Counterfeit Church, Counterfeit Sacraments, Counterfeit Teaching, Counterfeit Everything, part two

Among the insanity in today’s world of utter madness is that conciliar “prelates” arguing about errors in what they think is the Catholic Church and how those errors will be corrected. While those of us understand that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, know that the Catholic Church herself can never the source of any kind of errors, Father Carlo Maria Vigano, vacillates between stating, correctly, that a “parallel church” has risen since the “Second” Vatican Council and reaffirming the legitimacy of the conciliar “popes." These two concepts are completely contradictory of each other as a “parallel church” cannot be the Catholic Church, and the men who claim to be the “popes” of the Catholic Church but who are but  part of that counterfeit church” with false liturgical rites, false teaching, false everything.

Father Carlo Maria Vigano, who believes himself to be an “archbishop” even though the rite in which was “ordained” (the conciliar term) was designed to be inavalid by the liturgical “subcontractors,” if you will, of the “parallel church” he says came into existence with the “Second” Vatican Council, told Dr. Philip Lawler that what is thinks is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the “Pope,” although it is somewhat unclear whether he is speaking of a future “pope” from within the ranks of a “hierarchy” whose own true “bishops” are to be found in the Eastern rites or to Bergoglio himself, must have the “humility” to recognize the problems of the “infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church.” Vigano also claimed that the robber council carried a “surreptitious authority” that the conciliar “popes” claimed it did not possess as it was but a “pastoral council.”

There is such a confusion of principles in the following remarks that it is necessary to make a series of comments before concentrating on Father Vigano’s very correct statement concerning the infiltration of the Catholic Church by her enemies, an infiltration that started to take place at least half a century, if not longer, before the “election” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, whom Vigano believes to have been a true pope who possessed the authority to convene the robber council:

Lawler: Second, what is the solution? Bishop Schneider proposes that a future Pontiff must repudiate errors; Archbishop Viganò finds that inadequate. But then how can the errors be corrected, in a way that maintains the authority of the teaching magisterium?

Archbishop Vigano: The solution, in my opinion, lies above all in an act of humility that all of us, beginning with the Hierarchy and the Pope, must carry out: recognizing the infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church, the systematic occupation of key posts in the Roman Curia, seminaries, and ecclesiastical schools, the conspiracy of a group of rebels—including, in the front line, the deviated Society of Jesus—which has succeeded in giving the appearance of legitimacy and legality to a subversive and revolutionary act. We should also recognize the inadequacy of the response of the good, the naivety of many, the fearfulness of others, and the interests of those who have benefited thanks to that conspiracy.

First Comment:

What is lacking in this part of Father Vigano’s response to Philip Lawler is a distinction between the time before the “Second” Vatican Council and the time thereafter. If a “parallel church” had arisen, which it had, it is incorrect to refer to an infiltration into the heart of the Catholic Church as the precision truth requires of us is to state that the infiltration started before the false council and was the foundation of the establishment and perpetuation of that false church. This is implied in Vigano’s response, but these distinctions of fact are very important to note with clarity.

Vigan went on to say:

After his triple denial of Christ in the courtyard of the high priest, Peter “flevit amare,” he wept bitterly. Tradition tells us that the Prince of the Apostles had two furrows on his cheeks for the rest of his days, as a result of the tears which he copiously shed, repenting of his betrayal. It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. This will not be a defeat but an act of truth, humility, and courage. The authority and infallibility of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles will emerge intact and reconfirmed. In fact, they were not deliberately called into question at Vatican II, but ironically they would be on a future day in which a Pontiff would correct the errors that that Council permitted, playing jests with the equivocation of an authority it officially denied having but that the faithful were surreptitiously allowed to understand that it did have by the entire Hierarchy, beginning right with the Popes of the Council. (Philip Lawler Interview with Father Carlo Maria Vigano.)

Last Comment:

Once again, there is a lack of distinction here as it appears that Father Vigano is vacillating between acknowledging that the See of Peter is vacant at this time under Jorge Mario Bergoglio or that, given his earlier criticism of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Assisi “World Day of Prayer for Peace” events and of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity” that he means to imply both their own respective claims to the “papacy” have been invalid. While it is certainly true that a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter will be restored to the Throne of Saint Peter in God’s good time, which is not ours, of course, the legitimate successor of Pope Pius XII will not “correct” the errors of the “Second” Vatican Council, he will repudiate them and condemn those who propagated them in the name of the Catholic Church. Our next true pope will declare the acts of the antipopes to be invalid and will denounce the conciliar liturgical rites (the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination, the liturgical rites of priestly ordination, episcopal consecration, confirmation, “sacrament of the anointing of the sick,” etc.) as without any sacramental value and hateful in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. There are no “errors” to be corrected, only a counterfeit church, counterfeit popes, bishops and priests, counterfeit teaching, counterfeit sacraments, counterfeit pastoral practices—counterfeit everything—to be denounced and condemned. Period.

Moreover, Father Vigano is absolutely wrong to claim that the “Second” Vatican Council’s declaration lacked any authority as this old “resist while recognize” chestnut, which had been repeated endlessly in the past five and one-half decades by neo-Gallicanists, is just plain false as Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI declare the following in an “apostolic brief” that was read by Archbishop Pericle Felici at the “Second “ Vatican Council on December 8, 1965:

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. ("Apostolic Brief, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, December 8, 1965.)

This was a “papal” declaration that declared the teaching of the “Second” Vatican Council to be “religiously observed” and that anything to the contrary of that teaching was to be “invalid and worthless from now on,” meaning that the robber council was the standard of what purported to be Catholic teaching, a standard that has been interpreted by some in “conservative” Catholic educational institutions to be the lens through which to view all Catholic teaching, including the decrees of the Council of Trent, must be read, taught and understood. Vigano’s claim that the assertion of the “Second” Vatican Council’s authority was surreptitious is thus without any foundation, especially since Karol Joseph Wojtyla said the following in his first Ubi et Orbi radio address on Tuesday, October 17, 1978, the day after his “election” as the antipapal successor of Albino Luciani/John Paul I:

We wish, therefore, to clarify some basic points which we consider to be of special importance. Hence—as we propose and as, with the help of God, we confidently trust—we shall continue these not merely with earnestness and attention but we shall also further them with constant pressure, so that ecclesial life, truly lived, may correspond to them. First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into affect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world?

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life.

This general purpose of fidelity to the Second Vatican Council and express will, in so far as we are concerned, of bringing it into effect, can cover various sections: missionary and ecumenical affairs, discipline, and suitable administration. But there is one section to which greater attention will have to be given, and that is the ecclesiological section. Venerable Brethren and beloved sons of the Catholic world, it is necessary for us to take once again into our hands the "Magna Charta" of the Council, that is, the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium", so that with renewed and invigorating zeal we may meditate on the nature and function of the Church, its way of being and acting. This should be done not merely in order that the vital communion in Christ of all who believe and hope in him should be accomplished, but also in order to contribute to bringing about a fuller and closer unity of the whole human family. John XXIII was accustomed to repeat the following words: "The Church of Christ is the light of the nations." For the Church—his words were repeated by the Council—is the universal sacrament of salvation and unity for the human race. (cf. Lumen Gentium, 1; 48; Ad Gentes, 1).

There was nothing “surreptitious” about the work of the postconciliar “popes” as Wojtyla/John Paul II, who was a leading father at the robber council, said explicitly and without equivocation that “it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, First Radio Meesge, October 17, 1978.)

“Outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may  be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it—as is usually said—are ‘implicit’ may become explicit in light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances.’” How is this not gnosticism and dogmatic evolutionism all rolled into one?

This is similar to what the then and current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the egregious pro-abort, pro-pervert enabler of Marxists masquerading under the banner of “social justice” that is now being carried by self-professed “Marxist-trained revolutionaries,” “Black Lives Matter,” Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, said upon the passage of the massive “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: “We had to pass it to find out what’s in it.” There was nothing surreptitious about the “Second” Vatican Council, and its work of destruction thereafter has had the full sanction of the men that Father Carlo Maria Vigano has served as “popes,” but true popes cannot teach error.

The work of the “Second” Vatican Council was carried out in plain sight and with the full authority of men who claimed, no matter how falsely, to wear the Shoes of the Fisherman, Saint Peter, our first pope. Father Vigano must make up his mind: A “parallel church” must be rejected en toto, and he must have the humility to recognize that he is not a true bishop. He cannot have it both ways.

A “Reconciliation” with Modernism

This having been noted, it is important to state clearly that there were many sources of infiltration into the heart of the Catholic Church in the years leading up to the “election” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. Previous commentaries of this site have discussed the influences of the various elements of Modernism, including dogmatic evolutionism, false ecumenism and de facto religious indifferentism, gnosticism, Pelagianism, Jansenism, pantheism, rationalism, biological evolutionism, Scriptural exegeses based on the historical-critical method, immanentism, liberalism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, the hijacked liturgical movement and Judeo-Masonry, and a whole host of other contributing falsehoods. It is not for nothing that Pope Saint Pius X described Modernism as follows in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

39. It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Yet it is, good readers (if there are any left who actually read these articles!), that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s chief commissar, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodgriguez told us nearly seven years ago that the “Second” Vatican Council represented a “reconciliation” with Modernism, which he claimed had been misunderstood by our true popes until the dawning of the age of the “enlightenment” at the robber council:

The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.

The Vatican II Council officially acknowledged that things had changed, and captured the need for such a change in its Documents, which emphasized truths such as these: (The Council's "Unfinished Business," The Church's "Return to Jesus"... and Dreams of "The Next Pope" – A Southern Weekend with Francis' "Discovery Channel".) 

"An end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism"?

In other words, God the Holy Ghost failed Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council. God the Holy Ghost also failed to guide Pope Saint Pius X in the composition and issuance of Pascendi Dominici Gregis. “Enlightenment” only came to light at the “Second” Vatican Council and thereafter.

Sure, Joseph Ratzinger said the same thing in 1971, 1990 and 2005. However, the current antipope emeritus always tried to couch his disregard for the anti-Modernist condemnations by explaining that were "necessary" for their "time" but that they had become "obsolete in the particulars they contain" because of changed circumstances. Granted. Bergoglio and Maradiaga Rodriguez have simply made it plain for all the world to see that Modernism was done an “injustice” as it was a “reaction against injustices and abuses and that disparaged the dignity of the rights of the person.”

Moreover, Maradiaga Rodriguez said in 2013 that "neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue," which is one of the boldest, most plain and brutally honest statements of the heretical and blasphemous Modernist belief system that has been made in the past fifty-five years, although there are many, including Bergoglio in the past seven months, eighteen days, who have used words less precise and clear than these to assert that this is so.

Although Holy Mother Church is composed of sinful men, she is by her very Divine Constitution the sole repository of Divine Revelation, which consists both of Sacred Scripture and Apostolic (Sacred) Tradition, and has been given the authority by her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Spouse, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to teach infallibly in His Holy Name all that she has received from Him. She alone has the teaching and the supernatural helps, the sacraments, to instruct and to sanctify and save men. She is without spot or error of any kind.

By speaking so blasphemously and heretically as he did, Maradiaga Rodriguez was saying once again that Holy Mother Church's true popes and true councils taught error prior to the "Second" Vatican Council. Among the “errors” must be the following, therefore:

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.)

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.)

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. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men's faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before. ( 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.)

86. For some there are who neglect the fact that the Apostle Paul has used metaphorical language in speaking of this doctrine, and failing to distinguish as they should the precise and proper meaning of the terms the physical body, the social body, and the mystical Body, arrive at a distorted idea of unity. They make the Divine Redeemer and the members of the Church coalesce in one physical person, and while they bestow divine attributes on man, they make Christ our Lord subject to error and to human inclination to evil. But Catholic faith and the writings of the holy Fathers reject such false teaching as impious and sacrilegious; and of the mind of the Apostle of the Gentiles it is equally abhorrent, for although he brings Christ and His Mystical Body into a wonderfully intimate union, he nevertheless distinguishes one from the other as Bridegroom from Bride.  (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

The text in bold type from the following passage contained in Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis describe the very kind of “imaginary church” that exists in the minds of the conciliar revolutionaries and their “communion of love”:

63. Hence, this word in its correct signification gives us to understand that the Church, a perfect society of its kind, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies; [117] it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish. [118] Such human societies, and in the first place civil Society, are by no means to be despised or belittled, but the Church in its entirely is not found within this natural order, any more than the whole of man is encompassed within the organism of our mortal body. [119] Although the juridical principles, on which the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine constitution given to it by Christ and contribute to the attaining of its supernatural end, nevertheless that which lifts the Society of Christians far above the whole natural order is the Spirit of our Redeemer who penetrates and fills every part of the Church's being and is active within it until the end of time as the source of every grace and every gift and every miraculous power. just as our composite mortal body, although it is a marvelous work of the Creator, falls far short of the eminent dignity of our soul, so the social structure of the Christian community, though it proclaims the wisdom of its divine Architect, still remains something inferior when compared to the spiritual gifts which give it beauty and life, and to the divine source whence they flow.

64. From what We have thus far written and explained, Venerable Brethren, it is clear, We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life. [120] On the contrary, as Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church "is not complete, if only His visible human nature is considered. . ., or if only His divine, invisible nature. . ., but He is one through the union of both and one in both . . . so is it with His Mystical Body" [121] since the Word of God took unto Himself a human nature liable to sufferings, so that He might consecrate in His blood the visible Society founded by Him and "lead man back to things invisible under a visible rule." [122]

65. For this reason We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements -namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption [123] -- was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Paraclete. The Eternal Father indeed willed it to be the "kingdom of the Son of his predilection;" [124] but it was to be a real kingdom, in which all believers should make Him the entire offering of their intellect and will, [125] and humbly and obediently model themselves on Him, Who for our sake "was made obedient unto death." [126] There can, then, be no real opposition or conflict between the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit and the juridical commission of Ruler and Teacher received from Christ, since they mutually complement and perfect each other -- as do the body and soul in man -- and proceed from our one Redeemer who not only said as He breathed on the Apostles "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," [127] but also clearly commanded: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you"; [128] and again: "He that heareth you heareth me." [129]

66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, [130] she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When therefore we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member." [131] (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez are apostates, heretics and blasphemers of the highest order. Maradiaga Rodriguez is merely serving the of role of Soviet chief ideologist Mikhail Suslov to Bergoglio's Leonid Brezhnev. Maradiaga Rodriguez, in other orders, is the fellow with the the "brains" who gives pseudo-scholarly "muscle" to Bergoglio's visceral beliefs.

To contend that "neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue" is to blaspheme the Third Person of the the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired Saint John the Evangelist to write as follows of the world as the realm of evil and sin:

[15] Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.

[16] For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. [17] And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever. (1 John 2: 15-17.)

Writing in Creator and Creature, Father Frederick William Faber noted the enmity that we must have for the world and its attractions:

Well then might St. James come to his energetic conclusion, Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God. It is remarkable also that St. John, the chosen friend of the Incarnate Word, and the Evangelist of His Divinity, should be the one of the inspired writers who speaks most often and most emphatically about the world, as if the spirit of Jesus found something especially revolting to it in the spirit of the world.

It is this world which we have to fight against throughout the whole of our Christian course. Our salvation depends upon our unforgiving enmity against it. It is not so much that it is a sin, as that it is the capability of all sins, the air sin breathes, the light by which it sees to do its work, the hotbed which propagates and forces it, the instinct which guides it, the power which animates it. For a Christian to look at, it is dishearteningly complete. It is a sort of catholic church of the powers of the darkness. It is laws of its own, and tastes the principles of its own, literature of its own, a missionary spirit, a compact system, and it is a consistent whole. It is a counterfeit of the Church of God, and in the most implacable antagonism to it. The doctrines of the faith, the practices and devotions of pious persons, the system of the interior life, the mystical and contemplative world of the Saints, with all these it is at deadly war. And so it must be. The view which the Church takes of the world is distinct and clear, and far from flattering to its pride. It considers the friendship of the world as enmity with God. It puts all the world's affairs under its feet, either as of no consequence, or at least of very secondary importance. It has great faults to find with the effeminacy of the literary character, with the churlishness of the mercantile character, with the servility of the political character, and even with the inordinateness of the domestic character. It provokes the world by looking in progress doubtingly, and with what appears a very inadequate interest, and there is a quiet faith in its contempt for the world extremely irritating to this latter power.

The world on the contrary thinks that it is going to last for ever. It is almost assumes that there are no other interests but its own, or that if there are, they are either of no consequence, or troublesome and in the way. It thinks that there is nothing like itself anywhere, that religion was made for its convenience, merely to satisfy a want, and must not forget itself, or if it claims more, must be put down as a rebel, or chased away as a grumbling beggar; and finally it is of opinion, that of all contemptible things spirituality is the most contemptible, cowardly, and little. Thus the Church and the world are incompatible, and must remain so to the end.

We cannot have a better instance of the uncongeniality of the world with the spirit of the Gospel, than their difference in the estimate of prosperity. All those mysterious woes which our Lord denounced against wealth, have their explanation in the dangers of worldliness. It is the peculiar aptitude of wealth and pomp, and power, to harbor the unholy spirit of the world, to combine with it, and transform themselves into it, which called forth the thrilling malediction of our Lord. Prosperity may be a blessing from God, but it may easily become the triumph of the world. And for the most part the absence of chastisement is anything but a token of God's love. When prosperity is a blessing, it is generally a condescension to our weakness. Those are fearful words, Thou has already received thy reward; yet how many prosperous men there are, the rest of whose lives will keep reminding us of them; the tendency of prosperity in itself is to wean the heart from God, and fix it on creatures. It gives us a most unsupernatural habit of esteeming others according to their success. As it increases, so anxiety to keep it increases also, and makes men restless, selfish, and irreligious; and at length it superinduces a kind of effeminacy of character, which unfits them for the higher and more heroic virtues of the Christian character. This is but a sample of the different way which the Church and the world reason.

