic Church is beginning to resemble the Anglican Communion (itself the product of a traumatic “paradigm shift” that cost John Fisher and Thomas More their heads). For in the Anglican Communion, what is believed and celebrated and practiced in England is quite different from what is believed, celebrated, and practiced in Nigeria or Uganda.
This fragmentation is not Catholic. Catholicism means one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and unity is one of the four distinctive marks of the Church. That unity means that the Church embodies the principle of non-contradiction, such that a grave sin on the Polish side of the Oder River can’t be a source of grace on the German side of the border. (Weigel Says that the Catholic Church Does Not Do Paradigm Shifts.)
This is entirely laughable as the entirety of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the postconciliar “popes” represents a rupture with the teaching and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, was one such rupture as it taught that the “Church of Christ” is not coextensive with the Catholic Church.
The belief expressed in Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965, that adherents of false religions have a “right” given them by God Himself is a complete rupture with the Catholic Church’s consistent condemnation of “religious liberty” by true pope after true pope (see Appendix A below).
False ecumenism and inter-religious “prayer” services and meetings, including those pioneered and championed by the progenitor of the egregious, syncretistic Assisi events that were the brainchild of Weigel’s beloved “Saint John Paul II,” remain a radical rupture with the constant teaching and consistent tradition and practice of the Catholic Church dating back to the Apostolic Era (see Appendix B below).
The endorsement of the heresy of “separation of Church and State by the postconciliar “popes” is a complete contradiction of how our true popes forcefully condemned this separation as opposed to Divine Revelation and the Natural Law itself. (See Appendix C below.)
The “Second” Vatican Council’s sanguine view of the world and modern culture as expressed in Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, is a rupture with the sober Catholic teaching expressed by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, and Pope Saint Pius X’s unequivocal condemnation of philosophies of The Sillon in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. (See Appendix D below.)
Paradigm shifts, George Weigel?
What about going from the immutable Catholic teaching that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted on Holy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday as the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom? See Appendix E for the proof.
It is interesting to note that a Protestant “observer” at the “Second” Vatican Council, Douglas Horton, saw that some of the periti at the council were trying to move the Catholic Church into the lines of “progress” in a manner that had been condemned by Pope Pius IX, something that he, Horton, thought was terrific:
Lectures by Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and other progressives have been scheduled in a hall not far from St. Peters for the month of November. The Secretary General this morning said that he had asked whether these lectures were to be regarded as official or at least as authorized. He answered with a good, round unequivocal NO. Middle-of-the-road men such as he do not yet feel at home with the trailblazers. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston: United Church Press, 1966, p. 144.)
Ah, yes, the trailblazers. Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger were joined at the hip during the "Second" Vatican Council, seeking indeed to blaze a trail for others to follow, a trail that Ratzinger continues to blaze as Benedict XVI.
The Protestant Douglas Horton had written the following the role of the "periti," in whose ranks was counted one Father Joseph Ratzinger, in changing the schema of the "Second" Vatican Council in its first session:
One fear that had crept into my mind was scotched by this morning's discussion. I had thought that possibly the bishops were such busy men that they would not have kept up with modern scholarship and that in consequence they might adopt the proposed schema without thinking much about it. The expert consultants, many of them from divinity schools of the world, are of course familiar enough with the problem, but they have no votes. I had heard one of the bishops call the gallery in which these periti (or experts) sit, "the rebels' roost"--and I feared that we might not find many rebels among the bishops themselves. My apprehensions were proved groundless. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1962: A Protestant Observes the First Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston: United Church Press, 1964, p. 114.)
Consider also the Protestant Mr. Horton's "observation" concerning the "council's" rejection of "traditio:"
So the day is over. As I look back upon it, I see it as one of the great moments of the council. Consider that one hundred years ago in the eightieth article of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, the Roman church declared, "If anyone says that the Pope can and should be reconciled and make terms with progress, with liberalism and modernist civilization, let him be anathema." Today that same church, through this council, has opened the way for a declaration which begins, "In this present age there is an increasing awareness among men of the dignity of the human person. This dignity demands that man in his activity may enjoy his own judgment and freedom, so that he is impelled not by coercion but by consciousness of his own duties. this demand for freedom in human society should be applied most particularly to religious matters. The church, attentively considering these human longings, intends to show how much they are in agreement with truth and justice."
The giant called Rome, who has so long been asleep in the arms of the lady Traditio, is beginning to open his eyes. ((Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston: United Church Press, 1966, p. 44.)
Yes, Mr. Weigel, the Catholic Church does not do “paradigm shifts,” but the “Second” Vatican Council was not the work of the Catholic Church, which would never “reconcile” itself to the world, the flesh and the devil in a manner specifically condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:
Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)
Even Catholic doctrine on Holy Matrimony itself has undergone a rupture engineered by the postconciliar “popes,” each of whom has inverted the ends proper to the Sacrament that the Catholic Church had reiterated time and time again, including as late as Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, and Pope Pius XII’s 1944 condemnation of the personalist view of marriage that was at the heart of the theology of both “Pope Paul VI” and “Saint John Paul II.” (See Appendix F below.)
Mr. Weigel would counter, I am sure, that one must view the “developments” just noted through the instrumentality of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” but this is to overlook the inconvenient little truth that Ratzinger/Benedict’s own “paradigm” is nothing other than Modernism’s precept of dogmatic evolutionism that was condemned in its nascent form by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, and as he presided over the Third Session of the [First] Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, by Pope Saint Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestentia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. (See Appendix G below.)
Obviously, Mr. Weigel does not see rupture where rupture plainly exists. However, it is really, really laughable for him to talk about the reception of Amoris Laetitia as representing a “rupture” when Pietro the Red Parolin speaks for Jorge Mario Bergolio himself, who, unless I have missed something, been pretty clear about how his heretical exhortation is to be applied to “irregular situations”:
Bp. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy
Delegate to the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region
I hereby acknowledge having received the document “Basic criteria for the application of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII” from the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region. Thank you very much for sending it; and I congratulate you for the work done, a true example of accompaniment to the priests… and we all know how this closeness between the bishop and his clergy is necessary. The “closest” neighbor to the bishop is the priest, and for us bishops the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves begins precisely with our priests.
The document is very good and fully expresses the meaning of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII. There are no other interpretations. And I am sure that it will do much good. May the Lord reward them for this effort of pastoral charity.
And it is precisely this pastoral charity that moves us to seek out those who are most distant, and once we have found them, to begin a journey of acceptance, accompaniment, discernment, and integration into the ecclesial community. We know this is exhausting, it is a pastoral “melee” that is not content with programmatic, organizational, or legal mediation, but it is necessary. Simply embrace, accompany, discern, integrate. Of these four pastoral attitudes, the least cultivated and practiced is discernment; and I consider the formation in personal and communal discernment in our seminaries and presbyteries to be an urgent task.
Finally I would like to remind you that Amoris Laetitia was the result of the work and prayer of the whole Church, with the mediation of two Synods and the Pope. Therefore I recommend a complete catechesis of the Exhortation, which will certainly assist in the growth, consolidation, and sanctification of the family.
Once again I thank you for the work done and I encourage you to continue forward, in the diverse communities of the diocese, with the study and catechesis of Amoris Laetitia. (As found at: Novus Ordo Watch.)
Although many “conservatives” in the conciliar structures who have never understood the plain fact that their “Pope Francis” cooked the books on this matter early in his false “pontificate” tried to deny the authenticity of their “pontiff’s” letter to the “bishops” of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires that confirmed their interpretation of Amoris Laetitia as the only one possible, officials in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River acknowledged the letter’s authenticity on September 12, 2016:
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has written a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina, praising them for their document which spells out ways in which priests should apply the teachings of his apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’.
Pope was responding to a document by the bishops entitled ‘Basic criteria for the application of chapter 8 of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ which details ways of ‘accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness’ for Catholics living in irregular family situations. That chapter focuses on the need to support and integrate divorcees into the life of the Church, specifying that “in certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments”.
In his letter the Pope underlines the urgency of formation of priests for the practice of discernment, stressing that this is central to the task of accompanying families in difficulty. He calls for in-depth catechesis on the exhortation which he says will “certainly help the growth, consolidation and holiness of family life”.
Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists “there are no other interpretations” of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015. (Vatican Says Jorge's Letter Buenos Aires "Bishops" Is Authentic.)
What Jorge Mario Bergoglio considers merely “irregular situations” have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church and, as noted above, they make a mockery of the martyrdom of numerous saints and the zealous work for souls by such missionaries as Saint Francis Solano and Saint Anthony Mary Claret.
“Conservatives” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics find themselves facing a heresy that they can no longer seek to explain away by having recourse to Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and/or Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity.”
While it is good that more than a handful of Catholics may now take a hard look at the fact that a heretic cannot sit on Throne of Saint Peter, most, however, will either accept their “pope’s” mercy to those who have not even bothered even with the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s vastly streamline nullity process that has itself undermined the indissolubility of ratified and consummated marriages or they will shrug their shoulders as they have since the “Second” Vatican Council at photographs such as this one:
The "Restorer of Tradition" giving a "joint blessing" with Archlayman of Canterbury
Oh, just incidentally, you understand, how did the Anglican sect that Ratzinger, following the leads of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maaria Montini/Paul VI and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, legitimized by means of his words and deeds start?
Yes, the adulterous and bigamous Henry VIII started the "Church of England." The Protestant Revolution was all about justifying lust and divorce. It is the same for the conciliar revolutionaries.
Like examples could be given ad nauseam, ad infinitum. Others, of course, can be found in numerous articles on this site and elsewhere in cyberspace, not to mention a compendium, necessarily extremely dated now by the rush of subsequent events but nevertheless a handy reference guide, entitled No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth.
Where has been the outrage about offenses given to the Most Blessed Trinity by the conciliar "popes" as they have violated the First and Second Commandments repeatedly?
Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did exactly what Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II before him had done. Jorge Mario Bergoglio's final, crushing blows to the immutable precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments did not come out of nowhere, and those within the “hierarchy” and the laity of the conciliar structures who are understandably and justifiably outraged by these latest developments really have no one else to blame as they have been active apologists for false doctrines (false ecumenism, inter-religious "prayer services," esteeming the symbols of false religions, reaffirmg adherents of false religions in their false beliefs) that violate the First and Second Commandments.
Violate the First and Second Commandments, good readers, and everything else will follow thereafter, including the Third Commandment (promulgation of a sacrilegious liturgy and other sacramentally invalid rites), the Fourth Commandment (separation of church and state, religious liberty) and the Fifth Commandment (conciliar "popes" have decried the death penalty and Bergoglio has said that there is no such thing as a just war). Why should any particular respect be given to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments when the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity have been undermined and mocked with complete impunity?
The veritable “house of cards” that has been constructed out of the constant erosion of the sensus Catholicus by the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the postconciliar “popes” has fallen down by the septuagenarian juvenile delinquent from South America, a man who delights, absolutely delights, in “making a mess” as he springs “surprises” that he dares so blasphemously to represent as coming from God when they are nothing other than the phantasms of his heretical imagination.
The Catholic Church does not “do paradigm shifts,” George Weigel?
The counterfeit church of conciliarism, has been doing these “paradigm shifts” and instituting “novelties” and “innovations that have been condemned time and time again. Indeed, the concepts of novelty and innovation stand condemned by the Catholic Church!
These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).
These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.
Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .
But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
Pope Pius IX used his first encyclical letter, Qui Pluribus, November 8, 1846, to mock (yes, mock) those who "extol progress the skies":
7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)
The real engineer of the rupture presented by the “Second” Vatican Council was none other Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, who got votes in the 1958 conclave that resulted in the usurped “election” of Angelo Roncalli even though he, Montini, was not even a member of the College of Cardinals. Montini worked closely with Roncalli and others, including a thirty-two year-old German priest, Father Joseph Ratzinger, to develop a secret schema for the “Second” Vatican Council that was designed to scuttle the one that many cardinals had devised precisely as the means to “canonize” Modernist principles in order to present them as authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.
Franco Bellegrandi made this point in Nikita Roncalli:
That he had been conscious as to the how and whys the Conclave had placed the Pontifical Triregno (Tiara) on his head, it may be inferred from the fact that he more than hinted to everyone that his successor should be Giovanni Battista Montini, that same Montini who, as we have seen, not by chance, as Roncalli is elected Pope, rushes to accompany to Rome the brothers of the new Pontiff. He noted it in his diary. And he could not wait to tell him in person, when, as a newly made Pope, he met the bishops of the Italian Episcopal Conference. “On that occasion,”
recalls monsignor Arrigo Pintonello, at the time Military Ordinary for Italy, “we bishops were lined up along the walls of the vast hall. John XXIII stood before each one of us, exchanging a greeting, a word. When he was before me, he came to attention, and, saluting militarily, he introduced himself as Sergeant Angelo Roncalli.” I still remember my embarrassment and that of the bishops present, in seeing the Pope play around like that. Then, as he stood before Montini, he stared at him for a time, smiling, held his hands, and cried, “It was you that should have been elected, not I. I’ve been elected by mistake!” Indeed, Montini will be the favorite of John XXIII. Topping the list of the new cardinals created in 1958, Montini works at the draft of Roncalli’ s most important addresses, and during the first session of the Council he is hosted in special apartments, in the Vatican, that the Pope had had personally appointed for him. As, on the one hand, John XXIII pursued point after point his progressive policy, dismissing the advice and suggestions of the College of Cardinals and of the episcopate, on the other his diplomatic ability and his subtle knowledge of man suggested to him that nothing should be changed, of the Vatican’s exterior, that could alarm the public opinion, poorly or badly informed on secret things. Thus, for example, the Court and Court-life remained the same. (Nikita Roncalli.)
Franco Bellegrandi proceeded to give a sketch of the Judaizing homosexual’s life that provides vignettes drawn from Montini’s own false “pontificate” and his oversized influence during the “pontificate” of his predecessor, the first in the current line of antipopes, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/John XXIII. One will see in the sketch that follows the simple fact that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI had a Jewish name and was thus attracted to all things Talmudic:
But who is this “Delfino” of Roncalli’s, whom joint forces without the Vatican have already designated, for years now, to succeed the priest from Sotto il Monte? Let us look at him, for a moment, under the magnifying lens.
He was born in Concesio, in the Brescia province, on September 26, 1897. Progenitor of the family is a Bartolomeo, or Bartolino De Benedictis, called Montino. De Benedetti (Benedictis) is a Jewish name.
Not by chance it will be discovered that Montini, become Paul VI, has the audacity to wear the “Ephod” of the Hebrew Supreme Priest, on the pontifical habit. To break the sensational news to the world is the abbot Georges de Nantes, who in October 1970, on issue 37 of his monthly “Contre Reforme Catholique,” launches a cry of alarm, with an article titled “The Amulet of the Pope.” In “Paris Match” of August 29, Roberto Serrou’s column “Will the Next Pope be a Frenchman?” Is illustrated by a large photograph of the Pope and of cardinal Villot. I gaze at those two closed faces dissembling the fate of the Church. . . But, what is this, over here, on Paul Vi’s breast, beneath the pectoral cross? A curious jewel I cannot recall seeing on any other Pope! The object must be made of gold, of a square shape, ornate with twelve precious stones set on four lines, three by three. It is hanging in a very particular way from a cord running around alongside that bearing the Cross of the Christ.
I am afraid to understand. All doubts are thus possible.
To describe the object, artlessly, I used the very words that, in eh. XXVIII of the “Exodus,” describe the Ephod of the Hebrew Supreme Priest!
Here then, on the Pope’s heart, hanging from his neck, is the “Pectoral of Judgment” that the Supreme Priest Aaron and his successors must wear as a ritual ornament to signify the twelve tribes of Israel, “to recall them incessantly in the presence of Jahve” (Ex. 28,29.)