Now it is this world which, far more than the devil, far more than the flesh, yet in union with both, makes the difficulty we find in obeying God 's commandments, or following His counsels. It is this which makes earth such a place of struggle and of exile. Proud, exclusive, anxious, hurried, fond of comforts, coveting popularity, with an offensive orientation of prudence, it is this worldliness which hardens the hearts of men, stops their ears, blinds their eyes, vitiates their taste, and ties their hands, so far as the things of God are concerned. Let it be true that salvation is easy, and that by far the greater number of catholics are saved, it is still unhappily true that that the relations of the Creator and the creature, as put forward in this treatise, are not so universally or so practically acknowledged as they ought to be. Why is this? Sin is a partial answer. The devil is another partial answer. But I believe worldliness has got to answer for a great deal of sin, and for a great deal of devil, besides a whole deluge of iniquity of its own, which is perpetually debasing good works, assisting the devil in his assaults, and working with execrable assiduity against the sacraments and grace. The world is for ever lowering the heavenly life of the Church. If there ever was an age in which this was true, it is the present. One of the most frightening features of our condition is, that we are so little frightened of the world. The world itself has brought this about. Even spiritual books are chiefly occupied with the devil and the flesh; and certain of the capital sins, such as envy and sloth, no longer hold the prominent places which they held of the systems of the elder ascetics; and yet they are just those vices which contain most of the ungodly spirit of the world. The very essence of worldliness seems to consist in its making us forget that we are creatures; and the more this view is reflected upon, the more correct will it appear. . . .

Worldliness then is a life of secret sins. It is such an irresistible tendency to sin, such a successful encouragement of it, such a genial climate, such a collection of favourable circumstances, such an amazing capability of sin, that it breeds actual sins, regularly formed and with all the theological requirements, by millions and millions. It we read what the catechism of the Council of Trent says of sins of thought, we shall see how marvellously prolific sins can be, and what a pre-eminently devastating power sins of thought in particular exercise within the soul. In numberless cases open and crying sins must come at last. Still we must remember that on the whole there are two characteristics which always distinguish sins of worldliness from sins of the passions, or sins of direct diabolical temptation. The respectability which worldliness affects leads it rather to satisfy itself in secret sins. Indeed its worship of self, its predilection for an easy life, would hinder its embarking in sins which take trouble, time, and forethought, or which run risks of disagreeable consequences, and therefore would keep it confined within a sphere of secret sins. And in the next place its love of comfort makes it so habitually disinclined to listen to the reproaches of conscience, or the teasing solicitations of grace, that it passes into the state of a seared conscience, a dreaded moral sense, with a speed which is unknown even to cruelty or sensuality. (Father Frederick Faber, The Creator and Creature, written 1856 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 314-328.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow Jacobin/Bolsehvik revolutionaries do the work of Antichrist by believing and speaking and acting as they do. And a figure of Antichrist cannot be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. It is that simple, except for Father Carlo Maria Vigano, who wants it both ways, it would appear:

Saint John the Evangelist explained very clearly who is responsible for seeking a "reconciliation" with the world and its concupiscences:

[18] Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. [19] They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. [20] But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things. (1 John 2: 18-20.)

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is devoted to a “reconciliation” with errors that have been condemned by the Catholic Church, she who is inerrant on matters of Faith and Morals. The counterfeit church is a sect of darkness where truth becomes false and false becomes true and beyond question.

Conciliarism’s Preferential Option for Communism

Modernism’s openness to the “good” in almost every error imaginable was expressed very clearly in Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris, which was issued less than two months before he died on June 3, 1963:

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?

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.)

In other words, Roncalli/John XXIII was endorsing all erroneous movements that that contain elements that make each “interpreters of the lawful aspirations of the human person” that are “positive and deserving of approval.” This was meant a triple-fold death knell, first to Pope Leo XIII’s Custodi Di Quella Fide, December 8, 1892, second to Pope Saint Pius X’s Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, and third and most importantly, to render as null and avoid the prohibition against Catholics cooperating with Communism that had been imposed by Pope Pius XI in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, and reaffirmed by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII on July 1, 1949, as follows:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. 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.)

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.) 

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.)

This Sacred Supreme Congregation has been asked:  

1. whether it is lawful to join Communist Parties or to favour them;
2. whether it is lawful to publish, disseminate, or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them;
3. whether the faithful who knowingly and freely perform the acts specified in questions 1 and 2 may be admitted to the Sacraments;
4. whether the faithful who profess the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See as apostates from the Catholic faith.

The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers entrusted with the supervision of matters concerning the safeguarding of Faith and morals, having previously heard the opinion of the Reverend Lords Consultors, decreed in the plenary session held on Tuesday (instead of Wednesday), June 28, 1949, that the answers should be as follows:

To 1. in the negative: because Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; and the leaders of the Communists, although they sometimes profess in words that they do not oppose religion, do in fact show themselves, both in their teaching and in their actions, to be the enemies of God, of the true religion and of the Church of Christ; to 2. in the negative: they are prohibited ipso iure (cf. Can. 1399 of the Codex Iuris Canonici); to 3. in the negative, in accordance with the ordinary principles concerning the refusal of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed; to 4. in the affirmative.

And the following Thursday, on the 30th day of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, Pope by the Divine Providence, in the ordinary audience, granted to the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Assessor of the Sacred Office, approved of the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers which had been reported to Him, and ordered the same to be promulgated officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Given at Rome, on July 1st, 1949. (As found at Decree Against Communism.)

Yes, a “reconciliation” with Marxism-Leninism has been front and center of the work of the “Second” Vatican Council as Communist infiltrators worked from within the true Church in the decades prior to death of Pope Pius XII to provide a veritable army of socialist engineers and sleeper agents to be awakened when the bell sounded, and that bell sounded on January 25, 1959, when Roncalli/John XIII convened the “Second” Vatican Council and then authorized his secret commission to work to develop a schema for the council that would supplant the schema developed by cardinals, who did not realize that their work was but a smokescreen for Roncalli/John XXIII to pursue a different agenda that was at the foundation of an “ecclesiogenesis” and its reconciliation with the errors of the world.

As we know from the testimony of "Anti Apostle 1025," agents of Josef Stalin made a determined effort to infiltrate the Catholic Church in the 1930s. Where better to start than in the seminaries and universities? "AA-1025" provided some of the details in the memoirs that he left behind: 

“It was during those days that I launched on the market (we could almost say) the programme that would allow Catholics to be accepted by Protestants …. Catholics had hoped too much for the return of Protestantism to the fold of the Mother Church. It was time that they should lose their arrogance. Charity made it a duty for them. When charity is at stake, I pretended, laughing up my sleeve, nothing wrong can happen.”

“I prophesied with assurance, so that this would be repeated in the same tones, the suppression of Latin, of priestly ornaments, of statues and images, of candles and prie-dieu (so that they could kneel no more) …. And I also started a very active campaign for the suppression of the Sign of the Cross.”

“I also prophesied, and we were then in 1940, the disappearance of altars, replaced by a table completely bare, and also of all the crucifixes, in order that Christ be considered as a man, not as a God. I insisted that Mass be only a community meal to which all would be invited, even unbelievers. And came to the following prophecy: Baptism, for the modern man has become ridiculously magical. Whether given by immersion or not Baptism must be abandoned in favor of an Adult Religion.”

“Moreover, all that is permitted among Protestants, even if only in one sect, must be authorized among Catholics, that is the remarriage of divorcees, polygamy, contraception and euthanasia.” . . . .

Michael [AA-1025] encouraged Protestants to go to Catholic Mass and receive Holy Communion. This is because: “When Catholics will see Protestants receive Communion at their masses, without having been converted, they will longer have confidence in their antique ‘Real Presence.’ It will be explained to them that this Presence only exists in so far as it is believed. Thus they will feel themselves to be creators of all their religion and the most intelligent all them will know how to draw the required conclusions.”

“To weaken more the notion of ‘Real Presence’ of Christ, all decorum will have to be set aside. No more costly embroidered vestments, no more music called sacred, especially no more Gregorian chant, but a music in jazz style, no more sign of the Cross, no more genuflections, but only dignified stern attitudes …. Moreover the faithful will have to break themselves the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion …. Very soon, the Host will be laid in the hand in order that all notion of the Sacred be erased.”

“In order to destroy all sacredness in the cult, the priest will be invited to say the whole Mass in vernacular and especially to recite the words of the Consecration as a narration, which they are in reality. He must not, above all, pronounce the following words: ‘This is my Body, this is my Blood,’ as if he really took the place of Christ Who pronounced them.”

“Let everyone feel that the priest is reading a narration. Furthermore, there must never be question of a Sacrifice, that is, a Mass-Sacrifice, a non-bloody renovation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. No Protestant accepts this formula. Mass must only be a community meal for the greatest welfare of human fraternity.”

On Marian Cult and Cult of The Saints “At that time, I showed great energy to destroy the Marian cult. I insisted greatly upon the grief that Catholics and Orthodoxes caused to Protestants by keeping up their numerous devotions to the Virgin Mary. I pointed out that the dear separated brethren were more logical and wiser. This human creature about whom we know almost nothing becomes, in our Church, in some way, more powerful than God (or, at least, more gentle )…. I stressed upon the fact that many Protestants believe that Mary had other children after Jesus… Human oddness has no limit. All this strengthens my conviction, that to deny the virginity of Mary is the safest way to transform Christians into disciples of a man who would not at all be God. Who does not see how useful it is to kill Jesus of Nazareth before killing God?”

“I therefore advocated the suppression of the Rosary and of the numerous feast days reserved to Mary… As for all other things, it will be necessary to make a those who keep on reciting the Rosary feel guilty.”

“Afterwards, to bluntly suppress the cult of the Saints. The Saints must disappear before God, although it is much easier to kill God than His Saints… Then, we will proceed to suppress Judgement, Heaven, Purgatory and Hell. This is all very easy… Many are well disposed to believe that the Goodness of God surpasses all crimes. All we have to do is to insist on this Goodness. A God Whom no one fears, quickly becomes a God about whom no one thinks. Such was the end to be reached. ”

“Such is the compendium of the orders which I sent throughout the world.”  (As found at The Confessions of a Communist Agent On The Attempt to Destroy the Catholic Church.)

Although there were plenty of just plain, ordinary run-of-mill Modernists the pre-Vatican II era who, though they had to take The Oath Against Modernism, were attempting to advance such an agenda all on their very own, the testimony provided by "AA-1025" provides a pretty accurate description of what was to transpire at the "Second" Vatican Council and during its aftermath in the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." Pope Pius XII, so preoccupied with World War II and the subsequent rebuilding of the destroyed Catholic Church building in Europe thereafter, concerned as well about the rise of the Cold War, permitted this all to occur even when he was presented with evidence about the ties of Monsignor Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonia Maria Montini to agents of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:

An elderly gentleman from Paris who worked as an official interpreter for high-level clerics at the Vatican in the early 1950s told this writer that the Soviets blackmailed Montini into revealing the names of priests whom the Vatican had clandestinely sent behind the Iron Curtain to minister to Catholics in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet secret police were on hand as soon as the priests crossed over the Russian border and the priest infiltrators were either shot or sent to the gulag.
The extent to which Pope Paul VI was subject to blackmail by the enemies of the Church will probably never be known. It may be that, in so far as the Communists and the Socialists were concerned, blackmail was entirely unnecessary given Montini's cradle to grave fascination and affinity for the Left. On the other hand, the Italian Freemasons, M16, the OSS and later the CIA and the Mafia were likely to have used blackmail and extortion against Montini beginning early in his career as a junior diplomat, then as Archbishop of Milan and finally as Pope Paul VI. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, p.1156.) 

What did Pope Pius XII do after he discovered this betrayal? Made him Archbishop of the Milan, the chief industrial city in Italy and a hotbed of Communism.

There were equivalents of "AA-1025" in Western universities and professional schools, waiting to climb up the ranks in order to poison the minds of the young and to shape a veritable "new world order" that has given us the likes of those who trained Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his claque of handlers. That the "mainstream media" is composed mostly of kindred spirits to our former caesar and his toadies, who remain thick in the scheme to undermine his successor’s presidency “by all means necessary,” is no accident, nor is it any accident that between two-fifths and one-half of Americans of voting age are imbued with some kind of bent, however ill-defined and inchoate, in the direction of the false opposite of "naturalism” of the “left.” The ranks of chancery offices and of the administrative offices of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is filled to the rafters with such kindred spirits, who are, of course, also to be found in conciliar universities and seminaries and schools and "religious education" programs that are replete with various offshoots of the errors of Russia.

This did not happen overnight. Indeed, as noted in Our Lady Does Not Act on Her Own, the errors of Russia did not start with Bolshevism. They started with the errors of Photius, that is, of Orthodoxy, of the overthrow of the Church in favor of making her the servant of the civil state, a rejection of Papal Primary and of many other doctrines contained in the Deposit of Faith that would lead five hundred years later to Martin Luther's own revolution against the Catholic Church that unleashed the forces of hell in the world. The ironic part of what Luther wrought, though, is that the forces of hell he released unwittingly gave impetus to the naturalism that began to surface during certain phases of the Renaissance that are being used by the devil today to destroy all false religions, including his own and that of the conciliar church that has sought to "reconcile" itself with it, for the rise of Antichrist himself. Even Judeo-Masonry and Marxism will give way in turn to Antichrist, who had plenty of assistance at the "Second" Vatican Council and has had great assistance thereafter from the "magisterium" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Mrs. Bella Dodd, who was an important member of Communist Party of the United States of American (CPUSA) before being baptized conditionally into the Faith in 1952 at the hands of Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen, explained how she herself had planned and implemented the infiltration of Communist agents into the Catholic Church in the 1930s and 1940s. The material below was published in Inside the Vatican, which is a publication of Dr. Robert Moynihan, a sedeplenist (the seat is filled), on September 1, 2018:

“In the late 1920s and 1930s, I personally put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to weaken the Catholic Church from within.

“The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops…

“Right now they are in the highest places where they are working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism.

“These changes will be so drastic that you will not even recognize the Catholic Church.

“Of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.

“The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion.

“Something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing.

“Once the faith was destroyed, there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church… to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries.

“This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.” (taken from Dr. Bella Dodd, lecture at Fordham University in 1953) (Inside the the Vatican Newsflash Letter: Some Enemy Has Done This. Appendix B contains a fuller account of Dodd’s conversion to the Faith.)

Researcher Stephanie Block published an article in 2018 containing the testimony of another Communist Party of the United States of America defector, Manning Johnson, that was given to the United States House of Representatives’ Committee on Un-American Activities:

“Once the tactic of infiltrating religious organizations was set by the Kremlin, the actual mechanics of implementing the ‘new line’ was a question of following the general experiences of the living church movement in Russia where the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the church by Communist agents operating within the church itself.

The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions and the religious makeup peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries and divinity schools. The practical conclusion, drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths most conducive to Communist purposes.”

In general, the idea was to divert the emphasis of clerical thinking from the spiritual to the material and political — by political, of course, is meant politics based on the Communist doctrine of conquest of power. Instead of emphasis towards the spiritual and matters of the soul, the new and heavy emphasis was to deal with those matters which, in the main, led toward the Communist program of “immediate demands.”

The plan was to make the seminaries the neck of a funnel through which thousands of potential clergymen would issue forth, carrying with them, in varying degrees, an ideology and slant which would aid in neutralizing the anti-Communist character of the church and also to use the clergy to spearhead important Communist projects.

This policy was successful beyond even Communist expectations. The combination of Communist clergymen, clergymen with a pro-Communist ideology, plus thousands of clergymen who were sold the principle of considering Communist causes as progressive, within 20 years, furnished the Soviet apparatus with a machine which was used as a religious cover for the overall Communist operation ranging from immediate demands to actually furnishing aid in espionage and outright treason.”

In the early 1930’s the Communists instructed thousands of their members to rejoin their ancestral religious groups and to operate in cells designed to take control of churches for Communist purposes. This method was not only propounded, but was executed with great success among large elements of American church life. Communists operating a double-pronged infiltration, both through elements of Communist-controlled clergy, and Communist-controlled laymen, managed to pervert and weaken entire stratas of religious life in the United States.

Communists in churches and other religious organizations were instructed to utilize the age-old tradition of the sanctity of the church as a cover for their own dastardly deeds. Through Reds in religion, we have a true living example of the old saying: “The Devil doth quote the Scripture.”

The Communists learned that the clergyman under their control served as a useful “respectable face” for most of their front activities. In this way the name of religion was used to spearhead the odious plots hatched by the agents of anti-religious Soviet communism.” (emphasis added) (Stephanie Block, The Marxist Core of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.)

“Conservative” bishops and priests/presbyters who are bewildered by Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s affinity for Communism ought to consider the fact that most of them raise money annually for the “Catholic Campaign for Human Development” that has a thoroughly Marxist agenda to concentrate on the achievement purely naturalistic goals of what Pope Saint Pius X called a “chimerical equality” in his condemnation of The Sillon in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, and that are designed to effect a “transformation” of “free” societies in socialist dictatorships of thought, speech, press, property and even our very lives.

Although anti-sedevacantists as Dr. Robert Moynihan do seem able to grasp that a church that has a “flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies” cannot be the Catholic Church and that the beloved “Saint John Paul II” made the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio possible, his comments about Dodd’s statement are nevertheless very accurate:

Other Communists theoreticians of Dodd’s time, such as the brilliant Italian, Antonio Gramsci, also had the idea to weaken the Church as an effective fighter against communism.

This meant taking a slow path to infiltrate the Church and get Catholics to lose the faith little by little.

This plan was eventually called “Operation Outstretched Hand.”

More specifically, it was to promote a pseudo-religion, a fake Catholicism but with enough look and feel to seem real.

This plan would then introduce a guilt complex so that the Church would apologize for past activities, and then embrace other religions’ ideas as a way to get along.