Paul VI has been bearing the emblem of Caiphas. . . Who knows for how long, why, and from whom did he get it?
Would the Pope be signaling that he is the direct legatee of Levitic priesthood, as the Pontiff of a Church turned into the new and sole Israel of God? Or is he rather preparing a restoration of Judaism as the religion of pure Monotheism, of the most sacred Book, of the universal Alliance? The Abbot of Nantes continues in his writing:
”At the Katholikentag, this year, there was a Sabbath Hebrew cult, and at Brussels, cardinal Suenens has anticipated an upcoming Council, a Council of “reconciliation” which is to be held in Jerusalem. Now, B’nai-B’rith and Fremasonry alike dream to erect there, too, as well as in New York, a “Temple of Understanding” of which a model has been presented to the Pope as a sign of wide ecumenism. It is all coming together!
Who is to inform us, humble believers, of that pectoral and on all the obscure points of distant, dark schemes?
Who among us has the right to know whether the Pope, bearing the Ephod of Caiphas, intends to take up the Ancient Hebrew cult in the Church without fearing the rage of Israel according to the flesh, or whether his design is to bring back the Christian churches to universal Judaism and restore in Jerusalem the Levitic Priesthood? Ambiguity of the gaze and of the gesture, of the word or of the amulet. . . hitherto, the Crucifix had never borne the competition of any other symbol of cult. Is it, without a sound, without a word, soon to disappear from the heart of the Pope? Then in the Vatican, a rooster will crow one last time.”
I, too, have seen the Ephod on the white habit of Paul VI.
It was stitched to the stole, and the gold chain with a tassel at the end reached almost to his knees. I remember asking what it meant of some “participant” monsignors. Some had no idea. Others said it must have been a gift from a group of foreign pilgrims. There exist many pictures of Montini with the Ephod. The first of those pictures of the Pope with the “amulet” on his breast dates back to 1964. Sometimes the pectoral Cross is not to be seen at all. In some, it is concealed under the mozzetta (short cape worn by prelates in solemn functions). In only one occasion the stole appears without the mozzetta: in a photograph taken in India, wherein the Pope appears sitting and surrounded by Hindu children. In his calls on holy places, or sanctuaries, the Ephod is never wanting.
So it was on his visit to Fumone, when he called on the grave of Celestine V, at Santa Sabina, on Ash Wednesday, wherein they sing the renewed litanies of the Saints, starting with Sancte Abraham. . . At the feet of the Immaculate on the 8 of December, in Rome, etcetera, wherever he is wearing mozzetta and stole.
Naturally, the “novelty” aroused the curiosity of the journalists, who began to ask more and more insistently for explanations.
To the extent that professor Federico Alessandrini, director of the Vatican Press Office, was ordered to respond, in the course of a press-conference, that that jewel was none other than a “clasp” to hold the stole together. Yet no Pontiff had ever worne that clasp prior to Paul VI, as witnessed in the portraits and pictures of all his predecessors. (Nikita Roncalli.)
This is a very important point as the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s 1974 Litany of the Saints does indeed include invocations of Abraham, Moses and Elias after the innovation of All Holy Angels and before the invocation of Saint John the Baptist. Talk about paradigm shifts! Conciliarism is a Talmudic enterprise from beginning to end.
As was the case with Paulus Infirmorum Inveniantur’s immediate predecessor and second successor, of course, apostasy is rewarded with “canonization” by the lords of conciliarism, who have now found themselves a “miracle” to send the illicit cause of a heretic, Marxist and sodomite to the desk of a heretic, Marxist and sodomite-sympathizer, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who will dutifully proceed to “canonize” a sick, demented little man” as “Pope Saint Paul VI”:
The Congregation of Saints has unanimously approved the recognition of a miracle attributed to Blessed Paul VI, meaning the former Pontiff will likely be canonised as a saint later this year.
The cause now goes to Pope Francis for final approval, and for a date for the canonisation.
The miracle concerns the healing of an unborn child who was suffering from a potentially fatal disease. Shortly after Pope Paul VI’s beatification, the child’s mother travelled to Brescia, the former Pontiff’s hometown, to pray for healing.
The child was eventually born in good health.
Pope Paul VI was born as Giovanni Battista Montini in 1897. He was ordained in 1920 and rose to become Archbishop of Milan in 1954 before being elected Pope in 1963. He died in 1978. (Next Anti-Saint Approved By Fake, Phony Fraud "Cardinals.)
The “canonization” of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria. Well, there’s a “paradigm shift” for you.
Yes, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI died on August 6, 1978 the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is what Bishop Donald J. Sanborn wrote when recalling the death of the second in the current line of antipopes:
Then on August 6, 1978, Paul VI did something which made a great many people happy. He stopped living. (Bishop Donald J. Sanborn, The Mountains of Gelboe.)
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini’s mortal remains body rapidly decayed after his death, turning a greenish shade of black, hardly the odor of sanctity shall we say. Indeed, an article in Salon, an online magazine controlled by those who adhere to the false opposite of the naturalist "left," seven and thirteen years ago discussed the terrible smell that was emitted by the body of Paul the Sick after his death on August 6, 1978, as it was displayed to the public in the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican City State:
John Paul II will not be the first pope to decompose in public. In August of 1978, the body of Paul VI "took on a greenish tinge," and fans were installed in the Basilica to disperse the smell. Twenty years earlier, a maverick doctor persuaded the Vatican to let him try an experimental embalming technique on the body of Pope Pius XII, with disastrous consequences—the body turned black and disintegrated in the casket. Pope John XXIII, who died in 1963, seems to have been treated better: When his embalmed body was disinterred in 2001, it looked to be in pretty good shape. (Why didn't they embalm the pope?) [Thomas A. Droleskey note: Well, it turns out that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII made sure to get himself a better embalming job than was done on Pope Pius XII in order to make it appear as though his body was incorrupt. See The Vatican's Quest to Preserve Its Leaders.]
The following thought occurred to me when corresponding with a Catholic writer six years ago about the rapid decomposition of Paul VI after his death.
The dead body of Paul the Sick, who died on the Feast of the Transfiguration, was, if you think about it, the antithesis of the Transfigured Body of Our Lord on Mount Thabor. Our Lord's Body was glorified in the presence of Saint Peter and the sons of Zebedee, Saints John and James, with the glory that He had with the Father in Heaven from all eternity and that which He manifested after His Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday. The body of the false "pontiff," a man who was doctrinally, philosophically, liturgically and morally corrupt, decomposed quickly all on its own. The best that could be done with the body after the formaldehyde was pumped into it was to turn it into that greenish tint.
Yes, the man whom the late Father Vincent Bowes, O.C.D., said that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had told him was both an Antipope and an Antichrist (see Bookended From Birth to Birth), had his quickly decomposed body testify in death that he was the antithesis of the Transfigured Body of Christ the King, Whose Social Kingship over men and their nations he completely rejected.
Perhaps fittingly, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI "accepted" an abstract portrait of himself that was displayed in Smithsonian magazine in April of 1977:
Smithsonian Magazine, April, 1977, Page 60-61
"Those great patrons of the arts, the Renaissance popes, usually commissioned the artist in their employ - Raphael, Titian, Velazquez - to paint their portraits. The result was some of the greatest paintings ever produced.
"Since then the practice has fallen off (along with the art of portraiture). So it was with some surprise that the world learned last fall that a portrait had been painted of Pope Paul VI, even though he did not commission it or, for that matter, sit for it. Moreover, it was in a semiabstract style unlike that of any previous papal portrait.
"The artist was a 42-year-old German named Ernst Gunter Hansing. Pope Paul did not at first respond to having his picture painted with any enthusiasm, but he later relented. Hansing was given a small studio in the building that houses the Vatican gas station, and for the next two and a half years, during 13 separate visits to Rome, he observed his subject from the front row at papal audiences.
"The finished portrait has been accepted by the Pope. His Holiness described the painting as "a mirror of the situation in the Church today." Earlier, on seeing a working sketch, he made what was probably his closest approach to art criticism. It was gracefully oblique: "One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context."
Behind a locked door in Vatican City waits a present for Pope Paul VI that may conceivably please its recipient but has already shocked many who have seen photographs of it. The gift is a large (about 71 ft. by 12 ft.) portrait of His Holiness, painted in a semi-abstract mode, in which the Pope's emaciated, suffering face and folded hands are the focus of splintering shafts of light. German Painter Ernst Guenter Hansing, 42, sketched his subject during twelve protracted stays at the Vatican over a period of 21 years. Though he never had a private sitting, he was given a front-row seat at papal ceremonies in which to work. "I wanted more than just a picture of a person," says Hansing, a Lutheran. "I wanted to show the tension-fraught situation of the church, caught in a multiplicity of issues, as reflected in the countenance of the Pope." (Freaky Painting of Paul VI Celebrates 30 Years in the Vatican. See the Appendix H below for a list of the demonic symbols in this "portrait," which was described to me by one Catholic writer as an exercise in "art realism," that is to say, that it was a true portray of the inner Modernist, Montini.)
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI?
The man who "suspended" Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and nearly slapped him in the face could not call garbage by its proper name. To do so would have been to hurt the feelings of the Lutheran artist and thus to damage the cause of false ecumenism.
Then again, maybe Montini/Paul VI, a Modernist who was open to the modern in culture and whose very tomb, which is in a slanted position, was different than that of all true popes before him (and even different than that of Roncalli/John XXIII), really meant to try to "grasp the meaning" of the image of himself that he "accepted" to be displayed in the Vatican. The meaning of the Masonic and diabolical images found in the grotesque portrait of a man whose priestly and personal lives and false "pontificate" were grotesque from beginning to end was made clear to him at the moment of his death on August 6, 1978, as his mortal remains decomposed so rapidly that the Vatican spinmeisters at the time had to say that the cause was the "heat of the Mediterranean sun" (I vividly remember seeing this on television at the time.)
As the conciliar priest noted to me when we stood in front of Montini's tomb in the crypt of Saint Peter's Basilica in October 1984, "Everything about this man had to be modern. His doctrine. His philosophy. His taste in art and music and architecture. His liturgy. Yes, right down to this hideous tomb itself. Everything."
Very correct. The same is true, of course, about the entirety of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Well, didn’t Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI have any qualities of sanctity?
Here is a short answer: No!
Oh, you want more proof?
All right. Here you go.
Betraying priests behind the Iron Curtain to agents of Josef Stalin (see We Must Accept What Rationalists Reject)?
Adopting the methods of Saul Alinsky after meeting him courtesy of Jacques Maritain (see Alinsky's Sheen)?
Signing the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council that have resulted in the loss of so many souls to the Catholic Faith and helped to give a textual foundation for the conciliar revolution?
Telling the delegates at the United Masonic Nations Organization on October 4, 1965, that "The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace" (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI's Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965?
Constantly extolling the "Cult of Man"?
Returning to Turkey the flag of the Turkish flagship that was captured in the Battle of Lepanto?
Promulgating false rites of episcopal consecration, priestly ordination, the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation and abolishing the Sacrament of Extreme Unction?
Promulgating the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service on April 3, 1969?
Issuing the socialist manifesto Populorum Progressio, March 25, 1967 (see Making a Mockery of Catholicism).
Genuflecting before Greek Orthodox patriarch Athenagoras I on December 7, 1965, in Constantinople, Turkey?
Permitting First Communion to be given two years prior to the reception of First Penance on an "experimental" basis?
Restoring the permanent diaconate?
Betraying Josef Cardinal Midzsenty (see We Must Accept What Rationalists Reject) while engaging in his wretched policy of Ostpolitik?
Redefining the ends of marriage and promoting a "natural" means to limit the size of families in Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968 (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae)?
Opening the way to the conciliar annulment factory?
Presiding over what he himself called "the auto-destruction of the Church" as thousands of priests and religious sisters quit their religious vow and the pews of formerly Catholic churches emptied?
Engaging in egregious acts of sacrilege and blasphemy in "inter-religious" events?
Promoting "liberation theology" in the name of a "preferential option for the poor" at the Conference of Latin American Episcopates in Medellin, Colombia, on August 24-26, 1968?
A life of sodomy that resulted in a false religious sect whose hierarchy he would fill with homosexuals and homosexualists?
Consider Franco Bellegrandi’s testimony in Nikita Roncalli:
Montini, moreover, it is murmured in Rome and in all of Italy, is a homosexual. Hence subject to blackmail. Hence in the hand of those who intend to maneuver him to their own ends.
In Milan, as archbishop, he was often stopped, at night, by the police, in plain clothes and in dubious company. For years he has been tied by a particular friendship to an actor who paints his hair red, and who makes no mystery of his relations with the future Pope.
The relationship would continue for years, staunch and constant. It was confided to me by an official of the Vatican security service that this favorite of Montini ’s had been granted authorization to enter or exit the papal chambers as he pleased.
So much so that often they would see him arrive in the elevator in the middle of the night!
The ‘banana skin’ on which he, Paul VI, slipped, provoking the official end to this open secret (reference to his homosexuality), was the homily that he delivered in January of 1976 on “sexual ethics,” peppered with many points regarding homosexuality, thus provoking the reaction of the French writer Roger Peyrefitte.
In fact the weekly “II Tempo,” issue no. 13 of April 4, 1976, published an interview with the literary writer (Roger Peyrefitte), who describes himself as “ the most liberal man of all of France,” in which this celebrated homosexual sharpens his pen, and rebukes the Pope with the Pope’s own homosexuality, and thus denies him the right of holding himself up as a censor. Paul VI acknowledges officially the wound of this rapier thrust.
A day of prayer was called to “make reparation for the affront made against the Pope,” but all of Italy laughed long over this episode. The English television interviewed Peyrefitte who aggravated the situation still further by declaring himself surprised at having obtained so much unhoped-for publicity, at such a good price.
The first blackmail will clutch Montini by the throat as he climbs the See of Peter. When freemasonry will promptly obtain the abolition of the excommunication with which the Church hits those in favor of cremation, threatening to reveal the secret meetings between Montini, archbishop of Milan, and “his” actor, in a hotel of Sion, in the Swiss Valais Canton. Later in Paris, the behind-the-scene-activity relating to that first, clamorous papal act of Paul VI, and to the activity of a gendarme, patient collector of the incontrovertible evidence, will be made known.
But let us return to that 1958. In his quarantine at Milan, Montini is certainly aware of his predestination. And he awaits the death of Pius XII. From that moment he will re-enter the scene as a more or less occult protagonist, yet one with a sure future. It can be said that he directly participates in Roncalli’s Pontificate, collaborating with the Pope in the drafting of the most important pontifical documents.
Toward the second half of the five-year Roncallian government of Church, the archbishop of Milan becomes the leading brain of John XXIII’ s policy. Monsignor Capovilla is shuttling between Rome and Milan. The uninterrupted connection is leaked out in the Vatican. And
those who wish to know the reasons, and question the pope with extreme caution, are led to believe that Montini will be the next pope, and so he might as well prepare for the succession.
Montini’ s ability, in this period of preparation for his imminent Pontificate, unfolds entirely into getting John XXIII to predispose the track on which to proceed expeditiously ahead. He must guard, in the Vatican, from a great ancient enemy of his: cardinal Domenico Tardini, whom the astute Roncalli has refrained from removing from the Secretary of State. That same Tardini who, years before, discovered Montini’ s secret contacts with the Kremlin. That same Tardini who forced Pius XII’s intervention in the matter, and the banishment from Rome of the dangerous plotter. But in 1961 Tardini dies, and John XXIII appoints as secretary of state the bland cardinal
Amleto Cicognani. Some do not discount the hand of the archbishop of Milan in Roncalli’s choice. It is a fact that, from that moment on, Montini’ s influence upon the policy of John XXIII grows, sometimes in the open.