This agenda is identical to the Ostpolitik that was initiated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII with his infamous Metz Accord that guaranteed no criticism of Communism at the “Second” Vatican Council in exchange for the “privilege” of Russian Orthodox “observers” thereat (see Appendix C) and then, more openly, the notorious Marxist Giovanni Battista Enrico Antoni Maria Montini/Paul VI’s betrayal of y Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty in 1966 that made it more possible for Communist governments behind the Iron Curtain to put their own men in the conciliar episcopacy/pseudo-episcopacy (see Appendix C below). As bad as all this was, however, it was but a prelude  to the sellout of the faithful Catholics in Red China that was begun in a subtle but nevertheless effective way by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II in the late-1980s before blossoming in to a full-scale surrender by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in 2007, thus setting the stage for Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s complete abandonment of the long suffering underground Catholics in Red China to their Chicom persecutors, torturers and executioners.

In this regard, therefore, it should be remembered that Bella Dodd gave her lecture at Fordham University in 1953, ten years before Roncalli/John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris contained these words quoted just above in this commentary:

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. (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)

Roncalli/John XXIII knew full well from his days as the Apostolic Nuncio in Paris from 1944 to 1953 that the Communist Party in France was a stooge of Joseph Stalin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and that is full well intent on infiltrating the Catholic Church. Pacem in Terris was his signal that what passed for the Catholic Church was no longer in open opposition to Communism and that it was seek to cooperate in a policy of “peaceful coexistence,” which was, not so coincidentally, the exact slogan being used Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev at the time and that an organization of Catholics in league with Moscow in Poland, Pax, who opposed the Polish episcopate’s strong opposition to Communism, had been advocating for the previous ten years.

Here is a contemporaneous account of Pax’s reaction to Pacem in Terris that was provided in the Appendix of Freemasonry and the Vatican, written by Vicomte Leon de Poncins and translated from the French by Timothy Tindal-Robertson, published by Britons Publishing Company, London, England, 1968:

8. It is abroad, therefore, that the only available field of action remains open to Pax. Having failed to disrupt the unity of the Polish Episcopate, Pax is now endeavoring to represent it as being in opposition both to John XXIII, who is acclaimed as “the Pope of co-existence”, and to the “open” and “progressive” French Episcopate.

Since the beginning of 1963 this thesis, which had been ceaselessly hammered out for some time, suddenly acquired a new depth and particular overtones. The style of the Pax press becomes increasingly virulent and aggressive.

The Encyclical Pacem in Terris was hailed noisily and “with deep satisfaction” as the “official consecration” and “coronation of the efforts” which Piasecki and his group had made for so long.

“the head of the Church has agreed with those who have pledged themselves to an ideology of co-existence and co-operation with those professing different ideologies, and that is precisely the essence of the programme of our political Left.”  (Slowo Powszechne 2^nd May 1963)

According to Pax, thanks to Pope John XXIII, the “tridentine era” in the history of the Church seems definitely over and a new epoch is beginning, “more open and more tolerant, ready for compromises.”

Of course, “John XXIII's line … calls of the Polish Episcopate to reconsider its out-of-date position and its attachment to the integralism of Pope Pius XII.” The Pax press insinuates that Cardinal Wyszynski and the Polish bishops are very disturbed by this “revolutionary” change of position by John XXIII and that with the help of “conservative elements” in the Vatican they are doing everything within their power to minimize the scope of this “historic” encyclical.

NINE it goes without saying that Pax refuses to see in Pacem in Terris anything that is contrary to its ideological professions, and the censor's refusal for the publication of the Polish translation of Mater et Magistra is passed over in silence.

On the other hand the duties of the Polish bishops which apparently derive from this great charter for co-existence, as Pax calls Pacem in Terris, are minutely described:

“The ground-work for the normalisation of relations between formal recongnition by the Polish Episcopate of the permanency of the socialist order with all this implies” (Slowo Powszechne 2^nd April 1963)

This statement of Jankowski's, editor of Slowo Powszechne, the Pax daily paper, leaves no doubt as to the conditions required by the Warsaw government for the “so keenly awaited” normalization of relation between the Church and State. It is a question, in short, of the acceptance in full of the notorious principle “Politics First”, by the total subordination of the Church to the advancement of the Communist revolution.

In order that there may be no doubt on this point Jankowski insists:

“The chief lesson to be drawn for the dialogue between the Catholic Left and the socialist world is above all the acknowledgment of the inescapable need to enrich the content of Socialism through Christians allying themselves to the part of the working class.”  (Slowo Powszechne ibid.)

Jankowski instructs the bishops in this vein: the Pope “having formally recognized the primacy of the principle of peaceful “co-existence”, the Polish Episcopate should draw form it the consequences “consistent with the needs of Poland by publishing a special declaration which would be the stating point for the normalization of relations between Church and State.”  (Slowo Powszechne ibid.)

In other words, this “normalisation” can only take place at the price of a formal committal of the Church in Poland to the service of a particular party.

Now the representative of Pax “feel that Pope John has given them a mandate for action”.

Consequently, the Pax press lavishes advice and even thinly veiled threats on the Polish bishops, which recall in a striking manner the psychological campaigns of the Stalin era.

Thus the protests by Cardinal Wyszynski and the Polish Episcopate against the intrusion of the State into religious education, which may only be carried out within a Church, has met with the official displeasure of Pax. (Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican, translated from the French into English by Timothy Tindal-Robertson, published by Britons Publishing Company, London, England, 1968, pp. 211-213. The entirety of this Appendix from Freemasonry and the Vatican can be found in Appendix D below.)

The program of Pax was in lockstep with the subversive goals of Joseph Stalin to take over the Catholic Church in Poland and elsewhere in the Soviet bloc and to marginalize the Catholic hierarchy in those nations by arresting and imprisoning them while the leaders of Pax remained as mute as has Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the face of the Chicom’s overt persecution of faithful Catholics in Red China and the destruction of churches and shrines as images of Xi Jinping have replaced crucifixes and other statues of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

While not directly related to the subject of this book, the Report on Pax prepared by Cardinal [Stefan] Wyszynski [Archbishop of Warsaw and Primate of Poland] is of such vital interest and seems to be so little known in the English-speaking world that this Appendix, describing the background of the movement and quoting in full the text of the Cardinal's Report on Pax, was drawn up by the translator with the agreement of the author. Moreover it will be clear to the reader that this document is not unrelated to the subject of the book as a whole, since it exposes a very determined attempt by the Soviet secret police to destroy the Church in Poland by seeking to penetrate and subvert it from within, frontal coercion and force having been completely defeated by the faith of the people. We have seen in earlier chapters in the present work how Freemasonry failed to impose itself on the nations by force and how, in consequence, and especially since the Second World War, it has resorted to subversion from within. The interest of the document, we are about to lay before the reader is that it presents a particularly clear and recent instance of Communism's like failure to eradicate faith by force, and of its resorting to similar tactics to achieve its ends.

Before we quote the text of the Cardinal's letter, it will be useful to give the reader the background to this organisation which was set up in Poland by the Soviet political police, to infiltrate the Church with Communist cells and impregnate it with Marxism. Originally a Polish party, Pax spread throughout the countries of Western Europe and took root principally in France. The following information is taken from Lucjan Blit: The Eastern Pretender, a biography of Boleslaw Piasecki, the founder of Pax, and one of the most remarkable men behind the Iron Curtain.

In 1946 Piasecki and a number of progressive Catholics set themselves up as a group which published a weekly Today and Tomorrow and talked vaguely about marching with the times and being realistic, by which they meant that any political regime in Poland would have to be acceptable to Moscow. The majority of Catholics viewed these moves with suspicion, and it came as no great surprise when in March 1947 the Polish Primate, the late Cardinal Hlond, stated that Piasecki's daily Universal Voice could not be considered representative of the Catholic community.

Shortly after his installation as Primate of Poland, Cardinal Wyszynski, in a pastoral letter, warned all believers of the activities and aims of Piasecki's Pax and the progressive Catholics whom he described as “traitors to the Catholic Church”. On 12^th February,  1950, the Cardinal said that they were lacking in Catholic sense and learning, and yet they wanted to teach the bishops; furthermore, he rejected their claim to publish genuine Catholic works while at the same time attacking the Holy See, and he ex[licitly condemned them for assisting the Communist regime in the destruction of Catholic organisations.

“As soon as the party and state went over to an open attack on the hierarchy Pax gave full support to all the actions, political moral and even of a police nature, which the regime adopted against the Church. Not once during the whole period of brutal repressions between 1948 and October 1956 did Pax, or the progressive Catholics, or Piasecki himself, as much as whisper any criticism. They were not even neutral. Whole-heartedly they supported the actions of the Stalinist Politbureau against people who they claimed were their co-religious in the same Church.” (L. Blit: The Eastern Pretender, p. 168)

The trial of Bishop Kaczmarek, one of some 2,000 priests interned by the secret police purely for exercising their functions as priests, is an example of the way the Pax movement assisted in the persecution of the hierarchy of the Church to which they claimed to belong. Far from protesting at the trial, some members of Pax made public speeches in which they attacked the accused and the hard-pressed Episcopate, who were unable to answer their accusations, which were repeated day after day in the Communist Press and propaganda apparatus. Other, bolder spirits, actually appeared at the trial itself as prosecution witnesses and condemned the hierarchy in accordance with the line the regime had taken.

Among their other activities, in November 1952 Piasecki and a number of his more prominent followers announced that they had joined the international Communist peace movement, and Pax sent a delegation to North Vietnam to persuade the large Catholic community there to give the Communist rulers of the country their unreserved collaboration.

At the height of the anti-clerical campaign Piasecki published his own Essential Problems, the main theme of which was described in the following terms:

“Religion, instead of being the most noble and sublime means for the achievement of salvation, was to become for Piasecki a means of securing for the Church a temporal existence in the revolutionary world. Consequently all Catholics, including bishops and priests, were required to use Catholicism as a source of inspiration for the building of Socialism and to devote most of their time and energy to the realisation of social and economic goals, determined by the atheistic leaders of the state.” (Survey, December 1961, quoted by L. Blit.)

This book was place on the Vatican Index, and thus is a prohibited book for Catholics, throughout the world, and on 8^th June, 1955, the Congregation of the Holy Office condemned the propagandizing of ideas which urged Catholics to help Communism to victory, as voice especially in Piasecki's weekly Today and Tomorrow.

In its commentary to the decree of the Holy Office the official Vatican daily, the Osservatore Romano, explained that Piasecki's theory, developed in his Essential Problems, that Communism continues the works of creation and that Communists even while combating religion and the Church are by their work paying homage to God, must be considered blasphemous by any Christian and is certainly in complete contradiction to the basic dogma of the Catholic Church.” (L. Blit: The Eastern Pretender, p.180) (Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican, translated from the French into English by Timothy Tindal-Robertson, published by Britons Publishing Company, London, England, 1968, pp. 201-203. The entirety of this Appendix from Freemasonry and the Vatican can be found in Appendix A below.)

What had been condemned by the Holy See under our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, became the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s own “call for action” in the name of “social justice” for “man.”

We can see in retrospect that what had been happening in Poland with a Communist front organization, which had been exposed in the 1950s by L’Osservatore Romano of being funded by the CPSU despite its claims of “independence” was happening in more subtle manner right here in the United States of America and the “tridentine era” was indeed coming to an end and was to be replaced with a program of compromise and capitulation to Communism and all other forms of Socialism over the course of time.

The infiltration of Communist moles into the ranks of seminaries, universities and colleges were systematically planned, and it was meant to spawn a “church” that was replete with Communist sympathizers in its earlier stages whose ideological successors, having passed through the ranks of the Catholic hierarchy and then into that of Holy Mother Church’s counterfeit ape, could manifest themselves openly as Marxists-Leninists in all but name without many in the laity batting an eyelash as most of the sheep themselves had been fed a steady dose of “soft” indoctrination about Communism in its various forms (globalism, statism, “social justice,” radical environmentalism, the anti-population and anti-family agenda, income redistributionism, feminism, absolute egalitarianism, biological, philosophical, theological, moral and liturgical evolutionism).

The latest manifestation of a Communist front organization to arise on the scene is the so-called “Black Lives Matter” movement that has become so accepted as a legitimate political force despite its violent ways and about which it is impossible to criticize or condemn without being considered a “racist” and a “hater.” Yet it is that a co-founder of this organization formed for the purposes of the revolutionary “transformation” of the United States of America into a formally Communist country has admitted that she and other of the group’s organizers are “trained Marxists”:

The co-founder of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, Patrisse Cullors, was the protégé of a communist-supporting domestic terrorist for over a decade, spending years training in political organizing and absorbing the radical Marxist-Leninist ideology which shaped her worldview.

Eric Mann, who mentored Cullors for over a decade in community organizing, was a member of radical-left militant groups: Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings and police stations in the 1960s and 1970s.

a newly resurfaced video from 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors reveals that she and her fellow BLM founders are “trained Marxists.”

In the video, Cullors is interviewed by Jared Ball of the Real News Network and discusses the direction of the BLM movement.

“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers,” she said. “We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”

In previous interviews in 2018, while promoting her then-new book titled, “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir,” Cullors describes her introduction to and affinity for Marxist ideology.

In an interview with Democracy Now!, Cullors describes how she became a trained organizer with the Labor/Community Strategy Center, calling it her “first political home” and the center’s director, Eric Mann, her personal mentor.

She told The Politic that it was there that she was trained from her youth and grew as a leader.

The Labor/Community Strategy Center describes it’s philosophy as “an urban experiment,” utilizing grassroots organizing to “focus on Black and Latino communities with deep historical ties to the long history of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, pro-communist resistance to the U.S. empire.”

The center teaches and studies the history of the “Indigenous rebellions against the initial European genocidal invasions,” the “Great Slave Haitian Revolution of the 1790s,” and the “Great Slave Rebellions that won the U.S. civil war for the racist north.”

The center also expresses its appreciation for the work of the U.S. Communist Party, “especially Black communists,” as well as its support for “the great work of the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, Young Lords, Brown Berets, and the great revolutionary rainbow experiments of the 1970s,” while flaunting its roots in the new communist movement.

Speaking with ACLU’s At Liberty weekly podcast, Cullors described the center as her “foundation,” claiming it was there that she developed the skills which helped her found the Black Lives Matter movement, after having been recruited by its director, Eric Mann.

Mann, an avowed communist revolutionary, was the New England coordinator for Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1968. The following year, a more radical wing splintered from the SDS, led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, calling for violent “direct action” over civil disobedience.

The splintered faction became known as the Weather Underground, with the stated goal of overthrowing the U.S. government. As a result, the FBI classified the organization as a domestic terrorist group in 1969.

Mann led a group of fellow Weathermen who launched their own violent direct action at the Harvard University Center for International Affairs.

In an article titled: “Band Invades, Violently Disrupts Center for International Affairs,” the Harvard Crimson reported that a band of 20 to 30 activists invaded the Center for International Affairs, “roughing up” several staff members and employees before fleeing.

Several slogans, including “Pig,” “Fuck U.S. Imperialism,” and “Imperialists Screw All Women,” were sprayed on the building’s walls. Rocks thrown by the group broke several windows and a telephone was damaged to prevent police from being notified.

Undergraduates who saw the group leaving the building and chanting “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh; NLF is going to win,” said they recognized some of them as members of Weathermen, a militant spin-off of the older New Left Caucus of SDS.

Mann was later charged with five counts of assault and battery, disturbing the peace, damaging property, defacing a building, and disturbing a public assembly, for which he spent 18 months in prison.

At the 2010 United States Social Forum in Detroit, under the slogan “Another World Is Possible. Another U.S. Is Necessary,” the Labor/Community Strategy Center sponsored a session titled: “Transformative Organizing Theory: Conscious Organizers Seek to Build Anti-racist, Anti-imperialist Politics Rooted in Working Class Communities of Color.” In it, Cullors––rising to prominence––was chosen by Mann to be a panelist along with him.

There, Cullors spoke about growing up as a working class, queer, Black woman, in a single-parent household, with a father who was in and out of prison.

Cullors stated that “positionality in this country is supposed to devastate us” and had done so somewhat successfully, while stressing the need to “fight this thing.”

Both Cullors and Mann strongly endorsed Bernie Sanders. Cullors was a primary speaker at a Sanders campaign event the day before Super Tuesday, which Mann attended.

Cullors, viewing Biden as far too moderate, pushed for the latter to end his campaign, accusing him of having an “old guard mentality” and coming from an “old establishment.”

Now with Biden leading as the Democratic presidential nominee, Cullors and Mann are finding a sympathetic ear for their radical agenda.

As Breitbart news reported, a group of 50 leading national progressive groups representing millions of active members across the country, are pressuring Biden to adopt the radical platform of the Movement for Black Lives which was co-written by BLM.

The group is calling for Biden to immediately incorporate their radical policies, including putting forward a transformative and comprehensive policing and criminal justice reform laid out by the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL).

Citing his “moral responsibility in this moment” to make amends for past harms he had caused, the groups demanded that Biden make commitments such as advance reparations and defund police, prisons, and weaponry in order to fully fund healthcare, housing, education, and environmental justice.

“We ask that you revise your platform to ensure that the federal government permanently ends and ceases any further appropriation of funding to local law enforcement in any form and redirect those and additional resources towards much needed community-led and community-controlled public safety efforts,” the letter reads. (Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Mentored by Ex-Domestic Terrorist who worked for Year with Bill Ayers.)

Regardless of these facts, “Black Lives Matter” has become so sacrosanct and exempt from all criticism that the conciliar “bishop” of Lafayette in Indiana, Timothy Doherty, who has a reputation” as a “conservative” within the conciliar structures, hesitated for not one moment to suspend a presbyter in his diocese who posted an editorial about “Black Lives Matter” in his parish bulletin on Sunday, June 28, 2020 (and I have no idea what Sunday it was in “ordinary time” in the alternative universe of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical disorder) that became the instant fodder of the global thought police, who send chills up and down the jellyfish spines of those conciliar “bishops” who know better but who feel compelled to please everyone while pleasing no one, including Christ the King Himself.