His political action within the limited circle of his Milanese diocese plays along the lines of John XXIII’ s great progressive policy. Modernism, at times deemed quaint by the faithful, characterizes Montini’ s introvert and unpredictable personality. His homosexual nature prevails,
in the quest at all costs of novelty and eccentricity. He appears in public, at a ceremony at Milan’s Velodrome, wearing a cyclist cap; another time, at a construction site, he is photographed with a carpenter’ s helmet on his head. It is his exhibitionist mania at play, one that one day, as a Pope, will lead him to opt for that super-modern tiara that, resembling a missile—and thus the insolent Romans promptly baptized it—was placed on his head on coronation day. And his fever of the grotesque and novelty, would lead him to wear, during an audience with the Native Americans of Gaylord (Michigan), a Chief’s headdress, and in that state pose before the camera. That ANSA photograph went round the world in no time, to give the exact measure of a temperament that for a Pope was rather curious, to say the least.
That very frenzy for the new, that Montinian iconoclast fever, hits the Vatican of Paul VI turning it into a Hilton of dubious taste.
That hysterical fury will drive him to wipe out every ancient remnant, within the Vatican, abolishing the Court and the ancient armed Corps, erasing in a moment century-old traditions and customs that no Pope in history had ever dared to alter, passing down to their successors, as the rule calls for, what they had received from their predecessors, intact and sound.
Thus Montini, in Milan, misses no chance of acting as a progressive.
He goes as far as to authorize lawyer Mario Mazzucchelli to read, transcribe, and publish in a book the classified files, held in the archbishopric’s Archive, of a celebrated and scandalous seventeenth century trial of a nun, the Lady of Monza, guilty of having turned her convent, whose mother superior she was, into a pleasure house for her male lover. The book, “La Monaca di Monza” (Dali’ Oglio, Editore—Milan, 1961), is a masterpiece of refined pornography. Naturally, the crafty author of that best-selling book carefully forgot to include a copy of the letter by which Montini had authorized him to read and publish the embarrassing documentation of that ancient trial.
Moreover, Montini is in constant contact with John XXIII. When he is in Rome, the Pope has some rooms near his apartment always appointed for him. And he sees him often informally. On those Vatican calls, Montini almost betrays the awareness of his approaching future. And he studies closely John XXIII’ s men, to get a personal hunch of their worth. With some he is cold and discomfiting. With others he affects benevolence and protection.
He has his men in the Vatican, priests and secular, working for him, informing him of everything that goes on under the sun, about the Pope, round the clock. One of his brothers is a Christian democrat representative, who has a private secretary. No sooner is Montini made Pope, than he than he appoints his brother’s secretary Chamberlain of the Sword and the Cape.
Unlike Roncalli, clear, genuine, stalwart in his revolutionary convictions, Montini would not commit himself. He can heap his future within himself, build it piece after piece, without giving away a hint that might reveal his future plans. He can keep rancor and benevolence at bay. Even those who know him well will say that he has an arid and manipulative temperament. And unloyal.
I can admit to have followed closely some of the Montinian “misdeeds.” One example for all: the betrayal of the Primate of Hungary. Cardinal Mindszenty has learned at his expense the two faces of Paul VI. And he was greatly hurt. But he stood tall against that betrayal with all his pride
and dignity of prince of the Church and Primate of Hungary. In October 1974, at Vienna, I knelt down before that great cardinal. And I wanted to write in its entirety the story of how he was betrayed, by Giovanni Battista Montini.
So well has the archbishop of Milan staked out his route, under the massive shadow of the priest from Sotto il Monte, that when his turn came to sit on the papal throne, all of the objectives prefixed outside the Vatican, are happily achieved. The overruling of the excommunication of freemasonry, the rapprochement with the Jewish world, the acceptance of Marxism, the involvement of Christianity with Protestantism, the de- spiritualization of Christianity.
No pope “elected by the Holy Spirit” would have succeeded, in such a few years, as it happened with Roncalli and Montini, to transform the bi-millennial face of the Church and upturn the equilibriums of the world, in accordance with the design of occult forces, interested in this colossal and dramatic revolution. Montini knew that the points of that program had been firmly established. That is why, when upon John XXIII's death he arrives in the Vatican and enters the Conclave, he will carry in his suitcase a well-pressed, elegant papal habit made by the most prestigious tailor in Rome. (Nikita Roncalli.)
Well, it should be noted that many of the "bishops" appointed in the Montinian the Sickian era were very much in tune with the then largely unknown "Father" Jorge Mario Bergoglio down at the end of the earth in Argentina, which means that they were much in tune with the true revolutionary Modernist spirit of the "Second" Vatican Council, whose implementation was being overseen by Montini himself.
Montini gifted the United States of America with a number of memorable reprobates in the conciliar hierarchy, including a few true bishops before he promulgated Annibale Bugnini's invalid rite of episcopal consecration in 1968, prior to arrival on our shores on May 23, 1973, of the Belgian Destroyer, the late Archbishop Jean Jadot, the conciliar Apostolic Delegate to this country who helped to shepherd the names of numerous ultra-conciliar revolutionaries into the conciliar hierarchy in the United States of America until he was recalled to Rome on June 27, 1980.
Among those personally "consecrated" by Jadot was "Archbishop" Robert Sanchez, who had to resign from the conciliar ordinary of Sante Fe, New Mexico, on April 6, 1993, after it was revealed on 60 Minutes that he engaged in natural vice with five different women, and none other than the notorious, self-professed "gay" (but celibate, of course) Rembert George Weakland, a direct acolyte on the Consilium of Bugnini himself, who persecuted faithful Catholic priests and the laity during his terroristic reign as "Archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from September 20, 1977, to the time of his own scandal-prompted "retirement" on May 24, 2002 (see Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith and Just A Matter of Forgiveness?). Gee, who was that who succeeded Weakland in 2002? Yes, yes, a chap from Saint Louis, Missouri, a fellow named Timothy Michael Dolan.
Among the men advanced or promoted within the ranks of the American conciliar "hierarchy," including "auxiliary bishops," during the time of Jean Jadot, were men such as Howard Hubbard of Albany, New York, Matthew Clark of Rochester, New York, Kenneth Untener of Saginaw, Michigan, Bernard Francis Law of Cape Giradeau, Missouri, Peter Rosazza, an auxiliary of Hartford, Connecticut, known for this Marxist views, Walter Sullivan of Richmond, Virginia, the infamous Thomas Gumbleton, another self-confessed "gay" bishop," an acolyte of Call to Action's own John Cardinal Dearden from Detroit, Joseph Imesch of Joliet, Illinois, Joseph Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston and, among so many others, Robert Sanchez and Rembert Weakland themselves. Weakland was good enough to admit that the type of men favored by Jadot were "pastoral," "open-minded" and "independent thinkers" (see A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop - Rembert G. Weakland, Rembert Weakland--this link will take you directly to Weakland's discussion of Jadot begins near the bottom of the page).
Mind you, Montini's pre-Jadot selections for "bishops" in the United States of America included the likes of Joseph Bernardin (seamless garment, lover of all things lavender, blasphemer of Saint John the Evangelist by claiming that he was the original source of anti-Semitism) and Francis Mugavero, who was a notorious, "gay-friendly" revolutionary. And many of the post-Jadot selections for the American conciliar "hierarchy" during the eras of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI were of the exact mindset as Jadot's appointees had been, which means that were ideological soul mates of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (For a partial list of the "canonized" Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II's particularly nefarious appointees, see "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts.)
It was fifty two years, two months five days ago now, that is, on December 7, 1965, the Feast of Saint Ambrose and the Commemoration of the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI closed the heretical work of the “Second” Vatican Council by praising the work that had been done to serve the needs of man as “he really is” in the midst of the “modern” world.
One will see from the passages below that the soon to be “Pope Saint Paul VI’s delusions about the work of the council over which he presided for its second, third and fourth sessions are identical to those that inhabit the mushy mind, such as it is, of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, although expressed more artfully and with a better effort to mask Modernist precepts with references to Catholic Church’s work to infuse the world with her teaching.
Unfortunately, for Montini, his sick delusions have turned into a full scale celebration of nature without regard for the salvation of souls and in a spirit of religious indifferentism that flowed directly from the “Second” Vatican Council’s false ecumenism:
But we cannot pass over one important consideration in our analysis of the religious meaning of the council: it has been deeply committed to the study of the modern world. Never before perhaps, so much as on this occasion, has the Church felt the need to know, to draw near to, to understand, to penetrate, serve and evangelize the society in which she lives; and to get to grips with it, almost to run after it, in its rapid and continuous change. This attitude, a response to the distances and divisions we have witnessed over recent centuries, in the last century and in our own especially, between the Church and secular society -- this attitude has been strongly and unceasingly at work in the council; so much so that some have been inclined to suspect that an easy-going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking . . ., may have swayed persons and acts of the ecumenical synod, at the expense of the fidelity which is due to tradition, and this to the detriment of the religious orientation of the council itself. We do not believe that this shortcoming should be imputed to it, to its real and deep intentions, to its authentic manifestations. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)
Behold the “authentic manifestations” of the “Second” Vatican Council which prove that those Catholics, including some of the bishops at this false council, who expressed concerns about “an easy-going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking” were entirely correct:
Yes, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick was the delusional one, not his contemporaries who saw what they believed to be the Catholic Church making terms with error and heresy. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Montini praised the fact that the fathers of the “Second” Vatican Council sought to take an “optimistic” view of man and of the modern world while issuing “messages of trust” to “the present-day world”:
And what aspect of humanity has this august senate studied? What goal under divine inspiration did it set for itself? It also dwelt upon humanity's ever twofold facet, namely, man's wretchedness and his greatness, his profound weakness -- which is undeniable and cannot be cured by himself -- and the good that survives in him which is ever marked by a hidden beauty and an invincible serenity. But one must realize that this council, which exposed itself to human judgment, insisted very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from the council over the modem world of humanity. Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth, but for the persons themselves there was only warming, respect and love. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the council to the present-day world. The modern world's values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)
Yes, the “pleasant side of man” has certainly manifested itself over the past fifty years.
A worldwide genocide, waged by chemical and surgical means, of innocent preborn children.
The worldwide vivisection of living human beings for their vital bodily organs in order to transplant them into those on the point of their natural deaths.
The worldwide starvation and dehydration of disabled human beings.
The worldwide use of “hospice” as a means to expedite the deaths of chronically or terminally ill patients in the name of “compassion.”
Big Pharma’s worldwide control of how human beings are to be overmedicated and used as guinea pigs to refine various formulae for “curing” problems created by Big Ag’s genetic manipulation of our food sources.
The worldwide campaign to institutionalize euthanasia for the sick and suffering and to oppose the imposition of the death penalty upon those adjudged guilty of heinous crimes after the administration of the due process of law.
The worldwide campaign to advance the sin of Sodom and its related vices as “human rights.”
The worldwide campaign to use junk science to promote the ideology of evolutionism and to promote a pantheistic protection of the environment and draconian measures to retard “global warming.”
The worldwide use of telecommunications as a means to attack and undermine the innocence of the young and to promote all manner of sins, both natural and unnatural, against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments by human beings of all ages.
The worldwide control of what is said to be “news” by master illusionists who want to condition, control, manipulate and agitate the masses into accepting uncritically whatever is said to be “reality” because it has been “reported” as such.
The worldwide campaign by national and supranational governmental agencies to institutionalize statism by the issuance of hundreds of thousands of regulations and the imposition of countless taxes, fees and fines to limit the use of private property and to seek to criminalize speech deemed “hateful” by our caesars.
The worldwide creation and nurturing of a caste of citizens who are dependent upon the state for their very daily needs, thus accustoming entire generations of human beings to become wards of the civil state.
The worldwide use of social engineering to change the demographic composition of neighborhoods and communities.
The dominance of multinational banks and corporations whose only loyalty is to the bottom line and to the promotion of a social agenda that is anti-family and anti-life as they practice usury to enslave those with average or below average incomes in exchange for their being able to finance the purchases of their homes, vehicles, clothing and major appliances.
The systematic warfare against the expression of Christianity in public as a means of protecting “diversity” and of promotion “toleration,” especially for Mohammedans, whose swollen ranks in the once Catholic states of Europe have resulted in one of Talmudism’s long-sought goals: the elimination of the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, from public view.
An endless procession of wars, many of them waged simultaneously, that have killed and wounded millions upon millions of people and have laid waste entire lands and made refugees of untold millions of people.
Yes, yes, yes.
The “pleasant side of man.”
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI was steeped in delusions, which have been fostered by the illusion that the work of the “Second” Vatican Council has been that of the Catholic Church and that the “liturgical reform” has enabled men to communicate with God more fully:
You see, for example, how the countless different languages of peoples existing today were admitted for the liturgical expression of men's communication with God and God's communication with men: to man as such was recognized his fundamental claim to enjoy full possession of his rights and to his transcendental destiny. His supreme aspirations to life, to personal dignity, to his just liberty, to culture, to the renewal of the social order, to justice and peace were purified and promoted; and to all men was addressed the pastoral and missionary invitation to the light of the Gospel.
We can now speak only too briefly on the very many and vast questions, relative to human welfare, with which the council dealt. It did not attempt to resolve all the urgent problems of modem life; some of these have been reserved for a further study which the Church intends to make of them, many of them were presented in very restricted and general terms, and for that reason are open to further investigation and various applications.
But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.
Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, declared herself the servant of humanity, at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of the council's solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor: the idea of service has been central. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)
The servant of humanity, not the Mystical Spouse of Christ the King to advance the work of the sanctification and salvation of souls.
“Modern man as he is?”
It was to “meet” “modern man as he is” that Montini/Paul VI authorized Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, C.M., to plan a “reformed” liturgy that made peace with false religions and with the world itself:
We must all modify the mental habits we have formed concerning the sacred ceremony and religious practices, especially if we have believed that ceremony to be a performance of outward rites and that in practice no more was required than a passive and distracted attendance.
One must make oneself aware that a new spiritual pedagogy has been born of the Council. That is what is novel about it, and we must not hesitate to make ourselves, first of all, disciples and then upholders of the school of prayer that has begun.
We may not relish this, but we must be docile and trust. The religious and spiritual plan unfolded before us by the new liturgical constitution is a stupendous one for depth and authenticity of doctrine, for rationality of Christian logic, for purity and riches of culture and art. It corresponds to the interior being and needs of modern man. . . . [the liturgical reform] affects habits that are dear to us, habits respectable enough maybe. . . . [and it might also be true that the reform] requires of us some effort.
It is well that this should be so, as one of the goals of the reform was the sharing of the faithful in the rites the priest directs and personifies. And it is good that it is actually the authority of the Church that wills, promotes and kindles the desire for this new manner of praying, thus giving greater increase to her spiritual mission.
It was and is, the Church's first care to safeguard the orthodoxy of prayer. Her subsequent care is to make the expression of worship stable and uniform, a great work from which the spiritual life of the Church has derived immense benefits. Now this care of hers is still further extended, modifying aspects of ancient rituals which are inadequate today.
The Church is aiming with courage and thoughtfulness to deepen th essential significance of community needs and the supernatural value of ecclesiastical worship. Above all, she is making more evident the part played by the word of God, whether of Sacred Scripture or that taught through the Church in the catechism and the homily, thus giving to the celebration its pure and, at the same time, its heart and center. (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, as quoted in "Be 'Docile' To Liturgy Changes, Pope Says," The Catholic Courier, January 21, 1965, p. 1. Be 'Docile' to Liturgy. See the appendix below for a rough translation from the Italian language original of the general audience remarks, which were divided into parts, the latter part of which reflects the Religious News Service wire report that was published in The Catholic Courier of the Diocese of Rochester. The then universal public face of apostasy, Paul VI, addressed the theme of false ecumenism on January 20, 1965, just in case you'd like to know what this egregious little man did for an encore seven days later.)
Well, ladies and gentleman, to quote a former colleague of mine, "There you have it."
Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI provided a perfect description of the spirit of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's liturgical revolution that touched almost every theme that has been repeated by its apologists for the past fifty years now. Some of us have heard these themes over and over again, whether from the lecterns at which priests or presbyters gave their "homilies" or, in the case of those who us who spent time in seminary, in formal classroom settings.
Every revolutionary prescription imaginable is to be found in this gold mine of propaganda that has been preserved in the archives of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, which itself is a bastion of apostasy and of the lavender collective.
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini/Paul VI’s predecessor and protector, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/John XXIII, himself changed the direction of his nascent religious away from the Social Reign of Christ the King toward the service of humanity while finding the “pleasant side of Communism” that had, Roncalli believed, much in common with Catholic Social Teaching:
59. It is, therefore, especially to the point to make a clear distinction between false philosophical teachings regarding the nature, origin, and destiny of the universe and of man, and movements which have a direct bearing either on economic and social questions, or cultural matters or on the organization of the state, even if these movements owe their origin and inspiration to these false tenets. While the teaching once it has been clearly set forth is no longer subject to change, the movements, precisely because they take place in the midst of changing conditions, are readily susceptible of change. Besides, who can deny that those movements, in so far as they conform to the dictates of right reason and are interpreters of the lawful aspirations of the human person, contain elements that are positive and deserving of approval?
160. For these reasons it can at times happen that meetings for the attainment of some practical results which previously seemed completely useless now are either actually useful or may be looked upon as profitable for the future. But to decide whether this moment has arrived, and also to lay down the ways and degrees in which work in common might be possible for the achievement of economic, social, cultural, and political ends which are honorable and useful: these are the problems which can only be solved with the virtue of prudence, which is the guiding light of the virtues that regulate the moral life, both individual and social. Therefore, as far as Catholics are concerned, this decision rests primarily with those who live and work in the specific sectors of human society in which those problems arise, always, however, in accordance with the principles of the natural law, with the social doctrine of the church, and with the directives of ecclesiastical authorities. For it must not be forgotten that the Church has the right and the duty not only to safeguard the principles of ethics and religion, but also to intervene authoritatively with Her children in the temporal sphere, when there is a question of judging the application of those principles to concrete cases. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)
Consider Pope Pius XI's complete condemnation of such friendship with Marxism with Roncalli's very thinly veiled and carefully phrased call for it, which is why Roncalli/John XXIII entered into the Metz Accord to prevent any criticism of Communism at the "Second" Vatican Council (see The Council of Metz and Red China: Still A Workshop For The New Ecclesiology):
See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)
“Saint John XXIII” and the soon-to-be “Saint Paul VI” were figures of Antichrist just as much as their latter-day champion, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
Indeed, a close friend of Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/"Saint John XXIII" admitted that the crapulous old Sillonist wanted a rupture with the past:
Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”
This revelation is, in my opinion, an extraordinary confirmation that John XXIII did not want any continuity with the previous Ecumenical Council convened and directed by Pius IX. When he affirmed that Vatican II must not follow Vatican I “either in its substance or in its form,” he was saying that it should be completely different; this is not far from saying that it should be the opposite.
Indeed, to say that the substance should be different means that the doctrine defended must be different. To say that the form should be different means that the militant character of Vatican I’s documents must be avoided. Incidentally, the reason alleged to explain a change in the Church’s position regarding the world – that now she wants to be mother and teacher – confirms that he wanted Vatican II to steer clear of the militant spirit of Vatican I. (Atila Sinka Guimaraes, John XXIII Wanted A Rupture With The Past.)
Jansenist that he was, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII even “simplified” the Divine Office and suppressed or demoted various feast days in the General Calendar of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Despite the protestations of some of his defenders, these liturgical changes presaged the full-scale liturgical revolution that would take place after his death no matter his professed love for the Latin language. A love of Latin means nothing if it is not accompanied by a love for the truths of the Holy Faith without any kind of alteration whatsoever.
Roncalli/John XXIII’s desire for a rupture with the past provided the pillars of what have become cornerstones of the whole edifice of the counterfeit church of conciliarism: an alleged conflict between “mercy” and discipline, and the very foundation of what would late become known as the “new ecclesiology” after his death. It is this "new ecclesiology" that has been used to claim that Protestant sects are actually "ecclesial communities" that possess "elements of truth and sanctification" although they are instruments of the devil to spread error and foment the sort of liturgical travesties that paved the way for the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.
Franco Bellegrandi commented on Pacem in Terris and the subsequent betrayal of Josef Cardinal Minszenty by the man responsible for much of its text, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI"
Then, commenting on the encyclical “Pacem in Terris,” the Russian columnist wrote that John XXIII“...puts forward for the first time in an official document the issue of a possible cooperation between Catholics and non-Catholics toward the achievement of a scope that is of interest to all humanity. He writes explicitly that the reconciliation, which only yesterday was or seemed impossible, is necessary today or could become so tomorrow. . .
Certainly the desired “reconciliation” has turned out to be unexpectedly advantageous to the Marxists. It has alienated, on the other hand, a considerable mass of believers who no longer recognize their own Church in the post-Conciliar Church. I carry in my memory and in my heart the words spoken to me by Cardinal Mindszenty in Vienna on October 18, 1974. I had asked the Primate of Hungary, twice nailed onto the cross of his martyrdom, first by the fierce fury of the Marxist bailiffs, subsequently by the cold callousness of Papa Montini: “Which is the True Church, that official one that now, in the world, fraternizes with Marxist atheism, or else the one abandoned by Rome because it remained faithful to Tradition.” The old Magyar bishop had directly replied to me, “The one abandoned by Rome.” (Nikita Roncalli.)
The Church abandoned by the Occupy Vatican Movement on the West Bank of the Tiber River is the true Church. Cardinal Mindszenty was very correct.
Why, then, do so many priests and presbyters who remain attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism seek to assuage themselves with self-satisfied expressions, sometimes made on their own websites and blogs for all the world to see, of how "obedient" they have been to their superiors?
Franco Bellegrandi had the same question and minced no words about their cowardly careerism:
In four years the Vatican II Ecumenical Council reached and easily surpassed its three fundamental objectives: the Liturgical reform in the Protestant sense, the dialogue with the representatives of Dialectic and Historical Materialism, and the yielding on Religious Freedom in a Masonic key.
With meditated impartiality, we must give Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli credit for his “technically” flawless job. The liquidation in less than five years of two thousand years of history. What is puzzling, is the guilty blind acceptance with which most of the clergy has suffered, when not an active participant, the action of John XXIII first, and Paul VI’s afterwards, in the liquidation of the ancient structure of the Church.
I know personally that many bishops were and are against it. All these gentlemen, who hold at heart the fate of the Church, shared with their close relations their dissent for the action of the Council. Inconceivably, however, none of them has voiced their concern, taking a stand. They have hidden behind the all too easy alibi of obedience. But what obedience? when the very Council which they, with their guilty silence sustained, dismantled the import of that vain term, hitting and annihilating, day after day, hierarchy and authority, in the name of a “collegiality” elevated to system? They feared and do fear the loss of their status and their prebends, and thus tighten their lips and ignore that two thousand years of Church are crying out their treason. One would holler in the livid faces of these pusillanimous or opportunist parades, the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, clear and resounding as trumpet’s blares: “Illa virtus dicitur naturaliter prior quam obedientia, UT PATET DE FIDE” [(If there be any virtue, whose object is prior to the precept) That virtue is said to be naturally prior to obedience. AS IS EVIDENT CONCERNING FAITH.] (Summa Theologica 11-11 question 104 art. 3); “Quandoque praecepta praelatorum sunt contra Deum. Ergo non in omnibus, praelatis est obediendum” [Whenever the commands of prelates are against God. Therefore not in all things must prelates be obeyed.] (11-11 question 104 art. 5) and “Praelati sunt imitandi non omnibus, sed in his, quae sunt secundum regulam Christi” [Prelates are not to be copied in all matters. But in these which are according to the prescription of Christ.] (Comment on the Epistle of St. Paul 2 to the Tess. 3,14).
But they preferred the comfortable unexceptionable obedience, which is a flagrant disobedience to their duty of priests, of spreading and defending the Faith. And they did, and do, keep silent. ... The Conciliar reforms have contributed to demolish the Church, to ruin priesthood, to destroy the sacrifice and the sacraments, to wipe out religious life, to spread Naturalistic and Teilhardian teachings in the universities, in the seminars, in the catechesis, teachings derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, so many times condemned by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. (Nikita Roncalli.)
What Franco Bellegrandi did not understand, however, it is impossible for the Catholic Church to be touched by the slightest taint of error nor it can anyone disobey the commands of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.
Quite to the contrary of the defiance urged by Franco Bellegrandi, it is never permissible to defy a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter on any point of Faith and Morals:
And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)
This means, my good, loyal fourteen or so readers, that every Catholic who believes that the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism represent the Catholic Church and that “Pope Francis” is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter must accept the forthcoming canonization of the heretical Judaizer, destroyer of Catholic worship and sacramental life and practitioner of perversity named Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI without any complaint as canonizations are part of Holy Mother Church’s infallibility, something that was reiterated in a doctrinal note issued by none other than Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger following the issuance of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Ad Tuendam Fidei, May 28, 1998, that modified both the conciliar codes of canon law in the Latin and Oriental Rites:
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations … (Doctrinal Note on Ad Tuendam Fidei, June 29, 1998.)
Vaticanologist Sandro Magister summarized the meaning of “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s doctrinal note:
In fact, when the motu proprio “Ad tuendam fidem” of John Paul II was promulgated, in a subsequent “doctrinal note” connected to it and signed by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger “the canonizations of saints” were explicitly cited among “the doctrines infallibly proposed” by the Church “in a definitive way,” together with other doctrines like the reservation of priestly ordination for men only, the illicit nature of euthanasia, the illicit nature of prostitution and fornication, the legitimacy of the election of a pope or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the declaration of Leo XIII on the invalidity of Anglican orders. (Vatican Diary: In a few months, six new saints canonized outside the rules.)
Just a little aside before continuing. No Catholic who is intellectually honest can claim that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that fornication is morally culpable or that Anglican orders are invalid.
This having been noted, therefore, Ratzinger’s 1998 doctrinal note was one instance in which the old German Modernist by way of the “new theologyactually agreed with the plain teaching of the Catholic Church, which was summarized on the Novus Ordo Watch site in 2013 as the writing of the late theologian Monsignor Gerardus von Noort was quoted:
PROPOSITION: When the teaching office of the Church hands down decisions on matters of faith and morals in such a way as to require of everyone full and absolute assent, it is infallible.
This is a dogma of faith.
In the definition given above the object of infallibility was expressed in these words borrowed from the Vatican Council: “when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.” It remains now to fix more accurately the meaning and the scope of this formula. This will be done on the basis of the words of Christ and of the apostles cited in the course of the proof; and on the basis, too, of the purpose for which the privilege of infallibility was granted.
It is important to pay attention above all to the word doctrine; for infallibility concerns the teaching office and so has as its special object doctrines, or at least doctrinal decisions by which some truth is presented to be believed or maintained by everyone.
The formula, “a doctrine of faith or morals,” comprises all doctrines the knowledge of which is of vital concern to people if they are to believe aright and to live uprightly in accordance with the religion of Christ. Now doctrines of this sort have either been revealed themselves or are so closely allied with revelation that they cannot be neglected without doing harm to the latter. Consequently the object of infallibility is twofold: there is a primary and a secondary object.
PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.
The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.
One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.
When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints.
Assertion 5: The Church’s infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.
Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.
1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”
2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult. (Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ’s Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 104, 108-110, 117-118.) (As found at Roncalli/Wojtyla “Canonization”.)
Catholic truth does not kind of just “go away” if it is ignored or rationalized away. Truth must lead us where it will regardless of what we might be forced to suffer in terms of human respect, financial well-being or having some kind of “prominent” forum in which to publish articles on a variety of subjects. To persist in the belief that one is free to place into question the beatifications or canonizations approved by the authority of a man one accepts as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Giovanni Batista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI was many things. A “saint” is not one of thing, and no number of alleged “miracles” brought forth by the “paradigm shift” represented by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s phony saint-making factory can change the effeminate heretic from Brescia into anything other than a disciple and evangelist of Antichrist himself.
As ever, of course, we need the maternal intercession of Our Lady, who suffered Seven Swords of Sorrow to be plunged into her Immaculate Heart as a result of our own sins and infidelities as well as those of the whole world. We must ever compassionate Our Lady by recalling to mind the sorrows she endured because of her perfect love for her Divine Son and the total union she had with Him in everything that He suffered in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.
It was to spread devotion to the Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary that seven zealous men of Florence, Italy, left the world to practice austere penances on Mount Senario as they sought to exhort sinners to quit their sins by their own fidelity to prayer as well as the holy example that they gave, a holy example that caused little children to exclaim them as the “Servants of Mary.”
Today’s feast day of the Seven Holy Founders of the Order of Servites should be very important to anyone who loves the Mother God and is devoted to her Seven Dolors, something that is explained in the readings for Matins as found in today’s Divine Office:
In the thirteenth century, when the more cultured parts of Italy were rent by the dread dissension of the Emperor Frederick the Second and by bloody civil wars, the mercy of God set forth divers men eminent for holiness, and among others raised up seven nobles of Florence, who were bound one to another in charity and gave an illustrious example of brotherly love. Their names were Bonfiglio Monaldi, Bonajuncta Manetti, Manetto Antalli, Amadeo de' Amidei, Uguccio de' Uguccioni, Sosteneo de' Sostenei, and Alexis de' Falconieri. Upon the holiday of the Assumption of the Virgin into heaven in the year 1233 they were praying in the oratory of a guild called the Guild of Praise, when the same Mother of God appeared to each one of them, and bade them embrace a life of greater holiness and perfection. These seven men discussed the matter with the Bishop of Florence, and then, considering neither the nobility of their birth nor their wealth, and clad in haircloth under vile and worn - out garments, withdrew into a little house in the country upon the the day of September, that they might begin their holier life upon the same day whereon the Mother of God herself had by her birth begun her life of holiness upon earth.
She showed by a miracle how acceptable in His sight should be their manner of life, for a short while after, when these seven men were begging alms from door to door through the city of Florence, it came to pass that some children, among whom was holy Philip Benizi, who had then scarcely entered the fifth month of his age, called them blessed Mary's servants, by the which name they were called ever after. To avoid meeting people, and in the desire to be alone, they all withdrew together to the solitude of Monte Senario, and there began a kind of heavenly life. They lived in caves and upon herbs and water only, while they wore out their bodies with watching and other hardships, while they contemplated unweariedly the sufferings of Christ and the woes of His most sorrowful Mother. One Good Friday, when their thoughts were fixed thereon more than ever, the Blessed Virgin appeared to them twice, and showed them her garments of mourning as those wherein they should clothe themselves. She bade them know that she would take it right well that they should raise up in the Church a new order to recall the memory of the sorrows which she bore beneath the Cross of the Lord. Holy Peter, the illustrious martyr of the Order of Friars Preachers, learnt this not only from his familiar converse with these holy men, but also from a special vision of the Mother of God, and it was on his incitement that they founded the regular Order called that of the Servites, or servants of the blessed Virgin, the which Order was afterward approved by the Supreme Pontiff Innocent IV.
These holy men, when they had gathered to themselves some companions, began to go through the cities and towns of Italy, and especially of Tuscany, everywhere preaching Christ crucified, stilling contests among the citizens, and calling back almost countless backsliders into the path of grace. Neither did they make Italy only the field of their Gospel labours, but also France, Germany, and Poland. They passed away to be ever with the Lord when they had spread far and wide a sweet savour of Christ, and were famous also for the glory of signs and wonders. As one love of brotherhood and of the monastic life had joined them together upon earth, so one grave held their dead bodies, and one honour was paid them by the people. For this reason the Supreme Pontiffs Clement XI. and Benedict XIII. confirmed the honour which had for centuries been paid to them individually, and Leo XIII., after proof of their miracles which had been wrought by God on the common invocation of these saints, after their veneration had been sanctioned in the jubilee year of his priesthood, decreed to them the honours paid to Saints, and ordered that their memory should every year be kept throughout the universal Church with an office and Mass. (From Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of the Seven Holy Founders of the Servants of the Blessed Virgin Mary.)
In addition to Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, which is our weapon against the world, the flesh and the devil, especially in these final days before Lent, this is a day that Catholics worldwide should pray the Dolors of Our Lady, the method for doing so can be found in On the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
This is the time of the great apostasy, a time in which the One World Ecumenical Church of which conciliarism is a part is helping to put yet another agent of Antichrist into its own Pantheon of Anti-Saints. We need Our Lady’s help as we are lost without it!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
The Seven Holy Founders of the Order of Servites of the Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for us.
The Catholic Church's Condemnation of Religious Liberty
The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.
But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?
After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil?And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …
Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …
“Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.” (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right“).
For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)
"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
"But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.
"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
"And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?" (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good. . . .
The Church must live among them and with them [the nations and peoples of the world]; she can never declare before anyone that she is "not interested." The mandate imposed upon her by her divine Founder renders it impossible for her to follow a policy of non-interference or laissez-faire. She has the duty of teaching and educating in all the inflexibility of truth and goodness, and with this absolute obligation she must remain and work among men and nations that in mental outlook are completely different from each other.
Let Us return now, however, to the two propositions mentioned above: and in the first place to the one which denies unconditionally everything that is religiously false and morally wrong. With regard to this point there never has been, and there is not now, in the Church any vacillation or any compromise, either in theory or in practice.
Her deportment has not changed in the course of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles.
Concerning the second proposition, that is to say, concerning tolerance in determined circumstances, toleration even in cases in which one could proceed to repression, the Church - out of regard for those who in good conscience (though erroneous, but invincibly so) are of different opinion - has been led to act and has acted with that tolerance, after she became the State Church under Constantine the Great and the other Christian emperors, always for higher and more cogent motives. So she acts today, and also in the future she will be faced with the same necessity. In such individual cases the attitude of the Church is determined by what is demanded for safeguarding and considering the bonum commune, on the one hand, the common good of the Church and the State in individual states, and, on the other, the common good of the universal Church, the reign of God over the whole world. In considering the "pro" and "con" for resolving the "question of facts," as well as what concerns the final and supreme judge in these matters, no other norms are valid for the Church except the norms which We have just indicated for the Catholic jurist and statesman. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953.)
The Catholic Church's Condemnation of False Ecumenism and Interreligious "Prayer" Services
Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)
Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?
From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)
Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.) [Droleskey Note: Bishop Hay, who was the Vicar Apostolic for the Scottish Lowland District from 1778 to 1805 knew the Catholic Faith very well. There is no record that the Sovereign Pontiffs during his tenure, Popes Pius VI and Pius VII, ever once contradicted him for reiterating these truths of the Catholic Faith that he wanted the Catholics in Scotland to accept with humility and docility.]
It is for this reason that so many who do not share “the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church” must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.
It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)
Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.
Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial;which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (Pope Leo XIII, addressing the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894.)
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . .
Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
The Catholic Church's Condemnation of Separation of Church and State
19. These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the princes necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion. They condemn the detestable insolence and improbity of those who, consumed with the unbridled lust for freedom, are entirely devoted to impairing and destroying all rights of dominion while bringing servitude to the people under the slogan of liberty. Here surely belong the infamous and wild plans of the Waldensians, the Beghards, the Wycliffites, and other such sons of Belial, who were the sores and disgrace of the human race; they often received a richly deserved anathema from the Holy See. For no other reason do experienced deceivers devote their efforts, except so that they, along with Luther, might joyfully deem themselves “free of all.” To attain this end more easily and quickly, they undertake with audacity any infamous plan whatever.
20. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.
21. But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (Condemned Proposition in The Syllabus of Errors, 1864.)
As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -- it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God.
Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate. . . . To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error (Pope Leo XII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men's souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, June 20, 1888.)
From this it may clearly be seen what consequences are to be expected from that false pride which, rejecting our Saviour's Kingship, places man at the summit of all things and declares that human nature must rule supreme. And yet, this supreme rule can neither be attained nor even defined. The rule of Jesus Christ derives its form and its power from Divine Love: a holy and orderly charity is both its foundation and its crown. Its necessary consequences are the strict fulfilment of duty, respect of mutual rights, the estimation of the things of heaven above those of earth, the preference of the love of God to all things. But this supremacy of man, which openly rejects Christ, or at least ignores Him, is entirely founded upon selfishness, knowing neither charity nor selfdevotion. Man may indeed be king, through Jesus Christ: but only on condition that he first of all obey God, and diligently seek his rule of life in God's law. By the law of Christ we mean not only the natural precepts of morality and the Ancient Law, all of which Jesus Christ has perfected and crowned by His declaration, explanation and sanction; but also the rest of His doctrine and His own peculiar institutions. Of these the chief is His Church. Indeed whatsoever things Christ has instituted are most fully contained in His Church. Moreover, He willed to perpetuate the office assigned to Him by His Father by means of the ministry of the Church so gloriously founded by Himself. On the one hand He confided to her all the means of men's salvation, on the other He most solemnly commanded men to be subject to her and to obey her diligently, and to follow her even as Himself: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me" (Luke x, 16). Wherefore the law of Christ must be sought in the Church. Christ is man's "Way"; the Church also is his "Way"-Christ of Himself and by His very nature, the Church by His commission and the communication of His power. Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.
As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from "The Way." The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. "And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him" (Daniel vii., 14). "I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession" (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God's providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men's minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely wise, good, and just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the states and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, it makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which It has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel It does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes, It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, Feburary 11, 1906.)
But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X,Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Let the Princes and Rulers of peoples remember this truth, and let them consider whether it is a prudent and safe idea for governments or for states to separate themselves from the holy religion of Jesus Christ, from which their authority receives such strength and support. Let them consider again and again, whether it is a measure of political wisdom to seek to divorce the teaching of the Gospel and of the Church from the ruling of a country and from the public education of the young. Sad experience proves that human authority fails where religion is set aside. The fate of our first parent after the Fall is wont to come also upon nations. As in his case, no sooner had his will turned from God than his unchained passions rejected the sway of the will; so, too, when the rulers of nations despise divine authority, in their turn the people are wont to despise their human authority. There remains, of course, the expedient of using force to repress popular risings; but what is the result? Force can repress the body, but it cannot repress the souls of men. (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)
When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other.No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.
There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers. On the other hand, any reformatory zeal, which instead of springing from personal purity, flashes out of passion, has produced unrest instead of light, destruction instead of construction, and more than once set up evils worse than those it was out to remedy. No doubt "the Spirit breatheth where he will" (John iii. 8): "of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs" (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world.
In your country [Germany under the Third Reich], Venerable Brethren, voices are swelling into a chorus urging people to leave the Church, and among the leaders there is more than one whose official position is intended to create the impression that this infidelity to Christ the King constitutes a signal and meritorious act of loyalty to the modern State. Secret and open measures of intimidation, the threat of economic and civic disabilities, bear on the loyalty of certain classes of Catholic functionaries, a pressure which violates every human right and dignity. Our wholehearted paternal sympathy goes out to those who must pay so dearly for their loyalty to Christ and the Church; but directly the highest interests are at stake, with the alternative of spiritual loss, there is but one alternative left, that of heroism. If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: "Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. iv. 10). And turning to the Church, he shall say: "Thou, my mother since my infancy, the solace of my life and advocate at my death, may my tongue cleave to my palate if, yielding to worldly promises or threats, I betray the vows of my baptism." As to those who imagine that they can reconcile exterior infidelity to one and the same Church, let them hear Our Lord's warning: -- "He that shall deny me before men shall be denied before the angels of God" (Luke xii. 9). (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)
The Catholic Church's Refusal to be "Reconciled" to the World, the Flesh and the Devil
[Droleskey note: Pope Pius IX condemned the following propositions in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, that are among the most foundational building blocks of the gigantic erector set that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism. So did Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.]
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
Teaching such doctrines, and applying them to its internal organization, the Sillon, therefore, sows erroneous and fatal notions on authority, liberty and obedience, among your Catholic youth. The same is true of justice and equality; the Sillon says that it is striving to establish an era of equality which, by that very fact, would be also an era of greater justice. Thus, to the Sillon, every inequality of condition is an injustice, or at least, a diminution of justice? Here we have a principle that conflicts sharply with the nature of things, a principle conducive to jealously, injustice, and subversive to any social order. Thus, Democracy alone will bring about the reign of perfect justice! Is this not an insult to other forms of government which are thereby debased to the level of sterile makeshifts? Besides, the Sillonists once again clash on this point with the teaching of Leo XIII. In the Encyclical on political government which We have already quoted, they could have read this: “Justice being preserved, it is not forbidden to the people to choose for themselves the form of government which best corresponds with their character or with the institutions and customs handed down by their forefathers.”
And the Encyclical alludes to the three well-known forms of government, thus implying that justice is compatible with any of them. And does not the Encyclical on the condition of the working class state clearly that justice can be restored within the existing social set-up – since it indicates the means of doing so? Undoubtedly, Leo XIII did not mean to speak of some form of justice, but of perfect justice. Therefore, when he said that justice could be found in any of the three aforesaid forms of government, he was teaching that in this respect Democracy does not enjoy a special privilege. The Sillonists who maintain the opposite view, either turn a deaf ear to the teaching of the Church or form for themselves an idea of justice and equality which is not Catholic.
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.
Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people?
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.
This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.”
Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.
We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.
As for you, Venerable Brethren, carry on diligently with the work of the Saviour of men by emulating His gentleness and His strength. Minister to every misery; let no sorrow escape your pastoral solicitude; let no lament find you indifferent. But, on the other hand, preach fearlessly their duties to the powerful and to the lowly; it is your function to form the conscience of the people and of the public authorities. The social question will be much nearer a solution when all those concerned, less demanding as regards their respective rights, shall fulfill their duties more exactingly.
Moreover, since in the clash of interests, and especially in the struggle against dishonest forces, the virtue of man, and even his holiness are not always sufficient to guarantee him his daily bread, and since social structures, through their natural interplay, ought to be devised to thwart the efforts of the unscrupulous and enable all men of good will to attain their legitimate share of temporal happiness, We earnestly desire that you should take an active part in the organization of society with this objective in mind. And, to this end, whilst your priests will zealously devote efforts to the sanctification of souls, to the defense of the Church, and also to works of charity in the strict sense, you shall select a few of them, level-headed and of active disposition, holders of Doctors’ degrees in philosophy and theology, thoroughly acquainted with the history of ancient and modern civilizations, and you shall set them to the not-so-lofty but more practical study of the social science so that you may place them at the opportune time at the helm of your works of Catholic action. However, let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Contrasting the Conciliar Teaching on the Jews and Judaism with that of the Catholic Church
(As taken from the text of "Fifty Years of Bowing Down Before the Ancient Enemies of Christ the King"
Being unable to respond with alacrity to every twist and turn that takes place in the twisted, demon-infested world of Jorge Mario Bergoglio gives one the advantage of providing those relatively few people who access this site with a perspective on the fact that nothing of substance, putting aside psychedelic “light shows” designed by a man who takes psychedelic substances to put him in touch with the “deities,” that emanates from the Vatican in its conciliar captivity is “new.” That which appears to be “new” even though it is not is designed to agitate believing Catholics while reaffirming a vast assortment of blaspheming heretics, unrepentant sinners and blaspheming infidels that there will never be a “turning back” to the “bad old days” of Catholic “triumphalism.”
Such is what happened four days ago with the release of yet (yawn) another document from the conciliar Vatican reaffirming its commitment to the pursuit of “dialogue” with the false religion of Talmudism that calls itself Judaism. All manner of people have gone into apoplexy over the fact that The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable, which was issued by Kurt “Cardinal” Koch in behalf of “Pontifical” Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, contained another conciliar reiteration of the heresy that the Old Testament has not been revoked and yet another statement that what is said to be the Catholic Church has no missionary activity with respect to the Jews.
Why the apoplexy?
This is standard, boilerplate conciliar “orthodoxy,” which I will now endeavor to demonstrate as such, starting with the assertion that there is a “highly complex theological of how Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ can be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of God with Israel”:
37. Another focus for Catholics must continue to be the highly complex theological question of how Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ can be combined in a coherent way with the equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of God with Israel. It is the belief of the Church that Christ is the Saviour for all. There cannot be two ways of salvation, therefore, since Christ is also the Redeemer of the Jews in addition to the Gentiles. Here we confront the mystery of God’s work, which is not a matter of missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation that the Lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united, "when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ " ("Nostra aetate", No.4).
38. The Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Judaism, that is the fourth article of "Nostra aetate", is located within a decidedly theological framework regarding the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel. That does not mean that all theological questions which arise in the relationship of Christianity and Judaism were resolved in the text. These questions were introduced in the Declaration, but require further theological reflection. Of course, there had been earlier magisterial texts which focussed on Judaism, but "Nostra aetate" (No.4) provides the first theological overview of the relationship of the Catholic Church to the Jews. (The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29) - A reflection on theological questions pertaining to Conciliar-Jewish relations, 10 December 2015.)
What utter heresy.
There is no “mystery” to “clarify” as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ made it abundantly clear throughout the course of His Public Ministry that He was the promised Messias, and that no one could come to the Father except through Him. He was hated by the Pharisees precisely because they knew He was Who He claimed to be when He said the following:
 Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.  The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever.  Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself?  Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God.  And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word.
 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.  The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?  Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. (John 8: 51-56.)
 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.  But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep:  And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep.  I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me.  As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.
 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.  No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.  A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words.  And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him?
 Others said: These are not the words of one that hath a devil: Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?  And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter.  And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon' s porch.  The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.  Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.
 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.  My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.  And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.  That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father.  I and the Father are one.
 The Jews then took up stones to stone him.  Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?  The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, maketh thyself God.  Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said you are gods?  If he called them gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken;
 Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?  If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.  But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (John 10: 16-38.)
There is no mystery to “clarify.”
Our Lord has spoken decisively.
Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries, ever eager to do the bidding of the Talmudic masters, have long sought to shroud in a “mystery” of their own making the very fact that Judaism is a dead, superseded religion that has the power to save no one. There are not two “parallel” paths to salvation.
Similarly, there is no “mystery” about the fact that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.
The relevant passages of the new document with its rehashed heresies masking as “truth” make it clear that Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II, not the text ofNostra Aetate, as bad as that document was upon its release fifty years ago, who was the first one to state affirmatively that the Old Testament was not revoked, a heresy so astounding that I, for one, am shame-faced for not facing as such at the time when still in the thrall of the Polish Phenomenologist and New Theologian in November of 1980:
39. Because it was such a theological breakthrough, the Conciliar text is not infrequently over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it does not in fact contain. An important example of over–interpretation would be the following: that the covenant that God made with his people Israel perdures and is never invalidated. Although this statement is true, it cannot be explicitly read into "Nostra aetate" (No.4). This statement was instead first made with full clarity by Saint Pope John Paul II when he said during a meeting with Jewish representatives in Mainz on 17 November 1980 that the Old Covenant had never been revoked by God: "The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God … and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible" (No.3). The same conviction is stated also in the Catechism of the Church in 1993: "The Old Covenant has never been revoked" (121).
Here are the ready antidotes, much used on this site, of course, to this heresy:
It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)
28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living.  "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."  One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel  -the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees,  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.  "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers;  and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";  by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII,Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Night and day, ladies and gentlemen. The night of the matter comes from the adversary and is promoted by the counterfeit church at the behest of its Talmudic masters. The light and truth of the matter is from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the very Light of the world.