This is a brief report on what “Father” Timothy Rothrock wrote on June 28, 2020:

“The only lives that matter are their own and the only power they seek is their own,” Rothrock wrote. “They are wolves in wolves clothing, masked thieves and bandits, seeking only to devour the life of the poor and profit from the fear of others. They are maggots and parasites at best, feeding off the isolation of addiction and broken families, and offering to replace any current frustration and anxiety with more misery and greater resentment.” (Pastor told to Clarify Maggots and Parasites Remarks.)

“Father” Rothrock was entirely correct, and he also pointed out the organization’s documented ties to Marxism and to Marxists revolutionary tactics, “Bishop” Doherty felt compelled to act quickly either out of fear of the mob or because he knew that Jorge Mario Bergoglio would penalize him in some manner if he did not act against “Father” Rothrock, who has been suspended without any clear indication of when he can resume his presbyteral duties. Leaving aside the fact that this “suspension” from ministry he does not possess by a man who is neither a priest or a bishop might give the Reverend Rothrock a chance to reflect on the nature of the false religion in which he finds himself unknowingly, it is nevertheless important to illustrate that the climate of censorship in the Western world has become so all-pervasive that those who want to “defund the police” feel free to police the thoughts of others and to prevent them from being published or spoken. Here is the full triumph of the Communist spirit in fact if not yet totally under law.

Although “Bishop” Doherty tried to backpedal in remarks at “St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church” in Carmel, Indiana, on Sunday, July 5, 2020, by criticizing the “Black Lives Matters” global organization for its Marxist goals and its policy of “queer” affirmation, he also uttered the phrase “Black Lives Matter” at the end of those remarks, pleasing no one and causing one woman in attendance to shout out, “You’re an enemy, bishop” (see Lafayette Bishop Who Suspended Carmel Priet Criticizes Black Lives Matter).

Well, the entire counterfeit church of conciliarism is an enemy of the Catholic Church as it propagates counterfeit teaching, counterfeit sacraments, counterfeit everything as its universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, continues to attack the true Catholic Faith and those who defend it while suborning and indemnifying every pro-abort, pro-pervert statist in the West (Spain, England, Ireland, France, The Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Belgium) and especially by means of the late Saul Alinsky’s “community organizers” that have been funded repeatedly by “Catholic Charities” and the “Catholic Campaign for Human Development” and Communists and other Socialists in the United States of America and throughout the world.

This has been especially true in Latin America, where the infiltration of Communists into the nooks and crannies of what is thought to be the Catholic Church has been so successful that millions upon millions of baptized Catholics have been driven into the waiting, welcoming arms of “missionaries” from other false religions (Protestant sects of one sort or another, especially Pentecostalists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, the “Salvation Army, etc.). Indeed, Claudio “Cardinal” Hummes, who was created a “cardinal” by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and appointed as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Clergy in 2006 by the “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/John Paul II, remains unrepentant in his own support for the “liberation theology” to which Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself had been immersed in the earliest days of his presbyteral life (see Stalinism in Brazil.)

“Liberation Theology” is now what it has been since its very beginnings: a means to propagate Marxism-Leninist under the cover of an apparent Catholicism, and its very origins go back to the Soviet KGB itself, something that Soviet defector Ion Mihai Pacepta documented in 2015:

I learned the fine points of the KGB involvement with Liberation Theology from Soviet General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, communist Romania’s chief razvedka (foreign intelligence) adviser – and my de facto boss, until 1956, when he became head of the Soviet espionage service, the PGU1, a position he held for an unprecedented record of 15 years.

On October 26, 1959, Sakharovsky and his new boss, Nikita Khrushchev, came to Romania for what would become known as “Khrushchev’s six-day vacation.” He had never taken such a long vacation abroad, nor was his stay in Romania really a vacation. Khrushchev wanted to go down in history as the Soviet leader who had exported communism to Central and South America. Romania was the only Latin country in the Soviet bloc, and Khrushchev wanted to enroll her “Latin leaders” in his new “liberation” war.

The movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology. During those years, the KGB had a penchant for “liberation” movements. The National Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), created by the KGB with help from Fidel Castro; the “National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB with help from “Che” Guevara; and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), created by the KGB with help from Yasser Arafat are just a few additional “liberation” movements born at the Lubyanka — the headquarters of the KGB.

The birth of Liberation Theology was the intent of a 1960 super-secret “Party-State Dezinformatsiya Program” approved by Aleksandr Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB, and by Politburo member Aleksey Kirichenko, who coordinated the Communist Party’s international policies. This program demanded that the KGB take secret control of the World Council of Churches (WCC), based in Geneva, Switzerland, and use it as cover for converting Liberation Theology into a South American revolutionary tool. The WCC was the largest international ecumenical organization after the Vatican, representing some 550 million Christians of various denominations throughout 120 countries.

I was not involved in the creation of Liberation Theology per se. From Sakharovsky I learned, however, that in 1968 the KGB-created Christian Peace Conference, supported by the world-wide World Peace Council, was able to maneuver a group of leftist South American bishops into holding a Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin, Colombia. The Conference’s official task was to ameliorate poverty. Its undeclared goal was to recognize a new religious movement encouraging the poor to rebel against the “institutionalized violence of poverty,” and to recommend the new movement to the World Council of Churches for official approval.

The Medellin Conference achieved both goals. It also bought the KGB-born name “Liberation Theology.” (emphasis added) (Stephanie Block, The Marxist Core of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.)

This helps to explain the great affinity that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in particular, has had for the World Council of Churches, which is as much a Communist stronghold as the World Health Organization, which is a total stooge of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and it buttresses the assertion made repeatedly on this site and by many others over the years of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s own preferential option for Marxism, which he endorsed in a left-handed manner at the infamous Medellin Conference on August 24, 1968, and when addressing the CELAM conference on August 24, 1968, in Medellin, Colombia and when he issued Octagesima Adveniens, May 15, 1971:

23. Through the statement of the rights of man and the seeking for international agreements for the application of these rights, progress has been made towards inscribing these two aspirations in deeds and structures (16). Nevertheless various forms of discrimination continually reappear-ethnic cultural, religious, political and so on. In fact, human rights are still too often disregarded, if not scoffed at, or else they receive only formal recognition. In many cases legislation does not keep up with real situations. Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equity. In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due to the poor and the special situation they have in society: the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others. If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an overemphasis of equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.

In this field, everyone sees the highly important contribution of the Christian spirit, which moreover answers man's yearning to be loved. "Love for man, the prime value of the earthly order" ensures the conditions for peace, both social peace and international peace, by affirming our universal brotherhood (17).  (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick, Octagesima Adveniens, May 15, 1971.)

This was nothing other than an attempt to graft a Marxist diatribe onto the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, and it had nothing to do with commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.

Love for "man, the prime value of the earthly order," not love of Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

"Love for man," of course is one of the chief tenets of Marxism, something that the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn noted at his famous commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "communism is naturalized humanism.'     

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.   

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism's crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)  

Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick believed in "man" as he attempted in Octagesima Adveniens, May 15, 1971, to graft a Marxist diatribe onto the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King that had nothing to do with commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891. Montini/Paul VI's ideological sloangeering helped to let loose a series of Soviet armed and financed and Cuban trained revolutions throughout Central America in the name of serving the “Gospel.”

The only “gospel” that the counterfeit church of conciliarism serves is that of the adversary himself as it helps to play its own part in the advent of Antichrist and the formal establishment of the One World Government to which the One World Religion will be entirely subservient as it has shown itself repeatedly with Communist dictators in all parts of the world, including the Castro brothers themselves.

Always Using the Shield of Our Lady of Mount Carmel

We must remember that we are in Our Lady’s loving hands and that she will take care of us during this time of apostasy and betrayal in which we live at the very time that God has appointed for us from all eternity to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

The time of overt persecution is at hand. Random death faces us all, especially in America’s major cities,

but almost everywhere else. The “cancel” culture is at the ready to “cancel” each of us, although my own academic career was “cancelled” long ago because of my efforts to propagate the Faith as best I knew how, despite my own sins and failings, at the time in my college courses, and even the work of this site in commentaries such as this one has been “cancelled” by anti-sedevantists, who would rather quote secular commentators than admit that there is anything worthwhile being written by anyone who has come to the conclusion that the See of Saint Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. The “thought police” are thus everywhere.

Then again, obscurity and humiliation are great gifts from the good God to remind us again and again that we must do our work for His greater honor and glory as the consecrated slaves of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins and to pray fervently for the conversion of all men to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no social order.

As always, therefore, we must rely tenderly and confidently in the maternal intercession of Our Lady, she who is the Mother God and the Mediatrix of All Graces, to make sure that her Divine Son, Christ the King, does not “cancel” us at the moment of our Particular Judgment whereon our eternity depends. We must be willing to suffer joyfully, to pray for the conversion of salvation of all men and to remain steadfast in our complete and faithful devotion to the prayerful recitation of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary every day. Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in the end.

Today, Monday, July 13, 2020, is the Feast of Pope Saint Anacletus and the one hundred third anniversary of Our Lady’s third apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Lucia dos Santos, in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, when she permitted them to see hell itself and to remind them to pray for end of the spread of the errors of Russia by means of the Holy Rosary and devotion to her own Sorrowful  and Immaculate Heart:

"Continue to come here every month. In October, I will tell you who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle for all to see and believe."

Lucia made some requests for sick people, to which Mary replied that she would cure some but not others, and that all must say the rosary to obtain such graces, before continuing: "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

"To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

Mary specifically told Lucia not to tell anyone about the secret at this stage, apart from Francisco, before continuing: "When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: 'O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.' "

Lucia asked if there was anything more, and after assuring her that there was nothing more, Mary disappeared off into the distance. (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)

We must suffer to go to Heaven, and would it not be great to suffer martyrdom for the sake of her Divine Son and the Holy Faith during these challenging times? Many saints prayed for martyrdom, a prayer that was granted to many but denied to others so that they could win their salvation by enduring the white martyrdom of their daily duties and of embracing every cross is sent them, including that of rejection by families, friends and former coworkers and acquaintances, with complete abandonment to the will of God and a fervent love of His Divine Son’s Most Holy Cross.

The Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel occurs this year on Thursday, July 16, 2020, a feast that should remind us of the following protections offer by those who wear her shield against the contagion of sin and error and to fulfill the conditions attached thereto:

Wear the Brown Scapular continuously.

Observe chastity according to one’s state in life (priest, consecrated religious, married, single).

Recite daily the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary or observe the fasts of the Church together with abstaining from meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays or with permission of a priest, say five decades of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary or with permission of a priest, substitute some other good work.

Our Lady has promised the following to those who an enrolled in and wear her Brown Scapular and who fulfill its obligations:

Whoever dies wearing this shall not suffer eternal fire. (As told by Our Lady to Saint Simon Stock.)

I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory I shall free so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting. (As told by Our Lady to Pope John XXII.)

It is interesting that Our Lady appeared to James d'Euse, the Pope John XXII who taught error on a matter that had not yet been defined solemnly as erroneous by the Church, and that he, after he became the Supreme Pontiff, acted decisively on this private revelation, as Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., relates in The Liturgical Year:

In the night between the 15th and 16th of July of the year 1251, the gracious Queen of Carmel confirmed to her sons [the Carmelites] by a mysterious sign the right of citizenship she had obtained for them in their newly adopted countries [of the West]; as mistress and mother of the entire religious state she conferred upon them with her queenly hands the scapular, hitherto the distinctive garb of the greatest and most ancient family of the West. O giving St. Simon Stock this badge, ennobled by contact with her sacred fingers, the Mother of God said to him: 'Whosoever shall die in this habit shall not suffer eternal flames.' But not against hell fire alone was the all-powerful intercession of the Blessed Mother to be felt by those who should wear the scapular. In 1316, when every holy soul was imploring heaven to put a period to that long and disastrous widowhood of the Church, which followed in the death of Clement V, the Queen of Saints appeared to James d'Euse, whom the world was soon to hail as John XXII; she foretold to him his approaching elevation to the Sovereign Pontificate, and at the same time recommended him to publish the privilege she had obtained from her Divine Son for her children of Carmel--viz., a speedily deliverance from purgatory. 'I, their Mother, will graciously go down to them on the Saturday after their death, and all whom I find in purgatory I will deliver and will bring to the mountain of life eternal.' These are the words of our Lord herself, quoted by John XII in the Bull which he published for the purpose of making known the privilege and which was called the Sabbatine Bull on account of the day chosen by the glorious benefactress for the exercise of her mercy.

We are aware of the attempts made to nullify the authenticity of these heavenly concessions; but our extremely limited time will not allow us to follow up these worthless struggles in all their endless details. The attack of the chief assailant, the too famous Lounoy, was condemned by the Apostolic See, and after, as well as before, these contradictions, the Roman Pontiffs confirmed, as much as need be, by their supreme authority, the substance and even the letter of the precious promises. The reader may find in special works the enumeration of the many indulgences with which the Popes have, time after time, enriched the Carmelite family, as if earth would vie with heaven in favouring it. The munificence of Mary, the pious gratitude of her sons for the hospitality given them by the West, and lastly, the authority of St. Peter's successors, soon made these spiritual riches accessible to all Christians, by the instruction of the Confraternity of the holy Scapular, the members whereof participate in the merits and privileges of the whole Carmelite Order. Who shall tell the graces, often miraculous, obtained through this humble garb? Who could count the faithful now enrolled in the holy militia? When Benedict XIII, in the eighteenth century, extended the feast of July 16 to the whole Church, he did but give an official sanction to the universality already gained by the cultus of the Queen of Carmel. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.) 

We must not never disparage the approved private revelations of the Queen of Mercy to help us erring sinners fight off the ravages of sin in our daily lives and to help us to be truly repentant for our sins as we endeavor to cooperate with the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through her loving hands to amend our lives and to live penitentially in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. It is no accident that Our Lady appeared clothed as the Queen of Mount Carmel in her last apparition to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in the Grotto of Massabielle near Lourdes, France, on July 16, 1858, nearly one hundred fifty-two years ago, or that she appeared clothed as that same Heavenly Queen in the last of the apparitions that were seen by Lucia dos Santos during the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917. We must embrace this approved private revelations and recognize them as mercies that Our Lady has pleaded for us from her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Indeed, these mercies have been extended to us in this Age of Mary, starting with Our Lady's apparitions, starting on July 18, 1830, to Saint Catherine Laboure in the convent of the Daughters of Charity on the Rue de Bac in Paris, France, that gave us, as a result of the apparition on November 27, 1830, the Miraculous Medal, which converted the Catholic-hating Jew Alphonse Ratisbonne on January 20, 1842. It was in that same convent of the Daughters of Charity on the Rue de Bac that Our Lady appeared to Sister Justine Bisqueyburo on September 8, 1840, to give to her the Green Scapular the salvation most specifically of non-Catholics and fallen away Catholics.

The Brown Scapular is a garment in which we must be enrolled and fulfill the obligations attached to its promises. The Green Scapular is, as my dear wife Sharon, whose apostolate is to dispense Green Scapulars and then to pray "Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death" every day for each person to whom she has given this badge of Our Lady's love and protection, a "get out of jail free pass" for those who have no other hope, humanly speaking, to be introduced to the true Faith. People convert to the true Faith (and I mean to the true Catholic Faith) because of the Green Scapular.

We must remember that it was on Mount Carmel that Elias slew the false prophets of Baal, and that, as a Catholic priest noted seven years ago, Eliseus, his servant, asked for a "double portion" of Elias's spirit. The priest, Father Denis McMahon, who was preaching at the Requiem Mass of Father Vincent Joachim Bowes, O.C.D., on April 24, 2009, noted that it was that same "double spirit" of Elias was given by Our Lady when she gave Saint Simon Stock her Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel on July 16, 1251, as a protection against all spiritual dangers, including the false ecumenism of our own day which so offends God in our day as it offended Him as it was practiced on Mount Carmel when Elias slew the prophets of Baal. 

False ecumenism makes a mockery of His First Commandment. Father Vincent Joachim of the Holy Family, Father McMahon said, stressed time and time again the importance of the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel as a protection against the false ecumenism of the Modernists that has been practiced with such abandon by the conciliar "popes" and their minions. Father Vincent Bowes, O.C.D., the beloved Father Vincent Joachim of the Holy Family, loved God and he mourned that He was being so offended by men who claimed to be representatives of the Catholic Church on earth.

Do we mourn the offenses given to God by the conciliar revolutionaries as they praise false ecumenism and engage in acts of idol worship that many millions of Catholics, including those in the first centuries of the Church who refused to offer even one grain of incense to the pagan idols of the Roman Empire as well as those Catholics who shed their blood for refusing to acknowledge the nonexistent legitimacy of various Protestant sects or of according them any mark respect and praise?

Do we?

We should do well to consider that the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is a protection against the false religion of conciliarism itself.

Our Lady herself has told us this through Saint Dominic even before she had given the Brown Scapular to Saint Simon Stock:

One day, through the Rosary and the Scapular, I will save the world.

Why are we so afraid?

Vivat Christus Rex

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now, and at the hour of our death.

Our Lady of Fatima, 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.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

 

Pope Saint Anacletus, pray for us.

Appendix A

Pax and the Subversion of the Catholic Church in Poland

While not directly related to the subject of this book, the Report on Pax prepared by Cardinal [Stefan] Wyszynski [Archbishop of Warsaw and Primate of Poland] is of such vital interest and seems to be so little known in the English-speaking world that this Appendix, describing the background of the movement and quoting in full the text of the Cardinal's Report on Pax, was drawn up by the translator with the agreement of the author. Moreover it will be clear to the reader that this document is not unrelated to the subject of the book as a whole, since it exposes a very determined attempt by the Soviet secret police to destroy the Church in Poland by seeking to penetrate and subvert it from within, frontal coercion and force having been completely defeated by the faith of the people. We have seen in earlier chapters in the present work how Freemasonry failed to impose itself on the nations by force and how, in consequence, and especially since the Second World War, it has resorted to subversion from within. The interest of the document, we are about to lay before the reader is that it presents a particularly clear and recent instance of Communism's like failure to eradicate faith by force, and of its resorting to similar tactics to achieve its ends.