The Old Covenant has been superseded. It has the power to save no one. Anyone who contends that it does is a heretic. There are not two “parallel paths” to salvation.
Here is a reminder of how widespread this heresy has been in the conciliar structures for so long a time now.
To wit, John Joseph “ Cardinal O’Connor, who was the conciliar "archbishop" of New York from March 19, 1984 to May 3, 2000, a man who protected moral perverts within his clergy, told a the Masonic B'Nai Brith organization in March of 1998 that "Catholicism and Judaism were meant to coexist side by side until the end of time. This is not what I teach. This is what my boss, Pope John Paul II, teaches, and I work for my boss." Jewish rabbis were amazed at what they heard. Here is an account offered by a "papal" knight, the late Rabbi Leon Klenicki, a pro-abortion rabbi who was present at that Anti-Defamation League dinner in 1998:
Once we invited him [John "Cardinal O'Connor] to talk at one of the Anti-Defamation League dinners. He was there to help present a booklet we had put out. During his speech, he told a story about how he once went to a Reform synagogue and he was the only one there with a yarmulke. Several Reform rabbis who were there looked at each others--I think they couldn't believe it--but everybody was laughing. The Cardinal had a serious point, too. Later that night, he said that he was in pain because there are Jews who do not want to exercise their Judaism because of assimilation or other reasons. It is their duty to practice their faith, he said, to prove that God exists and to refute the Holocaust. He sounded very much like a rabbi when he spoke. The crowd was all around him afterwards, shaking his hand and embracing him. I told him if he ever needed a job I knew a congregation that could use him. (Page 148 of Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O'Connor.)
Yes, the events of World War II, as horrible as they were, have been exaggerated and exploited by the Talmudists to shame Catholics into feeling guilty about crimes for which they were not responsible. Indeed, it was the Talmudic exploitation of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that led directly to the rise and subsequent godless “philosophies” and “ideologies” of Bolshevism and Nazism, which were just two sides of the same socialist coin. Jewish bankers and industrialists were very much responsible for helping to create the religiously indifferentist civil state in Europe.
Adolph Hitler was merely the end-product of what had been championed by the Freemason Otto von Bismarck sixty years previously. Bismarck started a Kulturkampf against the Holy Faith. Hitler’s own quasi-religion, Nazism, was simply result of four hundred years of revolution against the Divine Plan to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church, a revolution that was aided and abetted by Talmudists at every turn.
It is thus reprehensible that the conciliar revolutionaries still continue to invoke the “Shoah” in order to justify their false religious sect’s “new relationship with the faith of Israel,” which was described by the “restorer of Tradition,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, as follows in his infamous Christmas address to the conciliar curia on December 22, 2005:
Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)
No event of secular history can cause the Catholic Church to breathe new life into a false religion that is hated by God.
The events of World War II have been used by various adherents of the Talmud to demonstrate their deeply held belief that the spilling of Jewish blood is more horrible a crime than the spilling of the blood of others. Indeed, the Zionists in Israel have treated the Palestinians, who were thrown out of their own homes and had their property seized from them in 1948 and have been subjected to all manner of degrading conditions since that time, as the same sort of subhumans as the Jews and others, especially the Poles, were treated by the Nazis. The exploitation of the crimes of the Nazis during World War II has resulted in an endless effort to impose "guilt" on anyone and everyone who dares to proclaim the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in public, no less hold to everything that He has revealed to us in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and has entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of His Catholic Church for Its explication and eternal safekeeping.
The final passage of the “new” document to be explored will make up the bulk of this commentary as I try to serve as an “institutional memory” to keep readers from rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over old heresies:
40. It is easy to understand that the so–called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. This question also proves to be awkward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance. The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29) - A reflection on theological questions pertaining to Catholic-Jewish relations (10 December 2015)
Here we go again.
There is nothing “new” in this whatsoever.
Far from fulfilling Our Lord’s mission to the Apostles to seek the conversion of everyone in the whole world, the conciliar revolutionaries have sought to reaffirm adherents of false religions in paths that can lead them only eternal perdition, not eternal salvation.
Things have been so bad for so long that the aforementioned John Joseph “Cardinal” O’Connor even once told a young man, Stephen Dubner, that “God was smiling” on his decision to convert to Talmudism from Catholicism in order to “atone” for his parents having converted from Judaism to Catholicism decades before:
"Tell your mother that you have tried to study this, that you have prayed about it, this is not just a revolt or a rejection, this is not a dismissal of what you don't understand -- that this is where you think God wants you to be, an informed Jew." (BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Words Upon the Heart, Heard at Last.)
An “informed” decision that God wants one to be an “informed Jew.”
Oh, by the American Broadcasting Company television network’s Nightline program, hosted by Ted Koppel, was the venue in which “Cardinal” O’Connor made his “God is smiling on all of this” remark in an interview that aired as part of segment that focused specifically on Stephen Dubner’s conversion to Talmudism.
The date of that Nightline telecast?
December 25, 1998, something that was hardly a coincidence as Talmudists are always at the ready to make a mockery of the Nativity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This egregious episode prompted me to write an article for The Wanderer, “How to Break A Mother’s Heart,” meaning, of course, Our Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
No, none of what was released by the conciliar Vatican’s “Pontifical” Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews” is in the least bit new. It is standard conciliar “orthodoxy” of the sort that prompted the longtime preacher to the antipapal household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., who has been at his apostate work inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River for thirty-five years now as this eighty-three year-old Catholic Pentecostalist has preached to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, to write the following in 2005:
If Jews one day come (as Paul hopes) to a more positive judgment of Jesus, this must occur through an inner process, as the end of a search of their own (something that in part is occurring). We Christians cannot be the ones who seek to convert them. We have lost the right to do so by the way in which this was done in the past. First the wounds must be healed through dialogue and reconciliation. (Zenit, September 30, 2005.)
"We have lost the right to do so by the way in which this was done in the past?"
Where in the history of the Catholic Church prior to 1958 can you find any evidence whatsoever that the mandate given by Our Lord to the Eleven on Ascension Thursday to seek to convert all men at all times until His Second Coming in glory is a mere "right" that can be "lost"?
Whose efforts to convert the Jews was Cantalamessa condemning?
Saint Peter, who said the following to the Jews on Pentecost Sunday?
And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. And they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak, Galileans? And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all astonished, and wondered, saying one to another: What meaneth this? But others mocking, said: These men are full of new wine. But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day:
But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord come.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.
For this my heart hath been glad, and any tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.
Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.
They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.
And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved. (Acts 2: 1-47)
The first pope, Saint Peter, spoke a little differently than did Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in 1986 when he visited a synagogue in Rome. He spoke a little differently than did Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI when he spoke in a synagogue in Cologne, Germany, on Friday, August 19, 2005, or in the City of New York, New York, on Friday, April 18, 2008, and acted a little differently than Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done by reading prayers from the blasphemous Talmud and writing formally in Evangelii Gaudium, November 25, 2013, that the Old Covenant was still valid, and by hiding his pectoral cross under his fascia as he met with two rabbis in Jerusalem on May 31, 2014, one of several occasions that he has done so.
Serving once again as your "institutional memory," it is important to point out that the frail Antipope Emeritus, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has cast doubt on the the fact that Saint Peter, our first pope, actually spoke the words on Pentecost Sunday that were attributed to him by Saint Luke in the Acts of the Apostles:
From a theological understanding of the empty tomb, a passage from Saint Peter's Pentecost sermon strikes me as important, when Peter for the first time openly proclaims Jesus' Resurrection to the assembled crowds. He communicates it, not in his own words, but by quoting Psalm 16:8-10 as follows: "... my flesh will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my son to Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life" (Acts 2:26-28). Peter quotes the psalm text using the version found in the Greek Bible. The Hebrew text is slightly different: "You do not give me up to Sheol, or let your godly one see the Pit. You show me the path of life" (Ps. 16:10-11). In the Hebrew version the psalmist speaks in the certainty that God will protect him, even in the threatening situation in which he evidently finds himself, that God will shield him from death and that he may dwell securely: he will not see the grave. The version Peter quotes is different: here the psalmist is confident that he will not remain in the underworld, that he will not see corruption.
Peter takes it for granted that it was David who originally prayed this psalm, and he goes on to state that this hope was not fulfilled in David: "He both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day" (Acts 2:29). The tomb containing his corpse is the proof of his not having risen. Yet the psalm text is still true: it applies to the definitive David. Indeed, Jesus is revealed here as the true David, precisely because in him this promise is fulfilled: "You will not let your Holy One see corruption."
We need not go into the question here of whether this address goes back to Peter and, if not, who else may have redacted it and precisely when and where it originated. Whatever the answer may be, we are dealing here with a primitive form of Resurrection proclamation, whose high authority in the early Church is clear from the fact that it was attributed to Saint Peter himself and was regarded as the original proclamation of the Resurrection. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, pp. 255-256.)
Left unaddressed in this classic piece of Modernist deconstruction of Sacred Scripture that is a blasphemous affront to God the Holy Ghost and to Saint Peter was the little matter that three thousand Jews from all over the Mediterranean converted because of the stirring words delivered by our first pope moments after he had received the Seven Gifts and Twelve Fruits of God the Holy Ghost, being blessed at that moment with the charism of infallibility of doctrine. Ratzinger/Benedict had to place into question, no matter how subtly by way of refusing to address the question that he raises, the fact that Saint Peter delivered this sermon, thereby leaving the reader with a doubt, however slight, that the first pope actually spoke in the manner that he did on Pentecost Sunday.
Moreover, as we know that Saint Peter did deliver this sermon and that the Acts of the Apostles was written by Saint Luke under the inspiration of God the Holy Ghost, to assert that Saint Peter was wrong about the authorship of Psalm 16, attributing it "incorrectly" to King David, is to mock the papal infallibility with which our first pope had just been clothed by the same God the Holy Ghost.
Consider this fact, my friends. Consider it if only for a moment.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that "master" of true Scripture exegesis who believed his insights were superior to those of Holy Mother Church's Fathers and Doctors, including the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, identified the first "papal error" for us, committed moments after Saint Peter received the Gifts and Fruits of God the Holy Ghost. If only Saint Peter had had the benefit of Ratzinger/Benedict's training with all of its "access" to sources not known to the fisherman from Galilee, he would not have made such a blunder.
Then again, Ratzinger/Benedict had to put into doubt the actual fact of Saint Peter's Pentecost sermon as to believe that the first pope did speak as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles shows that his vaunted "hermeneutic of continuity" was all about trying to prove that discontinuities between conciliarism and Catholicism are numberless, and they include the matter of Saint Peter's Penteocst Sunday sermon to the Jews, whom the conciliar "popes" do not believe they must exhort to convert to the true Faith in order to save their immortal souls.
Indeed, it was to Rabbi David Rosen that Walter "Cardinal" Kasper, then the President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the head of Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, wrote a letter on February 13, 2008, to assure him, Rosen, that Ratzinger/Benedict's "revision" of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in the modernized Missal of 1962 did not signify that the Catholic Church had any mission from God to "take Israel's salvation in our hands" before the end of time. Remember that letter?
Chief Rabbi David Rosen
165 East 56th Street
New York, NY 10022 USA
Dear Rabbi Rosen,
Upon my return to Rome, I found your letter of 10 February 2008 regarding the prayer formulated for the extraordinary rite of the Good Friday liturgy. I well understand the sensitivities of some of the more traditional Jewish circles. However, if one reads exactly what is said in the reformulated prayer one sees nothing is withdrawn from Nostra Aetate; indeed, this text remains totally valid and fundamental for our Jewish-Christian relations. It is absolutely not the intention of anyone in the Roman Curia to step back and interrupt our fruitful dialogue, which for us is irreversible.
Yet we must not lose sight of the fact that this dialogue presupposes that both Jews and Christians maintain their identities and remain free to express their respective faiths. From the very beginning of our dialogue it was and it remains clear that notwithstanding all that we have in common there is a fundamental difference in Christology which is constitutive for both your Jewish and our own Christian identity. To give witness of our Christian faith, as is expressed in the reformulated prayer, is therefore in no way a return to the language of contempt but an expression of mutual respect in our respective otherness.
In reformulating the prayer of the now extraordinary liturgy, the Pope wanted to avoid formulations which were perceived by many Jews to be offensive, but he wanted at the same time to remain in line with the intrinsic linguistic and stylistic structure of this liturgy and therefore not simply replace the prayer for the prayer in the ordinary liturgy, which we must not forget is used by the vast majority of Catholic communities.
The reformulated text no longer speaks about the conversion of the Jews as some Jewish critics wrongly affirm. The text is a prayer inspired by Saint Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 11, which is the very text that speaks also of the unbroken covenant. It takes up Paul's eschatological hope that in the end of time all Israel will be saved. As a prayer the text lays all in the hands of God and not in ours. It says nothing about the how and when. Therefore there is nothing about missionary activities by which we may take Israel's salvation in our hands.
I cannot see why this prayer should present any reason to interrupt our dialogue. On the contrary, it is an opportunity and a challenge to continue the dialogue on what we have in common and what differentiates us in our Messianic hope.
I am happy that after some perplexities we now hear more and more voices from the Jewish world seeing things in a realistic way, and I do hope that this letter can be a contribution to overcome the misunderstandings and grievances.
Walter Cardinal Kasper
President (Cardinal Kasper's Letter to Rabbi Rosen)
I contended at the time that "Cardinal" Kasper would never have acted unilaterally, that is, without a consultation with the ecumenist and Talmudic sycophant, Ratzinger/Benedict, before sending that letter to Rosen. Others shot back by saying that such a conclusion was a "rash judgment," an interesting accusation as Kasper repeated, almost word-for-word, what he wrote to Rosen in an article published in a German newspaper before it was republished in the semi-official newspaper of the Vatican, L'Osservatore Romano in March of 2008. As far as I know, and perhaps I have missed a few things, the views Kasper expressed in his letter to the vegetarian David Rosen and in his article about the Good Friday prayer were never repudiated by Ratzinger/Benedict, and the new document issued by Kasper's successor, Kurt Koch, reiterated the exact same message. Those seeking to condemn Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Talmudic ways must also condemn Ratzinger's own Talmudic ways as the two are joined at the hip in matters of substance, including relations with the "faith of Israel.
The insistence on the lakc of a "missionary strategy of conversion" of the Jews on the part of the counterfeit church of conciliarism was confirmed also in April of 2008 when "Archbishop" Gianfranco Ravasi and Rabbi Jacob Neusner, who was to Ratzinger/Benedict what Abraham Skorka is to Jorge Mario Beroglio, that is, his favorite Talmudic rabbi (one who shared the German apostate's supposedly intellectual interests), wrote in "La Civiltà Cattolica" after a "line-by-line scrutiny by the Vatican secretariat of state, Ratzinger/Benedict's great friend, Tarcisio "Cardinal" Bertone, S.D.B.:
We repeat: this is the Christian vision, and it is the hope of the Church that prays. It is not a programmatic proposal of theoretical adherence, nor is it a missionary strategy of conversion. It is the attitude characteristic of the prayerful invocation according to which one hopes also for the persons considered near to oneself, those dear and important, a reality that one maintains is precious and salvific. An important exponent of French culture in the 20th century, Julien Green, wrote that "it is always beautiful and legitimate to wish for the other what is for you a good or a joy: if you think you are offering a true gift, do not hold back your hand." Of course, this must always take place in respect for freedom and for the different paths that the other adopts. But it is an expression of affection to wish for your brother what you consider a horizon of light and life. ("Archbishop" Gianfranco Ravasi, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)
Make no mistake about it, good and few readers, "Pope" Benedict XVI taught those things himself, having gone so far as to blaspheme God by saying that Christians and Jews "pray to the same Lord." He has cited, as "Pope" Benedict XVI, his own Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible the conclusions reached by the belief that a "Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one:"
5. Many lessons may be learned from our common heritage derived from the Law and the Prophets. I would like to recall some of them: first of all, the solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people “at the level of their spiritual identity”, which offers Christians the opportunity to promote “a renewed respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament” (cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish people and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 2001, pp.12 and 55); the centrality of the Decalogue as a common ethical message of permanent value for Israel, for the Church, for non-believers and for all of humanity; the task of preparing or ushering in the Kingdom of the Most High in the “care for creation” entrusted by God to man for him to cultivate and to care for responsibly (cf. Gen 2:15). (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )
The former conciliar "Petrine Minister" spoke as he did seventy-one months ago now as "Pope" Benedict XVI because he believed then what he had believed as "Cardinal" Ratzinger, which he why he cited the following Preface in his talk at the Rome synagogue on January 17, 2010:
In its work, the Biblical Commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)
The "Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament" is blasphemous in that it denies that God the Holy Ghost, who inspired the words of Sacred Scripture, including the Old Testament, directed the human authors to write the books of the Old Testament with clarity so that they pointed unequivocally to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by His own power. And what in the world is "Israel"? The country? A way of referring to Talmudic Judaism? If it is the latter, Ratzinger/Benedict once again reaffirmed the validity of a false religion that is hateful in the eyes of God and that has the power to sanctify or save not one human being on the face of this earth.