Before we quote the text of the Cardinal's letter, it will be useful to give the reader the background to this organisation which was set up in Poland by the Soviet political police, to infiltrate the Church with Communist cells and impregnate it with Marxism. Originally a Polish party, Pax spread throughout the countries of Western Europe and took root principally in France. The following information is taken from Lucjan Blit: The Eastern Pretender, a biography of Boleslaw Piasecki, the founder of Pax, and one of the most remarkable men behind the Iron Curtain.

In 1946 Piasecki and a number of progressive Catholics set themselves up as a group which published a weekly Today and Tomorrow and talked vaguely about marching with the times and being realistic, by which they meant that any political regime in Poland would have to be acceptable to Moscow. The majority of Catholics viewed these moves with suspicion, and it came as no great surprise when in March 1947 the Polish Primate, the late Cardinal Hlond, stated that Piasecki's daily Universal Voice could not be considered representative of the Catholic community.

Shortly after his installation as Primate of Poland, Cardinal Wyszynski, in a pastoral letter, warned all believers of the activities and aims of Piasecki's Pax and the progressive Catholics whom he described as “traitors to the Catholic Church”. On 12^th February,  1950, the Cardinal said that they were lacking in Catholic sense and learning, and yet they wanted to teach the bishops; furthermore, he rejected their claim to publish genuine Catholic works while at the same time attacking the Holy See, and he ex[licitly condemned them for assisting the Communist regime in the destruction of Catholic organisations.

“As soon as the party and state went over to an open attack on the hierarchy Pax gave full support to all the actions, political moral and even of a police nature, which the regime adopted against the Church. Not once during the whole period of brutal repressions between 1948 and October 1956 did Pax, or the progressive Catholics, or Piasecki himself, as much as whisper any criticism. They were not even neutral. Whole-heartedly they supported the actions of the Stalinist Politbureau against people who they claimed were their co-religious in the same Church.” (L. Blit: The Eastern Pretender, p. 168)

The trial of Bishop Kaczmarek, one of some 2,000 priests interned by the secret police purely for exercising their functions as priests, is an example of the way the Pax movement assisted in the persecution of the hierarchy of the Church to which they claimed to belong. Far from protesting at the trial, some members of Pax made public speeches in which they attacked the accused and the hard-pressed Episcopate, who were unable to answer their accusations, which were repeated day after day in the Communist Press and propaganda apparatus. Other, bolder spirits, actually appeared at the trial itself as prosecution witnesses and condemned the hierarchy in accordance with the line the regime had taken.

Among their other activities, in November 1952 Piasecki and a number of his more prominent followers announced that they had joined the international Communist peace movement, and Pax sent a delegation to North Vietnam to persuade the large Catholic community there to give the Communist rulers of the country their unreserved collaboration.

At the height of the anti-clerical campaign Piasecki published his own Essential Problems, the main theme of which was described in the following terms:

“Religion, instead of being the most noble and sublime means for the achievement of salvation, was to become for Piasecki a means of securing for the Church a temporal existence in the revolutionary world. Consequently all Catholics, including bishops and priests, were required to use Catholicism as a source of inspiration for the building of Socialism and to devote most of their time and energy to the realisation of social and economic goals, determined by the atheistic leaders of the state.” (Survey, December 1961, quoted by L. Blit.)

This book was place on the Vatican Index, and thus is a prohibited book for Catholics, throughout the world, and on 8^th June, 1955, the Congregation of the Holy Office condemned the propagandizing of ideas which urged Catholics to help Communism to victory, as voice especially in Piasecki's weekly Today and Tomorrow.

In its commentary to the decree of the Holy Office the official Vatican daily, the Osservatore Romano, explained that Piasecki's theory, developed in his Essential Problems, that Communism continues the works of creation and that Communists even while combating religion and the Church are by their work paying homage to God, must be considered blasphemous by any Christian and is certainly in complete contradiction to the basic dogma of the Catholic Church.” (L. Blit: The Eastern Pretender,. p.180)

Following this step by the Vatican, the next day the Polish government banned the circulation in Poland of the Osservatore Romano and the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Although Pax adopted an attitude of defiance. Piasecki was forced to give in, and his book was withdrawn and the weekly was stopped suddenly in 1956. However, this did not deter Piasecki from stating a new weekly, Kierunki (Directions) in May of the same year, in which he openly demanded recognition from the party for himself and Pax not just as “auxiliaries” but as direct allies of the party who were “entitled to co-govern the country”. The Vatican's reply To this move came in the summer of the following year, when the Congregation of the Holy Office forbade members of religious orders and priest to have their books published by Pax or to write in any of Piasecki's periodicals or to assist their distribution among the faithful.

Piasecki's rise to power since the end of the war was little short of meteoric. Successfully riding out every kind of political weather, he consistently defended the role of Soviet Russia as the leader of the Communist world, notwithstanding accusations from L’Osservatore Romano of accepting funds from Soviet and Polish government sources, and aimed to secure the recognition of the Communist party as their natural ally as the first step towards his ultimate goal of ruling Poland. In this way, within ten years he had become master of a vast economic empire, a unique and perhaps the most astonishing spectacle which has ever been seen behind the Iron Curtain.

On the face of it, this is an impossibility. The existence of a huge capitalist enterprise within the bosom of the Iron Curtain seems to defy all the most sacred canons of Communist philosophy. What is the explanation of this paradox?

“The decisive reasons for the enormous profits which the Pax enterprise made, and which gave Piasecki an independence which no other organisation outside the Communist party could dream of enjoying, were that the Pax organization, contrary to all laws in Communist Poland and the publicly expressed intention of its economic leaders, was given privileges which not only no other organization of a similar character had but which even the enterprise of the Communist state did not enjoy. All state enterprises pay income tax and transfer their profits to the state. Not so the Pax publishing firm.”  (L. Blit: The Eastern Pretender,. p.155)

Apart from this advantage, Piasecki enjoyed generous supplies of newsprint and machine space, which had been strictly rationed by the party after the war, and had a virtual monopoly in publishing the works of many authors not necessarily sympathetic to the party. This, and the assurance of protection and even material support from the security organs of the Polish and Soviet Russian states, as well as the Soviet secret police, which controlled every tolerated form of Polish publish life and political or social activity after the war, enabled Piasecki to turn Pax into the second largest publishing firm in Poland.

Piasecki's alliance with the political police was openly described in a sensational article by Leopold Tyrmand, which was published on 18^th November, 1956 by the popular Warsaw weekly, Swiat (Issue No. 47 – the censor's number is given on page 23 at B-34), whose chief editor Stafan Arski, was a member of the central party organs.

“It took the Pax people a full year to come out with a statement which they rejected the accusation. By then the censorship was back to its old form. The opponents of Pax could not pursue the matter publicly any further.”  (L. Blit: The Eastern Pretender,. p.147)

Nevertheless, some public scrutiny was permitted, for in July 1957 a detailed well-documented and highly sensational article by Grzegorz Ptsarski, a member of the Communist party and a prominent Polish economist, appeared in the Warsaw weekly Zycie Gospodarcze (Economic Life) Pax was shown to pursue its political and propaganda activities with financial lavishness. They were mostly concerned with Poland, but Pisarski quotes the sum of one hundred and ten thousand rubles allotted for use in Pax's activities in the U.S.A., England, Italy, France and other countries in the West.

All the evidence we have produced above would seem to confirm that the real reason for the apparent phenomenon of Pax's survival and existence is the explanation given to the author of Piasecki's biography by high officials of the Communist party in Warsaw. They told him:

Pax is of use to us. It may be of less value in times when we have a moment of real truce with the Church hierarchy. But we are a Marxist state. We are atheists and want the future Polish generations to consider materialism as the only philosophical explanation of the rules of governing the universe and the fate of humanity. Piasecki may be a Catholic, but he is certainly against the Militant Church and against the Polish Episcopate interfering with the activities of the party and state, even in the question of educating the young. We will use him because, willingly or unwillingly, he makes our task easier.”  (L. Blit: The Eastern Pretender,. p.208)

It is against this background of events that the Secretariat of the French Episcopate received a letter on 6^th June, 1963 from His Grace the Apostolic Nuncio in which he stated that the Cardinal Secretary of State at the Vatican had asked him to draw the attention of the Episcopate and the Major Religious Superiors in France to the enclosed reprot on the activities of Pax, drawn up by Cardinal Wyszynski, who had summed it up in the following words:

“Firstly, Pax is not an organization with a cultural objective. It is purely a medium for the dissemination of propaganda in disguise in order to denigrate the work of the Church in Poland by spreading false information.

“Secondly, this movement receives its orders and directives from the Communist party, the secret police, and the office for religious affairs.

“Thirdly, in return for its submission, Pax enjoys certain facilities and support as for example, in its publications and commercial undertakings.”

There now follows below the complete text of the report prepared by Cardinal Wyszynski, as forwarded to the Bishops and Major Religious Superiors in France:

For some time, but especially since the beginning of the Council, the Pax group, which claims to be the “movement of progressive Catholics in Poland”, has been intensifying its propaganda activities in the West, and particularly in France, disseminating false or ambiguous reports which are damaging to the Church.

Pax exploits the ignorance of certain Catholic circles in the West in respect to what has come to be called “the Polish experiment in co-existence” as well as the enforced silence of Polish bishops, priests and laymen who refuse to give any information concerning “the realities of the Polish situation”, knowing full well that on their return every word they said would be subject to the scrutiny of the police and that the least indiscretion on their part could lead to severe reprisals.

Under these conditions, which favour the proliferation of erroneous opinions to the great detriment of the Church in Poland a word of warning is timely.

ONE Outside Poland Pax represents itself as a “movement” of progressive Polish Catholics. As a result it tends to be compared to Western progressive movements, which, living under democratic forms of government, are completely free to proclaim their opinions and sympathies for the programmes and leaning of the political Left of their respective countries.

In reality, Pax is not a “movement” but a closely-connected organ of the police machine, directly responsible to the Minister of the Interior and blindly obedient to the directives of the secret police, the U.B.

This fact is well known in Poland, but people realise that it is dangerous to talk about it. Once only, under cover of the “thaw” in October 1956, Communists and Catholics joined in denouncing and stigmatising publicly the character and activities of this secret Stalinist agency of the U.B. It was an outburst of long pent-up resentment against notorious and feared double agents whose activities sickened not only Catholics but also honest Communists, Let us emphasize that at this time the Communist Press was particularly savage in its attacks on Pax. It even went so far as to show the very special favours it enjoyed from the government, including among others, exceptions from all income tax, lucrative concessions and a monopoly in certain reserved fields of production (religious publications and sacred art), which had turned Pax into a veritable capitalist trust under a Communist regime.

The freedom of expression due to the “thaw” of 1956 was quickly throttled, but the Polish people had made full use of the interval to find out truths which had been so long withheld from them, and never, since then, has Pax been able to exercise the slightest effective influence over the masses, the labourers and peasants, from whom it has become completely cut off.

The justification of its existence on the political chess-board of the Communist party is thus reduced to its efficacy abroad where its collaboration is proving to be most valuable. France, notably, was confided in a quite exceptional manner to the services of Pax, discreetly supported by Polish diplomatic circles.

TWO In order to understand fully the activities of Pax, it is as well to go back to its beginnings. Its founder Piasecki, condemned to death by the Soviet authorities for resistance activities, saved his life at the price of an explicit undertaking to penetrate and enslave the Church for the benefit of the Communist revolution.

 From the beginning, therefore, Pax has borne the character of a strictly controlled secret agency. All its members are salaried officials (the forms of payment vary) appointed to carry out and report on definite projects.

Their orders emanate from the central office of the Communist party. Mr. Piasecki is directly subject to the “Security Office” (U.B.) and to the Office for Religious Affairs, which has absolute, and in fact, total power over everything concerning the Catholic Church in Poland. (Footnote When required to deal with questions which concern the Church, even if only indirectly, the Polish Ministry of Defense did, for example, when seminarist were called up for military service as a reprisal for the “over stubborn” attitude of the Bishops) and refer them automatically to the Office for Religious Affairs, the head of which Mr. Zabinski, a former Stalinist sent into retirement in 1956 and since rehabilitated, disposes of practically unlimited powers for dealing with all matter concerning the Church. This office and its director are commonly called “the Tribunal of the Communist Inquisition” and its Grand Inquisitor.

Piasecki's role has not always been easy. He has had to steer between the reefs of the “Party” and the “Anti'Party”. Disgraced after the thaw of 1956, he has been able to re-establish his position bit by bit, owing to the valuable services he is rendering abroad, particularly in France.

In Poland, Pax is completely cut off from the masses of peasants and labourers, who are more independent and have greater freedom to demonstrate their distrust. The intellectuals, especially the writers are clearly more vulnerable due to the fact that Pax owns a prosperous publishing business, which pays well. In a country in which even the government admits that salaries seldom reach the minimum subsistence level, the temptation to collaborate with Pax is obviously great and a refusal to collaborate in any way presupposes an unusual strength of character. Some recognized writers have allowed themselves to be enlisted for the material advantages offered. No one is unaware of the influence Pax has over certain intellectuals due to these material advantages, nor that stripped of its funds, it would lose overnight the only power of attraction it possesses in Poland.

Above this starveling mob of unwilling profiteers and traffickers in progressivism, there is a limited circle of “initiates”, who form a closed and impermeable caste bound by pledges, and even by precise and binding oaths. Piasecki is the undisputed head of Pax at all levels.

In 1955, Piasecki revealed his capasities with the publication (at the height of the Stalinist terror and during the imprisonment  of Cardinal Wyszynski and other Polish bishops) of his book Essential Problems, which has since been condemned by the Holy Office. This condemnation obliged Piasecki to revise his position. Western Catholics loudly publicised his submission without suspecting that was only as one who had “submitted”, and who thus was not outside but inside the Church, that he was of the slightest value to the Communist party. Leaving aside therefore, the possible merits of the withdrawal of his book and the new orientation of his review, let us not forget that once exposed, Pax had no alternative but to submit. It is significant that since then, and until very recently, Pax has shown a great concern for orthodoxy in its publications.

FOUR In fact only the tactics have changed. The strategic plan has not been altered in any way. For some months, Pax has been busy reviving and disseminating the far-fetched idea of Essential Problems.

It is noteworthy that the years of Cardinal Wyszynski's imprisonment mark the apogee of Piaseck's power. It was at this time that, on the orders of its mighty master, Pax took over all the Catholic publications that had up to then been independent. Under de-Stalinisation it suffered an eclipse  and for a time barely ticked over. It is only quite recently that Piasecki's star has begun to shine once more, thanks to the task entrusted to him in connection with the Ecumenical Council.

FIVE Before considering in detail the character of his mission to the Council, let us recall briefly the principles which have never ceased to guide Piasecki's activities, and which, moreover have always dovetailed faultlessly into the communist party plan. (This identity of outlook and even of expression strikes every reader of the Polish Press. The Pax publications are a servile reproduction, even down to their very use of expressions, of the official Press. There seem to be an invisible conductor whose task it is to score in the minutest details. Thus quite recently the servile conformity in the opinions of the entire Polish Press on the Council leapt to the eye.  We do not know of one single instance in which Pax has given proof of independence by siding with the Church and against its paymasters.)

“To put an end to religion”, said Lenin, “it is much more important to introduce class war into the bosom of the Church that to attack religion directly.”

The technique is to act as a solvent and form cells of disunity among the faithful, but expecially in the ranks of the priests and religious; split the bishops into two blocs, the “integralists” and the “progressives”; use a thousand pretexts to align the priests against their bishops; drive a subtle wedge into the masses by cleverly contrived distinctions between “reactionaries” and “progressives”; never attack the Church directly but, “only for her own good” attack “her antiquated structures” and the abuses which disfigure her.” If necessary appear to be more Catholic that the Pope; skillfully undermine the Church by attracting into ecclesiastical circles groups of “discontented” Catholics, so as to lure the former bit by bit “into the fertile climate of class struggle”;  slowly and patiently work for this “adaption” by introducing new forms into traditional ideas.  The ambiguity of certain terms, such as “progressivism” and “intergralism”, “open” and “closed” attitudes, democracy and socialism, and so on, which have entirely different meanings in France and in Poland, help to create misunderstandings.

In short, it is not a question of “liquidating” the Church, but of putting the Church in step by enlisting her in the service of the Communist revolution.

“We are working to facilitate an inevitable historical process which will compel the Church to reconsider her position:, wrote Piaceski in an editorial on 11^th November 1955.

At the same time, Piasecki strives to exploit the messianic ideas which flatter nation amour proper: might not Poland be called by Providence to serve as the model for co-existence between the Catholic Church and the Communist state?

“Obviously”, he writes, “in order that Poland may serve as a model, it is essential that Polish Catholicism becomes progressive as quickly as possible and collaborates increasingly actively in the construction of a socialist economy. That is the daily task of our progressive movement.” (Whitsun, 1956)

SIX In order to achieve these objectives, it was absolutely necessary for “intelligent Catholics, both priest and laymen, to pluck up the requisite courage and valid arguments in order to make the bishops hear reason and win them over to a true appreciation of temporal politico-social reality.”

When these attempts by Pax failed, “in the autumn of 1953 a fresh very determined effort had to be made in order to assure a normal development in the relations between the Church and state . . . .by the decision of the government forbidding Wyszynski all activities.”  ( Piasecki: Essential Problems, pp. 184-185)

This “decision” seemed to open before Piasecki an unlimited field of action. Drunk with success, he then openly took the part of the government against the prisoner bishops.

The brutal frankness of his announcement revealed his true character to the people. During the years of Cardinal Wyszynski's imprisonment, Piasecki, sure of himself and of his masters, no longer hid his hand. Cynically, he only assigned a “functional role” to the Church in the socialist camp, that of a “productive function verifiable throughout history.” ( Piasecki: Essential Problems, ibid.)

The release of Cardinal Wyszynski in the autumn of 1956 was a grave personal set-back to Piasecki, and the resentment born of it explains the rancour which he pours into his campaigns of denigration, insinuation, nay calumny of which Cardinal Wyszynski more than any other Polish bishop bears the brunt. Thought ineffective in Poland, this campaign is not without influence on foreigners who do not know the facts of the situation.

Here by way of example, are some of the main charges insidiously put about through Piasecki's agencies:

The Polish bishops are said to be “Great Lords” in the feudal manner, well-furnished with the goods of this world, and keeping the priests and faithful at their distance.

The laity are supposedly “dept down” by bishops who deny them all initiative under an out-of-date form of clericalism.

The truth is that in Poland today, no bishop has a bank account, for the simple reason that it would be immediately confiscated by the Treasury. The facade of “Great Lords”, therefore, conceals a genuine poverty, which no one in Poland likes advertising (especially to foreigners), and which entails living from day to day on such means as Providence may provide. But there is something more. The Polish bishops guard their poverty jealously because through it they are brought into close contact with the masses. When, during the “thaw” in 1956, Gomulka's government offered to restore confiscated Church property to the Episcopate, the bishops, meeting in plenary session on 14^th December, 1956, unanimously declined the offer “in order to remain close to the heart of the masses”. A Polish bishop spends his life in pastoral visitation and feels perfectly at ease and “at home” among the peasants and labourers. This is a social phenomenon which is unknown in those countries where the masses have become dechristianised.

As for the laity, every bishop and every parish priest has his diocesan or parish “council”, which renders invaluable service and forms a veritable bastion against repressive measures by the Office for Religious Affairs. When such measures are implemented despite their opposition, the laity protest silently by attending church in their thousands. What bishop, having received some cruel blow the night before, has not seen the crowds of silent men gather at his Mass, old and young, their bearing grave and resolute: These laymen, denied the means for apostolate accorded in Western countries, by their character and numbers represent a force which the government fears, and which explains, at least in part, the exceptional position of the Church in Poland under a Communist government. Let us stress that no member of Pax is nor could become a member of the diocesan or parish councils.

Foreign visitors sponsored by Pax and shown only what their Pax guides want them to see, obviously know nothing of the true relationship between the laity and their pastor.

SEVEN With the calling of the Ecumenical Council, Piasecki was entrusted with a mission which has restored weight to both his political prestige and his finances.

One hundred million zlotys as an annual grant (instead of fifty million), one hundred regions as his sphere of operation, instead of thirty: such is the price paid in advance, for securing Piasecki's active participation in the exploitation of the Council for the benefit of the “socialist camp.”

It is a significant fact that it is Polish Communists who are disgusted by Piasecki's activities and who regard him as a “notorious double agent”, who keep the bishops informed and on their guard. “We want a straightforward ideological struggle”, they say, “not a system of oppression which uses the police machinery and administrative measure to achieve its ends”

It is interesting to note that some Polish atheist bodies occasionally invite the bishops to secret discussion on questions in which they are deeply interested, whereas they refuse to debate with Pax, which they distrust.

EIGHT It is abroad, therefore, that the only available field of action remains open to Pax. Having failed to disrupt the unity of the Polish Episcopate, Pax is now endeavoring to represent it as being in opposition both to John XXIII, who is acclaimed as “the Pope of co-existence”, and to the “open” and “progressive” French Episcopate.

Since the beginning of 1963 this thesis, which had been ceaselessly hammered out for some time, suddenly acquired a new depth and particular overtones. The style of the Pax press becomes increasingly virulent and aggressive.

The Encyclical Pacem in Terris was hailed noisily and “with deep satisfaction” as the “official consecration” and “coronation of the efforts” which Piasecki and his group had made for so long.

“the head of the Church has agreed with those who have pledged themselves to an ideology of co-existence and co-operation with those professing different ideologies, and that is precisely the essence of the programme of our political Left.”  (Slowo Powszechne 2^nd May 1963)

According to Pax, thanks to Pope John XXIII, the “tridentine era” in the history of the Church seems definitely over and a new epoch is beginning, “more open and more tolerant, ready for compromises.”

Of course, “John XXIII's line … calls of the Polish Episcopate to reconsider its out-of-date position and its attachment to the integralism of Pope Pius XII.” The Pax press insinuates that Cardinal Wyszynski and the Polish bishops are very disturbed by this “revolutionary” change of position by John XXIII and that with the help of “conservative elements” in the Vatican they are doing everything within their power to minimize the scope of this “historic” encyclical.

NINE it goes without saying that Pax refuses to see in Pacem in Terris anything that is contrary to its ideological professions, and the censor's refusal for the publication of the Polish translation of Mater et Magistra is passed over in silence.

On the other hand the duties of the Polish bishops which apparently derive from this great charter for co-existence, as Pax calls Pacem in Terris, are minutely described:

“The ground-work for the normalisation of relations between formal recongnition by the Polish Episcopate of the permanency of the socialist order with all this implies” (Slowo Powszechne 2^nd April 1963)

This statement of Jankowski's, editor of Slowo Powszechne, the Pax daily paper, leaves no doubt as to the conditions required by the Warsaw government for the “so keenly awaited” normalization of relation between the Church and State. It is a question, in short, of the acceptance in full of the notorious principle “Politics First”, by the total subordination of the Church to the advancement of the Communist revolution,

In order that there may be no doubt on this point Jankowski insists:

“The chief lesson to be drawn for the dialogue between the Catholic Left and the socialist world is above all the acknowledgment of the inescapable need to enrich the content of Socialism through christians allying themselves to the part of the working class.”  (Slowo Powszechne ibid.)

Jankowski instructs the bishops in this vein: the Pope “having formally recognized the primacy of the principle of peaceful “co-existence”, the Polish Episcopate should draw form it the consequences “consistent with the needs of Poland by publishing a special declaration which would be the stating point for the normalization of relations between Church and State.”  (Slowo Powszechne ibid.)

In other words, this “normalisation” can only take place at the price of a formal committal of the Church in Poland to the service of a particular party.

Now the representative of Pax “feel that Pope John has given them a mandate for action”.

Consequently, the Pax press lavishes advice and even thinly veiled threats on the Polish bishops, which recall in a striking manner the psychological campaigns of the Stalin era.

Thus the protests by Cardinal Wyszynski and the Polish Episcopate against the intrusion of the State into religious education, which may only be carried out within a Church, has met with the official displeasure of Pax.

In an editorial in Slowo Powszechne on 11^th April, 1963 headed “Responsibility for a long term view” we read the following:

“Peacful co-existence is not helped by carrying over into the realm of politics obvious philosophical contradictions. It is necessary to state with profound disquiet that, unhappily, some sermons of the Primate of Poland are not free from this tendency. Thus the Cardinal judged it opportune, in a sermon to the Religious Orders, to return to the question, which has already been settled and is in full operation of religious teaching outside the schools, and this in a way which, unfortunately does not help toward the solution of the difficult and complicated problems besetting the relations between the Church and State.”

However, three weeks before this article appeared, a pastoral letter dated 21dt March, 1963 had been circulated by the Polish Episcopate, giving the faithful a short review of the question which was supposedly “settled and in full operation”.

a.  Since the beginning of 1963 there has been a constant increase in the number of enactments aimed at religious teaching

b. The office for Religious Affairs forbade priest or curates, and nuns and even many lay catechist to teach catechism.

c. Religious instruction is forbidden in private houses, parish halls, chapels and even in certain churches.

d. Some Inspectors of Public Education demand from parish priests details reports on the religious instruction given in their churches, and they are increasing the number of their inspections.

e. The parish priests who refuse to draw up these reports are punished with crippling fines of up to ten thousand zlotys or more. Those who are unable to pay these exorbitant sums are threatened with, and often suffer, imprisonment or distraints.

f. All matter of intimidation and even threats are used to hinder children attending catechism. Parents who refuse to submit are heavily punished. Certain social groups (civil servants, agents of the U.B., etc.) are officially forbidden to send their children to catechism under pain of dismissal.

g. Every year thousands of children gather at the holiday centres, and a thousand and one pretexts are advanced to prevent attending Mass on Sundays. In some cases, they are kept behind barbed-wire enclosures for the duration of the parish Masses.

h. No priest has any right whatever to enter the boundaries of these holiday centres or camps.

i. The children who do succeed in escaping to Mass on Sundays are punished.

j. Young people who go out on excursions with a priest are followed by the police, often in helicopters, in order to check whether they are attending Mass is the shelter of the forest or the mountains. Caught in the act, students are often refused the right to continue their studies.

All this pettifogging vexation is in direct contradiction not only to the Constitution of the People's Republic of Poland and the agreement of 1950, but also to the international laws and charters, guaranteeing liberty of conscience and freedom of religious instruction, which are officially recognized by the Polish government.

Alerted by the Office for Religious Affairs, agents of the secret police visited every parish priest in Poland and forbade them to read this pastoral letter from their pulpits, since it would jeopardize the regime. Faced with their resistance, they resorted to threats and told the priests to expect serious consequences,

“Nothing could be worse than it is! Replied Mgr, Choromanski, the secretary of the Polish Episcopate,

10,The attitude of Pax, in the light of the pastoral letter of the Polish Episcopate, is most instructive, Far from associating itself with the protests of the bishops, who were faced with an agonizing situation, which arouses furious indignation in every honest man, even among unbelievers, Pax claimed that the question of religious instruction in Poland, which was more open to discussion that ever, “had been settled and was in full operation”. In so doing, it obeyed the Party to the detriment of the Church.

No one is deceived by these tactics in Poland. It is well known in advance that every Communist slogan published in the official press is taken up and minted anew by Pax. But it is not the same abroad, especially in France, where Pax's propaganda continues to grow in intensity, skillfully exploiting the sympathies and leaning of the French progressives and profiting from their support. The greatest secrecy is maintained about everything concerning Pax's direct subordination to the secret police in Poland.

On the other hand, the agents of Pax entrusted with assignments in France loudly proclaim the “persecutions” they allege they have suffered at the hands of the “retrograde” and “integralist” Polish Episcopate. This campaign of denigration is particularly aimed at Cardinal Wyszynski.

11.Having at its disposal considerable funds, Pax has been busy for some time building up its contacts and propaganda through the distribution in french, of a Review of the Catholic Press in Poland which serves its ends.

Pax also helps to arrange tours in Poland for Catholic priests and laymen, whom it sponsors, and who return to France with a very partial, one sided, and indeed erroneous view of the real situation in Poland. The French priests shown round by Pax only meet “patriotic priests” in Poland. The Polish bishops, decline to meet them fearing indiscretions. They return to France to spread reports about Poland, often over the wireless, as in the case of Father Molin, which, although perhaps they are made in all good faith bear little relation to the truth.

In France the agents of Pax are in permanent contact with certain groups of Catholic progressives who rally to their defense whenever they believe them threatended. Pax has managed in the main, to implant in certain French Catholic circles the belief that it is persecuted by Cardinal Wyszynski and the Polish Episcopate on account of its progressive tendencies.

This attitude was most distinctly revealed when a series of articles on the position of the church in Poland appear in La Croix in February 1962. The Reverend Father Wenger, editor of the paper, was immediately taken to task by priest and laymen who vehemently denied the contents of these articles taking advantage of the fact that they had traveled and toured in Poland.

For the most part they were friends of Pax and belonged to the Informations Catholiques Internationales.

When he was told that Cardinal Wyszynski had confirmed the accuracy of the facts reported in La Croix articles, not daring to attack him openly, de Broucker, editor of Informations Catholiques Internationales, revealed his thought in one of his “Letters to the friends of I.C.I.” distributed only to the inner circle of his followers in which he gave it to be understood that at the Council Cardinal Wyszynski ought to render an account of himself to the Cardinals of the Roman Church, “his judges and his peers”.

When the La Croix articles were about to appear as a book, the Ecclesiastical Censor for Paris informed the author  that “not having found any doctrinal errors in the text, he was unable to refuse the imprimatur, but that he hoped that the author would have the courage (to use his own words.) to suppress the chapter dealing with Pax.”

Once published, Pierre Lenert's book, The Catholic Church in Poland, became the object of a fierce campaign on the part of Pax and its French friends. Curiously, in its bulletin Pax admits that Lanert's book had been “circulated” during the first session of the Council, but omits to say that when the Polish bishops were consulted about it, they unanimously acknowledged the accuracy of the facts it contains. It is obvious that Pax is afraid of being exposed in France.

For its very existence is at stake. If it were recognised by Western Catholics that it is simply the agency of a police network entrusted with the penetration and subjection of the Church, it would lose its following in their ranks, and so doing it would lose its justification in the eyes of its paymaster.

It is not the communist who we fear,” said a Polish bishop. “what fills us with anguish is the spectacle of false brethren.”  (Cardinal Wyszynski's Report of Pax, sent to the French Episcopate by the Cardinal Secretary of State at the Vatican in June 1963)

After the manner of Communism, Freemasonry no longer sets itself up as the declared adversary of the Church. Instead of openly attacking her, it is seeking to infiltrate and penetrate her in order to impose its own humanitarian, naturalistic and anti-traditional conceptions.

The success of the general penetration of the force of subversion was made possible by the support, which at times attained a fanatical pitch, or progressive elements in the Church, and the last Council revealed to the whole world the strength and extent of their ascendancy. We are confronted here with a new and absolutely unprecedented situation in the history of Christianity, which would now appear to be in a state of permanent civil war. Subversion has entered the very heart of the Church, and all her traditional doctrines are being questions. This is a state of affairs the gravity of which cannot be concealed. (Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican, translated from the French into English by Timothy Tindal-Robertson, published by Britons Publishing Company, London, England, 1968, pp. 201-216. The entirety of this Appendix from Freemasonry and the Vatican can be found in Appendix A below.)

Appendix B

Bella Dodd’s Conversion to Catholicism

There are no co-incidences with God. On a cool crisp day in the fall of 1950, an immigration appeal case took Bella to Washington, D.C. As she walked along Pennsylvania Avenue toward the House Office Building at the Capitol, she ran into an old friend from the East Bronx neighborhood of her childhood. Christopher McGrath was now a congressional representative of the Twenty-seventh District. He invited her to his office to talk of old times. He could see that she was clearly distressed and frightened and asked her if she wanted FBI protection. When she refused, he said he would pray for her safety. Then he asked, “Bella, would you like to see a priest?” He had caught her off guard, but she fervently answered, “Yes, I would.” On the spot, the Congressman’s secretary made calls and secured an appointment with Monsignor Fulton Sheen of Catholic University.

Bella saw Monsignor Sheen for the first time at his home that evening in suburban Washington. As Christopher drove her there, she thought of the many lies and canards she had let go by – even told herself – against her Church when she worked for the Communists. She was genuinely fearful of meeting the monsignor. She need not have worried, for the good priest listened as she sobbed to him, “They say that I am against the Negro,” the accusation that hurt her most. He took her into his private chapel and they knelt before a statue of Our Lady. Bella felt the battle within cease and peace took its place. He then gave her a Rosary and told her to see him on his visit to New York in the winter. Now she realized that the Communist promise of the “brotherhood of man” was impossible without the Fatherhood of God.

Return to the Church

As Christmas approached, she again felt a horrible loneliness. Poor friends, whom Bella had provided lodging in her own home years before, invited her to their coldwater walkup in Harlem for a Christmas Eve dinner. They had a simple meal and afterward read from the Psalms. When Bella boarded the bus to return to her apartment, she was so immersed in her thoughts that she passed her stop and rode many blocks farther. She got off at Thirty-Fourth Street, although she had no recollection of it. She walked and walked to the West Side until she found herself in a church, the Church of Saint Francis of Assisi. Midnight Christmas High Mass was in progress. Here she found the true brotherhood of man. So moved was she by the beautiful Mass and the devotion of the people, that she again walked the streets of New Manhattan for hours, thinking and praying, before she returned to her apartment. She felt that she had been guided by the Star of Christmas that night.

Seemingly by chance, she met Mary Riley, a former teacher whom Bella knew and who now worked at the Board of Education. Mary was a committed and active Catholic who knew what Bella had been through. They spoke of the Faith, and Mary sent her a packet of books about Catholic programs, which were actively helping the disadvantaged. One of these books was Father James Keller’s You Can Change the World. He had written, “There can be no social regeneration without personal regeneration.” She was introduced to Father Keller and began to work at the headquarters of the group he had founded, The Christophers. How these Catholics impressed Bella with their simple devotion to their work of helping others and their deep commitment to their Catholic Faith!

Bella began to attend daily Mass at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church. She read Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and other classics of Catholic writers and thinkers. She purchased and studied prayer books and other books on the Faith. Then she began to receive regular instructions from Bishop Sheen himself. “I saw how history and fact and logic were inherent in the foundations of the Christian faith,” she states in her autobiography, School of Darkness.

As Easter of 1952 approached, the Bishop said that she was ready to be received into the Church. Since no baptismal record could be located in the little Italian town of her birth, Bishop Sheen conditionally baptized hefror in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. She then confessed and received Our Lord from Bishop Sheen’s hands the next morning at Mass. “It was as if I had been ill for a long time and had awakened refreshed after the fever had gone,” she wrote.

The Ordeal Ahead

The year 1953 saw Bella called up by a Congressional committee investigating the infiltration of Communists in the high places of the United States government. Her newfound faith strengthened her to face this ordeal with courage and determination. She swore before the Senate Internal Security subcommittee that there were a number of Communists in legislative offices in Congress and in a number of groups advising the President of the United States. She also testified to the Communist takeover of labor unions in the country and of her personal experience securing posts for members of the Party in the unions.

Perhaps most frightening of all was her testimony that during her time in the Party, “more than eleven hundred men had been put into the priesthood to destroy the Church from within,” the idea here being that these men would be ordained to the priesthood and progress to positions of influence and authority as monsignors and even bishops. She stated that “right now they are in the highest places in the Church” where they were working to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. These changes, she declared, would be so drastic that “you will not recognize the Catholic Church.” A few years later, in a conversation with a new Catholic friend, Alice von Hildebrand, Bella told her that there are four cardinals within the Vatican “who are working for the Communists.” This was twelve years before Vatican II. The reader can draw his own conclusions. (Bella Dodd: From Communist to Catholic.)