Walter Kasper reiterated all of this in his lecture at Liverpool Hope University on May 24, 2010:
In the past Israel was often collectively described as an accursed people cast off by God. This position since Nostra aetate is totally overcome. According to Saint Paul Israel is the divinely chosen and beloved people of the covenant, which was never revoked or terminated (Rom 9:4; 11.29). That is why it cannot be said that the covenant with Israel has been replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant for Christians is not the replacement (substitution), but the fulfilment of the Old Covenant. Both stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation, and fulfilment. This relationship must be understood in the context of the whole history of the covenant. The whole history of God with his people takes place in a sequence of various covenants with Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Ezra; in the end, the prophet Jeremiah promises a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). Each of these covenants takes up the previous covenant and at the same time reinterprets it anew. Thus for us the New Covenant is the final reinterpretation promised by the prophets of the Old Covenant. It is the definitive yes and amen to all of God’s promises (2 Cor 1:20), but not their suspension or abolition.
The problem is not only the relationship of the Old and New Covenant, but the different problem of the relationship of the church and post–biblical Rabbinic and Talmudic Judaism, which arose only after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. The canons and structures of both were formed in parallel. Therefore the New Testament can give us no clear and above all no uniform answer to this question.
After the destruction of the Second Temple, a Rabbinic Jewish and a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament developed in parallel and in interaction, both based on their respective religious presuppositions. The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001), however, explicitly notes that both are possible interpretations of the Old Testament text (§22). In this regard, the statement of Nostra aetate receives its full weight, that the Jews, according to the testimony of the Apostle, “are still beloved of God for their fathers’ sake, for his gifts of grace are irrevocable.” So our Christian relationship to the Jews is for us – as Pope John Paul II put it on his visit to the Synagogue of Rome in 1986 – not only an external reality but belongs in a certain sense to the inner reality of our religion. We share a important common heritage. The Jews are “our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham”.
After the destruction of the Second Temple, a Rabbinic Jewish and a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament developed in parallel and in interaction, both based on their respective religious presuppositions. The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001), however, explicitly notes that both are possible interpretations of the Old Testament text (§22). In this regard, the statement of Nostra aetate receives its full weight, that the Jews, according to the testimony of the Apostle, “are still beloved of God for their fathers’ sake, for his gifts of grace are irrevocable.” So our Christian relationship to the Jews is for us – as Pope John Paul II put it on his visit to the Synagogue of Rome in 1986 – not only an external reality but belongs in a certain sense to the inner reality of our religion. We share a important common heritage. The Jews are “our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham”. (Clicking on this link, Text of Kasper Address, will result in your having to download the text into your computer in order to view it. You can't view it otherwise. Won't it be great to have to your own personal copy of a Walter Kasper talk in your computer? The numbers of the readers of this site may be relatively small. I do go to such extra lengths, however, to try to bring to smile, if not a laugh, to you.)
Walter Kasper expressed the mind of his fellow countryman, Ratzinger/Benedict perfectly, and that mind is the same as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Kurt Kioch. Unfortunately for them, however, that mind is not a Catholic one.
"The New Testament can give us no clear and above all uniform answer to the question concerning the "relationship" between Talmudic Judaism and Christianity?"
The New Testament is clear, and we have Apostolic Tradition, which has been preserved intact by Holy Mother Church, to us it meaning. The Old Covenant has indeed been superseded.
For Kasper to have been correct, therefore, Holy Mother Church, guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost, got it "wrong" when pronouncing the words fromCantate Domino? Similarly, Pope Pius XII got it wrong when writing about the Old Covenant's having been supplanted by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Lord institued at the Last Supper and ratified by His Passion and Death the next day, Good Friday.
Pope Saint Pius X had to have been "wrong" when he specifically used the word "superseded" when speaking with the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904:
HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].
POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day. (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)
Kasper's repeated contention that canon of the New Testament and the customs that grew up within what he termed "post-Biblical" Judaism proceeded along the same paths at the same time. This is utter blasphemy against the Most Holy Trinity. Each of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament was inspired by God the Holy Ghost, Who did not give "part" of His spirit of truth to the Jews. Catholicism is true. Judaism is false, The conciliarists are simply incapable of making this statement as they do believe this is the case, demonstrating yet again that they have defected from the Catholic Faith. It is God the Holy Ghost Who guided Holy Mother Church's interpretation of the Old Testament just He guided her approval of the books of the New Testament.
To assert that we have just "discovered" the "true" meaning of Saint Paul's chapters in his Epistle to the Romans on the Jews is to blaspheme God and to spit on the Fathers of the Church who understood those passages perfectly.
The conciliar revolutionaries are, of course, faithful to the precepts of conciliarism, demonstrating that they are unalterably committed to the false belief that the Jews somehow please God by their belief in the Old Covenant and that they "pray to "the same Lord" as do Christians, giving no indication at all that their immortal souls are in any jeopardy of being lost for all eternity as they engage in devil worship in their synagogues.
Here is what Ratzinger/Benedict wrote in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection concerning the conversion of the Jews:
In this regard, the question of Israel's mission has always been present in the background. We realize today with horror how many misunderstandings with grave consequences have weighed down our history. Yet a new reflection can acknowledge that the beginnings of a correct understanding have always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep in the shadows. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection. San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 2011, p. 44.)
Ratzinger/Benedict was saying here, whether or not he realized it, that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost kept a "correct understanding" of "Israel's mission" deep in the shadows as he pats himself on the back for being one of the "enlightened" Catholics to have "rediscovered" this "true meaning" in order to bring to the world's attention.
So much for my having made a "rash judgment" in February of 2008 when Walter Kasper wrote to Rabbi David Rosen to express apostate views that he shared entirely with Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
By saying that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has no organized missionary activity to covert the Jews, the conciliar "popes" and their functionaries have shown themselves to be the most ardent anti-Semites on the face of this earth as they are content to let those who hate the very mention of the Holy Name of Jesus and deny His Sacred Divinity with a fierceness that is diabolically inspired die in their unbelief and thus be sent to Hell for all eternity.
No "organized missionary activity to convert the Jews"?
So much for the witness of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr to his fellow Jews:
And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people. Now there arose some of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit that spoke.
Then they suborned men to say, they had heard him speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the ancients, and the scribes; and running together, they took him, and brought him to the council. And they set up false witnesses, who said: This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law. For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us. And all that sat in the council, looking on him, saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel
Then the high priest said: Are these things so? Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan. And said to him: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charan. And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein you now dwell. And he gave him no inheritance in it; no, not the pace of a foot: but he promised to give it him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
And God said to him: That his seed should sojourn in a strange country, and that they should bring them under bondage, and treat them evil four hundred years. And the nation which they shall serve will I judge, said the Lord; and after these things they shall go out, and shall serve me in this place. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision, and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob; and Jacob the twelve patriarchs. And the patriarchs, through envy, sold Joseph into Egypt; and God was with him, And delivered him out of all his tribulations: and he gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharao, the king of Egypt; and he appointed him governor over Egypt, and over all his house.
Now there came a famine upon all Egypt and Chanaan, and great tribulation; and our fathers found no food. But when Jacob had heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent our fathers first: And at the second time, Joseph was known by his brethren, and his kindred was made known to Pharao. And Joseph sending, called thither Jacob, his father, and all his kindred, seventy-five souls. So Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, and our fathers.
And they were translated into Sichem, and were laid in the sepulchre, that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Hemor, the son of Sichem. And when the time of the promise drew near, which God had promised to Abraham, the people increased, and were multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose in Egypt, who knew not Joseph. This same dealing craftily with our race, afflicted our fathers, that they should expose their children, to the end they might not be kept alive. At the same time was Moses born, and he was acceptable to God: who was nourished three months in his father's house.
And when he was exposed, Pharao's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and in his deeds. And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel. And when he had seen one of them suffer wrong, he defended him; and striking the Egyptian, he avenged him who suffered the injury. And he thought that his brethren understood that God by his hand would save them; but they understood it not.
And the day following, he shewed himself to them when they were at strife; and would have reconciled them in peace, saying: Men, ye are brethren; why hurt you one another? But he that did the injury to his neighbour thrust him away, saying: Who hath appointed thee prince and judge over us? What, wilt thou kill me, as thou didst yesterday kill the Egyptian? And Moses fled upon this word, and was a stranger in the land of Madian, where he begot two sons. And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the desert of mount Sina, an angel in a flame of fire in a bush.
And Moses seeing it, wondered at the sight. And as he drew near to view it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying: I am the God of thy fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses being terrified, durst not behold. And the Lord said to him: Loose the shoes from thy feet, for the place wherein thou standest, is holy ground. Seeing I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, and I will send thee into Egypt. This Moses, whom they refused, saying: Who hath appointed thee prince and judge? him God sent to be prince and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.
He brought them out, doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the desert forty years. This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel: A prophet shall God raise up to you of your own brethren, as myself: him shall you hear. This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the words of life to give unto us. Whom our fathers would not obey; but thrust him away, and in their hearts turned back into Egypt, Saying to Aaron: Make us gods to go before us. For as for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.
And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. And God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, as it is written in the books of the prophets: Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years, in the desert, O house of Israel? And you took unto you the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Rempham, figures which you made to adore them. And I will carry you away beyond Babylon. The tabernacle of the testimony was with our fathers in the desert, as God ordained for them, speaking to Moses, that he should make it according to the form which he had seen. Which also our fathers receiving, brought in with Jesus, into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.
Who found grace before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house. Yet the most High dwelleth not in houses made by hands, as the prophet saith: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of my resting? Hath not my hand made all these things?
You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
And they crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him. And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, invoking, and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death. (Acts 6: 8-15; 7: 1-59)
Saint Stephen certainly had a program for the conversion of the Jews. Was he acting on his own? Was he doing the work that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had appointed for His Holy Church each day until the end of time?
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself showed that Saint Stephen's prayers for his persecutors had been answered when He directly sought the conversion of Saul of Tarsus as he was making his way on the road to Damascus to persecute yet more Catholics:
And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. But they leading him by the hands, brought him to Damascus. And he was there three days, without sight, and he did neither eat nor drink. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias. And he said: Behold I am here, Lord.
And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the street that is called Stait, and seek in the house of Judas, one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold he prayeth.(And he saw a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight.) But Ananias answered: Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that invoke thy name. And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.
For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized. And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days. And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts 9: 1-20.)
No program for conversion?
Let's get serious about the truth rather than subordinating the truth to the exigencies of a false pope who desires to promote false ecumenism and the falsehoods of religious liberty and separation of Church and State at every turn, ad nauseam, at infinitum.
Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., certainly had a program to convert the Jews--and the Mohammedans--of the Iberian Peninsula at the end of the Fourteenth and the beginning of the Fifteenth Centuries:
He exposed the perfidy of the Jews, and refuted the false doctrines of the Saracens, but with so much earnestness and success, that he brought a great number of infidels to the faith of Christ, and converted many thousand Christians from sin to repentance, and from vice to virtue. God had chosen him to teach the way of salvation to all nations, and tribes, and tongues; as also to warn men of the coming of the last and dread day of judgment, He so preached, that he struck terror into the minds of all his hearers, and turned them from earthly affections to the love of God. (From The Roman Breviary, quoted in Dom Prosper Gueranger's The Liturgical Year.)
The Mother of God had a program to convert the Jews--and all others--by means of her Miraculous Medal and Green Scapular, given, respectively to two different Sisters of the Daughters of Charity, Saint Catherine Laboure and Sister Justine Bisqueyburo, confirming the use of the Miraculous Medal to convert the notorious Catholic-hating Jew by the name of Alphonse Ratisbonne as she appeared to him on January 20, 1842, in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte in the image by which she appears on the Miraculous Medal that he had be given to wear by his brother Theodore. Pope Pius IX approved the the program conceived by Father Alphonse Ratisbonne to go to the Holy Land to seek the conversion of the Jews. His brother, Father Theodore Ratisbonne, who had written a beautiful biography of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, had been given permission by Pope Gregory XVI to seek the conversion of the Jews.
Prefaced by the words of none other than the great servant of the City of Mary Immaculate, the inimitable Father Maximilian Kolbe, who was imprisoned by the Nazis at Auschwitz because he opposed all forms of false religions and naturalism, including Nazism and Bolshevism as he sought the conversion of all men to the Catholic Faith, including Jews, the appendix below contains Father Maria-Alphonse Ratisbonne's own testimony of his conversion to the Catholic Faith by means of Our Lady's appearing to him as she does on the Miraculous Medal. The except immediately below explains Ratisbonne's desire to be baptized immediately after seeing Our Lady, citing the fact that the Jews converted on Pentecost Sunday:
"All I can say of myself comes down to this: that in an instant a veil fell from my eyes; or rather not a single veil, but many of the veils which surrounded me were dissipated one after the other, like snow, mud and ice under the burning rays of the sun. I felt as though I were emerging from a tomb, from a dark grave; that I was beginning to be a living being, enjoying a real life. And yet I wept. I could see into the depths of my frightful misery, from which infinite mercy had liberated me. My whole being shivered at the sight of my transgressions; I was shaken, overcome by amazement and gratitude. I thought of my brother with indescribable joy; and to my tears of love there were joined tears of compassion. How many persons in this world, alas, are going down unknowingly into the abyss, their eyes shut by pride and indifference!They are being swallowed up alive by those horrifying shadows; and among them are my family, my fiancee, my poor sisters. What a bitter thought! My mind turned to you, whom I love so much; for you I offered my first prayers. Will you some day raise your eyes towards the Savior of the world, whose blood washed away original sin? How monstrous is the stain of that sin, because of which man no longer bears the resemblance to God!
"They asked me now I had come to know these truths, since they all knew that I had never so much as opened a book dealing with religion, head not even read a single page of the Bible, while the dogma of original sin, entirely forgotten or denied by modern Jews, had never occupied my mind for a single instant. I am no sure that I had even heard its name. So how had I come to know these truths? I cannot tell' all I know is that when I entered the church, I was ignorant of all this, whereas when I left I could see it all with blinding clarity. I cannot explain this change except by comparing myself to a man who suddenly awakens from deep sleep or to someone born blind who suddenly acquires sight. He sees, even though he cannot describe his sensations or pinpoint what enlightens him and makes it possible for him to admire the things around him. If we cannot adequately explain natural light, how can we describe a light the substance of which is truth itself? I think I am expressing myself correctly when I say that I did not have any verbal knowledge, but had come to possess the meaning and spirit of the dogmas, to feel rather than see these things, to experience them with the help of the inexpressible power which was at work within me.