Appendix C

Roncalli’s Metz Agreement as Negotiated by Eugene Cardinal Tisserant

In preparation for the Council, Catholic bishops around the world were polled by mail by the Office of the Secretariat to learn their opinions on topics to be considered at the Council. Communism topped the list.

However, as documented in the previous chapter, at the instigation of Cardinal Montini, two months before the opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII approved the signing of the Metz Accord with Moscow officials, whereby the Soviets would permit two representatives from the Russian State Church to attend the Council in exchange for absolute and total silence at the Council on the subject of Communism/Marxism.

With the exceptions of Cardinal Montini, who instructed Pope John to enter into negotiations with the Soviets, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, who signed the Accord, and Bishop Jan Willebrands, who made the final contacts with the representatives of the Russian State Church, the Church Fathers at the Council were ignorant of the existence and nature of the Metz Agreement and the horrendous betrayal that it represented. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 1135-1136)

Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.

Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on the outskirts of the French city of Metz - never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 - two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place.

One dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène Tisserant, representing Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan Nikodin, who spoke in the name of the Russian Schismatic Church. 
This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century. 
What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1). 1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81. And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important? 
Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2). 2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15. This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime.
A half secret act 
Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts. “The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.
“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’ 
“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3). 3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66. Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. 
The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations 
This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaperRepublicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:

“It was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting of Cardinal Tisserant with archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place was the residence of Fr. Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny [on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the arrival of the prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this meeting, the conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s observers were established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of Cardinal Bea. Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation should be sent to Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character of the Council” (4). 4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.

The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:

“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during the Council” (5). 5. Ibid. p. 57

In a book published some time after this, German theologian Fr. Bernard Häring - who was secretary-coordinator at the Council for the redaction of Gaudium et Spes - revealed the more profound reason for the ‘pigeon-holing’ of apetition that many conciliar Fathers signed asking Paul VI and the Council to condemn Communism: “When around two dozen Bishops requested a solemn condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr. Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I were blamed like scapegoats. I have no reason to deny that I did everything possible to avoid this condemnation, which rang out clearly like a political condemnation. I knew that John XXIII had promised Moscow authorities that the Council would not condemn communism in order to assure the participation of observers of the Russian Orthodox church” (6). . . .

1. Catholic doctrine has always emphatically condemned Communism. It would be possible, should it be necessary, to publish a small book composed exclusively of anti-communist pontifical documents. 
2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century. 
3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request. 
4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear. The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader.  (The Council of Metz)

Appendix D

The Betrayal of Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty by Paul the Sick

The future Paul VI, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, directly betrayed Catholic priests sent behind the Iron Curtain by Pope Pius XII, effectively sentencing these priests to death or imprisonment:

An elderly gentleman from Paris who worked as an official interpreter for high-level clerics at the Vatican in the early 1950s told this writer that the Soviets blackmailed Montini into revealing the names of priests whom the Vatican had clandestinely sent behind the Iron Curtain to minister to Catholics in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet secret police were on hand as soon as the priests crossed over the Russian border and the priest infiltrators were either shot or sent to the gulag.

The extent to which Pope Paul VI was subject to blackmail by the enemies of the Church will probably never be known. It may be that, in so far as the Communists and the Socialists were concerned, blackmail was entirely unnecessary given Montini's cradle to grave fascination and affinity for the Left. On the other hand, the Italian Freemasons, M16, the OSS and later the CIA and the Mafia were likely to have used blackmail and extortion against Montini beginning early in his career as a junior diplomat, then as Archbishop of Milan and finally as Pope Paul VI. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, p. 1156.)

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick engaged in a policy of Communist surrender known as Ostpolik (East politics) wherein he appointed men as "bishops" in Communist countries behind the Iron Curtain who were friendly to, if not actual agents of, the Communist authorities in those countries. These "bishops" had a perverse "apostolic mandate," if you will, given then sub secreto by Montini: never criticize Communism or any Communist officials. In other words, be good stooges for various "people's" and "democratic" republics in exchange for promoting the false "gospel" of conciliarism.

It was also Montini/Paul VI who sold out the courageous Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary and the Archbishop of Budapest, Josef Cardinal Mindszenty when the latter, after taking refuge in the American Embassy in Budapest for a decade following the Hungarian Revolution in October of 1956, was forced out of the American Embassy as a result of Vatican pressure and then, after being told by Montini/Paul VI that he remained as the Archbishop of Budapest, has his primatial see declared vacant by the theologically, liturgically and morally corrupt Montini.

This scenario is described by an sedeplenist, Dr. Steve O'Brien, in a review of two motion pictures about the life of Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty:

The Prisoner, as it happened, was wrapped too soon because Mindszenty's story, which had seemed to be fini, had scarcely begun. By 1956 Stalin was dead and Khrushchev was making some unusual noises. In October the Hungarians rose in revolt. Mindszenty had no clue of what was happening on the street; his guards told him that the rabble outside the prison was shouting for his blood. A few days later he was released and indeed a mob of locals set upon him. But instead of ripping his flesh they grabbed at the liberated hero to kiss his clothes. When he returned to Budapest the deposed Reds quivered over this ghost who would not stay buried, but in a radio broadcast he counseled against revenge. The Soviets were not so forgiving, and tanks rumbled to crush this unpleasant incident. A marked man, Mindszenty sought asylum in the American embassy as his last resort. Now a second long Purgatory had begun. Pius spoke out repeatedly against this latest example of Soviet terror but the West, heedless of its own liberation rhetoric, was deaf.

When The Prisoner was released, the Church was still the implacable foe of communism. Frail Pius stood as a Colossus against both right and left totalitarianism. When Pius departed this world there ensued a moral void in the Vatican that has never been filled. By the early 1960s both the Western governments and the Novus Ordo popes decided that accommodation with the Communists was preferable to the archaic notions of Pius and Mindszenty. John XXIII and successor Paul VI welcomed a breath of fresh air into the Church, and that odor included cooperation with the Reds. The new Ostpolitik, managed by Paul's Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, hadn't room for Christian warriors of Mindszenty's stamp. The position of the Hungarian government was strengthened when Casaroli entered negotiations with the appalling regime of Janos Kadar. As the Cold War thawed, the freeze was put on Mindszenty. The American government made it understood that he was no longer welcome at the embassy. Worse still, Paul sent a functionary to persuade Mindszenty to leave, but only after signing a document full of stipulations that favored the Reds and essentially blaming himself for his ordeal. The confession that the Communists could not torture out of him was being forced on him by the Pope!

Driven from his native land against his wishes, Mindszenty celebrated Mass in Rome with Paul on October 23, 1971. The Pope told him, "You are and remain archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary." It was the Judas kiss. For two years Mindszenty traveled, a living testament to truth, a man who had been scourged, humiliated, imprisoned and finally banished for the Church's sake. In the fall of 1973, as he prepared to publish his Memoirs, revealing the entire story to the world, he suffered the final betrayal. Paul, fearful that the truth would upset the new spirit of coexistence with the Marxists, "asked" Mindszenty to resign his office. When Mindszenty refused, Paul declared his See vacant, handing the Communists a smashing victory.

If Mindszenty's story is that of the rise and fall of the West's resistance to communism it is also the chronicle of Catholicism's self-emasculation. In the 1950s a man such as Mindszenty could be portrayed as a hero of Western culture even though both American and English history is rife with hatred toward the Church. When the political mood changed to one of coexistence and detente rather than containment, Mindszenty became an albatross to the appeasers and so the Pilates of government were desperate to wash their hands of him. Still, politicians are not expected to act on principle, and therefore the Church's role in Mindszenty's agony is far more damning.

Since movies, for good or ill, have a pervasive influence on American culture, perhaps a serious film that told Mindszenty's whole story could have some effect on the somnolent Catholics in the West. Guilty of Treason and The Prisoner are artifacts of their day. An updated film that follows the prelate through his embassy exile and his pathetic end would be a heart-wrenching drama. But knowing what we know now, the Communists, despicable as they are, would no longer be the primary villains. (Shooting the Cardinal: Film and Betrayal in the Mindszenty Case)

As we know, of course, no true pope of the Catholic Church sold out Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty. A conciliar revolutionary did so, And it has been three other such revolutionaries who have conspired to sellout the the suffering Catholics of Red China over the course of the past thirty years ever since Bishop Kung was released from prison in 1986 and then left his homeland two years later. Yes, even the supposed anti-Communist, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, helped to pave the way for this sellout, which will be made official soon by "Pope Francis."

Appendix E

The Path From "Saint Paul II" to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Betrayal of Faithful Catholics in Red China (as excerpted from several articles on this site)

I first learned of the conciliar Vatican intentions with respect to selling out the faithful, suffering Catholics of Red China when attending what I thought was Holy Mass at the Church of Saint Francis of Assisi on West 31st Street in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, in the 1990s when a highly effeminate Franciscan presbtyter announced before the beginning of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical weekday service that his "concelebrant" was a "priest" from China who was studying at Saint Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, New York. "Ah," I said to myself, "China? Red China? The underground church? The 'Patriotic Association'?" 

Well, I began to get a clearer idea of what "Saint John Paul II" and his chief lieutenants, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, the prefect of the misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Angelo "Cardinal" Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State, were planning with respect to Red China when I stopped by one occasion in 1999, I believe, to spend some time in prayer before what I believed to be the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament at Holy Trinity Retreat House in Larchmont, New York. It was as I was leaving that I encountered Father Benedict Groeschel as he was taking a stroll on the grounds. It was then that he told me about that the the Vatican was supporting in the 1990s the training of seminarians for the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA) in American seminaries, including Saint Joseph's Seminary.

Father Benedict told me that this was all "hush, hush," as he termed it, and that the situation in Red China was very complex, full of double and triple agents. Father Groeschel said that the training of the CPCA priests at Saint Joseph's had the approval, at some level or another, of the Vatican. The hope was to "integrate" CPCA priests, who had to support the government's anti-life policies, into the life of the underground Church when a "reconciliation" could occur at some point in the future. We can see how well that worked out over the coure of time. Indeed, Wojtyla/John Paul II laid the groundwork for "Pope Benedict's" betrayal of the faithful Catholics in Red China, which helped to prepare what can be called the "shining path" for an admirer of the late Chicom murderer known as Zhou Enlai, who was the Premier of the so-called People's Republic of China from May 1, 1949, to the time of death on January 8, 1976, to finish off the suffering Catholics of Red China once and all.

By 1999, however, the conciliar Vatican had already issued a set of "directives" that would lead to the sorry fate that the faithful Catholics have been dealt by their supposed spiritual father. Here are the terms of those guidelines, which were issued by Josef "Cardinal" Tomko, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Propagation of the Faith, issued on September 3, 1988, a series of "eight guidelines" for "contact" between faithful Catholics and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association:

As the contacts among members of the Episcopate, priests and faithful, with exponents of the Catholic Church in China are becoming ever more frequent, this Dicastery, in accord with the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, considers it opportune to give the Episcopal Conferences the following indications:

1. The contacts in question could be a good occasion to reaffirm with clarity the Catholic Doctrine on the communion which must unite the Bishops with the Successor of Peter and, through him, among themselves (L. G. 14 & 18). In this regard, one could have recourse to the doctrinal principles of the Vatican Councils I and II.

2. In the light of the Vatican Council II one could also explain to them how the Church realizes in her own life self-government, self-propagation and self-financing: it is normal today that Bishops be chosen from among the local clergy; evangelization is, in the first place, to be realized by the local churches, even if in many cases the collaboration of the missionaries still remains necessary, but in a subordinate position; that it is evident that the Church be financially supported by the offerings of the faithful in the locality.

3. Mention could also be made to them of the various forms of collegiality which are being developed in the Church, particularly since Vatican Council II, both on the national and regional levels through the Episcopal Conferences, and on the universal level through the presence and collaboration of the Episcopates of the various countries in the central government of the Church, as, for example, their presence in the Roman Dicasteries, and their collaboration in the Synod of Bishops.

4. In the course of various encounters, care must be taken to avoid attitudes which could wound the sensibility of the ‘silent’ majority of those Catholics who have suffered and are suffering for their fidelity to the Holy Father.

There is also need of avoiding that the visits in question do not become instrumental in obtaining recognition and the legitimization of a position which cannot in any way be acceptable either on the doctrinal level or disciplinary and canonical levels.

5 Another rather delicate point is the question of the liturgical celebrations. In fact all 'communicatio in sacris' is to be avoided. The ‘patriotic’ bishops and priests are not to be invited or even allowed to celebrate religious functions in public, either in the churches or in the oratories of the various religious institutes.

6. The necessary clarity regarding the ecclesial aspects of the visits and the attitude to be adopted, which must be respected by all, do not imply that there is to be a lack of fraternal charity, which should be expressed in the cordiality of the welcome given to the guests and in the manner in which they are treated.

It is hoped that all this will assist them in understanding, in the light of the Spirit, the incoherence of their position and induce them to a change of attitude.

7. Care must also be taken that those who are responsible for the organization of the visits of the above-mentioned delegations be persons of sound doctrine, faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and capable of acting with great prudence.

8. It is to be foreseen that such events will not fail to arouse reactions in the local and international press. It will be necessary, therefore, to foresee how to assist the means of social communication, utilizing the orientations mentioned above, which clarify the position of the Church and may foster the comprehension of the diverse and complex problems closely connected with this position.  (As found at Cardinal Kung Foundation.)

Joseph Kung wrote a series of updates about the situation of underground Catholics in Red China. Indeed, he did so just seventeen days after his uncle's death on March 11, 2000, because the situation facing Catholics had become so confusing. Moreover, Mr. Kung was alarmed by the fact that seminarians from the rump church in Red China were being permitted to study in American seminaries, which was what I been told by Father Benedict Groeschel the year before. Appendix A below contains a few excerpts of that open letter, which asked one plaintive question after another. The saddest part of all is that Mr. Kung's questions have been answered loud and clear, and th first set of answers were given by the supposed "restorer of tradition," Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, on June 30, 2007.

Ratzinger "I Can't Take the Jet Lag From Rio" Provided the Framework for Bergoglio's Current Surrender to the Chicoms: True to his subjectivist self, the chief apostle of the "new ecclesiology", who said that he resigned from the hard duties of promoting heresy as the universal public face of apostasy because he could not take the jet lag if he had to go to World Youth Day in Rio di Janiero in seven years ago (nothing is ever stable in the mind of this Hegelian, including the rationales for his resignation), used the situation in Red China as a grand "workshop" to "perfect" a "communion" among the "particular churches" in China without requiring members of the rump church to renounce their errors publicly and while he strongly "encouraged" those who have suffered in the underground Church to cooperate with the Communist officials there so that the "suffering" of the past can be overcome by means of a supposed “spiritual reconciliation," which must necessarily precede the "difficulties" of differences of Faith. This is how he phrased things in his Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China, which was released on June 30, 2007, the Commemoration of Saint Paul:

Addressing the whole Church in his Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II, stated that an "important area in which there has to be commitment and planning on the part of the universal Church and the particular Churches [is] the domain of communion (koinonia), which embodies and reveals the very essence of the mystery of the Church. Communion is the fruit and demonstration of that love which springs from the heart of the Eternal Father and is poured out upon us through the Spirit whom Jesus gives us (cf. Rom 5:5), to make us all 'one heart and one soul' (Acts 4:32). It is in building this communion of love that the Church appears as 'sacrament', as the 'sign and instrument of intimate union with God and of the unity of the human race.' The Lord's words on this point are too precise for us to diminish their import. Many things are necessary for the Church's journey through history, not least in this new century; but without charity (agape) all will be in vain. It is again the Apostle Paul who in his hymn to love reminds us: even if we speak the tongues of men and of angels, and if we have faith 'to move mountains', but are without love, all will come to 'nothing' (cf. 1 Cor 13:2). Love is truly the 'heart' of the Church"

These matters, which concern the very nature of the universal Church, have a particular significance for the Church which is in China. Indeed you are aware of the problems that she is seeking to overcome – within herself and in her relations with Chinese civil society – tensions, divisions and recriminations.

In this regard, last year, while speaking of the nascent Church, I had occasion to recall that "from the start the community of the disciples has known not only the joy of the Holy Spirit, the grace of truth and love, but also trials that are constituted above all by disagreements about the truths of faith, with the consequent wounds to communion. Just as the fellowship of love has existed since the outset and will continue to the end (cf. 1 Jn 1:1ff.), so also, from the start, division unfortunately arose. We should not be surprised that it still exists today ... Thus, in the events of the world but also in the weaknesses of the Church, there is always a risk of losing faith, hence, also love and brotherhood. Consequently it is a specific duty of those who believe in the Church of love and want to live in her to recognize this danger too"

The history of the Church teaches us, then, that authentic communion is not expressed without arduous efforts at reconciliation . Indeed, the purification of memory, the pardoning of wrong-doers, the forgetting of injustices suffered and the loving restoration to serenity of troubled hearts, all to be accomplished in the name of Jesus crucified and risen, can require moving beyond personal positions or viewpoints, born of painful or difficult experiences. These are urgent steps that must be taken if the bonds of communion between the faithful and the Pastors of the Church in China are to grow and be made visible. (Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China)

In other words, Ratzinger/Benedict told the members of the underground Church in Red China nine years ago that it was up to them to make "visible" a "communion" with the "pastors" of the rump church that supports the Communist regime's "population control" policies. "Communion" depended upon them being willing to forgive past—and present!—injustices as well as to forget the inconvenient truth that the most of the leaders of the rump church defect from several of the Church's defined teachings on Faith and Morals, placing them totally outside of the pale of the Catholic Church, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.

Ratzinger/Benedict was telling the long-suffering Catholics in the underground Church in Red China that their suffering was appreciated and noted. It was time, however, to "move on" and purify "memories" so that a "reconciliation" based on a deliberate and calculated overlooking of defections from Faith and Morals on the part of the rump church in China coud take place, leaving to a later date—perhaps—“discussions" on the more "delicate" matters that might seem to the Communist authorities to be an "interference" in their "internal affairs." Just be quiet, therefore, don't complain about the government's "population control policies," be good citizens and be content that you have the sacraments and are in "communion" with your fellow Chinese Catholics.

An unfair reading of Ratzinger/Benedict's June 30, 2007 letter? Read this footnote from the Compendium that was released by the conciliar Vatican on  May 24, 2009, to “clarify” his original letter, which caused great confusion among the "bishops," priests/presbyters and members of the laity in Red China, and then decide for yourselves:

We can see that the Holy Father is talking about a spiritual reconciliation, which can and must take place now, even before a structural merger of official and unofficial Catholic communities takes place. As a matter of fact, the Holy Father seems to make a distinction between “a spiritual reconciliation” and “a structural merger”. He recognizes that the reconciliation is like a journey that “cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.6): however, he emphasizes that the steps to be taken on the way are necessary and urgent, and cannot therefore be postponed because - or on the pretext that - they are difficult since they require the overcoming of personal positions or views. Times and ways may vary according to local situations, but the commitment to reconciliation cannot be abandoned. This path of reconciliation, furthermore, cannot be limited to the spiritual realm of prayer alone but must also be expressed through practical steps of effective ecclesial communion (exchange of experiences, sharing of pastoral projects, common initiatives, etc.). Finally, it should not be forgotten that all without exception are invited to engage in these steps: Bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful. It is by means of practical steps that spiritual reconciliation, including visible reconciliation, will gradually occur, which will culminate one day in the complete structural unity of every diocesan community around its one Bishop and of every diocesan community with each other and with the universal Church. In this context, it is licit and fitting to encourage clergy and lay faithful to make gestures of forgiveness and reconciliation in this direction. (Footnote 2, Compendium, pp. 8-9.)

This footnote reflects entirely Joseph Ratzinger's abject rejection of the "ecumenism of the return." Ratzinger/Benedict believes that people are gradually "absorbed" into the Church by means of "perfecting" their "communion" with other Christians. This is heretical. This is condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church. Yet it is of the essence of Ratzinger/Benedict's theology, which is reflected so completely in his June 30, 2007, Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China and in the Compendium released on May 24, 2009.

t is no mystery why Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s letter to Chinese Catholics makes no reference to the writings of any true pope as the condemnation of cooperation with Communists by Pope Pius XI, which was reiterated by the Holy Office and approved by Pope Pius XII in 1949, and Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of the brutality of Chinese Communists and the illegitimacy of their rump “CPCA” have, he believes, lost whatever relevance they may have had given the “changes” that have taken place with the passage of time.

Obviously, nothing has “changed” in Red China with the passage of time except for the fact that the leaders of Western nations, multinational corporations and multinational financial interests decided it was opportune to ignore the facts about Communist and the Chicoms’ brutality as the means to make money.

Moreover, of course, the rise of the Communist-sympathizers such as Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli and Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini started the process of “reconciliations” with Communist governments around the world that helped to clothe Communists with legitimacy, thus making a mockery of the unshakeable opposition of our true popes to Communism in all its forms and of our last true pope to the usurpation of the rights of Holy Mother Church by Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai.

Here are some excerpts from “Pope Francis’s” 2018 galling Chinese Catholics with commentary I wrote at the time in “Neville Bergoglio’s Appeasement of the Chicom Monsters:  

On the civil and political level, Chinese Catholics must be good citizens, loving their homeland and serving their country with diligence and honesty, to the best of their ability. On the ethical level, they should be aware that many of their fellow citizens expect from them a greater commitment to the service of the common good and the harmonious growth of society as a whole. In particular, Catholics ought to make a prophetic and constructive contribution born of their faith in the kingdom of God. At times, this may also require of them the effort to offer a word of criticism, not out of sterile opposition, but for the sake of building a society that is more just, humane and respectful of the dignity of each person.

7. I now turn to you, my brother bishops, priests and consecrated persons who “serve the Lord with gladness” (Ps 100:2). Let us recognize one another as followers of Christ in the service of God’s people. Let us make pastoral charity the compass for our ministry. Let us leave behind past conflicts and attempts to pursue our own interests, and care for the faithful, making our own their joys and their sufferings. Let us work humbly for reconciliation and unity. With energy and enthusiasm, let us take up the path of evangelization indicated by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

To everyone, I say once more with great affection: “Let us be inspired to act by the example of all those priests, religious, and laity who devote themselves to proclamation and to serving others with great fidelity, often at the risk of their lives and certainly at the cost of their comfort. Their testimony reminds us that, more than bureaucrats and functionaries, the Church needs passionate missionaries, enthusiastic about sharing true life. The saints surprise us; they confound us, because by their lives they urge us to abandon a dull and dreary mediocrity” (Apostolic Exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate, 19 March 2018, 138).

I ask you wholeheartedly to beg for the grace not to hesitate when the Spirit calls us to take a step forward: “Let us ask for the apostolic courage to share the Gospel with others and to stop trying to make our Christian life a museum of memories. In every situation, may the Holy Spirit cause us to contemplate history in the light of the risen Jesus. In this way, the Church will not stand still, but constantly welcome the Lord’s surprises” (ibid., 139). (Neville  Bergoglio's Letter to Chinese Catholics.)

Interjection Number Nine:

It is impossible for anyone, no less a believing Catholic, to express a “word of opposition” to the Butchers of Beijing, and it is not to engage in a “sterile” effort to oppose Communism and to denounce it with the courage of the late Bishop Ignatius Kung, who was brought before the dog track stadium in Shanghai on September 8, 1955, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, with the expectation that he would denounce Pope Pius XII. His nephew, Joseph Kung, the President of the Cardinal Kung Foundation, what happened:

Bishop Kung had been Bishop of Shanghai and Apostolic Administrator of two other dioceses for only five years before he was arrested by the Chinese government. In just 5 short years, Bishop Kung became one of the most feared enemies of the Chinese Communists - a man who commanded both the attention and devotion of the country's then three million Roman Catholics and the highest respect of his brother bishops in China, and inspired thousands to offer their lives up to God. In defiance of the communist created and sanctioned Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, Bishop Kung personally supervised the Legion of Mary, a religious organization of the laity dedicated to the veneration of the Blessed Mother Mary. As the result, many members of the Legion of Mary chose to risk arrest in the name of their God, of their Church and of their bishop. Hundreds of Legion of Mary members, including many students, were arrested and sentenced to 10, 15, or 20 years or more of hard labor.

In the midst of persecutions, Bishop Kung declared 1952 the Marian Year in Shanghai. During that year, there was to be uninterrupted 24 hours-daily recitation of the rosary in front of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima, which toured all the parishes of Shanghai. The Holy Statue finally arrived at Christ the King Church where a major arrest of the priests had just taken place only a month ago. Bishop Kung visited that church and personally led the rosary while hundreds of the armed police looked on. At the end of the rosary, leading the congregation, Bishop Kung prayed: "Holy Mother, we do not ask you for a miracle. We do not beg you to stop the persecutions. But we beg you to support us who are very weak."

Knowing that he and his priests would soon be arrested, Bishop Kung trained hundreds of catechists to pass on the Roman Catholic faith in the diocese to future generations.

The heroic efforts of these catechists, their martyrdom and that of many faithful and clergy contributed to the vibrant underground Roman Catholic Church in China today. Bishop Kung's place in the hearts of his parishioners was very well summed up by the Shanghai youth group in a 1953 New Year youth rally when they said: "Bishop Kung, in darkness, you light up our path. You guide us on our treacherous journey. You sustain our faith and the traditions of the Church. You are the foundation rock of our Church in Shanghai."

On September 8, 1955, the press around the world reported in shock the overnight arrest of Bishop Kung along with more than 200 priests and Church leaders in Shanghai. Months after his arrest, he was taken out to a mob "struggle session" in the old Dog Racing stadium in Shanghai. Thousands were ordered to attend and to hear the Bishop's public confession of his "crimes." With his hands tied behind his back, wearing a Chinese pajama suit, the 5-foot tall bishop was pushed forward to the microphone to confess. To the shock of the security police, they heard a righteous loud cry of "Long live Christ the King, Long live the Pope" from the Bishop. The crowd responded immediately, "Long live Christ the King, Long live Bishop Kung". Bishop Kung was quickly dragged away to the police car and disappeared from the world until he was brought to trial in 1960. Bishop Kung was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The night before he was brought to trial, the Chief Prosecutor asked once again for his cooperation to lead the independent church movement and to establish the Chinese Patriotic Association. His answer was: "I am a Roman Catholic Bishop. If I denounce the Holy Father, not only would I not be a Bishop, I would not even be a Catholic. You can cut off my head, but you can never take away my duties."

Bishop Kung vanished behind bars for thirty years. During those thirty years, he spent many long periods in isolation. Numerous requests to visit Bishop Kung in prison by international religious and human rights organizations and senior foreign government officials were rejected. He was not permitted to receive visitors, including his relatives, letters, or money to buy essentials, which are rights of other prisoners. (Biography of Cardinal Kung.)

Perhaps Jorge Mario Bergoglio considers Bishop Ignatius Kung’s opposition to have been “sterile” as he could have helped to forge a “unity” among Chinese Catholics if he had accepted the Chicoms’ offer to head the “Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.” Perhaps it is even the case that the late Chinese dissident, Dr. Harry Wu, who was himself a Catholic, was engaging in such a “sterile” effort to oppose the laogai prison camps throughout Red China that I heard him discuss at a Roman Forum conference in Montvale, New Jersey, in early-1997.

Do you have the stomach for the last part of Neville Bergoglio's letter to Chinese Catholics?

I certainly do not, but I know that I many sins for which I need to make reparation:

8. In this year, when the entire Church celebrates the Synod on Young People, I would like to say a special word to you, young Chinese Catholics, who enter the gates of the house of the Lord “giving thanks [and] with songs of praise” (Ps 100:4). I ask you to cooperate in building the future of your country with the talents and gifts that you have received, and with the youthfulness of your faith. I encourage you to bring, by your enthusiasm, the joy of the Gospel to everyone you meet.

Be ready to accept the sure guidance of the Holy Spirit, who shows today’s world the path to reconciliation and peace. Let yourselves be surprised by the renewing power of grace, even when it may seem that the Lord is asking more of you than you think you can give. Do not be afraid to listen to his voice as he calls you to fraternity, encounter, capacity for dialogue and forgiveness, and a spirit of service, regardless of the painful experiences of the recent past and wounds not yet healed.

Open your hearts and minds to discern the merciful plan of God, who asks us to rise above personal prejudices and conflicts between groups and communities, in order to undertake a courageous fraternal journey in the light of an authentic culture of encounter.

Nowadays there is no lack of temptations: the pride born of worldly success, narrow-mindedness and absorption in material things, as if God did not exist. Go against the flow and stand firm in the Lord: “for he is good; eternal is his merciful love; he is faithful from age to age” (Ps 100:5).

9. Dear brothers and sisters of the universal Church, all of us are called to recognize as one of the signs of our times everything that is happening today in the life of the Church in China. We have an important duty: to accompany our brothers and sisters in China with fervent prayer and fraternal friendship. Indeed, they need to feel that in the journey that now lies ahead, they are not alone. They need to be accepted and supported as a vital part of the Church. “How good and pleasant it is, when brothers dwell together in unity!” (Ps 133:1).

Each local Catholic community in every part of the world should make an effort to appreciate and integrate the spiritual and cultural treasures proper to Chinese Catholics. The time has come to taste together the genuine fruits of the Gospel sown in the ancient “Middle Kingdom” and to raise to the Lord Jesus Christ a hymn of faith and thanksgiving, enriched by authentically Chinese notes.

10. I now turn with respect to the leaders of the People’s Republic of China and renew my invitation to continue, with trust, courage and farsightedness, the dialogue begun some time ago. I wish to assure them that the Holy See will continue to work sincerely for the growth of genuine friendship with the Chinese people.

The present contacts between the Holy See and the Chinese government are proving useful for overcoming past differences, even those of the more recent past, and for opening a new chapter of more serene and practical cooperation, in the shared conviction that “incomprehension [serves] the interests of neither the Chinese people nor the Catholic Church in China” (BENEDICT XVI, Letter to Chinese Catholics, 27 May 2007, 4).

In this way, China and the Apostolic See, called by history to an arduous yet exciting task, will be able to act more positively for the orderly and harmonious growth of the Catholic community in China. They will make efforts to promote the integral development of society by ensuring greater respect for the human person, also in the religious sphere, and will work concretely to protect the environment in which we live and to build a future of peace and fraternity between peoples. (Neville  Bergoglio's Letter to Chinese Catholics.)

Interjection Number Ten:

Bergoglio is forever blaspheming the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by claiming that his heresies, blasphemies, sacrileges and, in this instance, political sellouts to Communists and other socialists/statists/pro-aborts/pro-perverts are the working on an “uncaged” “holy” spirit. Unfortunately for Bergoglio and for faithful Catholics in Red China, however, the “spritis” moving the Argentine Apostate are from the lowest possible reaches of hell.

The only “encounter” that the Chicoms want from faithful Catholics who have suffered for three generations in the underground is total and unconditional surrender.

The only “fraternity” that the Chicoms accept is that which is based on an uncritical acceptance of their policies, including the anti-life, anti-family policies about which the Argentine Apostate is totally silent.

The only “dialogue” that the Chicoms understand is “yes, master” to whatever orders they give their captive citizens in a prison-state, police-state nation.

Alas, the Chicoms forgive nothing but they expect faithful Chinese Catholics who have suffered under their cruel regime to recognize the “wisdom” of their policies and that it was necessary for them, the Chicoms, to use force, imprisonment and torture to get them to do what the “pope” is obeying to do as work of the “holy spirit.”

This is diabolical, especially so when one considers the fact that Bergoglio said that Chinese Catholics need to be led by “history,” not God, and that the wretched little demon from Argentina mentioned the protection of the environment, which the Chicoms are masters are exploiting and despoiling, quite by the way, without a word of rebuke about their anti-life, anti-family policies and their repressive ways. Well, perhaps this is a matter of professional courtesy among kindred spirits.

Quite to the contrary of the “positive developments” that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said were the basis of his own letter to Chinese Catholics on June 30, 2007, and to the contrary of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s exhortation to faithful Catholics not to engage in “sterile” opposition to the policies of the Red Chinese dictators and to answer the call of “history, not God, it should be pointed out, the aforementioned Dr. Harry Wu noted in 2015 that he was very skeptical of any claims that his native country’s forced abortion policies, for instance, had changed:

What do you think of China’s move to allow couples to have two children now, rather than only one?

It is a Communist Party decision. People always say in China the most powerful organization is the People’s Congress. Actually, it’s not. Just like in America, Democrats and Republicans make a decision for national policy. This is a Communist regime.

Number two, we do not know how many people in the past 30 years have been forced to have an abortion or sterilization. How do you control the one-child policy? Right now, they are facing a crisis. So you give people a break, let them have two children, whatever.

But the Chinese people do not enjoy the freedom of giving birth. It’s controlled by the Communist Party. They’re not free. So now the Communist Party says, “Okay, we’ll allow you two children.” Maybe one day they’ll say three children. It’s a very sad story. 

Are you in touch with people in China regarding the enforcement of the policy, particularly the forced abortions and sterilizations? Has that situation gotten any better?

Everyone tries to have more children, but it’s illegal inside China. They have to run away, they have to escape, they have to quietly have abortions. If the government finds out, they will sterilize them or kill the child. There are many stories. The West doesn’t want to hear about it. People are not really concerned about human rights in China. They care about the economy, they care about investments, they care about products. That’s it. 

The mainstream media have reported this week that even though the policy is being relaxed, many Chinese couples won’t be able to afford having more children anyway.

Well, this is a Chinese issue. This is the biggest population in the world, and it’s killing the child frequently, and nobody cares. … In China abortion is regular work. … It’s very common because it’s a Communist regime.

The decision made by the Chinese Communist Party Conference—not made by the People’s Congress—is like if in America something was not decided by Congress or the State Department but by the Republican Party of Democratic Party. We are quite used to it.

And we love to have business with them. [Chinese President] Xi Jinping was welcomed as a Communist leader; he was welcomed by [President Barack] Obama. What did Obama say? “We’re just talking about the South China Sea and the Internet. That’s it. We don’t want to talk about your domestic policy. We don’t want to get involved in it.” That means we don’t involve 22 percentof the population of the world. “They can do whatever they want to do.” Is that really American policy toward China?

Is the modification of the policy at least a step in the right direction?

You have to stop the Communists’ control. There is no country in the world where government controls human beings’ basic idea: you are not free to give birth. Even India [which has a population of 1.252 billion people]: they don’t have a policy to force people to [not] give birth. But China does. We ignore that. Obama ignored that. They don’t care about that. But if it’s a domestic policy, “Well, the Chinese can do whatever they want to.” But if you read the UN Charter on Human Rights, it’s very clear: giving birth is a fundamental right.

But we don’t care.

Many people are applauding: “Oh, China changed its policy and is allowing a second child.” I don’t know.

So you are skeptical.

I’m skeptical of the Communist regime. They have deprived not only freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of nationalities, but also freedom of birth. There is no religious freedom in China, including for the Catholic Church, the largest Church in the world. The Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo is in jail. But today all Obama wants to talk to China about is Internet freedom. How has China, from 1995 until now, obtained entire control of the internet? Ask Cisco: “How did you help China set up its Internet system? How much money did you earn? How much computers and accessories did you sell to China.”

[Wu charges that Cisco worked with Communist Party public security officials to design a system known as the Golden Shield technology, to surveil and censor dissidents.] (Harry Wu Skeptical of Change of Red Chinese in One Child Policy .)

Yes, yes, yes. “Positive developments” that can lead to “unity,” right?

Wrong.

Bergoglio believes Communist propaganda, and he believes that all public opposition to abortion is “sterile” unless it is connected to the protection of the elements of the natural earth, to government coerced income redistribution and to the unlimited “right” of foreign nationals to invade sovereign nations. Such is the basis of only one kind of “unity,” that which will exist under a Judeo-Masonic New World Order to which a “united nations of religions” would be subservient, and it to advance this nefarious goal that Bergoglio is indeed making history, infamous history.