"The love of God had taken the place of all other loves, to such an extent that I loved even my fiancee, but in a different way. I loved her like someone whom God held in his hands, like a precious gift which inspires an even greater love for the giver."
(As they wanted to delay his Baptism, Ratisbonne pleaded.)
"What? The Jews who heard the preaching of the apostles were baptized at once; and you wish to delay Baptism for me who have heard the Queen of the apostles?"
"My emotion, my ardent desires and my prayers finally induced these good men to fix a date for my Baptism. I awaited the appointed day with impatience, because I realized how displeasing I was in the eyes of God.
(Finally the 31st of January came. He described his Baptism.)
"Immediately after Baptism I felt myself filled with sentiments of veneration and filial love for the Holy Father; I considered myself fortunate when I was told that I would be granted an audience with the Pontiff, accompanied by the General of the Jesuits. In spite of all this I was quite nervous, because I had never frequented the important people of this world; although these important people seemed to me too insignificant when compared to true grandeur. I must confess that I included among these great ones of the world the one who on this earth holds God's highest power, i.e., the pope, the successor of Jesus Christ himself, whose indestructible chair he occupies.
"Never will I forget my trepidation and the beatings of my heart when I entered the vatican and traversed the spacious courtyards and majestic halls leading to the sacred premises where the pope resides. When I beheld him, though, my nervousness suddenly gave way to amazement. He was so simple, humble and paternal. This was no monarch, but a father who with unrestrained love treated me like a cherished son.
"O good God! Will it be thus when I appear before you to give you an account of the graces I hare received? Awe fills me at the mere thought of God's greatness, and I tremble before his justice; but at the sight of his mercy my confidence revives, and with confidence so will my love and unbounded gratitude.
"Yes, gratitude will from now on be my law and my life . I cannot express it in words; so I shall strive to do so in deeds. The letters received from my family give me full liberty; I wish to consecrate this liberty to God, and I offer it to him from this very moment, along with my whole life, to serve the Church and my brothers under the protection of the most Blessed Virgin Mary." (Father Anselm W. Romb, OFM Conv., Commentator and Editor,The Writings of St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, OFM Conv.: The Kolbe Reader, pp. 22-31.)
The machinations of the Modernists in the counterfeit church of conciliarism will continue until there is the triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. While it may be important to note these machinations and to try to explain them for what they are for those who are willing to look at the truth of our situation objectively, there is no need for Catholics who are trying to save their souls in the catacombs under the direction of true bishops and true priests to be agitated by them. No, we must recognize that each of these machinations are from the devil and that they have nothing to do with the Catholic Church whatsoever.
Our Lady was splattered with the Most Precious Blood of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He redeemed us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, which will be upon us in just six days. Father Frederick Faber, writing in The Precious Blood, explained that the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, unlike the machinations of the conciliarists, is without change:
The life of God is very vast. This is the thought which comes to me when I put before myself the empire of the Precious Blood. the life of God is blessedness in his own self. It is the joy of his unity, the fact of his simplicity. Once he was without creatures; and the calm jubilee of his immutable life went on. There could be no impulses in that which had had no beginning. His life started from no point, and reached to no point; therefore it could have no momentum: that is a created idea. He was imperturbable bliss. What can be more self-collected than immensity? His infinite tenderness comes from his being imperturbable, though at first sight there seems to be contradictions between the two. When he was without creatures, they were not a want to him. His unbeginning life was unspeakable centred in himself, and so went on. He became, what he had not been before, a Creator. But no change passed upon him. All his acts had been in himself before: now he acted outside himself. But no change passed upon him. Hitherto all his acts, which were the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Ghost, had been necessary: now his creative acts were free. Still no change passed upon him. Still the calm jubilee of the unbeginning life went on. As it was before creation, so it was after it, a jubilant life of unutterable simplicity. These are things we can only learn by loving. Without love they are merely hard words. God worked, and then God rested. Yet creation had been no interruption of his everlasting rest. Nevertheless, that Sabbath of God, of which Scripture tells us, is a wonderful mystery, and one full of repose to toiling, seeking, straining creatures. What was that seventh day's rest? To the untoiling Creator preservation is as much an effort as creation, and quite as great a mystery. But even creation, the evoking of being out of nothing, was not suspended. Human souls are forever being created, created out of nothing. Perhaps new species of animals may be so also. What then was his rest? Perhaps it is only another name for that expansive love, which as it were attested itself to bless its beautiful creation out of its extreme contentment and ineffable complacency.
Still the vast life of God goes on. He was free to create; and Perhaps those two things have much to do with each other. He made himself an empire outside himself, and crowned himself over it, the kingliest of kings. God is very royal. Royalty is the seal which is set on all his perfections, and by which we see how they are one. He enfranchised his empire, and then began to reign. Still there was no change. His free people dethroned him. Oftentimes now in the depths of prayer the love of his saints beholds him sitting in dust and ashes as an uncrowned king, as it were piteously. But all this is embraced within his vast life without a shadow of change. It was part of the external idea of creation, that one of the Divine Persons should assume a created nature. The Second Person did so. He has carried it to heaven, and placed it in the bosom of the Holy Trinity for endless worship. This has displaced nothing. The vast life goes on. No pulse beats in it. No succession belongs to it. No novelty happens to it. The Precious Blood of the Son's Human Nature would have been a pure beauty, a pure treasure of God, an unimaginable created life, if there had been no sins. But there was sin, and the destiny of the Precious Blood was changed. But there was no change in the divine life. The Precious Blood became the ransom for sin. The Precious Blood had to conquer back to God his revolted empire. It had to crown him again, and to be his imperial viceregent. What stupendous mutabilities are these! Yet there is no change in the vast life of God. Its very vastness makes it incapable of change. It has no experiences. It goes through nothing. It cannot begin, or end, or suffer. It works while it rests, and it rests while it works; and it neither works nor rests, but simply lives, simply is. O adorable life of God! blessed a thousand times be thou in the darkness of thy glory, in the incomprehensible sweetness of thy majesty!
To us the Precious Blood is inseparable from the life of God. It is the Blood of the Creator, the agent of redemption, the power of sanctification. Moreover, to our eyes it is a token of something which we should call a change in God, if we did not know that there could not be change in him. It seems to give God a past, to recover for him something which he had lost, to be a second thought, to remedy a failure, to be a new ornament in the Divinity, a created joy in the very centre of the uncreated jubilee. The empire of the Precious Blood is due to its position in the history and economy of creation, or, in other words, to its relation to the adorable life of God. It seems to explain the eternity before creation, inasmuch as it reveals to us the eternal thoughts of God, his compassionate designs, his primal decrees, and his merciful persistence in carrying out his designs of love. It makes visible much that in its own nature was invisible. It casts a light backward, even upon the uttermost recesses of that old eternity. Just as some actions disclose more of a man's character than other actions, so the Precious Blood is in itself a most extensive and peculiarly vivid revelation of the character of God. The fact of his redeeming us, and still more, the way in which he has redeemed us, and, still more, the way in which he had redeemed us, discloses to us his reason for creating us; and when we get some view, however transient and indistinct, of his reason for creating us, we seem to look into the life he leads as God. The light is so light that it is darkness; but the darkness is knowledge, and the knowledge, love. (Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, published originally in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 82-84.)
No novelty happens in the life of God. No novelty can happen in the life of His Holy Church. It is way, way past time for those who keep thinking that what emanates from the conciliar Vatican is the work of the Catholic Church to take seriously these words of Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:
Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
The Catholic Church is incapable of being touched by any kind of error, no less heresy, yes, even in her Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Wake up, fence-sitters. The hour is late. Persistence in the belief that the Catholic Church can be led by apostate "popes" and that a steady regimen of heresy can be issued from its officials is offensive to God and quite injurious for all eternity the souls of those who continue to resist the simple truth that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church. Period.
Although one can see a touch of false ecumenism at work in the passage below, written in the 1950s, the editor of an article about the life of Saint Ambrose explained that this great Bishop of Milan and Doctor of Holy Mother Church, whose feast was celebrated one week ago today, that is, on Monday, December 14, 2015, was indeed wholly in the right when he opposed a scheme to rebuild a Talmudic synagogue in Mesoptomia that had been destroyed by Christians, a scheme that was supported by Emperor Theodosius. Having a spirit far different than that of the conciliar revolutionaries, Saint Ambrose refused to give any quarter to false worship:
Conflicts between Ambrose and Theodosius were soon to arise. In the first of these the right does not seem to have been wholly on the bishop’s side. [Droleskey interjection: The right was entirely on Saint Ambroses’s side!] At Kallinicum in Mesopotamia, some Christians had pulled down the Jewish synagogue. Theodosius had ordered the local bishop, who was said to be implicated [in the destruction of the synagogue], to rebuild the synagogue. The bishop appealed to Ambrose, who in turn wrote to Theodosius to say that no Christian bishop should pay for the erection of a building to be used for false worship. Ambrose preached against Theodosius to his face; a discussion took place between them in church, and Ambrose refused to go to the altar to sing Masss until he had obtained a promise of pardon for the bishop. (As found in Lives of Saints: With Excerpts from Their Writings, edited by Father Joseph Van with an introduction by Father Thomas Plassman, O.F.M., J. J. Crawley and Sons in 1954, pp. 68-69.)
To be anti-Jewish is not be an anti-Semite.
To be anti-Jewish is to pray for the conversion of Jews to the true Faith before they die and to accord no kind of "validity" to Talmudism and to engage in none of their false worship. This is Catholicism, and that is not what is contained in the text of Nostra Aetate or The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable or in the statements of the conciliar "popes."
We must pray to Our Lady during these last eleven days of Advent, including the penitential Ember Days that occur this week, especially by means of praying the Joyful Mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary fervor so that we can welcome the Baby Jesus into our hearts and souls at Holy Communion on Christmas Day with souls that are purified of the stain of our own sins and eager always to lay down our very lives in defense of the truths of the Catholic Faith.
Our Lord became Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb to be born for us in anonymity in Bethlehem so as to die in ignominy on the wood of the Holy Cross in order to redeem us by paying back in His Sacred Humanity the debt of our own sins. May the final eleven days of Advent be filled with prayer, sacramental confession and, if possible, time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, to help us to be unspotted by the world and from any taint of contact with that which is simply a means to deceive souls and to give offense to God by a perverse ape of the Catholic Church, an entity that is replete with error and heresy.
Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. May our own prayers and sacrifices we offered through her to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity help in some small way to make that triumph a reality sooner rather later.
The Ends of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony as Taught from Time Immemorial by the Catholic Church
10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death: "These," says St. Augustine, "are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament." And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: "By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained."
11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth." As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'."
12. How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man's dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man. From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.
13. But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household, that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.
14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.
15. If a true Christian mother weigh well these things, she will indeed understand with a sense of deep consolation that of her the words of Our Savior were spoken: "A woman . . . when she hath brought forth the child remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world"; and proving herself superior to all the pains and cares and solicitudes of her maternal office with a more just and holy joy than that of the Roman matron, the mother of the Gracchi, she will rejoice in the Lord crowned as it were with the glory of her offspring. Both husband and wife, however, receiving these children with joy and gratitude from the hand of God, will regard them as a talent committed to their charge by God, not only to be employed for their own advantage or for that of an earthly commonwealth, but to be restored to God with interest on the day of reckoning. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii ,December 31, 1930.)
856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English: 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)
Here is what the conciliar revolutionaries teach:
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1.)
the whole conciliar view of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is based on the concept of “personalism” as advanced by Father Herbert Doms and Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944:
Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.
In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.
In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.
This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)
Pope Pius XII amplified this condemnation when he delivered his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of their Profession, October 29, 1951:
"Personal values" and the need to respect such are a theme which, over the last twenty years or so, has been considered more and more by writers. In many of their works, even the specifically sexual act has its place assigned, that of serving the "person" of the married couple. The proper and most profound sense of the exercise of conjugal rights would consist in this, that the union of bodies is the expression and the realization of personal and affective union.
Articles, chapters, entire books, conferences, especially dealing with the "technique" of love, are composed to spread these ideas, to illustrate them with advice to the newly married as a guide in matrimony, in order that they may not neglect, through stupidity or a false sense of shame or unfounded scruples, that which God, Who also created natural inclinations, offers them. If from their complete reciprocal gift of husband and wife there results a new life, it is a result which remains outside, or, at the most, on the border of "personal values"; a result which is not denied, but neither is it desired as the center of marital relations.
According to these theories, your dedication for the welfare of the still hidden life in the womb of the mother, and your assisting its happy birth, would only have but a minor and secondary importance.
Now, if this relative evaluation were merely to place the emphasis on the personal values of husband and wife rather than on that of the offspring, it would be possible, strictly speaking, to put such a problem aside. But, however, it is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. Here, once again, the need for your apostolate. It may happen that you receive the confidences of the mother and wife and are questioned on the more secret desires and intimacies of married life. How, then, will you be able, aware of your mission, to give weight to truth and right order in the appreciation and action of the married couple, if you yourselves are not furnished with the strength of character needed to uphold what you know to be true and just?
The primary end of marriage
Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.
It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.
Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".
All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.
To reduce the common life of husband and wife and the conjugal act to a mere organic function for the transmission of seed would be but to convert the domestic hearth, the family sanctuary, into a biological laboratory. Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union "in one flesh".
That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.
Therefore, when this act in its natural form is from the beginning perpetually impossible, the object of the matrimonial contract is essentially vitiated. This is what we said on that occasion: "Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the design of the Creator carries with it in a stupendous degree of perfection the intended ends. It is at the same time in conformity with the spiritual and bodily nature and the dignity of the married couple, in conformity with the happy and normal development of the child".
Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)
This was a ringing condemnation of the very philosophical and theological foundations of the indiscriminate, institutionalized teaching and practice of "natural family planning" in the lives of Catholic married couples. It is also yet another papal condemnation of conciliarism's view of marriage.
The Catholic Church's Condemnation of Modernism's Dogmatic Evolution ("Living Tradition"/"Hermeneutic of Continuity")
The Catholic Church's Condemnation of the Evolution of Dogma
- For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
- Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)
[Droleskey Note: The following is taken from "Modernits Say Nothing Original"]
In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist.What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients. (Pope Pius XII,Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
While Pope Pius XII noted later in Humani Generis that certain scholastic aids may be divested in the study of philosophy, he reiterated the fact that the method of Saint Thomas Aquinas was to be taught to priests so that the path to error not be introduced into their minds and thus become part of their own preaching to the faithful:
30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.
31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor," since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.
32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism, or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.
33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the lack of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the intellect, influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so obscured that it cannot see clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain "connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be purely natural, or the result of grace; and it is clear how much even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.
34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
One can see that Pope Pius XII took careful pains to make the proper distinctions concerning methods of intellectual inquiry while at the same time explaining that the whole basis of the “new theology” was founded in a rejection of Scholasticism because of its metaphysical certitude concerning the nature of truth. The “new theologians” sought to replace certitude with paradox, contradiction, uncertainty, ambiguity, thereby leading the way open for the triumph of the senses. To put the matter more plainly, Pope Pius XII condemned the same Modernist principle of the “religious reality” springing from within human beings that had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis.
A Catholic Author's Analysis of the Masonic and Demonic Symbolism in the 1977 "Portrait" of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI
1. Three pillars
2. Two columns
3. Cresent moon
4. Various Pentagrams
5. Sphynx at the top of the pillar
6. The columns and angles combine to form a square and compass
7. The point within the circle at the top is an old Illuminati symbol
8. Above Paul VI's head an abstract "eye in the triangle" I.E. the Eye of Horus or Set
9. A dagger is thrust in the papal tiara in the 30th Knight Kadosh Degree; here the pope clutches a dagger with a malevolent look.
10. Inverted crosses are Satanic, but so is Freemasonry. (Original can be seen at: http://www.freerepublic.com/